CAR_Public/120523.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, May 23, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 101

                             Headlines

ALTRIA GROUP: Got Favorable Judgment in "Smith" Suit in March
ALTRIA GROUP: June 18 Hearing Set in "Scott" Suit Over Prof. Fees
ALTRIA GROUP: "George I" Class Suit Dismissed in March
ALTRIA GROUP: Still Defends 19 "Lights/Ultra Lights" Suits
ALTRIA GROUP: Trial in "Brown" Class Suit Set for October 5

ALTRIA GROUP: Two Medical Monitoring Suits vs. Unit Pending
AOL INC: Rosenfarb Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Action
ARGENTINA: Repsol Sues Over Broken Compensation Promises
ARIZONA: Gov. Inks Agreement With "Arnold" Suit Plaintiffs
AUSTRALIA: Queensland May Face Class Action Over Marine Parks

AUSTRALIA: Lists Contingency Item for Export Ban Suit
BEST BUY: Sued for False Advertising on Geek Squad Black Tie Plan
BRISTOL-MYERS: AWP Suit Trial in Mississippi Set for Mid-2013
BRISTOL-MYERS: Faces Class Suit Over ABILIFY* Co-Pay Program
BROWN COUNTY: 7th Circuit Divided Over Class-of-One Claims

CAMELOT INFORMATION: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suits
CHARLES SCHWAB: To Hold Off Enforcement of Class Action Waivers
CHINA SUNERGY: Consolidated IPO-Related Class Suit Concluded
CITIBANK: Nichols Kaster Files Class Action Over Flood Insurance
CMS ENERGY: Appeals in Gas Index Price Reporting Cases Pending

COINSTAR INC: "DiSimone/Sinibaldi" Suit Dismissal Appeal Pending
COINSTAR INC: Briefing on Cert. Bid Ongoing in "Piechur" Suit
COINSTAR INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Illinois
COINSTAR INC: Final Hearing on Securities Suit Deal on August 10
COLGATE PALMOLIVE: Still in Discussions to Settle ERISA Suit

DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE: Defends Consolidated Antitrust Suit in Mich.
DEX ONE: Awaits Final OK of Securities Suit v. Ex-Officers Deal
DEX ONE: Expects Final Approval of ERISA Suit Deal in 2Q of 2012
FACEBOOK INC: Users File Consolidated Privacy Class Action
INTELLICORP RECORDS: Sued Over Outdated Info Given to Employers

L'OREAL: Faces Class Actions Over Garnier Product
LIVE NATION: Class Action Settlement Agreement Nears
LLOYDS TSB: Accused of Deceiving Dual Currency Loan Borrowers
MAKO SURGICAL: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action
MORROW, GA: Drivers Sue Over Bogus Traffic Court Fees

NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT: Two Townships File Class Action
NEVSUN RESOURCES: Securities Class Action Filed in Ontario Court
PERFORMING HIGH: Southside High Band Parents Mull Class Action
RIDGEWOOD WATER: Faces Class Action Over Rate Increases
TOMMY BAHAMA: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik Files Class Action

VIVENDI SA: Investors File $818-Million Class Action
XILINX INC: Sued by Employees for Unpaid Overtime Work


                          *********

ALTRIA GROUP: Got Favorable Judgment in "Smith" Suit in March
-------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. and other defendants' motions for summary
judgment in a lawsuit pending in Kansas was granted in March,
according to the Company's April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

As of April 23, 2012, one case remains pending in Kansas (Smith)
in which plaintiffs allege that defendants, including Altria
Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"),
conspired to fix cigarette prices in violation of antitrust laws.
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification has been granted.  On
March 26, 2012, the trial court granted defendants' motions for
summary judgment.


ALTRIA GROUP: June 18 Hearing Set in "Scott" Suit Over Prof. Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing is scheduled for June 18, 2012, regarding the amount of
fees that plaintiffs' counsel are entitled to collect in the
"Scott" class action lawsuit, according to Altria Group, Inc.'s
April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

In July 2003, following the first phase of the trial in the
"Scott" class action, in which plaintiffs sought creation of a
fund to pay for medical monitoring and smoking cessation programs,
a Louisiana jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants,
including Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"), in connection with
plaintiffs' medical monitoring claims, but also found that
plaintiffs could benefit from smoking cessation assistance.  The
jury also found that cigarettes as designed are not defective but
that the defendants failed to disclose all they knew about smoking
and diseases and marketed their products to minors.  In May 2004,
in the second phase of the trial, the jury awarded plaintiffs
approximately $590 million against all defendants jointly and
severally, to fund a 10-year smoking cessation program.
Defendants appealed.

In April 2010, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal issued
a decision that affirmed in part prior decisions ordering the
defendants to fund a statewide 10-year smoking cessation program.
After conducting its own independent review of the record, the
Court of Appeal made its own factual findings with respect to
liability and the amount owed, lowering the amount of the judgment
to approximately $241 million, plus interest commencing July 21,
2008, the date of entry of the amended judgment.  In addition, the
Court of Appeal declined plaintiffs' cross appeal requests for a
medical monitoring program and reinstatement of other components
of the smoking cessation program.  The Court of Appeal
specifically reserved to the defendants the right to assert claims
to any unspent or unused surplus funds at the termination of the
smoking cessation program.  In June 2010, defendants and
plaintiffs filed separate writ of certiorari applications with the
Louisiana Supreme Court.  The Louisiana Supreme Court denied both
sides' applications.  In September 2010, upon defendants'
application, the United States Supreme Court granted a stay of the
judgment pending the defendants' filing and the Court's
disposition of the defendants' petition for a writ of certiorari.
In June 2011, the United States Supreme Court denied the
defendants' petition.  In the second quarter of 2011, PM USA
recorded a provision on its condensed consolidated balance sheet
of approximately $36 million related to the judgment and
approximately $5 million related to interest, which was in
addition to a previously recorded provision of approximately $30
million.

In August 2011, PM USA paid its share of the judgment and interest
in an amount of approximately $70 million.  The defendants'
payments have been deposited into a court-supervised fund that is
intended to pay for smoking cessation programs.  In October 2011,
plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion for an award of attorneys' fees
and costs.  Plaintiffs' counsel seek additional fees from
defendants ranging from approximately $96 million to $673 million.
Additionally, plaintiffs' counsel request an award of
approximately $13 million in costs.

As of March 31, 2012, PM USA had a provision on its condensed
consolidated balance sheet of approximately $1.3 million for
costs, but is opposing plaintiffs' counsel's request for
additional costs and for fees.  On March 6, 2012, the trial court
denied defendants' motion challenging plaintiffs' counsel request
that defendants pay their attorneys' fees directly, as opposed to
out of the court-supervised fund.  Defendants have applied for a
supervisory writ challenging the decision to the Louisiana Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeal.  In the meantime, a hearing is scheduled
in the trial court for June 18, 2012, regarding the amount of fees
that plaintiffs' counsel are entitled to collect, regardless of
the source of funds.


ALTRIA GROUP: "George I" Class Suit Dismissed in March
------------------------------------------------------
One of the class action lawsuits relating to Kraft Foods Global,
Inc. Thrift Plan was administratively dismissed in March 2012,
according to Altria Group, Inc.'s April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2012.

Four participants in the Kraft Foods Global, Inc. Thrift Plan
("Kraft Thrift Plan"), a defined contribution plan, filed a class
action complaint (George II) on behalf of all participants and
beneficiaries of the Kraft Thrift Plan in July 2008 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
alleging breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act ("ERISA").  Named defendants in this action
include Altria Corporate Services, Inc. (now Altria Client
Services Inc.) and certain company committees that allegedly had a
relationship to the Kraft Thrift Plan.  Plaintiffs request, among
other remedies, that defendants restore to the Kraft Thrift Plan
all losses improperly incurred.

In December 2009, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint.  In addition
to dismissing certain claims made by plaintiffs for equitable
relief under ERISA as to all defendants, the court dismissed
claims alleging excessive administrative fees and mismanagement of
company stock funds as to one of the Altria Group, Inc.
defendants.  In February 2010, the court granted a joint
stipulation dismissing the fee and stock fund claims without
prejudice as to the remaining defendants, including Altria Client
Services Inc.  Accordingly, the only claim remaining at this time
in George II relates to the alleged negligence of plan fiduciaries
for including the Growth Equity Fund and Balanced Fund as Kraft
Thrift Plan investment options.  Plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification in March 2010, which the court granted in
August 2010.  Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment in
January 2011, and plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment.  In March 2011, defendants filed a motion to vacate the
class certification in light of recent federal judicial precedent.
In July 2011, the court granted defendants' summary judgment
motion in part, finding that claims for periods prior to July 2,
2002, were time barred, and that the defendants properly monitored
the funds.  The court also denied plaintiffs' motion for partial
summary judgment.  Remaining in the case are claims after July 2,
2002, relating to whether it was prudent to retain actively
managed investments (Growth Equity Fund and Balanced Fund) in the
Kraft Thrift Plan after 1999.  In July 2011, the court also
granted defendants' motion to vacate the class certification, and
allowed plaintiffs leave to file a new motion for class
certification in light of recent precedent and the court's summary
judgment findings.  Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class is
pending before the court.

In August 2011, Altria Client Services Inc. and a company
committee that allegedly had a relationship to the Kraft Thrift
Plan were added as defendants in another class action previously
brought by the same plaintiffs in 2006 (George I), in which
plaintiffs allege defendants breached their fiduciary duties under
ERISA by offering company stock funds in a unitized format and by
allegedly overpaying for recordkeeping services.

The parties have reached a proposed class-wide settlement.  On
March 5, 2012, the court administratively dismissed the lawsuit.
The proposed settlement, which does not require any payment by the
Altria Group, Inc. defendants, is subject to court approval, which
is pending.  Under the terms of a Distribution Agreement between
Altria Group, Inc. and Kraft Foods Inc., the Altria Group, Inc.
defendants may be entitled to indemnity against any liabilities
incurred in connection with these cases.


ALTRIA GROUP: Still Defends 19 "Lights/Ultra Lights" Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries continue to defend 19
lawsuits alleging that the use of the terms "Lights" and "Ultra
Lights" constitute deceptive and unfair trade practices, according
to the Company's April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2012.

Plaintiffs in certain pending matters seek certification of their
cases as class actions and allege, among other things, that the
uses of the terms "Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute
deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law fraud, or the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO")
violations, and seek injunctive and equitable relief, including
restitution and, in certain cases, punitive damages.  These class
actions have been brought against Altria Group, Inc.'s subsidiary
Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") and, in certain instances, the
Company or its subsidiaries, on behalf of individuals who
purchased and consumed various brands of cigarettes, including
Marlboro Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights, Virginia Slims Lights and
Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge Lights.  Defenses raised in
these cases include lack of misrepresentation, lack of causation,
injury and damages, the statute of limitations, non-liability
under state statutory provisions exempting conduct that complies
with federal regulatory directives, and the First Amendment.  As
of April 23, 2012, a total of eighteen such cases were pending in
the United States.  Four of these cases were pending in a
multidistrict litigation proceeding in a single U.S. federal
court.  The other cases were pending in various U.S. state courts.
In addition, a purported "Lights" class action is pending against
PM USA in Israel.

In the one "Lights" case pending in Israel (El-Roy), hearings on
plaintiffs' motion for class certification were held in November
and December 2008, and an additional hearing on class
certification was held in November 2011.

                          The Good Case

In May 2006, a federal trial court in Maine granted PM USA's
motion for summary judgment in Good, a purported "Lights" class
action, on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims are preempted by
the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act ("FCLAA") and
dismissed the case.  In August 2007, the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the district court's grant
of PM USA's motion for summary judgment on federal preemption
grounds and remanded the case to district court.  The district
court stayed the case pending the United States Supreme Court's
ruling on defendants' petition for writ of certiorari, which was
granted in January 2008.  The case was stayed pending the United
States Supreme Court's decision.  In December 2008, the United
States Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs' claims are not barred
by federal preemption.  Although the Court rejected the argument
that the FTC's actions were so extensive with respect to the
descriptors that the state law claims were barred as a matter of
federal law, the Court's decision was limited: it did not address
the ultimate merits of plaintiffs' claim, the viability of the
action as a class action, or other state law issues.  The case was
returned to the federal court in Maine and consolidated with other
federal cases in the multidistrict litigation proceeding.  In June
2011, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case without
prejudice after the district court denied plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

                Federal Multidistrict Proceeding

Since the December 2008 United States Supreme Court decision in
Good, and through April 23, 2012, twenty-four purported "Lights"
class actions were served upon PM USA and, in certain cases,
Altria Group, Inc.  These cases were filed in 14 states, the U.S.
Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia.  All of these cases
either were filed in federal court or were removed to federal
court by PM USA.

A number of purported "Lights" class actions were transferred and
consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPMDL") before the United States District Court for the District
of Maine for pretrial proceedings ("MDL proceeding").  These
cases, and the states in which each originated, included: Biundo
(Illinois), Cabbat (Hawaii), Calistro (U.S. Virgin Islands), Corse
(Tennessee), Domaingue (New York), Good (Maine), Haubrich
(Pennsylvania), McClure (Tennessee), Mirick (Mississippi), Mulford
(New Mexico), Parsons (District of Columbia), Phillips (Ohio),
Slater (District of Columbia), Tang (New York), Tyrer
(California), Williams (Arkansas) and Wyatt (Wisconsin).

In November 2010, the district court in the MDL proceeding denied
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in four cases, covering
the jurisdictions of California, the District of Columbia,
Illinois and Maine.  These jurisdictions were selected by the
parties as sample cases, with two selected by plaintiffs and two
selected by defendants.  Plaintiffs sought appellate review of
this decision but, in February 2011, the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition for
leave to appeal.  In June 2011, plaintiffs in twelve cases
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice their cases, and in August
2011, plaintiff in McClure voluntarily dismissed the case without
prejudice.  In December 2011, the district court approved the
request of the plaintiffs in the remaining four cases (Phillips,
Tang, Wyatt and Cabbat) to recommend to the JPMDL that their cases
be transferred back to the federal district courts in which the
lawsuits originated.  On April 16, 2012, the JPMDL remanded the
four cases to those originating courts.

                    "Lights" Cases Dismissed,
              Not Certified or Ordered De-Certified

To date, in addition to the district court in the MDL proceeding,
14 courts in 15 "Lights" cases have refused to certify class
actions, dismissed class action allegations, reversed prior class
certification decisions or have entered judgment in favor of PM
USA.

Trial courts in Arizona, Illinois, Kansas, New Jersey, New Mexico,
Oregon, Tennessee and Washington have refused to grant class
certification or have dismissed plaintiffs' class action
allegations.  Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a case in Michigan
after a trial court dismissed the claims plaintiffs asserted under
the Michigan Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection Act.

Several appellate courts have issued rulings that either affirmed
rulings in favor of Altria Group, Inc. and/or PM USA or reversed
rulings entered in favor of plaintiffs.  In Florida, an
intermediate appellate court overturned an order by a trial court
that granted class certification in Hines.  The Florida Supreme
Court denied review in January 2008.  The Supreme Court of
Illinois has overturned a judgment that awarded damages to a
certified class in the Price case.  In Louisiana, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed a
purported "Lights" class action brought in Louisiana federal court
(Sullivan) on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims were preempted
by the FCLAA.  In New York, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit overturned a decision by a New York trial court
in Schwab that denied defendants' summary judgment motions and
granted plaintiffs' motion for certification of a nationwide class
of all United States residents that purchased cigarettes in the
United States that were labeled "Light" or "Lights."  In July
2010, plaintiffs in Schwab voluntarily dismissed the case with
prejudice.  In Ohio, the Ohio Supreme Court overturned class
certifications in the Marrone and Phillips cases.  Plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice both cases in August 2009.
The Supreme Court of Washington denied a motion for interlocutory
review filed by the plaintiffs in the Davies case that sought
review of an order by the trial court that refused to certify a
class.  Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed the Davies
case with prejudice.

In Oregon (Pearson), a state court denied plaintiff's motion for
interlocutory review of the trial court's refusal to certify a
class.  In February 2007, PM USA filed a motion for summary
judgment based on federal preemption and the Oregon statutory
exemption.  In September 2007, the district court granted PM USA's
motion based on express preemption under the FCLAA, and plaintiffs
appealed this dismissal and the class certification denial to the
Oregon Court of Appeals.  Argument was held in April 2010.

                       Other Developments

In December 2009, the state trial court in the Carroll (formerly
known as Holmes) case (pending in Delaware), denied PM USA's
motion for summary judgment based on an exemption provision in the
Delaware Consumer Fraud Act.  In January 2011, the trial court
allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint substituting
class representatives and naming Altria Group, Inc. and Philip
Morris International Inc. ("PMI") as additional defendants.  In
July 2011, the parties stipulated to the dismissal without
prejudice of Altria Group, Inc. and PMI.  The stipulation is
signed by the parties but not yet approved by the trial court.

In June 2007, the United States Supreme Court reversed the lower
court rulings in the Miner (formerly known as Watson) case that
denied plaintiffs' motion to have the case heard in a state, as
opposed to federal, trial court.  The Supreme Court rejected
defendants' contention that the case must be tried in federal
court under the "federal officer" statute.  The case was removed
to federal court in Arkansas and the case was transferred to the
MDL proceeding.  In November 2010, the district court in the MDL
proceeding remanded the case to Arkansas state court.  In December
2011, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against
Altria Group, Inc. without prejudice.

                         The Price Case

Trial in the Price case commenced in state court in Illinois in
January 2003, and in March 2003, the judge found in favor of the
plaintiff class and awarded $7.1 billion in compensatory damages
and $3 billion in punitive damages against PM USA.  In December
2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the trial court's
judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. In November 2006, the United
States Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition for writ of
certiorari and, in December 2006, the Circuit Court of Madison
County enforced the Illinois Supreme Court's mandate and dismissed
the case with prejudice.

In December 2008, plaintiffs filed with the trial court a petition
for relief from the final judgment that was entered in favor of PM
USA.  Specifically, plaintiffs sought to vacate the judgment
entered by the trial court on remand from the 2005 Illinois
Supreme Court decision overturning the verdict on the ground that
the United States Supreme Court's December 2008 decision in Good
demonstrated that the Illinois Supreme Court's decision was
"inaccurate."  PM USA filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
petition and, in February 2009, the trial court granted PM USA's
motion on the basis that the petition was not timely filed.  In
March 2009, the Price plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
Fifth Judicial District of the Appellate Court of Illinois.  In
February 2011, the intermediate appellate court ruled that the
petition was timely filed and reversed the trial court's dismissal
of the plaintiffs' petition and, in September 2011, the Illinois
Supreme Court declined PM USA's petition for review.  As a result,
the case has returned to the trial court for proceedings on
whether the court should grant the plaintiffs' petition to reopen
the prior judgment.  On February 15, 2012, plaintiffs filed an
amended petition, which PM USA opposes.  A hearing on PM USA's
opposition to plaintiffs' amended petition is scheduled for May
22, 2012.

In June 2009, the plaintiff in an individual smoker lawsuit
(Kelly) brought on behalf of an alleged smoker of "Lights"
cigarettes in Madison County, Illinois state court filed a motion
seeking a declaration that his claims under the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act are not (1) barred by the exemption in that statute
based on his assertion that the Illinois Supreme Court's decision
in Price is no longer good law in light of the decisions by the
United States Supreme Court in Good and Watson, and (2) preempted
in light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Good.
In September 2009, the court granted plaintiff's motion as to
federal preemption, but denied it with respect to the state
statutory exemption.

             State Trial Court Class Certifications

State trial courts have certified classes against PM USA in
Massachusetts (Aspinall), Minnesota (Curtis), Missouri (Larsen)
and New Hampshire (Lawrence).  Significant developments in these
cases include:

   * Aspinall: In August 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court affirmed the class certification order.  In August 2006, the
trial court denied PM USA's motion for summary judgment and
granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the defenses of
federal preemption and a state law exemption to Massachusetts'
consumer protection statute.  On motion of the parties, the trial
court subsequently reported its decision to deny summary judgment
to the appeals court for review and stayed further proceedings
pending completion of the appellate review.  In December 2008,
subsequent to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Good,
the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an order
requesting that the parties advise the court within 30 days
whether the Good decision is dispositive of federal preemption
issues pending on appeal.  In January 2009, PM USA notified the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that Good is dispositive of
the federal preemption issues on appeal, but requested further
briefing on the state law statutory exemption issue.  In March
2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order
denying summary judgment to PM USA and granting the plaintiffs'
cross-motion.  In January 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial
summary judgment as to liability claiming collateral estoppel from
the findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice.  On
March 13, 2012, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion.

   * Curtis: In April 2005, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied PM
USA's petition for interlocutory review of the trial court's class
certification order.  In October 2009, the trial court denied
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, filed in February
2009, claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the case
brought by the Department of Justice.  In October 2009, the trial
court granted PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment as to
all consumer protection counts and, in December 2009, dismissed
the case in its entirety.  In December 2010, the Minnesota Court
of Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal of the case and
affirmed the trial court's prior certification of the class under
Minnesota's consumer protection statutes.  The Court of Appeals
also affirmed the trial court's denial of the plaintiffs' motion
for partial summary judgment claiming collateral estoppel from the
findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice.  PM
USA's petition for review with the Minnesota Supreme Court was
granted in March 2011.  Argument on the petition was heard in
September 2011.

   * Larsen: In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed
the class certification order.  In December 2009, the trial court
denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the period during
which potential class members can qualify to become part of the
class.  The class period remains 1995 - 2003.  In June 2010, PM
USA's motion for partial summary judgment regarding plaintiffs'
request for punitive damages was denied.  In April 2010,
plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to an element of
liability in the case, claiming collateral estoppel from the
findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice.  The
plaintiffs' motion was denied in December 2010. In June 2011, PM
USA filed various summary judgment motions challenging the
plaintiffs' claims.  In August 2011, the trial court granted PM
USA's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that plaintiffs
could not present a damages claim based on allegations that
Marlboro Lights are more dangerous than Marlboro Reds.  The trial
court denied PM USA's remaining summary judgment motions.  Trial
in the case began in September 2011 and, in October 2011 the court
declared a mistrial after the jury failed to reach a verdict.  The
court has scheduled a new trial to begin on January 21, 2013.

   * Lawrence: In November 2010, the trial court certified a class
consisting of all persons who purchased Marlboro Lights cigarettes
in the state of New Hampshire at any time from the date the brand
was introduced into commerce until the date trial in the case
begins.  PM USA's motion for reconsideration of this decision was
denied in January 2011.  In September 2011, the New Hampshire
Supreme Court accepted review of the class certification decision.
Argument is scheduled for June 7, 2012.


ALTRIA GROUP: Trial in "Brown" Class Suit Set for October 5
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action lawsuit alleging violations of the
California Business and Professions Code is currently scheduled
for October 5, 2012, Altria Group, Inc. disclosed in its
April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

In June 1997, a lawsuit (Brown) was filed in California state
court alleging that domestic cigarette manufacturers, including
Company subsidiary Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") and others,
have violated California Business and Professions Code Sections
17200 and 17500 regarding unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business
practices.  Class certification was granted as to plaintiffs'
claims that class members are entitled to reimbursement of the
costs of cigarettes purchased during the class periods and
injunctive relief.  In September 2004, the trial court granted
defendants' motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs' claims
attacking defendants' cigarette advertising and promotion and
denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs'
claims based on allegedly false affirmative statements.  In March
2005, the court granted defendants' motion to decertify the class
based on a California law, which inter alia limits the ability to
bring a lawsuit to only those plaintiffs who have "suffered injury
in fact" and "lost money or property" as a result of defendants'
alleged statutory violations ("Proposition 64").

In September 2006, an intermediate appellate court affirmed the
trial court's order decertifying the class.  In May 2009, the
California Supreme Court reversed the trial court decision that
was affirmed by the appellate court and remanded the case to the
trial court.  In March 2010, the trial court granted
reconsideration of its September 2004 order granting partial
summary judgment to defendants with respect to plaintiffs'
"Lights" claims on the basis of judicial decisions issued since
its order was issued, including the United States Supreme Court's
ruling in Good, thereby reinstating plaintiffs' "Lights" claims.
Since the trial court's prior ruling decertifying the class was
reversed on appeal by the California Supreme Court, the parties
and the court are treating all claims currently being asserted by
the plaintiffs as certified, subject, however, to defendants'
challenge to the class representatives' standing to assert their
claims.  The class is defined as people who, at the time they were
residents of California, smoked in California one or more
cigarettes between June 10, 1993, and April 23, 2001, and who were
exposed to defendants' marketing and advertising activities in
California.

In July 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking collateral
estoppel effect from the findings in the case brought by the
Department of Justice.  In September 2010, plaintiffs filed a
motion for preliminary resolution of legal issues regarding
restitutionary relief.  The trial court denied both of plaintiffs'
motions in November 2010.  In November 2010, defendants filed a
motion seeking a determination that Brown class members who were
also part of the class in Daniels (a previously disclosed consumer
fraud case in which the California Supreme Court affirmed summary
judgment in PM USA's favor based on preemption and First Amendment
grounds) are precluded by the Daniels judgment from recovering in
Brown.  This motion was denied in December 2010.  Defendants
sought review of this decision before the Fourth District Court of
Appeal but were denied review in March 2011.

In January 2012, defendants filed motions for a determination that
the class representatives lack standing and are not typical or
adequate to represent the class and to decertify the class.
Argument was scheduled for May 2, 2012.  Trial is currently
scheduled for October 5, 2012.


ALTRIA GROUP: Two Medical Monitoring Suits vs. Unit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Two medical monitoring class action lawsuits against Altria Group,
Inc.'s subsidiary, Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"), remain
pending, according to the Company's April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012.

Two cases were brought in New York (Caronia, filed in January 2006
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York) and Massachusetts (Donovan, filed in December 2006 in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts) on behalf of each state's respective residents who:
are age 50 or older; have smoked the Marlboro brand for 20 pack-
years or more; and have neither been diagnosed with lung cancer
nor are under investigation by a physician for suspected lung
cancer.  Plaintiffs in these cases seek to impose liability under
various product-based causes of action and the creation of a
court-supervised program providing members of the purported class
Low Dose CT Scanning in order to identify and diagnose lung
cancer.  Plaintiffs in these cases do not seek punitive damages.
A case brought in California (Xavier) was dismissed in July 2011,
and a case brought in Florida (Gargano) was voluntarily dismissed
with prejudice in August 2011.

In Caronia, in February 2010, the district court granted in part
PM USA's summary judgment motion, dismissing plaintiffs' strict
liability and negligence claims and certain other claims, granted
plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to allege a medical
monitoring cause of action and requested further briefing on PM
USA's summary judgment motion as to plaintiffs' implied warranty
claim and, if plaintiffs amend their complaint, their medical
monitoring claim.  In March 2010, plaintiffs filed their amended
complaint and PM USA moved to dismiss the implied warranty and
medical monitoring claims.  In January 2011, the district court
granted PM USA's motion, dismissed plaintiffs' claims and declared
plaintiffs' motion for class certification moot in light of the
dismissal of the case.  The plaintiffs have appealed that decision
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Argument before the Second Circuit was heard on
March 1, 2012.

In Donovan, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in
answering questions certified to it by the district court, held in
October 2009 that under certain circumstances state law recognizes
a claim by individual smokers for medical monitoring despite the
absence of an actual injury.  The court also ruled that whether or
not the case is barred by the applicable statute of limitations is
a factual issue to be determined by the trial court.  The case was
remanded to federal court for further proceedings.  In June 2010,
the district court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, certifying the class as to plaintiffs' claims
for breach of implied warranty and violation of the Massachusetts
Consumer Protection Act, but denying certification as to
plaintiffs' negligence claim.  In July 2010, PM USA petitioned the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for appellate
review of the class certification decision.  The petition was
denied in September 2010.  As a remedy, plaintiffs have proposed a
28-year medical monitoring program with an approximate cost of
$190 million.  In April 2011, plaintiffs moved to amend their
class certification to extend the cut-off date for individuals to
satisfy the class membership criteria from December 14, 2006, to
August 1, 2011.  The district court granted this motion in May
2011.  In June 2011, plaintiffs filed various motions for summary
judgment and to strike affirmative defenses.  In October 2011, PM
USA filed a motion for class decertification, which motion was
denied on March 21, 2012.  A trial date has not been set.

The Company says evolving medical standards and practices could
have an impact on the defense of medical monitoring claims.  For
example, the first publication of the findings of the National
Cancer Institute's National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) in June
2011 reported a 20% reduction in lung cancer deaths among certain
long term smokers receiving Low Dose CT Scanning for lung cancer.
Since then, various public health organizations have begun to
develop new lung cancer screening guidelines.  Also, a number of
hospitals have advertised the availability of screening programs.
Other studies in this area are ongoing.


AOL INC: Rosenfarb Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
On May 3, 2012, the Rosenfarb Law Firm filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of
New York, on behalf of all persons who sold shares of AOL, Inc.
between August 11, 2011 and April 9, 2012, inclusive, against the
Company and certain of the Company's officers and directors,
alleging securities fraud pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. Sec. 78j(b) and 78t(a)] and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the SEC [17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5].

The case is styled Rosenfarb v. AOL, Inc. et al. (No. 12-CV-3497-
DLC).  In addition to the Company, the Complaint names AOL
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Tim Armstrong, and AOL Chief
Financial Officer and President of AOL Services Arthur T. Minson
as defendants.  A copy of the Complaint filed in this action is
available from the Court or can be viewed at:

   http://rosenfarblawfirm.com/uploads/AOL_Complaint.pdf

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements during the Class Period that omitted or
failed to disclose that, at the relevant times: a) Defendants had
committed to a plan to sell AOL's valuable patent portfolio; b)
Defendants had initiated an active program to locate a buyer for
the patent portfolio; c) Defendants were actively marketing the
patent portfolio; and, d) as a result, Defendants maintained an
artificially low price for AOL's securities throughout the Class
Period and understated AOL's liquidity and future prospects.  The
Complaint further alleges that the Company substantially
benefitted from concealing material positive information from the
market, allowing the Company to buy its stock through a
repurchasing program at artificially deflated prices during the
Class Period.

On April 9, 2012, the Company issued a press release announcing
the $1.056 billion sale of its patent portfolio to Microsoft.
When the truth of the Company's materially false and misleading
statements was revealed to the market, the Company's stock price
rose dramatically.  The Company's shares soared from $18.42 per
share to $26.40 per share, or more than 43% from the closing price
on the prior trading day, on very high trading volume of almost 26
million shares.

In ignorance of the false and misleading nature of the statements
described in the Complaint, and the alleged deceptive and
manipulative devices and contrivances employed by Defendants,
plaintiff and the other members of the Class relied, to their
detriment, on the integrity of the market price of AOL securities.
Had plaintiff and the other members of the Class known the truth,
plaintiff alleges they would not have sold their AOL securities,
or would not have sold such securities at the deflated prices that
were paid.

If you sold AOL securities during the Class Period, you may
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff by no later
than 60 days from publication of this Notice.  A lead plaintiff is
a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the
class member will adequately represent the class.  Under certain
circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as
"lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not,
however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a
lead plaintiff. You may retain the Rosenfarb Law Firm, or other
counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions, please
contact Rosenfarb Law Firm at 825 Third Avenue, New York, New York
10022, by telephone at (855) 415-5455 (Ronald G. Rosenfarb, Esq.),
via e-mail at ronald.rosenfarb@rosenfarblawfirm.com or visit our
Web site at http://www.rosenfarblawfirm.com

All e-mail correspondence should make reference to AOL.


ARGENTINA: Repsol Sues Over Broken Compensation Promises
--------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that Spanish oil
giant Repsol YPF and other investors claim in a federal class
action that Argentina nationalized their stake in the formerly
state-owned energy company YPF and broke its compensation
promises.

"In order to induce U.S. and other investors to purchase shares in
the formerly state-owned enterprise, Argentina committed to
shareholders that it would not retake control of the company
without offering all investors a compensated exit," shareholders
claim in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  "Indeed, the new provisions prohibited Argentina from ever
again exercising control over YPF, even if it had sufficient
shares to do so, unless it launched a tender offer for all class D
shares -- the shares it was taking public -- at a price determined
according to those provisions.  These promises have been repeated
in numerous prospectuses and periodic reports filed with the SEC
in the years since the IPO [initial public offering], each of
which Argentina approved and ratified in its commercial capacities
as a shareholder of YPF and through its designated board
representative."

Lead plaintiffs are oil and gas company Repsol YPF, which held a
majority stake in Argentina's YPF, and Texas-based money manager
Texas Yale Capital.

They claim that Argentina made more than $1.1 billion through an
SEC-registered initial public offering of American Depositary
Receipts (ADRs) listed on the New York Stock Exchange, and then
reneged on its promise to make shareholders a tender offer when
seizing control of the company.

"This class action arises from an effort by the Republic of
Argentina ('Argentina') to walk away from the contractual
obligations that it undertook when it chose to enter the United
States to raise capital through the initial public offering of its
formerly state-owned oil company, YPF, S.A. ('YPF' or the
'company')," the complaint states.  "To induce investors to
purchase shares in that former state enterprise, Argentina
undertook the contractual obligation to launch a tender offer to
all holders of class D shares of YPF if it should ever in the
future seek to retake control of the company.  But now,
culminating a wide-ranging offensive against YPF that has nearly
halved the stock market value of the company in a matter of
months, Argentina has seized control of YPF's operations,
appointed an 'intervenor' conferred with all the powers of the
company's board and president, and enacted legislation seizing by
fiat a majority of YPF's shares, all without launching any tender
offer."

YPF was an exclusively state-owned, monopolist oil and gas company
until the early 1990s, when Argentina privatized it.  Argentina
took the company public in 1993, but stayed on as a shareholder
and continued to participate in its management, according to the
complaint.

"In the context of this privatization and with an eye to an
eventual public offering of YPF, Argentina in its commercial
capacity as sole and controlling shareholder adopted certain
provisions in YPF's by-laws designed to induce investors to
purchase the company's shares by committing to investors that they
would be provided a compensated exit in the event Argentina were
to have a change of heart and choose to retake control of YPF,"
according to the complaint.

Argentina allegedly adopted the by-laws to assuage shareholders'
fears that they may end up holding equity in a state-controlled
company, which would operate not for their benefit, but as an arm
of the Argentine government.

"Underscoring Argentina's self-imposed prohibition on a
reacquisition of control without a tender offer, Section 28
expressly prohibits Argentina from exercising control over the
company -- even if it had sufficient shares to do so -- unless and
until a tender offer has been made," the complaint states.
"Absent a tender offer, any shares of stock or securities acquired
by Argentina in violation of its contractual tender offer
obligation are automatically stripped of any right to vote, to
collect dividends or other distributions, or even to be counted
towards a quorum of shareholders."

But Argentina failed to honor its tender offer obligation, the
shareholders say.

Argentine lawmakers announced on April 16 their intention to
expropriate Repsol's YPF shares, which represented 51 percent of
the class D shares, without compensation, arguing that the Spanish
investor had allowed oil production and exploration to decline.

Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner signed the
expropriation into law earlier this month, according to the
complaint.

Earlier this year, Argentina "launched an aggressive and wide-
ranging offensive against YPF and its shareholders," which cut the
price of YPF shares nearly in half, the shareholders claim.

YPF shares have fallen 50 percent in the past five months, and
another 26 percent after the New York Stock Exchange suspended
trading of YPF's ADRs because of the expropriation legislation.

Repsol and Texas Yale seek class certification and compensatory
damages for breach of contract and bad faith.  They want Argentina
to launch a tender offer.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Carroll, Esq.
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 450-4547
          E-mail: michael.carroll@davispolk.com


ARIZONA: Gov. Inks Agreement With "Arnold" Suit Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Verbrigghe, writing for Phoenix Business Journal, reports
that after decades of deliberation, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer
signed a two-year agreement on May 17 with plaintiffs on the
Arnold vs. Sarn class action suit, which outlines reforms and
allocates $39 million in funding to community-based mental health
services, pending court approval.

The class action lawsuit was initiated in 1981 when a group sought
judgment against the Arizona Department of Health Services, the
Arizona state hospital and Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.
The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants did not uphold state
law by failing to create a comprehensive system of community-based
mental health care.

The enforcement of previous court decisions on the case were
suspended two years ago, when parties entered into a stay
agreement because of budget cuts.  As a result, many mental health
services were cut.

"When we entered into the stay agreement . . . we did so with the
Governor's commitment and assurance that when the economic
situation improved, she would do the best she could to restore the
services and benefits that have been lost," plaintiff's attorney
Ann Ronan said.  "In this legislative session she has made good on
that promise."

If approved by the court, this agreement will still not completely
resolve the suit.

"The agreement is for two years, during which time the parties
have committed to working together to build upon the agreed
framework to establish criteria to eventually resolve the case,"
Gov. Brewer said.

Before approval, the court will have an open hearing for members
of the class action suit and the community at large to give input
on the terms of the agreement.

Plaintiff Charles "Chick" Arnold thinks it likely that the
agreement will be approved.

"After deliberation and hearing that evidence, the court will make
the determination as to whether this agreement is consistent with
the best interests of the class members," Mr. Arnold explained.
"I believe it is, and therefore would suspect that the court will
approve the agreement."

Gov. Brewer said the agreement is a step toward a final
resolution.

"Though it still needs to be approved by the court, the agreement
redefines the requirements that must be met to satisfy this case
and it provides the specific services and support for its class
members," Gov. Brewer said.  "In addition, it establishes a
framework for a permanent resolution of this case."

The agreement provides a specific outline of services to be
provided including crisis services, supported employment, a
community treatment team, family support, supported housing and
medication services.

Gov. Brewer said the two-year time frame will allow time to
measure the impact of the Affordable Care Act, and determine how
that could affect the resolution.

The agreement also provides for an external review process to be
done by an independent entity.

"That's a part that our system has lost over the past couple of
years," Mr. Arnold said.  "External objectivity, I think, is
critical to the success of the agreement."


AUSTRALIA: Queensland May Face Class Action Over Marine Parks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Novak, writing for Adelaide Now, reports that commercial
fishers have engaged lawyers to explore legal action against the
State Government over planned marine parks on their industry.

Rock lobster and abalone fishers are among those who have engaged
law firm Slater & Gordon to assess the strength of their case.

The Government is planning 19 marine parks off the state's coast,
which will include "no-take" zones where fishing will be banned.

It has promised compensation for licensed commercial fishers who
suffer a reduced catch as a result of the "no-take" zones and has
committed to buy out any commercial fishing operations "displaced"
by the zoning.

However, fishers also want damages for others in the supply chain
who are not covered by the compensation, such as processors,
exporters and transporters.

It is estimated the claim could be worth AUD500 million.

The Queensland Government has paid up to AUD300 million to
businesses affected by marine parks off that state's coast.

A spokesman for Slater & Gordon confirmed the firm was "in talks
with a representative of several South Australian commercial
fishing associations whose members are concerned about the
potential for proposed marine parks to impact on their
livelihoods".

SA Rock Lobster Advisory Council executive officer Justin Phillips
said the potential legal action was "about protecting an industry
based in regional South Australia which produces a valuable and
renewable food source".

"Compensation being offered by the Government looks at impacts on
the holder of a commercial license," he said.

Opposition environment spokesman Steven Marshall said the
commercial fishing sector had "no confidence" the Government would
deliver adequate compensation.

Environment Minister Paul Caica said there had been "speculation
that some groups may be considering legal action".

"However, the Government has not been presented with any
information to support these claims," he said.

Andrew Ferguson employs 22 people at the rock lobster processing
plant he runs in Regency Park.

He said the "no-take" zones would leave his business with "less
lobsters to process and earn a living from".  "It's a very
unsettling experience (with the) constant uncertainty and the
threat of closed fishing grounds," he said.


AUSTRALIA: Lists Contingency Item for Export Ban Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Colin Bettles, writing for Stock & Land, reports that the Federal
Budget has listed a contingency item for potential multi-million
dollar compensation payments for financial damages caused by the
Labor government's suspension of the live cattle export trade to
Indonesia in June 2011.

The ban came after the ABC Four Corners program broadcast on
May 30 last year.

But in folding to the demands of animal welfare groups to ban the
trade immediately, amid an ALP back-bench revolt, the Gillard
government exposed local industry to crippling flow-on impacts
which caused hundreds of job losses in Australia and far more in
Indonesia.

Australia's key trading partner has also cut its cattle import
permit quotas by 50 per cent in retaliation to the ban.

Federal Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig declined to elaborate on
the potential compensation payments coming from the two separate
legal actions listed in the budget papers.

Both were listed under the heading "Contingent Liabilities -
Unquantifiable" in the Statement of Risks section in the budget.

Responding to questions about the potential claims and legal
action, a spokesperson for the Minister said it would be
inappropriate to comment on any matters that may be subject to
action before the courts.

The budget papers said the Australian government may become liable
for compensation following the decision by the Minister for
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to suspend the export of
livestock to Indonesia for one month last year.

The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has also
received a claim under the Scheme for Compensation for Detriment
caused by Defective Administration (CDDA) from a law firm on
behalf of three clients.

A class action is being handled by law firm Minter Ellison on
behalf of 21 individual producers and live exporters.

Andrew Gill of Minter Ellison declined to comment on the amount
his clients were claiming.

It's understood the firm is attempting to negotiate privately with
the federal government and the department to progress the claims,
as a priority action.


BEST BUY: Sued for False Advertising on Geek Squad Black Tie Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Wanless, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Best Buy Company, Inc., and Does 1 through 20,
inclusive, Case No. 3:12-cv-02561 (N.D. Calif., May 17, 2012)
accuses Best Buy of falsely advertising and misrepresenting that
under its mobile phone service protection plan, also known as the
Geek Squad Black Tie Protection Plan, customers would be provided
a new phone if their existing mobile phone suffered irreparable
damage, from among other things, accidental damage.

In violation of federal and state law, Best Buy unlawfully
concealed and failed to disclose prior to or at the time of the
sale of Mobile Phone Plan, that in fact, when purchasers of the
Plan brought their damaged mobile phones to Best Buy and needed a
replacement, they would never get a new phone and, at most, would
be provided a "refurbished" phone, Ms. Wanless alleges.  She
asserts that this action is brought for actual damages, equitable
relief and such other relief as appropriate on behalf of similarly
situated individuals and entities who purchased the Best Buy
Mobile Phone Plan.

Ms. Wanless is a resident of Sacramento County, California.

Best Buy is a Minnesota corporation with over 4,100 stores
throughout the country.  Best Buy operates as a retailer of
consumer electronics, home office products, entertainment
products, appliances, and related services primarily in the United
States, Europe, Canada and China.  The Plaintiff is currently
unaware of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey W. Lawrence, Esq.
          THE LAWRENCE LAW FIRM
          201 Sansome Street, Suite 1001
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Facsimile: (415) 454-2348
          E-mail: jeffreyl@jlawrencelaw.com

               - and -

          Azra Z. Mehdi, Esq.
          THE MEHDI FIRM
          One Market, Spear Tower, Suite 3600
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 293-8039
          Facsimile: (415) 293-8001
          E-mail: Azram@themehdifirm.com


BRISTOL-MYERS: AWP Suit Trial in Mississippi Set for Mid-2013
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is currently scheduled to proceed to
trial in Mississippi in mid-2013 with respect to lawsuits over
inflated average wholesale prices, according to the Company's
April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

The Company, together with a number of other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, has been a defendant in a number of private class
actions as well as lawsuits brought by the attorneys general of
various states.  In these actions, plaintiffs allege that
defendants caused the Average Wholesale Prices (AWPs) of their
products to be inflated, thereby injuring government programs,
entities and persons who reimbursed prescription drugs based on
AWPs.  The Company is a defendant in four state attorneys general
lawsuits pending in state courts around the country.  Beginning in
August 2010, the Company was the defendant in a trial in the
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth Court), brought
by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  In September 2010, the jury
issued a verdict for the Company, finding that the Company was not
liable for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation; however, the
Commonwealth Court judge issued a decision on a Pennsylvania
consumer protection claim that did not go to the jury, finding the
Company liable for $28 million and enjoining the Company from
contributing to the provision of inflated AWPs.  The Company has
moved to vacate the decision and the Commonwealth has moved for a
judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the Commonwealth Court
denied.  The Company and the Commonwealth have appealed the
decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.  The Company is
currently scheduled to proceed to trial in Mississippi in mid-
2013.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Faces Class Suit Over ABILIFY* Co-Pay Program
------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is facing a class action lawsuit
challenging its ABILIFY* co-pay assistance program, according to
the Company's April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

In March 2012, the Company and its partner, Otsuka Pharmaceutical
Co., Ltd., were named as co-defendants in a private class action
lawsuit filed by union health and welfare funds in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY).
Plaintiffs are challenging the legality of the ABILIFY* co-pay
assistance program under the Federal Antitrust and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations laws, and seeking damages.

The Company has a worldwide commercialization agreement with
Otsuka to codevelop and copromote ABILIFY* for the treatment of
schizophrenia, bipolar mania disorder and major depressive
disorder.

The Company says it is not possible at this time to reasonably
assess the outcome of this litigation or its potential impact on
the Company.


BROWN COUNTY: 7th Circuit Divided Over Class-of-One Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Celentino at Courthouse News Service reports that in an
exceedingly rare five-to-five split, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit divided over the appropriate
standards for class-of-one Equal Protection claims against law
enforcement personnel.

Under circuit rules, when the full court, reviewing a case en
banc, divides evenly, the lower court decision is affirmed.  In an
even rarer occurrence -- judges normally do not release opinions
for evenly divided decisions -- the judges issued no less than 73
pages explaining their holdings.

"The law concerning 'class-of-one' equal-protection claims is in
flux, and other courts faced with these cases may find the
discussion in the three opinions in this case helpful," the judges
wrote per curium.

Class-of-one claims contend that an individual has been denied
equal protection under the law, though not as a result of group
affiliations such as gender, race, religion, or sexual
orientation.  The Supreme Court has approved class-of-one claims
but has largely declined to define the pleading requirements.

In the case at hand, Judges Michael Kanne, Diane Sykes, and John
Tinder joined an opinion, penned by Judge Richard Posner,
affirming the lower court's ruling.  Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook
wrote a concurring opinion, agreeing with the result.

On the other side, Judges Joel Flaum, Ilana Rovner, Ann Claire
Williams, and David Hamilton joined Judge Diane Wood's opinion.
The result, somewhat counter-intuitively, was a plurality by the
dissent.  Because no side commanded a majority, however, none of
the opinions represent binding circuit precedent.

The case stems from an Equal Protection lawsuit filed by a
Wisconsin man, Lewis Del Marcelle, who claimed police
discriminated against him by failing to respond to his complaints
of harassment by a local biker gang.  According to Mr. Del
Marcelle, explosive devices were placed next to his home, his car
and property were damaged, and he received threatening phone calls
from members of the gang.  His wife was so distressed by the
incident that she allegedly attempted suicide.

Not only were Mr. Del Marcelle's pleas for help ignored, but
officers issued citations to Mr. Del Marcelle in response to
competing complaints by the bikers, telling Mr. Del Marcelle that
he was crazy.

But Mr. Del Marcelle's plight was mostly lost amid the
constitutional questions that dominated the completing court
opinions.

Judge Posner's opinion, which could be loosely described as the
lead opinion, suggested more stringent standards for class-of-one
claims against state actors.

"This opinion, expressing the views of four judges, proposes a
simple standard: that the plaintiff be required to show that he
was the victim of discrimination intentionally visited on him by
state actors who knew or should have known that they had no
justification, based on their public duties, for singling him out
for unfavorable treatment-who acted in other words for personal
reasons, with discriminatory intent and effect."

The judges warned of the damages of authorizing suits such as
Mr. Del Marcelle's.

"We believe that class-of-one suits should not be permitted
against police officers or police departments, complaining about
failure to investigate a complaint of otherwise provide police
protection to a particular individual, unless the police, acting
from personal motives, with no justification based on their public
duties, intend to disfavor the plaintiff.  Such suits, unless
exceptional in the way just indicated, are neither necessary to
prevent serious injustices nor manageable; they are not compelled
by the equal protection clause or the case law interpreting it;
they fill no yawning gap in the legal protection of Americans,"
Judge Posner wrote.

The vast discretion afforded to law enforcement officers, the
judges wrote, largely shields them from liability.

Judge Posner offered an example, "Suppose a police car is lurking
on the shoulder of a highway in a 45 m.p.h. zone, a car streaks by
at 65 m.p.h., and the police do nothing.  Two minutes later a car
streaks by at 60 m.p.h. and the police give that driver a ticket.
Can the second driver complain of a denial of equal protection if
the police cannot come up with a rational explanation for why they
ticketed him even though he wasn't driving as fast as the first
driver?"

The arbitrary or discretionary variance of enforcement between
cases should not be grounds for an equal protection claim, the
judges concluded, absent particular discriminatory intent.

"The plaintiff must plead and prove both the absence of a rational
basis for the defendant's action and some improper personal motive
(which need not be hostility, but could be, for example,
corruption) for the differential treatment."

In a concurring opinion, Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook advocated
the exclusive use of rational-basis review for class-of-one
claims.

"Judge Posner (for four judges) and Judge Wood (for five) offer
slightly different understandings of the role motive or intent
should play in such suits. I think that is has no role at all," he
began.

"What's more, I do not think that the class-of-one theory itself
has any role to play.  No public employee attacked or injured
Mr. Del Marcelle.  His losses stem from private aggression by the
bikers, which public officials failed to prevent.  Inability of
the police to show a rational basis for each decision about who is
arrested or ticketed (compared with persons not arrested or
ticketed) should not expose them to damages."

Judge Easterbrook also raised the issue of legal standing as
potentially preclusive of many class-of-one suits, writing "Del
Marcelle thus needs to show how he was injured by what the
defendants did to him, rather than but what they didn't do to
other people or what they didn't do for him."

Finally, Judge Easterbrook questioned whether law enforcement
decisions could ever be the subject of class-of-one suits.

"Discretionary decisions in law enforcement are not amendable to
class-of-one analysis . . . A contrary conclusion would
effectively constitutionalize the Administrative Procedure Act and
open all public officials' decisions to judicial review to
determine whether they are arbitrary or capricious," he cautioned.

The five dissenting judges agreed that Mr. Del Marcelle's
complaint was defective, but argued that he should be allowed to
refile.

Judge Wood's opinion advocated a different standard for evaluating
class-of-one claims which lacked the discriminatory intent
standard advocated by the lead judges.

"In our view a plaintiff seeking to present a class-of-one case
must include in his or her complaint plausible allegations about
the following elements: (1) plaintiff was the victim of
intentional discrimination, (2) at the hands of a state actor, (3)
the state actor lacked a rational basis for so singling out the
plaintiff, and (4) the plaintiff has been injured by the
intentionally discriminatory treatment."

Judge Wood continued, "The other factors that have crept their way
into our class-of-one cases -- personal animus, illegitimate
motives, inexplicable deviations from clear rules -- are not
primary rules."

Referring to the lead opinion, Judge Wood cautioned, "In our view,
it will be a difficult [standard] for the district courts to
follow. It is all too easy for a plaintiff to accuse someone of a
malicious notice and thus to impose on the entire system the
burden of going forward.  The standard we favor, the one in this
opinion, would be easier for the district courts to apply at the
pleading stage because it does not require mind-reading."

"Finally, we are deeply concerned that Judge Posner's opinion
might be read as endorsing a new type of rational-basis test that
the Supreme Court has never created-some kind of 'rational-basis
minus' level of review.  We hope this is not the case, but it
seems that he is concerned that too many class-of-one cases will
slip by the normal rational-basis screen."

Both groups of judges expressed regret that the issue had not been
definitely resolved.

"We had hoped to make some sense of all of this, but regrettably,
that proved to be impossible.  At most, perhaps, the differences
among us narrowed slightly as a result of this litigation, but
ultimate resolution will have to await another day," Judge Wood
wrote.

Mr. Del Marcelle had originally argued his case pro se, but was
represented by Thomas Shriner, Jr. of Foley & Lardner LLP for the
en banc review, at the judges' request.

A copy of the ruling in Del Marcelle v. Brown County Corp., et
al., Case No. 10-3426 (7th Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/I91FF1C7.pdf

The Plaintiff-Appellant was represented by:

          Thomas Shriner, Jr., Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          777 East Wisconsin Avenue
          Milwaukee, WI 53202-5306
          Telephone: (414) 297-5601
          E-mail: tshriner@foley.com


CAMELOT INFORMATION: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Camelot Information Systems Inc. continues to defend securities
class action lawsuits pending in New York, according to the
Company's April 26, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

Several securities class action lawsuits have been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's American Depositary Share
between July 21, 2010, and August 17, 2011 (the "Class Period"),
including those who acquired the Company's ADSs pursuant to or
traceable to its registration statements and prospectuses issued
in connection with its initial public offering on July 21, 2010,
and its secondary public offering on December 10, 2010
("Offerings").  The complaint charges the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and the underwriters involved in its
Offerings with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint alleges that
during the Class Period, the Company issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding its business practices and
financial results.  The deadline of making motions for lead
plaintiff was March 5, 2012, and as of April 26, 2012, no lead
plaintiff has been appointed, to the best of the Company's
knowledge.

The Company believes the complaints that have been made aware of
are lack of any merit; however, the confidence of the Company's
current or potential investors as well as its business reputation
may be adversely affected.  Further, the Company cannot assure
that there are not any similar allegations against it in the
future.  Should the Company receive any unfavorable judgment
against it out of these allegations, its results of operations and
financial condition could be materially and adversely affected and
its business reputation may also be damaged.


CHARLES SCHWAB: To Hold Off Enforcement of Class Action Waivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Barlyn, writing for Reuters, reports that Charles Schwab
Corp. plans to wait until the end of a disciplinary proceeding
before enforcing a change in its customer agreement requiring
investors to give up class action rights, a spokeswoman said on
May 17.

The San Francisco-based brokerage was named in a disciplinary
proceeding by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority in
February for adding a provision to its customer agreements that
precludes starting or joining class action lawsuits against the
brokerage.

But the brokerage has not tried to enforce the provision and "does
not have plans to enforce the waiver until the FINRA matter is
resolved," Charles Schwab spokeswoman Sarah Bulgatz said via
e-mail.

Schwab's stance clarifies uncertainty about whether it would take
legal action against customers who join class action suits while
FINRA -- Wall Street's own watchdog -- is challenging a provision
Schwab added to more than 6.8 million customer agreements in
October.

FINRA alleges the requirement violates its arbitration rules.

Schwab's agreement also bars investors from participating in
securities arbitration cases as part of a group of investors.

A federal court judge threw out a lawsuit on May 11 that Schwab
had filed against FINRA in response to its enforcement complaint,
seeking to stop the disciplinary proceeding.

The company, however, is still using the language in its customer
agreements while FINRA's disciplinary action is pending.  FINRA's
enforcement unit can seek to temporarily bar certain practices
when a disciplinary case is pending, but only in extreme
situations, such as theft of customer funds and unauthorized
trading, according to FINRA rules.

FINRA's proceeding can take anywhere from months to several years,
depending on the number of appeals involved.

Enforcing the class action waiver against customers would
typically require the brokerage to go to court after investors
filed or joined class action suits and argue they are not allowed
to participate, said William Jacobson, a professor at Cornell Law
School's Securities Law Clinic in Ithaca New York.

Trying to enforce the agreements while FINRA's disciplinary
proceeding is pending would place Schwab at greater risk of
potential sanctions, since FINRA has already notified the firm of
what it perceives as a violation, he added.


CHINA SUNERGY: Consolidated IPO-Related Class Suit Concluded
------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated class action lawsuit arising from China Sunergy
Co., Ltd.'s initial public offering concluded in May last year,
according to the Company's April 26, 2012, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

The Company is a named defendant in three purported class actions
currently pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York -- Brown v. China Sunergy Co., Ltd.
et al., Case No. 07-CV-07895 (DAB), Sheshtawy v. China Sunergy
Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 07-CV-08656 (DAB), and Giombetti v.
China Sunergy Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 07-CV-09689 (DAB).  On
September 29, 2008, the District Court appointed a lead plaintiff
and consolidated the three cases.  The lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint on December 8, 2008.

The consolidated amended complaint purports to state class action
claims against the Company in connection with its initial public
offering and seeks unspecified damages.  Specifically, the lead
plaintiff alleges that the Company made false and misleading
statements in its initial public offering registration statement
and prospectus regarding, among other things, the procurement of
polysilicon.

Several of the Company's directors and officers, along with the
investment banks that underwrote its initial public offering, are
also named defendants in the cases.  On January 26, 2009, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint.  Briefing on the motion was completed on May 1, 2009.
Defendants' motion remained outstanding when, on July 14, 2009,
the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the
dispute in its entirety.  On May 12, 2011, the Court held a final
hearing and issued a final judgment for each of the three filed
cases, dismissing each case with prejudice and approving the
settlement and plan of allocation.  On May 13, 2011, the Court
issued its final order and the case was closed.  All payments of
$1.1 million pursuant to the settlement have been made by the
Company's insurers.


CITIBANK: Nichols Kaster Files Class Action Over Flood Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------
On May 17, 2012, Nichols Kaster, PLLP filed a class action lawsuit
in the Northern District of New York on behalf of Plaintiff Gordon
Casey and other borrowers with mortgages serviced by Citibank or
Midland Mortgage.  The Complaint alleges that Citibank and Midland
Mortgage routinely force-place excessive amounts of flood
insurance on borrowers, and improperly arrange for commissions for
themselves or their affiliates on force-placed policies.

Mr. Casey's story was the subject of a recent article in the
Syracuse Post-Standard.  According to the Complaint, Citibank
unlawfully required Casey to carry flood insurance coverage that
exceeded the amount of his loan balance by more than $100,000.
After Mr. Casey's mortgage was acquired by Midland, Midland
required Mr. Casey to carry an even greater amount of flood
insurance ($237,349).  Midland's requirement was approximately
fourteen times Mr. Casey's small loan balance of less than
$17,000.

The lawsuit further alleges that both Citibank and Midland
Mortgage purchased expensive "force-placed" insurance coverage out
of Mr. Casey's escrow account to meet their onerous flood
insurance requirements, which are inconsistent with the terms of
Plaintiff's mortgage, HUD requirements, and federal law.  In
connection with this force-placed coverage, the lawsuit alleges
that both lenders and/or their affiliates received improper
kickbacks or commissions.

"In today's economic environment, many homeowners are struggling
to make their mortgage payments, and it is wrong for lenders to
add to their burden by demanding wholly unnecessary and
unauthorized flood insurance that is not required by borrowers'
mortgages or federal law." said Kai Richter.  "It is particularly
egregious for lenders to arrange for commissions for themselves or
their affiliates in connection with force-placed coverage."
continued Mr. Richter.

On the same date that the lawsuit was filed, the New York
Department of Financial Services began three days of hearings in
connection with its own investigation of the force-placed
insurance practices of several banks, including Citibank.  The
very first witness who testified was a Citibank borrower from
Staten Island, New York.

In his class action Complaint, Mr. Casey seeks relief on behalf of
himself and other borrowers across the country who have been
similarly affected by Citibank's and Midland's alleged conduct.
Based on this alleged conduct, the Complaint asserts claims
against Citibank and Midland for (1) breach of contract/breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (2) unjust
enrichment; (3) breach of fiduciary duty in connection with
mortgage escrow accounts; (4) violation of the New York Deceptive
Practices Act; and (5) violation of the federal Truth-In-Lending
Act.

The case is entitled Casey v. Citibank, N.A. et al., No. 5:12-cv-
00820-DNH-DEP (N.D.N.Y.).  Plaintiff is represented by Donald
Nichols -- nichols@nka.com --, Kai Richter -- krichter@nka.com --
and E. Michelle Drake -- drake@nka.com -- from Nichols Kaster,
PLLP.  Nichols Kaster has offices in Minneapolis, Minnesota and
San Francisco, California, and is currently pursuing similar cases
against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., U.S. Bank, N.A., and RBS Citizens, N.A.
Additional information is located at http://www.nka.comor may be
obtained by calling Nichols Kaster, PLLP at 877-448-0492.


CMS ENERGY: Appeals in Gas Index Price Reporting Cases Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from court rulings in the Gas Index Price Reporting
Litigation remain pending, according to CMS Energy Corporation's
April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

CMS Energy, along with CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Company
(now known as CMS Energy Resource Management Company), CMS Field
Services Inc., Cantera Natural Gas, Inc., and Cantera Gas Company,
are named as defendants in various lawsuits arising as a result of
alleged inaccurate natural gas price reporting to publications
that report trade information.  Allegations include manipulation
of The New York Mercantile Exchange natural gas futures and
options prices, price-fixing conspiracies, restraint of trade, and
artificial inflation of natural gas retail prices in Colorado,
Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin.

   * In 2005, CMS Energy, CMS MST, and CMS Field Services were
     named as defendants in a putative class action filed in
     Kansas state court, Learjet, Inc., et al. v. Oneok, Inc., et
     al.  The complaint alleges that during the putative class
     period, January 1, 2000, through October 31, 2002, the
     defendants engaged in a scheme to violate the Kansas
     Restraint of Trade Act.  The plaintiffs are seeking
     statutory full consideration damages consisting of the full
     consideration paid by plaintiffs for natural gas allegedly
     purchased from defendants.

   * In 2007, a class action complaint, Heartland Regional
     Medical Center, et al. v. Oneok, Inc. et al., was filed in
     Missouri state court alleging violations of Missouri
     antitrust laws.  Defendants, including CMS Energy, CMS Field
     Services, and CMS MST, are alleged to have violated the
     Missouri antitrust law in connection with their natural gas
     reporting activities.

   * Breckenridge Brewery of Colorado, LLC and BBD Acquisition
     Co. v. Oneok, Inc., et al., a class action complaint brought
     on behalf of retail direct purchasers of natural gas in
     Colorado, was filed in Colorado state court in 2006.
     Defendants, including CMS Energy, CMS Field Services, and
     CMS MST, are alleged to have violated the Colorado Antitrust
     Act of 1992 in connection with their natural gas reporting
     activities.  Plaintiffs are seeking full refund damages.

   * A class action complaint, Arandell Corp., et al. v. XCEL
     Energy Inc., et al., was filed in 2006 in Wisconsin state
     court on behalf of Wisconsin commercial entities that
     purchased natural gas between January 1, 2000, and
     October 31, 2002.  The defendants, including CMS Energy, CMS
     ERM, and Cantera Gas Company, are alleged to have violated
     Wisconsin's antitrust statute.  The plaintiffs are seeking
     full consideration damages, plus exemplary damages and
     attorneys' fees.  After dismissal on jurisdictional grounds
     in 2009, plaintiffs filed a new complaint in the U.S.
     District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  In
     2010, the MDL judge issued an opinion and order granting the
     CMS Energy defendants' motion to dismiss the Michigan
     complaint on statute-of-limitations grounds and all CMS
     Energy defendants have been dismissed from the Arandell
     (Michigan) action.

   * Another class action complaint, Newpage Wisconsin System v.
     CMS ERM, et al., was filed in 2009 in circuit court in Wood
     County, Wisconsin, against CMS Energy, CMS ERM, Cantera Gas
     Company, and others.  The plaintiff is seeking full
     consideration damages, treble damages, costs, interest, and
     attorneys' fees.

   * In 2005, J.P. Morgan Trust Company, in its capacity as
     Trustee of the FLI Liquidating Trust, filed an action in
     Kansas state court against CMS Energy, CMS MST, CMS Field
     Services, and others.  The complaint alleges various claims
     under the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act.  The plaintiff is
     seeking statutory full consideration damages for its
     purchases of natural gas in 2000 and 2001.

After removal to federal court, all of the cases were transferred
to the MDL.  CMS Energy was dismissed from the Learjet, Heartland,
and J.P. Morgan cases in 2009, but other CMS Energy defendants
remained parties.  All CMS Energy defendants were dismissed from
the Breckenridge case in 2009.  In 2010, CMS Energy and Cantera
Gas Company were dismissed from the Newpage case and the Arandell
(Wisconsin) case was reinstated against CMS ERM.  In July 2011,
all claims against remaining CMS Energy defendants in the MDL
cases were dismissed based on FERC preemption.  Plaintiffs have
filed appeals in all of the cases.  The issues on appeal are
whether the district court erred in dismissing the cases based on
FERC preemption and denying the plaintiffs' motions for leave to
amend their complaints to add a federal Sherman Act antitrust
claim.  The plaintiffs did not appeal the dismissal of CMS Energy
as a defendant in these cases, but other CMS Energy entities
remain as defendants.

These cases involve complex facts, a large number of similarly
situated defendants with different factual positions, and multiple
jurisdictions.  Presently, any estimate of liability would be
highly speculative; the amount of CMS Energy's possible loss would
be based on widely varying models previously untested in this
context.  If the outcome after appeals is unfavorable, these cases
could have a material adverse impact on CMS Energy's liquidity,
financial condition, and results of operations.


COINSTAR INC: "DiSimone/Sinibaldi" Suit Dismissal Appeal Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated class action
lawsuit -- the "DiSimone/Sinibaldi Case" -- alleging violations of
California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 remains pending,
according to Coinstar, Inc.'s April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2012.

In February 2011, a California resident, Michael Mehrens,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed
a putative class action complaint against the Company's Redbox
subsidiary in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles.  The plaintiff alleges that, among other
things, Redbox violated California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act
of 1971 ("Song-Beverly") with respect to the collection and
recording of consumer personal identification information, and
violated the California Business and Professions Code Section
17200 based on the alleged violation of Song-Beverly.  A similar
complaint alleging violations of Song-Beverly and the right to
privacy generally was filed in March 2011 in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Alameda, by a California
resident, John Sinibaldi.  A third similar complaint alleging only
a violation of Song-Beverly, was filed in March 2011 in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, by
a California resident, Richard Schiff. Plaintiffs are seeking
compensatory damages and civil penalties, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, costs of lawsuit, and interest.  Redbox removed
the Mehrens case to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, the Sinibaldi case to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, and the Schiff case
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.

The Sinibaldi case was subsequently transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, where the
Mehrens case is pending, and these two cases have been
consolidated. At the same time, the plaintiffs substituted Nicolle
DiSimone as the named plaintiff in the Mehrens case.  After Redbox
filed a motion to dismiss, stay, or transfer, the Schiff case was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California but has not been consolidated with the Mehrens case.
Redbox moved to dismiss the DiSimone/Sinibaldi case, and
DiSimone/Sinibaldi moved for class certification.

In January 2012, the Court granted Redbox's motion to dismiss with
prejudice and denied DiSimone/Sinibaldi's motion for class
certification as moot.  On February 2, 2012, Plaintiff's filed
their notice of appeal.

The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit
and intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter.
Currently, no accrual has been established as it is not possible
to estimate the possible loss or range of loss because this matter
had not advanced to a stage where the Company could make any such
estimate.

CoinStar, Inc. provides automated retail solutions, including
Redbox and Coin segments.


COINSTAR INC: Briefing on Cert. Bid Ongoing in "Piechur" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action lawsuit commenced by Laurie Piechur
against a subsidiary of Coinstar, Inc. are briefing the
plaintiff's motion for class certification, according to the
Company's April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

In October 2009, an Illinois resident, Laurie Piechur,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed
a putative class action complaint against the Company's Redbox
subsidiary in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois.  The plaintiff alleges that,
among other things, Redbox charges consumers illegal and excessive
late fees in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, and that Redbox's rental terms
violate the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act or the Illinois
Automatic Contract Renewal Act and the plaintiff is seeking
monetary damages and other relief.  In November 2009, Redbox
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.  In February 2010, the District Court
remanded the case to the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois.  In May 2010, the court
denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, and also
denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.  In
November 2011, the plaintiff moved for class certification, and
Redbox moved for summary judgment.  The court denied Redbox's
motion for summary judgment in February 2012, and the parties are
briefing the plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit
and intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter.
Currently, no accrual has been established as it was not possible
to estimate the possible loss or range of loss because this matter
had not advanced to a stage where the Company could make any such
estimate.

CoinStar, Inc. provides automated retail solutions, including
Redbox and Coin segments.


COINSTAR INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coinstar, Inc. continues to defend a consolidated class action
lawsuit pending in Illinois, according to the Company's April 26,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

In March 2011, a California resident, Blake Boesky, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative
class action complaint against the Company's Redbox subsidiary in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The plaintiff alleges that Redbox retains personally identifiable
information of consumers for a time period in excess of that
allowed under the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections
2710, et seq.  A substantially similar complaint was filed in the
same court in March 2011 by an Illinois resident, Kevin Sterk.
Since the filing of the complaint, Blake Boesky has been replaced
by a different named plaintiff, Jiah Chung, and an amended
complaint has been filed alleging disclosures of personally
identifiable information, in addition to plaintiffs' claims of
retention of such information.  Plaintiffs are seeking statutory
damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of lawsuit, and
interest.  The court has consolidated the cases.  The court denied
Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims upon
interlocutory appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit reversed the district's court's denial of Redbox's motion
to dismiss Plaintiff's claims involving retention of information,
holding that the Plaintiffs could not maintain a lawsuit for
damages under this theory.

The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit
and intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter. Currently,
no accrual has been established as it is not possible to estimate
the possible loss or range of loss because this matter had not
advanced to a stage where the Company could make any such
estimate.

CoinStar, Inc. provides automated retail solutions, including
Redbox and Coin segments.


COINSTAR INC: Final Hearing on Securities Suit Deal on August 10
----------------------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing is scheduled for August 10, 2012, in
connection with Coinstar, Inc.'s settlement of a consolidated
securities litigation, according to the Company's April 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On January 24, 2011, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
against Coinstar and certain of its officers.  The complaint
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  Five substantially similar complaints were later
filed in the same court. Pursuant to an order of the court dated
March 14, 2011, these six putative class actions were consolidated
as a single action entitled In re Coinstar, Inc. Securities
Litigation.  On April 19, 2011, the court appointed the Employees'
Retirement System of Rhode Island as lead plaintiff and approved
its selection of lead counsel.  A consolidated complaint was filed
on June 17, 2011.  The Company moved to dismiss this complaint on
July 15, 2011.  On October 6, 2011, the court issued an order
granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion to
dismiss.  The order dismissed numerous allegations, including
allegations that the Company's October 28, 2010 revenue and
earnings guidance was false and misleading.  The order also
dismissed all claims against three of the Company's officers.  The
court has set a trial date for September 9, 2013.

This case purports to be brought on behalf of a class of persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock during the
period from October 28, 2010, to February 3, 2011.  Plaintiffs
allege that the defendants violated the federal securities laws
during this period of time by, among other things, issuing false
and misleading statements about the Company's current and
prospective business and financial results.  Plaintiffs claim
that, as a result of these alleged wrongs, the Company's stock
price was artificially inflated during the purported class period.
Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory damages, interest,
an award of attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive relief.

On January 11, 2012, the Company entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the other parties to settle and resolve the
class action.  The settlement provides for a payment to the
plaintiff class of $6.0 million which will be paid by the
Company's insurers.  On February 17, 2012, a stipulation and
agreement of settlement, was filed with the court, along with Lead
Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement.  On April 9, 2012, the court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement.  Following notice to class members,
the class action is subject to final approval by the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington.  A final
approval hearing is scheduled for August 10, 2012.

The Company says it has recorded the expected settlement amount
and corresponding insurance recovery within other accrued
liabilities and prepaid expenses and other current assets,
respectively, in its Consolidated Balance Sheets.

                 Shareholder Derivative Actions

Related to this putative class action complaint, on March 2 and
10, 2011, shareholder derivative actions were filed in the
Superior Court of the State of Washington (King County) on March,
allegedly on behalf of and for the benefit of Coinstar, against
certain of its current and former directors and officers.
Coinstar was named as a nominal defendant.  On April 12, 2011, the
court consolidated these actions as a single action entitled In re
Coinstar, Inc. Derivative Litigation.  A third substantially
similar complaint was later filed in the same court.  On April 18,
2011, two purported shareholder derivative actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
On May 26, 2011, the court consolidated the federal derivative
actions and joined them with the securities class actions,
captioned In re Coinstar Securities Litigation, for pre-trial
proceedings.  The derivative plaintiffs' consolidated complaint
was filed on July 15, 2011.  The Company moved to dismiss this
complaint on August 12, 2011, on the ground that the plaintiffs
had not made a pre-litigation demand on the Company's Board of
Directors and had not demonstrated that such a demand would have
been futile.  On November 14, 2011, the court granted the
Company's motion and issued an order dismissing the complaint with
leave to amend the compliant.  On November 23, 2011, plaintiffs
moved to stay the action or defer filing of an amended complaint
in order to allow them time to inspect Coinstar's books and
records prior to any such amendment.  On December 22, 2011, the
court entered an order granting in part and denying in part
plaintiffs' motion.  The order grants plaintiffs' request to defer
filing of an amended complaint, but provided that if plaintiffs
choose to file an amended complaint, they must pay attorneys' fees
incurred by defendants on the motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.

On April 9, 2012, before expiration of plaintiffs' deadline to
file an amended complaint, the parties filed a joint status report
with the court indicating they had agreed upon a proposed
settlement of the federal and state derivative actions.  This
settlement includes a payment of up to $750,000 in attorneys' fees
(subject to court approval), which will be paid by the defendants'
insurers.  The parties are in the process of drafting a
Stipulation of Settlement, and hope to file it with the court
shortly.  The state and federal derivative complaints arise out of
many of the factual allegations at issue in the class action, and
generally allege that the individual defendants breached fiduciary
duties owed to Coinstar by selling Coinstar stock while in
possession of material non-public information, and participating
in or failing to prevent misrepresentations regarding Redbox
expectations, performance, and internal controls.

The Company has recorded the expected settlement amount and
corresponding insurance recovery within other accrued liabilities
and prepaid expenses and other current assets, respectively, in
the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets.

CoinStar, Inc. provides automated retail solutions, including
Redbox and Coin segments.


COLGATE PALMOLIVE: Still in Discussions to Settle ERISA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2007, a putative class action claiming that certain
aspects of the cash balance portion of the Colgate-Palmolive
Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan (the Plan) do not comply
with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act was filed against
the Plan and the Company in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  Specifically, Proesel, et al.
v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan, et
al. alleges improper calculation of lump sum distributions, age
discrimination and failure to satisfy minimum accrual
requirements, thereby resulting in the underpayment of benefits to
Plan participants.  Two other putative class actions filed earlier
in 2007, Abelman, et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees'
Retirement Income Plan, et al., in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, and Caufield v. Colgate-
Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, both
alleging improper calculation of lump sum distributions and, in
the case of Abelman, claims for failure to satisfy minimum accrual
requirements, were transferred to the Southern District of New
York and consolidated with Proesel into one action, In re Colgate-
Palmolive ERISA Litigation.  The complaint in the consolidated
action alleges improper calculation of lump sum distributions and
failure to satisfy minimum accrual requirements, but does not
include a claim for age discrimination.  The relief sought
includes recalculation of benefits in unspecified amounts, pre-
and post-judgment interest, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.
This action has not been certified as a class action as yet.  The
parties are in discussions via non-binding mediation to determine
whether the action can be settled.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 26, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

The Company and the Plan intend to contest this action vigorously
should the parties be unable to reach a settlement.


DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE: Defends Consolidated Antitrust Suit in Mich.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Delphi Automotive PLC is defending itself from a consolidated
antitrust lawsuit pending in Michigan, according to the Company's
April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

A number of class action complaints have been filed in various
U.S. federal district courts alleging that several wire harness
manufacturers, including Delphi, have violated U.S. antitrust
laws.  These complaints allege that consumers overpaid for their
vehicles as a result of the alleged conduct of the wire harness
manufacturers.  In February 2012, these complaints were
consolidated and transferred to the federal district court in the
Eastern District of Michigan.

At this time, the Company believes that the allegations contained
in the complaints are without merit with regard to the Company and
the Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations
set forth in the complaints.  No accruals for these matters have
been recorded as of March 31, 2012.


DEX ONE: Awaits Final OK of Securities Suit v. Ex-Officers Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dex One Corporation is awaiting final approval of a settlement
resolving a consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed
against its former officers, according to the Company's April 26,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

Beginning on October 23, 2009, a series of putative securities
class action lawsuits were commenced against certain former
Company officers in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded securities
between July 26, 2007, and the time the Company filed for
bankruptcy on May 28, 2009, alleging that such officers issued
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial condition and seeking damages and equitable relief.
On August 19, 2010, an amended consolidated class action complaint
was filed as the operative securities class action complaint (the
"Securities Class Action Complaint").  The Company is not named as
a defendant in the Securities Class Action Complaint.  On December
30, 2011, the parties to the Securities Class Action Complaint
entered into a memorandum of understanding containing the
essential terms of a settlement of all disputes between them.

On February 17, 2012, a formal stipulation of settlement was filed
with the court.  Pursuant to the stipulation of settlement, in
exchange for a complete release of all claims, the Company's
director's and officer's liability insurers will create a $25
million settlement fund for the benefit of the settlement class.
The Company is not making any financial contribution to the
settlement fund.  The stipulation of settlement is subject to
final court approval, which the Company expects to receive during
the second quarter of 2012.


DEX ONE: Expects Final Approval of ERISA Suit Deal in 2Q of 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dex One Corporation expects final court approval of a settlement
of a class action lawsuit alleging violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, during the second half of
2012, according to the Company's April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2012.

On December 7, 2009, a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") was commenced in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of certain
participants in, or beneficiaries of, the R.H. Donnelley 401(k)
Savings Plan at any time between July 26, 2007, and January 29,
2010, and whose plan accounts included investments in R.H.
Donnelley common stock.

R.H. Donnelley Corporation and R.H. Donnelley Inc. are direct
wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company.

The putative ERISA class action complaint contains allegations
against certain current and former directors, officers and
employees similar to those set forth in the Securities Class
Action Complaint as well as allegations of breaches of fiduciary
duties under ERISA and seeks damages and equitable relief.  The
Company is not named as a defendant in this ERISA class action.
The parties to the ERISA class action lawsuit have tentatively
agreed to the essential terms of a settlement of all disputes
between them. The terms of the proposed settlement provide that,
in exchange for a complete release of all claims, the Company's
fiduciary liability insurers will create a $2.1 million settlement
fund for the benefit of the settlement class.  The Company is not
making any financial contribution to the settlement fund.  The
terms of the final settlement agreement between the parties will
be subject to final court approval, which the Company expects to
receive during the second half of 2012.


FACEBOOK INC: Users File Consolidated Privacy Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Facebook users on May 18 filed an amended consolidated class
action complaint in federal court in San Jose, California in the
case In re: Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation, No. 5:12-md-
02314-EJD.  The class action asserts federal statutory and
California State causes of action related to the revelation in
September 2011 that Facebook was improperly tracking the internet
use of its members even after they logged out of their accounts.
The action consolidates 21 related cases filed in more than a
dozen states in 2011 and early 2012.

The plaintiffs assert claims under the federal Wiretap Act, which
provides statutory damages per user of US$100 per day per
violation, up to a maximum per user of US$10,000.  Even if
Facebook's alleged actions constitute a single violation of the
Wiretap Act per class member, that implies more than US$15 billion
in damages across the class.  The complaint also asserts claims
under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Stored Communications
Act, various California Statutes and California common law.

The class action is being led by court-appointed co-lead counsel
Stewarts Law US LLP and Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson & Gorny,
P.C. David Straite, Partner at Stewarts Law, stated: "This is not
just a damages action, but a groundbreaking digital privacy rights
case that could have wide and significant legal and business
implications."

In addition to co-lead counsel, the court has appointed a
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee which includes Keefe Bartels in New
Jersey; Mandell, Schwartz & Boisclair in Rhode Island; Eichen
Crutchlow Zaslow & McElroy in New Jersey; Bergmanis Law Firm in
Missouri; Burns, Cunningham & Mackey in Alabama; and Murphy,
Falcon & Murphy in Baltimore.  The court has also appointed a
committee of former State Attorneys General to advise the class,
including former Mississippi AG Mike Moore, former Arizona AG
Grant Woods, former Hawaii AG Margery Bronster, and former
Louisiana AG Richard Ieyoub.


INTELLICORP RECORDS: Sued Over Outdated Info Given to Employers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Roe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. IntelliCorp Records, Inc., an Ohio corporation, and
Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. RG12625923 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Alameda Cty., April 16, 2012) alleges that IntelliCorp's policies
and procedures fail to meet the standard of accuracy and fairness
mandated by the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Ms. Roe alleges that when she applied for a job, IntelliCorp
provided her potential employer with outdated, incomplete and
inaccurate information regarding her alleged criminal record;
failed to provide timely notice that such information had been
reported; and caused her to be denied valuable employment
opportunities.  She argues that this inaccurate reporting was not
an oversight that affected her alone; instead, it arose due to
IntelliCorp's failure to implement policies and procedures that
ensure accurate and timely reporting of conviction and other
consumer information, and fair notice to affected consumers.

Ms. Roe is a resident of Los Angeles County, California.  She sues
under a fictitious name to protect her privacy and prevent further
injury to her reputation.  She asserts that among other things,
IntelliCorp reported that she had been arrested and charged with
felony offenses, but it failed to report that those charges had
been dismissed and legally expunged pursuant to the California
Penal Code.

IntelliCorp, an Ohio corporation, conducts business throughout the
United States, including throughout the state of California.
IntelliCorp is a credit reporting agency that collects consumer
information and sells "consumer reports" to employers
investigating job applicants.

IntelliCorp removed the lawsuit on May 18, 2012, from the Superior
Court of the state of California, County of Alameda, to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
The Company argues that the removal is proper because the
Plaintiff seeks to certify a nationwide class that she alleges is
comprised of hundreds or thousands of consumers.  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:12-cv-02567 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nance F. Becker, Esq.
          Christian Schreiber, Esq.
          CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP
          42 Miller Ave.
          Mill Valley, CA 94941
          Telephone: (415) 381-5599
          Facsimile: (415) 381-5572
          E-mail: nance@chavezgertler.com
                  christian@chavezgertler.com

               - and -

          Devin H. Fok, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF DEVIN H. FOK
          P.O. Box 7165
          Alhambra, CA 91802-7165
          Telephone: (330) 430-9933
          Facsimile: (323) 563-3445
          E-mail: devin@devinfoklaw.com

               - and -

          Joshua E. Kim, Esq.
          A NEW WAY OF LIFE REENTRY PROJECT
          958 E. 108th St.
          Los Angeles, CA 90059
          Telephone: (323) 563-3575
          Facsimile: (323) 563-3445
          E-mail: joshua@anewwayoflife.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Neal A. Potischman, Esq.
          Samantha Harper Knox, Esq.
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
          1600 El Camino Real
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Telephone: (650) 752-2000
          Facsimile: (650) 752-2111
          E-mail: neal.potischman@davispolk.com
                  samantha.knox@davispolk.com


L'OREAL: Faces Class Actions Over Garnier Product
-------------------------------------------------
DIY Fashion reports that they have been accused of failing to warn
consumers of the possible flammability of their Garnier products,
and now L'Oreal has a pair of class action lawsuits on their
hands.

The plaintiffs are suing the cosmetics giant for neglecting to
label Garnier Fructis Sleek & Shine Anti-Frizz Serum as being
potentially hazardous near flames, ignition, or high-heat styling
appliances.

And now District Court Judge Christina A. Snyder has granted
certification to the plaintiffs to begin pursuing their lawsuits
as two consumer subclasses.

As a result, any consumer who purchased the product in question
between February 4, 2008, until now can participate.  There were
approximately 10 million units sold during that span.


LIVE NATION: Class Action Settlement Agreement Nears
----------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that a
long-running dispute over whether Live Nation and former parent
Clear Channel engaged in anticompetitive conduct in the promotion
and pricing of live music concerts could be headed for some
resolution.  On May 15, lawyers for the company and a class of
nationwide plaintiffs told a California federal court that they
were finalizing a global settlement agreement that would lead to
the dismissal of various claims that span back a decade.

In 2002, an individual named Malinda Heerwagen filed a putative
class action against Clear Channel that alleged monopolization in
the live-music concert industry.  Her lawsuit was followed by 22
other class action suits around the country.

In 2006-07, a federal court in California consolidated many of
these lawsuits and certified classes in the five major markets of
Los Angeles, Chicago, New York/New Jersey, Boston and Denver.
Since then, the parties have been fighting at the pre-trial phase,
but in March, the consolidated action took a huge hit and, barring
an appeal or amendments to claims, a development that could have
become a fatal blow.

The judge ruled the plaintiffs couldn't use the testimony of its
expert economist, Dr. Owen Phillips, who ran some analysis of the
damage of escalating concert prices due to the defendants' alleged
anticompetitive behavior.

Dr. Phillips submitted that the average ticket price for rock
concerts was higher for concerts promoted by Live Nation than by
others, and he calculated the difference and multiplied it by the
number of tickets sold to come up with numbers like $21 million in
damage in the Denver market and nearly $71 million in damage in
the LA market.

But the judge found that he was assuming that the difference in
ticket prices was merely due to monopolization instead of looking
at other possible explanations, such as Live Nation artists
commanding higher ticket prices than less popular artists who
worked with other promoters.

The economist used other methods, including data from
"competitive" periods to predict expected ticket prices.  The
results of the research were transformed into graphs which if
introduced before a jury, could have been swaying.

But again, the judge said that the economist didn't consider other
factors, including possible changes in concert quality during the
time, the emergence of digital downloading, and other factors that
could have led to higher-than-expected prices.

Perhaps most importantly, the judge found that the plaintiffs and
their economist were having trouble identifying the relevant
market that was allegedly monopolized.  The economist's report
talked about "live rock music concerts" but didn't say if that was
characteristic of a broader category of music (e.g. "rock/pop) or
a sub-genre ("classic rock" or "heavy metal"), didn't clarify what
unique production facilities make for a live rock music concert
experience as opposed to say, a jazz concert, and didn't address
things like vendors and customers.

The failure to identify the product market led to the judge's
conclusion that the economist had relied on unreliable
methodology.  Because the plaintiffs didn't pin down what area was
actually subject to dispute, the judge accepted Live Nation's
motion for summary judgment and dismissed claims of monopolization
and unjust enrichment.

Potentially new lawsuits with better analysis and bolstered claims
could have been made against the company.  So perhaps the parties
had an incentive to work things out.  The judge ordered both sides
to meet and confer about how best to proceed, and they came to an
agreement.  Terms are not known but would presumably cover global
claims made against Live Nation for the designated period unless
potential class members explicitly opt out of the settlement.


LLOYDS TSB: Accused of Deceiving Dual Currency Loan Borrowers
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Dugan, Aurora Dugan, and Matthew Tapscott, each individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lloyds TSB Bank,
PLC, Case No. 5:12-cv-02549 (N.D. Calif., May 17, 2012) seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief against Lloyds.

According to the lawsuit, Plaintiffs' claims arise from Lloyds'
practice of (1) deceiving them and the Class into entering into
highly risky and complex "variable rate, variable currency" loans
(the "Dual Currency Loans"), (2) engaging in fraudulent and
deceptive billing practices, foreclosures and collection actions,
and (3) breaching its agreements with consumers by ignoring
principal cap provisions and arbitrarily increasing applicable
interest rates, and (4) actively concealing these wrongful acts
from the Plaintiffs and the Class.  The Plaintiffs assert that
beginning in 2006, Lloyds began offering the Dual Currency Loans
throughout the United States, including to individuals in
California, Hawaii, Florida and New York, to be secured by real
property located in those states.

The Dugans are residents of California.  They took out $4,547,000
in Dual Currency Loans from Lloyds secured by three real
properties located in Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach,
California.  Mr. Tapscott, a resident of California, took out
approximately $805,000 in a Dual Currency Loan secured by real
property located in Palm Springs, California.

Lloyds is a wholly owned subsidiary of Lloyds Banking Group plc,
organized and existing under the laws of the United Kingdom.
Lloyds was engaged in the business of originating and selling Dual
Currency Loans.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William K. Swank, Esq.
          Lawrence P. Riff, Esq.
          Laurence F. Janssen, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
          633 West Fifth Street, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 439-9400
          Facsimile: (213) 439-9599
          E-mail: wswank@steptoe.com
                  lriff@steptoe.com
                  ljanssen@steptoe.com

               - and -

          Stephen A. Fennell, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
          1330 Connecticut, Avenue, NW
          Washington D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 429-8082
          Facsimile: (202) 429-3902
          E-mail: sfennell@steptoe.com


MAKO SURGICAL: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities
who purchased the common stock of MAKO Surgical Corporation
between January 9, 2012 and May 7, 2012, inclusive.

A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP.  Please contact us by phone to discuss this
action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at (310) 201-9150 or
Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by e-mail at
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our Webs site at
http://www.glancylaw.com

MAKO offers the RIO Robotic Arm Interactive Orthopedic system and
MAKOplasty applications (collectively, the "RIO system") for
minimally invasive orthopedic procedures. The Complaint alleges
that the defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose that: (a)
the Company was poised to suffer a larger first-quarter loss due
to higher costs and slower sales of its RIO systems; (b)
utilization rates were declining for the Company's RIO systems;
(c) the Company's 2012 outlook, provided at the start of the Class
Period, lacked a reasonable basis when made; and (d), based on the
foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company or
its outlook lacked a reasonable basis.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may move the
Court, no later than July 9, 2012 to serve as lead plaintiff;
however, you must meet certain legal requirements.  To be a member
of the class you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Toll Free: (888) 773-9224
          E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com


MORROW, GA: Drivers Sue Over Bogus Traffic Court Fees
-----------------------------------------------------
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, citing a report by Channel 2
Action News, reports that more cities that charged drivers for
traffic warnings may become targets of a class action lawsuit
spurred by the city of Morrow collecting more than $1 million in
bogus fees.

Earlier this year Judge Ronald Freeman, who charged motorists the
fees, said, "It's my policy to always reduce these to warnings,
let [drivers] pay the fines as court costs."

But that's not the way the law is supposed to work.

"You cannot fine people if they are not convicted of the offense,"
Clayton County District Attorney Tracy Graham Lawson said.

Attorney David Fife is representing the drivers.

"We're essentially asking them on behalf of everybody that they
took that money from, that they have to give it back," Mr. Fife
told Channel 2's Jodi Fleischer.

Judge Freeman also works in Union City, Jonesboro and Riverdale.
Ms. Fleischer filed a new open records request and found nearly
650 more tickets reduced to warnings with drivers fined another
$132,111.

Karyl Baker got a ticket in Union City, where a different judge
dismissed her case but charged her $135 in court costs.

"You are kind of eager to just say, 'OK,' because you don't want
it on your record, but then when I left, it didn't seem right to
me," said Ms. Baker.

So far, the lawsuit only targets Morrow, but "we could end up
having essentially a class action that's bigger with multiple
defendants," said Mr. Fife.

Mr. Fife told Ms. Fleischer he is asking the court for class
action status on behalf of all drivers who were forced to pay for
warnings or dismissals.


NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT: Two Townships File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Scott Kraus and Matt Assad, writing for The Morning Call, report
that the legal morass threatening Allentown's downtown arena
project has deepened.

Upper Saucon Township and Catasauqua are filing a lawsuit against
Allentown's Neighborhood Improvement Zone on behalf of every
Pennsylvania municipality that levies an earned income tax.

Bethlehem and Hanover townships in Northampton County filed the
first legal challenge to the zone in March, and communities from
around the Lehigh Valley have joined them.  Developer Abe Atiyeh
has filed his own lawsuit.

The lawsuits have halted the project by preventing the city's
Allentown Neighborhood Improvement Zone Development Authority from
issuing revenue bonds to finance construction.

Upper Saucon and Catasauqua's suit seeking a class action -- filed
via overnight mail on May 17 in Commonwealth Court against Gov.
Tom Corbett and three other state officials -- aims to create a
universal resolution to the growing debate over the legality of
the one-of-a-kind revenue zone that is the linchpin of Allentown's
revitalization hopes.

The two municipalities are asking the court to stop Allentown from
using their earned income tax money toward a project from which
their residents will derive little or no benefit.

"A class action is the most just, efficient and appropriate
mechanism to provide final and certain relief," the lawsuit
argues, because it will include every municipality that has been
damaged by the zone and will avoid potentially conflicting rulings
on individual cases.

At issue in all three lawsuits are earned income taxes collected
within the boundaries of the 130-acre Neighborhood Improvement
Zone, which was authorized by a 2009 state law.

Within the zone, all state and local taxes, excluding property
taxes, are set aside and can be used to fund construction of a
downtown hockey arena and approved commercial and residential
development.  The revenue includes earned income taxes collected
from residents of outside communities such as Upper Saucon and
Catasauqua that would normally be returned to their home
municipalities.

The city has been unable to produce reliable estimates of how much
earned income tax would be diverted from each municipality, but
has promised that the bonds floated to build the arena will be
structured in a way that no municipality would receive less earned
income tax revenue than it is today.

That didn't satisfy municipal officials in Hanover and Bethlehem
townships, who filed a joint lawsuit against Allentown's
Neighborhood Improvement Zone in March, arguing that the special
taxing district is unconstitutional because it violates a
prohibition on special legislation that applies to only one
municipality and that Allentown is not entitled to tap their
residents' earned income taxes.

Eleven other municipalities, the Whitehall-Coplay School District
and the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors,
have joined Hanover and Bethlehem townships' lawsuit.  Palmer
Township has applied to join the suit.

The city has been trying to craft a settlement that satisfies all
the suburban municipal officials to get the project moving again.

The Upper Saucon and Catasauqua lawsuit offers similar objections
to the zone but expands on them and adds arguments, citing new
sections of the Pennsylvania Constitution that address special
legislation.  It also asks for the return of any earned income
taxes collected in the zone this year.

The suit questions the legality of a provision in the Neighborhood
Improvement Zone legislation that prohibits future state lawmakers
from changing the law in a way that would affect the stream of
revenue being used to underwrite bonds that would finance the
arena project.

"You can't do that," said attorney Jeff Dimmich, solicitor to
Upper Saucon and Catasauqua.

Mr. Dimmich said Upper Saucon and Catasauqua officials didn't want
to be limited to the arguments posed by Bethlehem and Hanover
townships.  "We wanted to include and clarify the issues in our
framework," he said.

Mr. Dimmich said he wouldn't be surprised if Commonwealth Court
consolidates the two lawsuits because they address the same
problem.  The court will first decide whether municipalities with
an earned income tax are a valid class.

State Sen. Pat Browne, R-Lehigh, who wrote the law, said he
doesn't believe the class-action suit will complicate attempts at
getting a settlement because the same concerns are at the heart of
all the legal action: tax dollars.

"The premise of the suits is fundamentally the same, therefore the
same solution can bring a global settlement," Mr. Browne said.
"If the claims were different, I'd be worried."


NEVSUN RESOURCES: Securities Class Action Filed in Ontario Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been commenced in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice on behalf of all investors who acquired shares of Nevsun
Resources Ltd. during the period March 31, 2011 to and including
February 6, 2012.  The plaintiff alleges that the defendants
engaged in violations of Ontario's Securities Act and the common
law.

The plaintiff has retained Andrew Morganti and Sutts, Strosberg
LLP to prosecute the class action.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants knew or ought to have
known that the proven and probable reserves at Nevsun's Bisha mine
were overstated during the Class Period.

On February 7, 2012, Nevsun disclosed that it overstated the gold
reserves at its Bisha mine.  After the disclosure, Nevsun's share
price declined by more than 30 percent.

Jay Strosberg, a partner at Sutts, Strosberg LLP said, "Through
this class action, we hope to determine precisely what the
defendants knew about the quality and quantity of mineralized ore
and, ultimately, gold reserves at the Bisha mine during the Class
Period, and when they knew it."

Sutts, Strosberg LLP pioneered securities class actions in
Ontario.  As a result of resolving class actions such as YBM
Magnex, Southwestern Resources, Atlas Cold Storage, CV
Technologies and NovaGold Resources, Sutts, Strosberg LLP has
recovered more than $150 million for its clients in securities
class action alone.

Andrew Morganti has represented shareholders in securities
litigation in both Canada and the U.S. and has litigated
securities fraud class actions since 1999.  He previously worked
with one of the largest firms in the U.S. in New York that
represented shareholders and is currently serving as one of the
vice chairs of the American Bar Association's Class Action &
Derivative Suit Section.

For more information about the Nevsun Class Action, please visit
http://www.nevsunclassaction.com

For further information: Jay Strosberg, Esq.
                         Sutts, Strosberg LLP
                         Telephone: (519) 561-6296
                         E-mail: jay@strosbergco.com

                         Andrew Morganti, Esq.
                         Morganti Legal
                         Telephone: (416) 800-2171
                         E-mail: amorganti@gmail.com


PERFORMING HIGH: Southside High Band Parents Mull Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mallory Cooke, writing for 5News, reports that Southside High
School band parents out more than a quarter million dollars
consider filing a class action lawsuit.  The band was supposed to
go to Hawaii next month, but the school says their travel agent
admitted to "mishandling" the money.

"I know of students who took on a part time job just so they could
go on this trip," said Debbie Everly, a band parent.

Ms. Everly contacted an attorney after the school told parents
Calliope "Ope" Saage with Performing Hawaii Tours LLC admitted he
"made some band investments."  Parents want their money back.

"Obviously we can't trust him, so why shouldn't we be assertive
enough to take the first step of waiting," said Ms. Everly.
Southside band directors called the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office.  Both
agencies are investigating.

Fort Smith attorney Kevin Hickey contacted band parents wanting to
help.  "Well, we're hoping to get their money back or as much of
it was we can," said Mr. Hickey.

Mr. Hickey says if parents are on board they plan to pursue a
class action lawsuit.  He said, "To me the more pressure we can
put on this guy the better."

Ms. Everly plans to be proactive.  She said, "I don't want to wait
six months and him go ahead and liquidate those assets and give
them out to his family or whatever to cover it up."

If parents decide to move forward, Mr. Hickey plans to file the
suit within the next several weeks.

Band parents were to meet with the attorneys on May 22, at 6:00
p.m. in the Southside cafeteria.


RIDGEWOOD WATER: Faces Class Action Over Rate Increases
-------------------------------------------------------
Jodi Weinberger and Darius Amos, writing for NorthJersey.com,
report that the attorney representing three towns and its
residents in a class-action lawsuit against Ridgewood said last
week that the village has engaged in "sham accounting" and claims
that its water department has overcharged customers in Wyckoff,
Glen Rock and Midland Park by more than $3.3 million since 2010.

During the same time, village residents, who are not listed as
lawsuit plaintiffs, are believed to have paid an excess of $2.4
million to Ridgewood Water.

The lawsuit, filed nearly two years ago by Hackensack-based lawyer
Joseph Fiorenzo, is a response to Ridgewood Water's 21 percent
rate hike approved by the Village Council in 2010 as well as the 5
percent rate increase that passed last year.  Mr. Fiorenzo alleged
that the boosts in rates were enacted to fund Ridgewood's various
municipal operational expenses and were otherwise unjustified.

A former Wyckoff mayor, Mr. Fiorenzo is seeking a court ruling
that strikes down the village's ordinances that approved the rate
increases and a full refund to the ratepayers in the three towns.

Mr. Fiorenzo held a press conference on May 16 at Wyckoff Town
Hall to reveal the findings of an eight-month investigation which
he said showed that the fund balance deficit the utility initially
reported to justify the increases was a "complete and utter sham."

"[The deficit] doesn't exist and never existed," Mr. Fiorenzo
said. "Over a period of years the Village [of Ridgewood] was
dumping expenses into the budget of the water utility."

Mr. Fiorenzo said the total indirect expenses unjustly charged to
the water utility from 2004 to 2009 totaled $9,563,195.

In fact, Mr. Fiorenzo said, had the village not misallocated its
funds, it would have a $4.7 million surplus.

"Ridgewood has been bilking the ratepayers of Wyckoff, Glen Rock
and Midland Park by having the ratepayers pay for a substantial
portion of the operating expenses of the Village of Ridgewood,"
Mr. Fiorenzo said.  "In effect, [those municipalities], have been
subsidizing the Village of Ridgewood operating budget so that,
during periods of economic difficulty, Ridgewood does not have to
make the tough choices that all other communities make by reducing
expenditures."

Among the highest expenses charged to the water utility are police
and fire salaries and municipal attorney fees, Mr. Fiorenzo said.

"The facts of this case present an egregious violation of the
rights of the ratepayers of the water utility who have been
unnecessarily saddled with the burden of increased costs to pay
for things such as health insurance for village employees, police
expenses, fire expenses, [Ridgewood] attorney's fees, and
engineering costs, none of which relate to the operation of the
water utility, but, rather, directly benefit only the Village of
Ridgewood," Mr. Fiorenzo said.

Mayors Christopher DePhillips of Wyckoff, Patrick "Bud" O'Hagan of
Midland Park and John van Keuren of Glen Rock attended the press
conference along with auditor Gary Higgins of Lerch, Vinci &
Higgins, LLP, Wyckoff Committeeman Kevin Rooney and Wyckoff
Administrator Robert Shannon.  On the advisement of Mr. Fiorenzo,
the officials did not offer reactions to the findings.

The director of Ridgewood Water, Frank Moritz, deferred all
questions to Village Manager Kenneth Gabbert, who did not
immediately respond to requests for comment.

In a breakdown of the total $3,309,291 being sought, Wyckoff would
stand to collect $1,640,492; Glen Rock would receive $1,049,164
and Midland Park would get $619,635.  Mr. Fiorenzo said the
village also overcharged its own residents $2,475,300, but he said
as a result, Ridgewood residents may have been paying less in
property taxes over the years.

He also noted that these figures are increasing daily as the
utility continues to charge its customers at an "improper high
rate."

During the press conference, Mr. Fiorenzo presented a portion of
the deposition of Mr. Moritz, who is quoted as saying he told the
village manager at the time, James Ten Hoeve, that allocations for
the Ridgewood Police Department in the water utility's budget were
"excessive."

Under questioning, Mr. Moritz said that he didn't believe the
expenses of the village police department had any relationship to
the water utility.  Mr. Moritz said he expressed to Mr. Ten Hoeve
that the costs were not appropriate but that Mr. Ten Hoeve
directed the expenses to be included in the water utility budget
anyway.

Mr. Gabbert became village manager in October 2009.

Further, Mr. Fiorenzo said, many employees at the water utility
are asked to do work for the village although their salaries are
paid solely by the ratepayers.

"It's a fundamentally unfair process," Mr. Fiorenzo said.

Mr. Fiorenzo said the information was presented to Ridgewood
earlier this month at a meeting with a jointly appointed mediator,
but that the session was "very unproductive" and a "waste of time"
because Ridgewood didn't seem to be prepared or take the meeting
seriously.

As part of the lawsuit, Mr. Fiorenzo said, the municipalities will
be insisting on a protocol to ensure their complete ability to
participate in the budgeting process.

"Otherwise we could be down this road every single year,"
Mr. Fiorenzo said.


TOMMY BAHAMA: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
On May 10, 2012, the employment attorneys at Blumenthal,
Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action complaint against Tommy
Bahama for alleged wage and hour violations.  Godinez vs. Tommy
Bahama R&R Holdings, Inc., Case No. CGC-12-520713 is currently
pending in the San Francisco County Superior Court.

According to the class action complaint filed against Tommy
Bahama, the store routinely detained the Plaintiff and other Class
Members inside Tommy Bahama after their shifts were over so other
employees of Tommy Bahama could search them for company
merchandise.  The suit alleges that these delays resulted in
substantial unpaid labor every day for hundreds of Tommy Bahama
employees in California and "has resulted in a systematic
underpayment of overtime compensation" to the employees.  As a
result of Tommy Bahama's alleged failure to pay for all hours
worked by these employees, including their time spent waiting for
and submitting to the loss prevention inspections, the wage
statements issued to Plaintiff and California Class Members were
inaccurate and in violation of California Labor Code Section
226(a).

The founding and managing partner of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhomwik, Norman Blumenthal stated, "Loss prevention inspections
are conducted by retailers to stop employee theft.  But, as a
result of the substantial delays caused by these bag checks, the
employees' wages are the only thing being stolen by these
retailers."

The San Francisco employment lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug
Bhowmik dedicate its legal practice to helping employees fight
back against violations of California labor laws.


VIVENDI SA: Investors File $818-Million Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Hodges, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Vivendi SA
and Jean-Marie Messier are being sued for EUR644.5 million ($818
million) in Paris by for misleading them between 2000 and 2002, a
lawyer for the claimants said.

The suit, filed by 67 investors at the commercial tribunal in
Paris on April 27, claims the company and the former CEO
improperly inflated the value of its shares, said Ron Soffer --
rs@ronsoffer.com -- a Paris-based attorney.

Vivendi won a U.S. court ruling in 2011 that limited the scope of
an earlier group securities-fraud verdict against the company to
holders of its American depositary receipts, applying a U.S
Supreme Court decision saying the court didn't have jurisdiction
in the action.

"Now that the reach of the U.S. class action mechanism has been
seriously limited by the Supreme Court securities litigation,
courts in France and other European jurisdictions will see more of
this type of action being brought before them," Mr. Soffer, of law
firm Cabinet Soffer, said in a phone interview on May 18.

A Manhattan jury in 2010 found that Vivendi misled shareholders
about its financial health 57 times from 2000 to 2002.  Lawyers
for the investors claimed at the time that damages to the entire
shareholders' class totaled $9.3 billion.

A June hearing has been scheduled in Paris to set a deadline for
Vivendi to respond to the claims, Mr. Soffer said.  The Paris-
based company didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

Vivendi agreed in 2003 to pay $50 million to settle U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission accusations of civil fraud, and
Mr. Messier agreed to pay a $1 million fine.

Mr. Messier's bid to overturn a previous a court decision to fine
him 150,000 euros for misleading investors during his tenure as
chief executive will be heard at a Paris appeals court next year.


XILINX INC: Sued by Employees for Unpaid Overtime Work
------------------------------------------------------
Ramit Cherra, an individual California resident, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Xilinx, Inc., a
Delaware corporation and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
1-12-CV-224847 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., May 18, 2012)
is brought on behalf of current and former employees of Xilinx,
who are or were employed in the Defendants' locations in
California in positions misclassified in IT and engineering
positions, and Quality Assurance, including similar titles
regardless of whether they include words noting level or specific
position such as support, specialist, manager, analyst, Senior,
Alpha, etc.

The employees' titles were misnomers lacking the exercise of
discretion and independent judgment in the performance of their
primary duties, and in performing such duties should have been
classified as non-exempt, and therefore, paid overtime, Mr. Cherra
contends.  He asserts that he and the class were given titles that
were inconsistent and unrealistic with their job requirements and
expectations as defined by the Defendants.  He adds that he and
the class were misclassified and are owed overtime and other
remedies under California law.

Mr. Cherra is a resident of Santa Clara County, California, and
performed his work for the Defendants in the county.  He believes
he was classified at all times during his employment with the
Defendants as exempt.  However, at all times during his
employment, he said his job duties and the work he performed were
primarily non-exempt.

Xilinx, a Delaware corporation, is based in Santa Clara,
California.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants
are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jose Garay, Esq.
          JOSE GARAY, APLC
          9900 Irvine Center Drive
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 208-3400
          Facsimile: (949) 713-0432
          E-mail: jgaray@garaylaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Hamner, Esq.
          Thu Huong M. Duong, Esq.
          HAMNER LAW OFFICES, APC
          555 W. 5th Street, 31st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 533-4160
          Facsimile: (213) 533-4167
          E-mail: chamner@hamnerlaw.com
                  tduong@hamnerlaw.com

               - and -

          Glenn C. Nunes, Esq.
          THE NUNES LAW GROUP
          101 California Street, Suite 2450
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 946-8894
          Facsimile: (415) 946-8801
          E-mail: glennnunes@me.com


                           *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2012.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.





                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *