CAR_Public/120510.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, May 10, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 92

                             Headlines

AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal from Suit Dismissal Ruling Pending
AMERICAN AIRLINES: 40 Antitrust Suit Claimants May Still Sue
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Continues to Defend "Turner" Suit in Calif.
ANADIGICS INC: Appeal from N.J. Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
ASPENBIO PHARMA: Still Awaits Order on Plea to Dismiss Class Suit

BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Foreclosure Court Fees
BP: Asian-American Fishermen Sue Over Racial Discrimination
BP PRODUCTS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Franchisees' Fraud Suit
CANADA: Ontario Woman Mulls Class Action Over Katimavik
CARNIVAL GROUP: Concordia Survivor Balks at Compensation Payout

CYNOSURE INC: Court Denies Weitzner's Class Certification Bid
DOLLAR TREE: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in Va. Discrimination Suit
DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Store Managers' Suit in California
GENVEC INC: Faces Securities Class Suit in Maryland
HEALTHMARKETS: Settles Claims in 'Hopkins' Lawsuit

HEALTHMARKETS: Continues to Defend Class Action Suit in Mass.
HIGHER ONE: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Bank Fees
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Awaits Order on Plea to Dismiss Class Suit
KENTUCKY FIRST: Consolidated Merger-Related Suit Dismissed
LLOYDS GROUP: Defends Shareholder Suits in N.Y., U.K.

MICROSOFT CORP: Appeal in Canadian Suit to Be Heard in Fall
NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL: Canadian Court to Hold Hearing in June
NEW YORK: NYPD Sued Over Stop-and-Frisk Policy
NORTEL NETWORKS: Suit vs. Former Execs Still on Suspense Docket
NORTEL NETWORKS: Gets Court Approval of ERISA Suit Settlement

NORTEL NETWORKS: Class Action Suit in Canada Still Stayed
OAKLAND COUNTY, IL: Sued for Miscoding Sex-Offender Records
PEOPLES BANCORPORATION: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit
RBS CITIZENS: Faces Class Action Over Customer Deposit Errors
SUPERVALU INC: Still Defends Class Suit Over C&S Transaction

SUPERVALU INC: Wisconsin Suit Still Stayed Pending IOS Ruling
THOR INDUSTRIES: Enters Into Mediation to Settle Claims
TICKETMASTER CANADA: Settlement Hearing Set to Begin on June 29
TOYOTA MOTOR: Wins Dismissal of Most Acceleration Claims
TRANS1 INC: Faces Securities Class Suit in  North Carolina

TRAVELERS COS: Antitrust Suit Settlement Receives Final Approval
TRAVELERS COS: Appeal From "Safeco" Suit Deal Approval Pending
TRAVELERS COS: March 1 Order in Asbestos-Related Suits Appealed
UNITED STATES: Black Farmers Have Until Tomorrow to File Claims
WELLS REAL: Units Still Defend Securities Suit in Maryland

WPCS INT'L: Expects Lawsuit Over Multiband Deal to be Dismissed

                          *********

AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal from Suit Dismissal Ruling Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court order dismissing a second amended class
action complaint against AMAG Pharmaceuticals Inc. is pending,
according to the Company's March 8, 2012, 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

A purported class action complaint was originally filed on March
18, 2010 in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, entitled Silverstrand Investments et. al. v. AMAG
Pharm., Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-10470-NMG, and was
amended on September 15, 2010 and on December 17, 2010.  The
second amended complaint, or SAC, filed on December 17, 2010
alleged that the Company and its former President and Chief
Executive Officer, former Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer, the Company's Board, and certain underwriters
in its January 2010 offering of common stock violated certain
federal securities laws, specifically Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and that the Company's
former President and Chief Executive Officer and former Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer violated Section 15 of
such Act, respectively, by making certain alleged false and
misleading statements and omissions in a registration statement
filed in January 2010.  The plaintiff sought unspecified damages
on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's
common stock pursuant to its common stock offering on or about
January 21, 2010.  On August 11, 2011, the Court issued an Opinion
and Order dismissing the SAC in its entirety for failure to state
a claim upon which relief could be granted.  A separate Order of
Dismissal was filed on August 15, 2011.  On September 14, 2011,
the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the First Circuit, or the Court of Appeals.
Plaintiffs' appeal brief was filed on February 1, 2012.
Responding briefs were due on March 16, 2012 and the plaintiff's
reply brief was due on March 16, 2012. The Court of Appeals has
not yet scheduled oral argument for the appeal.  The Company is
currently unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate the
range of potential loss associated with this matter, if any, and
has therefore not recorded any potential estimated liability as it
does not believe that such a liability is probable nor does it
believes that a range of loss is currently estimable.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: 40 Antitrust Suit Claimants May Still Sue
------------------------------------------------------------
Forty-five purported class action lawsuits have been filed in the
U.S. against American Airlines, Inc. and certain foreign and
domestic air carriers alleging that the defendants violated U.S.
antitrust laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and
surcharges on cargo shipments.  These cases, along with other
purported class action lawsuits in which the Company was not
named, were consolidated in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York as In re Air Cargo Shipping
Services Antitrust Litigation, 06-MD-1775 on June 20, 2006.
Plaintiffs are seeking trebled money damages and injunctive
relief.  To facilitate a settlement on a class basis, the Company
agreed to be named in a separate class action complaint, which was
filed on July 26, 2010.  The settlement of that complaint, in
which the Company does not admit and denies liability, was
approved by the court and final judgment was entered on April 6,
2011.  Approximately 40 members of the class have elected to opt
out, thereby preserving their rights to sue the Company
separately.  Any adverse judgment could have a material adverse
impact on the Company.

                         Canadian Matter

Also, on January 23, 2007, the Company was served with a purported
class action complaint filed against the Company, American, and
certain foreign and domestic air carriers in the Supreme Court of
British Columbia in Canada (McKay v. Ace Aviation Holdings, et
al.).  The plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated Canadian
competition laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and
surcharges on cargo shipments.  The complaint seeks compensatory
and punitive damages under Canadian law.  On June 22, 2007, the
plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their claims against the Company.
The dismissal is without prejudice and the Company could be
brought back into the litigation at a future date.  If litigation
is recommenced against the Company in the Canadian courts, the
Company will vigorously defend itself; however, any adverse
judgment could have a material adverse impact on the Company.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 19, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Continues to Defend "Turner" Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 52 purported class action lawsuits have been filed
in the U.S. against American Airlines, Inc. and certain foreign
and domestic air carriers alleging that the defendants violated
U.S. antitrust laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and
surcharges for passenger transportation.  On October 25, 2006,
these cases, along with other purported class action lawsuits in
which the Company was not named, were consolidated in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California as
In re International Air Transportation Surcharge Antitrust
Litigation, Civ. No. 06-1793 (the Passenger MDL).  On July 9,
2007, the Company was named as a defendant in the Passenger MDL.
On August 25, 2008, the plaintiffs dismissed their claims against
the Company in this action.

On March 13, 2008, and March 14, 2008, an additional purported
class action complaint, Turner v. American Airlines, et al., Civ.
No. 08-1444 (N.D. Cal.), was filed against the Company, alleging
that the Company violated U.S. antitrust laws by illegally
conspiring to set prices and surcharges for passenger
transportation in Japan and certain European countries,
respectively.  The Turner plaintiffs have failed to perfect
service against the Company, and it is unclear whether they intend
to pursue their claims.  In the event that the Turner plaintiffs
pursue their claims, the Company says it will vigorously defend
these lawsuits, but any adverse judgment in these actions could
have a material adverse impact on the Company.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 19, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.


ANADIGICS INC: Appeal from N.J. Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court order dismissing a consolidated purported
securities class action lawsuit against Anadigics, Inc., remains
pending, according to the Company's March 15, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On or about November 11, 2008, plaintiff Charlie Attias filed a
putative securities class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Charlie Attias v.
Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. 3:08-cv-05572, and, on or about
November 21, 2008, plaintiff Paul Kuznetz filed a related class
action lawsuit in the same court, captioned Paul J. Kuznetz v.
Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. 3:08-cv-05750 (jointly, the "Class
Actions").  The Complaints in the Class Actions, which were
consolidated under the caption In re Anadigics, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 3:08-cv-05572, by an Order of the District Court
dated November 24, 2008, seek unspecified damages for alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in
connection with alleged misrepresentations and omissions in
connection with, among other things, Anadigics's manufacturing
capabilities and the demand for its products.  On October 23,
2009, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint, which names the Company, a former officer and a former
officer-director, and alleges a proposed class period that runs
from July 24, 2007 through August 7, 2008.  On December 23, 2009,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint;
that motion was fully briefed as of March 30, 2010.  After holding
extensive oral argument on defendants' motion on
August 3, 2010, the District Court found plaintiffs' First Amended
Complaint to be deficient, but afforded them another opportunity
to amend their pleading.  The District Court therefore denied
defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice to defendants'
renewing the motion in response to plaintiffs' Second Amended
Complaint, which plaintiffs filed on October 4, 2010.  The Second
Amended Complaint, which contains the same substantive claims that
were alleged in the First Amended Complaint, alleges a proposed
class period that runs from February 12, 2008 through August 7,
2008.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint on December 3, 2010.  By an Opinion and an Order dated
September 30, 2011, the District Court dismissed with prejudice
plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint.  On October 27, 2011,
plaintiffs filed with the District Court a notice of appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from the District
Court's
September 30, 2011 Opinion and Order.  The appeal is pending.

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

ANADIGICS, Inc., is a provider of semiconductor solutions in the
growing broadband wireless and wireline communications markets.
The Company's products include radio frequency (RF) power
amplifiers (PAs), tuner integrated circuits, active splitters,
line amplifiers and other components, which can be sold
individually or packaged as integrated front end modules (FEMs).


ASPENBIO PHARMA: Still Awaits Order on Plea to Dismiss Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aspenbio Pharma, Inc., continues to wait for a court order on its
motion to dismiss a securities class action complaint pending in
Colorado, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

On October 1, 2010, the Company received a complaint, captioned
John Wolfe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AspenBio Pharma, Inc. et al., Case No. CV10 7365. This
federal securities purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court in the Central District of California on behalf of
all persons, other than the defendants, who purchased common stock
of the Company during the period between
February 22, 2007 and July 19, 2010, inclusive.  The complaint
names as defendants certain officers and directors of the Company
during such period.  The complaint includes allegations of
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5
against all defendants, and of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the individual defendants, all related to the Company's
blood-based acute appendicitis test in development known as
AppyScore.  On the Company's motion, this action was also
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado by order dated January 21, 2011.  The action has been
assigned a District of Colorado Civil Case No. 11-cv-00165-REB-
KMT.  On July 11, 2011, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and
approved lead counsel.  On August 23, 2011, the lead plaintiff
filed an amended putative class action complaint, alleging the
same class period.  Based on a review of the amended complaint,
the Company and the individual defendants believe that the
plaintiffs' allegations are without merit and intend to vigorously
defend against these claims.  On October 7, 2011, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and the
plaintiff's response and the Company's reply thereto were
subsequently filed.  The motion is pending, awaiting a decision by
the court.

AspenBio Pharma, Inc. -- http://www.aspenbiopharma.com//--
operates as an emerging biomedical company focused on obtaining
the United States FDA clearance for its lead product, AppyScore.
Its research and development activities primarily focus on a human
appendicitis blood-based test.  The company's lead product
candidate, AppyScore, is a blood-based diagnostic test to help
physicians manage patients who enter emergency rooms complaining
of abdominal pain and suspected of having acute appendicitis.  It
is also developing animal healthcare products focusing on
reproduction. The company was formerly known as AspenBio, Inc. and
changed its name to AspenBio Pharma, Inc. on September 26, 2005.
AspenBio Pharma, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is based in Castle
Rock, Colorado.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Foreclosure Court Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Horn, writing for Cincinnati.com reports that a Madisonville
woman sued Bank of America on May 3 for pocketing court fees from
foreclosure cases that she says belong to homeowners.

Kathleen Collins accused the bank of fraud, breach of contract,
unjust enrichment and other violations in a class-action lawsuit
filed in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court.

Ms. Collins' attorney, Robert Newman, said the bank's practice of
keeping the fees could impact thousands of homeowners who should
have been reimbursed money when their cases were resolved.

"It's just not fair for Bank of America to be doing this,"
Mr. Newman said.

A spokesman for the bank declined comment.

The lawsuit's accusations revolve around court fees, typically
about $550, which the bank is required to pay when filing a
foreclosure action.  Depending on the length and outcome of the
litigation, a portion of those fees often is reimbursed to the
bank when the case is over.

The suit says that's what happened in Ms. Collins' case when the
bank was repaid $29 of its original court costs.

The problem, according to the lawsuit, is that the bank added all
of the original court costs into Ms. Collins' new loan, so she
would pay the costs instead of the bank.

And when the court reimbursed the $29 in Ms. Collins' case, the
bank collected it and left the full original costs in Ms. Collins'
loan.

Mr. Newman said the bank essentially is double-dipping: Collecting
the full amount of the court costs from homeowners and then
keeping the reimbursement of unused court costs for itself.

"The refund goes to the bank and the bank doesn't fork it over,"
Mr. Newman said.  "There is a substantial amount of money owing to
the class."

He said it's impossible to know how much money is involved at this
time, since individual reimbursements are relatively small,
usually no more than a few hundred dollars.

The lawsuit asks the court to bar Bank of America from such
practices and to repay any reimbursed court costs to Ms. Collins
and, potentially, to thousands of other borrowers.  The suit also
seeks unspecified damages.


BP: Asian-American Fishermen Sue Over Racial Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Susan Buchanan, writing for Louisiana Weekly, reports that
Vietnamese and Cambodian fishermen in Village L'est and Versailles
in New Orleans East were among the first residents to return after
Katrina, only to see their livelihoods crushed a few years later
by the BP spill.  In early April, 41 Asian-American fishermen sued
BP in federal Eastern District of Louisiana in New Orleans,
claiming discrimination in the company's Vessels of Opportunity
program.  Other groups of fishermen have also sued over treatment
in the VOO, which hired boats to remove spilled oil.

Asian Americans were underrepresented in the VOO given their
numbers in the Gulf fishing community.  Over half of all
commercial fishermen affected by the spill were Vietnamese and
Cambodian Americans but they accounted for less than 10 percent of
the vessels hired by BP, the suit says.  Of the 5,000 vessels BP
engaged, only 350 belonged to Vietnamese and Cambodian Americans.

A Vietnamese American fisherman discusses post-spill issues facing
the seafood industry with federal officials at a dockside chat in
south Louisiana in August, 2010.

Plaintiffs in the case are represented by attorney Ryan Beasley in
Harvey.  The suit says that during the VOO Program, BP sent
e-mails to Danos and Curole Marine Contractors, LLC in Larose, and
DRC Emergency Services, LLC, in Mobile, Ala., telling them not to
hire vessels owned by Vietnamese and Cambodian Americans.  The
class action suit was filed against BP, Danos and Curole, and DRC
Emergency, and seeks damages for civil rights violations and
employment discrimination.  The suit says that 4,000 Asian
Americans were affected by BP's policies, and claims that
defendants violated Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866,
which says all Americans have the same rights as white citizens.

Why didn't BP want to hire Asian Americans? Attorneys and others
point to the cost of translating legal language, a preference for
workers outside the area closest to the spill, and cronyism --
between BP and its contractors and certain boat captains hired by
the VOO.

Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser said "I can't
absolutely say whether or not there was discrimination against
Asian American fishermen in the VOO.  But we do know that local
people were passed over in the program, and that was because
they'd come back to the community and say there's oil all around."

Mr. Nungesser continued, saying "BP preferred to hire people who
didn't live here, didn't have a passion for this area and who
wouldn't let other people know what they'd seen."  He said local
fishing vessels were tied at docks while out-of-state boats were
in the area working for the VOO.

"We asked but never got a list of boats that were working in the
program," Mr. Nungesser said.  "That's absurd.  We wanted to make
sure local boats and fishermen hurt by the spill were being
hired," especially since the waters in southeast Louisiana were
closed to fishing.

In addition to New Orleans East, Asian American fishermen live in
Jefferson Parish and in Belle Chasse, Boothville-Venice and other
Plaquemines Parish communities, along with Terrebonne Parish.

Local fishermen complained in mid-2010 that recreational boats
from Florida and Texas were floating by, working for the VOO in
Louisiana waters while their boats were idle.  But some Asian-
American vessels and fishermen were hired by BP.  A local staffing
service ran ads in mid-2010 for Cambodian translators to work in
the VOO in Venice in Plaquemines Parish.  The starting salary was
$17 to $18 an hour for translators, plus overtime and free room
and board.  That sounded pretty good if it hadn't been for the
toxins rising from the oil lapping the shores around Venice.

BP spokesman Scott Dean had no comment on the Asian American
lawsuit or on translation services that BP provided to VOO
workers.

Mr. Nungesser said "unfortunately, it takes a lawsuit to get to
the bottom of what happened.  BP hasn't been forthright with
people, and we've learned that we can't trust what the company
says.  It takes lawsuits and Congressional hearings to find out
what happened."

A mid-2010 release from the Asian Pacific American Society of New
Orleans or APAS discussed New Orleans U.S. District Court Judge
Ginger Berrigan's May 2, 2010 decision that several provisions in
BP's cleanup contract with fishermen and volunteers were illegal-
including terms requiring BP's exemption from liability, along
with complete confidentiality required from workers and a demand
that BP be listed on volunteers' insurance policies.  Contracts
handed out to Asian-American fishermen at the John Alario Center
on the West Bank on a Sunday in mid-2010 included language that
should have been removed after Judge Berrigan's decision, APAS
warned.  APAS told fishermen that even though illegal wording may
have remained in Vietnamese versions of the contracts, those
provisions couldn't be enforced.

Tuan Nguyen, deputy director of Mary Queen of Vietnam Community
Development Center in New Orleans East, said that many Asian-
American fishermen, boat captains and deckhands live near the
center and work out of Plaquemines, Jefferson and Terrebonne
parishes.  "We've done a lot of advocacy work with Vietnamese-
American fishermen since the spill," he said.  "And we work with
Catholic Charities to help them pay their bills.  But we don't
comment on litigation."

Meanwhile, Asian fishermen, like others affected by the spill,
have struggled with the BP claims process.  "There was confusion
in the Asian-American fishing community about how to file claims
with the Gulf Coast Claims Facility for economic losses,"
Mr. Nguyen said.  "People tried but often didn't understand how to
navigate the system.  Some of them took $5,000 final payments
recently out of desperation and a need for cash, and gave up their
rights to sue BP.  Many of them are unhappy about that now."

For Asian American and all fishermen who want to learn their
rights and need help with BP claims, Mr. Nungesser recommends
Seedco's newly-expanded Southeast Louisiana Fisheries Assistance
Center Facility, which opened earlier this year next to his office
in Belle Chasse.  "These people are doing a great job of helping
fishermen get back on their feet and assisting them with legal
matters," he said.  The old office was in a temporary facility
down the street.

Before the BP spill, Asian Americans held 75% of shrimp licenses
in Louisiana for vessels longer than 50 feet, according to data
compiled by David Burrage, Mississippi State University extension
professor of Marine Resources.  And they held more than 60 percent
of shrimp licenses for vessels longer than 45 feet in Mississippi
and Alabama.  A third of Gulf commercial boats with federal shrimp
permits were owned and operated by Vietnamese-Americans before the
spill.

What's more, many seafood processing plants in Louisiana,
Mississippi and Alabama are staffed mainly by Asian Americans,
particularly of Vietnamese descent.  And of an estimated 40,000
Vietnamese living in these three Gulf states -- including 30,000
in Louisiana -- one in three works in the seafood industry,
according to Dr. Burrage in 2009.  In fact, incomes of most of
Louisiana's Vietnamese-American households depend on seafood in
one way or another.

As for the VOO program, which was closed in 2010, BP temporarily
reactivated it in August and September of last year because of
seepage near its Macondo well.


BP PRODUCTS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Franchisees' Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Sparks, writing for Blue Maumau, reports that a Cook County
circuit judge ruled in favor of BP Products North America Inc. on
all counts brought by two franchisees claiming the oil giant
defrauded them.  But the judge's ruling came in spite of finding
BP intended to deceive the owners when they purchased their
stations by concealing its fuel margins.

Judge Sanjay Tailor chided the franchisees for not satisfying all
of the elements of their claims against BP, which they had filed
in 2009.  In his 45-page opinion, Judge Tailor wrote, "BP's
decision to sell stores where it employed a pricing tactic to
dramatically increase its fuel volumes at the expense of margin is
strong evidence of BP's fraudulent intent."

As an introduction to the case, the judge explained that BP
Products began franchising in 2005, after years of losing money on
its company-owned and operated fuel station and convenience
stores.  At that time, between 2006 and 2009, RWJ Management
Company, Inc. and Joliet Petroleum, LLC purchased 17 gas stations
and c-stores for $42,242,500.  They entered into long-term fuel
supply and franchise agreements with BP, with NRC Realty and
Capital Advisors, LLC acting as BP's brokers.

In the lawsuit, RWJ and Joliet allege that BP defrauded them by
omitting material facts in relation to the volumes of fuel BP
represented it sold at their stations.  They also claim BP
misrepresented the price that it would charge for fuel in the
future.  And that BP misrepresented that their BP Connect and Wild
Bean Cafe' convenience store brands were viable franchise concepts
and iconic names in the convenience store industry.

After years of legal wrangling and the filing of their fifth
amended complaint against BP defendants, franchisees RWJ and
Joliet began their 24-day trial, resulting in the May 2 judgment.

Judge Tailor stated that the fraud claims brought by the
franchisees were addressed in detail because they lie at the heart
of the franchisees' complaint.  And because the gas station owners
have invested enormous resources and time into the prosecution and
defense of their claims.

His judgment explains the "common measure" of the retail fuel
industry, saying the unit margin was the difference between the
retail price of a gallon of gas and the retailer's purchase price
for that gallon, less transportation.  It states that both parties
agree that margin is useless without fuel volume, and fuel volume
is useless without margin. "Here, BP only provided the plaintiffs
with the volume of fuel it sold, withholding its fuel margins
because. . . while BP's fuel volumes were impressive, its fuel
margins were not so," the judge explained.

He further stated that if BP had any hope of attracting franchise
bidders for the kind of money it wanted, it had to withhold its
fuel margin because it would be revealed to potential franchisees
that the stations were not as economically viable and as sound of
investments as BP wanted them to believe.

"In the end," the judge determined,". . . the plaintiffs fail to
satisfy the elements of their claims, entitling the [BP]
defendants to judgment in their favor," he wrote.

Judge Tailor gave a detail description of BP's fraud in his
ruling, and he explained what the franchisees must do to prove
their claims against BP Products.  He also acknowledged that both
franchise owners were "not neophytes or newcomers; rather, both
have substantial experience in the retail motor fuel and
convenience store business . ."  One had more than 20 years
experience in retail gasoline, operating 50 Shell stations.
Another employed 115 people.  And both prepared a number of pro
formas when applying for bank financing, using detailed analysis.

The franchisees' ability to conduct due diligence when making
their purchases was no doubt qualified by BP's unwillingness to
give them complete access to its financial records for the stores
it was offering to sell, the judge stated.  "Nevertheless, the
plaintiffs did perform other due diligence, which, as reflected in
their pro formas, show that neither . . . relied significantly . .
.  on industry average margins."  He added that under those
circumstances, the franchisees failed to clearly establish that
they relied on BP's concealment that its historical margins were
consistent with industry margins.

The judge also states that the franchisees actions after they
purchased their first group of stores confirms that they did not
rely on BP's fraudulent concealment.  He states, "This confirms
that the plaintiffs were not lulled into believing that BP
achieved its volumes at . . . industry average margins."

Although BP scored a victory in this litigation, reports tell that
the mammoth oil company is facing other lawsuits in California,
Washington and Oregon.  Luan Tran of Lee Tran & Liang told CSNews
Online, a trade journal for the convenience store industry, that a
class action was filed in federal court in San Francisco last
June. Tran, who is co-lead counsel, described it as a "classic
David v. Goliath case."

The first out of three claims franchise owners are required to
purchase and install a point-of-service, POS, and back-office
systems that BP found to be flawed after it implemented them.
Mr. Tran said the software shuts downs, causing station owners to
be out of service for hours, resulting in loss of business.

Another claim is that BP is manipulating gas prices by scheduling
deliveries at times when prices go up and down, which in effect
ensures that franchisees are charged the highest price possible.
Those deliveries are made whether or not the owners need gasoline.
The third claim is that BP forces station owners to use certain
vendors, the CSNews report states.

Considering all the lawsuits, Mr. Tran said, "It is the fight for
the survival of these franchisees."

BP issued a statement: "We are pleased with the court's decision,
which supports our view that this was nothing more than a
commercial dispute between sophisticated businesspeople."

Panna Patel, Joliet Petroleum's attorney, expressed disappointment
with the court's decision and said she is reviewing the opinion
with her client.

Carmen Caruso, representing RWJ Management, said they also were
very disappointed in the ruling.  "We have a status hearing in 21
days, and we will use that time to decide our next step."


CANADA: Ontario Woman Mulls Class Action Over Katimavik
--------------------------------------------------------
Althia Raj, writing for The Huffington Post, reports that an
Ontario woman is hoping to launch a class-action lawsuit against
the federal government for pulling funding from the Trudeau-era
youth program Katimavik.

"The Conservatives left 600 youth who had been selected to
participate in the program in a lurch as well as the non-profit
organizations who were looking forward to the volunteer hours,"
St. Catharines, Ont., resident Colleen Cleve told The Huffington
Post Canada on May 4.

Heritage Minister James Moore has said the C$14 million price tag
for the program wasn't justified, leading the Tories to cut
funding in their March budget.

"Katimavik had a cost of over C$28,000 per participant and a one-
third dropout rate," Mr. Moore said in the House of Commons in
April.  "As Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages,
I have to make difficult decisions and easy decisions.  Ending
funding for Katimavik is one of the easiest decisions I have ever
made."

That comment mobilized Katimavik's alumni and supporters who have
led protests and started petitions and Facebook groups hoping that
powerful testimony from former participants may make the
government recognize the value of the program.

Ms. Cleve's two children were supposed to join Katimavik this July
and volunteer in different communities across the country, but
their plans for the next six months were thrown into limbo by the
government's decision.

Melanie, 20, a finishing student at Niagara College was lucky to
get her old summer job back at MarineLand, her mother said.  While
her 17-year-old son Erik decided to go back to high school for an
extra semester after missing application deadlines for college and
university.

"I feel that because of the government's decision to (cut
Katimavik's funding) my children are, I wouldn't say exactly
wasting the next six months, but perhaps not using them in the
best way that they possibly could," she told HuffPost.

Ms. Cleve, who openly admits she voted for the Conservative Party
last May, said she won't make that mistake a second time.  "I will
never vote Conservative again," she said.

A legal assistant, Ms. Cleve has decided to channel her anger
against the Tories into a class action lawsuit.

She believes she may have a breach of contract claim, since the
federal government pulled out of a three-year funding agreement
with Katimavik one year early.

But she knows she's unlikely to win.

"That's not my intention, my intention is to basically raise
public awareness of what the government has done," she said.  "So
many people are not even aware of this program."

Katimavik's marketing and communications director Victoria
Salvador told HuffPost the court challenge is unlikely to be
successful because the contract includes a standard notice clause.

"The funding agreement did go until March 2013, but like all
contracts there is always like a 90-day clause in them, so I'm not
sure how much bite that is going to have," Ms. Salvador said.

"We were definitely not expecting the government to use the 90-day
clause unless, you know, civil war or something of that nature
(happened)," she added.

Katimavik is currently winding down operations for all projects
affected by the cuts, although it is still hoping it can press
forward without federal funding, Ms. Salvador said, noting several
private partners have shown an interest in subsidizing the
program.

NDP MP Charmaine Borg said she hopes public pressure will force
the Conservatives to reverse their decision.

The young Quebec MP has introduced a motion, M-352, in the House
of Commons calling on the government to restore Katimavik's
funding and recognize the merits of the program, both for its
young volunteers and for communities.  Every day for more than a
month, Borg has been placing testimonials from former Katimavik
participants on the Heritage Minister's desk.

Mr. Moore hasn't approached her about them, but she's not
dissuaded.

"This is a program that people really care about.  It's not only
about the kids, it's not only about the parents of the kids, it's
about communities across the country, it's about national
identity, it's about bilingualism, it's about helping people, it's
about volunteerism, it's about all those things," she said.

Ms. Borg thinks the class action lawsuit is an example of how
frustrated people are with the government's decision.

"If (Moore) feels that it wasn't fiscally responsible, and
fiscally efficient, then maybe he can find ways to improve it, but
he needs to wake up and realize that cutting the program on the
fly without notice and not letting people go this summer is just
unacceptable," she said.

The Conservative government, however, shows no sign it will be
persuaded to change course.

"There is no basis for this claim," Mr. Moore's spokesman, James
Maunder told HuffPost about the potential lawsuit.

"There are countless opportunities for youth to volunteer in every
community across Canada.  Ending Katimavik is a responsible
decision that will save taxpayers money while allowing us to
support more effective, more affordable youth programs," Mr.
Maunder said.


CARNIVAL GROUP: Concordia Survivor Balks at Compensation Payout
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Echo reports that a dancer who escaped death in the Costa
Concordia tragedy has branded the compensation offer as
"insulting".

Rose Metcalf, a 23-year-old from Moor Crichel near Blandford, was
on board the Italian cruise ship when it ran aground, killing 32
people.

She said the 6,000 euro (GBP4,900) offer only accounts for a third
of the value of what she lost during the accident in January.

She has joined a class action lawsuit in the US against the ship's
operator Carnival Group which is demanding GBP105,000 for each
passenger.

Rose, who went to QE School in Wimborne and attended Stage Door
Dance and Drama School in Bournemouth, said: "I fulfilled my duty
in the emergency drill and more so.

"To be offered a package worth a third of my lost possessions is
insulting."

Carnival Group said Miss Metcalf was not directly employed by the
firm and the compensation met the terms negotiated between trade
unions and crew members' employers.

The company said the level of money was not its decision as this
had been offered on its behalf by Lloyds of London.


CYNOSURE INC: Court Denies Weitzner's Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Superior Court in Middlesex County denied the
motion for class certification filed by Dr. Ari Weitzner in a
lawsuit against Cynosure Inc., according to the Company's March 8,
2012, 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

In 2005, Dr. Ari Weitzner, individually and as putative
representative of a purported class, filed a complaint against the
Company under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or
the TCPA in Massachusetts Superior Court in Middlesex County
seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys
fees. The complaint alleges that the Company violated the TCPA by
sending unsolicited advertisements by facsimile to the plaintiff
and other recipients without the prior express invitation or
permission of the recipients.  Under the TCPA, recipients of
unsolicited facsimile advertisements are entitled to damages of up
to $500 per facsimile for inadvertent violations and up to $1,500
per facsimile for knowing or willful violations.  Based on
discovery in this matter, the plaintiff alleges that approximately
three million facsimiles were sent on the Company's behalf by a
third party to approximately 100,000 individuals.  On February 6,
2008, several months after the close of discovery, the plaintiff
served a motion for class certification, which the Company opposed
on numerous factual and legal grounds, including that a nationwide
class action may not be maintained in a Massachusetts state court
by Dr. Weitzner, a New York resident; individual issues
predominate over common issues; a class action is not superior to
other methods of resolving TCPA claims; and Dr. Weitzner is an
inadequate class representative.

The Company also believes it has many merits defenses, including
that the faxes in question do not constitute "advertising" within
the meaning of the TCPA and many recipients had an established
business relationship with the Company and are thereby deemed to
have consented to the receipt of facsimile communications.  The
Court held a hearing on the plaintiff's class certification motion
in June 2008.  In July 2010, the Court issued an order dismissing
this matter without prejudice for Dr. Weitzner's failure to
prosecute the case.  In August 2010, Dr. Weitzner filed a motion
for relief from the dismissal order, which the Court allowed.  At
a status conference held in November 2010, the Court confirmed
that the class certification motion was still under advisement.
In January 2012, the Court issued a Memorandum of Decision denying
the class certification motion.


DOLLAR TREE: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in Va. Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc., anticipates a ruling from the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit of an appeal from the dismissal of
a gender discrimination lawsuit in Virginia to be handed down in
the spring or summer of this year, according to the Company's
March 15, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended January 28, 2012.

In 2009, 34 plaintiffs, filed a class action complaint against the
Company in a federal court in Virginia, alleging gender pay and
promotion discrimination under Title VII.  In 2010, the case was
dismissed with prejudice.  Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  The appeal has been fully
briefed by the parties and oral arguments were conducted in
January 2012.  The parties await a decision of the appellate court
which is expected by late spring or summer of 2012.

The Company will vigorously defend the matter.  The Company does
not believe the matter will have a material effect on its business
or financial condition.

Dollar Tree, Inc. -- http://www.dollartreestoresinc.com--
operates discount variety stores in the United States and Canada.
Its stores offer merchandise primarily at the fixed price of
$1.00.  The company operates its stores under the names of Dollar
Tree, Deal$, Dollar Tree Deal$, Dollar Giant, and Dollar Bills.
Its stores offer consumable merchandise, including candy and food,
and health and beauty care, as well as household consumables, such
as paper, plastics, household chemicals, in select stores, and
frozen and refrigerated food; variety merchandise, which includes
toys, durable housewares, gifts, party goods, greeting cards,
softlines, and other items; and seasonal goods.  The company was
founded in 1986 and is based in Chesapeake, Virginia.


DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Store Managers' Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc., continues to defend itself against a wage-and-
hour lawsuit in California, according to the Company's March 15,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended January 28, 2012.

In April 2011, a former assistant store manager, on behalf of
himself and those similarly situated, instituted a class action in
a California state court primarily alleging a failure by the
Company to provide meal breaks; to compensate for all hours
worked; and to pay overtime compensation.  The Company removed the
case to federal court which denied Plaintiffs' motion for remand
of the case to state court.  The case presently awaits a
scheduling order.  There is no trial date.

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

The Company will vigorously defend the matter.  The Company does
not believe the matter will have a material effect on its business
or financial condition.

Dollar Tree, Inc. -- http://www.dollartreestoresinc.com--
operates discount variety stores in the United States and Canada.
Its stores offer merchandise primarily at the fixed price of
$1.00.  The company operates its stores under the names of Dollar
Tree, Deal$, Dollar Tree Deal$, Dollar Giant, and Dollar Bills.
Its stores offer consumable merchandise, including candy and food,
and health and beauty care, as well as household consumables, such
as paper, plastics, household chemicals, in select stores, and
frozen and refrigerated food; variety merchandise, which includes
toys, durable housewares, gifts, party goods, greeting cards,
softlines, and other items; and seasonal goods.  The company was
founded in 1986 and is based in Chesapeake, Virginia.


GENVEC INC: Faces Securities Class Suit in Maryland
---------------------------------------------------
GenVec Inc. is facing a securities class action complaint in
Maryland, according to the Company's March 15, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On February 3, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against the Company, Paul H. Fischer, Douglas J. Swirsky and Mark
O. Thornton, in the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, captioned Satish Shah v. GenVec, Inc., et al., Civil
Action. No. 8:12 CV-00341-DKC.  The plaintiff alleges that the
Company and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The plaintiff
purports to be acting on behalf of a class consisting of
purchasers or acquirers of the Company's common stock between
March 12, 2009 and March 30, 2010.  The plaintiff alleges that, as
a result of the defendants' allegedly false misleading statements
or omissions concerning the Company's prospects, the Company's
common stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the
Class Period.  The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and fees
and costs, among other relief, but has not specified the amount of
damages being sought in the action. The parties have stipulated,
and the Court has ordered, that the defendants' responses to the
pending complaint are appropriately deferred until after the
appointment of a lead plaintiff and after the approval of lead
counsel.

GenVec, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company using differentiated,
proprietary technologies to create superior therapeutics and
vaccines.  GenVec works with leading companies and organizations
such as Novartis, Merial, and the U.S. Government to support a
portfolio of product programs that address the prevention and
treatment of a number of significant human and animal health
concerns.

GenVec, Inc. -- http://www.genvec.com/-- operates as a
biopharmaceutical company that uses differentiated, proprietary
technologies to create therapeutics and vaccines.  GenVec is
working with various companies and organizations, such as
Novartis, Merial, and the U.S. Government to support a portfolio
of product programs that address the prevention and treatment of
human and animal health concerns. Founded in 1992, the Company is
based in Gaithersburg, Maryland.


HEALTHMARKETS: Settles Claims in 'Hopkins' Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
HealthMarkets Inc. has settled the claims asserted in a putative
class action lawsuit brought against the Company for alleged
invasion of privacy, according to the Company's March 8, 2012,
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On December 18, 2008, HealthMarkets and MEGA were named as
defendants in a putative class action (Jerry T. Hopkins,
individually and on behalf all those others similarly situated v.
HealthMarkets, Inc. et al.) pending in the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, California, Case No. BC404133.  Plaintiff alleges
invasion of privacy in violation of California Penal Code Section
630, et seq., negligence and the violation of common law privacy
arising from allegations that the defendants monitored and/or
recorded the telephone conversations of California residents
without providing them with notice or obtaining their consent.
Plaintiff seeks an order certifying the suit as a California class
action and seeks compensatory and punitive damages.  On
December 3, 2009, plaintiff Jerry Hopkins was dismissed as the
class plaintiff and Jerry Buszek was substituted in his place.  On
March 10, 2010, defendants' motion for summary judgment was
denied.  On August 16, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification, which motion was denied on November 30, 2011,
leaving plaintiff's individual claims as the only matters
remaining to be addressed in this action.  In February 2012, the
parties settled this matter on terms that, after consideration of
applicable reserves and potentially available insurance coverage
benefits, did not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial condition and results of operations.


HEALTHMARKETS: Continues to Defend Class Action Suit in Mass.
-------------------------------------------------------------
HealthMarkets Inc. continues to defend itself from a class action
lawsuit involving former district sales leaders who contracted
with the Company's insurance subsidiaries, according to the
Company's March 8, 2012, 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On July 6, 2010, HealthMarkets, Inc., MEGA and Mid-West were named
as defendants in a putative class action (Jeffrey Cutter, Rina
Discepolo, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
v. HealthMarkets, Inc. et al.) pending in the Norfolk County
Superior Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Case No. 1:10-
cv:11488-JLT.  On August 13, 2010, this matter was removed to the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The complaint alleges that the named plaintiffs (former district
sales leaders contracted with the Company's insurance
subsidiaries) were employees (rather than independent contractors)
under Massachusetts law and are therefore entitled, among other
relief, to recover certain business costs under the Massachusetts
Wage Act.  On July 21, 2011, the Court certified the class and on
September 26, 2011, the First Circuit Court of Appeals denied
defendants' motion to appeal the class certification.  The Company
is mounting a vigorous defense of this action.  However, given the
early stage of this matter, the Company is unable to determine at
this time what, if any, impact it may have on the Company's
consolidated financial condition or results of operations.


HIGHER ONE: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Bank Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that a class
action claims that a financial services company and its bank
partner prey on college students by coercing them into handing
over financial aid money and charging them exorbitant fees to
access the funds.

Lead plaintiff Sherry McFall, a student at Ventura College, claims
Higher One automatically creates bank accounts for unsuspecting
college students, then collects deceptive and improperly disclosed
bank fees when the students access their money.  She sued both
Higher One Holdings and The Bancorp Bank, in Ventura County Court.

"Higher One has arrangements with hundreds of colleges, including
Ventura College, whereby a student's grant, scholarship and/or
loan money is automatically deposited into a Higher One bank
account without the authorization or consent of students.
Colleges and universities, including Ventura College, send student
mailing address and email address information to Higher One
without receiving consent to do so," Ms. McFall says in her
complaint.

Even before a student enrolls, "Higher One uses this information
to begin sending marketing mail and email to students, encouraging
them to use Higher One banking services for their financial aid
refunds, which are a student's financial aid money (whether from
grants, scholarships or loans) left over after the school deducts
its tuition and fees," the student claims.

Ms. McFall says Higher One disclosed to investors its marketing
strategy of extracting fees from students in its IPO prospectus in
2010:

"'Once we enter into a contract with a higher education
institution, we begin focusing our marketing effort on the
institution's students . . .

"We work closely with our higher education institutional clients
to communicate the benefits of our products and services through
school-branded communications and literature in an effort to
increase both the number of new OneAccounts and usage of existing
OneAccounts . . .

"Typically, we will send information to parents and incoming
students soon after their admission applications are accepted by
the school and during student orientation.  We generally contact
returning students before the beginning of a new semester and
place signs in strategic campus locations such as bookstores,
student centers, dining halls, athletic facilities and cash
dispensers to increase awareness of our products and services
. . .

"In an effort to strengthen our relationships with students, we
often sponsor and support on-campus events and create a co-branded
website with the higher education institutions . . .

"Our higher education institutional clients provide us with
student email addresses that we commonly use to communicate with
students about our products and services . . .'"

Ms. McFall says that before the beginning of a term Higher One
sends students an e-mail stating that their college "'has
partnered with Higher One to provide a new method for receiving
financial aid disbursements to all . . .  students.  It is called
the [name of college] Debit Card.  If you have received your
Higher One card and are expecting financial aid, please activate
the card and choose your disbursement preference right away to
avoid any delays to your disbursement.'

"In such emails, and by use of the term 'partnered,' Higher One
falsely implies to students that it is the college's preferred
provider of banking services."

Ms. McFall claims that Higher One uses marketing channels to tell
students they will get their financial aid refunds more quickly
and "immediately" if they choose Higher One and that their
financial aid disbursements will be "delayed" if they do not.

"Upon information and belief, these representations are false or,
if they are true, a refund is 'delayed' only by the actions of
Higher One.  For example, to elect to use a different bank, a
student has to print out a form and mail it to Higher One. On the
other hand, students can complete the entire Higher One
registration online," the complaint states.

"Because Higher One automatically opens accounts for students,
into which financial aid money is deposited, students are required
to use the Higher One Web site in order to receive any financial
aid refund whatsoever.  On the Higher One Web site, they are
pressured to use the Higher One account.  Indeed, if students do
not open a Higher One account, they are penalized and often forced
to wait up to a month to receive their financial aid refund -- a
refund which in many respects is a student's only source of
support.  Beyond failing to disclose fees, this creates
disincentives to using another bank.

"Higher One does not adequately disclose that students may elect
to use their financial aid refunds via methods other than a Higher
One account.  Further, upon information and belief, Higher One
encourages the colleges and universities to withhold this
information from students."

Ms. McFall says Higher One's marketing e-mails tout the speed of
its refunds, but fail to mention the myriad fees students will pay
for using the company's services -- or that students have options
other than Higher One.

"When students, without their consent and without requesting it,
receive their Higher One debit card in the mail, they are directed
to a Higher One website to receive their financial aid refund. In
this mailing, Higher One does not adequately disclose the fees
students will be subjected to (or students' inability to
reasonably avoid such fees)," the complaint states.

"Marketing materials produced by Higher One tell students that
when they choose a financial aid refund preference, 'Easy Refund
is the fastest delivery method.  By choosing this option you'll be
choosing to open a no-monthly balance, no-monthly fee FDIC-insured
checking account tied to the debit card.' In such marketing
materials, Higher One never discloses the fees it does charge
students for use of their financial aid money (or students'
inability to reasonably avoid such fees).  Nor does Higher One
disclose these fees (or students' inability to reasonably avoid
such fees) prior to requiring students to agree to use a Higher
One account on the Higher One Web site.  . . .

"Higher One does not make fee information easily accessible. To
find the actual fees charged by Higher One requires clicking
through three pages from the Higher One homepage -- including a
page deceptively filled with all of the free services offered by
Higher One -- before finally getting to the fee-based services
page.  Plaintiff was deceived and class members were likely to be
deceived by Higher One's marketing and attempts to get them to use
a Higher One account.

"Higher One knowingly targets particularly vulnerable customers
(college students) with its marketing, mailings, Web site and
disclosures.  College students are less sophisticated than
ordinary customers, especially on matters of finance.  According
to a 2008 study by the Jump$tart Coalition for Personal Finance
Literacy, more than two thirds of college-bound seniors fail the
nonprofit's 31-question literacy test."

"In sum, Higher One does not provide adequate disclosures of the
excessive and unconscionable fees it charges to students prior to
or after the time Higher One accounts are opened.  Nor does Higher
One provide a fee schedule at the time Higher One accounts are
opened on students' behalf; in fact this information is made
available to students only if a student searches out the
information on Higher One's Web site."

Ms. McFall claims that Higher One also falsely represents that its
services are endorsed by the students' colleges and universities.
"A school's emblem is featured in the letterhead of student
communications from Higher One and on the debit cards issued by
Higher One.  However, Higher One is not endorsed by, nor is it the
preferred banking provider of, a student's college or university,"
the complaint states.

Higher One's tactics are extraordinarily successful, Ms. McFall
says: Not only did she not realize she had the option of having
her financial aid refund deposited into the bank of her own
choosing, the vast majority of students at colleges and
universities are also duped by the company.

"In practice, most students end up receiving their financial aid
refund through Higher One.  In 2009 for instance, 76 percent of
the students at participating colleges chose to bank with Higher
One rather than choosing another bank, according to filings with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.  In short, Higher One has
leveraged its relationship with colleges and universities to make
itself essentially the de facto or default choice for banking on
these campuses," the complaint states.

A student who decides to move financial aid disbursements to
another banking institution is charged $25, which Ms. McFall says
is the last in a long line of fees Higher One charges students to
get their own money.

She says the company, which is not a bank, aggressively markets
the debit function of its card -- from the word DEBIT emblazoned
across the front of the card in three places, to account
orientation videos on the Higher One Web site in which actors tell
the students they can use their "card anywhere a debit MasterCard
is accepted, on campus or off."

The complaint continues: "And after opening an account, Higher One
sends emails to students stating: 'Now it's easier than ever to
spend with speed and safety using your VCCCD Debit Card instead of
cash! As you requested, your recent Ventura County Community
College District refund has been deposited as an Easy Refund to
your OneAccount.  Your OneAccount is a full-service, FDIC insured
checking account.  Once your refund money is deposited to the
account, you may immediately begin using your VCCCD Debit Card to
spend it at millions of locations worldwide where MasterCard is
accepted.'

"Yet students who swipe the card as a 'debit' and enter their PIN
get charged a 50-cent PIN-based transaction fee by Higher One each
time.  The only way to avoid that 50-cent fee on every purchase is
to press 'credit' and sign the receipt.  However, Higher One does
not adequately disclose this fact to students, and actually
misleads students by placing the term 'debit' on the card and by
referring to the 'debit' MasterCard in disclosures and marketing
materials, when in fact the student must select the 'credit'
option in order to avoid the fee."

"In other words, Higher One deceptively tells students on the face
of the card and in marketing materials and disclosures that it is
not a credit card.  Nonetheless, a student must use it as a credit
card in order to avoid being charged the fee," Ms. McFall says.

"This deception and lack of disclosure is targeted to college
students, who in many cases are less sophisticated than ordinary
customers on matters of finance.  Upon information and belief,
Higher One's deception and lack of disclosure is designed to
increase its bank fee revenue."

Ms. McFall claims that more than 50 percent of Higher One's
accountholders incur at least one PIN-based fee, which is
"immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and substantially
injurious to consumers.  Had Higher One not bombarded students
with deceptive marketing and failed to disclose the excessive bank
fees Higher One charges, students could easily have chosen a bank
which offered similar services but did not charge, for example,
PIN-based transaction fees," Ms. McFall says.

She claims Higher One also charges a $2.50 fee for transactions at
non-Higher One ATMs, in addition to the fees charged by ATM
owners.  She say it costs $4.50 or more to get her own money at
these machines, a fact not disclosed at the ATM terminal or
anywhere else but on a page buried in the Higher One Web site.

"Charging students upwards of $4.50 for an ATM withdrawal is
immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and substantially
injurious to consumers, especially so since Higher One ATMs are
exceedingly rare, and are not available to students at all hours.
Therefore, students cannot reasonably avoid such fees," the
complaint states.

"For example, only two Higher One ATMs serve the entire Ventura
College campus (with over 14,000 students), and even those ATMs
are inaccessible after hours.  One of the Ventura College Higher
One ATMs is inaccessible for over a month during winter vacations,
when the campus center in which it is located is closed.
Accordingly, students often have no choice but to use non-Higher
One ATMs in order to access their money."

Ms. McFall claims that Higher One's ATM and PIN-based point of
sale practices violate federal regulations requiring financial
institutions to provide an accurate receipt at the point of
transaction, including total cost and any fees associated with the
transaction.

"Higher One does not disclose either PIN-based Transaction Fees or
Non-Higher One ATM fees 'at the time the consumer initiates an
electronic fund transfer.'  These are 'transaction fees' that must
be 'disclosed on the receipt and displayed on or at the terminal,'
per Regulation E.  Plaintiff would not have made certain debit
card purchases or ATM withdrawals had Higher One properly
disclosed the fees it would charge," according to the complaint.

"Higher One's policies and practices are or were unconscionable in
the following respects, among others.  Higher One:

"a. Automatically opens Higher One accounts on behalf of students
and deposits financial aid money into such accounts without
consent;

"b. Deceptively encourages students to use Higher One accounts
without disclosing the true nature of those accounts, including
excessive and unusual usage fees;

"c. Imposes contractual forms upon consumers without providing
consumers with the ability to review or approve the terms of those
contracts prior to account opening;

"d. Deceptively represents that Higher One has the endorsement of,
or is the preferred banking provider of, a student's college or
university;

"e. Deceives students about, and does not adequately disclose, PIN
transaction fees;

"f. Does not provide a means by which students can reasonably
avoid PIN Transaction Fees;

"g. Does not adequately disclose non-Higher One ATM transaction
fees;

"h. Does not provide means by which students can reasonably avoid
non-Higher One ATM transaction fees;

"i. Charges students, in effect, two service fees for every non-
Higher One ATM withdrawal;

"j. Requires their customers to enter into standardized account
agreements which include unconscionable provisions;

"k. Does not alert its customers that a debit card transaction or
ATM transaction will trigger a PIN-based transaction fee and non-
Higher One ATM fee, and does not provide the customer the
opportunity to cancel that transaction before assessing such fees;
and

"l. Forces students to use financial aid loan money to pay bank
fees, exponentially increasing the cost of such bank fees."

Ms. McFall adds: "Because many of these improperly charged fees
were in many cases paid with borrowed money, students are
effectively paying interest on these fees."

She seeks class damages for unfair competition breach of contract,
conversion, unjust enrichment, and consumer law violations.

A copy of the Complaint in McFall v. Higher One Holdings, Inc., et
al., Case No. 56-2012-00416119 (Calif. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/07/HigherOne.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 808
          Washington, DC 20036
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                  jkaliel@tzlegal.com


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Awaits Order on Plea to Dismiss Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss the amended complaint of a purported class
action lawsuit pending in California, according to the Company's
April 19, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On August 6, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Perlmutter v. Intuitive Surgical et al., No. CV10-3451, was filed
against the Company and seven of the Company's current and former
officers and directors in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified
damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between February 1,
2008, and January 7, 2009.  The complaint alleges that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by making allegedly
false and misleading statements and omitting certain material
facts in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.  On February 15, 2011, the Police Retirement System of
St. Louis was appointed Lead Plaintiff in the case pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  An amended
complaint was filed on April 15, 2011, making allegations
substantially similar to the allegations in Perlmutter.  On May
23, 2011 the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  On August 10, 2011, that motion was granted and the
action was dismissed; the plaintiffs were given 30 days to file an
amended complaint.  On September 12, 2011, plaintiffs filed their
amended complaint.  The allegations contained therein are
substantially similar to the allegations in the prior complaint.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  A
hearing occurred on February 16, 2012.  The Court took the matter
under submission.


KENTUCKY FIRST: Consolidated Merger-Related Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky First Federal Bancorp disclosed in its April 19, 2012,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
that a consolidated class action lawsuit over its proposed merger
with CKF Bancorp, Inc., was dismissed.

On April 9, 2012, Circuit Court Judge Thomas D. Wingate granted
motions filed by Kentucky First Federal Bancorp and CKF Bancorp,
Inc. to dismiss a consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit
filed against CKF Bancorp, its Board of Directors, and Kentucky
First in connection with their approval of the Agreement of
Merger, dated November 3, 2011, by and among Kentucky First, CKF
Bancorp and Central Kentucky Federal Savings Bank.

Two separate class action lawsuits, captioned Cassidy, et. al. v.
CKF Bancorp, Inc., et al., Civ. Act. No. 11-C1-587 and DeMartini,
et al. v. CKF Bancorp, Inc., et al., Civ. Act. No. 11-C1-588, were
each filed on December 7, 2011, in Boyle Circuit Court.  Both
actions were brought on behalf of a putative class consisting of
the plaintiff, each a CKF Bancorp shareholder, and CKF Bancorp's
common shareholders, and both complaints named CKF Bancorp, CKF
Bancorp's directors, and Kentucky First as defendants.  The
lawsuits alleged that the director defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by approving the Merger agreement because the
merger consideration is inadequate, the CKF Bancorp directors
failed to conduct a thorough and proper sales process to maximize
shareholder value and the transaction unfairly benefits the CKF
Bancorp board to the disadvantage of the CKF Bancorp shareholders.
The lawsuits also alleged that Kentucky First aided and abetted
the CKF Bancorp board's alleged breach of fiduciary duties.  The
complaints sought injunctive relief to prevent the consummation of
the Merger.

In his decision on April 9, 2012, Judge Wingate held that the
plaintiffs had failed to allege facts sufficient to rebut the
presumption that the CKF Bancorp directors acted within their
sound business judgment within the scope of the Delaware business
judgment rule.  Judge Wingate also held that the plaintiffs'
claims were not ripe for adjudication as the proposed Merger has
not yet gone to a vote of the shareholders, and that in seeking an
injunction to prevent the Merger the plaintiffs failed to show
that a legal remedy would be inadequate, as any alleged harm
suffered can be addressed by plaintiff's vote against the Merger
and exercise of his or her appraisal rights, which grant the
dissenting shareholder the statutory right of judicial appraisal
to obtain a determination of fair value.  Accordingly, Judge
Wingate granted the motions to dismiss the complaints with
prejudice.  Plaintiffs have 30 days in which to file a notice of
appeal.

              About Kentucky First Federal Bancorp

Kentucky First Federal Bancorp is the parent company of First
Federal Savings and Loan Association of Hazard, which operates one
banking office in Hazard, Kentucky, and First Federal Savings Bank
of Frankfort, which operates three banking offices in Frankfort,
Kentucky.  Kentucky First Federal Bancorp shares are traded on the
Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol KFFB.  At March 31, 2012,
Kentucky First Federal Bancorp had approximately 7,735,703 shares
outstanding, of which approximately 61.1% was held by First
Federal MHC.

                     About CKF Bancorp, Inc.

CKF Bancorp, Inc. is the parent company of Central Kentucky
Federal Savings Bank.  Central Kentucky Federal Savings Bank's
main office is located at 340 W. Main Street, Danville, Kentucky.
Central Kentucky Federal Savings Bank also operates two full
service branch offices, located in Danville and Lancaster,
Kentucky.


LLOYDS GROUP: Defends Shareholder Suits in N.Y., U.K.
------------------------------------------------------
Lloyds Banking Group plc is defending itself against shareholder
complaints in New York and the U.K., according to the Company's
March 15, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

Lloyds Banking Group plc and two former members of the Group's
Board of Directors have been named as defendants in a purported
Southern District of New York.  The complaint dated November 23,
2011, asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with alleged material omissions from statements made in
2008 in connection with the acquisition of HBOS.  No quantum is
specified.

In addition, a UK-based shareholder action group has threatened
multi-claimant claims on a similar basis against the Group and two
former directors in the UK.  No claim has yet been issued.

The Group considers that the claims are without merit and will
defend them vigorously.  The claims have not been quantified and
it is not possible to estimate the ultimate financial impact on
the Group at this early stage.

Lloyds Banking Group is a leading UK based financial services
group providing a wide range of banking and financial services,
primarily in the UK, to personal and corporate customers. At
December 31, 2011, total Lloyds Banking Group assets were
GBP970,546 million and Lloyds Banking Group had some 98,538
employees, on a full-time equivalent basis.


MICROSOFT CORP: Appeal in Canadian Suit to Be Heard in Fall
-----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in one of the three antitrust and unfair competition
class action lawsuits pending in Canada will be heard in the fall
of 2012, according to Microsoft Corporation's April 19, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

A large number of antitrust and unfair competition class action
lawsuits were filed against the Company in various state, federal,
and Canadian courts on behalf of various classes of direct and
indirect purchasers of the Company's PC operating system and
certain other software products.  The Company obtained dismissals
or reached settlements of all claims that have been made to date
in the United States.

All settlements in the United States have received final court
approval.  Under the settlements, generally class members can
obtain vouchers that entitle them to be reimbursed for purchases
of a wide variety of platform-neutral computer hardware and
software.  The total value of vouchers that the Company may issue
varies by state.  The Company will make available to certain
schools a percentage of those vouchers that are not issued or
claimed (one-half to two-thirds depending on the state).  The
total value of vouchers the Company ultimately issue will depend
on the number of class members who make claims and are issued
vouchers.  The maximum value of vouchers to be issued is
approximately $2.7 billion.  The actual costs of these settlements
will be less than that maximum amount, depending on the number of
class members and schools that are issued and redeem vouchers.
The Company estimates the total cost to resolve all of the state
overcharge class action cases will range between $1.9 billion and
$2.0 billion.  At March 31, 2012, the Company has recorded a
liability related to these claims of approximately $500 million,
which reflects the Company's estimated exposure of $1.9 billion
less payments made to date of approximately $1.4 billion mostly
for vouchers, legal fees, and administrative expenses.

The three cases pending in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec,
Canada have not been settled.  In March 2010, the court in the
British Columbia case certified it as a class action.  In April
2011, the British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed the class
certification ruling and dismissed the case, holding that indirect
purchasers do not have a claim.  The plaintiffs have appealed to
the Canadian Supreme Court, which will be heard in the fall of
2012.  The other two actions have been stayed.


NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL: Canadian Court to Hold Hearing in June
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court in Quebec will hold a hearing in June to
consider the proposed dismissal of Navistar International
Corporation as a defendant in a class action lawsuit over engine
design and manufacturing defects, according to Navistar's March 8,
2012, 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2012.

On May 20, 2011, 9046-9478 Quebec Inc. filed a motion to authorize
the bringing of a class action against the Company, as well as
Ford and Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited in Superior Court
in Quebec, Canada.  The Quebec Action seeks authorization to bring
a claim on behalf of a class of Canadian owners and lessees of
model year 2003-07 Ford vehicles powered by the 6.0L Power
Stroke(R) engine that the Company previously supplied to Ford.
Quebec alleged that the engines in question have design and
manufacturing defects, and that the Company and Ford Defendants
are solidarily liable for those defects.  For relief, the Quebec
Action seeks monetary damages sufficient to remedy the alleged
defects, compensate the alleged damages incurred by the proposed
class, and compensate plaintiffs' counsel.  The Quebec Action also
asks the Superior Court to order the Company and the Ford
Defendants to recall, repair, or replace the Ford vehicles at
issue free of charge.  In December 2011, the Company and Quebec
reached an agreement in principle whereby the Company voluntarily
would produce certain documents to Quebec pursuant to a protective
order and Quebec voluntarily would dismiss the Company from the
Quebec Action without prejudice.  That agreement was confirmed on
the record at a case management conference before the Superior
Court on February 1, 2012.  Quebec has agreed to file a motion for
authorization to remove the Company from the Quebec Action, and
the Superior Court has stated such motion will be heard in June
2012.


NEW YORK: NYPD Sued Over Stop-and-Frisk Policy
-----------------------------------------------
Ryan Devereaux, writing for guardian.co.uk, reports that the New
York City police department will be forced to defend in court its
controversial practice of stopping and questioning hundreds of
thousands black and Latino citizens every year against accusations
that it amounts to an unconstitutional system of racial profiling.

A federal lawsuit filed by four men who found themselves on the
receiving end of the department's so-called stop-and-frisk policy
has passed key legal hurdles, and a decision is now awaited on
whether the case should be ruled as a class action.

The resulting trial would throw a spotlight on a policy that the
city's police commissioner, Ray Kelly, once described as
"dubious", and which critics say has resulted in a culture of fear
in New York's minority populations.

One New York state senator, Eric Adams, alleges Mr. Kelly even
told him in 2010 he wanted to "instil the fear in black and
Hispanic youth that every time they leave their homes they will
feel that they could be stopped".

The number of reported encounters has soared under Mr. Kelly and
New York mayor Michael Bloomberg.  In 2002, NYPD officers recorded
97,296 stop-and-frisks.  Nine years later, that figure increased
to a record-breaking total of 684,300.

Every year the vast majority of those stopped -- generally 85% or
more -- have been African Americans or Latinos, and about nine out
of 10 were released without a charge or a summons.  The NYPD says
the stop-and-frisk policy has reduced crime; this is disputed by
its critics, who say it has increased racial tensions in the city.
In one of her rulings, the judge in the federal case said the
links are "not clear".

The suit was filed in January 2008.  In it, David Floyd and Lalit
Clarkson accused the NYPD, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Bloomberg, several named
and unnamed police officers and the city itself of maintaining an
unconstitutional racial profiling system through stop-and-frisks.
Two other men later joined the action.

After years of legal red tape and a concerted effort on the part
of city lawyers to shut it down, it appears the men will have
their day in court.  In August, US district judge Shira Scheindlin
refused to dismiss their complaint, overriding objections from the
city.  And last month, Judge Scheindlin ruled that the testimony
of a Columbia University criminologist, Jeffrey Fagan, would be
admitted in the case.  After examining NYPD data cataloging 2.8
million police stops between 2004 and 2009, Mr. Fagan determined
that police made 150,000 unconstitutional or legally unjustified
stops.

Judge Scheindlin must now determine whether to certify the lawsuit
as a class action.  Barring a successful appeal by the city, a
court date would then be set.

Gideon Oliver, president of the New York City chapter of the
National Lawyers Guild, believes Judge Scheindlin can and should
certify the suit as a class action, saying it would be the most
efficient way of dealing with the case.  "I think the stop and
frisk practices and problems are so pervasive that it's exactly
the kind of issue that should be resolved and can be resolved
through a class action rather than thousands of individual suits,"
Mr. Oliver said.

"I think it's very likely that Judge Scheindlin will certify the
class, especially since she's recently ruled that Fagan's report
can go in, pointing up that it's a policy that discriminates
against people of color, especially in New York.  It goes to the
heart of the case."

Mr. Kelly once described stop-and-frisks as a "dubious practice"
that "sowed new seeds of community mistrust".  But now he
vigorously defends the policy, arguing that stop-and-frisks have
led to a decline in murders.  With the support of Bloomberg,
Mr. Kelly has contended that racial disparities in stop-and-frisk
figures correspond to racial differences in crime suspects.

In her 86-page decision, Judge Scheindlin raised concerns about
the connection between stop-and-frisks and the decline in crime in
New York City since the mid-1990s, writing the links "are not
clear", but adding: "It is clear that the policing policies that
the city has implemented over the past decade and half have led to
a dramatic increase in the number of pedestrian stops, to the
point of now reaching almost 600,000 a year."

Judge Scheindlin described stop-and-frisks as "a sufficiently
unwelcome intrusion" and wrote: "The increasingly widespread use
of this policing tool in New York City is not to be taken lightly,
even in those cases in which the individuals are not detained for
more than a few minutes, and even if the practice causes some
reduction in the city's crime rate.

"It is deeply troubling if thousands of New Yorkers are being
stopped each year without reasonable suspicion, and even more
troubling if African American and Latino New Yorkers are being
singled out for such treatment."

In her latest ruling last month, Judge Sheindlin ruled that Mr.
Fagan's criminology testimony would be admitted in the case.  As
well as noting the number of illegal stops, his report challenged
the assertion that stop-and-frisks are an effective gun deterrent,
noting the rate of gun seizures resulting from reported stops is
nearly zero, at just 0.15 out of 100 stops.

Mr. Fagan concluded: "Black and Latino people are more likely to
be stopped than white people, even in areas where there are low
crime rates and where residential populations are racially
heterogeneous or predominantly white."

In her decision, Judge Scheindlin pointed to a sworn affidavit
from Mr. Adams, formerly an NYPD officer of 22 years, alleging
that Mr. Kelly relies on stop-and-frisks to serve as a
psychological tool applied specifically to black and Latino
communities.

Mr. Adams told the Guardian that the commissioner made the comment
during a 2010 meeting challenging the department's use of a stop-
and-frisk database.  "Kelly, in defense of the database, said
several things -- but one of them stood out more than the rest."

According to Mr. Adams, Mr. Kelly said: "He wanted to instil the
fear in black and Hispanic youths that every time they leave their
homes they will feel that they could be stopped and searched by
the police."

Lalit Clarkson, a plaintiff in the Floyd suit, said the
commissioner's apparent aim has come to pass.  "The atmosphere in
the community I grew up in is like: 'You see police, you walk
away'," Mr. Clarkson told the Guardian.  He says police stops are
fact of life in the city's African American and Latino
neighborhoods, resulting in a "culture of fear".

"I am not the only person," Mr. Clarkson said.  "This is a
practice that happens to me, my family members and people that I
know and love, and it's something that should be stopped."

Paul Browne, the NYPD's chief spokemsan, said the stop-and-frisk
policy protected minorities.  In a statement issued to the
Guardian, he said: "Police stops comport with descriptions
provided by crime victims.  Last year, 96% of all shooting victims
in New York City were black or Hispanic, as were their assailants.
Over 90% of murder victims last year were black or Hispanic, as
were their killers."

He said police stops have helped bring the crime rate down.  "In
the first 10 years of the Bloomberg administration, there were
6,430 murders compared to 11,058 in the 10 years prior, a
reduction of 51% -- or 5,628 lives saved.  And if history is a
guide, the vast majority of those lives saved were young men of
color."

Community activists have increasingly pushed back against the
stop-and-frisk policy with public acts of civil disobedience.  In
October, a group calling itself the Stop Mass Incarceration
Network launched a series of actions throughout the city with the
support of Occupy Wall Street protesters.

Mr. Clarkson says the legal troubles that result from stop-and-
frisks create hurdles to employment and foster a sense of
collective powerlessness.  "People don't feel like there's any
accountability when the police violate their rights," he said.

Mr. Clarkson believes the policy has particularly tragic
consequences for young people.  "Kids of 11, 12, 13 years old are
getting stopped by the police just for walking. Just for doing
things that kids do," he said.  "What does that do to an 11- or
12-year-old kid who gets stopped and gets told the reason why guns
are being drawn in his face is because he's wearing gang colors
and he's just wearing a black-and-yellow jacket and has no gang
affiliation?"

State senator Mr. Adams believes a shift to numbers-driven
policing has resulted in the widespread abuse of an otherwise
useful tactic.

"The policy of stop-and-frisk is a good policy.  I've used it,"
Mr. Adams said.  "It's the abuse of it.  When you tell officers to
go out and use stop-and-frisk as some form of quota, that you will
bring in a predetermined number of stop-and-frisks, now the
officers are no longer looking for the underlying elements that
cause them to stop and frisk people.  They're now just looking to
fill the quota and so they stop innocent people."


NORTEL NETWORKS: Suit vs. Former Execs Still on Suspense Docket
---------------------------------------------------------------
On May 18, 2009, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York alleging violations of
federal securities law between the period of May 2, 2008 through
September 17, 2008, against Mike Zafirovski (Nortel's former
President and Chief Executive Officer) and Pavi Binning (Nortel's
former Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief
Restructuring Officer).  Although Nortel is not a named defendant,
this lawsuit has been stayed as a result of the Creditor
Protection Proceedings.  Messrs. Zafirovski and Binning have filed
claims in the U.S. Court for indemnification and contribution for
potential liability arising out of this matter in amounts to be
determined.  As of November 8, 2010, the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York ordered that the
matter be placed on the suspense docket pending developments in
the Creditor Protection Proceedings.

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


NORTEL NETWORKS: Gets Court Approval of ERISA Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nortel Networks Corporation obtained final approval of an
agreement to settle a consolidated class action lawsuit involving
beneficiaries of Nortel Networks Inc.'s investment plan, according
to the Company's March 8, 2012, 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

Beginning in December 2001, NNC, Nortel Networks Limited and NNI,
together with certain of its then-current and former directors,
officers and employees, were named as defendants in several
purported class action lawsuits pursuant to ERISA.  These lawsuits
were consolidated into a single proceeding in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.  This lawsuit is on
behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the Nortel Networks
Inc. Long-Term Investment Plan, who held shares of the Nortel
Networks Stock Fund during the class period.  The lawsuit alleged,
among other things, material misrepresentations and omissions to
induce participants and beneficiaries to continue to invest in and
maintain investments in NNC common shares through the investment
plan.

As a result of the Creditor Protection Proceedings, on September
25, 2009, the U.S. District Court ordered the case
administratively closed. The parties to the action agreed to a
final form of Stipulation of Settlement whereby the defendants
will cause their underwriter, Chubb Insurance Company of Canada,
to pay $21.5 into an escrow account on behalf of the defendants as
full and final settlement of the action and in consideration for
the releases and discharges provided under the Stipulation. Such
settlement amount will be distributed in accordance with the terms
of the Stipulation.  In a side agreement, NNC, NNL, NNI and Chubb
stipulated that existing claims filed by Chubb in the Creditor
Protection Proceedings in Canada and in the U.S. will be reduced
and allowed as general unsecured claims upon deposit by Chubb of
the final settlement payments.  The Stipulation and the side
agreement were approved by the Canadian Court and the U.S. Court.
The U.S. District Court also granted preliminary approval of the
Stipulation.  A fairness hearing for final approval was held on
January 11, 2012 and the Stipulation was approved. Nortel has
recorded a provision to reflect its best estimate of an allowed
claim amount.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Class Action Suit in Canada Still Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit filed against Nortel Networks
Corporation in Canada remains stayed, according to the Company's
March 8, 2012, 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.

On June 24, 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Nortel and Nortel Networks Limited in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice in Ottawa, Canada alleging, among other things,
that certain recent changes related to Nortel's pension plan did
not comply with the Pension Benefits Act (Ontario) or common law
notification requirements.  The plaintiffs seek declaratory and
equitable relief, and unspecified monetary damages. As a result of
the Creditor Protection Proceedings, this lawsuit has been stayed.


OAKLAND COUNTY, IL: Sued for Miscoding Sex-Offender Records
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Ashenfelter, writing for Gannett News Service, reports that
a Chicago man filed a federal lawsuit on May 3 against Oakland
County officials, saying they have been miscoding sex-offender
conviction records for at least 10 years, making the least
egregious offenders look like predators.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Jason Zdebski, 35, who said the
practice caused him to be charged criminally with failing to
register as a sex offender in Illinois.  He said the coding also
cost him his job as general manager of a restaurant and caused him
to be publicly branded as a child molester and shunned by his
neighbors.

"This guy's life has been turned upside down because of a
computer-programming error," his lawyer, Jonathan Marko of Royal
Oak, said on May 3.

He said the problem may affect hundreds of other defendants
convicted of the least serious sex offenses.

There was no immediate comment from Oakland County Clerk Bill
Bullard Jr., who was named as a defendant in the suit.  The
Oakland County prosecutor's office, which was named as a defendant
as well, said it is investigating the situation.

Mr. Marko and co-counsel Rachel Wisley said Mr. Zdebski pleaded no
contest in Oakland County Circuit Court in 2003 to exposing
himself to an undercover cop and was sentenced to six months of
probation.

In 2006, he moved to Chicago and, within three days, notified
police about the conviction to find out whether he needed to
register as a sex offender.

After providing police with the details about the conviction, he
was told he didn't need to register, the suit said.

In 2010, federal marshals showed up on his doorstep and arrested
him on a charge of failing to register as a sex offender.

At a court hearing, Mr. Zdebski said, he was shocked when the
prosecutor called him a child molester and asked for a $125,000
bond, which the judge granted.

Mr. Zdebski eventually contacted Mr. Marko, who petitioned Oakland
County Circuit Judge Rae Lee Chabot to correct the problem.

Yet before he got a chance to speak at a hearing on May 3,
Mr. Marko said, a prosecutor acknowledged the problem and Chabot
ordered that the issue be corrected.

After the hearing, Judge Chabot's clerk re-entered the proper
conviction code for Mr. Zdebski.  This time around, Mr. Marko
said, the description that went with the code identified
Mr. Zdebski as someone who had sexual relations with an
incapacitated person.

"We couldn't believe it," said Mr. Marko, who is seeking class-
action status in the suit.

He said he left the courthouse with assurances that the
prosecutor's office would look into the problem and fix it.

"This was a perfect storm of events," Mr. Marko said.  "If the
clerk hadn't re-entered the conviction code while I was standing
there, I'd be getting a call from my client in six months
demanding to know what I had done.

"He's having to pay legal fees in Illinois and Michigan for
something that was never his fault," he said.

Until the problem is corrected, Mr. Zdebski, who now works as a
bartender, can't resolve the failing-to-register charge in
Chicago.

The suit accuses Bullard and Prosecutor Jessica Cooper of
violating Mr. Zdebski's constitutional rights.


PEOPLES BANCORPORATION: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peoples Bancorporation, Inc. entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle a class action lawsuit arising from its
proposed merger with SCBT Financial Corporation, according to the
Company's April 19, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On April 17, 2012, Peoples Bancorporation, Inc., a South Carolina
corporation ("Peoples"), entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") with plaintiffs and other named
defendants regarding the settlement of a putative class action
lawsuit filed in the Court of Common Pleas of South Carolina,
Thirteenth Judicial District, County of Pickens (the "Court"), as
well as the settlement of all related claims that were or could
have been asserted in other actions, in response to the
announcement of the execution of an Agreement and Plan of Merger,
dated as of December 19, 2011 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and
between SCBT Financial Corporation ("SCBT") and Peoples.  Pursuant
to, and subject to the terms and conditions of, the Merger
Agreement, Peoples will merge with and into SCBT, with SCBT as the
surviving entity following the merger (the "Merger").

A purported shareholder of Peoples filed a class action lawsuit in
the Court, captioned F. Davis Arnette and Mary F. Arnette, et al.
v. Peoples Bancorporation, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 2012-CP-
39-0064 (SC Ct. Com. Pl.) (the "Lawsuit").  The Complaint names as
defendants Peoples, the current members of Peoples' board of
directors (the "Director Defendants") and SCBT.

Under the terms of the MOU, SCBT, Peoples, the Director Defendants
and the plaintiffs have agreed to settle the Lawsuit and release
the defendants from all claims relating to the Merger, subject to
approval by the Court.  If the Court approves the settlement
contemplated by the MOU, the Lawsuit will be dismissed with
prejudice.  Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, SCBT and Peoples
have agreed to make available additional information to Peoples
shareholders through the filing of a Form 8-K.  The additional
information is contained in this Current Report on Form 8-K (the
"Current Report") and should be read in conjunction with the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus, which should be read in its entirety.  In
return, the plaintiffs have agreed to the dismissal of the Lawsuit
with prejudice and to withdraw all motions filed in connection
with the Lawsuit.  The parties to the MOU have not had any
discussions regarding potential fees and expenses of the
plaintiffs' attorneys; however, the parties have agreed to engage
in good faith negotiations regarding an award of such fees and
expenses.  The defendants have reserved all rights to oppose the
amount of any petition by the plaintiffs and their attorneys for
an award of fees and expenses in the event that the parties are
unable to reach agreement on such an award.  The parties to the
MOU have agreed that final resolution by the Court of any fee
petition will not be a precondition to the dismissal of the
Lawsuit.  If the MOU is finally approved by the Court, it is
anticipated that the MOU will resolve and release all claims in
all actions that were or could have been brought challenging any
aspect of the Merger, the Merger Agreement and any disclosures
made in connection therewith.  There can be no assurance that the
parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or
that the Court will approve the settlement, even if the parties
were to enter into such stipulation.  In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated.

The settlement will not affect the consideration to be paid to
Peoples shareholders in connection with the Merger or the timing
of the special meeting of Peoples shareholders, which was
scheduled for April 24, 2012, in Easley, South Carolina, to
consider and vote upon a proposal to approve the Merger Agreement,
among other things.

SCBT, Peoples and the Director Defendants deny each of the
allegations in the Lawsuit and believe the prior disclosures in
the Proxy Statement/Prospectus are adequate under applicable law.
Peoples and the Director Defendants have informed SCBT that they
maintain that they have complied with their fiduciary duty and
other applicable legal duties in all respects in connection with
the Merger and any disclosure obligations in connection therewith.
SCBT, Peoples and the Director Defendants have agreed to settle
the Lawsuit in order to avoid costly litigation and reduce the
risk of any delay to the completion of the Merger.  Nothing in
this Current Report or any stipulation of settlement shall be
deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under
applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein or
therein.


RBS CITIZENS: Faces Class Action Over Customer Deposit Errors
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class action claims RBS Citizens bank made millions of dollars by
taking advantage of customers' math errors: keeping for itself
deposits greater than what was written on deposit slips.

Lead plaintiff Todd Bowers Inc., a chiropractic office, sued RBS
Citizens Financial Group, RBS Citizens N.A., and Citizens Bank of
Pennsylvania for unfair trade, breach of contract, unjust
enrichment and conversion.

Mr. Bowers says that in November 2010 it deposited what it
believed to be $1,448.57, but "plaintiff erred in its calculation;
the actual deposit was $1,475.07.  However, Citizens Bank credited
plaintiff $1,448.57 and credited account number 9344820186 with
$26.50. Account 9344820186 is not plaintiff's account.  Citizens
Bank retained these funds, diverted same into the aforesaid
account."

Ms. Bowers adds: "Errors in customer deposits occur daily.
Customers depositing currency, coins and checks are required to
complete a deposit slip detailing the amount of currency, coins,
and individual checks.  Customer calculations and tabulations
frequently are in error, the customer inaccurately adds the items
to be deposited noting a lesser amount to be deposited whereas the
actual amount is greater.

"Customer mathematical errors revealing a greater amount being
deposited than noted in their deposit slip range from $0.01 up to
$50.00 for each deposit.  Customers are given confirming deposit
slips from Citizens Bank reflecting the amount the customer
believed it deposited, which coincides with the customer's deposit
slip.  Upon information and belief, it is Citizens Bank's policy
to discourage branch tellers from adding or calculating the
currency, coins and checks to confirm the amount set forth by the
customer on their deposit slip.

"Deposits by customers into their Citizens Bank account are
retrieved daily from each branch location and delivered to
Citizens Bank's Proof Department, which then adds or calculates
the actual deposit, crediting the customer account accordingly.
Citizens Bank's Proof Department confirms the actual amount
deposited based upon the currency, coin and checks submitted.
When an error is discovered reflecting that the customer notes a
less amount on their deposit slip than actually deposited, the
differential is retained by Citizens Bank and diverted to, upon
information and belie[f], two (2) different noncustomer accounts
maintained and controlled by Citizens Bank.  Upon information and
belief, the number of deposits into the aforementioned accounts
from customer deposit errors (greater amount having been deposited
than the deposit slip tendered by Citizens Bank to the customer
represents hundreds or thousands of deposits over a yet to be
identified period.  . . .

"However, customers are never informed, advised or otherwise
notified by Citizens Bank that their deposit slip contained a
mathematical error, the deposit being less than the actual deposit
submitted, received and accepted by Citizens Bank.  Furthermore,
the account statements remitted by Citizens Bank to each of the
class members reveals and reflects the erroneous mathematical
calculation performed by the customer, the disclosed deposited
[sic] being that of what the customer believed and not the actual
amount having been deposited and known to Citizens Bank within 24
hours of said deposit.

"Citizens Bank affirmatively masks or hides the actual amount
deposited and retains and diverts customer funds into at least two
accounts Citizens Banks maintains and control."

The practices is "misleading, deceptive and fraudulent in that
Citizens Bank is aware of the customer error, retains the
differential and diverts the sum away from the customers account
and into an account maintained and controlled by Citizens Bank,"
the complaint states.

Mr. Bowers claims that "Citizens Bank developed a policy and
employs a practice whereby customer funds are being diverted daily
for the benefit and use by Citizens Bank without the knowledge,
consent or approval of the customer.  Citizens Bank affirmatively
refrains from any notification to the customers of their
mathematical error and retains and diverts funds thereby enabling
Citizens Bank to amass millions of dollars belonging to customers
without accounting for or otherwise explaining the source of the
revenue. Customers of Citizens Bank are unaware of their deposit
slip errors unless the customer photocopied each supporting
deposit and recalculated same subsequent to the deposit.  The
foregoing virtually never occurs and if it does, the deposit may
be off by pennies, leading the customer not to pursue this issue
further."

Mr. Bowers claims that the bank's "Deposit Agreement attempts to
impose an obligation upon customers to verify the accuracy of the
information contained in the statement and if no complaint is
communicated to Citizens Bank within 30 calendar days after
remittance of the statement, Citizens Bank considers the
information contained in the account statement to be correct."

Mr. Bowers seeks restitution, actual damages, punitive damages and
costs.

A copy of the Complaint in Todd L. Bowers, Inc. V. RBS Citizens
Financial Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-03436 (N.D. Ill.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/07/RBSBank.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David C. Thollander, Esq.
          THE THOLLANDER LAW FIRM, LTD.
          1048 Ogden Avenue, Suite 200
          Downers Grove, IL 60515
          Telephone: (630) 971-9195


SUPERVALU INC: Still Defends Class Suit Over C&S Transaction
------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
against SuperValu Inc. alleging that a 2003 transaction between
the Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a
conspiracy to restrain trade and allocate markets.  In the 2003
transaction, the Company purchased certain assets of the Fleming
Corporation as part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy
proceedings and sold certain assets of the Company to C&S which
were located in New England.  Since December 2008, three other
retailers have filed similar complaints in other jurisdictions.
The cases have been consolidated and are proceeding in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota.  The
complaints allege that the conspiracy was concealed and continued
through the use of non-compete and non-solicitation agreements and
the closing down of the distribution facilities that the Company
and C&S purchased from the other.  Plaintiffs are seeking monetary
damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.  The Company is
vigorously defending these lawsuits.  Separately from these civil
lawsuits, on September 14, 2009, the United States Federal Trade
Commission ("FTC") issued a subpoena to the Company requesting
documents related to the C&S transaction as part of the FTC's
investigation into whether the Company and C&S engaged in unfair
methods of competition.  The Company cooperated with the FTC.  On
March 18, 2011, the FTC notified the Company that it has
determined that no additional action is warranted by the FTC and
that it has closed its investigation.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 19, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended February 25, 2012.

The Company says predicting the outcomes of claims and litigation
and estimating related costs and exposures involves substantial
uncertainties that could cause actual outcomes, costs and
exposures to vary materially from current expectations.  The
Company regularly monitors its exposure to the loss contingencies
associated with these matters and may from time to time change its
predictions with respect to outcomes and its estimates with
respect to related costs and exposures.  With respect to the
matter, the Company believes the chance of a negative outcome is
remote.  It is possible, although management believes it is
remote, that material differences in actual outcomes, costs and
exposures relative to current predictions and estimates, or
material changes in such predictions or estimates, could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.


SUPERVALU INC: Wisconsin Suit Still Stayed Pending IOS Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2008, a class action complaint was filed against
SuperValu Inc., as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC
("IOS"), Inmar, Inc., Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc.,
Carolina Coupon Clearing, Inc. and Carolina Services, in the
United States District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
The plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a
grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing services company who
allege on behalf of a purported class that the Company and the
other defendants (i) conspired to restrict the markets for coupon
processing services under the Sherman Act and (ii) were part of an
illegal enterprise to defraud the plaintiffs under the Federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  The
plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive
relief.  The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this
lawsuit; however, all proceedings have been stayed in the case
pending the result of the criminal prosecution of certain former
officers of IOS.

The Company says predicting the outcomes of claims and litigation
and estimating related costs and exposures involves substantial
uncertainties that could cause actual outcomes, costs and
exposures to vary materially from current expectations.  The
Company regularly monitors its exposure to the loss contingencies
associated with these matters and may from time to time change its
predictions with respect to outcomes and its estimates with
respect to related costs and exposures.  With respect to the
matter, the Company believes the chance of a negative outcome is
remote.  It is possible, although management believes it is
remote, that material differences in actual outcomes, costs and
exposures relative to current predictions and estimates, or
material changes in such predictions or estimates, could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 19, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended February 25, 2012.


THOR INDUSTRIES: Enters Into Mediation to Settle Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Thor Industries Inc. and its subsidiaries have participated in
mediation to settle the claims asserted against them in a
multidistrict litigation in Louisiana, according to the Company's
March 8, 2012, 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2012.

Beginning in 2006, a number of lawsuits were filed against
numerous trailer and manufactured housing manufacturers, including
complaints against the Company.  The complaints were filed in
various state and federal courts throughout Louisiana, Alabama,
Texas and Mississippi on behalf of Gulf Coast residents who lived
in travel trailers, park model trailers and manufactured homes
provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency following
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005.  The complaints generally
allege that residents who occupied FEMA supplied emergency housing
units, such as travel trailers, were exposed to formaldehyde
emitted from the trailers.  The plaintiffs allege various injuries
from exposure, including health issues and emotional distress.
Most of the initial cases were filed as class action suits. The
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has the authority to
designate one court to coordinate and consolidate discovery and
pretrial proceedings in a proceeding known as multidistrict
litigation.  The MDL panel transferred the actions to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
because the actions in different jurisdictions involved common
questions of fact.  The MDL Court denied class certification in
December 2008, and consequently, the cases are now being
administered as a mass joinder of claims.  There are approximately
4,100 suits currently pending in the MDL Court.

The number of cases currently pending against the Company is
approximately 500.  Many of these lawsuits involve multiple
plaintiffs, each of whom have brought claims against the Company.
A number of cases against the Company have been dismissed for
various reasons, including duplicative and unmatched lawsuits and
failure of plaintiffs to appear or prosecute their claims. In the
event a case does not settle or is not dismissed during the MDL
proceeding, it is remanded back to the original court for
disposition or trial.  In September 2009, the MDL Court commenced
hearing both bellwether jury trials and bellwether summary jury
trials. The summary jury trial process is an alternative dispute
resolution method which is non-binding and confidential.  The
Company has participated in one confidential summary jury trial.

The Company has filed motions for dismissal with respect to claims
of plaintiffs in cases where the plaintiff failed to comply with
discovery obligations. In the last several months, the MDL Court
has ruled on several motions to dismiss and certain claimants have
had their claims dismissed from the MDL proceeding. In addition,
in December 2011, approximately 400 new claims were filed against
the Company from current and former Mississippi residents. It is
the Company's understanding that the applicable Mississippi
statute of limitations governing such actions expired December 31,
2011.

On December 21, 2011, the MDL Court issued an Order, that among
other matters, mandated certain manufacturing defendants in the
litigation, including the Company and its RV subsidiaries, to
participate in mediation in January 2012.  The Company's Heartland
subsidiary participated in a mediation on January 27, 2012 and
reached an agreement in principle to resolve the pending claims
against it on February 2, 2012.  The other Thor RV subsidiaries
involved in the MDL proceeding collectively participated in a
mediation on January 19, 2012 and during a second mediation
session held on February 10, 2012 reached an agreement in
principle to resolve the litigation.  At this stage of the MDL
proceeding, the terms and conditions of the settlement are
confidential.  The Company has previously accrued $5,000 for
resolution of the litigation and it currently believes that such
accrual is adequate to cover its liabilities resulting from the
litigation.


TICKETMASTER CANADA: Settlement Hearing Set to Begin on June 29
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pollstar reports that a number of class-action suits filed against
Ticketmaster Canada in 2009 could soon be resolved with news of a
tentative settlement agreement.

Pending court approval, the agreement would provide automatic
refunds of $36 per ticket to consumers who purchased through TM's
secondary TicketsNow Web site.

The class sought hundreds of millions of dollars for those who
purchased through the resale site, alleging TM diverted tickets to
popular events away from Ticketmaster Canada in favor of
TicketsNow.

The suits also spurred a probe by the Competition Bureau into TM's
business practices at the time.

The first of several settlement hearings is to begin in Ontario
June 29, with hearings in other provinces to follow.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Wins Dismissal of Most Acceleration Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Bill Callahan and Margaret Cronin Fisk at Bloomberg News report
that Toyota Motor Corp. won dismissal of most claims by Florida
and New York car owners who contended the company drove down the
value of their vehicles by failing to disclose or fix defects
related to sudden acceleration.

Florida plaintiffs can't sue Toyota for economic loss if they
didn't experience an actual "sudden unintended acceleration"
event, said U.S. District Judge James Selna in Santa Ana,
California, making final a tentative ruling from April.  New York
plaintiffs are cut out if they didn't experience such an event or
didn't have a measurable loss when trying to sell or trade in
their vehicles, Judge Selna said.

The May 3 ruling will affect "most economic loss claims" in those
states, said Carl Tobias, law professor at the University of
Richmond in Virginia.  "It might also make assembling a class more
difficult as there would be significantly fewer eligible parties."

The decision may eliminate millions of vehicle owners from the
litigation, lawyers for Tokyo-based Toyota and the plaintiffs said
at an April 23 hearing.  Judge Selna had earlier decided that
California plaintiffs could sue over economic loss even if they
didn't experience an episode of unintended acceleration.  Judge
Selna also ruled in June that vehicle owners in other states
couldn't use California law to pursue their claims.

"We are disappointed that Judge Selna requires class members to
drive ticking time bombs before they can sue," Steve Berman, a
lead lawyer for plaintiffs claiming economic loss, said in an
e-mail on May 3.  "Given the thousands of crashes, hundreds of
deaths, Toyota's inability to fix the cars, we don't believe
courts in New York or Florida would agree.  They have not been
presented with this issue and we intend to present it to the
highest courts of these states."

A Toyota representative had no immediate comment on the May 3
ruling.  The decision doesn't affect claims by plaintiffs in other
states or those alleging personal injuries or deaths caused by
sudden-acceleration episodes.

Judge Selna, who is overseeing most federal sudden-acceleration
claims, has set three trials in 2013 in his court.

The first, set for Feb. 19, 2013, will cover claims by the
families of two people who were killed in a crash in Utah in 2010.
He also scheduled the first trial over claims of economic loss
tied to unintended acceleration for July 2013 and a second
wrongful-death case for November 2013.

Judge Selna said in June that he probably would limit the economic
loss trial to claims from car owners in three states.  Plaintiffs'
lawyers were seeking to include cases from California, New York
and Florida, which, according to arguments before the judge, have
more liberal consumer laws.  The Toyota City, Japan-based
company's lawyers were seeking to include cases from states with
less consumer-friendly laws, such as Georgia, Ohio and Illinois.

Toyota, the world's largest automaker, recalled at least 8 million
U.S. vehicles starting in 2009, after claims of defects and
incidents involving sudden unintended acceleration.  The recalls
set off hundreds of economic-loss suits and claims of injuries and
deaths.

The three cases were selected for bellwether trials, which will be
used by the court and lawyers for both sides to test evidence and
liability theories before moving on to other trials, limiting
future litigation and helping the judge decide whether to grant
the cases class-action status.  Judge Selna has been overseeing
the lawsuits for evidence-gathering and pre-trial rulings.

Toyota lawyer Cari Dawson argued at the April 23 hearing that New
York, Florida and a majority of the states in the U.S. have laws
that require that there be "a manifestation of defects" claimed in
lawsuits.

"Courts have held that being compensated for defects that are not
manifested is speculative, unfair and bad economics," Ms. Dawson
told the judge, who heard oral arguments over his April 20
tentative ruling.  She said that plaintiffs do not have a right to
sue "for a harm that may never occur."

The cases are combined as In re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended
Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability
Litigation, 8:10-ml-02151, U.S. District Court, Central District
of California (Santa Ana).


TRANS1 INC: Faces Securities Class Suit in  North Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------
Trans1 Inc. received a notice on January 24, 2012, that a class
action lawsuit had been filed in the U.S. District Court Eastern
District, North Carolina, on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons other than the defendants who purchased TranS1 securities
between February 21, 2008 and October 17, 2011, the Company
disclosed in its March 15, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2011.

The Company is in the process of responding to the lawsuit.  It is
unable to predict what impact, if any, the outcome of the matter
might have on its consolidated financial position, results of
operations, or cash flows.

Trans1, Inc. is a medical device company focused on designing,
developing and marketing products that implements its proprietary
approaches to treat degenerative conditions of the spine affecting
the lower lumbar region.


TRAVELERS COS: Antitrust Suit Settlement Receives Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted
final approval of the settlement of a consolidated antitrust
litigation against insurance brokers and insurers, including The
Travelers Companies, Inc., the Company disclosed in its April 19,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

In 2005, four putative class action lawsuits were brought against
a number of insurance brokers and insurers, including the Company,
by plaintiffs who allegedly purchased insurance products through
one or more of the defendant brokers.  The plaintiffs alleged that
various insurance brokers conspired with each other and with
various insurers, including the Company, to artificially inflate
premiums, allocate brokerage customers and rig bids for insurance
products offered to those customers.  To the extent they were not
originally filed there, the federal class actions were transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and were
consolidated for pre-trial proceedings with other class actions
under the caption In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation.
On August 1, 2005, various plaintiffs, including the four named
plaintiffs in the class actions, filed an amended consolidated
class action complaint naming various brokers and insurers,
including the Company, on behalf of a putative nationwide class of
policyholders.  The complaint included causes of action under the
Sherman Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO), state common law and the laws of the various states
prohibiting antitrust violations.  The complaint sought monetary
damages, including punitive damages and trebled damages, permanent
injunctive relief, restitution, including disgorgement of profits,
interest and costs, including attorneys' fees.

All defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state
a claim.  After giving plaintiffs multiple opportunities to
replead, the court dismissed the Sherman Act claims on August 31,
2007, and the RICO claims on September 28, 2007, both with
prejudice, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
the state law claims.  The plaintiffs appealed the district
court's decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.  On August 16, 2010, the Third Circuit affirmed the
district court's dismissal of all Sherman Act and RICO claims
against certain defendants, including the Company, except for
Sherman Act and RICO claims involving the sale of excess casualty
insurance through a single defendant broker, as well as all state
law claims, which they remanded to the district court for further
proceedings.  On October 1, 2010, defendants, including the
Company, filed renewed motions to dismiss the remanded claims.  On
March 18, 2011, the Company and certain other defendants entered
into an agreement with the plaintiffs to settle the lawsuit, under
which the Company agreed to pay $6.75 million.  Preliminary
approval of the settlement was granted on June 27, 2011.  On
September 14, 2011, the court conducted a final fairness hearing,
and on March 30, 2012, the court granted final approval of the
settlement.


TRAVELERS COS: Appeal From "Safeco" Suit Deal Approval Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the approval of a settlement of a class action
lawsuit, in which a subsidiary of The Travelers Companies, Inc. is
a class member, remains pending, according to the Company's April
19, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

The Travelers Indemnity Company is one of the Settlement Class
plaintiffs and a class member in a class action lawsuit captioned
Safeco Insurance Company of America, et al. v. American
International Group, Inc. et al. (U.S. District Court, N.D. Ill.)
in which the defendants are alleged to have engaged in the under-
reporting of workers' compensation premium in connection with a
workers' compensation reinsurance pool in which several
subsidiaries of the Company participate.  On July 26, 2011, the
court granted preliminary approval of a class settlement pursuant
to which the defendants agreed to pay $450 million to the class.
The settlement includes a plan of allocation of the settlement
proceeds among the class members.  On December 21, 2011, the court
entered an order granting final approval of the settlement, and on
February 28, 2012, the district court issued a written opinion
regarding its approval of the settlement.  Three parties who
objected to the settlement have appealed the court's orders
approving the settlement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit.

The Company anticipates that its allocation from the settlement
fund, in the event the court's approval of the class settlement is
affirmed, will be approximately $90 million.  This amount is
treated for accounting purposes as a gain contingency in
accordance with FASB Topic 450, Contingencies, and accordingly,
has not been recognized in the Company's consolidated financial
statements.


TRAVELERS COS: March 1 Order in Asbestos-Related Suits Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed a March 1, 2012 court decision finding that
conditions to settlements in asbestos-related lawsuits had not
been met, according to The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s April 19,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action
lawsuits (Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed
against Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC) and other insurers
(not including The St. Paul Companies, Inc. (SPC)) in state court
in West Virginia.  These and other cases subsequently filed in
West Virginia were consolidated into a single proceeding in the
Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia.  The plaintiffs
allege that the insurer defendants engaged in unfair trade
practices in violation of state statutes by inappropriately
handling and settling asbestos claims.  The plaintiffs seek to
reopen large numbers of settled asbestos claims and to impose
liability for damages, including punitive damages, directly on
insurers.  Similar lawsuits alleging inappropriate handling and
settling of asbestos claims were filed in Massachusetts and Hawaii
state courts.  These lawsuits are collectively referred to as the
Statutory and Hawaii Actions.

In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions
pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state
court amended their complaint to include TPC as a defendant,
alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged duties to
certain users of asbestos products.  The plaintiffs seek damages,
including punitive damages.  Lawsuits seeking similar relief and
raising similar allegations, primarily violations of purported
common law duties to third parties, have also been asserted in
various state courts against TPC and SPC.  The claims asserted in
these lawsuits are collectively referred to as the Common Law
Claims.

The federal bankruptcy court that had presided over the bankruptcy
of TPC's former policyholder, Johns-Manville Corporation, issued a
temporary injunction prohibiting the prosecution of the Statutory
Actions (but not the Hawaii Actions), the Common Law Claims and an
additional set of cases filed in various state courts in Texas and
Ohio, and enjoining certain attorneys from filing any further
lawsuits against TPC based on similar allegations.
Notwithstanding the injunction, additional common law claims were
filed against TPC.

In November 2003, the parties reached a settlement of the
Statutory and Hawaii Actions.  This settlement includes a lump-sum
payment of up to $412 million by TPC, subject to a number of
significant contingencies.  In May 2004, the parties reached a
settlement resolving substantially all pending and similar future
Common Law Claims against TPC.  This settlement requires a payment
of up to $90 million by TPC, subject to a number of significant
contingencies.  Among the contingencies for each of these
settlements is a final order of the bankruptcy court clarifying
that all of these claims, and similar future asbestos-related
claims against TPC, are barred by prior orders entered by the
bankruptcy court ("the 1986 Orders").

On August 17, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered an order
approving the settlements and clarifying that the 1986 Orders
barred the pending Statutory and Hawaii Actions and substantially
all Common Law Claims pending against TPC ("the Clarifying
Order").  The Clarifying Order also applies to similar direct
action claims that may be filed in the future.

On March 29, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York substantially affirmed the Clarifying Order
while vacating that portion of the order that required all future
direct actions against TPC to first be approved by the bankruptcy
court before proceeding in state or federal court.

Various parties appealed the district court's March 29, 2006
ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  On
February 15, 2008, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating
on jurisdictional grounds the District Court's approval of the
Clarifying Order.  On February 29, 2008, TPC and certain other
parties to the appeals filed petitions for rehearing and/or
rehearing en banc, requesting reinstatement of the district
court's judgment, which were denied.  TPC and certain other
parties filed Petitions for Writ of Certiorari in the United
States Supreme Court seeking review of the Second Circuit's
decision, and on December 12, 2008, the Petitions were granted.

On June 18, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of TPC,
reversing the Second Circuit's February 15, 2008 decision,
finding, among other things, that the 1986 Orders are final and
generally bar the Statutory and Hawaii actions and substantially
all Common Law Claims against TPC.  Further, the Supreme Court
ruled that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to issue the
Clarifying Order.  However, since the Second Circuit had not ruled
on certain additional issues, principally related to procedural
matters and the adequacy of notice provided to certain parties,
the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Second Circuit for
further proceedings on those specific issues.  On October 21,
2009, all but one of the objectors to the Clarifying Order
requested that the Second Circuit dismiss their appeal of the
order approving the settlement, and that request was granted.

On March 22, 2010, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in which
it found that the notice of the 1986 Orders provided to the
remaining objector was insufficient to bar contribution claims by
that objector against TPC.  On April 5, 2010, TPC filed a Petition
for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc with the Second Circuit,
requesting further review of its March 22, 2010 opinion, which was
denied on May 25, 2010.  On August 18, 2010, TPC filed a Petition
for Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court seeking
review of the Second Circuit's March 22, 2010 opinion, and a
Petition for a Writ of Mandamus seeking an order from the Supreme
Court requiring the Second Circuit to comply with the Supreme
Court's June 18, 2009 ruling in TPC's favor.  The Supreme Court
denied the Petitions on November 29, 2010.

The plaintiffs in the Statutory and Hawaii actions and the Common
Law Claims actions filed Motions to Compel with the bankruptcy
court on September 2, 2010, and September 3, 2010, respectively,
arguing that all conditions precedent to the settlements have been
met and seeking to require TPC to pay the settlement amounts.  On
September 30, 2010, TPC filed an Opposition to the plaintiffs'
Motions to Compel on the grounds that the conditions precedent to
the settlements, principally the requirement that all contribution
claims be barred, have not been met in light of the Second
Circuit's March 22, 2010 opinion.  On December 16, 2010, the
bankruptcy court granted the plaintiffs' motions and ruled that
TPC was required to fund the settlements.  On
January 20, 2011, the bankruptcy court entered judgment in
accordance with its December 16, 2010 ruling and ordered TPC to
pay the settlement amounts plus prejudgment interest.  On
January 21, 2011, TPC filed an appeal with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York from the bankruptcy court's
January 20, 2011 judgment.  On January 24, 2011, certain of the
plaintiffs in the Common Law Claims actions appealed that portion
of the bankruptcy court's January 20, 2011 judgment that denied
their request for an order of contempt and for sanctions.

On March 1, 2012, the district court ruled in TPC's favor and
reversed the bankruptcy court, finding that the conditions to the
settlements had not been met, and that TPC is not obligated to pay
the settlement amounts.  The district court also upheld the
bankruptcy court's order denying the plaintiffs' motion for an
order of contempt and for sanctions.  The district court further
ruled that, since TPC is not obligated to go forward with the
settlements, it was unnecessary to address the issue of pre-
judgment interest.  The plaintiffs have appealed the district
court's March 1, 2012 decision to the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals.

SPC, which is not covered by the Manville bankruptcy court rulings
or the settlements, is a party to pending direct action cases in
Texas state court asserting common law claims.  All such cases
that are still pending and in which SPC has been served are
currently on the inactive docket in Texas state court.  If any of
those cases becomes active, SPC intends to litigate those cases
vigorously.  SPC was previously a defendant in similar direct
actions in Ohio state court.  Those actions have all been
dismissed following favorable rulings by Ohio trial and appellate
courts.  From time to time, SPC and/or its subsidiaries have been
named in individual direct actions in other jurisdictions.

Currently, the Company says it is not possible to predict legal
outcomes and their impact on the future development of claims and
litigation relating to asbestos and environmental claims.  Any
such development will be affected by future court decisions and
interpretations, as well as changes in applicable legislation.
Because of these uncertainties, additional liabilities may arise
for amounts in excess of the Company's current reserves.  In
addition, the Company's estimate of ultimate claims and claim
adjustment expenses may change.  These additional liabilities or
increases in estimates, or a range of either, cannot now be
reasonably estimated and could result in income statement charges
that could be material to the Company's results of operations in
future periods.


UNITED STATES: Black Farmers Have Until Tomorrow to File Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Bassing, writing for Reuters, reports that after decades of
discrimination and years of legal wrangling, black American
farmers are rushing to beat a May 11 deadline to file racial
discrimination claims against the U.S. Department of Agriculture
over its lending practices.

Many of them missed an earlier deadline to file claims for part of
what has become a $1.25 billion settlement resulting from a 2008
federal farm bill and subsequent congressional action.

For those filing claims to shares of the settlement fund before
the new May 11 deadline "as many as 40,000 farmers and their
heirs" there is a sense of relief, if not of justice.

"Justice is a very personal thing," said the farmers' co-lead
counsel, Gregorio Francis of Florida-based Morgan & Morgan PA.

"Many of these farmers lost their land and their livelihoods.
With the settlement, there seems to be a sense that finally
there's at least an acknowledgement of what was done.  In that
sense, there's gratitude.  Is there justice? I don't know."

The Department of Agriculture has conceded that some of its local
offices engaged in persistent, racially discriminatory denial of
farm loans and other financial aid, mainly in the South, and
roughly tracing the contours of the so-called Black Belt, named
not for its large African-American population but for its rich,
ebony soil.

"Ninety percent (of the claimants) are in the South, in
Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, North and South Carolina, and in
Georgia," Mr. Francis said.

The $1.25 billion settlement received final approval in October
2011 after years of litigation in which black farmers accused the
Department of Agriculture of ignoring their complaints about
discriminatory lending practices throughout the 1980s and 1990s.

The department is relieved to put the case to rest.

"Agriculture Secretary (Tom) Vilsack has made it a priority to
resolve all claims of discrimination against the department," said
USDA spokesman Justin DeJong.  "The closing of this claims process
marks another milestone in (the department's) efforts to correct
the wrongs of the past."

It is also aimed at ending the legal skirmish, which dates to 1997
when a black North Carolina farmer named Timothy Pigford sued then
Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, accusing the department of
racial discrimination in its lending practices.

That litigation and a related class-action suit were settled in
1999.  But tens of thousands of black farmers who similarly
alleged discrimination missed a subsequent deadline to file claims
for redress.

Among those filing in the run-up to the deadline was Mississippi
state Representative Tyrone Ellis, a former House speaker who lost
his dairy farm outside Starkville to bankruptcy in 1983, several
years after he first took office.

"I first applied for a $250,000 loan (through the department) in
1978," Mr. Ellis said.  "I only received $125,000.  My second loan
request also was for $250,000, in 1981.  I was denied altogether.
I was told to 'make do with what I have.'

"With $125,000, we knew it was only a matter of time until we'd be
in trouble.  When you're undercapitalized going in, you have just
enough to hang yourself."

When his fears played out and he was forced into bankruptcy, he
said, "I just thought, 'Come and shoot me now.'"

Adjudicating the claims will take months and no payments will be
paid until all claims are decided.

Mr. Ellis figures his farm's bankruptcy cost him "in excess of
$500,000."  Worse still, he said, "I lost my livelihood."

Mr. Ellis now augments his statehouse income through real estate
and other ventures.  His claim against the Department of
Agriculture is for $50,000, the maximum allowed in the claims tier
he has filed under.  It is a sum he described as "symbolic."

The reality, he said, is that "if I were to receive $500,000, it
wouldn't be enough."

Pauline Haynes filed a claim last week on behalf of her mother, a
North Carolina farmer who died in January 2003, having been denied
an operating loan.

"They gave her no explanation, none at all," Ms. Haynes said.  "We
had a mule pulling a plow and we could see the white farmers on
their new tractors.  It was heartbreaking."

She shares Mr. Ellis's sense of resignation.  "If (the claim) is
denied," she said quietly, "it won't be nothing we had anyhow."


WELLS REAL: Units Still Defend Securities Suit in Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------
Wells Real Estate Fund IX, L.P. related in its March 15, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011, that its affiliates
continue to defend themselves against a securities class action
complaint in Maryland.

On March 12, 2007, a stockholder of Piedmont Office Realty Trust,
Inc. (Piedmont REIT) filed a putative class action and derivative
complaint, presently styled In re Wells Real Estate Investment
Trust, Inc. Securities Litigation, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland against, among others, Piedmont REIT; Leo
F. Wells, III, one of the Company's General Partners; Wells
Capital Inc., the corporate general partner of Wells Partners
L.P., its other General Partner; Wells Management Company Inc.,
its property manager; certain affiliates of Wells Real Estate
Funds, Inc. (WREF); the directors of Piedmont REIT; and certain
individuals who formerly served as officers or directors of
Piedmont REIT prior to the closing of the internalization
transaction on April 16, 2007.

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

The complaint sought, among other things, unspecified monetary
damages and nullification of the Piedmont REIT internalization
transaction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


WPCS INT'L: Expects Lawsuit Over Multiband Deal to be Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
WPCS International Incorporated anticipates a class action
complaint over its acquisition deal with Multiband Corporation
will be dismissed as the transaction has been aborted, according
to the Company's March 15, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January
31, 2012.

On or about June 22, 2011, a purported shareholder of the Company
filed a derivative and putative class action lawsuit in the Court
of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania, Chester County against the
Company and its directors, by filing a Summons and Complaint.  The
case is Ralph Rapozo v. WPCS International Incorporated, et al.,
Docket No. 11-06837.  In this action, the plaintiff seeks to
enjoin the proposed transaction in which Multiband Corporation
would acquire all of the outstanding shares of the Company.  The
plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the consideration to
be paid for such acquisition by Multiband is inadequate, and that
the individual board members failed to engage in an honest and
fair sales process for the Company and failed to disclose material
information for the purposes of advancing their own interests over
those of the Company and its shareholders.  To that end, the
plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the
Company's board of directors.  In the event that the proposed
transaction is consummated, the plaintiff seeks money damages.
The plaintiff also asserts a claim against the Company and
Multiband for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty for
which he seeks unspecified money damages.  WPCS' time to answer or
move with respect to the Complaint has not yet expired.  The
Company and its directors deny the material allegations of the
complaint and intend to vigorously defend the action if necessary;
however, as Multiband has announced that it is no longer pursuing
the acquisition of WPCS, the Company anticipates that the lawsuit
will be dismissed.

WPCS International Incorporated -- http://www.wpcs.com/--
provides design-build engineering services for communications
infrastructure. The company operates in three segments: Electrical
Power, Wireless Communication, and Specialty Construction. The
Company was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Exton,
Pennsylvania.

                           *********

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  * * *