---

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

              Monday, March 7, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 46

                             Headlines

AARON'S INC: "Kunstmann" Class Suit Still Pending in Alabama
ACOSTA SALES: Faces Class Action Over Nationwide Wage Violations
ALEXANDER & BALDWIN: Appeal From Suit Dismissal Still Pending
ALLY FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend MBS Offering Class Suit in NY
AMGEN INC: Appeal From Class Certification Order Still Pending

AMGEN INC: Appeal From Dismissal of ERISA Suit Still Pending
AMGEN INC: Warren's Appeal From Suit Dismissal Still Pending
AOL INC: Jurisdiction Challenges in Calif. Suit Still Pending
AON CORP: Wins Final Court Approval of "Buckner" Suit Settlement
BANK OF AMERICA: ARS Sale-Related Lawsuits Remain Pending

BANK OF AMERICA: Appeals From Antitrust Suit Dismissals Pending
BANK OF AMERICA: Settles MDL, Awaits Court Approval of Settlement
BANK OF AMERICA: Interchange Fee and Antitrust Suit Still Pending
BANK OF AMERICA: Appeal From IPO Suit Settlement Remains Pending
BANK OF AMERICA: Motion to Dismiss LBHI-Related Actions Pending

BANK OF AMERICA: Consolidated ERISA Class Action Suit Pending
BANK OF AMERICA: Trial in Merrill Acquisition Suit Set for 2012
BANK OF AMERICA: Plaintiffs Agree to Dismiss Appeal in ERISA Suits
BANK OF AMERICA: "Montgomery" Suit Still Pending in New York
BANK OF AMERICA: Gives Updates on Mortgage-Backed Securities Suits

BANK OF AMERICA: Municipal Derivatives Litigation Remains Stayed
BECKMAN COULTER: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Delaware
BLACKSTONE GROUP: Antitrust Suit in Massachusetts Still Pending
BLACKSTONE GROUP: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Suit in New York
BURLINGTON COAT: Recalls 7,460 Slow Cooker

C&S WHOLESALE: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations
CALEDONIA, ONTARIO: Class Action Settlement Likely
CHARLES SCHWAB: Final Fairness Hearing Set for March 10
CHRYSLER GROUP: Continues to Defend Dealer Suits in U.S. & Canada
CHUBB CORP: Awaits Court Ruling on Motions to Dismiss N.J. Suit

CHUBB CORP: Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation Still Stayed
CIGNA CORP: Estimates $82 Million Liability in "Amara" Suit
CIGNA CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in New Jersey
COMCAST CORP: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in California Antitrust Suit
COMCAST CORP: Gets Court Nod on ERISA Litigation Settlement

COMCAST CORP: Antitrust Class Suits Remain Pending in Pennsylvania
COMCAST CORP: Antitrust Suit on Cable Services Remains Pending
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Oklahoma Class Action in Preliminary Stages
CROCS INC: Motions to Dismiss Shareholder Suits Remain Pending
DUKE ENERGY: Mandamus Petition Denied in Katrina Suit

FIRSTMERIT CORP: Faces Two Class Action Lawsuits in Ohio
FIRSTMERIT CORP: Breach of Contract Complaint Remains Pending
FORTINET INC: Stockholder Class Suit in Calif. Remains Pending
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Plaintiffs Allowed to Amend Complaints
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Appeal in Securities Suit Remains Pending

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Appeal From Dismissal of Two Conn. Suits Pending
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Securities Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Approves $750MM Class Action Settlement
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Moses" Class Suit
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Class Suit in New York

GNC CORP: Motion to Dismiss "Vargas" Suit Granted
GNC CORP: Appeal in "Mell" Suit Remains Pending
HARTFORD LIFE: Receives Final Okay of Structured Settlement Suit
HERTZ GLOBAL: "LDW" Class Suit in Discovery Stages
HERTZ GLOBAL: Hearing on "Sobel" Suit Settlement Set for May

HERTZ GLOBAL: "Fun Services" Suit Remains Stayed
HERTZ GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Tourism Assessment Fee Suit
HONEYWELL INT'L: Judge Allows Hexavalent Class Action to Proceed
J.B. HUNT: Wage Violations Suit Remains Pending in California
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Faces Class Action for Misleading Investors

NCR CORP: Final Hearing on Settlement of Ohio Suits Set This Month
NORTHEAST UTILITIES: 9 Merger-Related Suits Still Pending in Mass.
NORTHERN TRUST: Amended ERISA Suit Still Pending in Illinois
NORTHERN TRUST: Securities Class Action Still Pending in Illinois
OLD NATIONAL: Facing Lawsuit Over Checking Account Practices

PHILIP MORRIS: Constitutional Appeal in Brazil Still Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Public Prosecutor's Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal in "Yochkolovski" Suit Still Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: Trial in "Letourneau" Suit Scheduled for October
PHILIP MORRIS: Trial in Consumer Group Suit Set for October

PHILIP MORRIS: "Kunta" Suit on Hold Pending "Adams" Case
PHILIP MORRIS: Preliminary Motions in "Adams" Suit Remain Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: No Activity in "Semple" Suit Pending "Adams" Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: "Dorion" Suit Remains Inactive Pending "Adams" Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: Jurisdictional Challenges Filed in "McDermid" Suit

PHILIP MORRIS: Jurisdictional Challenges Filed in "Bourassa" Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: Briefing on Class Certification Expected to End
PHILIP MORRIS: "Navon" Suit Stayed Pending "El-Roy" Case
PHILIP MORRIS: Trial in Antirust Suit in Kansas Has Yet to be Set
PHILIP MORRIS: Response to Breach of Contract Suit Pending

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Dismissal of Garcia Class Suit Appealed
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: "Phillips" Suit Removed to Ill. Federal Ct.
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Lucey" Suit in Mass.
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: 3 New Jersey Suits Moved to Mass. Court
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss Huffman Class Suit Pending

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Schultz" Class Suit
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeal in IPO Settlement Suit Still Pending
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Bouder" Suit in NJ
RED ROBIN: "Moreno" Class Suit Remains Pending in California
RENEWABLE ENVIRONMENTAL: Court Set to Rule on Class Action

SUNTRUST BANKS: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Sec. 1031 Suit
SUNTRUST BANKS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Claim in ATM Suit
SUNTRUST BANKS: Continues to Defend 2 Suits Over Overdraft Fees
SUNTRUST BANKS: Appeals From Order on Plaintiffs' Claims Pending
SUNTRUST BANKS: STRH Remains a Defendant in Lehman-Related Suit

SUNTRUST BANKS: Amended Complaint in Belmont Suit Still Pending
SUNTRUST BANKS: Court Allows Plaintiffs to File Amended Complaint
TAXMASTERS: Consumer Fraud Attorneys Available to Review Claims
TENET HEALTHCARE: Reports $28MM Expense in Correcting Facilities
TENET HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Community-Related Suits

TENET HEALTHCARE: Trial on Bellwether Claims to Begin This Month
TENET HEALTHCARE: Appellate Ct. Holds Class Decertification Ruling
TIM HORTONS: Hearing on Certification Motion Set for August
TOWN SPORTS: Continues to Defend "Cruz" Suits Over Unpaid Wages
TRUSTMARK CORP: Continues to Defend Stanford-Related Class Suit

UNITED STATES: SSA Sued Over Failure to Disclose Information
UNUM GROUP: Continues to Defend Class Action in Maine
WARNER CHILCOTT: Continues to Defend ACTONEL Suits
WELLS FARGO: Fla. Suit Complains About $35 "Overdraft Fee"
WESTERN UNION: Continues to Defend in "Tennille" & "Smet" Suits

YOUR BABY CAN: Sued Over Misleading Claims on Reading Systems
ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Suits in Indiana



                             *********


AARON'S INC: "Kunstmann" Class Suit Still Pending in Alabama
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint filed against Aaron's Inc., captioned
Kunstmann et al v. Aaron Rents, Inc., remains pending in Alabama.

In Kunstmann et al v. Aaron Rents, Inc. originally filed with the
United States District Court, Northern District of Alabama on
October 28, 2008, plaintiffs alleged that the Company improperly
classified store general managers as exempt from the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Plaintiffs seek to
recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages for all
similarly situated general managers nationwide for the period
January 25, 2007 to present.  After initially denying class
plaintiffs' class certification motion in April 2009, the court
ruled to conditionally certify a plaintiff class in early 2010.
The current includes 237 individuals, which may decrease as
discovery continues.  Those individuals who affirmatively opt to
join the class may be required to travel at their own expense to
Alabama for discovery purposes and/or trial.  The court's class
certification ruling is procedural only and does not address the
merits of the plaintiffs' claims.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claim, and
intends to vigorously defend itself against the litigation.

No updates were provided in the Company's February 25, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Aaron's Inc., formerly Aaron Rents Inc. --
http://www.aaronsinc.com/-- is a specialty retailer of consumer
electronics, computers, residential and office furniture,
household appliances and accessories.  The company engages in the
lease ownership, rental and retail sale of a variety of products,
such as widescreen and liquid crystal display televisions;
computers; living room, dining room and bedroom furniture, and
washers, dryers and refrigerators. Aaron offers brands, such as
JVC, Mitsubishi, Philips, Panasonic, Sony, Dell, Hewlett-Packard,
Simmons, Frigidaire and Sharp.  The company's operates through
two divisions: the Aaron's Sales & Lease Ownership division and
the MacTavish Furniture Industries division, supplies the
majority of the upholstered furniture and bedding leased and sold
in its stores.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company had 1,679 sales
and lease ownership stores, which comprised 1,082 company-
operated stores in 31 states and Canada.


ACOSTA SALES: Faces Class Action Over Nationwide Wage Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Acosta Sales & Marketing, one of the nation's largest in-store
sales, marketing, and service companies, owes back pay and other
compensation to its merchandiser employees, according to a lawsuit
filed in federal court in Los Angeles on March 2, 2011.  The
lawsuit claims Acosta does not pay its employees for all the hours
they work, and fails to properly reimburse employees for expenses
they incur on the job.

"Every dollar counts for these workers, especially in this
economy, and Acosta should not be allowed to keep merchandisers'
hard-earned money for itself by requiring them to work for free."

The lawsuit alleges that Acosta's practices violate federal and
state labor laws, and give the company an illegal, competitive
edge over its competitors.  Plaintiffs are seeking compensation
for unpaid overtime and regular wages, reimbursement of all
expenses, related penalties, and attorneys' fees.

"It's unfortunate that a company as large and well-connected as
Acosta would take advantage of its most vulnerable employees,"
said Lisa M. Bowman, one of the attorneys representing the Acosta
employees.  "Every dollar counts for these workers, especially in
this economy, and Acosta should not be allowed to keep
merchandisers' hard-earned money for itself by requiring them to
work for free."

Matt George, another attorney for the employees, added, "Employees
who work hard deserve to get paid for all of their work, and
should be properly reimbursed for employment-related expenses."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all current and former
employees throughout the U.S. who worked as merchandisers at
Acosta from March 2007 through the present.  Although the exact
number of workers affected is not known, Acosta employs thousands
of merchandisers.

The law requires that any current and former employees who are
interested in participating in the lawsuit must fill out a special
form confirming their desire to join in the case.  These forms can
be obtained through the law firms of Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Brayton Konecky LLP or Girard Gibbs LLP, both located in San
Francisco, California.  There is no charge for contacting these
law firms to obtain a form or to discuss your legal rights in this
case.

The law firms of Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP
and Girard Gibbs LLP represent the employees in the lawsuit.  For
more information regarding the class action case and the
surrounding investigation, visit
http://www.GirardGibbs.com/Acosta.asp/or contact Lisa Bowman of
Schneider Wallace at (415) 421-7100 or Matt George of Girard Gibbs
at (415) 981-4800.

About the law firms representing the plaintiff-employees:

Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP represents workers
and consumers in class-action litigation matters around the
country.  For more almost two decades, the firm's attorneys have
handled matters involving civil rights, workplace benefits,
disability rights, employment discrimination issues and consumer
rights.  The firm's Web site is http://www.schneiderwallace.com/

Girard Gibbs LLP -- http://www.GirardGibbs.com/-- is one of the
nation's leading law firms representing plaintiffs in consumer and
employment class actions in state and federal courts throughout
the United States.  The firm specializes in prosecuting cases
involving securities, antitrust, defective products,
telecommunications, unfair competition, and employment wage and
hour issues.

Contacts: Matthew George, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          Telephone: 415-981-4800
          E-mail: mbg@girardgibbs.com

               - or -

          Lisa Bowman, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL BRAYTON KONECKY LLP
          Telephone: 415-421-7100
          E-mail: lbowman@schneiderwallace.com


ALEXANDER & BALDWIN: Appeal From Suit Dismissal Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit filed
against Alexander & Baldwin Inc. and its subsidiary in Washington
remains pending, according to the Company's February 25, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company and Matson Navigation Company, Inc. were named as
defendants in a consolidated civil lawsuit purporting to be a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington in Seattle.  The lawsuit alleged violations of the
antitrust laws and also named as a defendant Horizon Lines, Inc.,
another domestic shipping carrier operating in the Hawaii and Guam
trades.  On August 18, 2009, the court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend the complaint
to allege claims consistent with the court's order.  On May 28,
2010, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.  On
November 30, 2010, the judge dismissed the complaint with
prejudice.  On December 22, 2010, the plaintiffs filed an appeal
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Company and Matson will continue to vigorously defend
themselves in this lawsuit.  The Company is unable to predict, at
this time, the outcome or financial impact, if any, of this
lawsuit if an amended complaint is filed.


ALLY FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend MBS Offering Class Suit in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ally Financial Inc. continues to defend itself against lawsuits
relating to its mortgage-backed securities offerings, according to
the Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

There are nine cases relating to various private-label mortgage-
backed securities offerings that are currently pending against the
Company and certain subsidiaries.  Plaintiffs in these cases
include Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. (two cases
pending in Suffolk County Superior Court, Massachusetts); The
Charles Schwab Corporation (case pending in San Francisco County
Superior Court, California); Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago
(case pending in Cook County Circuit Court, Illinois); Federal
Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis (case filed in Marion County
Superior Court, Indiana); Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. (case
pending in federal court in the District of Massachusetts);
Allstate Insurance Co. (served in Hennepin County, Minnesota,
District Court); New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund, et al. (a
putative class action in which certification has been denied,
pending in federal court in the Southern District of New York);
and the West Virginia Investment Management Board (case pending in
the Kanawha County Circuit Court, West Virginia).  Each of the
cases includes as defendants certain of the Company's mortgage
subsidiaries, and the New Jersey Carpenters and Massachusetts
Mutual cases also include as defendants certain current and former
employees.

The plaintiffs in all cases have alleged that the various
defendant subsidiaries made misstatements and omissions in
registration statements, prospectuses, prospectus supplements, and
other documents related to MBS offerings.  The alleged
misstatements and omissions typically concern underwriting
standards.  Plaintiffs claim that such misstatements and omissions
constitute violations of state and/or federal securities law and
common law including negligent misrepresentation and fraud.
Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and rescission.  The Company says
that the range of any potential losses related to these matters is
not currently determinable.


AMGEN INC: Appeal From Class Certification Order Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court order granting the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in a consolidated class action captioned In re
Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation remains pending, according to
Amgen Inc.'s February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

The six federal class action stockholder complaints filed against
Amgen Inc., Kevin W. Sharer, Richard D. Nanula, Dennis M. Fenton,
Roger M. Perlmutter, Brian M. McNamee, George J. Morrow, Edward V.
Fritzky, Gilbert S. Omenn and Franklin P. Johnson, Jr., in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
April 17, 2007 (Kairalla v. Amgen Inc., et al.), May 1, 2007
(Mendall v. Amgen Inc., et al., & Jaffe v. Amgen Inc., et al.),
May 11, 2007 (Eldon v. Amgen Inc., et al.), May 21, 2007
(Rosenfield v. Amgen Inc., et al.) and June 18, 2007 (Public
Employees' Retirement Association of Colorado v. Amgen Inc., et
al.) were consolidated by the California Central District Court
into one action captioned In re Amgen Inc. Securities Litigation.
The consolidated complaint was filed with the California Central
District Court on October 2, 2007.  The consolidated complaint
alleges that Amgen and these officers and directors made false
statements that resulted in: (i) deceiving the investing public
regarding Amgen's prospects and business; (ii) artificially
inflating the prices of Amgen's publicly traded securities and
(iii) causing plaintiff and other members of the class to purchase
Amgen publicly traded securities at inflated prices.  The
complaint also makes off-label marketing allegations that,
throughout the class period, the Federal Defendants improperly
marketed Aranesp(R) and EPOGEN(R) for off-label uses while aware
that there were alleged safety signals with these products. The
plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory damages, legal
fees and other relief deemed proper.  The Federal Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss on November 8, 2007.  On February 4, 2008, the
California Central District Court granted in part, and denied in
part, the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint. Specifically, the California Central District
Court granted the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss as to
individual defendants Fritzky, Omenn, Johnson, Fenton and McNamee,
but denied the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss as to
individual defendants Sharer, Nanula, Perlmutter and Morrow.

A class certification hearing before the California Central
District Court, was held on July 17, 2009 and on August 12, 2009,
the California Central District Court granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  On August 28, 2009, Amgen filed a
petition for permission to appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit under Rule 23(f), regarding the Order on
Class Certification and the Ninth Circuit granted Amgen's appeal
on December 11, 2009.  Amgen filed its brief on March 29, 2010 and
plaintiff filed its brief on April 27, 2010.  No date has been set
for oral argument before the Ninth Circuit.  On February 2, 2010,
the lower court granted Amgen's motion to stay the underlying
action pending the outcome of the Ninth Circuit 23(f) appeal.

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


AMGEN INC: Appeal From Dismissal of ERISA Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court order dismissing a consolidated ERISA class
action filed against Amgen Inc. remains pending, according to the
Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

On August 20, 2007, the ERISA class action lawsuit of Harris v.
Amgen Inc., et al., was filed in the California Central District
Court and named Amgen Inc., Kevin W. Sharer, Frank J. Biondi, Jr.,
Jerry Choate, Frank C. Herringer, Gilbert S. Omenn, David
Baltimore, Judith C. Pelham, Frederick W. Gluck, Leonard D.
Schaeffer, Jacqueline Allred, Raul Cermeno, Jackie Crouse, Lori
Johnston, Michael Kelly and Charles Bell as defendants.
Plaintiffs claim that Amgen and the individual defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to inform current and former
employees who participated in the Amgen Retirement and Savings
Plan and the Retirement and Savings Plan for Amgen Manufacturing
Limited of the alleged off-label promotion of both Aranes(R) and
EPOGEN(R) while a number of studies allegedly demonstrated safety
concerns in patients using ESAs.  On February 4, 2008, the
California Central District Court dismissed the complaint with
prejudice as to plaintiff Harris, who had filed claims against
Amgen Inc.  The claims alleged by the second plaintiff, Ramos,
were also dismissed but the court granted the plaintiff leave to
amend his complaint.  On February 1, 2008, the plaintiffs appealed
the decision by the California Central District Court to dismiss
the claims of both plaintiffs Harris and Ramos to the Ninth
Circuit, which remains pending before the Ninth Circuit.  On
May 19, 2008, plaintiff Ramos in the Harris v. Amgen Inc., et al.,
action filed another lawsuit captioned Ramos v. Amgen Inc., et
al., in the California Central District Court.  The lawsuit is
another ERISA class action.  The Ramos v. Amgen Inc., et al.,
matter names the same defendants in the Harris v. Amgen Inc., et
al., matter plus four new defendants: Amgen Manufacturing Limited,
Richard Nanula, Dennis Fenton and the Fiduciary Committee.
Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the Ramos matter has been
stayed pending the outcome of the Harris matter appeal.  Oral
argument before the Ninth Circuit on the plaintiffs' appeal of the
California Central District Court's dismissal of the plaintiffs'
claims occurred on May 8, 2009.  On July 14, 2009, the Ninth
Circuit reversed the California Central District Court's decision
and remanded the case back to the district court.  In the
meantime, a third ERISA class action was filed by Don Hanks on
June 2, 2009 in the California Central District Court alleging the
same ERISA violations as in the Harris and Ramos lawsuits.

On October 13, 2009, the California Central District Court granted
plaintiffs Harris' and Ramos' motion to be appointed interim
co-lead counsel.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
November 11, 2009 and added two additional plaintiffs, Jorge
Torres and Albert Cappa.  Amgen filed a motion to dismiss the
amended/consolidated complaint on December 16, 2009.  Plaintiffs
filed their opposition on January 19, 2010.  The motion to dismiss
was argued on February 11, 2010.  On March 2, 2010, the California
Central District Court dismissed the entire lawsuit without
prejudice.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 23,
2010.  Amgen then filed another motion to dismiss on April 20,
2010.  On June 16, 2010, the California Central District Court
entered an order dismissing the entire lawsuit with prejudice.
On June 24, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with
the Ninth Circuit.  Petitioner's opening brief was served on
December 20, 2010, and Amgen's answering brief was filed on
February 2, 2011.  No date has been set for oral argument.


AMGEN INC: Warren's Appeal From Suit Dismissal Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action complaint filed by
Warren General Hospital against Amgen Inc. in New Jersey remains
pending, according to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On September 25, 2009, Warren General Hospital of Warren,
Pennsylvania (on its behalf and all others similarly situated)
filed a class action in the New Jersey District Court against
Amgen alleging federal antitrust violations under Section 1 of the
Sherman Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act based on Amgen's
contracting practices.  The complaint seeks damages including
treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs.  Amgen filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint on December 9, 2009.  Following briefing
by the parties, Amgen's motion to dismiss was granted by the New
Jersey District Court on June 7, 2010 and plaintiffs filed their
notice of appeal on June 14, 2010 with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.  Plaintiff filed their opening brief on
August 23, 2010 and Amgen's response brief was filed on
September 22, 2010.  Plaintiff filed its reply brief on
October 6, 2010.  Oral argument before the Third Circuit was held
on January 25, 2011.


AOL INC: Jurisdiction Challenges in Calif. Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
AOL Inc. is awaiting a court ruling on the briefs questioning a
federal court's jurisdiction in the remaining claims in a putative
class action against it, according to the Company's February 25,
2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On September 22, 2006, Salvadore Ramkissoon and two unnamed
plaintiffs filed a putative class action against AOL LLC in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
asserting claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
the California Consumer Records Act, the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, the California False Advertising Law, and the
California Unfair Competition Law, as well as common law claims
for unjust enrichment and public disclosure of private facts.  The
claims arise out of AOL's public posting of AOL member search
queries in late July 2006.

The Court has dismissed without prejudice the named Plaintiff and
all but the California False Advertising Law and California Unfair
Competition Law claims, under which the unnamed plaintiffs seek
only declaratory and injunctive relief regarding AOL's search
query retention practices.  No claims for monetary relief remain
in the case.  On February 11, 2011, the parties filed briefs in
response to the Court's order to address the issue of whether the
Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the remaining
claims.


AON CORP: Wins Final Court Approval of "Buckner" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aon Corporation obtained final court approval of an agreement to
settle two lawsuits filed in Georgia and Illinois, according to
the Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

A putative class action, Buckner v. Resource Life, was filed in
state court in Columbus, Georgia, against a former subsidiary of
Aon, Resource Life Insurance Company.  The complaint alleged that
Resource Life, which wrote policies insuring repayment of auto
loans, was obligated to identify and return unearned premiums to
policyholders whose loans terminated before the end of their
scheduled terms.  In connection with the sale of Resource Life in
2006, Aon agreed to indemnify Resource Life's buyer in certain
respects relating to this action.  In October 2009, the court
certified a nationwide class of policyholders whose loans
terminated before the end of their scheduled terms and who
Resource Life cannot prove received a refund of unearned premium.
Resource Life took an appeal from that decision.  Also in October
2009, Aon filed a lawsuit in Illinois state court seeking a
declaratory judgment with respect to the rights and obligations of
Aon and Resource Life under the indemnity agreement.

In July 2010, Aon entered into settlements of both cases, subject
to providing notice to the Buckner class and obtaining court
approval of the Buckner settlement.  Aon agreed to pay $48 million
on Resource Life's behalf in complete settlement with the
plaintiff class in Buckner, of which a pretax expense of $38
million was reflected in Income (loss) from discontinued
operations before income taxes in the 2010 Consolidated Statements
of Income.  A portion of this payment may be returned to Aon if
checks are undeliverable or some class members do not cash their
settlement payments.  Subject to certain limitations, the return
payment, if any, would be divided 50% to Aon and 50% to a fund to
be used for charitable purposes.  Additionally, the settlement
agreement with Resource Life provides potential future benefits
from Resource Life.  At this time, the amount of future payments,
if any, cannot be determined and Aon will record any such amounts
when they are determinable.  The Georgia court has granted final
approval of the settlement, and no appeals were taken from that
order.


BANK OF AMERICA: ARS Sale-Related Lawsuits Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Two class action lawsuits filed against Bank of America
Corporation for the sale of Auction Rate Securities are pending,
according to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.

BofA and Merrill Lynch Inc. face a number of civil actions
relating to the sales of Auction Rate Securities and management of
ARS auctions, including two putative class action lawsuits in
which the plaintiffs seek to recover the alleged losses in market
value of ARS securities purportedly caused by the defendants'
actions.  Plaintiffs also seek unspecified damages, including
rescission, other compensatory and consequential damages, costs,
fees and interest.

The first action, In Re Merrill Lynch Auction Rate Securities
Litigation, is the result of the consolidation of two separate
class action suits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  These suits were brought by two customers
of Merrill Lynch, on behalf of all persons who purchased ARS in
auctions managed by Merrill Lynch, against Merrill Lynch and its
subsidiary Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated
(MLPFS).  On March 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted Merrill Lynch's motion to
dismiss.  On April 22, 2010, a lead plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which
is currently pending.

The second action, Bondar v. Bank of America Corporation, was
brought by a putative class of ARS purchasers against the
Corporation and Banc of America Securities, LLC (BAS) and is
currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The Corporation and BAS have filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which remains pending.


BANK OF AMERICA: Appeals From Antitrust Suit Dismissals Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeals filed by plaintiffs from the dismissal of two
antitrust class action lawsuits filed against Bank of America
Corporation are still pending, according to the Company's
February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

BofA, Merrill Lynch Inc. and other financial institutions were
named in two putative antitrust class actions in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  Plaintiffs in both
actions assert federal antitrust claims under Section 1 of the
Sherman Act based on allegations that defendants conspired to
restrain trade in ARS by placing support bids in ARS auctions,
only to collectively withdraw those bids in February 2008, which
allegedly caused ARS auctions to fail.  The plaintiff in the first
action, Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland v.
Citigroup, Inc., et al., seeks to represent a class of issuers of
ARS that the defendants underwrote between May 12, 2003, and
February 13, 2008. This issuer action seeks to recover, among
other relief, the alleged above-market interest payments that ARS
issuers allegedly have had to make after the defendants allegedly
stopped placing "support bids" in ARS auctions.  The plaintiff in
the second action, Mayfield, et al. v. Citigroup, Inc., et al.,
seeks to represent a class of investors that purchased ARS from
the defendants and held those securities when ARS auctions failed
on February 13, 2008.  Plaintiff seeks to recover, among other
relief, unspecified damages for losses in the ARS' market value,
and rescission of the investors' ARS purchases.  Both actions also
seek treble damages and attorneys' fees under the Sherman Act's
private civil remedy.  On January 25, 2010, the court dismissed
both actions with prejudice and the plaintiffs' appeals are
currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.


BANK OF AMERICA: Settles MDL, Awaits Court Approval of Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation has reached, and is awaiting court
approval of, a settlement of a multi-district litigation
concerning deposit account-related business practices, according
to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

Bank of America, N.A., a charter of BofA, is currently a defendant
in several consumer suits challenging certain deposit account-
related business practices.  Three of the suits are presently part
of a MDL proceeding involving approximately 65 individual cases
against 30 financial institutions assigned by the Judicial Panel
on Multi-district Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.  The three cases, Tornes v. Bank of
America, N.A., Yourke, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., et al. and
Knighten v. Bank of America, N.A., allege that BANA improperly and
unfairly increased the number of overdraft fees it assessed on
consumer deposit accounts by various means.  The cases challenge
the practice of reordering debit card transactions to post high-
to-low and BANA's failure to notify customers at the point of sale
that the transaction may result in an overdraft charge.  The cases
also allege that BANA's disclosures and advertising regarding the
posting of debit card transactions are false, deceptive and
misleading.  These cases assert claims including breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, conversion,
unjust enrichment and violation of the unfair and deceptive
practices statutes of various states.  Plaintiffs generally seek
restitution of all overdraft fees paid to BANA as a result of
BANA's allegedly wrongful business practices, as well as
disgorgement, punitive damages, injunctive relief, pre-judgment
interest and attorneys' fees.  Omnibus motions to dismiss many of
the complaints involved in the MDL, including Tornes, Yourke and
Knighten, were denied on March 12, 2010.  Trial is currently
scheduled for March 26, 2012.  A fourth putative class action,
Phillips, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., which includes similar
allegations, will shortly become part of the MDL proceedings.

In December 2004, BANA was also named as the defendant in Closson,
et al. v. Bank of America, et al., a putative class action
currently pending in the California Court of Appeal, First
District, Division 1, which also challenges BANA's practice of
reordering debit card transactions to post deposits in high-to-low
order.  Closson asserts claims for violations of California state
law, and seeks restitution, disgorgement, actual and punitive
damages, a corrective advertising campaign and injunctive relief.
BANA entered into a settlement in Closson, which received final
approval by the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Francisco on August 3, 2009.  The settlement
provides for a $35 million payment by BANA in exchange for a
release of the claims against BANA by the members of the
nationwide settlement class.  Several settlement class members who
objected to the final approval of the settlement have appealed.
BofA says if the Closson settlement is affirmed, it will likely
bar the claims of many of the putative class members in Tornes,
Yourke and Knighten, as many of those class members are covered by
the putative class in Closson.

On January 27, 2011, BofA reached a settlement in principle with
the lead plaintiffs in the MDL, subject to complete final
documentation and court approvals.  The settlement will provide
for a payment by BofA of $410 million (which amount was fully
accrued by BofA as of December 31, 2010) in exchange for a
complete release of claims asserted against BofA in the MDL.  The
settlement also contemplates that a stay will be requested in the
Closson appeal and that, when this settlement becomes effective,
the appeal in Closson will be withdrawn and the settlement in
Closson will be effectuated according to its terms.


BANK OF AMERICA: Interchange Fee and Antitrust Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation continues to defend itself from a
consolidated class action lawsuit over transaction fees related to
Visa and MasterCard payments, according to the Company's
February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

A group of merchants have filed a series of putative class actions
and individual actions with regard to interchange fees associated
with Visa and MasterCard payment card transactions.  These
actions, which have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York under the caption In Re
Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Anti-Trust
Litigation (Interchange), name Visa, MasterCard and several banks
and bank holding companies, including BofA, as defendants.
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired to fix the level
of default interchange rates, which represent the fee an issuing
bank charges an acquiring bank on every transaction.  Plaintiffs
also challenge as unreasonable restraints of trade under Section 1
of the Sherman Act certain rules of Visa and MasterCard related to
merchant acceptance of payment cards at the point of sale.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and injunctive relief based on
their assertion that interchange would be lower or eliminated
absent the alleged conduct.  On January 8, 2008, the court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss all claims for pre-2004 damages.
Motions to dismiss the remainder of the complaint and plaintiffs'
motion for class certification are pending.

In addition, plaintiffs filed supplemental complaints against
certain defendants, including BofA, relating to initial public
offerings (the IPOs) of MasterCard and Visa.  Plaintiffs allege
that the MasterCard and Visa IPOs violated Section 7 of the
Clayton Act and Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  Plaintiffs also
assert that the MasterCard IPO was a fraudulent conveyance.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and to undo the IPOs.  Motions
to dismiss both supplemental complaints remain pending.
BofA and certain of its affiliates previously entered into loss-
sharing agreements with Visa and other financial institutions in
connection with certain antitrust litigation against Visa,
including Interchange.  BofA and these same affiliates have now
entered into additional loss-sharing agreements for Interchange
that cover all defendants, including MasterCard.  Collectively,
the loss-sharing agreements require BofA and/or certain affiliates
to pay 11.6 percent of the monetary portion of any comprehensive
Interchange settlement.  In the event of an adverse judgment, the
agreements require the Corporation and/or certain affiliates to
pay 12.8 percent of any damages associated with Visa-related
claims (Visa-related damages), 9.1 percent of any damages
associated with MasterCard-related claims, and 11.6 percent of any
damages associated with internetwork claims (internetwork damages)
or not associated specifically with Visa or MasterCard-related
claims (unassigned damages).

Pursuant to Visa's publicly-disclosed Retrospective Responsibility
Plan (the RRP), Visa placed certain proceeds from its IPO into an
escrow fund (the Escrow).  Under the RRP, funds in the Escrow may
be accessed by Visa and its members, including Bank of America, to
pay for a comprehensive settlement or damages in Interchange, with
the Corporation's payments from the Escrow capped at 12.81 percent
of the funds that Visa places therein.  Subject to that cap, BofA
may use Escrow funds to cover: 66.7 percent of its monetary
payment towards a comprehensive Interchange settlement, 100
percent of its payment for any Visa-related damages and 66.7
percent of its payment for any internetwork and unassigned
damages.


BANK OF AMERICA: Appeal From IPO Suit Settlement Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court order approving a settlement resolving an
IPO-related class action lawsuit filed against Bank of America
Corporation remains pending with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, according to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Banc of America Securities, LLC, Merrill Lynch Inc., Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, and certain of their
subsidiaries, along with other underwriters, and various issuers
and others, were named as defendants in a number of putative class
action lawsuits that have been consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York as In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation.  Plaintiffs contend, among
other things, that defendants failed to make certain required
disclosures in the registration statements and prospectuses for
applicable offerings regarding alleged agreements with
institutional investors that tied allocations in certain offerings
to the purchase orders by those investors in the aftermarket.
Plaintiffs allege that the agreements allowed defendants to
manipulate the price of the securities sold in these offerings in
violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC rules.  The
parties agreed to settle the matter, for which the court granted
final approval.  Some putative class members have filed an appeal,
which remains pending, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit seeking reversal of the final approval.


BANK OF AMERICA: Motion to Dismiss LBHI-Related Actions Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss class action lawsuits filed against Banc of
America Securities, LLC, and other defendants remains pending in
New York, according to Bank of America Corporation's February 25,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Beginning in September 2008, Banc of America Securities, LLC,
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Countrywide
Securities Corporation and LaSalle Financial Services Inc., along
with other underwriters and individuals, were named as defendants
in several putative class action lawsuits filed in federal and
state courts.  All of these cases have since been transferred or
conditionally transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under the caption In re Lehman
Brothers Securities and ERISA Litigation.  Plaintiffs allege that
the underwriter defendants violated Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as well as various state laws, by making false or
misleading disclosures about the real estate-related investments
and mortgage lending practices of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.
(LBHI) in connection with various debt and convertible stock
offerings of LBHI.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages.  On
June 4, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,
which remains pending.


BANK OF AMERICA: Consolidated ERISA Class Action Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation continues to defend itself from a
consolidated class action lawsuit alleging purported ERISA
violations, according to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Plaintiffs in the putative securities class actions in the In re
Bank of America Securities, Derivative and Employment Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation (Securities Plaintiffs)
represent all (i) purchasers of BofA's common and preferred
securities between September 15, 2008, and January 21, 2009; (ii)
holders of BofA's common stock or Series B Preferred Stock as of
October 10, 2008; and (iii) purchasers of BofA's common stock
issued in the offering that occurred on or about October 7, 2008.
During the purported class period, BofA had between 4,560,112,687
and 5,017,579,321 common shares outstanding and the price of those
securities declined from $33.74 on September 12, 2008 to $6.68 on
January 21, 2009.  Securities Plaintiffs claim violations of
Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and SEC rules.  Securities Plaintiffs' amended complaint
also alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 related to an offering of BofA's common
stock that occurred on or about October 7, 2008, and names Banc of
America Securities, LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated, among others, as defendants on the Section 11 and
12(a)(2) claims.  BofA and its co-defendants filed motions to
dismiss, which the court granted in part by dismissing certain of
the Securities Plaintiffs' claims under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Securities Plaintiffs have filed
a second amended complaint which seeks to replead some of the
dismissed claims as well as add claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of holders
of certain debt, preferred securities and option securities.  BofA
and its co-defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint's new and amended allegations, which remains
pending.  Securities Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages,
legal costs and attorneys' fees.

Several individual plaintiffs have opted to pursue claims apart
from the In re Bank of America Securities, Derivative, and
Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation and,
accordingly, have initiated individual actions relying on
substantially the same facts and claims as the Securities
Plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

On January 13, 2010, BofA, Merrill Lynch Inc. and certain of
BofA's current and former officers and directors were named in a
purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York entitled Dornfest v. Bank of America
Corp., et al.  The action is purportedly brought on behalf of
investors in BofA option contracts between September 15, 2008, and
January 22, 2009, and alleges that during the class period,
approximately 9.5 million BofA call option contracts and
approximately eight million BofA put option contracts were already
traded on seven of the Options Clearing BofA exchanges.  The
complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC rules.  On
April 9, 2010, the court consolidated this action with the
consolidated securities action in the In re Bank of America
Securities, Derivative and Employment Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) Litigation, and ruled that the plaintiffs may pursue
the action as an individual action.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified
monetary damages, legal costs and attorneys' fees.


BANK OF AMERICA: Trial in Merrill Acquisition Suit Set for 2012
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in certain class action lawsuits filed against Bank of
America Corporation for its acquisition of Merrill Lynch Inc. will
take place in October next year, according to BofA's February 25,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On January 1, 2009, BofA completed the acquisition of Merrill
Lynch.

Several of the derivative actions related to the Acquisition that
were pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery were consolidated
under the caption In re Bank of America Corporation Stockholder
Derivative Litigation.  In addition, a multi-district litigation
ordered the transfer of actions related to the Acquisition that
had been pending in various federal courts to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.  These actions have been
separately consolidated and are now pending under the caption In
re Bank of America Securities, Derivative, and Employment
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation.

On October 9, 2009, plaintiffs in the derivative actions in the In
re Bank of America Securities, Derivative and Employment
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation (the Derivative
Plaintiffs) filed a consolidated amended derivative and class
action complaint.  The amended complaint names as defendants
certain of BofA's current and former directors, officers and
financial advisors, and certain of Merrill Lynch's current and
former directors and officers.  BofA is named as a nominal
defendant with respect to the derivative claims.  The amended
complaint asserts claims for, among other things: (i) violation of
federal securities laws; (ii) breach of fiduciary duties; (iii)
the return of incentive compensation that is alleged to be
inappropriate in view of the work performed and the results
achieved by certain of the defendants; and (iv) contribution in
connection with the BofA's exposure to significant liability under
state and federal law.  The amended complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages, equitable remedies and other relief.  On
February 8, 2010, the Derivative Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
their claims against each of the former Merrill Lynch officers and
directors without prejudice.  The Corporation and its co-
defendants filed motions to dismiss, which were granted in part on
August 27, 2010.  On October 18, 2010, the Corporation and its co-
defendants answered the remaining allegations asserted by the
Derivative Plaintiffs.

The Corporation and certain of its current and former directors
are also named as defendants in several putative class and
derivative actions in the Delaware Court of Chancery, including
Rothbaum v. Lewis; Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority v. Lewis; Tremont Partners LLC v. Lewis; Kovacs v.
Lewis; Stern v. Lewis; and Houx v. Lewis, brought by shareholders
alleging breaches of fiduciary duties and waste of corporate
assets in connection with the Acquisition.  On April 27, 2009, the
Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the derivative actions
under the caption In re Bank of America Corporation Stockholder
Derivative Litigation.  The complaint seeks, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages, equitable remedies and other relief.
On April 30, 2009, the putative class claims in the Stern v. Lewis
and Houx v. Lewis actions were voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice.  Trial is scheduled for October 2012.


BANK OF AMERICA: Plaintiffs Agree to Dismiss Appeal in ERISA Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to a consolidated amended complaint filed by participants
in Bank of America Corporation's 401(k) Plan have agreed to the
dismissal of an appeal from a court ruling allowing dismissal of
ERISA actions, according to BofA's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On October 9, 2009, plaintiffs in the ERISA actions in the In re
Bank of America Securities, Derivative and Employment Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation (the ERISA Plaintiffs)
filed a consolidated amended complaint for breaches of duty under
ERISA.  The amended complaint is brought on behalf of a purported
class that consists of participants in BofA's 401(k) Plan, BofA's
401(k) Plan for Legacy Companies, the Countrywide Financial
Corporation 401(k) Plan and BofA's  Pension Plan.  The amended
complaint alleges violations of ERISA, based on, among other
things: (i) an alleged failure to prudently and loyally manage the
401(k) Plans and Pension Plan by continuing to offer BofA's common
stock as an investment option or measure for participant
contributions; (ii) an alleged failure to monitor the fiduciaries
of the 401(k) Plans and Pension Plan; (iii) an alleged failure to
provide complete and accurate information to the 401(k) Plans and
Pension Plan participants with respect to the Merrill Lynch and
Countrywide acquisitions and related matters; and (iv) alleged co-
fiduciary liability for these purported fiduciary breaches.  The
amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, equitable
remedies and other relief.  On August 27, 2010, the court
dismissed the complaint brought by plaintiffs in the consolidated
ERISA action in its entirety.  The ERISA Plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal of the court's dismissal of their actions.  The parties
then stipulated to the dismissal of the appeal with the agreement
that the ERISA Plaintiffs can reinstate their appeal at any time
up until July 27, 2011.


BANK OF AMERICA: "Montgomery" Suit Still Pending in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation continues to defend itself from an
amended class action complaint captioned Montgomery v. Bank of
America, et al., according to the Company's February 25, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

BofA, several of its current and former officers and directors,
Banc of America Securities, LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith Incorporated, and other unaffiliated underwriters have been
named as defendants in a putative class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled
Montgomery v. Bank of America, et al.  Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on January 14, 2011.  Plaintiff seeks to sue on behalf
of all persons who acquired certain series of preferred stock
offered by BofA pursuant to a shelf registration statement dated
May 5, 2006.  Plaintiff's claims arise from three offerings dated
January 24, 2008, January 28, 2008, and May 20, 2008, from which
BofA allegedly received proceeds of $15.8 billion.  The amended
complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and alleges that the prospectus
supplements associated with the offerings: (i) failed to disclose
that BofA's loans, leases, collateralized debt obligations  and
commercial mortgage-backed securities were impaired to a greater
extent than disclosed; (ii) misrepresented the extent of the
impaired assets by failing to establish adequate reserves or
properly record losses for its impaired assets; (iii)
misrepresented the adequacy of BofA's internal controls in light
of the alleged impairment of its assets; (iv) misrepresented
BofA's capital base and Tier 1 leverage ratio for risk-based
capital in light of the allegedly impaired assets; and (v)
misrepresented the thoroughness and adequacy of BofA's due
diligence in connection with its acquisition of Countrywide
Securities Corporation.  The amended complaint seeks rescission,
compensatory and other damages.


BANK OF AMERICA: Gives Updates on Mortgage-Backed Securities Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010, reports that BofA and its
affiliates, Countrywide Securities Corporation and its affiliates,
and Merrill Lynch Inc. and its affiliates have been named as
defendants in several cases relating to their various roles as
issuer, originator, seller, depositor, sponsor, underwriter and/or
controlling entity in Mortgage-backed Securities offerings,
pursuant to which the MBS investors were entitled to a portion of
the cash flow from the underlying pools of mortgages.  These cases
generally include purported class action suits and actions by
individual MBS purchasers.  Although the allegations vary by
lawsuit, these cases generally allege that the registration
statements, prospectuses and prospectus supplements for securities
issued by securitization trusts contained material
misrepresentations and omissions, in violation of Sections 11 and
12 of the Securities Act of 1933 and/or state securities laws and
other state statutory and common laws.

These cases generally involve allegations of false and misleading
statements regarding: (i) the process by which the properties that
served as collateral for the mortgage loans underlying the MBS
were appraised; (ii) the percentage of equity that mortgage
borrowers had in their homes; (iii) the borrowers' ability to
repay their mortgage loans; and (iv) the underwriting practices by
which those mortgage loans were originated -- collectively, the
MBS Claims.  In addition, several of the cases assert claims
related to the ratings given to the different tranches of MBS by
rating agencies.  Plaintiffs in these cases generally seek
unspecified compensatory damages, unspecified costs and legal fees
and, in some instances, seek rescission.

              Luther Litigation and Related Actions

David H. Luther and various pension funds (collectively, Luther
Plaintiffs) commenced a putative class action against Countrywide
Financial Corporation, several of its affiliates, Banc of America
Securities, LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated and other entities and individuals in California
Superior Court for Los Angeles County entitled Luther v.
Countrywide Financial Corporation, et al (the Luther Action).  The
Luther Plaintiffs claim that they and other unspecified investors
purchased MBS issued by subsidiaries of CFC in 429 offerings
between January 2005 and December 2007.  The Luther Plaintiffs
certified that they collectively purchased securities in 61 of the
429 offerings for approximately $216 million.  On January 6, 2010,
the court granted CFC's motion to dismiss, with prejudice, due to
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  The Luther Plaintiffs'
appeal to the California Court of Appeal is currently pending.

Following the dismissal of the Luther Action, the Maine State
Retirement System filed a putative class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, entitled
Maine State Retirement System v. Countrywide Financial
Corporation, et al. (the Maine Action).  The Maine Action names
the same defendants as the Luther Action, as well as the
Corporation and NB Holdings Corporation, and asserts substantially
the same allegations regarding 427 of the MBS offerings that were
at issue in the Luther Action.  On May 14, 2010, the court
appointed the Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System (IPERS) as
Lead Plaintiff.  On July 13, 2010, IPERS filed an amended
complaint, which added additional pension fund plaintiffs
(collectively, the Maine Plaintiffs).  The Maine Plaintiffs
certified that they purchased securities in 81 of those 427
offerings, for approximately $538 million.  On November 4, 2010,
the court granted CFC's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in
its entirety, and ordered the Maine Plaintiffs to file a second
amended complaint within 30 days.  In so doing, the court held
that the Maine Plaintiffs only have standing to sue over the 81
offerings in which they actually purchased MBS.  The court also
held that the applicable statute of limitations could be tolled by
the filing of the Luther Action only with respect to the offerings
in which the Luther Plaintiffs actually purchased MBS.  On
December 6, 2010, the Maine Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint that relates to 14 MBS offerings.

Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund (Western
Teamsters) filed suit against the same defendants named in the
Maine Action on November 17, 2010, in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County, entitled Western Conference of
Teamsters Pension Trust Fund v. Countrywide Financial Corporation,
et al. Western Teamsters claims that it and other unspecified
investors purchased MBS issued in the 428 offerings that were also
at issue in the Luther Action.  The Western Teamsters action has
been stayed by the Superior Court pending resolution of the appeal
of the Luther Action.

The New Mexico State Investment Council, New Mexico Educational
Retirement Board and New Mexico Public Employees Retirement
Association (the New Mexico Plaintiffs) have also brought an
action against CFC and several of its affiliates, current and
former officers, as well as third-party underwriters in New Mexico
District Court for the County of Santa Fe, entitled New Mexico
State Investment Council, et al. v. Countrywide Financial
Corporation, et al. A related action was later filed against the
individual defendants in California Superior Court, entitled New
Mexico State Investment Council, et al. v. Stanford L. Kurland, et
al.  On November 15, 2010, the parties agreed to resolve and
dismiss these two cases in their entirety with prejudice for an
amount that is not material to BofA's results of operations.
Putnam Bank filed a putative class action lawsuit on January 27,
2011 against CFC, BofA, certain of their subsidiaries, and certain
individuals in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut, entitled Putnam Bank v. Countrywide Financial
Corporation, et al.  Putnam Bank alleges that it purchased
approximately $33 million in eight MBS offerings issued by
subsidiaries of CFC between August 2005 and September 2007.  All
eight offerings were also included in the Luther Action and the
Maine Action.  In addition to certain MBS Claims, Putnam Bank
contends among other things that defendants made false and
misleading statements regarding: (i) the number of mortgage loans
in each offering that were originated under reduced documentation
programs; (ii) the method by which mortgages were selected for
inclusion in the collateral pools underlying the offerings; and
(iii) the analysis conducted by ratings agencies prior to
assigning ratings to the MBS.

Countrywide may also be subject to contractual indemnification
obligations for the benefit of certain defendants involved in the
MBS matters discussed.

                        IndyMac Litigation

In 2006 and 2007, MLPFS, CSC and other financial institutions
participated as underwriters in MBS offerings in which IndyMac
MBS, Inc. securitized residential mortgage loans originated or
acquired by IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. (IndyMac Bank) and created trusts
that issued MBS.  In 2009, the Corporation was named as an
underwriter defendant, along with several other financial
institutions, in its alleged capacity as "successor-in-interest"
to MLPFS and CSC in a consolidated class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, entitled In
re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation.  In their
complaint, plaintiffs assert MBS Claims relating to 106 offerings
of IndyMac-related MBS.  On June 21, 2010, the court dismissed the
Corporation from the action because the plaintiffs failed to plead
sufficient facts to support their allegation that the Corporation
is the "successor-in-interest" to MLPFS and CSC.  On August 3,
2010, plaintiffs filed a motion to add MLPFS and CSC as
defendants, which MLPFS and CSC have opposed.

                    Merrill Lynch MBS Litigation

Merrill Lynch, MLPFS, Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc.
(MLMI) and certain current and former directors of MLMI are named
as defendants in a putative consolidated class action in the U.S.
District Court in the Southern District of New York, entitled
Public Employees' Ret. System of Mississippi v. Merrill Lynch &
Co. Inc.  In addition to MBS Claims, plaintiffs also allege that
the offering documents for the MBS misrepresented or omitted
material facts regarding the credit ratings assigned to the
securities.  In March 2010, the court dismissed claims related to
65 of 84 offerings with prejudice due to lack of standing as no
named plaintiff purchased securities in those offerings.  On
November 8, 2010, the court dismissed claims related to 1 of 19
remaining offerings on separate grounds.  MLPFS was the sole
underwriter of these 18 offerings.  On December 1, 2010, the
defendants filed an answer to the consolidated amended complaint.

       Cambridge Place Investment Management Litigation

Cambridge Place Investment Management Inc. (CPIM), as the alleged
exclusive assignee of certain entities that allegedly purchased
MBS offered or sold by BAS, MLPFS and CSC, brought an action
against BAS, MLPFS, CSC and several of their affiliates in
Massachusetts Superior Court, Suffolk County, entitled Cambridge
Place Investment Management Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., et
al.  CPIM also brought claims against more than 50 other
defendants in this action.  In addition to MBS Claims, CPIM
contends that BAS, MLPFS, CSC and their affiliates made false and
misleading statements in violation of the Massachusetts Uniform
Securities Act regarding: (i) due diligence performed by the
underwriters on the mortgage loans and the mortgage originators'
underwriting practices; and (ii) the credit enhancements
applicable to certain tranches of the MBS.  On August 13, 2010,
certain defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts.  On September 13, 2010, CPIM filed
a motion to remand the case back to state court.  On October 12,
2010, the court referred the motion to remand to a Magistrate
Judge for consideration.  On December 28, 2010, the Magistrate
Judge issued a report and recommendation that the action be
remanded to state court.  On January 18, 2011, the defendants
filed an objection to that recommendation, which CPIM opposed on
February 1, 2011.  The objection to the Magistrate Judge's
recommendation remains pending.

On February 11, 2011, CPIM commenced a separate civil action in
Massachusetts Superior Court, Suffolk County, captioned Cambridge
Place Investment Management Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., et
al., in connection with the offering or sale of certain additional
mortgage-backed securities by BAS, MLPFS, CSC, several of their
affiliates and more than 40 other defendants.  CPIM alleges that
it is the assignee of the claims of certain entities that
allegedly purchased mortgage-backed securities issued or sold by
BAS, MLPFS and CSC in various offerings.  In addition to MBS
Claims, CPIM contends that BAS, MLPFS, CSC and their affiliates
made false and misleading statements in violation of the
Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act in connection with these
offerings regarding: (i) due diligence performed by the
underwriters on the mortgage loans and the mortgage originators'
underwriting practices; (ii) the credit enhancements applicable to
certain tranches of the MBS; and (iii) the validity of each
issuing trust's title to the mortgage loans comprising the pool
for that securitization.


BANK OF AMERICA: Municipal Derivatives Litigation Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit filed against Bank of America,
N.A., remains stayed pending the Department of Justice's
completion of its criminal trials concerning other parties,
according to BofA's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Department
of Justice (DOJ), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Office
of Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Reserve and a
Working Group of State Attorneys General (the Working Group) have
investigated BofA, Bank of America, N.A., and Banc of America
Securities, LLC,  concerning possible anticompetitive practices in
the municipal derivatives industry dating back to the early 1990s.
These investigations have focused on the bidding practices for
guaranteed investment contracts, the investment vehicles in which
the proceeds of municipal bond offerings are deposited, as well as
other types of derivative transactions related to municipal bonds.
On January 11, 2007, BofA entered a Corporate Conditional Leniency
Letter with the DOJ, under which the DOJ agreed not to prosecute
the Company for criminal antitrust violations in connection with
matters the Company has reported to the DOJ, subject to the
Company's continued cooperation.  On December 7, 2010, BofA and
its affiliates settled inquiries with the SEC, OCC, IRS and the
Working Group for an aggregate amount that is not material to
BofA's results of operations.  In addition, BofA entered into an
agreement with the Federal Reserve providing for additional
oversight and compliance risk management.

BANA and Merrill Lynch, along with other financial institutions,
are named as defendants in several substantially similar class
actions and individual actions, filed in various state and federal
courts by several municipalities that issued municipal bonds, as
well as purchasers of municipal derivatives.  These actions
generally allege that defendants conspired to violate federal and
state antitrust laws by allocating customers, and fixing or
stabilizing rates of return on certain municipal derivatives from
1992 to the present.  These actions seek unspecified damages,
including treble damages.  However, as a result of BofA's receipt
of the Corporate Leniency Letter from the DOJ, BofA is eligible to
seek a ruling that certain civil plaintiffs are limited to single,
rather than treble, damages and relief from joint and several
liability with co-defendants in civil suits.  All of the actions
have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York and consolidated in a single proceeding,
entitled In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation.
Defendants other than BANA and Merrill Lynch filed motions to
dismiss plaintiffs' complaints, which the court denied in large
part in April 2010.  The action has otherwise been largely stayed
while the DOJ completes its criminal trials concerning other
parties.


BECKMAN COULTER: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Brower Piven disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been commenced in the Delaware Chancery Court on behalf of all
shareholders of Beckman Coulter, Inc.

The complaint alleges violations of state law by the Board of
Directors of Beckman Coulter relating to acquisition of the
company by Danaher Corporation.  The complaint alleges that
Beckman Coulter's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to maximize shareholder value, among other
things.

On Feb. 7, 2011, the complaint states, Beckman Coulter and Danaher
issued a joint press release announcing that they had entered into
a definitive merger agreement, in a deal with a total value of
approximately $6.8 billion.  The complaint alleges that under the
terms of the Proposed Transaction, Danaher would acquire Beckman
Coulter by making a cash tender offer to acquire all of the
outstanding shares of common stock of Beckman Coulter at a
purchase price of $83.50 per share, representing only an 11.08%
premium to the Company's closing price of $75.17 per share on
Feb. 4, 2011, the last trading day prior to the announcement of
the Proposed Transaction.  Citing an article in Bloomberg titled
"Danaher Agrees to Buy Beckman Coulter for $6.8 Billion to Add
Diagnostic" published on February 7, 2011, the complaint alleges
that "[t]he average premium paid for more than 160 U.S. medical
instrument companies in the past five years, based on the average
share price in the 20 days before an announcement, was 40%.  On
that basis, Danaher's premium for Beckman would be 15 percent."

The complaint further alleges that the Proposed Transaction was
driven by the self-interested Board of Directors looking to cash
out their largely illiquid holdings in Beckman Coulter stock.  The
complaint states, according to a Form 14D-9 filed with the SEC on
February 15, 2011, if the Board and certain officers tender their
504,182 shares for purchase pursuant to the Tender Offer, the
Board and certain officers would receive an aggregate of
approximately $42,099,197 in cash.  The complaint further states
that defendant and board member, Dervan, holds 64,272 shares and
therefore is set to receive approximately $5 million for approving
the Proposed Transaction and defendant and board member Haggerty,
held 78,091 as of the same date, which equates to a payout of over
$6.5 million from the Proposed Transaction. In addition, the
complaint states that the Individual Defendants and certain
officers will be able to cash out an additional $21,488,275 in
restricted stock units, performance shares and phantom stock
units.

If you are a current owner of shares of Beckman Coulter, you may
obtain additional information about this lawsuit by contacting:

          Charles Piven, Esq.
          BROWER PIVEN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          1925 Old Valley Road
          Stevenson, MD 21153
          Telephone: (410) 415-6616
          E-mail at hoffman@browerpiven.com
          Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com/

Attorneys at Brower Piven have combined experience litigating
securities and class action cases of over 60 years.  If you choose
to retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your
choice.  You need take no action at this time to be a member of
the class.


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Antitrust Suit in Massachusetts Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Blackstone Group L.P. remains a defendant in a purported class
action involving equity firms over allegations of antitrust law
violations, according to the Company's February 25, 2011 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

In December 2007, a purported class of shareholders in public
companies acquired by one or more private equity firms filed a
lawsuit against sixteen private equity firms and investment banks,
including the Company, in the United States District Court in
Massachusetts.  The suit alleges that from mid-2003 defendants
have violated antitrust laws by allegedly conspiring to rig bids,
restrict the supply of private equity financing, fix the prices
for target companies at artificially low levels, and divide up an
alleged market for private equity services for leveraged buyouts.
The complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of all persons who
sold securities to any of the defendants in leveraged buyout
transactions.  The amended complaint also includes seven purported
sub-classes of plaintiffs seeking damages and/or restitution and
comprised of shareholders of seven companies.

The Company believes that the suits are totally without merit and
intends to defend them vigorously.


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Blackstone Group L.P. remains a defendant in a consolidated
class action arising from the Company's 2007 initial public
offering, according to the Company's February 25, 2011 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

In the spring of 2008, six substantially identical complaints were
brought against Blackstone and some of its executive officers
purporting to be class actions on behalf of purchasers of common
units in the Company's June 2007 initial public offering. These
suits were subsequently consolidated into one complaint filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York in October 2008 against the Company, Stephen A. Schwarzman,
the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Peter G.
Peterson, the Company's former Senior Chairman, Hamilton E. James,
the Company's President and Chief Operating Officer and Michael A.
Puglisi, the Company's Chief Financial Officer at the time of the
IPO.  The amended complaint alleged that (1) the IPO prospectus
was false and misleading for failing to disclose that (a) certain
investments made by the Company's private equity funds were
performing poorly at the time of the IPO and were materially
impaired and (b) prior to the IPO the U.S. real estate market had
started to deteriorate, adversely affecting the value of the
Company's real estate investments; and (2) the financial
statements in the IPO prospectus were materially inaccurate
principally because they overstated the value of the investments
referred to in clause (1).  The plaintiffs seek damages, costs,
rescission and other relief.

The Company believes that the consolidated suit is totally without
merit and intends to defend it vigorously.


BURLINGTON COAT: Recalls 7,460 Slow Cooker
------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Burlington Coat Factory, of Burlington, N.J., a voluntary recall
of about 7,460 Slow cooker. Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The slow cooker's control panel can overheat and melt, posing a
fire hazard.

The manufacturer has received 60 reports of the control panels
smoking, melting and sparking, and three reports of panels
catching fire.  Fourteen incidents resulted in minor damage to
countertops.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Bella Kitchen 5-quart programmable slow
cookers.  The slow cookers are black with "Bella Kitchen" printed
on the control panel.  Only slow cookers with model number WJ-
5000DE and date codes 0907 or 0909 are included in this recall.
The model number and the four-digit date code are printed on a
label on the underside of the product.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Burlington Coat Factory stores from June 2010 through December
2010 for $20.

Consumers should stop using the slow cooker immediately, unplug it
and return the slow cooker to Burlington Coat Factory for a full
refund or store credit.  For additional information, contact
Burlington Coat Factory toll-free at (888) 223-2628 between 8:30
a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit
the firm's Web site at http://www.burlingtoncoatfactory.com/


C&S WHOLESALE: Faces Class Action Over Labor Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reports that a recent C&S Wholesale
Grocers class-action lawsuit filed last month claims that the
giant grocery chain deliberately cheated its workers to avoid
paying overtime, and violated a number of other California labor
laws.

C&S has to be one of the worst companies in the US to work for.
This latest class-action suit alleges that the second-largest
wholesale grocery store supplier in the US misclassified warehouse
supervisors as exempt to avoid paying overtime, did not allow
employees to take meal and rest breaks or pay them for these
missed breaks, failed to pay them minimum wages, and failed to
keep accurate payroll records and supply accurate wage statements.

Not only has C&S allegedly failed to pay its employees overtime
pay, it has also been accused of punishing workers for mistakes on
the job by decreasing their wages! Yes, this practice apparently
takes place in the US today and not in Siberia during the 20th
century.  Pay decrease is prohibited under the California labor
law and in every state where C&S operates.

C&S must have deep pockets, or believe it is above the law, or
both: a nationwide class action in 2006 was filed by C&S employees
seeking $750 million in unpaid wages and overtime under the
Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state labor laws in each of
the 14 states, including California, where the company operates
warehouses.  This suit applied to workers who have been employed
by C&S since 2000, with identical violations.

According to attorneys who represented the plaintiffs in 2006, C&S
"violates federal and state laws by illegally chopping workers'
wages as punishment for mistakes on the job; failing to pay
overtime; failing to pay for time worked in excess of 10 hours;
failing to pay employees their agreed hourly rates; and
encouraging employees to work off-the-clock and through lunch
without pay."

A lead attorney for the C&S employees said that "C&S punishes an
entire team of workers for one person's mistake.  C&S employees
work in 4-8 member 'selection' teams.  If one team member makes an
error, for example selecting a case of apple juice instead of
grape juice, C&S collectively punishes everyone on that team and
cuts their pay."

Meanwhile, the company projected record revenues of $18 billion
for 2006, thanks to their employees for making profits possible.

The Sacramento suit was brought on behalf of warehouse supervisors
or employees who held similar job titles and/or performed similar
job duties, and who worked for C&S in California from February 3,
2007, to the present.  About 20,000 people are employed by C&S
nationwide.  In 2006, Forbes magazine listed it as the seventh-
largest privately held company in the US.


CALEDONIA, ONTARIO: Class Action Settlement Likely
--------------------------------------------------
Daniel Nolan, writing for TheSpec, reports that the lawyer
overseeing a multimillion dollar class-action lawsuit against the
province over road blockades put up during the Caledonia standoff
says there are "positive signs" it can be settled before heading
to trial.

"There's a huge amount of resources for everyone to put into it,"
says John Findlay, who lives in Caledonia, but has a practice in
Burlington.

"It would be a reasonable thing for this to settle, obviously.
Most class-actions settle after certification.  There are positive
signs.  We are doing this damage analysis, there is some sharing.
The idea is to get a handle on damages instead of leaving it to
the end."

Mr. Findlay feels "quite good" in winning damages if the case does
proceed to trial.  He notes one case in Britain where businesses
were successful in suing a port authority over the closure of the
port due to protests by animal rights activists.

Mr. Findlay would only say the Caledonia damages involve "tens of
millions of dollars," but a 2008 report said the parties involved
were seeking more than $50 million for the disruption of their
town between April 20 and May 24, 2006, the most intense period of
the standoff, when Argyle Street South and the CN Rail line were
shut by native barricades.

The suit was launched in June 2006, and was certified by Ontario
Superior Court Justice Dave Crane in February 2010.  There are
four classes: residential property owners, Caledonia businesses,
Highway 6 businesses (between Jarvis and the Glanbrook border) and
contractors.  There are about 800 residents and business owners
involved.

Brendan Crawley, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Attorney
General, declined to respond to Mr. Findlay's comments.

Mr. Findlay said if there is no settlement reached between the
parties, the suit could go to trial in the spring of 2012 and
could last four weeks.  No courthouse has been selected to hear
the suit, but it would most likely be Hamilton where a Caledonia
couple's $7-million lawsuit against the province was heard.  The
province and Dave and Dana Brown settled out of court just after
Christmas, 2009.

Mr. Findlay said that before proceeding to trial there would have
to be agreement on the scope of document disclosures and the
exchanging of "our meager number of documents and their horrendous
amount of documents."

"There are a huge amount of documents in this case," he added.
"It's all the police notebooks . . . I've been spending a good
part of the fall setting up a data management system if it comes
in."


CHARLES SCHWAB: Final Fairness Hearing Set for March 10
-------------------------------------------------------
A final fairness hearing on the settlement of a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit against The Charles Schwab Corp.
has been set for March 10, 2011, according to the Company's
February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Nine class action lawsuits were filed between March and June 2008
on behalf of investors in the Schwab YieldPlus Fund alleging
violations of California state law and federal securities law in
connection with the fund's investment policy, disclosures and
marketing.  These cases were consolidated in a single action in
June and July 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  Specific allegations include changes to
the investment policy of the fund regarding limits on positions in
mortgage-backed securities without obtaining a shareholder vote;
inadequate disclosure of the risks associated with fund
investments in mortgage-backed securities and fund risk
management; inaccurate reporting of the fund's weighted-average
duration; and failure to disclose redemptions of positions in
YieldPlus by other Schwab investment funds.  The lawsuit seeks
unspecified compensatory and rescission damages, unspecified
equitable and injunctive relief, and costs and attorneys' fees.
Defendants named in the lawsuit include the Company, Schwab, CSIM,
the fund itself, Schwab Investments (registrant and issuer of the
fund's shares), Charles R. Schwab, Randall W. Merk (formerly
president of the fund), and current and former trustees and
officers of the fund and/or Schwab. On August 21, 2009, the court
certified two classes of plaintiffs for purposes of the federal
law claims and a single class of plaintiffs for purposes of the
remaining California state law claim.

On April 23, 2010, and May 14, 2010, the Company entered into
separate settlement agreements with plaintiffs in which the
Company, without admitting liability, agreed to a total of $200
million to resolve plaintiffs' federal law claims and $35 million
to resolve plaintiffs' California state law claim, respectively.
On November 24, 2010, the court preliminarily approved an
amendment to the settlement agreements which resolved a dispute
regarding the scope of the original settlements and provided
certain class members an opportunity to opt out of the settlements
and pursue separate claims.  On January 19, 2011, a single class
member filed a motion to intervene in order to bring a new,
alternative class action under California law on behalf of a
broader class of plaintiffs than was certified by the court in
2009.  On February 11, 2011, the court denied the motion and
confirmed fairness and adequacy of the settlement agreements,
subject to a final fairness determination scheduled for March 10,
2011.

For the year ended December 31, 2010, the Company has accrued a
reserve of $199 million for the settlements, net of insurance
proceeds of $39 million under applicable policies.  In addition,
the Company remains the subject of 20 individual arbitration
claims seeking $3 million in damages relating to investments in
the Bond Fund, for which the Company has been accruing reserves.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Continues to Defend Dealer Suits in U.S. & Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chrysler Group LLC remains a defendant in purported class action
lawsuits alleging that it and other automakers conspired to
prevent the sale to U.S. consumers of vehicles sold by dealers in
Canada, according to the Company's February 25, 2011 Form 10-12G
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

More than 80 purported class action lawsuits alleging violations
of antitrust law are pending against the Company, several other
motor vehicle manufacturers, the National Automobile Dealers
Association and the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association.  Some
complaints were filed in federal courts in various states and
others were filed in state courts.  The complaints allege that the
defendants conspired to prevent the sale to U.S. consumers of
vehicles sold by dealers in Canada in order to maintain new car
prices at artificially high levels in the U.S.  They seek
injunctive relief and treble damages on behalf of everyone who
bought or leased a new vehicle in the U.S. since January 1, 2001.
The federal court actions have been consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maine for purposes of pretrial
proceedings, and the state cases filed in California have been
consolidated in the California Superior Court in San Francisco
County.  In 2006, the federal court certified a nationwide class
of buyers and lessees for injunctive relief, and, in 2007,
certified damages classes in 20 individual state classes.  The
Court of Appeals reversed the court's certification of the
injunctive class and has dismissed the claim, as well as reversed
and remanded the certification of the damage class.  The federal
court has retained supplemental jurisdiction over the state cases
and is considering the defendants' summary judgment motions.  In
September 2007, a purported class action was filed in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice claiming that a similar alleged
conspiracy was now preventing lower-cost U.S. vehicles from being
sold to Canadians.  The Company does not believe that it has been
engaged in any unlawful conduct and continues to defend itself
vigorously.


CHUBB CORP: Awaits Court Ruling on Motions to Dismiss N.J. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Chubb Corporation is awaiting a federal court's decision on
its motion to dismiss the reinstated claims in a putative class
action in New Jersey, according to the Company's February 25, 2011
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Individual actions and purported class actions arising out of the
investigations into the payment of contingent commissions to
brokers and agents have been filed in a number of federal and
state courts.  On August 1, 2005, the Company and certain of its
subsidiaries were named in a putative class action entitled In re
Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.  This action, brought
against several brokers and insurers on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased insurance through the broker defendants,
asserts claims under the Sherman Act, state law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) arising from the
alleged unlawful use of contingent commission agreements.  On
September 28, 2007, the N.J. District Court dismissed the second
amended complaint filed by the plaintiffs in its entirety.  In so
doing, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' Sherman Act and RICO
claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim, and it
dismissed the plaintiffs' state law claims without prejudice
because it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
them.  The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their second
amended complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.  On August 13, 2010, the Third Circuit affirmed in part
and vacated in part the N.J. District Court decision and remanded
the case back to the N.J. District Court for further proceedings.
As a result of the Third Circuit's decision, the plaintiffs' state
law claims and certain of the plaintiffs' Sherman Act and RICO
claims were reinstated against the Company.  The Company and the
other defendants have filed motions to dismiss the reinstated
claims and the parties are awaiting the N.J. District Court's
decision.


CHUBB CORP: Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation Still Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain putative class actions that have been consolidated with
the In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation against The
Chubb Corporation and its subsidiaries remain stayed, according to
the Company's February 25, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries also have been named
as defendants in other putative class actions relating or similar
to the In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation that have
been filed in various state courts or in U.S. district courts
between 2005 and 2007.  These actions have been subsequently
removed and ultimately transferred to the N.J. District Court for
consolidation with the In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust
Litigation.  These actions are currently stayed.


CIGNA CORP: Estimates $82 Million Liability in "Amara" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
CIGNA Corporation disclosed that as of December 31, 2010, it is
carrying a liability of $82 million pre-tax, which principally
reflects its best estimate of the liabilities related to a court
order in the class action lawsuit filed by Janice C. Amara, et
al., according to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

On December 18, 2001, Janice Amara filed a class action lawsuit,
captioned Janice C. Amara, Gisela R. Broderick, Annette S. Glanz,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
CIGNA Corporation and CIGNA Pension Plan, in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut against CIGNA
Corporation and the CIGNA Pension Plan on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated participants in the CIGNA Pension Plan
affected by the 1998 conversion to a cash balance formula.  The
plaintiffs allege various ERISA violations including, among other
things, that the Plan's cash balance formula discriminates against
older employees; the conversion resulted in a wear away period
(during which the pre-conversion accrued benefit exceeded the
post-conversion benefit); and these conditions are not adequately
disclosed in the Plan.

In 2008, the court issued a decision finding in favor of CIGNA
Corporation and the CIGNA Pension Plan on the age discrimination
and wear away claims.  However, the court found in favor of the
plaintiffs on many aspects of the disclosure claims and ordered an
enhanced level of benefits from the existing cash balance formula
for the majority of the class, requiring class members to receive
their frozen benefits under the pre-conversion CIGNA Pension Plan
and their accrued benefits under the post-conversion CIGNA Pension
Plan.  The court also ordered, among other things, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest.  Both parties appealed the court's
decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit which issued a decision on October 6, 2009 affirming the
District Court's judgment and order on all issues.

On January 4, 2010, the Company and the plaintiffs filed separate
petitions for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme
Court.  CIGNA's petition was granted on June 28, 2010 and was
argued on November 30, 2010.  The United States Supreme Court held
the plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari and the Company
expects it to be disposed of when an opinion is issued.  The
implementation of the judgment is currently stayed.  The Company
will continue to vigorously defend itself in this case.

As of December 31, 2010, the Company is carrying a liability of
$82 million pre-tax ($53 million after-tax), which principally
reflects the Company's best estimate of the liabilities related to
the court order.


CIGNA CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
CIGNA Corporation continues to defend itself from a consolidated
class action lawsuit pending in New Jersey, which alleges that
it improperly underpaid claims, according to the Company's
February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company was named as a defendant in a number of putative
nationwide class actions asserting that due to the use of data
from Ingenix, Inc., the Company improperly underpaid claims, an
industry-wide issue.  Three actions were brought on behalf of
members, (Franco v. CIGNA Corp. et al., Chazen v. CIGNA Corp. et
al. and Nelson v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. et al.),
and three remaining actions were brought on behalf of providers,
(American Medical Association et al. v. CIGNA Corp. et al.,
Shiring et al. v. CIGNA Corp. et al.; and North Peninsula Surgical
Center v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. et al.), all of
which were consolidated into the Franco case pending in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.  The
consolidated amended complaint, filed on August 7, 2009, asserts
claims under ERISA, the RICO statute, the Sherman Antitrust Act
and New Jersey state law.  CIGNA filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on September 9, 2009, which is
fully briefed and pending.  Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification on May 28, 2010, which is also fully briefed and
pending.  Fact and expert discovery have been completed.

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


COMCAST CORP: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in California Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corporation is awaiting a ruling from the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the appeal lodged by plaintiffs
against the dismissal of their antitrust class action lawsuit in
California.

The Company is among the defendants in a purported class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California in September 2007.  The potential class is comprised of
all persons residing in the United States who have subscribed to
an expanded basic level of video service provided by one of the
defendants.  The plaintiffs allege that the defendants who produce
video programming have entered into agreements with the defendants
who distribute video programming via cable and satellite, which
preclude the distributor defendants from reselling channels to
customers on an "unbundled" basis in violation of federal
antitrust laws.  The plaintiffs seek treble damages and injunctive
relief requiring each distributor defendant to resell certain
channels to its customers on an "unbundled" basis.  In October
2009, the Central District of California issued an order
dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice.

The plaintiffs have appealed that order to the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals.  Oral argument on the appeal has been scheduled for
March 2011, according to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 30, 2010.

Comcast is a leading provider of video, high-speed Internet and
phone services to residential and business customers in the United
States.


COMCAST CORP: Gets Court Nod on ERISA Litigation Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corporation has obtained court approval of its settlement
to resolve an ERISA litigation pending in Pennsylvania, the
Company disclosed in its February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 30, 2010.

The Company and several of its current officers have been named as
defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in
February 2008.  The potential class comprises participants in the
Company's retirement investment (401(k)) plan that invested in the
plan's Company stock account.  The plaintiffs assert that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) in managing the
plan by allowing participants to continue to invest in the company
stock account during a time in 2007 when the Company allegedly
knew (but had not disclosed) that it would not meet its forecasted
results. In July 2010, the parties agreed to settle the action
with a payment by the Company of $5 million and the Company's
agreement to take certain action with respect to the
administration of the plan.  On January 26, 2011, the court
approved the settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice.

Comcast is a leading provider of video, high-speed Internet and
phone services to residential and business customers in the United
States.


COMCAST CORP: Antitrust Class Suits Remain Pending in Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------------
Two class action lawsuits remain pending before a Pennsylvania
district court, alleging antitrust issues against Comcast
Corporation.

Comcast and its affiliates are defendants in two purported class
actions originally filed in December 2003 in the U.S. District
Courts for the District of Massachusetts and the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.  The potential class in the Massachusetts case,
which has been transferred to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, is the Company's customer base in the "Boston
Cluster" area, and the potential class in the Pennsylvania case is
the Company's customer base in the "Philadelphia and Chicago
Clusters," as those terms are defined in the complaints.  In each
case, the plaintiffs allege that certain customer exchange
transactions with other cable providers resulted in unlawful
horizontal market restraints in those areas and seek damages under
antitrust statutes, including treble damages.

Classes of Philadelphia Cluster and Chicago Cluster customers were
certified in May 2007 and October 2007, respectively.  In March
2009, as a result of a Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision
clarifying the standards for class certification, the order
certifying the Philadelphia Cluster class was vacated without
prejudice to the plaintiffs filing a new motion.  In January 2010,
in its decision on the plaintiffs' new motion, the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania certified a class subject to certain
limitations.  In June 2010, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
granted the Company's petition for an interlocutory appeal from
the class certification decision.  In March 2010, the Company
moved for summary judgment dismissing all of the plaintiffs'
claims in the Philadelphia Cluster; the summary judgment motion is
stayed pending the class certification appeal.  The plaintiffs'
claims concerning the other two clusters are stayed pending
determination of the Philadelphia Cluster claims.

No updates were reported in the Company's February 25, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 30, 2010.

Comcast is a leading provider of video, high-speed Internet and
phone services to residential and business customers in the United
States.


COMCAST CORP: Antitrust Suit on Cable Services Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A multidistrict litigation over antitrust issues related to
premium cable services has been stayed, but nevertheless remains
pending against Comcast Corporation, the Company disclosed in its
February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company is a defendant in 22 purported class actions filed in
federal district courts throughout the U.S.  All of these actions
have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania for pre-trial proceedings.  In a consolidated
complaint filed in November 2009, on behalf of all plaintiffs in
the multidistrict litigation, the plaintiffs allege that the
Company improperly "tie" the rental of set-top boxes to the
provision of premium cable services in violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Antitrust Act, various state antitrust laws and
unfair/deceptive trade practices acts in California, Illinois and
Alabama.  The plaintiffs also allege a claim for unjust enrichment
and seek relief on behalf of a nationwide class of the Company's
premium cable customers and on behalf of subclasses consisting of
premium cable customers from California, Alabama, Illinois,
Pennsylvania and Washington.  In January 2010, the Company moved
to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs' claims for unjust
enrichment and violations of the unfair/deceptive trade practices
acts of Illinois and Alabama.  In September 2010, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint alleging violations of additional state
antitrust laws and unfair/deceptive trade practices acts on behalf
of new subclasses in Connecticut, Florida, Minnesota, Missouri,
New Jersey, New Mexico and West Virginia.  In the amended
complaint, plaintiffs dropped their unjust enrichment claim, as
well as their state law claims on behalf of the Alabama, Illinois
and Pennsylvania subclasses.  In November 2010, the court stayed
the case until the United States Supreme Court renders its
decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion.

Comcast is a leading provider of video, high-speed Internet and
phone services to residential and business customers in the United
States.


CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Oklahoma Class Action in Preliminary Stages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Resources, Inc., is facing a class action lawsuit for
allegedly making improper deductions from royalties to gas and oil
owners in Oklahoma, according to the Company's February 25, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On November 4, 2010, a putative class action was filed against the
Company alleging the Company improperly deducted post-production
costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other royalty interest
owners from oil and gas wells located in Oklahoma.  The plaintiffs
seek recovery of compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages
and attorney fees on behalf of the putative class.  The Company
has responded to the petition and denied the allegations and
raised a number of affirmative defenses.  The action is in very
preliminary stages and no discovery has been conducted.


CROCS INC: Motions to Dismiss Shareholder Suits Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss a consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit
against Crocs, Inc., remain pending, according to the Company's
February 25, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Starting in November 2007, certain stockholders filed several
purported shareholder class actions in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act based on alleged statements made by the
Company between July 27, 2007 and October 31, 2007. The Company
and certain of its current and former officers and directors have
been named as defendants in complaints filed by investors in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The
first complaint was filed in November 2007; several other
complaints were filed shortly thereafter. These actions were
consolidated and, in September 2008, the Court appointed a lead
plaintiff and counsel. An amended consolidated complaint was filed
in December 2008. The amended complaint purports to state claims
under Section 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Exchange Act on behalf
of a class of all persons who purchased the Company's stock
between April 2, 2007 and April 14, 2008.  The amended complaint
alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants made false and
misleading public statements about the Company and its business
and prospects and that, as a result, the market price of the
Company stock was artificially inflated. The amended complaint
also claims that certain current and former officers and directors
traded the Company's stock on the basis of material non-public
information. The amended complaint seeks compensatory damages on
behalf of the alleged class in an unspecified amount, interest,
and an award of attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. The
Company believe the claims lack merit and intends to defend the
action vigorously. Motions to dismiss are currently pending with
the Court. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation and
because the litigation is at a preliminary stage, the Company
cannot at this time accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the
matter, or of the amount or range of potential loss, if any. It is
possible that this action could be resolved adversely to the
Company.  Risks associated with legal liability are often
difficult to assess or quantify, and their existence and magnitude
can remain unknown for significant periods of time. While the
Company maintain director and officer insurance, the amount of
insurance coverage may not be sufficient to cover a claim, and the
continued availability of this insurance cannot be assured. The
Company may, in the future, be the target of additional
proceedings, and the present or future proceedings may result in
substantial costs and divert management's attention and resources
that are needed to successfully run the Company's business.

Based in Niwot, Colorado, Crocs Inc. (NASDAQ: CROX) designs and
sells a broad offering of footwear, apparel, gear and accessories
that utilize proprietary closed cell-resin, called Croslite.  The
Company sells Crocs-branded products throughout the U.S. and in
128 countries, through domestic and international retailers and
distributors and directly to end-user consumers through its
webstores, Company-operated retail stores, outlets and kiosks.


DUKE ENERGY: Mandamus Petition Denied in Katrina Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court has denied the mandamus petition in the class
action lawsuit alleging that Duke Energy Corporation and other
companies are liable for losses suffered by victims of Hurricane
Katrina, according to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

In April 2006, Duke Energy and Cinergy were named in the third
amended complaint of a purported class action lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Plaintiffs, for and on behalf of a putative class of all residents
of Mississippi, claim that Duke Energy and Cinergy, along with
numerous other utilities, oil companies, coal companies and
chemical companies, are liable for unquantified compensatory and
punitive damages relating to losses suffered by victims of
Hurricane Katrina. Plaintiffs claim that defendants' greenhouse
gas emissions contributed to the frequency and intensity of storms
such as Hurricane Katrina. On August 30, 2007, the court dismissed
the case and plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. In October 2009,
the Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing the district
court and reinstating the lawsuit. Defendants filed a petition for
rehearing en banc, which was granted. The Court of Appeals granted
defendants' petition for rehearing en banc and a hearing was set,
but subsequently taken off the calendar when an additional judge
recused herself, leaving the court without a quorum. On May 28,
2010, after briefing on the issue, the court held it could not
proceed with rehearing en banc, the original 5th Circuit opinion
was properly vacated and the court can no longer reinstate it. As
a result, the district court's decision dismissing the case was
reinstated and is now the controlling decision in the case. On
August 26, 2010, plaintiffs filed a petition for a Writ of
Mandamus asking the Supreme Court to either reinstate the panel's
decision or to hold in abeyance its action dismissing the appeal.
On January 9, 2011, the Supreme Court denied the Mandamus petition
which ended the case.

Headquartered in Charlotte, N.C., Duke Energy Corporation is a
power business with four million electric customers and about
500,000 gas customers in the South and Midwest.  Its US Franchised
Electric and Gas unit operates primarily through its Duke Energy
Carolinas, Duke Energy Ohio, Duke Energy Indiana and Duke Energy
Kentucky regional businesses.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Faces Two Class Action Lawsuits in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------
FirstMerit Corporation and its subsidiary, FirstMerit Bank, N.A.,
are facing two class actions commenced on behalf of Ohio
residents, who maintained a checking account at FirstMerit Bank,
according to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2010.

Commencing in December 2010, two separate lawsuits were filed in
the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and the Lake County Court
of Common Plea against FirstMerit Corporation and its subsidiary
FirstMerit Bank, N.A.  The complaints were brought as putative
class actions on behalf of Ohio residents who maintained a
checking account at FirstMerit Bank and who incurred one or more
overdraft fees as a result of the alleged re-sequencing of debit
transactions.  The complaints seek actual damages, disgorgement of
overdraft fees, punitive damages, interest, injunctive relief and
attorney fees.

Based on information currently available, consultation with
counsel, available insurance coverage and established reserves,
the Company's management believes that the eventual outcome of all
claims against the Company and its subsidiaries will not,
individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect
on its consolidated financial position or results of operations.
However, the Company says that it is possible that the ultimate
resolution of these matters, if unfavorable, may be material to
the results of operations for a particular period.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Breach of Contract Complaint Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
FirstMerit Corporation continues to defend itself against a breach
of contract complaint filed in Ohio, according to the Company's
February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In August 2008 a lawsuit was filed in the Cuyahoga County Court of
Common Pleas against FirstMerit Corporation's subsidiary,
FirstMerit Bank, N.A.  The breach of contract complaint was
brought as a putative class action on behalf of Ohio commercial
borrowers who had allegedly had the interest they owed calculated
improperly by using the 365/360 method.  The complaint seeks
actual damages, interest, injunctive relief and attorney fees.

Based on information currently available, consultation with
counsel, available insurance coverage and established reserves,
the Company's management believes that the eventual outcome of all
claims against the Company and its subsidiaries will not,
individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect
on its consolidated financial position or results of operations.
However, the Company says that it is possible that the ultimate
resolution of these matters, if unfavorable, may be material to
the results of operations for a particular period.


FORTINET INC: Stockholder Class Suit in Calif. Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2010, an individual, a former stockholder of Fortinet,
Inc., filed a class action lawsuit against the Company in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles alleging violation of various California Corporations'
Code sections and related tort claims alleging misrepresentation
and breach of fiduciary duty regarding the 2009 repurchase by
Fortinet of shares of its stock while the Company was a privately-
held company.  In September 2010, the Court granted the Company's
motion to transfer the case to the California Superior Court for
Santa Clara County.

No updates were reported in the Company's February 25, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company cannot currently predict the outcome of the dispute
nor determine the amount or a reasonable range of potential loss,
if any.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Plaintiffs Allowed to Amend Complaints
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs of a federal class action lawsuit against General
Electric Company and its subsidiaries were granted leave to file
amended complaints, according to the Company's February 25, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In March 2008, GE Funding Capital Market Services, Inc., and
Trinity Funding Co. were served with a federal class action
complaint asserting antitrust violations.  This action was
combined with other related actions in a multidistrict litigation
proceeding in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The claims against GE FCMS and Trinity
Funding Co. in the federal class action complaint and the similar
claims asserted in the other related actions were dismissed
without prejudice.  In June 2010, one existing complaint was
amended to bring claims against GE FCMS asserting antitrust
violations.  Since September 2010, four additional complaints have
been brought against GE FCMS, Trinity Funding Co., Trinity Plus
Funding Co. LLC (Trinity Plus), and General Electric Capital
Corporation asserting antitrust violations.

In January 2011, an additional action was brought against Trinity
Plus and FGIC Capital Market Services, Inc. (the predecessor of GE
FCMS) asserting antitrust violations.  Additionally, in February
2011, plaintiffs in eleven complaints that were dismissed in April
2010 (as well as five additional complaints that had not
previously named Trinity Funding Co. or GE FCMS) were granted
leave to file amended complaints against Trinity Funding Co.,
Trinity Plus, GE FCMS, and GECC.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Appeal in Securities Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit in New York
against General Electric Company remains pending, according to the
Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

In September 2010, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted the Company's motion to
dismiss in its entirety with prejudice a purported class action
under the federal securities laws naming the Company as defendant,
as well as its chief executive officer and chief financial
officer.  In this action, the plaintiffs alleged that during a
conference call with analysts on September 25, 2008, defendants
made false and misleading statements concerning (i) the state of
GE's funding, cash flows, and liquidity, and (ii) the question of
issuing additional equity, which caused economic loss to those
shareholders who purchased GE stock between September 25, 2008 and
October 2, 2008, when the Company announced the pricing of a
common stock offering.

Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Appeal From Dismissal of Two Conn. Suits Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of two purported class actions in
Connecticut against General Electric Company and its officers
alleging violation of federal securities laws remains pending,
according to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2010.

In July 2010, the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut granted the Company's motion to dismiss in their
entirety two purported class actions under the federal securities
laws naming the Company, its chief executive officer, and chief
financial officer as defendants.  These two actions alleged that
the Company and its chief executive officer made false and
misleading statements that artificially inflated the Company's
stock price between March 12, 2008 and April 10, 2008, when it
announced that its results for the first quarter of 2008 would not
meet previous guidance and also lowered full year guidance for
2008.  Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Company is awaiting a court ruling on its motion
to dismiss a consolidated securities class action complaint in New
York, according to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

In March and April 2009, shareholders filed purported class
actions under the federal securities laws in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York naming as
defendants GE, a number of GE officers, including the chief
executive officer and chief financial officer, and directors.  The
complaints, which have now been consolidated, seek unspecified
damages based on allegations related to statements regarding the
GE dividend and projected losses and earnings for General Electric
Capital Corporation in 2009.

The Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was
filed in November 2009, is now fully briefed and, following an
oral argument held in November 2010, is currently under
consideration by the Court.


GENERAL MOTORS: Judge Approves $750MM Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
MONEY reports that an Ontario judge has approved a $750 million
class action against General Motors of Canada and its partner law
firm over the mass closures of GM dealerships in 2009, lawyers
representing the plaintiffs said on March 2.

The class action on behalf of more than 200 former GM auto dealers
alleges that the company breached provincial franchise laws and
seeks $750 million in damages.

"The elimination of the dealers was a man-made disaster for
hundreds of family-owned businesses forced to pay the price for
GM's financial problems," said David Sterns, one of the lawyers
for the lead plaintiff.

"As a result of this decision, the dealers now have a chance to
put the pieces back together and mount a recovery of their own."

The suit also names Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, the law firm
appointed to act for Canadian GM dealers in anticipation of the
company restructuring.  The firm also acted on behalf of the
federal government in connection with the auto sector bailout.

The disgruntled dealers say this represents a conflict of interest
since one of the conditions for GM to access billions of
government funding was the elimination of a large number of GM
dealers.

The suit also says the vast majority of GM dealers accepted a
termination package in May 2009 and that they were unable to
negotiate as a group during the two to four business days they
were given to consider the offer.

"It is not realistic to think that an individual franchisee, who
has experienced the loss of their business, is financially or
psychologically equipped to engage in protracted, complicated and
very expensive litigation with one of the largest corporations in
North America and a major Canadian law firm," Justice G.R. Strathy
said.

Judge Strathy also said Cassel's involvement raises "important
issues concerning lawyers' duties to their clients, particularly
in the context of group retainers."

The Telegram reports that Justice Strathy wrote in the decision,
dated Tuesday, that, "Judicial economy will be promoted by the
aggregation of the claims of the class avoiding multiple trials
and potential duplication of fact-finding."

GM declined to comment as the case was before the court.

Cassels was not immediately available for comment.

General Motors avoided a formal court-supervised restructuring in
Canada, while it filed for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy restructuring
in the United States.

With the help of government financing from the U.S., Ontario and
Canadian governments, GM shed debt and labor costs and posted last
week its first annual profit since 2004.  It had a US$4.7-billion
profit and US$135.6 billion in revenue.

It was the company's best performance since earning $6 billion in
1999 during the height of the pickup truck and sport utility
vehicle sales boom.

The lead plaintiff is Trillium Motor World in Toronto.

"The elimination of the dealers was a man-made disaster for
hundreds of family-owned businesses forced to pay the price for
GM's financial problems," Mr. Sterns said in a statement on
March 2, The Telegram reports.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Moses" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc., continues to defend itself from a class
action complaint filed by Archie and Violet Moses, who allege
violations in certain reinsurance agreements.

The Company, one of its mortgage insurance subsidiaries were named
in a putative class action lawsuit filed in November 2010
captioned Archie Moses and Violet M. Moses v. SunTrust Banks,
Inc., et al, in the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia.  Plaintiffs allege that "captive reinsurance
arrangements" with providers of private mortgage insurance whereby
a SunTrust subsidiary received a portion of the borrowers' private
mortgage insurance premiums were in violation of the Real Estate
Settlement and Procedures Act of 1974, the Truth in Lending Act
and other violations for which plaintiffs seek declaratory and
injunctive relief and unspecified monetary damages.

In its February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010, Genworth says it intends to vigorously defend
the action.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Class Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc., continues to defend itself from a
securities class action complaint filed by Michael Goodman and
Linda Brown in New York.

In December 2009, the Company, one of its non-insurance
subsidiaries, and one of the subsidiary's officers, and Genworth
Financial, Inc., were named in a putative class action lawsuit
captioned Michael J. Goodman and Linda Brown v. Genworth Financial
Wealth Management, Inc., et al, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.  Plaintiffs allege
securities law and other violations involving the selection of
mutual funds by the Company's subsidiary on behalf of certain of
its Private Client Group clients.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified
monetary damages and other relief.

No updates were reported in the Company's February 25, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company says it intend to vigorously defend the action.


GNC CORP: Motion to Dismiss "Vargas" Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
granted General Nutrition Centers, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
complaint filed by Dominic Vargas, et al., according to the
Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

On June 29, 2010, Dominic Vargas and Anne Hickok, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated sued General
Nutrition Corporation and GNC (U.S. District Court, Western
District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:05-mc-02025). The two-count
complaint alleges, generally, that plaintiffs were required to
perform work on an uncompensated basis and that GNC failed to pay
overtime for such work. The second count of the complaint alleges
the Company retaliated against plaintiffs when they complained
about the overtime policy. The Company filed a motion to dismiss
count II of the Complaint and on January 6, 2011, the court
granted the motion.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adrian N. Roe, Esq.
          ADRIAN N. ROE P.C.
          The Gulf Tower, Suite 1331
          707 Grant St.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 434-8187
          E-mail: aroe@roelawoffice.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Simon, Esq.
          2520 Mosside Blvd.
          Monroeville, PA 15146
          Telephone: (412) 856-8107
          E-mail: mdsimon20@msn.com

General Nutrition Centers, Inc., headquartered in Pittsburgh, PA,
manufactures and retails vitamins, minerals, and nutritional
supplements domestically and internationally.  About 75% of its
revenue is generated by about 2,870 company owned stores and
website.  It also has about 2,300 franchise locations in the U.S.
and 49 countries that generate about 15% of its revenue.  Total
revenues are about $1.8 billion.


GNC CORP: Appeal in "Mell" Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------
An appeal from the order granting General Nutrition Centers,
Inc.'s motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Jennifer Mell, et
al., remains pending, according to the Company's February 25,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On July 16, 2010, a second wage and hour complaint, similar to the
complaint filed by Dominic Vargas, et al., was filed by Jennifer
Mell and Jose Munoz, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated against GNC Corporation (U.S. District Court,
Western District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 10CV945). The complaint
alleges that plaintiffs' job duties were non-exempt in nature and
that they were misclassified as exempt employees. The Company
filed a motion to dismiss which was granted on November 9, 2010.
Plaintiffs filed an appeal on December 9, 2010.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert B. Stein, Esq.
          RUDO & STEIN, P.C.
          100 First Ave., Suite 500
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: 412-281-7300
          E-mail: rstein@rudovstein.com

               - and -

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Hal B. Anderson, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          1515 S. Federal Hwy, Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: 561-447-8888
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  hal.anderson@shavitzlaw.com

General Nutrition Centers, Inc., headquartered in Pittsburgh, PA,
manufactures and retails vitamins, minerals, and nutritional
supplements domestically and internationally.  About 75% of its
revenue is generated by about 2,870 company owned stores and
website.  It also has about 2,300 franchise locations in the U.S.
and 49 countries that generate about 15% of its revenue.  Total
revenues are about $1.8 billion.


HARTFORD LIFE: Receives Final Okay of Structured Settlement Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hartford Life Insurance Company disclosed that it received final
court approval in September 2010 of its settlement with the
plaintiffs of a class action lawsuit filed in Connecticut,
according to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2010.

In October 2005, a putative nationwide class action was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
against the Company and several of its subsidiaries on behalf of
persons who had asserted claims against an insured of a Hartford
property & casualty insurance company that resulted in a
settlement in which some or all of the settlement amount was
structured to afford a schedule of future payments of specified
amounts funded by an annuity from the Company.  The operative
complaint alleged that since 1997 the Company deprived the
settling claimants of the value of their damages recoveries by
secretly deducting 15% of the annuity premium of every Structured
Settlement to cover brokers' commissions, other fees and costs,
taxes, and a profit for the annuity provider, and asserted claims
under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and
state law.

The district court certified a class for the RICO and fraud claims
in March 2009, and the Company's petition to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for permission to file an
interlocutory appeal of the class-certification ruling was denied
in October 2009.  In April 2010, the parties reached an agreement
in principle to settle on a nationwide class basis, under which
the Company would pay $54 million in exchange for a full release
and dismissal of the litigation.  The $54 million was accrued in
the first quarter of 2010.  The settlement received final court
approval in September 2010 and was paid in the third quarter of
2010.


HERTZ GLOBAL: "LDW" Class Suit in Discovery Stages
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit related to payments of loss damage waiver
for rental of equipment from a unit of Hertz Global Holdings,
Inc., is in the discovery stages, according to the Company's
February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On August 15, 2006, Davis Landscape, Ltd., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a complaint against
HERC in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey. In November 2006, the complaint was amended to add another
plaintiff, Miguel V. Pro, and more claims. The Davis Landscape
matter purports to be a nationwide class action on behalf of all
persons and business entities who rented equipment from HERC and
who paid a Loss Damage Waiver, or "LDW," or an Environmental
Recovery Fee, or "ERF." The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment
and injunction prohibiting HERC from engaging in acts with respect
to the LDW and ERF charges that violate the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act and claim that the charges violate the Uniform
Commercial Code. The plaintiffs also seek an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages with the return of all LDW and ERF charges
paid, attorneys' fees and costs as well as other damages. The
court has granted class certification, denied the Company's motion
for summary judgment and the case is in the discovery stages.

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., is the world's largest general use
car rental brand, operating from approximately 8,300 locations in
146 countries worldwide.  Hertz is the number one airport car
rental brand in the U.S. and at 81 major airports in Europe,
operating both corporate and licensee locations in cities and
airports in North America, Europe, Latin America, Asia, Australia
and New Zealand.


HERTZ GLOBAL: Hearing on "Sobel" Suit Settlement Set for May
------------------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing on the settlement of a class action
lawsuit filed by a group of plaintiffs led by Janel Sobel is set
for May 2011, according to Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.'s
February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On October 13, 2006, Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan, PhD. and Lydia
Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. The Hertz Corporation and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, or
"Enterprise," was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Nevada. The plaintiffs agreed to not pursue claims
against Enterprise for the time being and the case only proceeded
against Hertz. The Sobel case purports to be a nationwide class
action on behalf of all persons who rented cars from Hertz at
airports in Nevada and were separately charged airport concession
recovery fees by Hertz as part of their rental charges. The
plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
restitution of any charges found to be improper and an injunction
prohibiting Hertz from quoting or charging those airport fees that
are alleged not to be allowed by Nevada law. The complaint also
seeks attorneys' fees and costs. Relevant documents were produced,
depositions were taken and pre-trial motions were filed. After the
court rendered a mixed ruling on the parties' cross-motions for
summary judgment and after the Lydia Lee case was refiled against
Enterprise, the parties engaged in mediation which resulted in a
proposed settlement wherein Hertz and Enterprise, without
admitting wrongdoing and in order to avoid further litigation,
agreed to provide rental certificates to proposed class members
who register for same and to pay attorneys' fees to the
plaintiffs' attorneys. In November 2010, the court certified
settlement classes for purposes of implementing the proposed
settlement and preliminarily approved the proposed settlement.
Notification of the proposed settlement was mailed or e-mailed in
February of 2011 and a final approval hearing on the settlement is
scheduled for May of 2011.

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., is the world's largest general use
car rental brand, operating from approximately 8,300 locations in
146 countries worldwide.  Hertz is the number one airport car
rental brand in the U.S. and at 81 major airports in Europe,
operating both corporate and licensee locations in cities and
airports in North America, Europe, Latin America, Asia, Australia
and New Zealand.


HERTZ GLOBAL: "Fun Services" Suit Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.,
remains stayed as parties await a decision from the Kansas Supreme
Court in the lawsuit Critchfield Physical Therapy, Inc. v. Taranto
Group, Inc., according to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2010.

On May 3, 2007, Fun Services of Kansas City, Inc., individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated
persons, v. Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation was commenced in
the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas. The case was
subsequently transferred to the District Court of Johnson County,
Kansas. The Fun Services matter purports to be a class action on
behalf of all persons in Kansas and throughout the United States
who on or after four years prior to the filing of the action were
sent facsimile messages of advertising materials relating to the
availability of property, goods or services by HERC and who did
not provide express permission for sending such faxes. The
plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
attorney's fees and costs. In August 2009, the court issued an
order that stayed all activity in this litigation pending a
decision by the Kansas Supreme Court in Critchfield Physical
Therapy, Inc. v. Taranto Group, Inc., another Telephone Consumer
Protection Act case. The Kansas Supreme Court heard oral argument
in the Critchfield case in January of 2010 and has not yet
rendered a decision in that case.

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., is the world's largest general use
car rental brand, operating from approximately 8,300 locations in
146 countries worldwide.  Hertz is the number one airport car
rental brand in the U.S. and at 81 major airports in Europe,
operating both corporate and licensee locations in cities and
airports in North America, Europe, Latin America, Asia, Australia
and New Zealand.


HERTZ GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Tourism Assessment Fee Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit relating to California tourism assessments
filed against several defendants, including The California Travel
and Tourism Commission and Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., has been
remanded back to a California district court, according to the
Company's February 25, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

The Company is currently a defendant in a proceeding that purports
to be a class action brought by Michael Shames and Gary Gramkow
against The Hertz Corporation, Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group,
Inc., Avis Budget Group, Inc., Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc.,
Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, Fox Rent A Car, Inc., Coast Leasing
Corp., The California Travel and Tourism Commission, and Caroline
Beteta.  Originally filed in November of 2007, the action is
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, and plaintiffs claim to represent a class
of individuals or entities that purchased rental car services from
a defendant at airports located in California after January 1,
2007. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants agreed to charge
consumers a 2.5% tourism assessment and not to compete with
respect to this assessment, while misrepresenting that this
assessment is owed by consumers, rather than the rental car
defendants, to the California Travel and Tourism Commission, or
the "CTTC". Plaintiffs also allege that defendants agreed to pass
through to consumers a fee known as the Airport Concession Fee,
which fee had previously been required to be included in the
rental car defendants' individual base rates, without reducing
their base rates. Based on these allegations, the amended
complaint seeks treble damages, disgorgement, injunctive relief,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs dropped their
claims against Caroline Beteta. Plaintiffs' claims against the
rental car defendants have been dismissed, except for the federal
antitrust claim. In June 2010, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs'
antitrust case against the CTTC as a state agency immune from
antitrust complaint because the California Legislature foresaw the
alleged price-fixing conspiracy that was the subject of the
complaint. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a petition with the
Ninth Circuit seeking a rehearing and that petition was granted.
In November 2010, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its June opinion and
instead held that state action immunity was improperly invoked.
The Ninth Circuit reinstated the plaintiffs' antitrust claims and
the case has now been remanded to the district court for further
proceedings.

The Company is also a defendant in a consolidated action captioned
"In re Tourism Assessment Fee Litigation" in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California. Originally
filed as two separate actions in December of 2007, the
consolidated action purported to be a class action brought on
behalf of all persons and entities that paid an assessment since
the inception of the Passenger Car Rental Industry Tourism
Assessment Program in California on January 1, 2007. The other
defendants included various of the Company's competitors,
including Avis Budget Group, Inc., Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc.,
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., Advantage Rent-A-Car, Inc.,
Avalon Global Group, Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, Fox Rent A
Car, Inc., Beverly Hills Rent-A-Car, Inc., Rent4Less, Inc.,
Autorent Car Rental, Inc., Pacific Rent-A-Car, Inc., ABC Rent-A-
Car, Inc., as well as the California Travel and Tourism
Commission, and Dale E. Bonner. The complaint sought injunctive
and declaratory relief, that all assessments collected and to be
collected be held in trust, unspecified monetary damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs. In August 2010, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claims against all
defendants. The deadline for plaintiffs to seek review of the
Ninth Circuit's opinion has passed.

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., is the world's largest general use
car rental brand, operating from approximately 8,300 locations in
146 countries worldwide.  Hertz is the number one airport car
rental brand in the U.S. and at 81 major airports in Europe,
operating both corporate and licensee locations in cities and
airports in North America, Europe, Latin America, Asia, Australia
and New Zealand.


HONEYWELL INT'L: Judge Allows Hexavalent Class Action to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Terrence T. McDonald, writing for The Jersey Journal, reports that
a federal judge has ruled that Jersey City residents may proceed
with a class-action lawsuit seeking medical screenings and
financial compensation for exposure to hexavalent chromium at
sites like the above one on Garfield Avenue.

Jersey City residents who may have been exposed to cancer-causing
hexavalent chromium may proceed with a class-action lawsuit
seeking cancer screening and compensation, a federal judge ruled
yesterday.

Honeywell International, the successor of a company that processed
chrome at a 32-acre site on Route 440 known as the Roosevelt
Drive-In, sought to have the suit dismissed, but Judge Susan
Wigenton ruled against the company.

"It's an important victory for the citizens of Jersey City, and it
puts them a giant step closer to having the opportunity to tell
their story to a jury," said Howard Janet, one of the attorneys
for the plaintiffs.

"And it is indeed a rather compelling story," Mr. Janet said.

The suit, filed in May 2010, charges that PPG Industries, which
acquired a Garfield Avenue plant in 1954 and processed chromium
there until 1963, and Honeywell failed to clean up hexavalent
chromium waste at sites across Jersey City.  The substance was
later found to be hazardous.

Victoria Ann Streitfeld, a Honeywell spokeswoman, said Honeywell
is working with the state Department of Environmental Protection
on the remediation of chrome sites in Jersey City.

"We are committed to continuing to work with -- and listen to --
the Jersey City community while we safely remediate those sites
for which we are responsible," Ms. Streitfeld said.


J.B. HUNT: Wage Violations Suit Remains Pending in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., has been named a defendant in
certain class-action allegations in which the plaintiffs are
current and former California-based drivers who allege claims for
unpaid wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, and other
items.  Furthermore, proceedings have been stayed in these matters
pending the California Supreme Court's decision in an unrelated
case to the Company's involving similar issues.

No further details were reported in the Company's February 25,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Faces Class Action for Misleading Investors
------------------------------------------------------------
Elisabeth Sexton, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that a Lehman Brothers Australia executive was sacked in
September 2007 "for what was described as gross negligence in
relation to his dealings with clients", the opening day of a
$250 million class action against the collapsed company heard on
March 2.

Tony Meagher, SC, for the class action members, said Michael Clout
left eight months after two Lehman employees, who reported to him,
gave a "grossly misleading" description of investment risks to
Wingecarribee Shire Council in the New South Wales southern
highlands.

Stewart Calderwood and David Rosenbaum had "passed off" the
products sold to Wingecarribee as floating rate notes, orthodox
investments issued by financial institutions where the risk of
that entity defaulting was transparent, Mr. Meagher said.

In fact Wingecarribee had invested tens of millions of dollars in
complex products known as synthetic collateralized debt
obligations where the risk was linked to defaults by 100 or more
companies globally.

The pair went on leave around the time Mr. Clout was sacked, he
said.

In January 2007, six months before the US subprime crisis global
credit squeeze, Mr. Calderwood and Mr. Rosenbaum drew a diagram on
a whiteboard for Wingecarribee.  The diagram, Mr. Meagher said:
"Showed a straight line which was said to be the face value of
these notes and then they drew a wavy line to indicate that the
market value of the note might go up and down but on maturity you
got your principal back.

"They should've said: 'You have a straight line but it could just
drop, if there are credit events, to zero and that's . . . it.
It's dead.  It's not going to wave anywhere'."

When a Wingecarribee officer queried a contract note that
described its investments as CDOs, he was told they were floating
rate notes, Mr. Meagher said.

The class action by 72 local councils, charities and churches
wants $260 million in compensation from Lehman, which collapsed in
September 2008.

Allegations include breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
misleading conduct and negligence.

Mr. Meagher said Lehman and its local forerunner, Grange
Securities, misled clients by saying they could cash in portfolios
in 30 days.

"In fact the so-called secondary market and liquidity which Grange
referred to was Grange trading in the products itself or between
its own clients," Mr. Meagher said.  "What the clients were not
told was that whether that situation would continue was a matter
solely at the decision of Grange."

Nor could Lehman "hide behind" the credit rating agencies that
assessed the risks of the CDOs, he said.

Lehman knew that the agencies did not distinguish between the
likelihood of losing "the first dollar" and the likelihood of
losing an entire investment.


NCR CORP: Final Hearing on Settlement of Ohio Suits Set This Month
------------------------------------------------------------------
NCR Corporation is awaiting final court approval of its settlement
of two class action lawsuits pending in Ohio, according to the
Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

In August 2009, a federal court in Ohio granted motions for
summary judgment against NCR in two companion class actions
brought on behalf of certain unionized retirees who claimed that
the Company's 2003 decision to terminate certain benefits payable
on death violated collective bargaining agreements and other
rights.  The Company has appealed the decision to the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals.  If affirmed on appeal, the decision
will require the Company to restore the death benefit, at an
approximate cost of $6 million, which NCR recognized as other
expense during 2009.  A settlement of approximately $3 million has
been preliminarily approved by the federal district court, and a
final hearing to approve the settlement and to consider any
objections from class members, is set for March 2011.


NORTHEAST UTILITIES: 9 Merger-Related Suits Still Pending in Mass.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Northeast Utilities continues to defend itself from class action
lawsuits in connection with its proposed merger with NSTAR,
according to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.

On October 18, 2010, Northeast Utilities and NSTAR announced that
each company's Board of Trustees unanimously approved a Merger
Agreement to combine the two companies.

NSTAR, the members of the NSTAR board of trustees, NU, and two
wholly owned NU subsidiaries, NU Holding Energy 1 LLC and NU
Holding Energy 2 LLC, were named defendants in eight lawsuits
(since consolidated) filed in the Superior Court for Suffolk
County, Massachusetts, and one lawsuit filed in federal court in
the district of Massachusetts.  The lawsuits, each of which was
brought by a single shareholder, purport to be brought on behalf
of classes of NSTAR shareholders opposed to the terms of the
merger agreement.  The original complaints made virtually
identical allegations that, among other things, NSTAR's trustees
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize the value
to be received by NSTAR's shareholders, and that the other
defendants aided and abetted the NSTAR trustees' breaches of
fiduciary duties.  Both the state and federal complaints sought
and continue to seek, among other things, to enjoin defendants
from consummating the merger and either rescission of the merger,
to the extent it is completed, or monetary damages.  On December
10, 2010, the state-court plaintiffs filed their consolidated
amended complaint, which, in addition to the already-pending
claims, alleged that the disclosures in the preliminary joint
proxy statement/prospectus NU filed jointly with NSTAR, were
insufficiently detailed, pointing to various aspects of the
section entitled "The Merger."  On January 6, 2011, NU and NSTAR
each moved to dismiss the claims asserted against them for failure
to state a claim.  In addition, NU and NSTAR jointly moved for a
protective order staying the discovery that some of the Plaintiffs
had served contemporaneously with their complaints.

On January 13, 2011, Plaintiffs moved the Court to expedite
proceedings in anticipation of their making a subsequent motion
for preliminary injunction to enjoin the March 4, 2011 shareholder
vote.  Plaintiffs also filed a purported "emergency" motion to
obtain discovery from Lexicon Partners, NSTAR's financial
advisors.  NU and NSTAR opposed both motions, which the Court
subsequently denied and scheduled a "litigation control"
conference for February 28, 2011 "to address proper scheduling of
any and all related motions anticipated by the parties."  On
February 11, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
injunction seeking to enjoin the March 4, 2011 shareholder vote.
NU and NSTAR will file their opposition to the motion on or before
February 22, 2011 on the grounds that it lacks any legal or
evidentiary basis.  There have been no developments in the federal
case, in which the plaintiff has never served NSTAR, NU, or any
other defendant with his complaint.  NU and NSTAR believe both the
federal and state lawsuits are without merit and are defending the
lawsuits vigorously.


NORTHERN TRUST: Amended ERISA Suit Still Pending in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Trust Corp. continues to face an amended complaint in a
purported class-action lawsuit in Illinois alleging violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

On January 16, 2009, an amended complaint was filed in a putative
class action lawsuit currently pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the
Corporation and others.  The defendants named in the amended
complaint are the Corporation, The Northern Trust Company, the
Northern Trust Employee Benefits Administrative Committee and its
members, the Northern Trust Employee Benefits Investment Committee
and its members, and certain other officers, including the present
and former Chief Executive Officers of the Corporation,
purportedly on behalf of participants in and beneficiaries of The
Northern Trust Company Thrift-Incentive Plan (the Plan) whose
individual accounts held shares of Corporation common stock at any
time from October 19, 2007, to January 14, 2009.  The complaint
purports to allege breaches of fiduciary duty in violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) related to the
Corporation's stock being offered as an investment alternative for
participants in the Plan and seeks monetary damages in an
unspecified amount.

No updates were reported in the Company's February 25, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.


NORTHERN TRUST: Securities Class Action Still Pending in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On August 24, 2010, a lawsuit was filed in federal court in the
Northern District of Illinois against Northern Trust Corp. and
three of its present or former officers, including the present and
former chief executive officers of the Corporation, on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of Northern Trust Corporation stock
during the period from October 17, 2007, to October 20, 2009.  The
complaint alleges that during the purported class period the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
by allegedly taking insufficient provisions for credit losses with
respect to the Corporation's commercial real estate loan portfolio
and failing to make sufficient disclosures regarding its
securities lending business.  Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages
in an unspecified amount.

No updates were reported in the Company's February 25, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.


OLD NATIONAL: Facing Lawsuit Over Checking Account Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against Old National Bancorp in
connection with its checking account practices is pending,
according to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.

In November 2010, Old National was named in a class action
lawsuit, much like many other banks, challenging Old National
Bank's checking account practices.  The plaintiff seeks damages
and other relief, including restitution.  Old National believes it
has meritorious defenses to the claims brought by the plaintiff.


PHILIP MORRIS: Constitutional Appeal in Brazil Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal filed by a subsidiary of Philip Morris International,
Inc., questioning the plaintiff in a class action in Brazil's
standing to bring the lawsuit remains pending, according to the
Company's February 25, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

In a class action pending in Brazil, The Smoker Health Defense
Association v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris Marketing, S.A.,
Nineteenth Lower Civil Court of the Central Courts of the
Judiciary District of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed July 25, 1995, the
Company's subsidiary and another member of the industry are
defendants.  The plaintiff, a consumer organization, is seeking
damages for smokers and former smokers, and injunctive relief.  In
February 2004, the trial court found defendants liable without
hearing evidence.  The court did not assess moral or actual
damages, which were to be assessed in a second phase of the case.
The size of the class was not defined in the ruling.  In April
2004, the court clarified its ruling, awarding "moral damages" of
R$1,000 per smoker per full year of smoking plus interest at the
rate of 1% per month, as of the date of the ruling. The court did
not award actual damages, which were to be assessed in the second
phase of the case.  The size of the class still has not been
estimated. Defendants appealed to the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals.
In November 2008, the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals annulled the
ruling finding that the trial court had inappropriately ruled
without hearing evidence and returned the case to the trial court
for further proceedings.  The Company's subsidiary filed its
closing arguments in January 2011.  In addition, the defendants
filed a constitutional appeal to the Federal Supreme Tribunal on
the basis that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring the
lawsuit.  This appeal is still pending.


PHILIP MORRIS: Continues to Defend Public Prosecutor's Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc.'s subsidiary in Brazil remains a
defendant in a class action filed by the public prosecutor of Sao
Paulo, according to the Company's February 25, 2011 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

In a class action pending in Brazil, Public Prosecutor of Sao
Paulo v. Philip Morris Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda, Civil
Court of the City of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed August 6, 2007, the
Company is a defendant.  The plaintiff, the Public Prosecutor of
the State of Sao Paulo, is seeking (1) unspecified damages on
behalf of all smokers nationwide, former smokers, and their
relatives; (2) unspecified damages on behalf of people exposed to
ETS nationwide, and their relatives; and (3) reimbursement of the
health care costs allegedly incurred for the treatment of tobacco-
related diseases by all Brazilian States and Municipalities, and
the Federal District.  In an interim ruling issued in December
2007, the trial court limited the scope of this claim to the State
of Sao Paulo only.  In December 2008, the Seventh Civil Court of
Sao Paulo issued a decision declaring that it lacked jurisdiction
because the case involved issues similar to the ADESF case
discussed above and should be transferred to the Nineteenth Lower
Civil Court in Sao Paulo where the ADESF case is pending.  The
court further stated that these cases should be consolidated for
the purposes of judgment.  The Company's subsidiary appealed this
decision to the State of Sao Paulo Court of Appeals, which
subsequently declared the case stayed pending the outcome of the
appeal.  In April 2010, the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals reversed
the Seventh Civil Court's decision that consolidated the cases,
finding that they are based on different legal claims and are
progressing at different stages of proceedings.  This case was
returned to the Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo, and the
Company's subsidiary filed its closing arguments in December 2010.


PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal in "Yochkolovski" Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. is awaiting the Bulgarian Supreme
Court's ruling on the appeal filed by the plaintiff in a class
action captioned Yochkolovski v. Sofia BT AD, et al., according to
the Company's February 25, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

In the class action in Bulgaria, Yochkolovski v. Sofia BT AD, et
al., Sofia City Court, Bulgaria, filed March 12, 2008, the
Company's subsidiaries and other members of the industry are
defendants.  The plaintiff brought a collective claim on behalf of
classes of smokers who were allegedly misled by tar and nicotine
yields printed on packages and on behalf of a class of minors who
were allegedly misled by marketing.  Plaintiff seeks damages for
economic loss, pain and suffering, medical treatment, and
withdrawal from the market of all cigarettes that allegedly do not
comply with tar and nicotine labeling requirements.  The trial
court dismissed the youth marketing claims.  This decision has
been affirmed on appeal.  The trial court also ordered plaintiff
to provide additional evidence in support of the remaining claims
as well as evidence of his capacity to represent the class and
bear the costs of the proceedings.  In November 2010, the trial
court dismissed the case.  Plaintiff appealed. In January 2011,
plaintiff's appeal was dismissed.  Plaintiff has appealed to the
Bulgarian Supreme Court.  The Company's subsidiaries have never
been served with the complaint.


PHILIP MORRIS: Trial in "Letourneau" Suit Scheduled for October
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Canadian court will commence trial in the class action filed by
Cecilia Letourneau against Philip Morris International Inc.'s
subsidiary in October 2011, according to the Company's
February 25, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In a class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Letourneau v.
Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI
Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in September
1998, the Company's subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers
are defendants.  The plaintiff, an individual smoker, is seeking
compensatory and unspecified punitive damages for each member of
the class who is deemed addicted to smoking.  The class was
certified in 2005.  Pre-trial discovery is ongoing.  A trial date
has been scheduled for October 2011.


PHILIP MORRIS: Trial in Consumer Group Suit Set for October
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Quebec Superior Court scheduled for October 2011 a trial in a
class action commenced by an anti-smoking group in Canada against
Philip Morris International Inc.'s subsidiary, according to the
Company's February 25, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

In a class action pending in Canada, Conseil Quebecois Sur Le
Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd.,
Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp., Quebec
Superior Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, the Company's
subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers are defendants.  The
plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and an individual smoker,
are seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages for each
member of the class who allegedly suffers from certain smoking-
related diseases.  The class was certified in 2005.  Pre-trial
discovery is ongoing.  A trial date has been scheduled for October
2011.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Kunta" Suit on Hold Pending "Adams" Case
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action captioned Kunta v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers'
Council is pending against Philip Morris International Inc. and
its subsidiary while the plaintiff is pursuing a multi-
jurisdictional case in Saskatchewan, according to the Company's
February 25, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In a class action pending in Canada, Kunta v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Winnipeg,
Canada, filed June 12, 2009, the Company, its subsidiaries, and
its indemnitees, and other members of the industry are defendants.
The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, severe
asthma, and mild reversible lung disease resulting from the use of
tobacco products.  She is seeking compensatory and unspecified
punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, as well as
restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health
care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products.  In September
2009, plaintiff's counsel informed defendants that he did not
anticipate taking any action in this case while he pursues a
multi-jurisdictional class action filed in Saskatchewan captioned
Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers, Council, et al.


PHILIP MORRIS: Preliminary Motions in "Adams" Suit Remain Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary motions in a class action captioned Adams v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers, Council, et al., against Philip Morris
International Inc. are pending, according to the Company's
February 25, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In a class action pending in Canada, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan,
Canada, filed July 10, 2009, the Company, its subsidiaries and
indemnitees, and other members of the industry are defendants.
The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco
products.  She is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive
damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who
have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have suffered, or
suffer, from COPD, emphysema, heart disease, or cancer, as well as
restitution of profits.  Preliminary motions are pending.


PHILIP MORRIS: No Activity in "Semple" Suit Pending "Adams" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. disclosed that no activity in
Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al. is
anticipated while plaintiff's counsel pursues a multi-
jurisdictional class action filed in Saskatchewan, according to
the Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

In a class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court, Nova Scotia,
Canada, filed June 18, 2009, the Company and its subsidiaries and
indemnitees, and other members of the industry are defendants. The
plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to
tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco
products. He is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive
damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers,
their estates, dependents and family members, as well as
restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health
care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products.  No activity in
this case is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel pursues a
multi-jurisdictional class action filed in Saskatchewan captioned
Adams v Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers, Council, et al.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Dorion" Suit Remains Inactive Pending "Adams" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. is anticipating no activity in a
class action in Alberta, Canada pending a multi-jurisdictional
class action lawsuit in Saskatchewan, according to the Company's
February 25, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In a class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Alberta,
Canada, filed June 15, 2009, the Company, its subsidiaries and
indemnitees, and other members of the industry are defendants.
The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic bronchitis and severe sinus
infections resulting from the use of tobacco products.  She is
seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of
a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates,
dependents and family members, restitution of profits, and
reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by
tobacco products.  To date, the Company, its subsidiaries and
indemnitees have not been properly served with the complaint.  No
activity in this case is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel
pursues a multi-jurisdictional class action filed in Saskatchewan
known as Adams v Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers, Council, et al.


PHILIP MORRIS: Jurisdictional Challenges Filed in "McDermid" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. and other defendants in a class
action captioned McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et
al., filed jurisdictional challenges on the grounds that the class
action should not proceed pending a class action in Saskatchewan,
according to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2010.

In a class action pending in Canada, McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco
Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada,
filed June 25, 2010, the Company, its subsidiaries and
indemnitees, and other members of the industry are defendants.
The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to
tobacco products and heart disease resulting from the use of
tobacco products.  He is seeking compensatory and unspecified
punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
smokers who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from
heart disease allegedly caused by smoking, their estates,
dependents and family members, plus disgorgement of revenues
earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954 to the date the
claim was filed.  Defendants have filed jurisdictional challenges
on the grounds that this action should not proceed during the
pendency of Adams v Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers, Council, et
al.


PHILIP MORRIS: Jurisdictional Challenges Filed in "Bourassa" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. and other defendants have filed
jurisdictional challenges in Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada
Limited, et al., on the grounds that it should not proceed pending
a class action in Saskatchewan, according to the Company's
February 25, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In a class action pending in Canada, Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco
Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada,
filed June 25, 2010, the Company, its subsidiaries and
indemnitees, and other members of the industry are defendants.
The plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker, alleges that the
decedent was addicted to tobacco products and suffered from
emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products.  She is
seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf
of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on
June 12, 2007, and who suffered from chronic respiratory diseases
allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family
members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants
from January 1, 1954 to the date the claim was filed.  Defendants
have filed jurisdictional challenges on the grounds that this
action should not proceed during the pendency of Adams v Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers, Council, et al.


PHILIP MORRIS: Briefing on Class Certification Expected to End
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. expected that the briefing on
class certification in a class action in Tel-Aviv, Israel was
completed by the end of February 2011, according to the Company's
February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In a class action pending in Israel, El-Roy, et al. v. Philip
Morris Incorporated, et al., District Court of Tel-Aviv/Jaffa,
Israel, filed January 18, 2004, the Company's subsidiary and
indemnitees are defendants.  The plaintiffs filed a purported
class action claiming that the class members were misled by the
descriptor "lights" into believing that lights cigarettes are
safer than full flavor cigarettes.  The claim seeks recovery of
the purchase price of lights cigarettes and compensation for
distress for each class member.  Hearings took place in November
and December 2008 regarding whether the case meets the legal
requirements necessary to allow it to proceed as a class action.
The parties' briefing on class certification, which was completed
in January 2011 has been extended and is now expected to be
completed by the end of February 2011.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Navon" Suit Stayed Pending "El-Roy" Case
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action captioned Navon, et al. v. Philip Morris Products
USA, et al., is stayed pending a ruling on class certification in
El-Roy et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., according to
Philip Morris International Inc.'s February 25, 2011 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

The claims in a class action pending in Israel, Navon, et al. v.
Philip Morris Products USA, et al., District Court of Tel-
Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, filed December 5, 2004, against the Company's
indemnitee and other members of the industry are similar to those
in El-Roy, and the case is currently stayed pending a ruling on
class certification in El-Roy.


PHILIP MORRIS: Trial in Antirust Suit in Kansas Has Yet to be Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A trial date in an antitrust class action in Kansas against Philip
Morris International Inc. has yet to be set, according to the
Company's February 25, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

In the antitrust class action in Kansas, Smith v. Philip Morris
Companies Inc., et al., District Court of Seward County, Kansas,
filed February 7, 2000, the Company and other members of the
industry are defendants.  The plaintiff asserts that the defendant
cigarette companies engaged in an international conspiracy to fix
wholesale prices of cigarettes and sought certification of a class
comprised of all persons in Kansas who were indirect purchasers of
cigarettes from the defendants.  The plaintiff claims unspecified
economic damages resulting from the alleged price-fixing, trebling
of those damages under the Kansas price-fixing statute and counsel
fees.  The trial court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  A court-ordered mediation was held in October
2010, prior to which the Company filed a summary judgment motion.
No trial date has yet been set.


PHILIP MORRIS: Response to Breach of Contract Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc.'s subsidiary has yet to respond
to a complaint in a purported class action in Canada over breach
of contract allegations, according to the Company's February 25,
2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In the breach of contract action in Ontario, Canada, The Ontario
Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board, et al. v. Rothmans,
Benson & Hedges Inc., Superior Court of Justice, London, Ontario,
Canada, filed November 5, 2009, the Company's subsidiary is a
defendant.  Plaintiffs in this putative class action allege that
the Company's subsidiary breached contracts with the proposed
class members concerning the sale and purchase of flue-cured
tobacco from January 1, 1986 to December 31, 1996.  Plaintiffs
allege that the Company's subsidiary was required by the contracts
to disclose to plaintiffs the quantity of tobacco included in
cigarettes to be sold for duty free and export purposes, but
failed to disclose that some of the cigarettes it designated as
being for export and duty free purposes were ultimately sold in
Canada.  The Company's subsidiary has been served, but there is
currently no deadline to respond to the statement of claim.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Dismissal of Garcia Class Suit Appealed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in In re Garcia v. The Prudential Insurance Company
of America has appealed a Nevada state court's dismissal of his
lawsuit against the insurer, according to Prudential Financial,
Inc.'s February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.  Prudential Insurance is a subsidiary of
Prudential Financial.

In January 2011, a purported state-wide class action, Garcia v.
The Prudential Insurance Company of America was dismissed by the
Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, Nevada.  The
complaint is brought on behalf of Nevada beneficiaries of life
insurance policies sold by the Company for which, unless the
beneficiaries elected another settlement method, death benefits
were placed in retained asset accounts that earn interest and are
subject to withdrawal in whole or in part at any time by the
beneficiaries.  The complaint alleges that by failing to disclose
material information about the accounts, the Company wrongfully
delayed payment and improperly retained undisclosed profits, and
seeks damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and prejudgment
and post-judgment interest.  In February 2011, plaintiff appealed
the dismissal.

In December 2009, an earlier purported nationwide class action
raising substantially similar allegations brought by the same
plaintiff in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey, Garcia v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, was
dismissed.

Prudential Financial, through its subsidiaries and affiliates,
offer a wide array of financial products and services, including
life insurance, annuities, retirement-related services, mutual
funds, investment management, and real estate services.  They also
offer these products and services to individual and institutional
customers through proprietary and third party distribution
networks.  The Company's principal executive offices are located
in Newark, New Jersey.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: "Phillips" Suit Removed to Ill. Federal Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported state-wide class action complaint against Prudential
Financial Inc. has been removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois in January 2011, the Company
disclosed in its February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

The class action was originally filed in December 2010 by a
certain "Phillips" in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial
Circuit, Williamson County, Illinois.   The complaint makes
allegations under Illinois law, substantially similar to the
action captioned In re Garcia v. The Prudential Insurance Company
of America, on behalf of a class of Illinois residents whose death
benefits were settled by retained assets accounts.  The Garcia
suit alleges the Company's failure to disclose material
information about the accounts.

Prudential Financial, through its subsidiaries and affiliates,
offer a wide array of financial products and services, including
life insurance, annuities, retirement-related services, mutual
funds, investment management, and real estate services.  They also
offer these products and services to individual and institutional
customers through proprietary and third party distribution
networks.  The Company's principal executive offices are located
in Newark, New Jersey.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Lucey" Suit in Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Insurance Company of America, a subsidiary of
Prudential Financial Inc., continues to defend itself from a class
action complaint initiated by a certain "Lucey" in Massachusetts.

In July 2010, a purported nationwide class action that makes
allegations relating to retained asset accounts of beneficiaries
of a group life insurance contract owned by the United States
Department of Veterans Affairs that covers the lives of members
and veterans of the U.S. armed forces, Lucey et al. v. Prudential
Insurance Company of America, was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts.  The complaint challenges the
use of retained asset accounts to settle death benefit claims,
asserting violations of federal and state law, breach of contract
and fraud and seeking compensatory and treble damages and
equitable relief.  In October 2010, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint.

No updates were reported in the Company's February 25, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Prudential Financial, through its subsidiaries and affiliates,
offer a wide array of financial products and services, including
life insurance, annuities, retirement-related services, mutual
funds, investment management, and real estate services.  They also
offer these products and services to individual and institutional
customers through proprietary and third party distribution
networks.  The Company's principal executive offices are located
in Newark, New Jersey.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: 3 New Jersey Suits Moved to Mass. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Three separately filed New Jersey class action complaints against
Prudential Financial Inc. and its subsidiary were moved to a
Massachusetts district court, the Company disclosed in its
February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In November 2010, a purported nationwide class action brought on
behalf of certain beneficiaries of a group life insurance contract
owned by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs,
Phillips v. Prudential Insurance Company of America and Prudential
Financial, Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, and asserts violations of federal and
state law, breach of contract and fraud with respect to the use of
retained asset accounts to settle death benefit claims.  In
November and December 2010, two additional actions brought on
behalf of the same putative class, alleging substantially the same
claims and the same relief, Garrett v. The Prudential Insurance
Company of America and Prudential Financial, Inc. and Witt v. The
Prudential Insurance Company of America were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In February 2011, the Phillips, Garrett and Witt suits were
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Massachusetts by the Judicial Panel for Multi-District Litigation.

Prudential Financial, through its subsidiaries and affiliates,
offer a wide array of financial products and services, including
life insurance, annuities, retirement-related services, mutual
funds, investment management, and real estate services.  They also
offer these products and services to individual and institutional
customers through proprietary and third party distribution
networks.  The Company's principal executive offices are located
in Newark, New Jersey.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Motion to Dismiss Huffman Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial Inc.'s motion to dismiss a complaint filed by
a certain "Huffman" in Pennsylvania remains pending, the Company
disclosed in its February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

In September 2010, Huffman v. The Prudential Insurance Company, a
purported nationwide class action brought on behalf of
beneficiaries of group life insurance contracts owned by ERISA-
governed employee welfare benefit plans was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging
that using retained asset accounts in employee welfare benefit
plans to settle death benefit claims violates ERISA and seeking
injunctive relief and disgorgement of profits.  The Company has
moved to dismiss the complaint.

Prudential Financial, through its subsidiaries and affiliates,
offer a wide array of financial products and services, including
life insurance, annuities, retirement-related services, mutual
funds, investment management, and real estate services.  They also
offer these products and services to individual and institutional
customers through proprietary and third party distribution
networks.  The Company's principal executive offices are located
in Newark, New Jersey.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Schultz" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend itself
from a class action lawsuit filed by a certain "Schultz" for
alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974, according to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In April 2009, a purported nationwide class action, Schultz v. The
Prudential Insurance Company of America, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  Prudential
Insurance is a subsidiary of Prudential Financial.  In January
2010, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice.  In
February 2010, plaintiff sought leave to amend the complaint to
add another plaintiff and to name the ERISA welfare plans in which
they were participants individually and as representatives of a
purported defendant class of ERISA welfare plans for which
Prudential offset benefits.  The proposed amended complaint
alleged that Prudential Insurance and the welfare plans violated
ERISA by offsetting family Social Security benefits against
Prudential contract benefits and seeks a declaratory judgment that
the offsets are unlawful as they are not "loss of time" benefits
and recovery of the amounts by which the challenged offsets
reduced the disability payments.  In August 2010, the court denied
leave to amend as to Prudential and plaintiffs subsequently filed
a third amended complaint asserting claims on behalf of a
purported nationwide class against a purported defendant class of
ERISA welfare plans for which Prudential offset family Social
Security benefits.  The action, now captioned Schultz v. Aviall,
Inc. Long Term Disability Plan, asserts the same ERISA violations.

In December 2010, an action alleging substantially similar ERISA
violations as in the Schultz action, Koehn v. Fireman's Fund
Insurance Company Long Term Disability Plan, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.  The Koehn
complaint, naming only the plan as defendant, asserts that the
defendant plan's long term disability benefits are insured by
Prudential and that the terms of the plan were violated by
offsetting family Social Security benefits against Prudential
contract benefits.  The Company is indemnifying the defendant
plans in both Schultz and Koehn.

Prudential Financial, through its subsidiaries and affiliates,
offer a wide array of financial products and services, including
life insurance, annuities, retirement-related services, mutual
funds, investment management, and real estate services.  They also
offer these products and services to individual and institutional
customers through proprietary and third party distribution
networks.  The Company's principal executive offices are located
in Newark, New Jersey.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeal in IPO Settlement Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial Inc.'s subsidiary, Prudential Securities,
Inc., continues to defend itself from a securities underwriting
litigation pending in New York.

Prudential Securities was a defendant in a number of industry-wide
purported class actions in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York relating to its former
securities underwriting business, captioned In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, alleging, among other things, that
the underwriters engaged in a scheme involving tying agreements,
undisclosed compensation arrangements and research analyst
conflicts to manipulate and inflate the prices of shares sold in
initial public offerings in violation of the federal securities
laws.  In September 2009, the court entered a final order
approving settlement of the litigation.  In October 2009, an
appeal of the settlement was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.

No updates were reported in Prudential Financial, Inc.'s
February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Prudential Financial, through its subsidiaries and affiliates,
offer a wide array of financial products and services, including
life insurance, annuities, retirement-related services, mutual
funds, investment management, and real estate services.  They also
offer these products and services to individual and institutional
customers through proprietary and third party distribution
networks.  The Company's principal executive offices are located
in Newark, New Jersey.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Bouder" Suit in NJ
-------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial Inc. continues to defend itself from a
consolidated class action lawsuit in pending in New Jersey over
wage-related violations of state law.

In October 2006, a purported class action lawsuit, Bouder v.
Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance Company of
America, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey, claiming that Prudential failed to pay overtime to
insurance agents in violation of federal and Pennsylvania law, and
that improper deductions were made from these agents' wages in
violation of state law.  The complaint seeks back overtime pay and
statutory damages, recovery of improper deductions, interest, and
attorneys' fees.  In March 2008, the court conditionally certified
a nationwide class on the federal overtime claim.  Separately, in
March 2008, a purported nationwide class action lawsuit was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California, Wang v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential
Insurance, claiming that the Company failed to pay its agents
overtime and provide other benefits in violation of California and
federal law and seeking compensatory and punitive damages in
unspecified amounts. In September 2008, Wang was transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and
consolidated with the Bouder matter.  Subsequent amendments to the
complaint have resulted in additional allegations involving
purported violations of an additional nine states' overtime and
wage payment laws.  In February 2010, Prudential moved to
decertify the federal overtime class that had been conditionally
certified in March 2008, and moved for summary judgment on the
federal overtime claims of the named plaintiffs.  In July 2010,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification of the state law
claims.  In August 2010, the district court granted Prudential's
motion for summary judgment, dismissing the federal overtime
claims.  The motion for class certification of the state law
claims is pending.

No updates were reported in the Company's February 25, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Prudential Financial, through its subsidiaries and affiliates,
offer a wide array of financial products and services, including
life insurance, annuities, retirement-related services, mutual
funds, investment management, and real estate services.  They also
offer these products and services to individual and institutional
customers through proprietary and third party distribution
networks.  The Company's principal executive offices are located
in Newark, New Jersey.


RED ROBIN: "Moreno" Class Suit Remains Pending in California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint against Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc.,
commenced by Marcos Moreno in California over wages and overtime
pay remains pending and is stayed while the parties await a ruling
in a case involving Brinker Restaurant Corp., Red Robin disclosed
in its February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 26, 2010.

In December 2009, the Company was served with a purported class
action lawsuit, Marcos R. Moreno vs. Red Robin International, Inc.
The case was filed in Superior Court in Ventura County,
California, and has been removed to Federal District Court for the
Central District of California under the Class Action Fairness Act
of 2005 or CAFA.  Red Robin filed its Answer and Affirmative
Defenses on February 10, 2010.  The Court scheduled a Scheduling
Conference for March 29, 2010.  The lawsuit alleges failure to pay
wages and overtime, failure to provide rest and meal breaks or to
pay compensation in lieu of such breaks, failure to pay timely
wages on termination, failure to provide accurate wage statements,
and unlawful business practices and unfair competition.  Plaintiff
is seeking compensatory and special damages, restitution for
unfair competition, premium pay, penalties and wages under the
Labor Code, and attorneys' fees, interest and costs.  The Court
granted Plaintiff's Motion to Stay, to which the Company agreed,
pending a decision by the California Supreme Court in Brinker
Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court.  The Brinker case is based on
similar arguments and likely would have persuasive or precedential
effect on the Moreno case.  Brinker has been fully briefed but
oral argument has not been set by the Supreme Court.  The oral
arguments in the Brinker case will probably not be heard until
Fall 2011.

The Company believes the lawsuit to be without merit.  Although
the Company plans to vigorously defend against the suit, it cannot
predict the outcome of the lawsuit or whether it may be required
to pay damages, settlement costs, legal costs or other amounts
that may not be covered by insurance.


RENEWABLE ENVIRONMENTAL: Court Set to Rule on Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Susan Redden, writing for The Joplin Globe, reported on March 2
that Jasper County Circuit Court Judge David Dally is expected to
rule in 10 days on whether or not Carthage residents can sue as a
class over damages from odors allegedly coming from Renewable
Environmental Solutions of Carthage.

Judge Dally heard two hours of arguments on March 2 focusing on
whether a lawsuit filed by two Carthage women would be certified
as a "class action," meaning the case also could go forward on
behalf of a larger group of residents around the now-closed plant.

Rhon Jones, one of the attorneys representing Carthage residents
Cynthia Sundy and Tricia Orr, is proposing the class include
residential property owners who lived within three kilometers of
the plant during its operation from 2003 to 2009.

He said the lawsuit is a "simple nuisance claim" on whether odors
from the plant impaired owners' use of their property.

"Class certification is just an efficient means to bring multiple
common claims to trial," he said.

Mark Anstoetter, on behalf of RES, said plaintiffs' arguments did
not meet requirements for class action status, based in part on
varying responses from residents living within the boundary.

"What they have are highly individualized experiences not worthy
of a class action," he said.  "They've offered no evidence of
damages that can be provided on a class wide basis."


SUNTRUST BANKS: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Sec. 1031 Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Suntrust Banks, Inc., has filed and has fully briefed a motion to
dismiss an amended class action complaint over its involvement in
certain Section 1031 transaction exchanges, according to the
Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

Two putative class action lawsuits have been filed against the
Company by former customers of LandAmerica 1031 Exchange Services,
Inc, (LES), a subsidiary of LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc.
(LFG).  The first of these actions, Arthur et al. v. SunTrust
Banks, Inc. et al., was filed on January 14, 2009, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California.  The
second of these cases, Terry et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. et
al., was filed on February 2, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas,
Tenth Judicial Circuit, County of Anderson, South Carolina, and
subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina.  On June 12, 2009, the Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) Panel issued a transfer order designating the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Anderson
Division, as MDL Court for IRS Section 1031 Tax Deferred Exchange
Litigation (MDL 2054).  Plaintiffs' allegations in these cases are
that LES and certain of its officers caused them to suffer damages
in connection with potential 1031 exchange transactions that were
pending at the time that LES filed for bankruptcy.  Essentially,
Plaintiffs' core allegation is that their damages are the result
of breaches of fiduciary and other duties owed to them by LES and
others, and fraud and other improper acts committed by LES and
certain of its officers, and that the Company is partially or
entirely responsible for such damages because it knew or should
have known about the alleged wrongdoing and failed to take
appropriate steps to stop the same.  The Company believes that the
allegations and claims made against it in these actions are both
factually and legally unsupported, and has filed a motion to
dismiss all claims.  The Court granted this motion to dismiss with
leave to re-plead, another amended complaint has been filed, and
the Company's motion to dismiss this complaint has been filed and
fully briefed.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://suntrust.com/-- headquartered in
Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations,
serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and
institutional clients.  As of June 30, 2010, SunTrust had total
assets of $170.7 billion and total deposits of $118.7 billion.
The company operates an extensive branch and ATM network
throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-Atlantic states and a
full array of technology-based, 24-hour delivery channels.  The
company also serves clients in selected markets nationally. Its
primary businesses include deposit, credit, trust and investment
services.  Through various subsidiaries the Company provides
mortgage banking, insurance, brokerage, investment management,
equipment leasing and investment banking services.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Claim in ATM Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in an ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation, wherein Suntrust
Banks, Inc., is a defendant, have taken an appeal from a court
ruling granting summary judgment against their remaining claim,
according to SunTrust's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2010.

The Company is a defendant in a number of antitrust actions that
have been consolidated in federal court in San Francisco,
California under the name In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation,
Master File No. C04-2676 CR13.  In these actions, Plaintiffs, on
behalf of a class, assert that Concord EFS and a number of
financial institutions have unlawfully fixed the interchange fee
for participants in the Star ATM Network.  Plaintiffs claim that
Defendants' conduct is illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
Plaintiffs initially asserted the Defendants' conduct was illegal
per se.  In August 2007, Concord and the bank defendants filed
motions for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' per se claim.  In
March 2008, the Court granted the motions on the ground that
Defendants' conduct in setting an interchange fee must be analyzed
under the rule of reason.  The Court certified this question for
interlocutory appeal, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit rejected Plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal on
August 13, 2008.  Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Second Amended
Complaint in which they asserted a rule of reason claim.  This
complaint was dismissed by the Court as well, but Plaintiffs were
given leave to file another amended complaint.  Plaintiffs filed
yet another complaint and Defendants moved to dismiss the same.
The Court granted this motion in part -- dismissing one of
Plaintiffs' two claims -- but denied the motion as to one claim.
On September 16, 2010, the Court granted the Defendants' motion
for summary judgment as to the remaining claim on the grounds that
Plaintiffs lack standing to assert that claim.  Plaintiffs have
filed an appeal of this decision with the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://suntrust.com/-- headquartered in
Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations,
serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and
institutional clients.  As of June 30, 2010, SunTrust had total
assets of $170.7 billion and total deposits of $118.7 billion.
The company operates an extensive branch and ATM network
throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-Atlantic states and a
full array of technology-based, 24-hour delivery channels.  The
company also serves clients in selected markets nationally. Its
primary businesses include deposit, credit, trust and investment
services.  Through various subsidiaries the Company provides
mortgage banking, insurance, brokerage, investment management,
equipment leasing and investment banking services.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Continues to Defend 2 Suits Over Overdraft Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks Inc. continues to defend itself from two putative
class action lawsuits relating to its imposition of overdraft fees
on customer accounts, according to the Company's February 25,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company has been named as a defendant in two putative class
actions relating to the imposition of overdraft fees on customer
accounts.  The first such case, Buffington et al. v. SunTrust
Banks, Inc. et al. was filed in Fulton County Superior Court on
May 6, 2009.  This action was removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division on June 10,
2009, and was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida for inclusion in Multi-District
Litigation Case No. 2036 on December 1, 2009.  Plaintiffs assert
claims for breach of contract, conversion, unconscionability, and
unjust enrichment for alleged injuries they suffered as a result
of the method of posting order used by the Company, which
allegedly resulted in overdraft fees being assessed to their joint
checking account, and purport to bring their action on behalf of a
putative class of "all SunTrust Bank account holders who incurred
an overdraft charge despite their account having a sufficient
balance of actual funds to cover all debits that have been
submitted to the bank for payment," as well as "all SunTrust
account holders who incurred one or more overdraft charges based
on SunTrust Bank's reordering of charges."  Plaintiffs seek
restitution, damages, expenses of litigation, attorneys' fees, and
other relief deemed equitable by the Court.  The Company filed a
Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Compel Arbitration and both
motions were denied.  The denial of the Motion to Compel
Arbitration currently is on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court
of Appeals.  The second of these cases, Bickerstaff v. SunTrust
Bank, was filed in the Fulton County State Court on July 12, 2010,
and an amended complaint was filed on August 9, 2010.  Plaintiff
asserts that all overdraft fees charged to his account which
related to debit card and ATM transactions are actually interest
charges and therefore subject to the usury laws of Georgia.
Plaintiff has brought claims for violations of civil and criminal
usury, conversion, and money had and received, and purports to
bring the action on behalf of all Georgia citizens who have
incurred such overdraft fees within the last four years where the
overdraft fee resulted in an interest rate being charged in excess
of the usury rate.  SunTrust has filed a motion to compel
arbitration and that motion is pending.

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

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://suntrust.com/-- headquartered in
Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations,
serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and
institutional clients.  As of June 30, 2010, SunTrust had total
assets of $170.7 billion and total deposits of $118.7 billion.
The company operates an extensive branch and ATM network
throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-Atlantic states and a
full array of technology-based, 24-hour delivery channels.  The
company also serves clients in selected markets nationally. Its
primary businesses include deposit, credit, trust and investment
services.  Through various subsidiaries the Company provides
mortgage banking, insurance, brokerage, investment management,
equipment leasing and investment banking services.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Appeals From Order on Plaintiffs' Claims Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks Inc.'s appeal from a court ruling denying its
motion to dismiss a disclosure claim related to the investment of
participants in the SunTrust Banks, Inc., 401(k) Plan remains
pending, according to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In Re SunTrust Banks, Inc. ERISA Litigation is a consolidated
putative class action case filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia by participants in the SunTrust
Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan (Plan) concerning the performance of
certain investment options available under the Plan.  In
particular, the consolidated complaint alleges that the Company's
publicly traded stock was an imprudent investment option that
should not have been offered by the Plan because of the Company's
alleged exposure to losses related to subprime mortgages.  The
complaint names the Company, members of the Board, the Company's
Benefits Plan Committee, and other members of the Company's
management as defendants, and contends that these defendants
breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA, as amended by
offering the Company's common stock as an investment option in the
Plan.  The complaint does not quantify the alleged damages that
the Plaintiffs seek.  On December 10, 2009, the Company and the
other defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
On October 26, 2010, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss regarding the Plaintiffs' investment claims but denied its
motion to dismiss regarding disclosure claims.  Both parties have
appealed this order to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://suntrust.com/-- headquartered in
Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations,
serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and
institutional clients.  As of June 30, 2010, SunTrust had total
assets of $170.7 billion and total deposits of $118.7 billion.
The company operates an extensive branch and ATM network
throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-Atlantic states and a
full array of technology-based, 24-hour delivery channels.  The
company also serves clients in selected markets nationally. Its
primary businesses include deposit, credit, trust and investment
services.  Through various subsidiaries the Company provides
mortgage banking, insurance, brokerage, investment management,
equipment leasing and investment banking services.


SUNTRUST BANKS: STRH Remains a Defendant in Lehman-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., remains a defendant in the
matter In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation.
STRH is a broker-dealer affiliate of SunTrust Banks, Inc.

Beginning in October 2008, STRH, along with other underwriters and
individuals, were named as defendants in several putative class
action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York and state and federal courts in
Arkansas, California, Texas and Washington.  Plaintiffs allege
violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 for
allegedly false and misleading disclosures in connection with
various debt and preferred stock offerings of Lehman Brothers
Holdings, Inc. and seek unspecified damages.  All cases have now
been transferred for coordination to the multi-district litigation
captioned In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

No updates were provided in the Company's February 25, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://suntrust.com/-- headquartered in
Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations,
serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and
institutional clients.  As of June 30, 2010, SunTrust had total
assets of $170.7 billion and total deposits of $118.7 billion.
The company operates an extensive branch and ATM network
throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-Atlantic states and a
full array of technology-based, 24-hour delivery channels.  The
company also serves clients in selected markets nationally. Its
primary businesses include deposit, credit, trust and investment
services.  Through various subsidiaries the Company provides
mortgage banking, insurance, brokerage, investment management,
equipment leasing and investment banking services.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Amended Complaint in Belmont Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The amended complaint filed by Belmont Holdings Corp., as lead
plaintiff in a securities suit against SunTrust Banks, Inc.,
remains pending.

Beginning in May 2009, the Company, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey,
Inc., SunTrust Capital IX and officers and directors of the
Company and others were named in three putative class actions
arising out of the offer and sale of approximately $690 million of
SunTrust Capital IX 7.875% Trust Preferred Securities (TRUPs) of
SunTrust Banks, Inc.  The complaints alleged, among other things,
that the relevant registration statement and accompanying
prospectus misrepresented or omitted material facts regarding the
Company's allowance for loan and lease loss reserves, the
Company's capital position and its internal risk controls.
Plaintiffs seek to recover alleged losses in connection with their
investment in the TRUPs or to rescind their purchases of the
TRUPs.  These cases were consolidated under the caption Belmont
Holdings Corp., et al., v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division, and on November 30, 2009, a consolidated amended
complaint was filed.  On January 29, 2010, Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  This motion
was granted, with leave to amend, on September 10, 2010.  On
October 8, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in
an attempt to address the pleading deficiencies identified in the
Court's dismissal decision.

No updates were provided in the Company's February 25, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://suntrust.com/-- headquartered in
Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations,
serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and
institutional clients.  As of June 30, 2010, SunTrust had total
assets of $170.7 billion and total deposits of $118.7 billion.
The company operates an extensive branch and ATM network
throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-Atlantic states and a
full array of technology-based, 24-hour delivery channels.  The
company also serves clients in selected markets nationally. Its
primary businesses include deposit, credit, trust and investment
services.  Through various subsidiaries the Company provides
mortgage banking, insurance, brokerage, investment management,
equipment leasing and investment banking services.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Court Allows Plaintiffs to File Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the matter In re Colonial BancGroup, Inc.,
Securities Litigation were given the go-signal to file an amended
complaint, according to SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s February 25, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Beginning in July 2009, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., certain
other underwriters, The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. and certain
officers and directors of Colonial BancGroup were named as
defendants in a putative class action filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern District
entitled In re Colonial BancGroup, Inc. Securities Litigation.
The complaint was brought by purchasers of certain debt and equity
securities of Colonial BancGroup and seeks unspecified damages.
Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and misleading
disclosures in the relevant registration statement and prospectus
relating to Colonial's goodwill impairment, mortgage underwriting
standards and credit quality.  On August 28, 2009, The Colonial
BancGroup, Inc. filed for bankruptcy.  The Defendants' motion to
dismiss was denied in May 2010, but the Court subsequently has
ordered Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.

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

SunTrust Banks, Inc. -- http://suntrust.com/-- headquartered in
Atlanta, is one of the nation's largest banking organizations,
serving a broad range of consumer, commercial, corporate and
institutional clients.  As of June 30, 2010, SunTrust had total
assets of $170.7 billion and total deposits of $118.7 billion.
The company operates an extensive branch and ATM network
throughout the high-growth Southeast and Mid-Atlantic states and a
full array of technology-based, 24-hour delivery channels.  The
company also serves clients in selected markets nationally. Its
primary businesses include deposit, credit, trust and investment
services.  Through various subsidiaries the Company provides
mortgage banking, insurance, brokerage, investment management,
equipment leasing and investment banking services.


TAXMASTERS: Consumer Fraud Attorneys Available to Review Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The consumer fraud attorneys working with Class Action.org are
available to review TaxMasters complaints from customers who
enlisted the tax relief firm to assist with their tax problems.  A
number of TaxMasters complaints have surfaced on the internet from
consumers claiming that they have been subjected to a TaxMasters
scam or fraud.  A TaxMasters lawsuit has also been filed on behalf
of a TaxMasters customer and other similarly situated individuals
alleging that the company deceptively advertised its legal
services to vulnerable consumers and engaged in unlawful business
practices.  If you used TaxMasters to assist with your tax
problems, the consumer fraud attorneys working with Class
Action.org would like to hear from you.  Simply visit
http://www.classaction.org/taxmasters.htmland complete the free
case evaluation form describing your TaxMasters complaints to find
out if you can become a member of a class action lawsuit to
recover financial compensation.

A recent TaxMasters class action claims that the tax relief firm
engaged in deceptive and unfair business practices.  Specifically,
the TaxMasters lawsuit alleges that the company deceived
vulnerable consumers who owed IRS unpaid taxes and sought to
address their tax problems.  The TaxMasters class action claims
that the company failed to disclose hidden fees; promised to
eliminate consumer tax debts, but failed to do so; obtained the
consumers' credit card information, instantly charging it; and
engaged in illegal collection services to pursue compensation from
consumers even when services had yet to be performed.

The TaxMasters class action also alleges that the company used
television and internet advertisements which invited consumers to
call a toll-free number for a free consultation with a tax
consultant.  According to the TaxMasters complaint, consumers who
called the TaxMasters' telephone number were connected to a phone
sales representative who proposed a solution to the consumer's tax
problems and then closed the deal by obtaining the caller's bank
account or credit card information without providing several
important disclosures regarding fees and other matters.
Furthermore, the TaxMasters class action claims that the
representatives speaking with consumers during the free
consultation are not required to have any previous tax knowledge,
but rather are encouraged to obtain a thorough understanding of
sales and how to close a sale.

If you used TaxMasters to solve a tax problem, visit Class
Action.org for information on your legal rights and to learn more
about allegations of a TaxMasters scam.  Consumers with TaxMasters
complaints can also receive a free case review on the site to
determine if they have legal recourse to recover financial
compensation.  This online case review is offered at no cost and
with no obligation, courtesy of the consumer fraud attorneys
working with the site.

Class Action.org is dedicated to protecting consumers and
investors in class actions and complex litigation throughout the
United States.  Class Action.org keeps consumers informed about
product alerts, recalls, and emerging litigation and helps them
take action against the manufacturers of defective products,
drugs, and medical devices. Information about consumer fraud
issues and environmental hazards is also available on the site.
Visit http://www.classaction.org/today for a no cost, no
obligation case evaluation and information about your consumer
rights.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Reports $28MM Expense in Correcting Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation spent $28 million in 2010, in
connection with a consent decree involving disability access as a
result of a class action lawsuit, according to the Company's
February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The Americans with Disabilities Act generally requires that public
accommodations, including hospitals and other health care
facilities, be made accessible to disabled persons.  Certain of
the Company's facilities are subject to a negotiated consent
decree involving disability access as a result of a class action
lawsuit.  In accordance with the terms of the consent decree, the
Company's facilities have agreed to implement disability access
improvements, but have not admitted that they have engaged in any
wrongful action or inaction.  Through December 31, 2010, Tenet
spent approximately $28 million on corrective work at its
facilities, and it expects to spend approximately $98 million more
on such improvements over the next five years.

The Company says its budgeted capital expenditures for the year
ending December 31, 2011, also include approximately $17 million
to improve disability access at certain of its facilities.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Community-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation continues to defend itself from class
action lawsuits over an unsolicited proposal from Community Health
Systems, Inc., to acquire all of Tenet's outstanding shares,
according to the Company's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.

On November 12, 2010, Tenet received an unsolicited proposal from
Community to acquire all of Tenet's outstanding shares for $6.00
per share in cash and stock.  The Company's board of directors,
after carefully evaluating the proposal made by Community and
after consultation with its financial and legal advisors,
unanimously determined that Community's proposal was not in the
best interests of the Company or its shareholders.  On January 14,
2011, Community initiated a proxy contest by nominating 10
candidates for election to the Company's board of directors at
Tenet's 2011 annual meeting of shareholders.

In December 2010 and January 2011, six purported shareholder class
action complaints were filed against the Company and its board of
directors, each ostensibly brought on behalf of all Tenet
shareholders who allegedly have been or will be harmed by the
actions or inactions of the Company's board of directors in
response to the unsolicited acquisition proposal received from
Community in November 2010.  The six actions are: Martin Weber, et
al. v. Edward A. Kangas, et al., filed on December 10, 2010 in the
First Judicial Court of the State of Nevada in and for the County
of Carson City; Max Katz, et al. v. Trevor Fetter, et al., filed
on December 17, 2010 in County Court at Law No. 3 in Dallas
County, Texas; Margaret O'Connell, et al. v. Tenet Healthcare
Corporation, et al., filed on December 23, 2010 in County Court at
Law No. 2 in Dallas County, Texas; Christine McGee, et al. v.
Tenet Healthcare Corporation, et al., filed on December 29, 2010
in County Court at Law No. 1 in Dallas County, Texas; Louisiana
Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System, et al. v. John
Ellis Bush, et al., filed on January 12, 2011 in the Second
Judicial Court of the State of Nevada in and for the County of
Washoe; and Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund IBEW, et
al. v. John Ellis Bush, et al., filed on January 27, 2011 in
County Court at Law No. 4 in Dallas County, Texas.  The complaint
in each of these actions generally alleges that the members of
Tenet's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties by
their actions and inactions in response to Community's proposal
and that the Company aided and abetted the actions of the
individual directors.  In general, each of the plaintiffs seeks
injunctive relief prohibiting the Company and its board of
directors from implementing defensive measures, such as poison
pills, in response to Community's proposal, seeks rescission of
defensive measures already adopted, or both.  The Company and its
board of directors believe that each of these actions is without
merit and intend to vigorously defend against each of these
actions.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Trial on Bellwether Claims to Begin This Month
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial of "bellwether plaintiffs' claims" in one of the class
action lawsuits resulting from Hurricane Katrina filed against
Tenet Healthcare Corporation is scheduled to begin this month,
according to Tenet's February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

When Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast region in August 2005,
the Company owned five hospitals and a number of imaging centers
in the New Orleans area.  Three lawsuits were filed as purported
class actions in late 2005 by and on behalf of patients, their
family members and others who were present and allegedly injured
at two of those hospitals -- Memorial Medical Center and Lindy
Boggs Medical Center (each of which the Company have since
divested) -- during the storm and its aftermath.  The plaintiffs
allege that the hospitals were negligent in failing to properly
prepare for the storm, failing to evacuate patients ahead of the
storm, and failing to have a properly configured emergency
generator system, among other allegations of general negligence.
The plaintiffs are seeking damages in various and unspecified
amounts for the alleged wrongful death of some patients,
aggravation of pre-existing illnesses or injuries to patients who
survived and were successfully evacuated, and the inability of
patients and others to evacuate the hospitals for several days
under challenging conditions.

In September 2008, class certification was granted in two of the
suits -- Preston, et al. v. Tenet HealthSystem Memorial Medical
Center, Inc., et al. and Husband et al. v. Tenet HealthSystem
Memorial Medical Center, Inc., et al.  In her order, the judge
certified a class of all persons at Memorial Medical Center
between August 29 and September 2, 2005, excluding employees, who
sustained injuries or died, as well as family members who
themselves sustained injury as a result of such injuries or deaths
to any person at the hospital, excluding employees, during that
time.  Tenet's appeals of the class certification ruling were
exhausted in December 2009 when the Supreme Court of Louisiana
denied the Company's writ of certiorari.  The Civil District Court
for the Parish of Orleans will administer the class proceedings.
A trial of "bellwether plaintiffs' claims" (which is a set of
plaintiffs' claims deemed representative of claims by all class
members) is currently scheduled to begin in March 2011.  The class
certification hearing in the remaining case -- Dunn, et al. v.
Tenet Mid-City Medical, L.L.C. (formerly d/b/a Lindy Boggs Medical
Center), et al., which was also filed in the Civil District Court
for the Parish of Orleans -- has been postponed and not
rescheduled at the request of the plaintiffs' attorneys.  Tenet
intends to continue to vigorously defend the hospitals in these
matters.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Appellate Ct. Holds Class Decertification Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
A California court of appeal affirmed a ruling denying class
certification in certain wage and hour lawsuits filed against
Tenet Healthcare Corporation, according to the Company's
February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Tenet is a defendant in two coordinated lawsuits in Los Angeles
Superior Court alleging that the Company's hospitals violated
certain provisions of California's labor laws and applicable wage
and hour regulations.  The cases are: McDonough, et al. v. Tenet
Healthcare Corporation (which was filed June 2003) and Tien, et
al. v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation (which was filed in May 2004).
The plaintiffs in both cases allege that Tenet hospitals violated
certain provisions of the California Labor Code and applicable
California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders with respect
to meal breaks, rest periods and the payment of compensation for
meal breaks or rest periods not taken.  The complaint in the Tien
case also alleges that Tenet has improperly "rounded off" time
entries on timekeeping records and that the Company's pay stubs do
not include all information required by California law.  The
plaintiffs in both cases have sought back pay, statutory
penalties, interest and attorneys' fees.

The plaintiffs in the McDonough and Tien cases filed motions,
which Tenet opposed, to certify these actions on behalf of
virtually all nonexempt employees of the Company's California
hospital subsidiaries, as separated into four classes (and one
subclass) based on the specific claims at issue.  The plaintiffs'
requests for class certification were initially granted in part
and denied in part in June 2008.  However, Tenet filed a motion
for reconsideration of the court's class certification ruling and,
in November 2008, the court issued a reconsidered ruling denying
class certification with respect to all of the plaintiffs' claims
except the claim relating to one subclass that the plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed in December 2008.  The plaintiffs
subsequently filed a notice of appeal of the court's decision in
February 2009.  Oral arguments in the appeal were held on
January 26, 2011 and, on February 16, 2011, the court of appeal
affirmed the lower court's November 2008 ruling.


TIM HORTONS: Hearing on Certification Motion Set for August
-----------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on a motion for certification filed by two of Tim
Hortons Inc.'s franchisees is set for August 2011, according to
the Company's February 25, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended January 2,
2011.

On June 12, 2008, a claim was filed against the Company and
certain of its affiliates in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
by two of its franchisees, Fairview Donut Inc. and Brule Foods
Ltd., alleging, generally, that the Company's Always Fresh baking
system and expansion of lunch offerings have led to lower
franchisee profitability. The claim, which seeks class action
certification on behalf of Canadian franchisees, asserts damages
of approximately $1.95 billion. Those damages are claimed based on
breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing, negligent misrepresentations, unjust enrichment and price
maintenance. The plaintiffs filed a motion for certification of
the putative class in May of 2009, and the Company filed its
responding materials as well as a motion for summary judgment in
November of 2009. The two motions are scheduled to be heard
together in August 2011. The Company continues to believe the
claim is without merit and will not be successful, and the Company
intends to oppose the certification motion and defend the claim
vigorously. However, there can be no assurance that the outcome of
the claim will be favourable to the Company or that it will not
have a material adverse impact on the Company's financial position
or liquidity in the event that the ultimate determinations by the
Court and/or appellate court are not in accordance with the
Company's evaluation of this claim.

Tim Hortons Inc. -- http://www.timhortons.com/-- is a Canadian
coffee shop known for its coffee and doughnuts. It was founded in
1964 in Hamilton, Ontario by Canadian hockey player Tim Horton
and Jim Charade, after an initial venture in hamburger
restaurants.


TOWN SPORTS: Continues to Defend "Cruz" Suits Over Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Town Sports International Holdings, Inc., continues to defend
itself from purported class action complaints in New York over
unpaid wages, the Company noted in its February 25, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On March 1, 2005, in an action styled Sarah Cruz, et al. v. Town
Sports International, d/b/a New York Sports Club, plaintiffs
commenced a purported class action against the Company in the
Supreme Court, New York County, seeking unpaid wages and alleging
that TSI, LLC violated various overtime provisions of the New York
State Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages to certain
trainers and assistant fitness managers.  On June 18, 2007, the
same plaintiffs commenced a second purported class action against
the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New
York County, seeking unpaid wages and alleging that TSI, LLC
violated various wage payment and overtime provisions of the New
York State Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages to all
New York purported hourly employees.  On September 17, 2010, the
Company made motions to dismiss the class action allegations of
both lawsuits for plaintiffs' failure to timely file motions to
certify the class actions.  Oral argument on the motions occurred
on November 10, 2010.

The Company says it intends to contest the cases vigorously.  It
adds that depending on the ultimate outcome, these matters may
have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows.


TRUSTMARK CORP: Continues to Defend Stanford-Related Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trustmark Corporation's subsidiary continues to defend itself from
a class action lawsuit related to the collapse of the Stanford
Financial Group, according to the Company's February 25, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Trustmark's wholly-owned subsidiary, Trustmark National Bank, has
been named as a defendant in two lawsuits related to the collapse
of the Stanford Financial Group.  The first is a purported class
action complaint that was filed on August 23, 2009, in the
District Court of Harris County, Texas, by Peggy Roif Rotstain,
Guthrie Abbott, Catherine Burnell, Steven Queyrouze, Jaime Alexis
Arroyo Bornstein and Juan C. Olano, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, naming TNB and four other financial
institutions unaffiliated with the Company as defendants.  The
complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged fraudulent transfers from
each of the defendants in the amount of fees received by each
defendant from entities controlled by R. Allen Stanford, and (ii)
damages allegedly attributable to alleged conspiracies by one or
more of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to commit
fraud and/or aid and abet fraud arising from the facts set forth
in pending federal criminal indictments and civil complaints
against Mr. Stanford, other individuals and the Stanford Financial
Group.  Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial.

In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by
certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters
are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.  In May 2010,
all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the
lawsuit, which remain pending, although the plaintiffs have yet to
file any responsive briefing.  Instead, the plaintiffs have sought
to stay the lawsuit pending the conclusion of the federal criminal
trial of R. Allen Stanford in Houston, Texas.  The court has not
ruled on the plaintiff's motion to stay at this time.


UNITED STATES: SSA Sued Over Failure to Disclose Information
------------------------------------------------------------
The Social Security Law Group, LLP (SSLG) disclosed that it has
filed a Class Action lawsuit against the Social Security
Administration (SSA) on behalf of its clients after SSA's repeated
failures to disclose queried information as required by the
Freedom of Information Act and the 1974 Privacy Act.  The suit
comes after months of effort by SSLG to timely secure certain
claim and benefit information in the agency's possession, which is
essential to the firm's representation of clients seeking Social
Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income
benefits.

The SSA, a United States agency which administers a variety of
Social Security insurance programs to seniors and disabled
Americans, compiles an array of records pertaining to individuals'
earnings, claims and benefits and is, in fact, the country's
largest central repository of personal information.  SSLG, a
leading national law firm specializing in social security
disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits,
requires a consistently reliable means of accessing this
information in order to process claims and correct Agency data
entry errors on behalf of its more than 3,500 nationwide clients.

"The Social Security Administration is obligated to promptly
disclose information when the appropriate procedures delineated in
the Privacy Act are followed.  At a time when Government is tasked
with operating more efficiently and doing more to protect ordinary
citizens, the Agency's conduct not only offends the Privacy Act,
but is nothing shy of an abuse of the public trust," said
Ann Marie Beaudoin, CEO of The Social Security Law Group.
"Despite our repeated attempts to accommodate and comply with
SSA's conflicting internal regulations, the agency continues to
disregard its own disclosure procedures and the very laws it is
charged with fairly applying.  This reckless pattern harms the
right of poor and disabled Americans -- many without health
insurance -- to enjoy a lifeline of income that is legally
theirs."

Among the chief complaints outlined in the Class Action suit, SSA
has allegedly released some query requests while arbitrarily
denying others; instituted onerous procedural requirements; caused
undue and unnecessary delays in processing routine requests; has
solicited wide-ranging and sometimes unconscionable fees through
its thousands of local field offices which must be unfairly passed
on to Claimants and Beneficiaries in the absence of court
intervention.  In so doing, SSLG states that the agency has
repeatedly violated US statutes, including the Freedom of
Information Act, the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Administrative
Procedures Act.

The outcome of the suit will impact the rights of all U.S.
citizens who are either currently seeking or expecting to pursue
Title II and Title XVI Social Security benefits.

Ms. Beaudoin added, "Every American has a stake in this litigation
because, ultimately, it's about everyone's right to reasonably
access their own information contained in SSA's system of records.
In our professional experience, these databases contain alarming
amounts of erroneous information.  When left undetected, these
data entry errors negatively impact entitlement to a number of
important programs that each of us subsidize through federal
withholding, such as Social Security Disability Insurance.  Our
firm has been committed to uncovering and correcting these errors
for the past 15 years.  SSLG will fight vigorously to end the
abuses we've documented and to compel the Agency to respect the
authority granted unto it by Congress."

Founded in 1994, The Social Security Law Group (SSLG) --
http://www.sslg.com/-- is a Boston-based firm which assists
Disabled Americans nationwide in their pursuit of Social Security
Disability and Supplemental Security Income benefits.  With its
Branch Offices in Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, and Los Angeles, SSLG
assists the majority of its clients at the Initial Application
stage of the often complex Social Security claims process.


UNUM GROUP: Continues to Defend Class Action in Maine
-----------------------------------------------------
Unum Life Insurance Company of America continues to defend itself
from a putative class action lawsuit alleging breach of fiduciary
duties pending in Maine, according to Unum Group's February 25,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended November 19, 2010.

In October 2010, Denise Merrimon, Bobby S. Mowery, and all others
similarly situated vs. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maine.  This is a putative class action alleging that the Company
breached fiduciary duties owed to certain beneficiaries under
certain group life insurance policies when the Company paid life
insurance proceeds by establishing interest-bearing retained asset
accounts rather than by mailing checks.  Plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of beneficiaries under group life insurance
contracts that were employee welfare benefit plans under ERISA and
under which the Company paid death benefits pursuant to a retained
asset account.

Plaintiffs seek to recover on behalf of the class the difference
between the interest paid to them and amounts alleged to have been
realized by the Company through its investment of the retained
assets.  The Company says it intends to vigorously defend the
action.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Continues to Defend ACTONEL Suits
--------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Public Limited Company continues to defend itself
in numerous lawsuits relating to the Company's bisphosphonate
prescription drug ACTONEL, according to the Company's February 25,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company is a defendant in approximately 94 cases and a
potential defendant with respect to approximately 66 unfiled
claims involving a total of approximately 167 plaintiffs and
potential plaintiffs relating to the Company's bisphosphonate
prescription drug ACTONEL. The claimants allege, among other
things, that ACTONEL caused them to suffer osteonecrosis of the
jaw, a rare but serious condition that involves severe loss or
destruction of the jawbone, and/or atypical fractures of the
femur. All of the cases have been filed in either federal or state
courts in the United States. The Company is in the initial stages
of discovery in these litigations. The 66 unfiled claims involve
potential plaintiffs that have agreed, pursuant to a tolling
agreement, to postpone the filing of their claims against the
Company in exchange for the Company's agreement to suspend the
statutes of limitations relating to their potential claims. In
addition, the Company is aware of four purported product liability
class actions that were brought against the Company in provincial
courts in Canada alleging, among other things, that ACTONEL caused
the plaintiffs and the proposed class members who ingested ACTONEL
to suffer atypical fractures or other side effects. It is expected
that these plaintiffs will seek class certification. The Company
is reviewing these lawsuits and potential claims and intends to
defend these claims vigorously.

Sanofi, which co-promotes ACTONEL with the Company on a global
basis pursuant to the Collaboration Agreement, is a defendant in
many of the Company's ACTONEL product liability cases. In some of
the cases, manufacturers of other bisphosphonate products are also
named as defendants. Plaintiffs have typically asked for
unspecified monetary and injunctive relief, as well as attorney's
fees. The Company cannot at this time predict the outcome of these
lawsuits and claims or their financial impact. Under the
Collaboration Agreement, Sanofi has agreed to indemnify the
Company, subject to certain limitations, for 50% of the losses
from any product liability claims in Canada relating to ACTONEL
and for 50% of the losses from any product liability claims in the
U.S. and Puerto Rico relating to ACTONEL brought prior to April 1,
2010, which would include ONJ-related claims that were pending as
of March 31, 2010. Pursuant to the April 2010 amendment to the
Collaboration Agreement, the Company will be fully responsible for
any product liability claims in the U.S. and Puerto Rico relating
to ACTONEL brought on or after April 1, 2010. The Company may be
liable for product liability, warranty or similar claims in
relation to PGP products, including ONJ-related claims that were
pending as of the closing of the PGP Acquisition. The Company's
agreement with P&G provides that P&G will indemnify the Company
for 50% of the losses from any such claims pending as of
October 30, 2009, subject to certain limits.

The Company currently maintains product liability insurance
coverage for claims between $25 million and $170 million, subject
to certain exclusions, and otherwise is self-insured. The
Company's insurance may not apply to, among other things, damages
or defense costs related to the above mentioned HT or ACTONEL-
related claims, including any claim arising out of HT or ACTONEL
products with labeling that does not conform completely to FDA
approved labeling. Although it is impossible to predict with
certainty the outcome of any litigation, an unfavorable outcome in
these proceedings is not anticipated. An estimate of the range of
potential loss, if any, to the Company relating to these
proceedings is not possible at this time.

                     About Warner Chilcott

Warner Chilcott is a specialty pharmaceutical company currently
focused on the gastroenterology, women's healthcare, dermatology
and urology segments of the U.S. and Western European
pharmaceuticals markets.


WELLS FARGO: Fla. Suit Complains About $35 "Overdraft Fee"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marimer Matos at Courthouse News Service reports that Wells Fargo
Bank has found a new way to snooker its customers out of money,
$35 at a time, according to a class action in Miami-Dade County
Court.  The class claims the bank charges a $35 "overdraft fee"
for each deposit made into a garnished account, unless the deposit
is enough to pay off the entire amount owed.

"In essence, it appears the Wells Fargo treats the garnishment
order as if it were an outstanding draft on the account," the
complaint states.  "Wells Fargo charges the account holder a $35
overdraft fee for each deposit made into the garnished account
unless the amount of the deposit is enough to pay the entire
underlying judgment."

But the class claims: "Pursuant to its deposit agreement,
defendant is permitted to charge an overdraft fee only when the
customer takes some action to charge against the account such as
writing a check, making an ATM cash withdrawal or card purchase
for an amount that exceeds the balance."

Suing for the class, lead plaintiff Isabel Gomez seeks
disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and punitive damages for breach
of contract and unjust enrichment.

A copy of the Complaint in Gomez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et
al., Case No. 11-06227CA25 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Dade Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/02/WFargo.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
          Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
          20 La Grande Blvd.
          Telephone: (352) 753-8600
          E-mail: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com
                  jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com

               - and -

          Mona Lisa Wallace, ESq.
          John Hughes, Esq.
          WALLACE AND GRAHAM, P.A.
          525 N. Main Street
          Salisbury, NC 28144
          Telephone: (704) 633-5244
          E-mail: mwallace@wallacegraham.com
                  jhughes@wallacegraham.com


WESTERN UNION: Continues to Defend in "Tennille" & "Smet" Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company continues to defend itself in two
purported class action lawsuits asserting claims for violations of
various consumer protection laws, according to the Company's
February 25, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company is a defendant in two purported class action lawsuits:
James P. Tennille v. The Western Union Company, and Robert P. Smet
v. The Western Union Company, both of which are pending in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The
complaints assert claims for violation of various consumer
protection laws, unjust enrichment, conversion and declaratory
relief, based on allegations that the Company waits too long to
inform consumers if their money transfers are not redeemed by the
recipients and that the Company uses the unredeemed funds to
generate income until the funds are escheated to state
governments. The Tennille complaint was served on the Company on
April 27, 2009. The Smet complaint was served on the Company on
April 6, 2010. On September 21, 2009, the Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the Tennille complaint and gave the
plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On October 21, 2009,
Tennille filed an amended complaint. The Company moved to dismiss
the Tennille amended complaint and the Smet complaint.

On November 8, 2010, the Court denied Western Union's motion to
dismiss as to the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment and conversion
claims. On February 4, 2011, the Court dismissed plaintiffs'
consumer protection claims. The plaintiffs have not sought and the
Court has not granted class certification. The Company intends to
vigorously defend itself against both lawsuits. However, due to
the preliminary stages of these lawsuits, the fact the plaintiffs
have not quantified their damage demands, and the uncertainty as
to whether they will ever be certified as class actions, the
Company is unable to determine the potential outcome.

Headquartered in Englewood, Colo., The Western Union Company
(NYSE: WU) -- http://www.westernunion.com/-- provides global
money transfer and bill payment services worldwide,
including Belgium, Brazil and the Philippines.  Together with
its affiliates, Orlandi Valuta, Vigo and Pago Facil, Western
Union provides consumers with fast, reliable and convenient ways
to send and receive money around the world, as well as send
payments and purchase money orders.  It operates through a
network of more than 320,000 Agent locations in over 200
countries and territories.


YOUR BABY CAN: Sued Over Misleading Claims on Reading Systems
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Your Baby Can Read class action lawsuit has alleged that the
company made false statements regarding the effectiveness of its
Your Baby Can Read! products.  Specifically, the lawsuit against
Your Baby Can, LLC, claims that the company falsely represented to
consumers that the Can Read Systems could teach children and
infants how to read at an extraordinarily young age.  Furthermore,
the class action alleges that the company misrepresented that
scientific trials were conducted to prove the product's claims.
Due to these allegations, consumers who purchased the Your Baby
Can Read Early Language Development Systems may be able to
participate in a class action lawsuit to recover the cost of their
system.  To find out if you are entitled to financial
compensation, visit http://www.classaction.org/your-baby-can-
read.htm and complete the free case evaluation form.

Your Baby Can, LLC promoted its Can Read Systems through
television and radio infomercials, as well as public appearances
by a doctor supporting the product's claims.  According to a Your
Baby Can Read class action complaint, the company made the
following claims in its marketing campaigns for the Can Read
Systems: the systems can teach a three-month-old to read by nine
months; the systems can enable a five-year-old to read books at
the junior high levels; the systems can teach infants with Down's
syndrome how to read; and the systems can teach an infant how to
read at a young age and that this would prevent dyslexia and other
learning disabilities.  According to the Your Baby Can Read
lawsuit, however, these claims are false and misleading.

If you have purchased a Your Baby Can Read system, you may be
entitled to financial compensation for the company's allegedly
false claims regarding their product.  Visit Class Action.org
today to learn more about the allegations of a Your Baby Can Read
scam and to receive a free online case review.  The consumer fraud
lawyers working with Class Action.org are providing this case
evaluation at no cost and remain dedicated to protecting the
rights of consumers who were subjected to misleading advertising
practices.

Class Action.org is dedicated to protecting consumers and
investors in class actions and complex litigation throughout the
United States.  Class Action.org keeps consumers informed about
product alerts, recalls, and emerging litigation and helps them
take action against the manufacturers of defective products,
drugs, and medical devices.  Information about consumer fraud
issues and environmental hazards is also available on the site.
Visit http://www.classaction.org/today for a no cost, no
obligation case evaluation and information about your consumer
rights.


ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Securities Suits in Indiana
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zimmer Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself against
securities class action complaints in Indiana, the Company stated
in its February 25, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

On August 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana entitled Plumbers and
Pipefitters Local Union 719 Pension Fund v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc.,
et al., naming the Company and two of its executive officers as
defendants.  The complaint related to a putative class action on
behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between
January 29, 2008 and July 22, 2008.  The complaint alleged that
the defendants violated the federal securities law by allegedly
failing to disclose developments relating to the Company's
orthopaedic surgical products manufacturing operations in Dover,
Ohio and the Durom Cup.  The plaintiff sought unspecified damages
and interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief.  On
December 24, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint that alleged the same claims and related to the same
time period.  The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on February 23, 2009.  On December 1, 2009,
the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, without
prejudice.  On January 15, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion for
leave to amend the consolidated complaint.  On January 28, 2011,
the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the
consolidated complaint and dismissed the case.  The plaintiff had
30 days to file a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit.

On November 20, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Dewald v. Zimmer
Holdings, Inc., et al., naming the Company and certain of its
current and former directors and employees as defendants.  The
complaint relates to a putative class action on behalf of all
persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Company'
U.S. or Puerto Rico Savings and Investment Programs (plans)
between October 5, 2007 and the date of filing and whose accounts
included investments in the Company's common stock.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended, by continuing to offer Zimmer
stock as an investment option in the plans when the stock
purportedly was no longer a prudent investment and that defendants
failed to provide plan participants with complete and accurate
information sufficient to advise them of the risks of investing
their retirement savings in Zimmer stock.  The plaintiff seeks an
unspecified monetary payment to the plans, injunctive and
equitable relief, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief.  On
January 23, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that
alleges the same claims and clarifies that the class period is
October 5, 2007 through September 2, 2008.  The defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 23, 2009.  The
motion to dismiss is pending with the court.  On June 12, 2009,
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered an
order transferring the Dewald case to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings with the Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union
719 Pension Fund case.

The Company believes the lawsuits are without merit, and intends
to defend them vigorously.

Zimmer Holdings is involved in the design, development,
manufacture and marketing of orthopaedic reconstructive, spinal
and trauma devices, dental implants and related surgical products.
The Company also provides other healthcare related services.



                            *********

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.  Leah
Felisilda, Neil U. Lim, Rousel Elaine Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante,
Ronald Sy, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2011.  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 Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *