CAR_Public/120528.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 28, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 104

                             Headlines

AK STEEL: To Pay $31.7-Mil. in July Under Butler Retiree Deal
ALLY FINANCIAL: Awaits Final OK of $17.3MM "Mitchell" Suit Deal
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of CO2 Class Suit
AU OPTRONICS: Class Suits to Be Tried In and After May 2012
AXIS CAPITAL: Antitrust Class Suit vs. U.S. Units Now Closed

BLACK LANE: Faces Class Action Over Unauthorized Vehicle Towing
CADENCE DESIGN: Got Final OK of Consolidated Suit Deal in April
CANADIAN SOLAR: Plaintiffs Amend Consolidated N.Y. Complaint
CANADIAN SOLAR: To Appeal From Ontario Court's Order by May 29
CARTERS INC: Awaits May 31 Hearing of Securities Suit Settlement

CHICAGO, IL: Panhandlers File Class Action
CHICAGO CENTURY: Recalls 340 Mattresses Due to Fire Hazard
CLEARWIRE CORP: Agrees to Settle "Minnick" Class Action Suit
CLEARWIRE CORP: Agrees to Settle "Newton" Class Action Suit
CLEARWIRE CORP: Private Mediation in "Kwan" Suit Set for June

CLEARWIRE CORP: Settles "Dennings" Suit Filed in Washington
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Consolidated Securities Suit Pending in Tenn.
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Still Defends RICO Violations Suit in N.M.
COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Electricity Supply Contract Suits Pending
COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Pegs R$61MM Loss in Public Atty.'s Suits

COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Still Defends Environmental Damages Suits
COOK COUNTY, IL: Female Detainees' Settlement Gets Prelim. Okay
COOPER LIGHTING: Recalls 21T Commercial Reflector Assembly Units
COST PLUS: Faces Shareholder Class Action in California
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over IPO Registration Statement

FACEBOOK INC: Investors Sue Over Misleading Statements
FACEBOOK INC: Settles Class Action Over "Sponsored Stories"
FACEBOOK INC: Robins Geller Files Class Action in New York
FACEBOOK INC: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action
GROUPON: Settles Class Action Over Gift-Card Expiration Dates

HE SHAN LIDE: Recalls 33T LED Clip-On Desk Lamps Sold at Lowe's
ING BANK: Sued by Illinois Lawyer Over Short Sale Transactions
MURRUMBIDGEE IRRIGATION: Yenda Seeks Further Canal System Probe
NEW ZEALAND: State May Face Suit Over Delayed Earthquake Claims
UNITED STATES: Native American Class Action Settlement Upheld

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: S.C. Has Yet to Act on Review Petition
VIROPHARMA INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Defends Fuel and Environmental Charge Suits
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Remaining Claims Still Pending in ERISA Suit
WEST BANCORPORATION: West Bank Still Defends Iowa Class Suit

WHIRLPOOL CORP: Defends Suits Over Front Load Washing Machines
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Reports $323-Mil. Expense for Embraco Matters

* Introduction of Class Action in Malta to Empower Consumers


                          *********

AK STEEL: To Pay $31.7-Mil. in July Under Butler Retiree Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation will pay $31.7 million on July 31,
2012, in fulfillment of its Butler Retiree Settlement, according
to the Company's April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

In 2009, the Company reached a final settlement (the "Middletown
Retiree Settlement") of a class action filed on behalf of certain
retirees from the Company's Middletown Works relating to the
Company's other postretirement benefit ("OPEB") obligations to
such retirees.  For accounting purposes, a settlement of the
Company's OPEB obligations related to the Middletown Retiree
Settlement was deemed to have occurred in the first quarter of
2011 when the Company made the final payment of $65.0 million to a
Voluntary Employee Benefit Association ("VEBA") trust created
under the terms of that settlement.  In the first quarter of 2011,
the Company recognized the settlement accounting at the date of
the final payment and recorded a non-cash gain of $14.0 million in
the statement of operations.  The amount recognized was prorated
based on the portion of the total liability as of March 2008 that
was settled pursuant to the Middletown Retiree Settlement.

In January 2011, the Company reached a final settlement agreement
(the "Butler Retiree Settlement") of a class action filed on
behalf of certain retirees from the Company's Butler Works
relating to the Company's OPEB obligations to such retirees.
Pursuant to the Butler Retiree Settlement, AK Steel agreed to
continue to provide company-paid health and life insurance to
class members through December 31, 2014, and to make combined lump
sum payments totaling $91.0 million to a VEBA trust and to
plaintiffs' counsel.  AK Steel agreed to make three cash
contributions to the VEBA trust as follows: $22.6 million on
August 1, 2011, which has been paid; $31.7 million on July 31,
2012; and $27.6 million on July 31, 2013.  The balance of the lump
sum payments was paid to plaintiffs' attorneys on August 1, 2011,
to cover plaintiffs' obligations with respect to attorneys' fees.
Effective January 1, 2015, AK Steel will transfer to the VEBA
trust all OPEB obligations owed to the Class Members under the
Company's applicable health and welfare plans and will have no
further liability for any claims incurred by the Class Members
after December 31, 2014, relating to their OPEB obligations.  The
VEBA trust will be utilized to fund all such future OPEB
obligations to the Class Members.  Trustees of the VEBA trust will
determine the scope of the benefits to be provided to the Class
Members.  The effect of the settlement on the Company's total OPEB
liability (prior to any funding of the VEBA trust created under
the terms of the settlement) was an increase in that liability of
approximately $29.6 million in the first quarter of 2011. With
respect to this increase, a one-time, pre-tax charge of $14.2
million was recorded in the first quarter of 2011 to reverse
previous amortization of the prior plan amendment.  The remaining
portion was recognized in other comprehensive income and will be
amortized into earnings over approximately five years.  The
Company's OPEB liability will be reduced after each of the annual
contributions to the VEBA trust under the terms of the Butler
Retiree Settlement.  In addition, the OPEB liability will be
reduced by the ongoing benefit payment amounts through December
31, 2014.  For accounting purposes, a settlement of the Company's
OPEB obligations will be deemed to have occurred when the Company
makes the final benefit payments in 2014.

Certain reclassifications of prior-year amounts have been made to
conform to the current year presentation.  Amounts for pension and
OPEB expense (income) have been separately disclosed on the
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.  These amounts
had been included as part of costs of products sold and selling
and administrative expenses in the prior year.  The Company has
also disclosed these amounts separately on the Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows.

AK Steel Holding Corporation's operations consist of seven
steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana, Kentucky,
Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon steels,
including premium-quality coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled
products, and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are
sold in hot band, sheet and strip form.


ALLY FINANCIAL: Awaits Final OK of $17.3MM "Mitchell" Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ally Financial Inc. is awaiting final approval of a $17.3 million
settlement of a class action lawsuit filed against its subsidiary,
Residential Funding Company LLC, according to the Company's April
27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

In a statewide class action known as the Mitchell Litigation,
plaintiffs alleged that Mortgage Capital Resources, Inc. (MCR)
violated the Missouri Second Mortgage Loan Act by charging
Missouri borrowers fees and interest not permitted by the Act.
RFC and Homecomings Financial LLC (HFN), among others, were named
as defendants in their role as assignees of certain of the MCR
loans. Following a trial concluded in January 2008, the jury
returned verdicts against all defendants, including an award
against RFC and HFN for $4 million in compensatory damages (plus
pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees) and against
RFC for $92 million in punitive damages.  In a November 2010
decision, the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the compensatory
damages but ordered a new trial on punitive damages.  Upon remand,
the Company paid $12.8 million in compensatory damages (including
interest and attorneys' fees).

At the end of February 2012, RFC entered into an agreement in
principle to settle all of plaintiffs' remaining claims, including
plaintiffs' already-awarded attorneys' fees on appeal, for a total
of $17.3 million.  The agreement was preliminarily approved on
April 16, 2012.  The hearing on final approval was scheduled for
May 18, 2012.


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of CO2 Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their class action lawsuit
over carbon dioxide emissions, according to American Electric
Power Company, Inc.'s April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

In October 2009, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a
decision by the Federal District Court for the District of
Mississippi dismissing state common law nuisance claims in a
putative class action by Mississippi residents asserting that CO2
emissions exacerbated the effects of Hurricane Katrina.  The Fifth
Circuit held that there was no exclusive commitment of the common
law issues raised in plaintiffs' complaint to a coordinate branch
of government and that no initial policy determination was
required to adjudicate these claims.  The court granted petitions
for rehearing.  An additional recusal left the Fifth Circuit
without a quorum to reconsider the decision and the appeal was
dismissed, leaving the district court's decision in place.
Plaintiffs filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the
court to remand the case to the Fifth Circuit and reinstate the
panel decision.  The petition was denied in January 2011.
Plaintiffs refiled their complaint in federal district court.  The
court ordered all defendants to respond to the refiled complaints
in October 2011.

In March 2012, the court granted the defendants' motion for
dismissal on several grounds, including the doctrine of collateral
estoppel and the applicable statute of limitations.  Plaintiffs
appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Management says it will continue to defend against the claims.
Management is unable to determine a range of potential losses that
are reasonably possible of occurring.

Headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, American Electric Power Company,
Inc., generates, transmits, and distributes electric power in
Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.


AU OPTRONICS: Class Suits to Be Tried In and After May 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------
AU Optronics Corp. disclosed in its April 27, 2012, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011, that class action lawsuits against
it are expected to be tried in and after May 2012 unless a
settlement is reached.

There are also over 100 civil lawsuits filed against the Company
and/or its subsidiaries in the United States and several civil
lawsuits in Canada alleging, among other things, antitrust
violations.  The putative antitrust class actions filed in the
United States have been consolidated for discovery in the Northern
California Court.  In the amended consolidated complaints, the
plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, unspecified monetary
damages and an enjoinment from the alleged antitrust conspiracy.
The Court has issued an order certifying two types of classes that
may proceed against the Company and other TFT-LCD companies:
direct purchasers and indirect purchasers.  The civil class
actions are expected to be tried in and after May 2012 unless a
settlement is reached.  Also, the first track of plaintiffs that
have opted out of the class cases are set for trial in November
2012.  While the Company's management intends to defend certain
lawsuits vigorously, the ultimate outcome of the matter is
uncertain, and the amount of possible loss, if any, of certain
lawsuits is currently not estimable.  The Company's management is
reviewing the merits of this lawsuit on an on-going basis.

AU Optronics Corp. is in the display business and solar business.
For its Display Business, the Company designs, develops,
manufactures, assembles and markets flat panel displays and most
of its products are TFT-LCD panels.  For its Solar Business, the
Company manufactures polysilicon and solar wafer in Japan.  It
designs, develops, and manufactures solar photovoltaic (PV)
modules as well as produces solar PV systems and provides various
value-added services for solar PV systems projects.  The Company
is based in Hsinchu, Taiwan, Republic of China.


AXIS CAPITAL: Antitrust Class Suit vs. U.S. Units Now Closed
------------------------------------------------------------
The antitrust class action lawsuit filed against AXIS Capital
Holdings Limited's U.S. insurance subsidiaries is now closed,
according to the Company's April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

In 2005, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company's U.S. insurance subsidiaries.  In re Insurance Brokerage
Antitrust Litigation was filed on August 15, 2005, in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey and includes
as defendants numerous insurance brokers and insurance companies.
The lawsuit alleges antitrust and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO") violations in connection with the
payment of contingent commissions and manipulation of insurance
bids and seeks damages in an unspecified amount.  On October 3,
2006, the District Court granted, in part, motions to dismiss
filed by the defendants, and ordered plaintiffs to file
supplemental pleadings setting forth sufficient facts to allege
their antitrust and RICO claims.  After plaintiffs filed their
supplemental pleadings, defendants renewed their motions to
dismiss.  On April 15, 2007, the District Court dismissed without
prejudice plaintiffs' complaint, as amended, and granted
plaintiffs thirty (30) days to file another amended complaint
and/or revised RICO Statement and Statements of Particularity.  In
May 2007, plaintiffs filed (i) a Second Consolidated Amended
Commercial Class Action complaint, (ii) a Revised Particularized
Statement Describing the Horizontal Conspiracies Alleged in the
Second Consolidated Amended Commercial Class Action Complaint, and
(iii) a Third Amended Commercial Insurance Plaintiffs' RICO Case
Statement Pursuant to Local Rule 16.1(B)(4).  On June 21, 2007,
the defendants filed renewed motions to dismiss.  On September 28,
2007, the District Court dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs'
antitrust and RICO claims and declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over plaintiffs' remaining state law claims.  On
October 10, 2007, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of all
adverse orders and decisions to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit, and a hearing was held in April 2009.  On
August 16, 2010, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
District Court's dismissal of the antitrust and RICO claims
arising from the contingent commission arrangements and remanded
the case to the District Court with respect to the manipulation of
insurance bids allegations.

The Company continued to believe that the lawsuit was completely
without merit and on that basis vigorously defended the filed
action.  However, for the sole purpose of avoiding additional
litigation costs, the Company reached an agreement in principle
with plaintiffs during the first quarter of 2011 to settle all
claims and causes of action in this matter for an immaterial
amount.  On March 30, 2012, the District Court issued the final
settlement order, and this matter is now closed.


BLACK LANE: Faces Class Action Over Unauthorized Vehicle Towing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Holleran, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that an East Alton woman claims a tow truck company wrongly towed
her vehicle without her consent.

Tiffany A. Craycraft filed a lawsuit on May 10 in Madison County
Circuit Court against Black Lane Auto Parts.

Ms. Craycraft alleges Black Lane towed her Ford Taurus on April 11
without her consent.

"The Plaintiff's Taurus was located on the side of the road, in
Caseyville, Illinois, substantially less than two hours, at the
time it was towed by Defendant," the suit states.

Black Lane should not have towed Ms. Craycraft's vehicle and does
not have authorization to tow vehicles unless they have been
abandoned on a toll highway or interstate highway for more than
two hours or have been abandoned on a highway in an urban district
for more than 10 hours, the complaint says.

Despite Illinois statutes, Black Lane has towed hundreds of
vehicles without waiting the required time frames specified under
state law, Ms. Craycraft claims.

Ms. Craycraft has filed a putative class action complaint.  In it,
she seeks a judgment of more than $100,000, plus damages, costs,
attorney's fees and other relief the court deems just.

Thomas G. Maag of Maag Law Firm in Wood River will be representing
her.

Madison County Circuit Court case number: 12-L-641.


CADENCE DESIGN: Got Final OK of Consolidated Suit Deal in April
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California entered its final approval of Cadence Design Systems,
Inc.'s settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit in April
2012, according to the Company's April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2012.

During fiscal 2008, three complaints were filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, or
District Court, all alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Cadence's common
stock.  The first such complaint was filed on October 29, 2008,
captioned Hu v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc., Michael J. Fister,
William Porter and Kevin S. Palatnik; the second such complaint
was filed on November 4, 2008, captioned Vyas v. Cadence Design
Systems, Inc., Michael J. Fister and Kevin S. Palatnik; and the
third such complaint was filed on November 21, 2008, captioned
Collins v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc., Michael J. Fister, John
B. Shoven, Kevin S. Palatnik and William Porter.  On March 4,
2009, the District Court entered an order consolidating these
three complaints and captioning the consolidated case "In re
Cadence Design Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation."  The District
Court also named a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the
consolidated litigation.  The lead plaintiff filed its
consolidated amended complaint on April 24, 2009, naming Cadence,
Michael J. Fister, Kevin S. Palatnik, William Porter and Kevin
Bushby as defendants, and alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of
Cadence's common stock who traded Cadence's common stock between
April 23, 2008, and December 10, 2008, or the Alleged Class
Period. The amended complaint alleged that Cadence and the
individual defendants made statements during the Alleged Class
Period regarding Cadence's financial results that were false and
misleading because Cadence had recognized revenue that should have
been recognized in subsequent periods.  The amended complaint
requested certification of the action as a class action,
unspecified damages, interest and costs, and unspecified equitable
relief.  On June 8, 2009, Cadence and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On September 11, 2009,
the District Court held that the plaintiffs had failed to allege a
valid claim under the relevant legal standards and granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  The District
Court gave the plaintiffs leave to file another amended complaint,
and the plaintiffs did so on October 13, 2009.  The amended
complaint filed on October 13, 2009, names the same defendants,
asserts the same causes of action, and seeks the same relief as
the earlier amended complaint.  Cadence moved to dismiss the
October 13, 2009 amended complaint.  The District Court denied the
motion to dismiss on March 2, 2010.  On July 7, 2010, the parties
agreed, and the District Court ordered, that the litigation be
stayed in order to facilitate mediation.

On February 11, 2011, the parties to the securities litigation
agreed to settle the securities litigation for consideration of
$38.0 million, of which approximately $22.2 million will be paid
by Cadence's insurance carriers, with the balance to be paid by
Cadence.  Cadence agreed to this settlement without admitting any
wrongdoing on the part of the company or any of its current or
former directors or executive officers.  The District Court
preliminarily approved the settlement on November 15, 2011.
Notice of the settlement was given to class members pursuant to
the District Court's preliminary approval order.  On April 23,
2012, the District Court entered an order granting final approval
of the securities litigation settlement, and entered its final
judgment and order of dismissal with prejudice.

During fiscal 2011, Cadence paid $16.4 million into a securities
litigation settlement fund, which amount included Cadence's
portion of the settlement consideration of $15.8 million and $0.6
million of accrued interest.  As of March 31, 2012, $22.2 million
had been paid into the securities litigation settlement fund by
Cadence's insurance carriers.


CANADIAN SOLAR: Plaintiffs Amend Consolidated N.Y. Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated class action lawsuit pending in New
York filed an amended complaint last month, according to Canadian
Solar Inc.'s April 27, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

On June 1, 2010, the Company announced that it would postpone the
release of its financial results for the first quarter ended March
31, 2010, and its quarterly earnings call pending the outcome of
an investigation by the Audit Committee of its Board of Directors
that had been launched after the Company received a subpoena from
the SEC requesting documents relating to, among other things,
certain sales transactions in 2009.  Thereafter six class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, or the New York cases, and another
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, or the California case.
The New York cases were consolidated into a single action in
December 2010.  On January 5, 2011, the California case was
dismissed by the plaintiff, who became a member of the lead
plaintiff group in the New York action.  On March 11, 2011, a
Consolidated Complaint was filed with respect to the New York
action.  The Consolidated Complaint alleges generally that its
financial disclosures during 2009 and early 2010 were false or
misleading; asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; and names the Company, its
chief executive officer and its former chief financial officer as
defendants.  The Company filed its motion to dismiss in May 2011,
which was taken under submission by the Court in July 2011.

On March 30, 2012, the Court dismissed the Consolidated Complaint
with leave to amend, and the plaintiffs filed an Amended
Consolidated Complaint against the same defendants on April 19,
2012.  The Amended Consolidated Complaint similarly alleges
generally that its financial disclosures during 2009 and early
2010 were false or misleading and asserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

As of December 31, 2011, the Company believed the allegations are
without merit, and that the potential for loss was remote and did
not record a liability associated with such lawsuits.

Canadian Solar Inc. -- http://www.canadiansolar.com/-- is one of
the world's largest solar companies.  As a leading vertically
integrated provider of ingot, wafer, solar cell, solar module and
other solar applications, Canadian Solar designs, manufactures and
delivers solar products and solar system solutions for on-grid and
off-grid use to customers worldwide.  With operations in North
America, Europe and Asia, Canadian Solar provides premium quality,
cost-effective and environmentally-friendly solar solutions to
support global, sustainable development.


CANADIAN SOLAR: To Appeal From Ontario Court's Order by May 29
--------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Solar Inc. disclosed in its April 27, 2012, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011, that it will seek leave to appeal to
the Supreme Court of Canada from an Ontario court's order on or
before May 29, 2012.

A class action lawsuit that is similar to the one pending in New
York was filed against the Company and certain of its executive
officers in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on August 10,
2010.  The lawsuit alleges generally that its financial
disclosures during 2009 and 2010 were false or misleading and
brings claims under the shareholders' relief provisions of the
Canada Business Corporations Act, Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario
Securities Act as well as claims based on negligent
misrepresentation.  In December 2010, the Company filed a motion
to dismiss the Ontario action on the basis that the Ontario Court
has no jurisdiction over the claims and potential claims advanced
by the plaintiff.  The motion was argued in the Ontario Court on
May 10 and 11, 2011, and June 22 and 23, 2011, and was dismissed
by an order dated August 29, 2011.  The Company's appeal from that
Court's dismissal of the jurisdictional challenge to the
plaintiff's Ontario Securities Act claim was argued in the Ontario
Court of Appeal on February 13, 2012, and was dismissed by an
order dated March 30, 2012.

The Company says it will be filing an application for leave to
appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from the Ontario Court of
Appeal's order on or before May 29, 2012.

As of December 31, 2011, the Company believed the allegations are
without merit, and that the potential for loss was remote and did
not record a liability associated with such lawsuits.

Canadian Solar Inc. -- http://www.canadiansolar.com/-- is one of
the world's largest solar companies.  As a leading vertically
integrated provider of ingot, wafer, solar cell, solar module and
other solar applications, Canadian Solar designs, manufactures and
delivers solar products and solar system solutions for on-grid and
off-grid use to customers worldwide.  With operations in North
America, Europe and Asia, Canadian Solar provides premium quality,
cost-effective and environmentally-friendly solar solutions to
support global, sustainable development.


CARTERS INC: Awaits May 31 Hearing of Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carter's, Inc. is awaiting final approval of its agreement to
settle a consolidated securities class action lawsuit at a hearing
scheduled for May 31, 2012, according to the Company's April 27,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

A shareholder class action lawsuit was filed on September 19,
2008, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia entitled Plymouth County Retirement System v.
Carter's, Inc., No. 1:08-CV-02940-JOF (the "Plymouth Action").
The Amended Complaint filed on May 12, 2009, in the Plymouth
Action asserted claims under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the
1934 Securities Exchange Act, and alleged that between February 1,
2006, and July 24, 2007, the Company and certain current and
former executives made material misrepresentations to investors
regarding the successful integration of OshKosh into the Company's
business, and that the share price of the Company's stock later
fell when the market learned that the integration had not been as
successful as represented.  Defendants in the Plymouth Action
filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to
state a claim under the federal securities laws on July 17, 2009,
and briefing of that motion was complete on October 22, 2009.

A separate shareholder class action lawsuit was filed on
November 17, 2009, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia entitled Mylroie v. Carter's, Inc.,
No. 1:09-CV-3196-JOF (the "Mylroie Action").  The initial
Complaint in the Mylroie Action asserted claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act, and alleged
that between April 27, 2004, and November 10, 2009, the Company
and certain current and former executives made material
misstatements to investors regarding the Company's accounting for
discounts offered to some wholesale customers.  The Court
consolidated the Plymouth Action and the Mylroie Action on
November 24, 2009 (the "Consolidated Action").  On March 15, 2010,
the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed their amended and
consolidated complaint.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss on
April 30, 2010, and briefing of the motion was complete on July
23, 2010.

On March 16, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia granted without prejudice the
Company's motion to dismiss all of the claims in the amended and
consolidated complaint in the Consolidated Action for failure to
state a claim under the federal securities laws.  The plaintiffs
filed a second amended and consolidated complaint on July 20,
2011.  On December 21, 2011, the Company reached an agreement to
settle the Consolidated Action for an amount which has been paid
by the Company's insurance providers.  The settlement agreement
includes no admission of liability or wrongdoing by the Company or
by any other defendants and provides for a full and complete
release of all related claims that were or could have been brought
against the Company, its subsidiaries, and any and all current and
former directors, officers, and employees of the Company and its
subsidiaries.

On January 19, 2012, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and ordered that notice be provided to the proposed
settlement class (as defined in the settlement agreement).  The
Court has scheduled a hearing for May 31, 2012, to determine
whether the settlement will receive final approval.


CHICAGO, IL: Panhandlers File Class Action
------------------------------------------
Leah Hope, writing for WLS-TV/DT, reports that panhandlers are
claiming they are being forced off the Magnificent Mile.  They are
filing a lawsuit to reclaim their spot on Michigan Avenue.

Kim Pindak says he went to college with plans of going on to
medical school.  But he says his mental illness disrupted those
plans and he has had trouble holding jobs.

"There are some people some good people who do care in the world,
and those people are the ones, as a panhandler, I'm reaching out
to," said Mr. Pindak.

His attorney says Mr. Pindak gets disability income from the
federal government and all but $30 a month goes to the nursing
home facility where he lives.

"A dollar a day.  That's only like getting a soda a day or a cup a
coffee a day," said Mr. Pindak.  "So if I'm not by the nursing
home during the day looking for work, I don't have the money to
eat."

So he asks for help.  This was not his plan, but this is now
Mr. Pindak's life.

Recently, Mr. Pindak says he has been threatened with arrest.
Video provided by Mr. Pindak's attorney shows what appears to be a
police officer warning Mr. Pindak to leave the 900-block of North
Michigan Avenue.

Mr. Pindak and others claim recent harassment by police for
panhandling along the tourist-rich stretch of Michigan Avenue.

"First I felt afraid, and I felt like a lot of my actions were
limited," Mr. Pindak said.

"This is the other 1 percent.  This is the bottom 1 percent," said
attorney Mark Weinberg.  "These are people who are just struggling
to live."

Attorneys for panhandlers filed a class-action lawsuit against the
city and individual police officers.  The complaints ask the city
to stop any action that prevents lawful panhandling.

Over the years there has been concern about aggressive
panhandling.  A city law prevents panhandlers from following,
blocking or touching someone.  And they can't block someone's path
or use abusive language.

The city's spokesman has not seen the lawsuit and cannot comment
on the allegations of police harassment.

"People do find panhandlers an annoyance," Mr. Weinberg said.
"But, the question is, Do we sacrifice Constitution rights because
we find the a nuisance? And my answer is no."

Lawsuit or not, Mr. Pindak continues looking for help but is
staying away from Michigan Avenue for now.


CHICAGO CENTURY: Recalls 340 Mattresses Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
About 340 Century Mattresses were voluntarily recalled by Chicago
Century Furniture Corp., of Chicago, previously Century Furniture
Corp., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission.  Consumers should stop using the product immediately
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The mattresses fail to meet the mandatory federal open flame
standard for mattresses, posing a fire hazard to consumers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Chicago Century Furniture Corp. twin-, full-,
queen- and king-size mattresses with the model number "MG006."
The mattresses are 3 inches thick with white and off-white fabric
with a tone-on-tone swirl pattern.  The model number can be found
on a paper tag attached to the foot of the mattress.  The words
"Century Spring Mattress" appear on a fabric label on the topside
near the foot of the mattress.  A picture of a man and woman
embracing also appears on the label.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12735.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Chicago Century Furniture Inc., 3034 South
Wentworth Ave., Chicago, Ill., from January 2008 through October
2010 for between $190 and $360.

Consumers should immediately stop using the mattress and contact
Chicago Century Furniture Corp. to receive a replacement mattress.
For additional information, contact Chicago Century Furniture
toll-free at (855) 236-8830 between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Central Time Monday through Friday.  The firm is contacting its
customers directly.


CLEARWIRE CORP: Agrees to Settle "Minnick" Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Clearwire Corporation has agreed to settle the class action
lawsuit commenced by Chad Minnick, et al., according to the
Company's April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2012.

In April 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
Clearwire U.S. LLC in Superior Court in King County, Washington by
a group of five plaintiffs (Chad Minnick, et al.).  The lawsuit
generally alleges that the Company disseminated false advertising
about the quality and reliability of the Company's services;
imposed an unlawful early termination fee, or the ETF; and invoked
allegedly unconscionable provisions of the Company's Terms of
Service to the detriment of subscribers.  Among other things, the
lawsuit seeks a determination that the alleged claims may be
asserted on a class-wide basis; an order declaring certain
provisions of the Company's Terms of Service, including the ETF
provision, void and unenforceable; an injunction prohibiting the
Company from collecting ETFs and further false advertising;
restitution of any early termination fees paid by the Company's
subscribers; equitable relief; and an award of unspecified damages
and attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs subsequently amended their
complaint adding seven additional plaintiffs.  The Company removed
the case to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington.  On July 23, 2009, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  The Court stayed
discovery pending its ruling on the motion, and on February 2,
2010, granted the Company's motion to dismiss in its entirety.
Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  On
March 29, 2011, the Court of Appeals entered an Order Certifying
Question to the Supreme Court of Washington requesting guidance on
a question of Washington state law.  The parties have briefed the
issue.  Once the Washington Supreme Court issues its opinion, the
Court of Appeals will continue considering the appeal of the
District Court's dismissal of all claims in the First Amended
Complaint.

The parties have agreed to settle the lawsuit.  The settlement is
pending execution of a definitive agreement and court approval.
The Company has accrued an estimated amount it anticipates to pay
for the settlement.  The accrual is included in Other current
liabilities.  The amount accrued is considered immaterial to the
financial statements.


CLEARWIRE CORP: Agrees to Settle "Newton" Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Clearwire Corporation has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit
initiated in California, according to the Company's April 27,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

In March 2011, a purported class action was filed against
Clearwire in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California.  The case, Newton v. Clearwire, Inc. [sic], alleges
Clearwire's network management and advertising practices
constitute breach of contract, unjust enrichment, unfair
competition under California's Business and Professions Code
Sections 17200 et seq., and violation of California's Consumers'
Legal Remedies Act.  Plaintiff contends Clearwire's advertisements
of "no speed cap" and "unlimited data" are false and misleading.
Plaintiff alleges Clearwire has breached its contracts with
customers by not delivering the Internet service as advertised.
Plaintiff also claims slow data speeds are due to Clearwire's
network management practices.  Plaintiff seeks class
certification; declaratory and injunctive relief; unspecified
restitution and/or disgorgement of fees paid for Clearwire
service; and unspecified damages, interest, fees and costs.  On
June 9, 2011, Clearwire filed a motion to compel arbitration.

The parties have agreed to settle the lawsuit.  The settlement is
pending execution of a definitive agreement and court approval.

The Company says it has accrued an estimated amount it anticipates
to pay for the settlement.  The accrual is included in Other
current liabilities.  The amount accrued is considered immaterial
to the financial statements.


CLEARWIRE CORP: Private Mediation in "Kwan" Suit Set for June
-------------------------------------------------------------
A private mediation between the parties in the class action
lawsuit initiated by Rosa Kwan is scheduled for June 2012,
Clearwire Corporation disclosed in its April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012.

In September 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Clearwire in King County Superior Court, brought by
representative plaintiff Rosa Kwan.  The complaint alleges the
Company placed unlawful telephone calls using automatic dialing
and announcing devices and engaged in unlawful collection
practices.  It seeks declaratory, injunctive, and/or equitable
relief and actual and statutory damages under federal and state
law.  On October 1, 2009, the Company removed the case to the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington.  The parties stipulated to allow a Second Amended
Complaint, which plaintiffs filed on December 23, 2009.  The
Company then filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On
February 22, 2010, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss in part, dismissing certain claims with prejudice and
granting plaintiff leave to further amend the complaint.
Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint adding additional state
law claims and joining Bureau of Recovery, a purported collection
agency, as a co-defendant.  On January 27, 2011, the court granted
the parties' stipulation allowing plaintiff to file a Fourth
Amended Complaint adding two new class representatives.  The
Company then filed motions to compel the newly-added customer
plaintiffs to arbitrate their individual claims.

On January 3, 2012, the Court denied without prejudice the
Company's motions to compel arbitration because of factual issues
to be resolved at an evidentiary hearing.  The evidentiary hearing
and the matter are stayed pending a private mediation between the
parties.  The mediation is scheduled for June 2012.

The Company says this case is in the early stages of litigation,
its outcome is unknown and the possible loss or range of possible
loss cannot be reasonably estimated as of the date of this report.


CLEARWIRE CORP: Settles "Dennings" Suit Filed in Washington
-----------------------------------------------------------
Clearwire Corporation has agreed to settle the class action
lawsuit commenced by Angelo Dennings, according to the Company's
April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

In November 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Clearwire by Angelo Dennings in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington.  The complaint generally
alleges the Company slow network speeds when network demand is
highest and that such network management violates the Company's
agreements with subscribers and is contrary to the company's
advertising and marketing claims.  Plaintiffs also allege that
subscribers do not review the Terms of Service prior to
subscribing, and when subscribers cancel service due to network
management, the Company charges an early termination fee ("ETF")
or restocking fee that they claim is unconscionable under the
circumstances.  The claims asserted include breach of contract,
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjust
enrichment.  Plaintiffs seek class certification; unspecified
damages and restitution; a declaratory judgment that Clearwire's
ETF and restocking fee are unconscionable under the alleged
circumstances; an injunction prohibiting Clearwire from engaging
in alleged deceptive marketing and from charging ETFs; interest;
and attorneys' fees and costs.  On January 13, 2011, the Company
filed concurrent motions to compel arbitration and in the
alternative, to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.  In response to Clearwire's
motions, Plaintiff abandoned its fraud claim and amended its
complaint with fourteen additional plaintiffs in eight separate
jurisdictions.  Plaintiff further added new claims of violation of
Consumer Protection statutes under various state laws.

On March 31, 2011, Clearwire filed concurrent motions to (1)
compel the newly-added plaintiffs to arbitrate their individual
claims, (2) alternatively, to stay this case pending the United
States Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v.
Concepcion, No. 09-893, and (3) to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Plaintiffs did not oppose Clearwire's motion to stay the
litigation pending Concepcion, and the parties stipulated to stay
the litigation.  On April 27, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court decided
Concepcion, and as a result, the Company expects to renew its
motion to compel arbitration.

The parties have agreed to settle the lawsuit.  The settlement is
pending execution of a definitive agreement and court approval.

The Company says it has accrued an estimated amount it anticipates
to pay for the settlement.  The accrual is included in other
current liabilities.  The amount accrued is considered immaterial
to the financial statements.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Consolidated Securities Suit Pending in Tenn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities class action lawsuit against Community
Health Systems, Inc., is pending in Tennessee, according to the
Company's April 27, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2012.

Three purported class action shareholder federal securities cases
have been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee; namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v.
Community Health Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith and W. Larry Cash,
filed May 5, 2011; De Zheng v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,
Wayne T. Smith and W. Larry Cash, filed May 12, 2011; and
Minneapolis Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health
Systems, Inc., Wayne T. Smith, W. Larry Cash and Thomas Mark
Buford, filed June 2, 2011.  All three seek class certification on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July
27, 2006, and April 11, 2011, and allege that misleading
statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for the
Company's common stock.  On September 20, 2011, all three were
assigned to the same judge as related cases.

On December 28, 2011, the court consolidated all three shareholder
cases for pretrial purposes, selected NYC Funds as lead
plaintiffs, and selected NYC Funds' counsel as lead plaintiffs'
counsel.  The parties are in the process of negotiating operative
dates for these consolidated shareholder federal securities
actions, including dates for the filing of an operative
consolidated complaint and related briefing.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Still Defends RICO Violations Suit in N.M.
------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. continues to defend a class action
lawsuit alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, according to the Company's April 27,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On April 19, 2009, the Company was served in Roswell, New Mexico,
with an answer and counterclaim in the case of Roswell Hospital
Corporation d/b/a Eastern New Mexico Medical Center vs. Patrick
Sisneros and Tammie McClain (sued as Jane Doe Sisneros).  The case
was originally filed as a collection matter.  The counterclaim was
filed as a putative class action and alleged theories of breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, misrepresentation, prima facie tort,
Fair Trade Practices Act and violation of the New Mexico RICO
statute.  On May 7, 2009, the hospital filed a notice of removal
to federal court.  On July 27, 2009, the case was remanded to
state court for lack of a federal question.  A motion to dismiss
and a motion to dismiss misjoined counterclaim plaintiffs were
filed on October 20, 2009.  These motions were denied.  Extensive
discovery has been conducted.  A motion for class certification
for all uninsured patients was heard on March 3 through March 5,
2010, and on April 13, 2010, the state district court judge
certified the case as a class action.  Numerous hearings have been
conducted to assess the sufficiency of the methodology used to
determine class damages.  On December 5, 2011, the court entered
an order approving the suggested damages methodology.  The court
ordered that class notice will have been sent by April 30, 2012.

The Company says it is vigorously defending this action.


COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Electricity Supply Contract Suits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais (CEMIG) is a defendant in
several public class actions challenging the clause in the
Electricity Supply Contracts for public illumination, signed
between the Company and the various municipalities of its
concession area, and restitution by the Company of the difference
representing the amounts charged in the last 20 years, in the
event that the courts recognize that these amounts were unduly
charged.  The actions are grounded on a supposed mistake by CEMIG
in the estimate of time used for the calculation of the
consumption of electricity by public illumination paid for by the
Public Illumination Contribution (CIP).  On December 31, 2011, the
amount involved in this action was, approximately, R$1.2 billion,
and the Company has assessed the chances of loss as "possible"
(i.e. on the date of the financial statements an obligation was
assessed as being more unlikely than likely).

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 27, 2012,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.


COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Pegs R$61MM Loss in Public Atty.'s Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais (CEMIG) disclosed that the
amount involved in the class action lawsuits initiated by the
Public Attorney of Minas Gerais was R$61 million, according to the
Company's April 27, 2012, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

The Public Attorney of Minas Gerais, Brazil, filed seven class
actions against CEMIG seeking an order against CEMIG to invest at
least 0.5% of its total operational revenue per year on the
protection and environmental preservation of the water tables of
the municipalities in which CEMIG's generation plants are located
since 1997.  In two of these actions, judgment was granted partly
in favor of the Public Attorneys' Office of Minas Gerais, with
CEMIG being ordered to invest 0.5% of the gross operational
revenue on measures for environmental preservation and protection
of the water tables in Ouro Preto, Uberaba, Agua Comprida, Campo
Florido, Delta e Verissimo.  CEMIG has filed an appeal with the
State Appeals Court of Minas Gerais.  On December 31, 2011, the
amount involved in these actions was R$14 million, and the Company
assessed the chances of loss as "possible," (i.e. on the date of
the financial statements an obligation was assessed as being more
unlikely than likely).

In March 2012, the Company re-assessed the amount involved in
these lawsuits to R$61 million, and the chance of loss in these
proceedings as "probable" (i.e. on the date of the financial
statements an obligation was assessed as being more likely than
not).  CEMIG and its wholly owned subsidiaries are defendants in
several other public civil actions in which the amounts involved
cannot be precisely assessed, in the Company's view, most of these
lawsuits are related to alleged environmental damages and require
indemnity, remediation of damaged areas and compensation measures
that will be defined in the course of the proceedings, often
requiring the expertise to carry out verification of the values
involved.  Also, class actions may benefit third parties not
originally involved in these proceedings, who may be entitled to
further reparations or indemnity.


COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Still Defends Environmental Damages Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica de Minas Gerais (CEMIG) and its wholly-owned
subsidiaries are defendants in various other public civil actions
where the amounts involved cannot be assessed accurately, due to
the fact that most of these lawsuits are related to alleged
environmental damages and require indemnity, recuperation of
damaged areas and compensation measures that will be defined in
the course of the proceedings, often requiring experts to verify
the amounts.  Also, class actions may benefit third parties not
originally involved in the proceedings, who may be entitled to
further damages or compensations.  Hence, the Company says it
cannot specify the amount involved in these proceedings.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 27, 2012,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.


COOK COUNTY, IL: Female Detainees' Settlement Gets Prelim. Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colleen Mastony, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a
federal judge on May 22 granted preliminary approval to a $4.1
million settlement of a class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of
a group of female detainees at the Cook County Jail who claimed
they were shackled while they were pregnant and in labor, despite
a state law banning the practice.

Unless objections are raised, roughly 80 female plaintiffs will
each receive an average of $35,000.  But the more important
victory, said plaintiff's attorney Thomas G. Morrissey, was the
fact that "we actually stopped the practice" of shackling pregnant
detainees in Cook County.

Since the civil rights suit was filed, he said, "the county and
sheriff have moved toward a more humane method of handling women
who are pregnant and in labor.  And I think this settlement fairly
compensates the women for the past injuries that they suffered."

The settlement, given preliminary approval by U.S. District Judge
Amy St. Eve, caps a long debate around the issue of shackling
pregnant detainees and comes after years in which the Cook County
sheriff's office, which runs the jail, has gradually relaxed its
regulations.

The sheriff's office said it agreed to settle for expediency's
sake and that the move was in no way an admission of wrongdoing.

"This settlement is probably the most fair and efficient way to
end this lawsuit and to prevent further cost to taxpayers.  The
Cook County sheriff's office strictly prohibits the use of
security restraints on pregnant women in custody absent of unusual
circumstances," said Frank Bilecki, spokesman for the office.

In 1999, Illinois became the first state in the nation to ban the
practice of shackling female inmates who were in labor or who were
being taken to the hospital to deliver a child.

But in recent years, women came forward to say that shackles were
not removed until the moment before they delivered or were not
removed at all.  In some cases, women said, guards ignored
requests by medical personnel to remove restraints.  The women who
sued alleged they were restrained during births that took place
between September 2007 and June 2010.

Handcuffs, shackles and belly chains that circle the waist and
attach to other restraints were used on pregnant detainees at the
Cook County jail until April 2010, when a policy change dictated
that only handcuffs be used.  In February 2011, the policy changed
again, this time dictating that no restraints should be used on
pregnant women, unless they posed a security or flight risk.

Advocates for incarcerated women praised the May 22 settlement.
But they noted that more needs to be done to protect pregnant
inmates in state prisons and county jails.

In January, Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn signed a law that banned the
use of shackles on pregnant detainees, except for those who pose a
flight or security risk.  But that law only applies to detainees
in Cook County.

"We're very pleased that Sheriff (Tom) Dart has implemented
stronger protections for pregnant women," said Gail Smith, senior
policy director at Chicago Legal Advocacy for Incarcerated
Mothers.  "We look forward to a day that women throughout Illinois
will have similar protections."

The May 22 settlement includes a provision that will set up a fund
to provide job, educational and family counseling for the women
involved in the suit.

"Most of the women realize that they have issues that caused them
to be incarcerated in the first place," said Mr. Morrissey, who
handled the case with attorney Kenneth N. Flaxman.  "This
(settlement) gives them a chance to chart a new course in life.
Not only will they have some money, they'll have some assistance
in dealing with the issues in their lives."


COOPER LIGHTING: Recalls 21T Commercial Reflector Assembly Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Cooper Lighting LLC, of Peachtree City, Georgia, announced a
voluntary recall of about 21,000 units of Portfolio 7-inch
reflector assembly with glass lens.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The reflector can fall out of its fixture to the ground, which
could result in an injury hazard.

Cooper Lighting has received 23 reports of reflectors falling.  No
injuries have been reported to the firm.

This recall involves circular, 7-inch diameter Portfolio aluminum
reflector with glass lens designed to be inserted into a light
fixture.  This reflector is intended for use in indoor, commercial
applications, such as office buildings, schools and shopping
malls.  There are four springs attached to the lip of the
reflector.  Reflectors marked with a barcoded stamp on their
outside surface are not subject to this recall.  The recall
includes reflectors with the following catalogue descriptions:
7080*G, 7081*G, 7280*G, 7281*G, 7380*G, 7381*G, 7780*G, 7781*G,
MSP5429*, MSP5443*, OLD-7280KLI4G and 7-inch reflectors with glass
lens with the "PDR" (Product Deviation Request or customized
product designation) prefix; however, this description does not
appear on the product.  The recalled assembly is used in the
following lighting fixtures: C7018*, C7042*, C7113*, C7118*,
C7126*, C7142*, C7213*, C7218*, C7226*, C7242*HD7*, and MD7*.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12185.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at authorized distributors nationwide from May
2008 through February 2012 for between $50 and $100, depending on
options and finish type.

Maintenance personnel in facilities with these fixtures should
check them immediately, take down any units without a barcoded
stamp and contact Cooper Lighting for free replacement springs.
For additional information, contact Cooper Lighting at (800) 954-
7228 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.cooperlighting.com/


COST PLUS: Faces Shareholder Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim Cost Plus
is selling itself too cheaply to Bed Bath & Beyond, for $494
million or $22 a share, in Alameda County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Richardson v. Cost Plus, Inc., Case No.
RG12631301 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/23/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 534-2590
          E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com

               - and -

          David A.P. Bower, Esq.
          Brian C. Kerr, Esq.
          BROWER PIVEN
          488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 501-9000
          E-mail: brower@browerpiven.com
                  kerr@browerpiven.com


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over IPO Registration Statement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn at Courthouse News Service reports that investors on
May 23 filed a federal class action against Facebook, saying the
company shared crucial information with preferred investors before
the company's already contentious Initial Public Offering.

The class claims that Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg and the banks that
underwrote the company's IPO downgraded earnings expectations
before the offering, but shared the bad news only with "certain
preferred investors," and omitted it from the registration
statement and prospectus.

The class claims: "The Registration Statement and Prospectus
contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted to state
other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading
and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations
governing their preparation."

They claim that though Facebook warned that its income from mobile
apps was not as healthy as it expected, or would like, "The true
facts at the time of the IPO were that Facebook was then
experiencing a severe and pronounced reduction in revenue growth
due to an increase of users of its Facebook app or Web site
through mobile devices rather than a traditional PC such that the
Company told the Underwriter Defendants to materially lower their
revenue forecasts for 2012.  And defendants failed to disclose
that during the roadshow conducted in connection with the IPO,
certain of the Underwriter Defendants reduced their second quarter
and full year 2012 performance estimates for Facebook, which
revisions were material information which was not shared with all
Facebook investors, but rather, was selectively disclosed by
defendants to certain preferred investors and omitted from the
Registration Statement and/or Prospectus."

Lead plaintiff Brian Roffe Profit Sharing Plan and investors Jacob
Salzmann and Dennis Palkon are the named plaintiffs.  Defendants
include Facebook and its CEO Zuckerberg, CFO David Ebersman, CAO
David Spillane, six other board members, all of whom signed the
registration statement, and Morgan Stanley & Co., JP Morgan
Securities, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, and Barclays Capital.

After opening at $38 a share at its May 18 IPO, Facebook's share
price fell by more than 18 percent in the first three days of
trading, knocking billions of dollars off the company's market
cap.

The complaint, filed by Samuel Rudman with Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd, of Melville, N.Y., paraphrased up a Tuesday, May 22 Reuters
article by saying that "Reuters reporters that Facebook's lead
underwriters, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs, all cut
their earnings for the Company in the middle of the IPO roadshow
and that only a handful of preferred investor clients were told
the news of the reduction."

Quoting that Reuters article at length, the complaint states that
Facebook shares sank 10 percent below the IPO price on May 21, the
second day of trading.

With the company's shares valued at $104 billion at $38 a share, a
10 percent drop would knock more than $10 billion off the
company's value, according to the Reuters article.

The complaint states: "As of the date of the filing of this
complaint, the 421 million shares of Facebook common stock sold in
the IPO are trading at approximately $31 per share, or $7 per
share below the price where plaintiffs and the class purchased $16
billion worth of Facebook stock while defendants pocketed billions
of dollars.  Plaintiffs and the class have suffered losses of more
than $2.5 billion since the IPO."

The class seeks damages for violations of Sections 11 and 12 of
the Securities Act.

On May 23 in the same court, a single investor, Phillip Goldberg,
filed a class action against the Nasdaq Stock Market, claiming it
bungled and delayed transactions in the first days of the Facebook
IPO.

Mr. Goldberg is represented by:

          Douglas Thompson Jr., Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          James Place
          1077 30th Street, N.W.
          Suite #150
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 337-8000
          E-mail: dthompson@finkelsteinthompson.com


FACEBOOK INC: Investors Sue Over Misleading Statements
------------------------------------------------------
Don Jeffrey, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Morgan
Stanley, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and other
underwriters along with Facebook Inc. were sued by investors who
claimed they were misled in the purchase of the social network
firm's stock.

The plaintiffs, who are seeking to proceed on behalf of a class of
Facebook investors, said the company and the banks didn't disclose
lower revenue estimates before the share sale.  The members of the
proposed class have lost more than $2.5 billion since the initial
public offering, according to a complaint filed in Manhattan
federal court.

"The true facts at the time of the IPO were that Facebook was then
experiencing a severe and pronounced reduction in revenue growth,"
the plaintiffs said in the complaint.

Also sued were units of Bank of America Corp. and Barclays Plc
(BARC), as well as Facebook Chief Executive Officer Mark
Zuckerberg and Chief Financial Officer David Ebersman.

Facebook went public at $38 a share and plunged 19 percent over
two days.  Facebook rose 3.2 percent, or $1, to $32 at 4:22 p.m.
New York time in Nasdaq trading.

"We believe the lawsuit is without merit," Andrew Noyes, a
spokesman for Menlo Park, California-based Facebook, said in an
e-mail.  He said the company would fight the claims.

Pen Pendleton, Michael DuVally and Mark Lane, spokesmen for New
York-based Morgan Stanley, New York-based Goldman Sachs and
London-based Barclays, respectively, declined to comment on the
lawsuit.  Representatives of New York-based JPMorgan and
Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America didn't immediately
return calls for comment.

The complaint states that Facebook's revenue growth is declining
because its greatest expansion is coming from users of mobile
devices rather than personal computers.  The company hasn't shown
advertisements to people who log on through mobile applications,
according to the complaint.  Facebook booked 85 percent of its
revenue from advertising in 2011, according to the complaint.

The banks named in the lawsuit reduced their estimates for
Facebook for the second quarter and full year of 2012 and didn't
inform potential investors in presentations before the IPO,
according to the complaint.

"The underwriters took down their earnings estimates dramatically
during the road show and only told a select group of investors,"
Samuel Rudman, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said on May 23 in a
phone interview.

The plaintiffs may have a difficult time proving the case if it's
based on the presentation made to potential investors, according
to a securities lawyer.

"It's going to depend on who knew what when," Jeremy Garvey of
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney in Pittsburgh said in a phone
interview.  "The real question is, based on the final prospectus,
were the statements complete and correct?" Mr. Garvey said.  "If
they have enough cautionary language in the prospectus, they do
have a bit of a disclaimer."

A Facebook investor sued Nasdaq OMX Group Inc. on May 22 in the
same court, saying the exchange "badly mishandled" trades in
Facebook stock, which resulted in delays and a failure to complete
customer orders.

That investor is also seeking class-action status for the lawsuit
on behalf of investors who lost money because their buy, sell and
cancellation orders weren't properly processed.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has said it will
review the first day of trading in Facebook shares.

The underwriter case is Brian Roffe Profit Sharing Plan v.
Facebook, 12-04081, and the Nasdaq case is Goldberg v. Nasdaq OMX
Group Inc., 12-cv-04054, U.S. District Court, Southern District of
New York (Manhattan).


FACEBOOK INC: Settles Class Action Over "Sponsored Stories"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dan Levine and Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, report that
Facebook Inc. has agreed to settle a lawsuit that alleged the
site's "Sponsored Stories" feature publicized users' "likes"
without compensation or the ability to opt out, according to a
court document filed on May 22.

The proposed class action lawsuit, filed in a San Jose, California
federal court, could have included nearly one of every three
Americans, with billions of dollars in damages, court documents
say.

The terms of the settlement are not spelled out in court filings.
A Facebook representative declined to comment on the settlement,
as did an attorney for the plaintiffs.

Facebook shares sank on May 21 and May 22 -- their second and
third days of trading -- to end at $31, more than 18 percent below
the initial public offering price of $38.  Reuters reported late
Monday that the consumer Internet analyst at lead underwriter
Morgan Stanley cut his revenue forecasts for Facebook in the days
before the offering, information that may not have reached many
investors before the stock was listed.

A "Sponsored Story" is an ad that appears on a member's Facebook
page, and generally consists of another friend's name, profile
picture and an assertion that the person "likes" the advertiser.

Five Facebook members sued the social networking site last year,
alleging that the "Sponsored Stories" feature violates their right
to publicity under California law.  The lawsuit featured comments
from Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg, stating that a trusted
referral is the "Holy Grail" of advertising.

In addition, the lawsuit cited comments from chief operating
officer Sheryl Sandberg, saying that the value of a "Sponsored
Story" advertisement is at least twice and up to three times the
value of a standard Facebook.com ad without a friend endorsement.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh had rejected Facebook's attempt last
year to dismiss parts of the lawsuit.  In her order, Judge Koh
said the plaintiffs had articulated a coherent theory of how they
were economically injured by the use of their names, photographs
and likenesses.

"California has long recognized a right to protect one's name and
likeness against appropriation by others for their advantage,"
Judge Koh wrote.

Facebook and the plaintiffs have executed a term sheet
memorializing the settlement "in principle," according to a
Facebook court filing on May 22.  In addition to money damages,
companies often agree to modify their policies and procedures as
part of class action settlements.

A hearing on class action certification was scheduled to take
place May 24.

The case in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
is Angel Fraley et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated vs. Facebook Inc., 11-cv-1726.


FACEBOOK INC: Robins Geller Files Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on May 23 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Facebook, Inc. common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's May 18, 2012 initial public offering.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from May 23.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiffs' counsel, Darren Robbins,
Esq. of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-
mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

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

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

The complaint charges Facebook and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

On or about May 16, 2012, Facebook filed with the SEC a Form S-1/A
Registration Statement for the IPO. On or about May 18, 2012, the
Prospectus, which forms part of the Registration Statement, became
effective and defendants sold 421 million shares of Facebook
common stock to the public at $38 per share, for total proceeds of
more than $16 billion.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO were false and
misleading in violation of the Securities Act.  The complaint
asserts that defendants failed to disclose that because Facebook
was experiencing a pronounced reduction in revenue growth due to
an increase of users of its Facebook app or website through mobile
devices rather than traditional PCs, at the time of the IPO the
Company had told the lead underwriters to reduce their 2012
performance estimates for Facebook.  These revisions were material
information which was not shared with all investors, but rather,
was selectively disclosed by defendants to certain preferred
investors and omitted from the Registration Statement and/or
Prospectus.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Facebook common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
IPO.

The action was filed by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting shareholder class actions.  It has 200
attorneys in nine offices.


FACEBOOK INC: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of investors who suffered losses in connection with the
highly publicized initial public offering of Facebook, Inc.  In
the IPO, Facebook sold more than 420 million shares of the
Company's common stock to the public at a price of $38.00 per
share, of which approximately 180 million shares were sold by the
Company and approximately 240 million shares were sold by existing
stockholders.  As a result of the IPO, Facebook received net
proceeds of approximately $6.7 billion and the selling
stockholders received approximately $9 billion.

The Complaint, captioned Lazar v. Facebook, Inc., et al., was
filed today in the Superior Court for the State of California,
County of San Mateo, on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased the securities of Facebook
pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's IPO (including
investors who purchased shares through May 22, 2012).  The
Complaint alleges, among others, that the offering materials
provided to potential investors were negligently prepared and
failed to disclose material information about Facebook's business,
operations and prospects, in violation of federal securities laws.
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 email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our Web site at
http://www.glancylaw.com

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Facebook, certain of the
Company's executive officers and directors and the underwriters of
the IPO failed to disclose that during the IPO roadshow, the lead
underwriters, including Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC, and Goldman, Sachs & Co., cut their earnings
forecasts and that news of the estimate cut was passed on only to
a handful of large investor clients, not to the public.

On May 22, 2012, Daily Ticker published an article titled
"Facebook Bankers Secretly Cut Facebook's Revenue Estimates in
Middle of IPO Roadshow," which in relevant part disclosed that
"Facebook's lead underwriters, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, and
Goldman Sachs all cut their earnings forecasts for the Company in
the middle of the IPO roadshow."  Moreover, the article disclosed
that "news of the estimate cut was passed on only to a handful of
big investor clients, not everyone else who was considering an
investment in Facebook."  The article concluded that, "during the
marketing of the Facebook IPO, investors who did not hear about
these underwriter estimate cuts were placed at a meaningful and
unfair information disadvantage."  By the close of trading on May
22, 2012, shares of the Company's stock declined to $31.00 per
share, a commutative loss of $7.00 per share from the IPO price of
$38.00 per share, in only three days of trading.

Institutional and individual investors that purchased Facebook's
shares who wish to discuss this action or their rights or
interests with respect to these matters, are welcome to contact
Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, by
telephone at (310) 201-9150 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by
e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our Web site at
http://www.glancylaw.com


GROUPON: Settles Class Action Over Gift-Card Expiration Dates
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julianne Pepitone, writing for CNNMoney, reports that Groupon
(GRPN) has settled a class-action lawsuit involving the expiration
dates on the company's daily deals and will pay a proposed $8.5
million in cash to do so -- but, as with many class-action suits,
a good chunk of that money will go to the lawyers.  Customers will
likely take home mere pennies.

Seventeen Groupon subscribers each filed individual lawsuits over
the past few years about expiration dates on Groupon's deals and
how the company sold or advertised those deals.

The suits allege, among other things, that Groupon imposed illegal
and undisclosed deal restrictions -- like "must use gift
certificate in one visit" -- that violate a variety of gift-card
regulations.  For example, a federal law makes it illegal to sell
gift cards that expire in less than five years.

Those 17 lawsuits were rolled into one and transferred to
California district court, where a judge certified the claim as a
class action last year.  That brings Groupon's entire subscriber
base into the lawsuit.

Groupon settled the case last month without admitting fault or
wrongdoing.  As part of the settlement, Groupon's merchants were
released from any liability related to the claims.

The settlement: On the customer side, the settlement class
includes anyone in the U.S. who bought a Groupon deal or received
one as a gift from November 1, 2008, through December 1, 2011.
But what those customers will actually get remains pretty murky.
The settlement's core terms appear to almost exactly mirror
Groupon's own current policy on expired coupons.

Groupons have two separate values: the actual amount paid (like
$20 for a voucher promising $50 worth of services at a local spa)
and the promotional amount (that's the $50).

While the promotional amount carries an expiration date, Groupon's
policy is that expired Groupons can always be redeemed, with any
time limitation, for the amount actually paid.  If the $50 spa
voucher that you paid $20 for expired last month, you can still
redeem it at the spa for services worth $20.

The settlement offers those who submit claims a "settlement
voucher" that can be redeemed through the merchant for goods "up
to the purchase price that you paid."

How it that different than what Groupon already offers? Neither
side is saying.

A Groupon spokeswoman said the company "has nothing to add beyond
what's in that notification" that some customers have received.
Law firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, which is representing the
defendants, didn't return a request for comment.

The settlement deal has one slight twist: If a merchant won't
honor a settlement voucher, the customer can submit a second claim
to the settlement fund and be eligible for a refund check on what
they paid, plus 20% of the deal's promotional value.  More details
on the lawsuit are available at:

     https://grouponvouchersettlement.com/

Also as part of the settlement, for the next three years Groupon
agreed not to sell more than 10% of its daily deals with
expiration dates of fewer than 30 days.  Groupon also agreed to
change the language in its advertising and on its site to make
restrictions clearer.

Groupon sent a letter to merchants this week advising them of the
settlement and explaining that it doesn't change Groupon's policy
on expired deals.  A recipient provided a copy of the letter to
CNNMoney.

"All you'll be asked to do is honor the voucher for the cash value
paid, not the promotional value, which has already expired,"
Groupon wrote.  "If you've worked with us recently, this should be
no surprise, as all of our vouchers can be used for their cash
value in perpetuity."

Expect low payouts: Under the terms of the proposed settlement,
Groupon will pay $8.5 million in cash, but a good chunk of that
money will go to the lawyers.  Customers could take home mere
pennies.

The legal team that brought the lawsuit is asking the court to
award attorneys' fees of up to 25% of the settlement cash,
totaling more than $2.1 million, plus an estimated at $75,000 that
is earmarked for donation to a civic or nonprofit organization.

The suit's lead plaintiffs -- the 17 Groupon subscribers who
brought the complaints -- would receive a proposed $500 each. The
remaining money would be split up among those who fill out a claim
form and put in for their share of the settlement.

That leaves an estimated $6.3 million or so to be divided up over
a class that could include millions of people.  Groupon had nearly
34 million active subscribers -- people who bought at least one
deal in the past 12 months -- as of Dec. 31.  A spokeswoman
declined to break out how many of those subscribers are U.S.-
based.

If even half of Groupon's active users were to file claims, each
claimant would receive a payment of around 37 paltry cents.

Groupon said in its letter to merchants that it expects only 2% of
its customers to be eligible and to file for a claim.  Even if
that's the case, those 660,000 claimants would receive a payout of
around $9.50 each.

Groupon customers have until July 6 to file a claim if they want
to be included in the settlement.  The judge overseeing the case
is scheduled to hold a hearing in California court on July 20
about the settlement's proposed terms, after which she will decide
whether to uphold or reject the deal.


HE SHAN LIDE: Recalls 33T LED Clip-On Desk Lamps Sold at Lowe's
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, L G Sourcing, Inc., of North Wilkesboro, North Carolina,
and manufacturer, He Shan Lide of China, announced a voluntary
recall of about 33,000 LED Clip-On Desk Lamps.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The power cord for the lamp can detach where it meets the clamp,
exposing energized wires, posing an electric shock risk to
consumers.

The firm has received five reports of cords detaching, including
one reported electric shock and one report of a child receiving
burns to her hand and leg.

This recall conducted by He Shan Lide involves pink and blue
plastic LED desk lamps with a flexible metal neck approximately
12" long and a clamp at the base.  The power cord has a silver
label attached to it.  On one side of the label "MET," "Electrical
Safety", "E113152" and "Apr. 2011" are printed.  The other side of
the label includes the model number F3044-AC-01 (pink lamps) or
F3044-AC-02 (blue lamps).  The plug on the power cord is labeled
"KENIC KE 01P E155176."  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12184.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Lowe's stores nationwide from May 2011 to December
2011 for about $20.

Consumers should immediately stop using the lamp, unplug the power
cord, cut the power cord off 2" to 3" above the plug, discard the
lamp and send the plug to He Shan Lide, 4570 Eucalyptus Ave.,
Suite C, Chino, CA 91710, along with their name and address to
receive a full refund, including the cost of postage for returning
the plug.  For additional information, contact He Shan Lide toll-
free at (800) 584-1664 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Pacific
Time Monday through Friday, or visit the Web site at
http://www.diogenlighting.com/


ING BANK: Sued by Illinois Lawyer Over Short Sale Transactions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert D. Lattas, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ING Bank FSB, Case No. 2012-CH-18897 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., May 22, 2012) is brought on behalf of the
Plaintiff and all other similarly situated lawyers and law firms,
who are licensed to practice law in the state of Illinois, who
were retained by homeowners in connection with the sale of
residential real estate by way of a short sale transaction, and
where the senior lender on the property was ING Bank.

The lawsuit alleges tortious interference with prospective
economic advantage and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act against ING Bank arising out
of its conduct and behavior toward its own customers and those
customers' attorneys in the negotiation and sale of residential
real estate through short sale transactions.  Mr. Lattas contends
that ING Bank interfered with his ability to be compensated for
services performed on the sale of such real estate and has
intentionally interfered with his reasonably expected, long
standing, business expectations.  He adds that ING Bank's
injurious and disparaging acts have the practical effect of
banning its own customers from obtaining legal representation and
precluding the Plaintiff and the Class from earning fees on such
real estate transactions.

Mr. Lattas is a resident of the state of Illinois and an attorney
licensed to practice law in the state.  He has represented clients
in short sale transactions with ING Bank.

ING Bank is a federally chartered savings bank located in
Wilmington, Delaware, and does business in Cook County, Illinois.
ING Bank buys, sells, and owns residential mortgages under the
operating name ING DIRECT.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman Rifkind, Esq.
          Leigh R. Lasky, Esq.
          Amelia S. Newton, Esq.
          Heidi VonderHeide, Esq.
          LASKY & RIFKIND, LTD.
          351 W. Hubbard St. Ste 401
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 634-0057
          Facsimile: (312) 634-0059
          E-mail: Rifkind@laskyrifkind.com
                  lasky@laskyrifkind.com
                  newton@laskyrifkind.com
                  vonderheide@laskyrifkind.com


MURRUMBIDGEE IRRIGATION: Yenda Seeks Further Canal System Probe
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laurissa Smith, writing for ABC Rural, reports that a proposed
class action is gaining momentum against a southern NSW irrigation
company for damage its infrastructure caused during recent
flooding.

Farmers, businesses and residents near Griffith have formed the
Yenda Flood Victims Association, to pursue action against
Murrumbidgee Irrigation over the management of its canal system.
Grape grower Mitch Biancini has joined the cause and hopes it'll
provide some answers for the community.

"It'll set a standard then to hopefully never affect farmers like
myself and also the township of Yenda, where up to 600 homes were
just destroyed and people's livelihoods were just put on hold," he
said.

"Yes, localized flooding can happen, but not a flood event which
was totally and utterly avoidable."

Yenda Floods Victims Association is preparing to commission
further research into MI's various structures along its canal
system.

Murrumbidgee Irrigation initially said the flood event was an act
of nature.

Since seeing the hydrology report commissioned by the Yenda Flood
Victims Association, MI has released a statement saying the report
is a preliminary assessment of a complex event.

The company says it will co-operate with the organizations
responsible for evaluating the flood.

CEO Raveen Jaduram says MI, like the rest of the community, would
like to see some positive outcomes result from this natural
disaster.


NEW ZEALAND: State May Face Suit Over Delayed Earthquake Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Greenhill, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reports that legal action
against one of New Zealand's biggest insurers may be taken by a
Christchurch group frustrated by inaction on earthquake claims.

The 10-strong group has employed Christchurch firm GCA Lawyers to
investigate grounds for a class action against State, owned by
IAG.

An advertisement in the The Press on May 23 called for other
unhappy State customers to contact the group.

GCA partner Grant Cameron said the group felt it had received
little information from State in the past 15 months.

The information received suggested the insurer had been
"improperly delaying" acting on claims, he said.

He said the work could result in a class action being taken.

Another 10 to 15 customers were considering joining the group.

"Half a dozen people does not give a reliable snapshot as to what
State as a whole might be doing," Mr. Cameron said.

"For that reason, the group wants more people to come forward so
we can actually assess what's going on."

The firm had to ascertain what information had been exchanged
between State and the group's members, he said.

"There are good-faith obligations in insurance contracts, so the
question's arisen as to whether or not State's acting in good
faith or whether there might be some sort of hidden agenda here,"
Mr. Cameron said.  "It's way too early for us to tell."

It was hoped legal action could be avoided after a meeting with
State management.

"By the far the best method of resolution is to agree to a
procedure where we can really get on and get things moving," Mr.
Cameron said.

An IAG spokesman said the company was "genuinely surprised" by the
approach being taken.

"The damage caused by the earthquakes were of a massive scale and
we know there are pockets of frustration, but at the same time we
get some very positive feedback from those who recognize the
efforts being made on their behalf in often very difficult
circumstances," he said.

The insurance sector was working closely with government agencies
and the council to ensure customers' claims could be resolved
through a process that provides "both options and fair outcomes".

"We have had initial conversations with a representative of this
group and have committed to continuing dialogue with them in order
to better understand their position and respond to issues that are
raised," he said.


UNITED STATES: Native American Class Action Settlement Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Mike Scarcella at The Blog of
Legal Times, a historic $3.4 billion class action settlement over
the mismanagement of government trust funds for hundreds of
thousands of Native Americans survived a challenge in a federal
appeals court in Washington.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit unanimously upheld a trial judge's finding last summer
that the settlement, which required congressional authorization,
was fair and reasonable.

The settlement, reached in December 2009 after more than a decade
of litigation in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
compensates hundreds of thousands of Native Americans.  Lead
plaintiff Elouise Cobell, who has since died, sued in 1996 over
allegations the Interior Department violated its duty to account
for funds the government held in trust for individual Native
Americans.

"The Court of Appeals released wise and thoughtful decisions," a
lawyer for Ms. Cobell, Dennis Gingold, said this morning.  "We
wish Elouise lived to see this day.  It vindicates her
extraordinary efforts on behalf of individual Indian trust
beneficiaries."

The settlement includes $1.51 billion for direct compensation to
members of the historical accounting class.  Each member in that
class would receive $1,000 in exchange for releasing the
government from its obligation to perform an accounting of trust
funds.  The plaintiffs' attorneys received $99 million in fees.

The Justice Department's Thomas Bondy, a Civil Division appellate
lawyer, represented the Interior Department in the appeals court.
DOJ, which urged the appeals court to affirm the settlement,
declined to comment on the settlement.  A team from Kilpatrick
Townsend & Stockton also represented the named plaintiffs.

Theodore Frank of the Center for Class Action Fairness, in
Washington, who challenged the merits of the settlement, said
"we're evaluating our options, and consulting with Indian tribes."

Mr. Frank, representing a class member named Kimberly Craven, said
a conflict among class members undermines, as the D.C. put it, the
"commonality, cohesiveness and fairness" of the deal.

Mr. Frank said in court papers in the D.C. Circuit that the $3.4
billion settlement "flunked the requirement of intraclass equity."

Mr. Frank argued, among other things, that class members don't
equally benefit from the $1,000 payment.  Some class members, he
said, stand to gain more from the payment than their claims are
actually worth.  Others in the class would not receive a large
enough payment.

The settlement, Mr. Frank said in court papers, "provided
windfalls for many class members who suffered little or no harm,
but fell far short of compensating class members" who have
suffered the greatest injuries.

"The historical-accounting records examined thus far have revealed
only minor errors in trust accounting," D.C. Circuit Judge Judith
Rogers said in the ruling, joined by judges David Tatel and Janice
Rogers Brown.  The D.C. Circuit panel said certification of the
historical accounting class was "appropriate because of the
unusual circumstances surrounding this litigation."

Information produced by an historical accounting, the appeals
court said, is not likely "to be worth significantly more to some
class members than to others, and thus the $1,000 settlement
payment is properly viewed as nonindividualized and does not run
afoul" of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v. Dukes.

The D.C. Circuit called the class action "extraordinary in that
Congress not only expressly authorized, ratified, and confirmed
the settlement, but also appropriated $3.4 billion to fund it.
Congress, however, did not make an express finding on the merits
of class certification.

Responding to the court's ruling, Frank said in an e-mail: "If, as
the Court suggested, we can avoid aspects of the fairness inquiry
by giving weight to Congress's decision to appropriate spending
for the settlement, even in the absence of any Congressional
findings, then the legislation should've precluded the fairness
hearing formality entirely and simply distributed the money in
early 2011 rather than waste the class's time with legal
proceedings whose result was preordained."


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: S.C. Has Yet to Act on Review Petition
--------------------------------------------------------------
Verizon Communications Inc. said in its April 26, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2012, that the United States Supreme Court
has not yet acted on plaintiffs' petition for a review of the
dismissal of a consolidated litigation alleging the Company
participates in intelligence-gathering activities.

Verizon and a number of other telecommunications companies, have
been the subject of multiple class action lawsuits concerning
their alleged participation in intelligence-gathering activities
allegedly carried out by the federal government, at the direction
of the President of the United States, as part of the government's
post-September 11 program to prevent terrorist attacks.
Plaintiffs generally allege that Verizon has participated by
permitting the government to gain access to the content of its
subscribers' telephone calls and/or records concerning those calls
and that such action violates federal and/or state constitutional
and statutory law.  Relief sought in the cases includes injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees, and statutory and punitive damages.  On
August 9, 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(Panel) ordered that these actions be transferred, consolidated
and coordinated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The Panel subsequently ordered that a
number of "tag along" actions also be transferred to the Northern
District of California.  Verizon believes that these lawsuits are
without merit.

On July 10, 2008, the President signed into law the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) Amendments Act of
2008, which provides for dismissal of these lawsuits by the court
based on submission by the Attorney General of the United States
of a specified certification.  On September 19, 2008, the Attorney
General made such a submission in the consolidated proceedings.
Based on this submission, the court ordered dismissal of the
complaints on June 3, 2009.  Plaintiffs appealed this dismissal,
and by decision issued December 29, 2011, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal.

On March 28, 2012, plaintiffs petitioned the United States Supreme
Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.  The Supreme
Court has not yet acted on the petition.


VIROPHARMA INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a federal
securities class action in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of all persons who
purchased ViroPharma Incorporated securities between December 14,
2011 and April 9, 2012, inclusive.  This class action is brought
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased ViroPharma securities
during the Class Period, you have until July 23, 2012 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at
rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll free,
x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.

ViroPharma develops, licenses, and markets pharmaceutical
products.  The Company's principal product is Vancocin, an
antibiotic which is used for the treatment of Clostridium
Difficile Associated Diarrhea ("CDAD").

Vancocin, which accounts for more than half of the Company's
revenues and a larger percentage of the Company's income, is the
brand name for Vancomycin, an antibiotic which was approved by the
FDA in intravenous form in 1958 and in oral form for the treatment
of CDAD in 1985.

On December 14, 2011, ViroPharma issued a press release announcing
that new labeling for Vancocin would give ViroPharma "three years
of [marketing] exclusivity" and prevent generic Vancomycin
capsules from being approved by the Federal Drug Administration
("FDA") during this period.  On this news, the market price of
ViroPharma stock rose sharply, increasing 17.9%, or $4.21 per
share, to close at $27.80 per share on December 14, 2011 in heavy
volume.

However, on April 10, 2012, ViroPharma announced that the FDA had
told the Company that Vanconcin's new label "would not qualify for
three additional years of [market] exclusivity" because the new
labeling did not qualify as "significant new use or indication."
The Company further disclosed that the FDA had simultaneously
announced the approval of three applications for generic
Vancomycin capsules.

Further, on the same day, ViroPharma disclosed an investigation by
the Federal Trade Commission into possible "unfair methods of
competition" relating to Vancocin.  On this news, ViroPharma
shares declined $6.17 per share or 22%, to close at $22.44 per
share.

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


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Defends Fuel and Environmental Charge Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management, Inc. continues to defend class action lawsuits
over its fuel and environmental charges, 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 2011 and January 2012, the Company was named as a
defendant in a purported class action in the Circuit Court of
Sarasota County, Florida, and the Circuit Court of Lawrence
County, Alabama, respectively.  These cases primarily pertain to
the Company's fuel and environmental charges, generally alleging
that such charges were not properly disclosed, were unfair and
were contrary to the customer service contracts.  The law firm
that filed these lawsuits had filed, in 2008, a purported class
action against subsidiaries of the Company in Bullock County,
Alabama, making similar allegations.  The prior Alabama lawsuit
was removed to federal court, where the federal court ultimately
dismissed the plaintiffs' national class action claims.  The
plaintiffs then elected to dismiss the case without prejudice.

The Company says it will vigorously defend against these new
lawsuits.  Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
including the early stage of these cases, the unknown size of any
potential class, and legal and factual issues in dispute, the
outcome of these cases cannot be predicted and a range of loss
cannot currently be estimated.

Waste Management, Inc. -- http://www.wm.com/-- is a waste
management, comprehensive waste, and environmental services
company in North America.  Its subsidiaries provide collection,
transfer, recycling, and disposal services.  The Company is also a
developer, operator and owner of waste-to-energy and landfill gas-
to-energy facilities in the United States.  Its customers include
residential, commercial, industrial and municipal customers
throughout North America.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Remaining Claims Still Pending in ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2002, certain former participants in the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") plans of Waste
Management, Inc.'s ("WM") wholly-owned subsidiary, Waste
Management Holdings, Inc. ("WM Holdings"), filed a lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in a case
entitled William S. Harris, et al. v. James E. Koenig, et al.  The
lawsuit attempts to increase the recovery of a class of ERISA plan
participants on behalf of the plan based on allegations related to
both the events alleged in, and the settlements relating to, the
securities class action against WM Holdings that was settled in
1998, the litigation against WM in Texas that was settled in 2002,
as well as the decision to offer WM common stock as an investment
option within the plan beginning in 1990, despite alleged
knowledge by at least two members of the investment committee of
financial misstatement by WM during the relevant time period.

During the second quarter of 2010, the Court dismissed certain
claims against individual defendants, including all claims against
each of the current members of the Company's Board of Directors.
Previously, plaintiffs dismissed all claims related to the
settlement of the securities class action against WM that was
settled in 2002, and the court certified a limited class of
participants who may bring claims on behalf of the plan, but not
individually.  During the third quarter of 2011, the Court ruled
in favor of WM and two former employees dismissing all claims
brought by the plaintiffs related to the decision to offer WM
stock as an investment option within the plan.  The Court still
has under consideration additional motions that, if granted, would
resolve the few remaining claims against WM and its Committees.
Because these motions are still pending and other unresolved and
legal factual issues remain, the viability of the plaintiff's
claims cannot be predicted and, as a result, a range of loss
cannot currently be estimated.

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.

Waste Management, Inc. -- http://www.wm.com/-- is a waste
management, comprehensive waste, and environmental services
company in North America.  Its subsidiaries provide collection,
transfer, recycling, and disposal services.  The Company is also a
developer, operator and owner of waste-to-energy and landfill gas-
to-energy facilities in the United States.  Its customers include
residential, commercial, industrial and municipal customers
throughout North America.


WEST BANCORPORATION: West Bank Still Defends Iowa Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
West Bancorporation, Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend a class
action lawsuit pending in Iowa, 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 September 29, 2010, West Bank was sued in a purported class
action lawsuit that, as amended, asserts nonsufficient funds fees
charged by West Bank to Iowa resident noncommercial customers on
bank card transactions were impermissible finance charges under
the Iowa Consumer Credit Code, rather than allowable fees, and
that the sequence in which West Bank formerly posted items for
payment violated its duties of good faith under the Iowa Uniform
Commercial Code and Consumer Credit Code.

West Bank believes the allegations in the lawsuit are factually
and legally inaccurate.  West Bank is vigorously defending this
litigation.  The Company believes that the likelihood of a loss as
a result of this lawsuit is "reasonably possible" for disclosure
purposes (i.e., greater than "remote" but less than "probable").
The amount of potential loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated now because there are substantial and different defenses
concerning the various claims of potential liability and class
certification.  Even if legal liability is established under some
theory, which West Bank believes would be improper under existing
Iowa law, the amount of each plaintiff's damage claim would likely
require individual determination due to the potential
applicability of different offsets or credits.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Defends Suits Over Front Load Washing Machines
--------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation is currently defending against numerous
class action lawsuits in various jurisdictions in the United
States and Canada relating to certain of its front load washing
machines.  The complaints in these lawsuits generally allege
violations of state consumer fraud acts, unjust enrichment, and
breach of warranty.  The complaints generally seek unspecified
compensatory, consequential and punitive damages.  The Company
believes these lawsuits are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend them.  At this point, the Company cannot
reasonably estimate a possible range of loss, if any.

In addition, the Company is currently defending a number of other
class action lawsuits in federal and state courts related to the
manufacturing and sale of its products and alleging claims which
include breach of contract, breach of warranty, product defect,
fraud, violation of federal and state consumer protection acts and
negligence.  The Company is also involved in various other legal
actions arising in the normal course of business.

The Company disputes the merits of these lawsuits and actions, and
intends to vigorously defend them.  Management believes, based
upon its current knowledge, after taking into consideration legal
counsel's evaluation of such lawsuits and actions, and after
taking into account current litigation reserves, that the outcome
of these matters currently pending against Whirlpool should not
have a material adverse effect, if any, on its Consolidated
Financial Statements.

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


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Reports $323-Mil. Expense for Embraco Matters
-------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation 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, that it has incurred, in the
aggregate, charges of approximately $323 million in connection
with antitrust lawsuits and investigations relating to its Embraco
business.

Beginning in February 2009, the Company's compressor business
headquartered in Brazil ("Embraco") was notified of investigations
of the global compressor industry by government authorities in
various jurisdictions.  In 2011, Embraco sales represented
approximately 8% of the Company's global net sales.

Government authorities in Brazil, Europe, the United States, and
other jurisdictions have entered into agreements with Embraco and
concluded their investigations.  In connection with these
agreements, Embraco has acknowledged violations of antitrust law
with respect to the sale of compressors at various times from 2004
through 2007 and agreed to pay fines or settlement payments.

Since the government investigations commenced in February 2009,
Embraco has been named as a defendant in related antitrust
lawsuits in various jurisdictions seeking damages in connection
with the pricing of compressors from 1996 to 2009.  Several other
compressor manufacturers who are the subject of the government
investigations have also been named as defendants in the
litigation.  United States federal lawsuits instituted on behalf
of purported purchasers and containing class action allegations
have been combined in one proceeding in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  Lawsuits containing
class action allegations are also pending in Canada. Additional
lawsuits may be filed by purported purchasers.

In connection with these agreements and other Embraco antitrust
matters, the Company has incurred, in the aggregate, charges of
approximately $323 million, including fines, defense costs and
other expenses.  These charges have been recorded within interest
and sundry income (expense).  At March 31, 2012, $195 million
remains accrued, with installment payments of $171 million, plus
interest, remaining to be made to government authorities at
various times through 2015.

The Company says it continues to work toward resolution of ongoing
government investigations in other jurisdictions, to defend the
related antitrust lawsuits and to take other actions to minimize
its potential exposure.  The final outcome and impact of these
matters, and any related claims and investigations that may be
brought in the future are subject to many variables, and cannot be
predicted.  The Company establishes accruals only for those
matters where it determines that a loss is probable and the amount
of loss can be reasonably estimated.  While it is currently not
possible to reasonably estimate the aggregate amount of costs
which the Company may incur in connection with these matters, such
costs could have a material adverse effect on its financial
position, liquidity, or results of operations.


* Introduction of Class Action in Malta to Empower Consumers
------------------------------------------------------------
Times of Malta reports that the introduction of class action would
encourage more people to take up collective proceedings for
infringements of the Competition Act and the Consumer Affairs Act,
Minister for Fair Competition Jason Azzopardi said on May 21.

Dr. Azzopardi was closing the debate in second reading of the
Collective Proceedings Bill which, he said, would be empowering
consumers and increasing their rights.

He agreed with opposition spokesman on justice Jose Herrera that
private enforcement was not very popular.  However, that did not
mean that it was not important.  In cases where the consumer's
request was relatively small, people were discouraged to take up
individual action.  Class action would thus offer an opportunity
to such people.

Dr. Herrera had pointed out that investigations did not take place
in civil courts and that this point seemed to have been copied
from other legislation.

Dr. Azzopardi said this was not the case and that it would be
either the Competition Office or the Office for Consumer Affairs
that would tackle the investigation.  Admittedly, some clauses
needed to be clarified at committee stage.

Dr. Azzopardi said there was a significant difference between
joint action as presented in the Civil Code and class action being
proposed in the Bill, with the latter being more efficient.

The person chosen to represent consumers in class actions would be
the one who would have taken the initiative to present the action.
Safeguards had been included to ensure that he would act in the
best interest of the group.

The clause that stated that the court would need to be satisfied
that the actor would be able to pay the expenses involved, had
been introduced to increase legal certainty and to avoid abusive
litigation.  The consumer's organization was given preferential
treatment in the Bill.

The Collective Proceedings Bill was unanimously approved.


                           *********

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  * * *