---

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

              Monday, March 14, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 51

                             Headlines

ADRIAN RUBIN: Sued for Charging Exorbitant Loan Interest Rates
ADVANCE AMERICA: 3rd Cir. Vacates Lower Ct. Ruling on "King" Suit
AES CORP: Sul Unit Still Discussing With CEEE on Remediation
AES CORP: Supreme Court Denies Reinstatement of Appeal
AES CORP: Appeal From Dismissal of AES Sul Suit Still Pending

ALMOST FAMILY: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Kentucky
AMERICAN CAPITAL: Still Defends "Klugmann" Class Action Suit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeal in "Baydale" Suit Remains Pending
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeal in ERISA Litigation Remains Pending
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Continues to Defend Suits Over Gift Cards

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Time to Appeal to Supreme Court Expires
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Merchants Can Join Class Action, 2nd Cir. Says
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Court Sets March 18 Settlement Hearing
BAJA INC: Recalls 4,300 Dirt Bikes
BARCLAYS CAPITAL: Accused of Rigging Bids to Acquire Del Monte

BAYER CORPORATION: Baycol Suit Dismissal "Non-Appealable"
BLUELINX HOLDINGS: Says Cerberus-Related Suits Now Moot
BLUELINX HOLDINGS: Reports Receipt of $5.2-M Settlement Payment
BNY MELLON: Faces Class Action Over "False" Forex Rates
BOK FINANCIAL: BOSC Defends Securities Lawsuit in Oklahoma

BOK FINANCIAL: Unit Defends Three Class Actions in Oklahoma
BUCKEYE PARTNERS: Enters Into Settlement to Dismiss Texas Suit
COCA-COLA COMPANY: Final Hearing in Delaware Suit Set for June 8
COCA-COLA COMPANY: Final Hearing in Georgia Suit Set for June 8
COLLECTO INC: Fifth Circuit Upholds Dismissal of "Castro" Suit

CHINA MEDIAEXPRESS: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
CVS PHARMACIES: March 30 Hearing Set for Class Action Notice
DEAN FOODS: Dairy Farmers Ask Court to Release Class Action Docs
DYNAMICS RESEARCH: Expects Approval of Settlement This Quarter
DYNEX CAPITAL: Dist. Ct. Certifies Securities Class Action in NY

ENTERGY CORP: Awaits Court Approval of Louisiana Suit Settlement
ENTERGY CORP: Continues to Face Hazardous Waste Suits
ENTERGY CORP: Class Certification in Texas Power Suit Pending
EQUINIX INC: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
EUROPEAN UNION: May Face Class Action Over Mugabe Sanctions

EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss Amended Suit Pending
FERRO CORP: Continues to Defend Indirect Purchaser Suits
FIFTH THIRD: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in New York
FIFTH THIRD: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Ohio
FORD MOTOR: Antitrust Lawsuits Remain Pending

FORD MOTOR: To Appeal $4.5 Million Award in Car Dealers' Suit
FORD MOTOR: Court Approves Final Settlement in ERISA Suit
FORD MOTOR: Appeal in Apartheid Litigation Remains Pending
FUN WORLD: Recalls 1,800 Little Pet Vet and Dr. Littles Costumes
GLOBAL EQUIPMENT: Recalls 5,000 Workbench Risers, Aprons, Shelves

GROUPON INC: Sued Over Short Gift Certificate Expiration Dates
GROUPON INC: Faces Another Suit Over Gift Certificates
HERTZ CORP: Continues to Defend Loss Damage Waiver Suit
HERTZ CORP: Final Hearing on "Sobel" Settlement Set for May
HERTZ CORP: "Fun Services" Case Remains Stayed in Kansas

HERTZ CORP: Continues to Defend "Shames" Suit in California
HERTZ CORP: Deadline to Seek Review of Dismissal Has Passed
HSBC FINANCE: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Card Litigation
HSBC FINANCE: Class Members Have Until May 24 to File Claims
JPMORGAN CHASE: Bear Stearns-Related Matters Still Pending

JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal in Enron-Related Litigation Still Pending
JPMORGAN CHASE: Class Certification Motion in N.Y. Suit Pending
JPMORGAN CHASE: Discovery in MBS-Related Suits Still Ongoing
JPMORGAN CHASE: Class Certification Motion Due April 2011
JPMORGAN CHASE: Summary Judgment Plea to Be Fully Briefed by April

JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Face SCRA Suit in South Carolina
LIBERTY BEHAVIORAL: No Abuse of Discretion in Bilal Writ Denial
LIBERTY MEDIA: Still Makes Payments in Seattle Suit Settlement
LIVE NATION: Live Concert Antitrust Litigation Still Pending
LIVE NATION: Awaits Approval of Ticketmaster Settlement

LIVE NATION: Canadian Consumer Class Action Still Pending
LIVE NATION: Summary Judgment Motion in TicketsNow Suit Pending
LIVINGSOCIAL: Could Be Next Target for Coupon Class Action
MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Vytorin & Zetia-Related Suits
MERCK & CO: Continues to Face Vioxx Product Liability Suits

MERCK & CO: Continues to Face Vioxx Shareholder Lawsuits
MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend International Suits Over Vioxx
MERCK & CO: Discovery in Fosamax Litigation Still Ongoing
METROPOLITAN TAXICAB: Sued Over Illegal Charges at Airport
MGM RESORTS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Nevada

MOTRICITY INC: Obtains Final Okay of "Williams" Suit Settlement
NUCOR CORP: Defends "Anti-Competition" Lawsuit in Illinois
OLD REPUBLIC: ORHP Unit Still Defends Suits in Calif. & Alabama
OLD REPUBLIC: Unit Defends "Moses" Class Suit in D.C.
OLD REPUBLIC: Unit Awaits Ruling on Appeal From Suit Dismissal

ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending
PITNEY BOWES: Motion to Dismiss Class Suits v. Imagitas Pending
PITNEY BOWES: Oral Arguments in Conn. Suit Scheduled for April 15
PRE-PAID LEGAL: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suits in Okla.
REALPAGE INC: Awaits Court Approval of "Minor" Suit Settlement

REALPAGE INC: Court Denies Certiorari Petition in Taylor Case
REALPAGE INC: Dismissed From "Cohorst" Class Action Suit
REHABCARE GROUP: Defends Merger-Related Lawsuit in Missouri
RENEWABLE ENVIRONMENTAL: Judge Rejects Class Action Arguments
ROCKWOOD HOLDINGS: Unit Continues to Face Product Liability Suits

SIOUXLAND UROLOGY: Class Action Plaintiffs Mull Appeal
SOLVAY: Class Action Settlement Benefits Local Organizations
SUNBEAM PRODUCTS: Recalls 159,000 Wine Bottle Openers
SUNPOWER CORP: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in California
TORCHMARK CORP: Discovery in "Hoover" Suit Still Ongoing

UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs' Lawyers in Cobell Suit Defend Fee Bid
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Court Approves Settlement in "Ethridge" Suit
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Continues to Defend Wage Suits in Calif. & Tenn.
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Shareholder Suit in Tennessee Still Pending
VALEANT PHARMA: Delaware Court Okays Consolidated Suit Settlement

VERIZON COMMS: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in "September 11" Lawsuit



                             *********


ADRIAN RUBIN: Sued for Charging Exorbitant Loan Interest Rates
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Adrian
Rubin dba Payday Loan, of Miami Beach, is "an Internet loan
shark;" the named plaintiff claims she owes $1,455 on a $300 loan.
A copy of the Complaint in Chase v. Adrian Rubin, Case No.
0001373-11 (D.C. Super. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/09/Payday.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Koslofsky, Esq.
          LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE ELDERLY
          601 E Street NW
          Washington, DC 20049
          Telephone: (202) 434-2162


ADVANCE AMERICA: 3rd Cir. Vacates Lower Ct. Ruling on "King" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A third circuit panel vacated a Pennsylvania district ruling in
two class action complaints, Raymond King; Sandra Coates, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Advance
America, Cash Advance Centers of Pennsylvania, LLC (E.D. Pa. No.
2-07-cv-00237), and Sharlene Johnson; Helena Love; Bonny Bleacher,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.; Advance America, Cash
Advance Centers of Pennsylvania, LLC; NCAS of Delaware, LLC (E.D.
Pa. No. 2-07-cv-03142).  The panel consists of Circuit Judges Kent
A. Jordan, Joseph A. Greenaway Jr., and Walter Stapleton.

The complaints were filed on behalf of the plaintiffs and others
who had obtained loans from Advance America under terms the
plaintiffs alleged violated Pennsylvania usury and consumer
protection laws.  The parties' loan agreements contained binding
arbitration and class action waiver provisions, but plaintiffs
asserted that they were entitled to pursue class-wide relief in
court because the arbitration and class action waiver provisions
are unconscionable under Pennsylvania law.  On January 2, 2008,
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
directed that the claims in the two actions are to be submitted
"to arbitration on an individual basis, unless the arbitrator
determines otherwise."

Judge Jordan, who penned the opinion, points out that the district
court orders conflict with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit's recent decision in Puleo v. Chase Bank USA, 605 F.3d 172
(3d Cir. 2010).  The Third Circuit issued an opinion in Puleo,
where it held that the validity of a class action waiver must be
determined by the court, not an arbitrator.

Judge Jordan views the district court's order as acknowledging
that the class action waivers could be valid, but then left it to
the arbitrator to actually decide that issue.  Accordingly, Judge
Jordan vacates the district court orders and remand them for
consideration of the validity of the class action waivers.

A copy of Judge Jordan's February 28, 2011, ruling is available at
http://is.gd/7TNQKIfrom Leagle.com.


AES CORP: Sul Unit Still Discussing With CEEE on Remediation
------------------------------------------------------------
Discussions between AES Sul and Companhia Estadual de Energia
Eletrica are ongoing in relation to certain contaminants found in
a factory operated by AES Sul's subsidiary that was previously
operated by CEEE, according to AES Corporation's February 28,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

AES Florestal, Ltd., had been operating a pole factory and had
other assets, including a wooded area known as "Horto Renner," in
the State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.  Florestal had been under
the control of AES Sul since October 1997, when Sul was created
pursuant to a privatization by the Government of the State of Rio
Grande do Sul.  After it came under the control of Sul, Florestal
performed an environmental audit of the entire operational cycle
at the pole factory.  The audit discovered 200 barrels of solid
creosote waste and other contaminants at the pole factory.  The
audit concluded that the prior operator of the pole factory,
Companhia Estadual de Energia Eletrica, had been using those
contaminants to treat the poles that were manufactured at the
factory.  Sul and Florestal subsequently took the initiative of
communicating with Brazilian authorities, as well as CEEE, about
the adoption of containment and remediation measures.  The Public
Attorney's Office has initiated a civil inquiry (Civil Inquiry n.
24/05) to investigate potential civil liability and has requested
that the police station of Triunfo institute a police
investigation (IP number 1041/05) to investigate potential
criminal liability regarding the contamination at the pole
factory.  The parties filed defenses in response to the civil
inquiry.  The Public Attorney's Office then requested an
injunction which the judge rejected on September 26, 2008.  The
Public Attorney's office has a right to appeal the decision.  The
environmental agency ("FEPAM") has also started a procedure
(Procedure n. 088200567/059) to analyze the measures that shall be
taken to contain and remediate the contamination.  Also, in March
2000, Sul filed suit against CEEE in the 2nd Court of Public
Treasure of Porto Alegre seeking to register in Sul's name the
Property that it acquired through the privatization but that
remained registered in CEEE's name.  During those proceedings, AES
subsequently waived its claim to re-register the Property and
asserted a claim to recover the amounts paid for the Property.
That claim is pending.  In Nov. 2005, the 7th Court of Public
Treasure of Porto Alegre ruled that the Property must be returned
to CEEE.  CEEE has had sole possession of Horto Renner since Sept.
2006 and of the rest of the Property since April 2006.  In Feb.
2008, Sul and CEEE signed a "Technical Cooperation Protocol"
pursuant to which they requested a new deadline from FEPAM in
order to present a proposal.

In March 2008, the State Prosecution office filed a Public Class
Action against AES Florestal, AES Sul and CEEE, requiring an
injunction for the removal of the alleged sources of contamination
and the payment of an indemnity in the amount of R$6 million ($4
million).  The injunction was rejected and the case is in the
evidentiary stage awaiting the judge's determination concerning
the production of expert evidence.  The proposal was delivered on
April 8, 2008.  FEPAM responded by indicating that the parties
should undertake the first step of the proposal which would be to
retain a contractor.  In its response, Sul indicated that such
step should be undertaken by CEEE as the relevant environmental
events resulted from CEEE's operations.  It is estimated that
remediation could cost approximately R$14.7 million ($9 million).
Discussions between Sul and CEEE are ongoing.


AES CORP: Supreme Court Denies Reinstatement of Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court denied the reinstatement of an appeal filed
by plaintiffs of a class action complaint relating to greenhouse
gas emissions, according to AES Corporation's February 28, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In April 2006, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on behalf
of certain individual plaintiffs and all residents and/or property
owners in the State of Mississippi who allegedly suffered harm as
a result of Hurricane Katrina, and against the Company and
numerous unrelated companies, whose alleged greenhouse gas
emissions contributed to alleged global warming which, in turn,
allegedly increased the destructive capacity of Hurricane Katrina.
The plaintiffs assert unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy/aiding
and abetting, public and private nuisance, trespass, negligence,
and fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment claims against
the defendants. The plaintiffs seek damages relating to loss of
property, loss of business, clean-up costs, personal injuries and
death, but do not quantify their alleged damages. In August 2007,
the District Court dismissed the case. The plaintiffs subsequently
appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
which, in October 2009, affirmed the District Court's dismissal of
the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation,
and civil conspiracy claims. However, the Fifth Circuit reversed
the District Court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' public and
private nuisance, trespass, and negligence claims, and remanded
those claims to the District Court for further proceedings. In
February 2010, the Fifth Circuit granted the petitions for en banc
rehearing filed by the Company and other defendants, and thereby
vacated its October 2009 decision. In May 2010, the Fifth Circuit
dismissed the appeal on the ground that it had lost its quorum for
en banc review. In August 2010, the plaintiffs filed a petition
for a writ of mandamus in the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting the
Supreme Court to direct the Fifth Circuit to reinstate the appeal
and return it to the panel that issued the October 2009 decision.
In January 2011, the Supreme Court denied the petition, ending the
case.


AES CORP: Appeal From Dismissal of AES Sul Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Public Defender's Office of the State of Rio Grande do Sul's
appeal on the dismissal of its class action against AES Sul still
remains pending, according to AES Corporation's February 28, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

AES Sul is owned and operated by AES and distributes electricity
to more than one million customers in the southern state of Rio
Grande do Sul.

In September 2009, the Public Defender's Office of the State of
Rio Grande do Sul filed a class action against AES Sul in
Brazilian state court claiming that AES Sul has been illegally
passing PIS and COFINS taxes (taxes based on AES Sul's income) to
consumers.  According to ANEEL's Order No. 93/05, the federal laws
of Brazil, and the Brazilian Constitution, energy companies such
as AES Sul are entitled to highlight PIS and COFINS taxes in power
bills to final consumers, as the cost of those taxes is included
in the energy tariffs that are applicable to final consumers.  In
September 2009, the Public Defender's Office of the State of Rio
Grande do Sul filed a class action against AES Sul in the 16th
District Court of Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, claiming that
AES Sul has been illegally passing PIS and COFINS taxes (taxes
based on AES Sul's income) to consumers.  Before AES Sul had been
served with the action, the District Court dismissed the lawsuit
in October 2009 on the ground that AES Sul had been properly
highlighting PIS and COFINS taxes in consumer bills in accordance
with Brazilian law.  In April 2010, the PDO appealed to the
Appellate Court of the State of Rio Grande do Sul.  If the
dismissal is reversed and AES Sul does not prevail in the lawsuit
and is ordered to cease recovering PIS and COFINS taxes pursuant
to its energy tariff, its potential prospective losses could be
approximately R$9.6 million ($6 million) per month, as estimated
by AES Sul.  In addition, if AES Sul is ordered to reimburse
consumers, its potential retrospective liability could be
approximately R$1.2 billion ($705 million), as estimated by AES
Sul.  AES Sul believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims
asserted against it and will defend itself vigorously in these
proceedings if it is served with the action.  Furthermore, if AES
Sul does not prevail in the litigation it will seek to adjust its
energy tariff to compensate it for its losses, but there can be no
assurances that it would be successful in obtaining an adjusted
energy tariff.


ALMOST FAMILY: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------------------
Almost Family, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
consolidated class action lawsuit in Kentucky, according to the
Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

Four putative class action lawsuits have been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.  The
complaints refer to The Wall Street Journal article and the
subsequent governmental investigations and allege that the
Company, its chief executive officer and chief financial officer
violated federal securities laws.  The complaints seek damages and
awards of attorneys' fees and costs.  The actions are now awaiting
designation of a lead plaintiff and filing of a consolidated
complaint after which the Company will file a responsive pleading.

The suits are titled:  (i) City of Livonia Employees Retirement
System v. Almost Family, Inc., et al., filed on August 3, 2010,
(ii) Kandi Sterling v. Almost Family, Inc., et al., filed on
August 10, 2010, (iii) Blaze B. Huston v. Almost Family, Inc., et
al., filed on August 16, 2010, and (iv) Peter Barcia, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Almost Family,
Inc., et al., filed on September 7, 2010.


AMERICAN CAPITAL: Still Defends "Klugmann" Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
American Capital, Ltd., continues to defend itself from a
purported class action lawsuit in Maryland styled as Klugmann v.
American Capital, Ltd., et al., according to the company's
February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company and certain of its executive officers are defendants
in a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland styled as Klugmann v. American
Capital, Ltd., et al. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the
purchasers of the Company's common stock between October 31, 2007
and November 7, 2008, and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20A of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, and in the case of the individual defendants,
the control person provisions of the Exchange Act. The factual
assertions in the complaint consist primarily of the allegation
that the defendants made incorrect statements related to the
Company's dividend guidance for 2008. The complaint seeks
unspecified damages, costs and expenses. On June 14, 2010, the
court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the matter, without
prejudice. The case is in the discovery stage and the Company
intends to continue to contest the matter vigorously.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeal in "Baydale" Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of the "Baydale" action remains
pending, according to American Express Company's February 28,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On February 20, 2009, a putative class action captioned Brozovich
v. American Express Co., Kenneth I. Chenault and Daniel T. Henry,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The lawsuit alleged violations of the
federal securities laws in connection with certain alleged
misstatements regarding the credit quality of the Company's credit
card customers.  The purported class covered the period from March
1, 2007 to November 12, 2008.  The action sought unspecified
damages and costs and fees.  The Brozovich action was subsequently
voluntarily dismissed.  In March 2009, a putative class action,
captioned Baydale v. American Express Co., Kenneth I. Chenault and
Daniel Henry, which made similar allegations to those made in the
Brozovich action, was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  In October 2009, the
plaintiff in the Baydale action filed an Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint in the action.  The Company filed a motion
to dismiss with the Court.  On July 19, 2010, the Court granted
the Company's motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint in its
entirety.  The plaintiff has filed a Notice of Appeal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Appeal in ERISA Litigation Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of the ERISA litigation against
American Express Company remains pending, according to the
Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

In December 2008, a putative class action captioned Obester v.
American Express Company, et al. was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants violated certain ERISA
obligations by: allowing the investment of American Express
Retirement Savings Plan assets in American Express common stock
when American Express common stock was not a prudent investment;
misrepresenting and failing to disclose material facts to Plan
participants in connection with the administration of the Plan;
and breaching certain fiduciary obligations.  Thereafter, three
other putative class actions making allegations similar to those
made in the Obester matter were filed against the defendants: Tang
v. American Express Company, et al., filed on December 29, 2008 in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, Miner v. American Express Company et al., filed on
February 4, 2009 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, and DiLorenzo v. American Express
Company et al., filed on February 10, 2009 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  American
Express filed a motion to dismiss these actions.

In April 2009, these actions were consolidated into a Consolidated
Amended Complaint, captioned In re American Express ERISA
Litigation.  Following argument on American Express' motion to
dismiss this action, the Court permitted plaintiffs to file a
Second Amended Complaint.  In April 2010, American Express filed a
motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.  On November 2,
2010, the District Court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint in
its entirety.  On December 2, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of
Appeal, appealing the case to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.  That appeal is currently pending.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Continues to Defend Suits Over Gift Cards
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company continues to defend itself against class
action lawsuits alleging that the Company's gift cards violate
consumer protection statutes, according to the Company's
February 28, 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 a putative class action captioned
Kaufman v. American Express Travel Related Services, which was
filed on February 14, 2007, and is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The
allegations in Kaufman relate primarily to monthly service fee
charges in respect of the Company's gift card products, with the
principal claim being that the Company's gift cards violate
consumer protection statutes because consumers allegedly have
difficulty spending small residual amounts on the gift cards prior
to the imposition of monthly service fees.  In January 2009, the
Company signed a Memorandum of Understanding to resolve these
claims.  Since such time, the parties have entered into a
settlement agreement that was submitted to the Court for
preliminary approval. The proposed settlement class consists of
"all purchasers, recipients and holders of all gift cards issued
by American Express from January 1, 2002 through the date of
preliminary approval of the Settlement, including without
limitation, gift cards sold at physical retail locations, via the
internet, or through mall co-branded programs."  Under the terms
of the proposed settlement, in addition to certain non-monetary
relief, the Company would pay $3 million into a settlement fund.
Members of the settlement class would then be entitled to submit
claims against the settlement fund to receive refunds of certain
gift card fees, and any monies remaining in the settlement fund
after payment of all claims would be paid to charity.  In
addition, the Company would make available to the settlement class
for a period of time the opportunity to buy gift cards with no
purchase fee.  Finally, the Company would be responsible for
paying class counsel's reasonable fees and expenses and certain
expenses of administering the class settlement.

The Company is also a defendant in two other putative class
actions making allegations similar to those made in Kaufman:
Goodman v. American Express Travel Related Services, pending in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, and Jarratt v. American Express Company, filed in California
Superior Court in San Diego and subsequently removed to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California.

If the court ultimately approves the proposed settlement in
Kaufman, all related gift card claims and actions would also be
released. In August 2010, in response to objections by plaintiffs
in certain of the other pending cases, the Kaufman court partially
granted and partially denied approval of the settlement. The
Company has filed a motion for reconsideration of the portion of
the court's decision partially denying approval of the settlement,
and that motion is pending.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Time to Appeal to Supreme Court Expires
---------------------------------------------------------
The time for plaintiffs to seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court
of the dismissal of a consolidated securities lawsuit against
American Express Company has expired, according to the Company's
February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Beginning in mid-July 2002, 12 putative class action lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  In October 2002, these cases were
consolidated under the caption In re American Express Company
Securities Litigation.  These lawsuits allege violations of the
federal securities laws and the common law in connection with
alleged misstatements regarding certain investments in high-yield
bonds and write-downs in the 2000-2001 timeframe.  The purported
class covers the period from July 26, 1999 to July 17, 2001.  The
actions seek unspecified compensatory damages as well as
disgorgement, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
interest.

On March 31, 2004, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit.  Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  In August
2006, the Court of Appeals, without expressing any views
whatsoever on the merits of the cases, vacated the District
Court's judgment and remanded all claims to the District Court for
further proceedings.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
January 5, 2007.  The Company subsequently filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint, which motion was granted in
September 2008.  Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal, and in May
2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
affirmed the dismissal.  Plaintiffs filed for rehearing and
rehearing en banc with the Second Circuit in June 2010, which
motions were denied by the Court.  Plaintiffs' time to appeal to
seek review of the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court has expired.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Merchants Can Join Class Action, 2nd Cir. Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Sanford at Courthouse News Service reports that American
Express cannot force merchants accepting its cards to waive their
right to join a class action against the company, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled.

The decision reaffirms a prior ruling by the court voiding a
provision of American Express' Card Acceptance Agreement which
mandates that retailers have to resolve any contractual claims
individually and in arbitration.

The appellate found such a provision effectively denies certain
retailers of their right to redress when the cost of a provision
is not high enough to warrant costly arbitration.

American Express had appealed the court's earlier ruling to the
Supreme Court, which set the decision in light of an earlier 2nd
Circuit ruling in Stolt-Nielsen SA v. AnimalFeeds International
Corp.  In that case the court held that parties cannot be forced
to engage in class arbitration absent a contractual agreement to
do so.

Returning to the 2nd Circuit, American Express argued that Supreme
Court's finding meant that a contract provision prohibiting such
action was enforceable.

Writing for a three judge panel, Judge Rosemary Pooler disagreed
saying that "It does not follow, as Amex urges, that a contractual
clause barring class arbitration is per se enforceable.  Indeed,
our prior holding focused not on whether the plaintiffs' contract
provides for class arbitration, but on whether the class action
waiver is enforceable when it would effectively strip plaintiffs
of their ability to prosecute alleged antitrust violations."

In the underlying case Italian Colors Restaurant and the National
Supermarkets Association challenged an "honor all cards" policy
which they said illegally requires them to accept all cards issued
by American Express and the transaction fees the company charges
for their use.

Historically merchants had been willing to pay higher fees to
attract the "higher class customer[s]" who tended to carry the
more prestigious cards -- which require holders to pay off monthly
balances -- issued by American Express.

The company began to issue revolving credit cards -- which the
merchants claim are issued to less desirable customers -- while
charging the same rate for their use as its signature card.

The merchants decided to band together because the cost to
litigate the "honor all cards" policy as individuals was
prohibitive.

This claim was the key to the court's decision:

"As we did earlier, we find 'Amex has brought no serious challenge
to the plaintiffs' demonstration that their claims cannot
reasonably be pursued as individual actions, whether in federal
court or in arbitration.'  We again conclude 'that enforcement of
the class action waiver in the Card Acceptance Agreement 'flatly
ensures that no small merchant may challenge American Express's
tying arrangements under the federal antitrust laws.'"

The case, which was remanded to the District Court for further
action was argued for the merchants by Gary B. Friedman of
Friedman Law Group in New York.

A copy of the decision in In Re: American Express Merchants'
Litigation, Italian Colors Restaurant, et al. v. American Express
Travel Related Services Company, et al., Case No. 06-cv-001871, is
available at http://is.gd/HmVdCf

The Plaintiffs-Appellants were represented by:

          Gary B. Friedman, Esq.
          Tracey Kitzman, Esq.
          Aaron Patton, Esq.
          Warren Parrino, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN LAW GROUP LLP
          270 Lafayette St., Suite 1410
          New York, NY 10012

The Defendants-Appellees were represented by:

          Bruce H. Schneider, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN, LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038-4982
          Telephone: 212-806-5636
          Facsimile: 212-806-2636
          E-mail: bschneider@stroock.com

               - and -

          Julia B. Strickland, Esq.
          Stephen J. Newman, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          2029 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3086
          Telephone: (310) 556-5800
          E-mail: jstrickland@stroock.com
                  bschneider@stroock.com

               - and -

          Michael K. Kellogg, Esq.
          Derek T. Ho, Esq.
          KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD, EVANS & FIGEL, PLLC
          Sumner Square
          1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 326-7900
          E-mail: mkellogg@khhte.com
                  dho@khhte.com


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: Court Sets March 18 Settlement Hearing
------------------------------------------------------------
A court has set a March 18, 2011, hearing to consider preliminary
approval of a settlement of class action lawsuits against
Ameriprise Financial, Inc.'s subsidiary, according to Ameriprise's
February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In July 2009, two issuers of private placement interests (Medical
Capital Holdings, Inc./Medical Capital Corporation and affiliated
corporations and Provident Shale Royalties, LLC and affiliated
corporations) sold by the Company's subsidiary Securities America,
Inc. were the subject of SEC actions (brought against those
entities and individuals associated with them), which has resulted
in the filing of several putative class action lawsuits naming
both SAI and Ameriprise Financial, as well as related regulatory
inquiries. Approximately $400 million of Medical Capital and
Provident Shale investments made by SAI clients are outstanding
and currently in default. On January 26, 2010, the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts filed an Administrative Complaint against SAI, which
is being adjudicated in an administrative hearing that is expected
to conclude during the second quarter of 2011. A significant
volume of FINRA arbitrations have been brought against SAI.
Several of them have been settled, and there has been one adverse
ruling, but most are scheduled throughout the course of 2011 and
2012. The putative class actions and arbitrations generally allege
violations of state and federal securities laws in connection with
SAI's sales of these private placement interests. These actions
were commenced in September 2009 and thereafter. The Medical
Capital-related class actions were centralized and moved to the
Central District of California by order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation under the caption "In
re: Medical Capital Securities Litigation." The Provident Shale-
related class actions remain pending in Texas federal court. On
June 22, 2010, the Liquidating Trustee of the Provident
Liquidating Trust filed an adversary action in the Provident
bankruptcy proceeding naming SAI on behalf of both the Provident
Liquidating Trust and a number of individual Provident investors
who are alleged to have assigned their claims. The Liquidating
Trustee Action generally alleges the same types of claims as are
alleged in the Provident class actions as well as a claim under
the Bankruptcy Code. The Liquidating Trustee Action has been moved
from bankruptcy court to the Texas federal court with the other
Provident class actions. Motions to dismiss are pending in both
the Provident Shale and Medical Capital class actions, but on
January 24, 2011, the Medical Capital Class Action was temporarily
transferred to the Northern District of Texas, where the Provident
class action is pending, so that coordinated settlement
negotiations can be conducted under that single Court's
supervision. On February 17, 2011, the named plaintiffs to the
class actions filed with the Court a Settlement Agreement and
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement,
seeking the court's approval of agreed-upon settlement terms. A
preliminary approval hearing has been set for March 18, 2011, and
the judge has issued a temporary restraining order which stays
pending arbitration matters scheduled through this date.


BAJA INC: Recalls 4,300 Dirt Bikes
----------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Baja Inc., d/b/a Baja Motorsports, of Anderson, S.C., announced a
voluntary recall of about 4,300 Dirt Bikes.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Fuel can leak from the fuel tank, posing a fire and burn hazard to
consumers.

The firm has received six reports of fires from fuel leakage
including one report of minor burns to a consumer's legs.

This recall involves all model DR50 and DR70 Baja dirt bikes with
VIN numbers beginning with "L98." The model number and VIN are
located on the product data plate, which is located on the side of
the "goose neck" (where the handle bars meet the body of the
bike).  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11159.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Pep Boys stores nationwide from December 2010 through January 2011
for between $550 and $650.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled dirt bikes
and contact Baja Motorsports to schedule a free repair.  For
additional information, contact Baja Motorsports toll-free at
(888) 863-2252 between 10:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.bajamotorsports.com/


BARCLAYS CAPITAL: Accused of Rigging Bids to Acquire Del Monte
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal antitrust class
action, shareholders claim Barclays Capital, Goldman Sachs,
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, Vestar Capital Partners and Centerview
Partners rigged bids to acquire Del Monte and the unfair price of
$19 a share or $4 billion; the class claims it's worth $21 to $26
a share.

A copy of the Complaint in Pipe Fitters Local Union No. 120
Pension Fund v. Barclays Capital, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-01064 (N.D.
Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/09/DelMonte.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
          Walter W. Noss, Esq.
          Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
          Kristen M. Anderson, Esq.
          Penelope D. Abdiel, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT LLP
          707 Broadway, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com
                  wnoss@scott-scott.com
                  mblasy@scott-scott.com
                  kanderson@scott-scott.com
                  pabdiel@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          David R. Scott, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT LLP
          156 South Main Street
          P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Telephone: (860) 537-3818
          E-mail: drscott@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          K. Craig Wildfang, Esq.
          Thomas J. Undlin, Esq.
          Stacey P. Slaughter, Esq.
          2800 LaSalle Plaza
          800 LaSalle Avenue South
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015
          Telephone: (612) 349-8500
          E-mail: kcwildfang@rkmc.com
                  tjundlin@rkmc.com
                  spslaughter@rkmc.com

               - and -

          Daniel J. Mogin, Esq.
          Matthew T. Sinnott, Esq.
          THE MOGIN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          707 Broadway, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 687-6611
          E-mail: dmogin@moginlaw.com
                  msinnott@moginlaw.com


BAYER CORPORATION: Baycol Suit Dismissal "Non-Appealable"
---------------------------------------------------------
Justice Kathryn Werdegar reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment
in In re Baycol Cases I and II (Case No. S178320, Supreme Court of
California.) and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Defendant Bayer Corporation in 1997 gained U.S. Food and Drug
Administration approval for, and shortly began marketing, the drug
Baycol.  Bayer withdrew Baycol from the market in 2001 after links
arose between the use of Baycol and severe acute muscle tissue
diseases.  Lawsuits poured in after the Baycol recall.

Plaintiff Douglas Shaw filed a class action, with allegations of
false and misleading advertising against Bayer with respect to
Baycol.  Several other actions were consolidated with the Shaw
complaint.

The trial court entered a dismissal judgment on the case in April
2007.  The Court of Appeal reversed the dismissal of Shaw's
individual 'unfair competition law' claim, but dismissed the
appeal on the class claims dismissal.  The Court of Appeal
reasoned that the class claims dismissal, unlike the individual
claims dismissal, was appealable.

Judge Werdegar opines that if an order terminates class claims,
but individual claims persist, the order terminating class claims
is immediately appealable under Daar's death knell doctrine.  She
adds that if an order terminates class claims and individual
claims as well, it is not appealable.

"Because the order [in the case] here fell in the latter category,
it was non-appealable, and it was error to treat the subsequent
appeal from a final judgment as untimely," Judge Werdegar holds.

A copy of Judge Werdegar's February 28, 2011, ruling is available
at http://is.gd/aoRkpVfrom Leagle.com.


BLUELINX HOLDINGS: Says Cerberus-Related Suits Now Moot
-------------------------------------------------------
BlueLinx Holdings Inc. has deemed class action lawsuits filed
against it in Georgia, Delaware and New York as moot, according to
the Company's February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
January 1, 2011.

BlueLinx, its directors, and Cerberus ABP Investor LLC (CAI) were
named as defendants in putative shareholder class actions filed in
the Superior Courts of Fulton and Cobb Counties, Georgia, the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
the Chancery Court for the State of Delaware, and the Supreme
Court of the State of New York in connection with the proposed
tender offer announced by CAI on July 21, 2010, and commenced by
CAI on August 2, 2010:  Habiniak, et al. v. Cohen, et al., Fulton
County Superior Court, Georgia, filed July 23, 2010, voluntarily
dismissed August 11, 2010; Hindermann, et al. v. BlueLinx Holdings
Inc., et al., Cobb County Superior Court, Georgia, filed July 27,
2010, dismissed December 14, 2010; Markich, et al v. BlueLinx
Holdings, Inc., et al., Cobb County Superior Court, Georgia, filed
July 30, 2010, dismissed December 14, 2010; Jerszynski v. BlueLinx
Holdings, Inc., et al., Cobb County Superior Court, Georgia, filed
August 3, 2010, dismissed December 14, 2010; Winter v. Cerberus
ABP Investor LLC, Cobb County Superior Court, Georgia, filed
August 4, 2010, dismissed December 14, 2010; Stadium Capital
Qualified Partners, LP, et al. v. Cerberus ABP Investor LLC, etc
al., Delaware Chancery Court, filed August 10, 2010, voluntarily
dismissed October 20, 2010; Habiniak, et al. v. Cohen, et al.,
Delaware Chancery Court, filed August 13, 2010, voluntarily
dismissed February 10, 2011; Lang et al v. Cohen, et al., Delaware
Chancery Court, filed August 13, 2010; Kajaria, et al. v. Cohen,
et al., U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia, filed
September 30, 2010; and Centonze, et al. v. Judd, et al., Supreme
Court of New York, New York County, filed on October 4, 2010.
Certain of the complaints also name Cerberus Capital Management
L.P. as a defendant.  The complaints sought to enjoin the proposed
tender offer, alleging that the Company's directors and CAI
breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to
make certain disclosures and maximize the value to be received by
the Company's stockholders.  The complaints also asserted claims
of aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty.  In addition to
an order enjoining the transaction, the complaints variously
sought, among other things: additional disclosures regarding the
proposed transaction; imposition of a constructive trust in favor
of plaintiffs for any improper benefits received by defendants;
rescission of the transaction, if consummated, or an award to
plaintiffs of rescissory damages; and attorneys' fees and
expenses.  In light of the expiration of the tender offer, the
Company believes that these complaints are now moot.


BLUELINX HOLDINGS: Reports Receipt of $5.2-M Settlement Payment
---------------------------------------------------------------
BlueLinx Holdings Inc. reports in its February 28, 2011 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended January 1, 2011, its receipt of a $5.2 million
settlement payment in a class action lawsuit in Pennsylvania.

Until the third quarter of fiscal 2010, BlueLinx was a claimant in
a class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that these
manufacturers of oriented strand board (OSB) conspired in
violation of federal antitrust law to restrict the supply of OSB
structural panel products and raise prices: Louisiana-Pacific
Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company, Georgia-Pacific LLC (f/k/a
Georgia-Pacific Corporation), Ainsworth Lumber Co. Ltd., Potlatch
Corporation, Norbord Industries Inc., Tolko Industries Ltd., Grant
Forest Products Inc. and Grant Forest Products Sales Inc., and
J.M. Huber Corporation or Huber Engineered Woods LLC.  On
September 13, 2010, the Company received a cash settlement in the
amount of $5.2 million in satisfaction of the Company's claims
under the class action lawsuit.  This $5.2 million was recognized
as a gain in "Selling, general, and administrative" expenses in
its Statements of Operations for fiscal year 2010.


BNY MELLON: Faces Class Action Over "False" Forex Rates
-------------------------------------------------------
Bank of New York Mellon was sued by a Pennsylvania transit
authority in the latest legal skirmish over foreign exchange
trading.

BNY Mellon and State Street Corp have been accused of overcharging
pension systems for transactions such as swapping dollars for
euros or yen to buy and sell international securities.

Attorneys general in three states have now stepped in to lead
whistleblower cases.  Class actions by other pension funds have
also hit the courts.  The banks reject accusations of wrongdoing.

A proposed class action against BNY Mellon, filed in a
Philadelphia federal court on March 7, incorporates allegations
made in whistleblower lawsuits in Florida and Virginia and claims
BNY Mellon charged "false" forex rates.

BNY Mellon spokesman Kevin Heine said that each morning, the bank
provides a rate range to its clients and offers an opt-out so they
can switch to a different forex provider if they choose.

"We will vigorously defend ourselves against the suit's false
allegations," Mr. Heine said.

The lawsuit was brought by a BNY Mellon client, the Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, which retained BNY Mellon
to provide custodian services for its pension plan.

SEPTA claims it did not know about BNY Mellon's practices until
the Florida and Virginia lawsuits were unsealed.

The proposed class action seeks to represent all impacted BNY
Mellon clients, except those in the whistleblower lawsuits.  SEPTA
says the class claims exceed $5 million.

The case in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
is Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. The Bank
of New York Mellon Corporation, 11-01628.


BOK FINANCIAL: BOSC Defends Securities Lawsuit in Oklahoma
----------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of BOK Financial Corporation is defending itself
against a securities class action lawsuit in Oklahoma, according
to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

BOSC, Inc., has been joined as a defendant in a putative class
action brought on behalf of unit holders of SemGroup Energy
Partners, LP in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma.  The lawsuit is brought pursuant to Sections
11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 against all of the
underwriters of issuances of partnership units in the Initial
Public Offering in July 2007 and in a Secondary Offering in
January 2008.  BOSC underwrote $6.25 million of units in the
Initial Public Offering.  BOSC was not an underwriter in the
Secondary Offering.  Counsel for BOSC believes BOSC has valid
defenses to the claims asserted in the litigation.  A settlement
in principle, subject to court approval, among the issuer, the
underwriters, and all parties to the litigation has been reached
at no material loss to BOSC.


BOK FINANCIAL: Unit Defends Three Class Actions in Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of BOK Financial Corporation is defending itself
against three putative class action lawsuits in Oklahoma,
according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.

In 2010, Bank of Oklahoma, National Association was named as a
defendant in three putative class actions alleging that the manner
in which the bank posted charges to its consumer demand deposit
accounts breached an implied obligation of good faith and fair
dealing and violates the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act.  The
actions also allege that the manner in which the bank posted
charges to its consumer demand deposit accounts is unconscionable,
constitutes conversion and unjustly enriches the bank.  Two of the
actions are pending in the District Court of Tulsa County.  The
third action, originally brought in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, has been transferred
to Multi-District Litigation in the Southern District of Florida.
Each of the three actions seeks to establish a class consisting of
all consumer customers of the bank.  The amount claimed by the
plaintiffs has not been determined, but could be material.
Management has been advised by counsel that, in its opinion, the
Company's overdraft practices meet all requirements of law and the
Bank has substantial defenses to the claims.  Based on currently
available information, management has established an accrual
within a reasonable range of probable losses and anticipates the
claims will be resolved without material loss to the Company.


BUCKEYE PARTNERS: Enters Into Settlement to Dismiss Texas Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Buckeye Partners, L.P., has entered into a settlement to dismiss a
consolidated class action lawsuit related to its merger with
certain companies, according to its February 28, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On July 30, 2010, a putative class action was filed by a
unitholder against Buckeye GP Holdings L.P, MainLine Management
LLC, BGH GP Holdings, LLC, and each of MainLine Management's
directors in the District Court of Harris County, Texas under the
caption Broadbased Equities v. Forrest E. Wylie, et. al. In the
Petition, the plaintiff alleged that MainLine Management and its
directors breached their fiduciary duties to BGH's public
unitholders by, among other things, acting to facilitate the sale
of BGH to Buckeye in order to facilitate the gradual sale by BGH
GP of its interest in BGH and failing to disclose all material
facts in order that the BGH unitholders can cast an informed vote
on the Merger Agreement. Among other things, the Petition sought
an order certifying a class consisting of all BGH unitholders, a
determination that the action is a proper derivative action,
damages in an unspecified amount, and an award of attorneys' fees
and costs.

On August 2, 2010, a putative class action was filed by a
unitholder against BGH, MainLine Management, Merger Sub, Buckeye,
Buckeye GP and each of MainLine Management's directors in the
District Court of Harris County, Texas under the caption Henry
James Steward v. Forrest E. Wylie, et. al. In the Petition, the
plaintiff alleged that MainLine Management and its directors
breached their fiduciary duties to BGH's public unitholders by,
among other things, failing to disclose all material facts in
order that the BGH unitholders can cast an informed vote on the
Merger Agreement. The Petition also alleged that Buckeye, Buckeye
GP and Merger Sub aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary
duty. Among other things, the Petition sought an order certifying
a plaintiff class consisting of all of BGH unitholders, an order
enjoining the Merger, rescission of the Merger, damages in an
unspecified amount, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 2, 2010, a putative class action was filed by a
unitholder against BGH, MainLine Management, BGH GP, ArcLight
Capital Partners, Kelso & Company, Buckeye, Buckeye GP and each of
MainLine Management's directors, in the District Court of Harris
County, Texas under the caption JR Garrett Trust v. Buckeye GP
Holdings L.P. et al. In the Petition, the plaintiff alleged that
MainLine Management and its directors breached their fiduciary
duties to BGH's public unitholders by, among other things,
accepting insufficient consideration, failing to condition the
Merger on a majority vote of public unitholders of BGH, and
failing to disclose all material facts in order that the BGH
unitholders can cast an informed vote on the Merger Agreement. The
Petition also alleged that Buckeye, Buckeye GP, BGH GP, ArcLight
and Kelso aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty. Among
other things, the Petition sought an order certifying a class
consisting of all of BGH's unitholders, an order enjoining the
Merger, damages in an unspecified amount, and an award of
attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 24, 2010, the District Court of Harris County, Texas,
entered an order consolidating three previously filed putative
class actions (Broadbased Equities v. Forrest E. Wylie, et. al.,
Henry James Steward v. Forrest E. Wylie, et. al., and JR Garrett
Trust v. Buckeye GP Holdings L.P., et al.,) under the caption of
Broadbased Equities v. Forrest E. Wylie, et al. and appointing
interim co-lead class counsel and interim co-liaison counsel. The
plaintiffs subsequently filed a consolidated amended class action
and derivative complaint on September 1, 2010. The Complaint
purports to be a putative class and derivative action alleging
that MainLine Management LLC and its directors breached their
fiduciary duties to BGH's public unitholders in connection with
the Merger by, among other things, accepting insufficient
consideration and failing to disclose all material facts in order
that BGH's unitholders may cast an informed vote on the Merger
Agreement, and that the Company, Buckeye GP, MainLine Management,
Merger Sub, BGH GP, ArcLight and Kelso aided and abetted the
breaches of fiduciary duty.

On October 29, 2010, the parties to the litigation entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding in connection with a proposed
settlement of the class action and the Complaint. The MOU provides
for dismissal with prejudice of the litigation and a release of
the defendants from all present and future claims asserted in the
litigation in exchange for, among other things, the agreement of
the defendants to amend the Merger Agreement to reduce the
termination fees payable by BGH upon termination of the Merger
Agreement and to provide BGH's unitholders with supplemental
disclosure to BGH's and the Company's joint proxy
statement/prospectus, dated September 24, 2010. The supplemental
disclosure is set forth in a joint proxy statement/prospectus
supplement, dated October 29, 2010, which was filed with the SEC
on November 1, 2010.

In addition, the MOU provides that, in settlement of the
plaintiffs' claims (including any claim against the defendants by
the plaintiffs' counsel for attorneys' fees or expenses related to
the litigation), the defendants (or their insurers) will pay a
cash payment of $900,000, subject to final court approval of the
settlement. On January 25, 2011, pursuant to the MOU, the parties
signed a Stipulation of Settlement. The Stipulation of Settlement
has not yet been filed with the court. The proposed settlement is
subject to several conditions, including, without limitation,
court approval. There is no assurance that the court will approve
the settlement.

The Company and the other defendants vigorously deny all liability
with respect to the facts and claims alleged in the Complaint, and
specifically deny that any modifications to the Merger Agreement
or any supplemental disclosure was required or advisable under any
applicable rule, statute, regulation or law. However, to avoid the
substantial burden, expense, risk, inconvenience and distraction
of continuing the litigation, and to fully and finally resolve the
claims alleged, the Company and the other defendants agreed to the
proposed settlement.


COCA-COLA COMPANY: Final Hearing in Delaware Suit Set for June 8
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Delaware court has scheduled for June 8, 2011, a final hearing
to consider approval of a settlement of a class action litigation
arising from The Coca-Cola Company's acquisition of Coca-Cola
Enterprises Inc.'s North American operations, according to The
Coca-Cola Company's February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

Shortly following the announcement of the agreement for the
Company's acquisition of CCE's North American operations,
purported shareowners of CCE filed five substantially identical
putative class action lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware against CCE, the members of the Board of
Directors of CCE and the Company.  These lawsuits were
subsequently consolidated into one action styled In Re CCE
Shareholders Litigation.  On March 31, 2010, the plaintiffs filed
a consolidated complaint.  On June 25, 2010, the plaintiffs filed
an amended consolidated complaint.

In the amended consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs allege,
among other things, that CCE, CCE's directors and the Company have
violated Delaware law by not submitting the sale of CCE's North
American operations to a separate vote of CCE's shareowners; and
that CCE's directors breached their fiduciary duties to CCE and
its shareowners by approving the transaction for grossly
inadequate consideration, and that the Company aided and abetted
such breach.  The plaintiffs further allege that by virtue of its
stock ownership in CCE, representation on the Board of Directors
of CCE and various agreements and business relationships with CCE,
the Company dominated and controlled CCE during the relevant
period and therefore had a fiduciary duty to CCE's public
shareowners which the Company breached because, among other
things, the transaction is not entirely fair and that both CCE and
the Company failed to adequately disclose certain aspects of the
transaction, the disclosure of which would have been necessary to
fully inform a decision to vote for or against same.  In the
amended consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs seek a judgment
enjoining the closing of the transaction and declaring the
transaction unlawful and unenforceable and ordering rescission,
directing defendants to account for all damages, profits, special
benefits and unjust enrichment, awarding the costs and
disbursements of the action, including reasonable attorneys' fees,
accountants' and experts' fees, costs and expenses, and granting
such other relief as the court deems just and proper.

On or about July 15, 2010, the Company, CCE and the other
defendants filed separate answers to the amended consolidated
complaint.

On September 3, 2010, the parties to a consolidated Georgia
litigation executed a memorandum of understanding containing the
terms for the parties' agreement in principle to settle the
lawsuits. On January 14, 2011, the parties to the consolidated
Delaware litigation and the consolidated Georgia litigation
entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and
Settlement to resolve, subject to court approval, the consolidated
Delaware litigation and the consolidated Georgia litigation.  A
preliminary approval hearing on the settlement has been set for
March 3, 2011, and the final approval hearing for June 8, 2011.
Pursuant to the Settlement Stipulation, the parties in the
consolidated Delaware litigation will use their best efforts to
obtain the dismissal with prejudice of the consolidated Delaware
litigation within five business days of the final approval of the
settlement by the Georgia court.

The Company believes that the allegations in the consolidated
Delaware litigation are without merit and, in the event such
litigation is not dismissed as contemplated by the MOU, intends to
defend vigorously its interests.


COCA-COLA COMPANY: Final Hearing in Georgia Suit Set for June 8
---------------------------------------------------------------
A court in Georgia will consider final approval of a settlement in
a shareowners' class action litigation against The Coca-Cola
Company on June 8, 2011, according to the Company's February 28,
2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Shortly following the announcement of the agreement for the
Company's acquisition of The Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc.'s North
American operations, purported shareowners of CCE filed three
putative class action lawsuits in the Superior Court of Fulton
County, Georgia against the Company, CCE and the members of the
Board of Directors of CCE. These lawsuits were subsequently
consolidated into one action styled In Re The Coca-Cola Company
Shareholder Litigation (Civil Action No. 2010cv182035). On May 17,
2010, the consolidated action was transferred to the Business Case
Division of the Fulton County Superior Court.

On or about June 3, 2010, an amended consolidated complaint was
filed.  On July 6, 2010, the Company and all other defendants
answered the amended consolidated complaint and filed motions to
dismiss the amended consolidated complaint and for an order
staying discovery. On July 6, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion
for class certification.

In the amended consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs allege,
among other things, that by virtue of its stock ownership in and
business dealings with CCE, the Company controlled and dominated
CCE during the relevant period and therefore owed to CCE a duty of
entire fairness and a duty not to misuse its control of CCE for
its own ends which the Company allegedly breached because, among
other things, the transaction is not entirely fair; and that the
Company, CCE and CCE's directors have violated Delaware law by not
submitting the transaction to a separate vote of CCE's
shareowners.  In the amended consolidated complaint, the
plaintiffs seek a judgment enjoining the closing of the proposed
transaction and declaring the proposed transaction void and
ordering rescission, requiring disgorgement of profits, awarding
damages, awarding reasonable fees and expenses of counsel, and
granting such other relief as the court deems just and proper.

Pursuant to a memorandum of understanding, and in consideration
for the settlement of the consolidated Delaware litigation and the
consolidated Georgia litigation, prior to executing the Settlement
Stipulation, the parties to the CCE transaction made certain
amendments to the merger agreement and certain supplemental
disclosures in connection with the proxy statement sent to the CCE
shareowners soliciting approval of the merger.  The settlement
contemplated by the Settlement Stipulation is subject to court
approval and, if approved, would result in the dismissal with
prejudice of the consolidated Georgia litigation and the release
by the plaintiff class of all claims under federal and state law
that were or could have been asserted in the consolidated Georgia
litigation or the consolidated Delaware litigation or which arise
out of or relate to the transactions contemplated by the merger.
A preliminary approval hearing on the settlement has been set for
March 3, 2011, and the final approval hearing for June 8, 2011.
In addition, pursuant to the Settlement Stipulation, the parties
in the consolidated Delaware litigation will use their best
efforts to obtain the dismissal with prejudice of the consolidated
Delaware litigation within five business days of the final
approval of the settlement by the Georgia court.

The Company believes that the allegations in the consolidated
Georgia litigation are without merit and if the settlement is not
approved by the Georgia court, intends to defend vigorously its
interests.


COLLECTO INC: Fifth Circuit Upholds Dismissal of "Castro" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A three-man panel consist of Fifth Circuit Judges James L. Dennis,
Priscilla Owen and Leslie H. Southwick affirmed the dismissal of
the action Nemesio Castro, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Collecto, Inc., doing business as Collection
Company of America; US Asset Management, Inc., Case No. 09-50975
(5th Cir.).

The defendants are in the debt collection business: US Asset buys
debts, and Collecto attempts to collect them.  The plaintiff, Mr.
Castro, is a Texas resident who sued the collectors for alleged
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  Mr. Castro
said the collectors threatened to sue on a debt on unpaid mobile
phone bills as to which the applicable statute of limitations had
elapsed.

Judge Dennis agree with the district court that Texas law provides
the applicable limitations period for the debts in the case.  The
district court previously held that the Texas statute of
limitations period of four years under Section 16.004(a)(3) of the
Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code applies to the case, and thus
the defendants were not threatening to sue on time-barred debts
when they sent collection letters to the plaintiffs.

A copy of February 24, 2011 ruling, written by Judge Dennis, is
available at http://is.gd/CYHpAefrom Leagle.com.


CHINA MEDIAEXPRESS: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased China
MediaExpress Holdings, Inc. common stock between the period of
Nov. 8, 2010 through Feb. 3, 2011, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that China Media and certain of its officers
and directors violated the federal securities laws by failing to
disclose the following material information: (1) the Company
misrepresented the number of buses in its advertising network; (2)
the Company misrepresented the nature and extent of its business
relationships; and (3) as such, the Company's financial results
were overstated at all relevant times.

On Jan. 31, 2011, Citron Research published a report that stated
that China Media misrepresented the scope of the Company's
operations, its financial performance, and the extent of the
Company's claimed strategic partnership with a government-
affiliated entity.  The Citron Research report concluded that the
Company "does not exist at the scale that they are reporting to
the investing public."  Then on Feb. 3, 2011 the firm Muddy Waters
disclosed that the Company "significantly inflated its revenue and
earnings in order to pay management earn-outs and inflate the
stock price so insiders can sell."  On this news, shares of China
Media common stock fell $5.52 per share to close on February 3,
2011 at $11.09 per share, representing a drop of more than 33%.

You may obtain a copy of the complaint and join the class action
at http://www.saxenawhite.com/

If you purchased the common stock of China Media between the
period of Nov. 8, 2010 through Feb. 3, 2011, inclusive, you may
contact Joe White or Greg Stone at Saxena White P.A. to discuss
your rights and interests.

If you purchased China Media shares during the Class Period and
wish to apply to be the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on
your behalf must be filed with the Court no later than April 5,
2011.  You may contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights
regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in
the class action.  Please note that you may also retain counsel of
your choice and need not take any action at this time to be a
class member.

Saxena White P.A., which has offices in Boca Raton, Boston and
Montana, specializes in prosecuting securities fraud and complex
class actions on behalf of institutions and individuals.
Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous securities fraud
class actions nationwide, the firm has recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars on behalf of injured investors and is active
in major litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout
the United States.

Contacts: Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
          Greg Stone, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 394-3399
          E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
                  gstone@saxenawhite.com
          Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com/


CVS PHARMACIES: March 30 Hearing Set for Class Action Notice
------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that the St. Clair County Circuit Judge Lloyd Cueto is set to hear
arguments on how a class of CVS Pharmacies Inc. customers will be
notified about a class action suit brought over the effectiveness
of an immune system supplement.

CVS objected last year to the notice lead plaintiff Iean Finley
sought for the Illinois-only class.

Mr. Finley filed suit in 2008 on behalf of consumers who bought
CVS's store brand of the popular immune supplement Airborne.

The hearing will be March 30 at 9 a.m.

Mr. Finley claims that CVS's AirShield did not boost the immune
system as claimed.

The case is one of several immune supplement class actions filed
by Mr. Finley's attorneys -- Paul Weiss, Richard Burke, and Kevin
Hoerner -- three years ago.

Another, led by lead plaintiff Brian Buehlhorn against Target,
would include class members in states outside of Illinois.

Judge Cueto certified the Illinois-only Finley class in January
2010.

CVS objected to Finley's proposed class notice in September 2010.

The company claims that the notice Finley proposes is too vague
and that it would require notice of people who were already
compensated by a settlement CVS reached with the Federal Trade
Commission in 2009.

The class notice hearing has been moved several times to date.

Most recently, the hearing was continued Jan. 19 when CVS counsel
Robert Bassett asked to move the hearing because his counterpart,
Burke, could not attend the setting.

Judge Cueto agreed.

The case has seen little action this year.

In addition to the moved hearing Jan. 19, attorney Brian Kreisler
entered his appearance as part of Finley's team.

The Finley case is St. Clair case number 08-L-616.


DEAN FOODS: Dairy Farmers Ask Court to Release Class Action Docs
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that attorneys representing some
Northeast dairy farmers in a class-action antitrust lawsuit
against a giant dairy processor and a dairy cooperative say the
cooperative and its marketing affiliate are misleading dairy
farmers about the merits of the case.

Under a proposed settlement announced in December, Dallas-based
Dean Foods would pay $30 million to dairy farmers and change its
milk-buying practices in the region for 30 months.  The
cooperative Dairy Farmers of America and its marketing affiliate,
Dairy Marketing Services, both co-defendants in the suit, did not
join the settlement, saying it favored one group of farms over
another.

In court papers filed on March 8 in U.S. District Court in Vermont
and obtained by The Associated Press, attorneys representing the
dairy farmers asked a court to release documents that have been
marked as confidential in the case.  They also want court
permission to send notices to thousands of dairy farmers about the
settlement.

"I think that it will help to educate farmers about the claims at
issue in the case, and the facts that support those claims," said
Benjamin Brown, a Washington-based lawyer for the farmers.

The position of the original plaintiffs -- five farmers from two
farms, including one in Wells River, Vt. -- is that DFA, DMS and
Dean Foods have engaged in anticompetitive behavior that has
driven the price of raw milk down in the Northeast, and that
farmers have received less for their milk than they would have in
a competitive environment as a result, Mr. Brown said.

The proposal calls for Dean Foods to place $30 million into a fund
to settle antitrust claims brought by farmers and to broaden the
sources for the milk it buys for plants in Lynn and Franklin,
Mass., and in East Greenbush, N.Y., for at least 30 months.

DFA did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.

"The settlement favors one segment of the class at the expense of
the other, creating winners and losers by giving market access to
some and taking market access away from others.  This is a clear
conflict of interest by plaintiff attorneys," Brad Keating, chief
operating officer of DFA Northeast Area, said in January.


DYNAMICS RESEARCH: Expects Approval of Settlement This Quarter
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dynamics Research Corporation is expecting court approval of a
settlement entered in connection with a class action employee suit
in Massachusetts in the first quarter of 2011, according to the
Company's February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010

On June 28, 2005, a class action employee suit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and certain provisions
of Massachusetts General Laws.  In July 2010, the Company and the
plaintiff agreed upon principle terms of settlement, the cost of
which was accrued on the balance sheet as of June 30, 2010.  In
October 2010, the Company received an executed settlement
agreement by the plaintiff.  The Federal District Court for the
First Circuit has reviewed the settlement and the parties are
expecting the court's approval in the first quarter of 2011.
Failure to obtain such approval may materially adversely affect
the Company's financial position and results of operations.


DYNEX CAPITAL: Dist. Ct. Certifies Securities Class Action in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Harold Baer Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted class certification to the action In
re Dynex Capital, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 05 Civ
1897.

The action is commenced by Lead Plaintiff Teamsters Local 445
Freight Division Pension Fund, arising from its purchase of Merit
Securities Corporation Collateralized Series 12 and Series 13
Bonds between February 7, 2000 and May 13, 2004.

Plaintiff alleges that Dynex, its subsidiary Merit Securities
Corporation, and two senior executives of the companies, Thomas H.
Potts and Stephen J. Benedetti made false and misleading
statements about the Bond Collateral.  Specifically, Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants sold the Bonds to investors for over $630
million without revealing that the Bond Collateral was seriously
impaired, and continued to conceal material deficiencies in the
Bond Collateral through May 13, 2004.

Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Tool, PLLC is appointed as class
counsel.

Lead Plaintiff Teamsters is appointed as class representative.

A copy of Judge Baer's March 7, 2011, Opinion & Order is available
at http://is.gd/mOxHV6at Leagle.com.


ENTERGY CORP: Awaits Court Approval of Louisiana Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Entergy Corporation and plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit
before a Louisiana court have entered into a term sheet
establishing the basic terms of their settlement, according to the
Company's February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

Several property owners have filed a class action suit against
Entergy Louisiana, Entergy Services, ETHC, and Entergy Technology
Company in state court in St. James Parish, Louisiana purportedly
on behalf of all property owners in Louisiana who have conveyed
easements to the defendants.  The lawsuit alleges that Entergy
installed fiber optic cable across the plaintiffs' property
without obtaining appropriate easements.  The plaintiffs seek
damages equal to the fair market value of the surplus fiber optic
cable capacity, including a share of the profits made through use
of the fiber optic cables, and punitive damages.  Entergy removed
the case to federal court in New Orleans; however, the district
court remanded the case back to state court.  In February 2004,
the state court entered an order certifying this matter as a class
action.  Entergy's appeals of this ruling were denied.  The
parties have entered into a term sheet establishing basic terms
for a settlement that must be approved by the court.


ENTERGY CORP: Continues to Face Hazardous Waste Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
Entergy Corporation disclosed that several class action and other
lawsuits have been filed in state and federal courts seeking
relief from Entergy Gulf States, Inc., and others for damages
caused by the disposal of hazardous waste and for asbestos-related
disease allegedly resulting from exposure on Entergy Gulf States,
Inc.'s premises, according to the Company's February 28, 2011 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2010.


ENTERGY CORP: Class Certification in Texas Power Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Texas court has yet to schedule a hearing on a class
certification request filed by a purported class of retail
customers of Entergy Gulf States, Inc., according to Entergy
Corporation's February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

In August 2003, a lawsuit was filed in the district court of
Chambers County, Texas by Texas residents on behalf of a purported
class apparently of the Texas retail customers of Entergy Gulf
States, Inc., who were billed and paid for electric power from
January 1, 1994 to the present.  The named defendants include
Entergy Corporation, Entergy Services, Entergy Power, Entergy
Power Marketing Corp., and Entergy Arkansas.  Entergy Gulf States,
Inc. was not a named defendant, but is alleged to be a co-
conspirator.  The court granted the request of Entergy Gulf
States, Inc. to intervene in the lawsuit to protect its interests.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants implemented a "price gouging
accounting scheme" to sell to plaintiffs and similarly situated
utility customers higher priced power generated by the defendants
while rejecting and/or reselling to off-system utilities less
expensive power offered and/or purchased from off-system suppliers
and/or generated by the Entergy system.  In particular, plaintiffs
allege that the defendants manipulated and continue to manipulate
the dispatch of generation so that power is purchased from
affiliated expensive resources instead of buying cheaper off-
system power.

Plaintiffs stated in their pleadings that customers in Texas were
charged at least $57 million above prevailing market prices for
power.  Plaintiffs seek actual, consequential and exemplary
damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and disgorgement of profits.
The plaintiffs' experts have tendered a report calculating damages
in a large range, from $153 million to $972 million in present
value, under various scenarios.  The Entergy defendants have
tendered expert reports challenging the assumptions,
methodologies, and conclusions of the plaintiffs' expert reports.

The case is pending in state district court, and the court has not
set a date for a class certification hearing.


EQUINIX INC: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
-------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC and KSF partner, the former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
only 59 days remain to file lead plaintiff applications in a
securities fraud class action lawsuit against Equinix, Inc.  The
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of the purchasers of the
common stock of Equinix between July 29, 2010 and October 5, 2010,
inclusive.  The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

What You May Do

If you are an Equinix shareholder and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or
cost to you, e-mail or call KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn --
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com -- toll free, 877-515-1850, or via cell
phone any time at 504-301-7900, or KSF Director of Client
Relations, Neil Rothstein, Esq. -- neil.rothstein@ksfcounsel.com
-- toll free at 877-694-9510, or via cell phone any time at
330-860-4092.  If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this
class action by overseeing lead counsel with the goal of obtaining
a fair and just resolution, you must request this position by
application to the Court by May 3, 2011.  Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.  KSF encourages both institutional
and individual purchasers of Equinix to contact the firm. The
ultimate resolution of any securities class action is strengthened
through the involvement of aggrieved shareholders and lead
plaintiffs who have large financial interests.  KSF also
encourages anyone with information regarding Equinix's conduct
during the period in question to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.

About the Lawsuit

The complaint alleges that Equinix stock rose to $105.09 per share
by October 5, 2010, after the Company issued false and misleading
statements regarding its business and financial results.
Particularly, the complaint further alleges that Equinix failed to
disclose that it was suffering from integration problems with its
Switch & Data Corp. Facilities Company, and that it was
experiencing increased churn and pricing pressures on its
collocation services. Equinix stock fell $34.75 per share to a
closing price of $70.34 on October 6, 2010, a one-day decline of
1/3 of the stock's value, after the Company announced revised 3rd
Quarter and fiscal year guidance for 2010 relating to the
foregoing problems.

KSF, whose partners include the Former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., -- http://www.ksfcounsel.com/-- is a law
firm focused on securities class action and shareholder derivative
litigation with offices in New York and Louisiana.  KSF's lawyers
have significant experience litigating complex securities class
actions nationwide on behalf of both institutional and individual
shareholders.  Recent cases include In re Virgin Mobile USA IPO
Litigation, 2:07-cv-05619-SDW-MCA (D. N.J.), Co-Lead Counsel,
$19.5 Million Settlement; In re BigBand Networks, Inc Securities
Litigation, 3:07-CV-05101-SBA (C.D. Cal.), Co-Lead Counsel, $11
million settlement; In re U.S. Auto Parts Networks, Inc.
Securities Litigation, 2:07-cv-02030-GW-JC (C.D. Cal.), Lead
Counsel, $10 million settlement. KSF is also federally court-
appointed Co-Lead Counsel in THE shareholder derivative cases
against BP, AIG and Bank of America (Merrill Lynch merger)
emanating from their recent multi-billion dollar economic
declines.


EUROPEAN UNION: May Face Class Action Over Mugabe Sanctions
-----------------------------------------------------------
RadioVop Zimbabwe reports that a Zanu (PF) Senator Guy Georgias
has moved a motion in Parliament for the inclusive government to
institute a class action against the European Union at the
European Court of Justice against the contentious targeted
measures slammed on President Robert Mugabe and his inner cabal.

In a motion before the senate, Mr. Georgias, demanded that the
Western powers withdraw the targeted measures.  President Mugabe
and his Zanu (PF) party insist the sanctions are full-blown and
not targeted.

"Disturbed that the real victims of the sanctions are the ordinary
and poor people of Zimbabwe, aware that the sanctions on Zimbabwe
are punitive, generally political and a tool for the continued
domination of developing countries, I now therefore resolve to
call on the inclusive government to constitute a class action
against the EU at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) of First
Instance against the illegal, unjustified, hostile and racial
sanctions," reads part of Mr. Georgias motion.

He demanded that the West withdraw the measures as well as an end
to what the Zanu (PF) politician describe as the West's propaganda
against Zimbabwe.

"(The inclusive government should) mobilize international support
for the repeal of the sanctions and unlocking of bilateral aid and
financial support as well as international good will," read the
motion.

The EU, which imposed the sanctions in 2001 citing a flawed
elections and gross human rights abuses, has maintained that it
will not remove the measures due to on-going human rights
violation although in February it struck off 35 Zanu (PF)
officials as a gesture of good will.


EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss Amended Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Expeditors International of Washington, Inc.'s motion to dismiss
an amended complaint remains pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, according to the Company's
February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On October 10, 2007, the U. S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued
a subpoena ordering the Company to produce certain information and
records relating to an investigation of alleged anti-competitive
behavior amongst air cargo freight forwarders. The Company has
retained the services of a law firm to assist in complying with
the DOJ's subpoena. As part of this process, the Company has met
with and continues to co-operate with the DOJ. The Company expects
to incur additional costs during the course of this ongoing
investigation, which could include fines and/or penalties if the
DOJ concludes that the Company has engaged in anti-competitive
behavior and such fines and/or penalties could have a material
impact on the Company's financial position, results of operations
and operating cash flows.

On January 3, 2008, the Company was named as a defendant, with
seven other European and North American-based global logistics
providers, in a Federal antitrust class action lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court of the Eastern District of New
York, Precision Associates, Inc. et al v. Panalpina World
Transport, No. 08-CV0042. On July 21, 2009, the plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint adding a number of new third party defendants
and various claims which they assert to violate the Sherman Act.
The plaintiffs' amended complaint, which purports to be brought on
behalf of a class of customers (and has not yet been certified),
asserts claims that the defendants engaged in price fixing
regarding eight discrete surcharges in violation of the Sherman
Act. The allegations concerning the Company relate to two of these
surcharges. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages and
injunctive relief. The Company believes that these allegations are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself. On
August 13, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the Company's motion on January 30, 2010, to which
the Company filed a reply, and the motion is currently pending
before the Court.


FERRO CORP: Continues to Defend Indirect Purchaser Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Ferro Corporation remains a defendant in six purported class
actions alleging violations of antitrust laws, according to the
Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

The Company and certain other companies participating in the
plastics additives industry have been named as defendants in six
civil indirect purchaser class action lawsuits seeking monetary
damages and injunctive relief relating to alleged violations of
the antitrust laws by the defendants.  All of these cases contain
similar allegations to direct purchaser class action lawsuits that
the Company has previously settled.  Although the Company decided
to bring the direct purchaser actions to a close through
settlement, the Company did not admit to any of the alleged
violations and continues to deny any wrongdoing.  Consequently,
the Company intends to vigorously defend the indirect purchaser
class actions, does not believe that a loss is probable, and
therefore, has not recorded a liability for these class actions.

The Company does not believe that the disposition of these cases
will materially affect the consolidated financial position,
results of operations, or cash flows of the Company.


FIFTH THIRD: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp continues to defend itself from an antitrust
class action lawsuit originally filed against Visa and MasterCard,
among other defendants, according to the Company's February 28,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

During April 2006, Fifth Third Bancorp was added as a defendant in
a consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed
against Visa(R), MasterCard(R) and several other major financial
institutions in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.  The plaintiffs, merchants operating
commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations,
claim that the interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks are
unreasonable and seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages.
In addition to being a named defendant, the Bancorp is also
subject to a possible indemnification obligation of Visa and has
also entered into with Visa, MasterCard and certain other named
defendants judgment and loss sharing agreements that attempt to
allocate financial responsibility to the parties thereto in the
event certain settlements or judgments occur.

Accordingly, prior to the sale of Class B shares during 2009, the
Bancorp had recorded a litigation reserve of $243 million to
account for its potential exposure in this and related litigation.
Additionally, the Bancorp had also recorded its proportional share
of $199 million of the Visa escrow account funded with proceeds
from the Visa IPO along with several subsequent fundings.  Upon
the Bancorp's sale of Visa, Inc. Class B shares during 2009, and
the recognition of the total return swap that transfers conversion
risk of the Class B shares back to the Bancorp, the Bancorp
reversed the remaining net litigation reserve related to the
Bancorp's exposure through Visa.  Additionally, the Bancorp has
remaining reserves related to this litigation of $30 million and
$22 million as of December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively.  This
antitrust litigation is still in the pre-trial phase.


FIFTH THIRD: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp continues to defend itself in a consolidated
securities class action pending in Ohio, according to the
Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

For the year ended December 31, 2008, five putative securities
class action complaints were filed against Fifth Third Bancorp
and its Chief Executive Officer, among other parties.  The five
cases have been consolidated, and are currently pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
The lawsuits allege violations of federal securities laws related
to disclosures made by the Bancorp in press releases and filings
with the SEC regarding its quality and sufficiency of capital,
credit losses and related matters, and seeking unquantified
damages on behalf of putative classes of persons who either
purchased the Bancorp's securities, or acquired the Bancorp's
securities pursuant to the acquisition of First Charter
Corporation.  These cases remain in the discovery stages of
litigation.

The Company says the impact of the final disposition of these
lawsuits cannot be assessed at this time.  In addition, two cases
were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio against the Bancorp and certain officers alleging
violations of ERISA based on allegations similar to those set
forth in the securities class action cases filed during the same
period of time.  The two cases alleging violations of ERISA were
dismissed by the trial court, and are being appealed to the United
States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.


FORD MOTOR: Antitrust Lawsuits Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------
Lawsuits alleging violations of antitrust law against numerous
defendants, including Ford Motor Company, remain pending,
according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2010.

Eighty-three purported class actions on behalf of all purchasers
of new motor vehicles in the United States since January 1, 2001,
have been filed in various state and federal courts against
numerous defendants, including Ford Motor Company.  The federal
and state complaints allege, among other things, that vehicle
manufacturers, aided by dealer associations, conspired to prevent
the sale to U.S. citizens of vehicles produced for the Canadian
market and sold by dealers in Canada at lower prices than vehicles
sold in the United States.  The complaints seek injunctive relief
under federal antitrust law and treble damages under federal and
state antitrust laws.  The federal court actions were consolidated
for coordinated pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maine and have been dismissed.  Cases remain
pending in state courts in Arizona, California, Florida, New
Mexico, Tennessee and Wisconsin.  A statewide class has been
certified in the California case.


FORD MOTOR: To Appeal $4.5 Million Award in Car Dealers' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company will appeal the $4.5 million in damages awarded
by a jury to a car dealer in a lawsuit alleging breach of its
sales and service agreement, according to the Company's
February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

A medium/heavy truck sales procedure class action pending in Ohio
state court alleges that Ford Motor Company breached its Sales and
Service Agreement with Ford truck dealers by failing to publish to
all Ford dealers all price concessions that were approved for any
dealer.  The court certified a nationwide class consisting of all
Ford dealers who purchased from Ford any 600-series or higher
truck from 1987 to 1997 and granted plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment on liability.

The Company's motion to decertify the class is pending.  During
February 2011, a jury awarded $4.5 million in damages to the named
plaintiff dealer.  The Company will appeal.  If similarly
calculated amounts are awarded to other class members, total
damages could be substantial, the Company says.


FORD MOTOR: Court Approves Final Settlement in ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
A Michigan court approved the final settlement in a purported
class action suit alleging ERISA violations against Ford Motor
Company and certain of its employees, according to the Company's
February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

A purported class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan named Ford Motor Company and
several current or former employees and officers as defendants
(Nowak, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, et al., along with three
consolidated cases).  The suit alleged that defendants violated
ERISA by failing to prudently and loyally manage funds held in
employee savings plans the Company sponsored.  Specifically,
plaintiffs alleged (among other claims) that the defendants
violated fiduciary duties owed to plan participants by continuing
to offer Ford Common Stock as an investment option in the savings
plans.

On February 15, 2011, the court approved a final settlement of
this matter pursuant to which the Company will enhance
communications to active participants in its employee savings and
investment plans, make related improvements to the employee
investment process, and pay attorney fees and related costs.


FORD MOTOR: Appeal in Apartheid Litigation Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company and other defendants' appeal from the order
denying dismissal of the Apartheid Litigation remains pending,
according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2010.

Along with two other prominent multinational companies, Ford Motor
Company is a defendant in purported class action lawsuits seeking
unspecified damages on behalf of South African citizens who
suffered violence and oppression under South Africa's apartheid
regime.  The lawsuits allege that the defendant companies aided
and abetted the apartheid regime and its human rights violations.
These cases, collectively referred to as In re South African
Apartheid Litigation, were initially filed in 2002 and 2003, and
are being handled together as coordinated "multidistrict
litigation" in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

The District Court dismissed these cases in 2004, but in 2007 the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed and remanded
the cases to the District Court for further proceedings.  Amended
complaints were filed during 2008; motions to dismiss have been
granted in part and denied in part, and defendants' appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals is pending.


FUN WORLD: Recalls 1,800 Little Pet Vet and Dr. Littles Costumes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Fun World, Inc. a Division of Easter Unlimited, Inc. of Carle
Place, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of about 1,800 Little
Pet Vet costumes and Dr. Littles costume.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The costumes are sold with a toy stethoscope accessory. The
plastic ear pieces at the end of the stethoscope can be pulled
off, posing a choking hazard to young children.

This recall involves  limited to the stethoscope accessory from
Fun World's toddler-sized Pet Vet and Dr. Littles costumes. The
costumes include a white lab coat, a cap, scrub pants, a scrub
shirt and a stethoscope. The cap and scrubs are pink, turquoise or
blue. A tracking label bearing the code 10060GFI01 and a
production date of either Jan-Mar 2010 or Apr-Jun 2010 is sewn
into the neck of the scrub shirt or the lab coat.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

    http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11160.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
novelty stores, costume and party supply stores nationwide from
August 2010 through October 2010 for about $15.

Consumers should immediately take the stethoscope away from
children and contact Fun World for instructions on returning the
stethoscope for a full refund.  For additional information,
contact Fun World at (800) 247-5314 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or by email to
support@fun-world.net


GLOBAL EQUIPMENT: Recalls 5,000 Workbench Risers, Aprons, Shelves
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Global Equipment Company, of Port Washington, N.Y., dba Global
Industrial, announced a voluntary recall of about 5,000 Global
Workbench Power Risers, Power Aprons and Power Shelves.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

Misrouted wiring in the electrical outlets on the workbench
risers, aprons and shelves, and reverse polarity in some workbench
power cords pose an electric shock hazard.

Global has received eight reports of misrouted wires.

This recall affects all workbenches with the following components:

   * The Power Riser is made of steel, has an 18-inch shelf with
     four duplex receptacles and an on/off switch mounted along
     the front.  It comes in gray only and in lengths of 60, 72
     and 96 inches.  The riser attaches to the top of the bench.

   * The Power Apron is made of steel, has three duplex
     receptacles and an on/off switch mounted in one of the long
     cross beams.  It comes in blue or tan and in lengths of 48,
     60, 72 and 96 inches.

   * The Power Shelf is made of steel, has three duplex
     receptacles and an on/off switch mounted on the front.  It
     comes in blue or tan and in lengths of 48, 60, 72 and 96
     inches.  It attaches to a pair of 48-inch uprights.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11724.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Global Industrial sold the workbench components through its
catalogs and on the Internet, from January 9, 2009 to December 24,
2010 for approximately $85 to $516.

Consumers should immediately unplug their workbench power cords
and stop using the electrical outlets on the workbenches.
Additionally, they should remove the power cord from the
workbench.  Global is contacting its customers directly and either
sending replacement risers, aprons and shelves with properly wired
outlets and replacement power cords or sending technicians on-site
to repair faulty wiring and replace faulty power cords.  For
additional information, contact Global's Customer Service Manager
at the following toll free number (855) 657-0424 from 9:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, or email the customer service manager at
MMarshall@globalindustrial.com


GROUPON INC: Sued Over Short Gift Certificate Expiration Dates
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Internet social shopping club Groupon and its partners violate the
Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act,
which requires that gift certificates not expire for 5 years,
selling "Daily Deal" gift certificates with extremely short
expiration dates.

A copy of the Complaint in Vazquez v. Groupon, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-00495 (D.D.C.) (Sullivan, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/09/Groupon.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
          William H. Anderson, Esq.
          Brendan S. Thompson, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          507 C Street, NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com
                  wanderson@cuneolaw.com
                  brendant@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher M. Ellis, Esq.
          BOLEN ROBINSON & ELLIS
          2nd Floor
          202 South Franklin
          Decatur, IL 62523
          Telephone: (217) 429-4296
          E-mail: cellis@brelaw.com

               - and -

          Michael A. McShane, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          221 Main Street, Suite 1460
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Clayton D. Halunen, Esq.
          Shawn J. Wanta, Esq.
          HALUNEN & ASSOCIATES
          1650 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 605-4098


GROUPON INC: Faces Another Suit Over Gift Certificates
------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Gosling, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Groupon, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-01038 (N.D. Calif. March 4,
2011), accuses the web-based company of selling and issuing gift
certificates for products and services, referred to and marketed
as "groupons," with expiration dates that are deceptive, harmful
to consumers, and illegal under both federal and state laws.

As disclosed in the Complaint, Groupon purports to offer
discounted deals on a wide variety of products and services,
including restaurants and bars, salons and spas, clothing and
other retail items, and dance classes and other instructional
lessons, among other things.  Groupon directly partners with
retail businesses that provide these products or services.
Groupon and its retail partners then share in the revenues from
the sale of "groupon" gift certificates.

The problem with Groupon's business model, according to the
plaintiff, is that Groupon and its retail partners sell and issue
"groupon" gift certificates with relatively short expiration
dates, in violation of the Credit Card Accountability
Responsibility and Disclosure Act and the Electric Funds Transfer
Act, which specifically prohibit the sale and issuance of gift
certificates with expiration dates.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John J. Stoia, Jr., Esq,
          Rachel L. Jensen, Esq.
          Phong L. Tran, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: johns@rgrdlaw.com
                  rachelj@rgrdlaw.com
                  ptran@rgrdlaw.com


HERTZ CORP: Continues to Defend Loss Damage Waiver Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Hertz Corporation continues to defend a class action in New
Jersey against Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation, according to
the Company's February 28, 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
Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation 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 CORP: Final Hearing on "Sobel" Settlement Set for May
-----------------------------------------------------------
A hearing to consider final approval of a settlement in a lawsuit
against The Hertz Corporation and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company is
scheduled for May 2011, according to the Company's February 28,
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 CORP: "Fun Services" Case Remains Stayed in Kansas
--------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit against Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act remains
stayed, according to The Hertz Corporation's February 28, 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 CORP: Continues to Defend "Shames" Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hertz Corporation continues to defend itself against a lawsuit
brought by Michael Shames and Gary Gramkow, according to the
Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

The Hertz Corporation is currently a defendant in a proceeding
that purports to be a class action brought by Michael Shames and
Gary Gramkow against the Company, 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.


HERTZ CORP: Deadline to Seek Review of Dismissal Has Passed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The deadline to seek review of an appellate order affirming the
dismissal of the lawsuit captioned "In re Tourism Assessment Fee
Litigation" has passed, according to The Hertz Corporation's
February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

The Hertz Corporation is 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.


HSBC FINANCE: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Card Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Finance Corporation is awaiting court approval of a
settlement entered into with plaintiffs in In re Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation,
according to the Company's February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

Since June 2005, HSBC Finance Corporation, HSBC North America, and
the Company, as well as other banks and Visa Inc. and Master Card
Incorporated, were named as defendants in four class actions filed
in Connecticut and the Eastern District of New York; Photos Etc.
Corp. et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al.; National Association of
Convenience Stores, et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al.; Jethro
Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al.; and American
Booksellers Ass'n v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al.  Numerous other
complaints containing similar allegations were filed across the
country against Visa Inc., MasterCard Incorporated and other
banks. These actions principally allege that the imposition of a
no-surcharge rule by the associations and/or the establishment of
the interchange fee charged for credit card transactions causes
the merchant discount fee paid by retailers to be set at
supracompetitive levels in violation of the Federal antitrust
laws.  These suits have been consolidated and transferred to the
Eastern District of New York.  The consolidated case is: In re
Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust
Litigation, MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y. A consolidated, amended complaint
was filed by the plaintiffs on April 24, 2006 and a second
consolidated amended complaint was filed on January 29, 2009.  The
parties are engaged in discovery, motion practice and mediation.
On February 7, 2011, MasterCard Incorporated, Visa Inc., the other
defendants, including the Company, and certain affiliates of the
defendants entered into settlement and judgment sharing agreements
that provide for the apportionment of certain defined costs and
liabilities that the defendants, including the Company and its
affiliates, may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of
an adverse judgment or global settlement of one or all of these
actions.  The Agreements also cover any other potential or future
actions that are transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings
with MDL 1720.  The Company continues to defend the claims in this
action vigorously and its entry into the Agreements in no way
serves as an admission as to the validity of the allegations in
the complaints.  Similarly, the Agreements have had no impact on
the Company's ability to quantify the potential impact from this
action, if any, and the Company is unable to do so at this time.


HSBC FINANCE: Class Members Have Until May 24 to File Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Class members in a securities litigation involving HSBC Finance
Corporation have until May 24, 2011, to file claims, according to
the Company's February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

As a result of an August 2002 restatement of previously reported
consolidated financial statements and other corporate events,
including the 2002 settlement with 46 states and the District of
Columbia relating to real estate lending practices, Household
International and certain former officers were named as defendants
in a class action lawsuit, Jaffe v. Household International, Inc.,
et al., No. 02 C 5893.  The complaint asserted claims under
Section 10 and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
on behalf of all persons who acquired and disposed of Household
International common stock between July 30, 1999 and October 11,
2002.  The claims alleged that the defendants knowingly or
recklessly made false and misleading statements of material fact
relating to Household's Consumer Lending operations, including
collections, sales and lending practices, some of which ultimately
led to the 2002 state settlement agreement, and facts relating to
accounting practices evidenced by the restatement.  A jury trial
concluded on April 30, 2009 and the jury rendered a verdict on
May 7 partially in favor of the plaintiffs with respect to
Household International and three former officers.  A second phase
of the case was to proceed to determine the actual damages, if
any, due to the plaintiff class and issues of reliance.  On
November 22, 2010 the Court issued a ruling on the second phase of
the case. On the issue of reliance, the Court ruled that claim
forms will be mailed to class members. Class members who file
claims will be asked to check a "YES" or "NO" box to a question
that asks whether they would have purchased Household stock had
they known false and misleading statements inflated the stock
price.  As for damages, the Court set out a method for calculating
damages for class members who file claims.  The defendants filed a
motion for reconsideration from the Court's November 22 ruling.
On January 14, 2011, the Court partially granted that motion:
slightly modifying the claim form; allowing defendants to take
certain discovery on the issue of reliance; and reserving on the
issue whether the defendants would ultimately be entitled to a
jury trial on the issues of reliance and damages.  On January 31,
2011, the Court issued another ruling further modifying the
decision on the scope of discovery.  Plaintiffs have mailed the
claim forms with the modified language and class members will have
until May 24 to file claims.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Bear Stearns-Related Matters Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced in securities class action lawsuits
against The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc., according to JPMorgan
Chase & Co.'s February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

On May 30, 2008, a wholly-owned subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase
merged with and into The Bear Stearns Companies Inc., and Bear
Stearns became a wholly-owned subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase.

Various shareholders of Bear Stearns have commenced purported
class actions against Bear Stearns and certain of its former
officers and/or directors on behalf of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired common stock of Bear Stearns between
December 14, 2006 and March 14, 2008.  During the Class Period
Bear Stearns had between 115 and 120 million common shares
outstanding, and the price of those securities declined from a
high of $172.61 to a low of $30 at the end of the period.  The
actions, originally commenced in several federal courts, allege
that the defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding Bear Stearns' business and financial results
and that, as a result of those false statements, Bear Stearns'
common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period.  Separately, several individual shareholders of Bear
Stearns have commenced or threatened to commence arbitration
proceedings and lawsuits asserting claims similar to those in the
putative class actions.  In addition, Bear Stearns and certain of
its former officers and/or directors have also been named as
defendants in a number of purported class actions commenced in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
seeking to represent the interests of participants in the Bear
Stearns Employee Stock Ownership Plan during the time period of
December 2006 to March 2008.  These actions, brought under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, allege that defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiffs and to the other
participants and beneficiaries of the ESOP by (a) failing to
manage prudently the ESOP's investment in Bear Stearns securities;
(b) failing to communicate fully and accurately about the risks of
the ESOP's investment in Bear Stearns stock; (c) failing to avoid
or address alleged conflicts of interest; and (d) failing to
monitor those who managed and administered the ESOP.

Bear Stearns, former members of Bear Stearns' Board of Directors
and certain of Bear Stearns' former executive officers have also
been named as defendants in two purported shareholder derivative
suits, subsequently consolidated into one action, pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  Plaintiffs are asserting claims for breach of fiduciary
duty, violations of federal securities laws, waste of corporate
assets and gross mismanagement, unjust enrichment, abuse of
control and indemnification and contribution in connection with
the losses sustained by Bear Stearns as a result of its purchases
of subprime loans and certain repurchases of its own common stock.
Certain individual defendants are also alleged to have sold their
holdings of Bear Stearns common stock while in possession of
material nonpublic information.  Plaintiffs seek compensatory
damages in an unspecified amount.  Plaintiffs later filed a second
amended complaint asserting, for the first time, purported class
action claims, as well as new allegations concerning events that
took place in March 2008.

All of the actions filed in federal courts were ordered
transferred and joined for pre-trial purposes before the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Defendants moved to dismiss the purported securities class action,
the shareholders' derivative action and the ERISA action.  In
January 2011, the District Court granted the motions to dismiss
the derivative and ERISA actions, and denied the motion as to the
securities action.  Plaintiffs in the derivative action have filed
a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal. Discovery will now
commence in the securities action.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal in Enron-Related Litigation Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co., is awaiting the outcome of an appeal from
the dismissal of an Enron Corp.-related lawsuit, according to the
Company's February 28, 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 officers and directors are involved
in several lawsuits that together seek substantial damages arising
out of its banking relationships with Enron Corp. and its
subsidiaries.  A number of actions and other proceedings against
the Firm previously were resolved, including a class action
lawsuit captioned Newby v. Enron Corp. and adversary proceedings
brought by Enron's bankruptcy estate.  The remaining Enron-related
actions include individual actions by Enron investors, an action
by an Enron counterparty, and a purported class action filed on
behalf of JPMorgan Chase employees who participated in the Firm's
401(k) plan asserting claims under the ERISA for alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties by JPMorgan Chase, its directors and named
officers. That action has been dismissed, and is on appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Class Certification Motion in N.Y. Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for class certification filed by  a group of merchants
against VISA and Mastercard and their bank holding companies,
including JPMorgan Chase & Co., remains pending, according to the
Company's February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

A group of merchants has filed a series of putative class action
complaints in several federal courts.  The complaints allege that
VISA and MasterCard, as well as certain other banks and their
respective bank holding companies, conspired to set the price of
credit and debit card interchange fees, enacted respective
association rules in violation of anti-trust laws, and engaged in
tying/bundling and exclusive dealing.  The complaint seeks
unspecified damages and injunctive relief based on the theory that
interchange would be lower or eliminated but for the challenged
conduct.  Based on publicly available estimates, Visa and
MasterCard branded payment cards generated approximately $40
billion of interchange fees industry-wide in 2009.  All cases have
been consolidated in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York for pretrial proceedings.  The Court
has dismissed all claims relating to periods prior to January
2004.  The Court has not yet ruled on motions relating to the
remainder of the case.  Fact and expert discovery in the case have
closed.  The plaintiffs have filed a motion seeking class
certification, and the defendants have opposed that motion.  The
Court has not yet ruled on the class certification motion.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Discovery in MBS-Related Suits Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in actions against JPMorgan Chase & Co. as a mortgage-
backed securities issuer is ongoing, according to the Company's
February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In the actions against the Company as an MBS issuer, three
purported class actions are pending against it and Bear Stearns,
and certain of their affiliates and current and former employees,
in the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern
Districts of New York.  Defendants have moved to dismiss these
actions.  In addition, Washington Mutual affiliates, WaMu Asset
Acceptance Corp. and WaMu Capital Corp., are defendants, along
with certain former officers or directors of WaMu Asset Acceptance
Corp., have been named as defendants in three now-consolidated
purported class action cases pending in the Western District of
Washington.  Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted in part to
dismiss all claims relating to MBS offerings in which a named
plaintiff was not a purchaser.  Discovery is ongoing.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Class Certification Motion Due April 2011
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a multi-district litigation against JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A., in Florida have until April 2011 to file a motion
for class certification, according to JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s
February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

JPMorgan Chase Bank has been named as a defendant in several
purported class actions relating to its practices in posting debit
card transactions to customers' deposit accounts.  Plaintiffs
allege that the Company improperly re-ordered debit card
transactions from the highest amount to lowest amount before
processing these transactions in order to generate unwarranted
overdraft fees.  Plaintiffs contend that the Company should have
processed such transactions in the chronological order they were
authorized.  Plaintiffs seek the disgorgement of all overdraft
fees paid to the Company by plaintiffs, since approximately 2003,
as a result of the re-ordering of debit card transactions. The
claims against the Company have been consolidated with numerous
complaints against other national banks in Multi-District
Litigation pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.  The Company's motion to compel
arbitration of certain plaintiffs' claims was denied by the
District Court.  That ruling is currently on appeal.  Discovery is
proceeding in the District Court.  Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification is due to be filed in April 2011.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Summary Judgment Plea to Be Fully Briefed by April
------------------------------------------------------------------
A New York court has set a schedule for the filing of summary
judgment briefs in a consolidated class action lawsuit, pursuant
to which JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s motion is to be fully briefed by
April 2011, according to the Company's February 28, 2011 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. has been named as a defendant in four
putative class actions asserting ERISA and other claims pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York brought by participants in the Company's securities lending
business.  A fifth lawsuit was filed in New York State court by an
individual participant in the program.  Three of the purported
class actions, which have been consolidated, relate to investments
of approximately $500 million in medium-term notes of Sigma
Finance Inc.  In August 2010, the Court certified a plaintiff
class consisting of all securities lending participants that held
Sigma medium-term notes on September 30, 2008, including those
that held the notes by virtue of participation in the investment
of cash collateral through a collective fund, as well as those
that held the notes by virtue of the investment of cash collateral
through individual accounts.  All discovery has been completed.
The Court has set a schedule for filing summary judgment briefs,
pursuant to which the Firm's motion is to be fully briefed by
April 2011.

The fourth putative class action concerns investments of
approximately $500 million in Lehman Brothers medium-term notes.
The Company has moved to dismiss the amended complaint and is
awaiting a decision.  The Magistrate Judge ordered discovery to
proceed while the motion is pending, but this ruling is on appeal
to the District Judge and also is awaiting a decision.  The New
York state court action, which is not a class action, concerns the
plaintiff's alleged loss of money in both Sigma and Lehman
Brothers medium-term notes.  The Company has answered the
complaint.  The Court denied the Company's motion to stay this
action pending resolution of the proceedings in federal court, and
discovery has commenced.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Face SCRA Suit in South Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. remains a defendant in a purported nationwide
class action alleging violations of the Service Members Civil
Relief Act pending in South Carolina, according to the Company's
February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Multiple government officials have announced their intent to
commence, or have commenced, inquiries into the Company's
procedures related to the Service Members Civil Relief Act and the
Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.  These inquiries have
been prompted by the Company's public statements about its SCRA
and HERA compliance and actions to remedy certain instances in
which the Company mistakenly charged active or recently-active
military personnel mortgage interest and fees in excess of that
permitted by SCRA and HERA, and in a number of instances,
foreclosed on borrowers protected by SCRA and HERA.  The Company
has implemented a number of procedural enhancements and controls
to strengthen its SCRA and HERA compliance and is still reviewing
the circumstances under which these issues arose.  In addition, an
individual borrower has filed a purported nationwide class action
in United States District Court for South Carolina against the
Firm alleging violations of the SCRA.


LIBERTY BEHAVIORAL: No Abuse of Discretion in Bilal Writ Denial
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a
district court's denial of Jamaal Bilal's application for a writ
of habeas corpus ad testificandum for an abuse of discretion in
the class action, Roger G. Canupp, individually and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated v. Liberty Behavioral Health Corp.,
et al., George H. Sheldon, secretary of the Department of Children
and Families.

The class action was brought in May 2004 by residents
involuntarily confined in the Florida Civil Commitment Center, for
alleged constitutional violations of their conditions at FCCC.
Upon negotiations, the parties were successful in arriving at a
Final Action Plan for improvements in FCCC's operations.  Mr.
Bilal objected to the Action Plan on grounds that the Plan failed
to provide for federal or judicial oversight related to the Plan's
discharge planning.

The 11th Circuit do not find any abuse of discretion in the
district court's denial of the writ Mr. Bilal sought.  It was a
discretionary call for the district call to make on whether Mr.
Bilal should be allowed to speak at the fairness hearing, the 11th
Circuit held.

A copy of the 11th Circuit's March 7, 2011, Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/3D4cYbfrom Leagle.com.


LIBERTY MEDIA: Still Makes Payments in Seattle Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Media Corporation continues to make settlement payments in
a class action lawsuit filed in Seattle, according to the
Company's February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

Liberty was a defendant in a class action lawsuit filed in
Seattle, Washington alleging that certain practices related to its
service fees breached its Terms of Use and violated Washington's
Consumer Protection Act from 2001 through 2008.  In May 2009, the
court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their
breach of contract claim, without the benefit of an actual trial
on the merits, and denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment on their Consumer Protection Act claim.  Liberty entered
into a Settlement Agreement providing for the settlement of all
claims alleged in the lawsuit, which was approved by the court on
December 1, 2009.  The court's order approving the Settlement
Agreement was appealed by third parties but dismissed by the court
on April 14, 2010.  The Company has denied and continue to deny
all of the allegations and claims asserted in the lawsuit,
including claims that the plaintiffs have suffered any harm or
damages.  Liberty does not admit liability or the truth of any of
the allegations in the lawsuit and settled the case to avoid
costly and time-consuming litigation.  The terms of the Settlement
Agreement provided the class members the option to elect
settlement in cash.  For those not electing cash, amounts were
settled in coupons.  As of December 31, 2009, the Company had
accrued $19 million related to this matter.  As of December 31,
2010, the majority of the estimated settlement accrual was settled
with either cash payments or coupon redemptions.  The remaining
settlement liability, which was increased during 2010 by
approximately $3 million, includes an estimated coupon redemption
rate.  Any future difference between the Company's estimated
redemption rate and the actual redemption rate it experiences will
impact the final settlement amount; however, the Company does not
expect material differences from the current amounts accrued.


LIVE NATION: Live Concert Antitrust Litigation Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., was a defendant in a lawsuit
filed by Malinda Heerwagen in June 2002 in U.S. District Court.
The plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class consisting of certain
concert ticket purchasers, alleged that anti-competitive practices
for concert promotion services by the Company nationwide caused
artificially high ticket prices.  In August 2003, the District
Court ruled in the Company's favor, denying the plaintiff's class
certification motion.  The plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals.  In January 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the
plaintiff then dismissed her action that same month.
Subsequently, twenty-two putative class actions were filed by
different named plaintiffs in various U.S. District Courts
throughout the country, making claims substantially similar to
those made in the Heerwagen action, except that the geographic
markets alleged are regional, statewide or more local in nature,
and the members of the putative classes are limited to individuals
who purchased tickets to concerts in the relevant geographic
markets alleged.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory,
punitive and treble damages, declaratory and injunctive relief and
costs of suit, including attorneys' fees.  The Company has filed
answers in some of these actions and have denied liability.  In
April 2006, granting the Company's motion, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred these actions to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings.  In June 2007, the District
Court conducted a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and also that month the Court entered an order to
stay all proceedings pending the Court's ruling on class
certification.  In October 2007, the Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion and certified classes in the Chicago, New England, New
York/New Jersey, Colorado and Southern California regional
markets.  In November 2007, the Court extended its stay of all
proceedings pending further developments in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  In February 2008, the Company
filed with the District Court a Motion for Reconsideration of its
October 2007 class certification order.  In October 2010, the
District Court denied the Company's Motion for Reconsideration and
lifted the stay of all proceedings.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend all claims in all of the actions.

No updates were reported in the Company's February 28, 2011 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.


LIVE NATION: Awaits Approval of Ticketmaster Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
A settlement pertaining to a class action lawsuit filed against a
subsidiary of Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., is yet to be filed
in court for approval, according to the Company's February 28,
2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In October 2003, a purported representative action was filed in
the Superior Court of California challenging Ticketmaster's
charges to online customers for shipping fees and alleging that
its failure to disclose on its Web site that the charges contain a
profit component is unlawful.  The complaint asserted a claim for
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, or UCL, and
sought restitution or disgorgement of the difference between (i)
the total shipping fees charged by Ticketmaster in connection with
online ticket sales during the applicable period, and (ii) the
amount that Ticketmaster actually paid to the shipper for delivery
of those tickets.  In August 2005, the plaintiff filed a first
amended complaint, then pleading the case as a putative class
action and adding the claim that Ticketmaster's Web site
disclosures in respect of its ticket order-processing fees
constitute false advertising in violation of California's False
Advertising Law.  On this new claim, the amended complaint seeks
restitution or disgorgement of the entire amount of order-
processing fees charged by Ticketmaster during the applicable
period.  In April 2009, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint adding new claims
that (a) Ticketmaster's order processing fees are unconscionable
under the UCL, and (b) Ticketmaster's alleged business practices
further violate the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Plaintiff later filed a third amended complaint, to which
Ticketmaster filed a demurrer in July 2009.  The Court overruled
Ticketmaster's demurrer in October 2009.

The plaintiff filed a class certification motion in August 2009,
which Ticketmaster opposed.  In February 2010, the Court granted
certification of a class on the first two causes of action, which
allege that Ticketmaster misrepresents/omits the fact of a profit
component in its shipping and order processing fees.  The class
would consist of California consumers who purchased tickets
through Ticketmaster's Web site from 1999 to present.  The Court
denied certification of a class on the third and fourth causes of
action, which allege that Ticketmaster's shipping and order
processing fees are unconscionably high.  In March 2010,
Ticketmaster filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate with the
California Court of Appeal, and plaintiffs also filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Superior Court's class certification order.
In April 2010, the Superior Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court's class certification order, and the
Court of Appeal denied Ticketmaster's Petition for Writ of
Mandate.  In June 2010, the Court of Appeal granted the
plaintiffs' Petition for Writ of Mandate and ordered the Superior
Court to vacate its February 2010 order denying plaintiffs' motion
to certify a national class and enter a new order granting
plaintiffs' motion to certify a nationwide class on the first two
claims.  In September 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion for
Summary Judgment on all causes of action in the Superior Court,
and that same month plaintiffs filed their Motion for Summary
Adjudication of various affirmative defenses asserted by
Ticketmaster.  In November 2010, Ticketmaster filed their Motion
to Decertify Class.

In December 2010, the parties entered into a binding term sheet
that provides for the settlement of the litigation and the
resolution of all claims set forth therein.  The settlement
remains subject to preliminary and final approval by the Court.
The plaintiffs are currently expected to file a motion for
preliminary settlement approval on or after February 28, 2011.
Ticketmaster and its parent, Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., have
not acknowledged any violations of law or liability in connection
with the matter, but have agreed to the settlement in order to
eliminate the uncertainties and expense of further protracted
litigation.  Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, among other
things, Ticketmaster will pay the fees of the claims administrator
as well as the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and certain costs that
are approved by the Court and subject to a set maximum, and class
members who meet certain conditions will be entitled to receive
from Ticketmaster a cash payment and/or discounts off one or more
future ticket purchases.  The individual and aggregate values of
each option are subject to set maximums.  Ticketmaster will also
make certain changes to disclosures on its Web site.  As of
December 31, 2010, the Company accrued $21.2 million, the
Company's best estimate of the probable costs associated with this
settlement.  This liability includes an estimated redemption rate.
Any difference between the estimated redemption rate and the
actual redemption rate experienced will impact the final
settlement amount; however, the Company does not expect this
difference to be material.


LIVE NATION: Canadian Consumer Class Action Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
In February 2009, five putative consumer class action complaints
were filed in various provinces of Canada against TicketsNow,
Ticketmaster, Ticketmaster Canada Ltd. and Premium Inventory, Inc.
All of the cases allege essentially the same set of facts and
causes of action. cEach plaintiff purports to represent a class
consisting of all persons who purchased a ticket from
Ticketmaster, Ticketmaster Canada Ltd. or TicketsNow from February
2007 to present and alleges that Ticketmaster conspired to divert
a large number of tickets for resale through the TicketsNow Web
site at prices higher than face value.  The plaintiffs
characterize these actions as being in violation of Ontario's
Ticket Speculation Act, the Amusement Act of Manitoba, the
Amusement Act of Alberta or the Quebec Consumer Protection Act.
The Ontario case contains the additional allegation that
Ticketmaster and TicketsNow's service fees run afoul of anti-
scalping laws.  Each lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive
damages on behalf of the class.  The Company intends to vigorously
defend all claims in all of the actions.

No updates were reported in the Company's February 28, 2011 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.


LIVE NATION: Summary Judgment Motion in TicketsNow Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A summary judgment motion in a consumer class action lawsuit
relating to TicketsNow remains pending, according to Live Nation
Entertainment, Inc.'s February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

From February through June 2009, eleven purported class action
lawsuits asserting causes of action under various state consumer
protection laws were filed against Ticketmaster and TicketsNow in
U.S. District Courts in California, New Jersey, Minnesota,
Pennsylvania and North Carolina.  The lawsuits allege that
Ticketmaster and TicketsNow unlawfully deceived consumers by,
among other things, selling large quantities of tickets to
TicketsNow's ticket brokers, either prior to or at the time that
tickets for an event go on sale, thereby forcing consumers to
purchase tickets at significantly marked-up prices on
TicketsNow.com instead of Ticketmaster.com.  The plaintiffs
further claim violation of the consumer protection laws by
Ticketmaster's alleged "redirecting" of consumers from
Ticketmaster.com to TicketsNow.com, thereby engaging in false
advertising and an unfair business practice by deceiving consumers
into inadvertently purchasing tickets from TicketsNow for amounts
greater than face value.  The plaintiffs claim that Ticketmaster
has been unjustly enriched by this conduct and seek compensatory
damages, a refund to every class member of the difference between
tickets' face value and the amount paid to TicketsNow, an
injunction preventing Ticketmaster from engaging in further unfair
business practices with TicketsNow and attorney fees and costs.
In July 2009, all of the cases were consolidated and transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The plaintiffs filed their consolidated class action complaint in
September 2009, to which Ticketmaster filed its answer the
following month.  In July 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion for
Summary Judgment.  The Company intends to vigorously defend all
claims in all of the actions.


LIVINGSOCIAL: Could Be Next Target for Coupon Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Ben Fischer, writing for the Washington Business Journal, reports
that the Washington law firm that sued social discount giant
Groupon Inc. in federal court on March 8 said LivingSocial, its
D.C.-headquartered rival, could be next.

"We are investigating cases against LivingSocial and some of
Groupon's other competitors," said Charles LaDuca, a partner with
Cuneo, Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, a Capitol Hill plaintiffs' firm.  "I
believe the practice is almost identical to what Groupon is
doing."

On March 8, Mr. Mr. LaDuca filed a class-action claim against
Chicago-based Groupon in the U.S. District Court of the District,
alleging Groupon and its retail partners violate federal and local
laws by imposing short-term expiration dates on their discounts.
The YMCA was also named as a defendant, because the plaintiff,
Carlos Vazquez of Capitol Hill, says he bought a $305 worth of
membership services from the YMCA through Groupon for $20, but
missed the roughly two-month deadline to use it and lost his
money.

Similar lawsuits were filed in Minnesota and Illinois, Mr. LaDuca
said.  His firm is working with four other firms, one each in
Decatur, Ill., Minneapolis, Philadelphia and San Francisco, to
pursue the case.  It's at least the third time Groupon has faced
such a lawsuit.

Though details differ, Groupon, Living Social and a growing field
of competitors use the same basic model: A retailer or service
company agrees to provide deep discounts to customers who purchase
the coupons through the third party.  Customers usually have a
limited time to purchase the deals, which then expire in a few
months.

Mr. LaDuca says the case could turn on whether courts define
Groupon's product as a "gift certificate," which cannot have
expiration dates under the 2009 federal Credit Card Accountability
Responsibility and Disclosure Act.

Efforts to reach Living Social executives were not immediately
successful.


MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Vytorin & Zetia-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., continues to defend itself against various
lawsuit arising from the sale of Vytorin and Zetia, cholesterol
modifying medicines, according to the Company's February 28, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In April 2008, an Old Merck shareholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit in federal court in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania alleging that Old Merck violated the federal
securities laws.  This suit has since been withdrawn and re-filed
in the District of New Jersey and has been consolidated with
another federal securities lawsuit under the caption In re Merck &
Co., Inc. Vytorin Securities Litigation.  An amended consolidated
complaint was filed in October 2008, and names as defendants Old
Merck; Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals, LLC; and certain of
the Company's current and former officers and directors.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that Old Merck delayed
releasing unfavorable results of the ENHANCE clinical trial
regarding the efficacy of Vytorin and that Old Merck made false
and misleading statements about expected earnings, knowing that
once the results of the Vytorin study were released, sales of
Vytorin would decline and Old Merck's earnings would suffer.  In
December 2008, Old Merck and the other defendants moved to dismiss
this lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to state a
claim for which relief can be granted.  In September 2009, the
court issued an opinion and order denying the defendants' motion
to dismiss this lawsuit, and in October 2009, Old Merck and the
other defendants filed an answer to the amended consolidated
complaint.  There is a similar consolidated, putative class action
securities  lawsuit pending in the District of New Jersey, filed
by a Schering-Plough shareholder against Schering-Plough and its
former Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Fred
Hassan, under the caption In re Schering-Plough
Corporation/ENHANCE Securities Litigation.  The amended
consolidated complaint was filed in September 2008 and names as
defendants Schering-Plough, Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals,
LLC; certain of the Company's current and former officers and
directors; and underwriters who participated in an August 2007
public offering of Schering-Plough's common and preferred stock.
In December 2008, Schering-Plough and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss this lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs
failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. In
September 2009, the court issued an opinion and order denying the
defendants' motion to dismiss this lawsuit.  The defendants filed
an answer to the consolidated amended complaint in November 2009.

In April 2008, a member of an Old Merck ERISA plan filed a
putative class action lawsuit against Old Merck and certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors alleging they
breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA. Since that time,
there have been other similar ERISA lawsuits filed against Old
Merck in the District of New Jersey, and all of those lawsuits
have been consolidated under the caption In re Merck & Co., Inc.
Vytorin ERISA Litigation.  A consolidated amended complaint was
filed in February 2009, and names as defendants Old Merck and
various current and former members of the Company's Board of
Directors.  The plaintiffs allege that the ERISA plans' investment
in Old Merck stock was imprudent because Old Merck's earnings are
dependent on the commercial success of its cholesterol drug
Vytorin and that defendants knew or should have known that the
results of a scientific study would cause the medical community to
turn to less expensive drugs for cholesterol management.  In April
2009, Old Merck and the other defendants moved to dismiss this
lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim
for which relief can be granted.  In September 2009, the court
issued an opinion and order denying the defendants' motion to
dismiss this lawsuit.  In November 2009, the plaintiffs moved to
strike certain of the defendants' affirmative defenses.  That
motion was denied in part and granted in part in June 2010, and an
amended answer was filed in July 2010.

There is a similar consolidated, putative class action ERISA
lawsuit currently pending in the District of New Jersey, filed by
a member of a Schering-Plough ERISA plan against Schering-Plough
and certain of its current and former officers and directors,
alleging they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA, and
under the caption In re Schering-Plough Corp. ENHANCE ERISA
Litigation.  The consolidated amended complaint was filed in
October 2009 and names as defendants Schering-Plough, various
current and former members of Schering-Plough's Board of Directors
and current and former members of committees of Schering-Plough's
Board of Directors.  In November 2009, the Company and the other
defendants filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit on the grounds
that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for which relief can
be granted.  The plaintiffs' opposition to the motion to dismiss
was filed in December 2009, and the motion was fully briefed in
January 2010.  That motion was denied in June 2010.  In September
2010, defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint in this
matter.

Discovery in these cases will be coordinated and has commenced.
The Company intends to defend these lawsuits.  Unfavorable
outcomes resulting from the government investigations or the civil
litigations could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position, liquidity and results of operations.


MERCK & CO: Continues to Face Vioxx Product Liability Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. continues to defend itself against various
product liability lawsuits from the sale of Vioxx, a medication
for arthritis and acute pain medication, according to the
Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

Individual and putative class actions have been filed against Old
Merck in state and federal courts alleging personal injury and/or
economic loss with respect to the purchase or use of Vioxx.  All
such actions filed in federal court are coordinated in a
multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana before District Judge Eldon E.
Fallon.  A number of such actions filed in state court are
coordinated in separate coordinated proceedings in state courts in
California and Texas, and the counties of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania and Washoe and Clark Counties, Nevada.  On
October 26, 2010, the New Jersey Supreme Court dissolved the New
Jersey Coordinated Vioxx Proceeding. Of the plaintiff groups in
the Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits, the vast majority enrolled
in the Vioxx Settlement Program.  As of December 31, 2010,
approximately 35 plaintiff groups who were otherwise eligible for
the Settlement Program did not participate and their claims remain
pending against Old Merck.  In addition, the claims of
approximately 130 plaintiff groups who were not eligible for the
Settlement Program remain pending against Old Merck.  A number of
these 130 plaintiff groups are subject to various motions to
dismiss for failure to comply with court-ordered deadlines.  The
claims of over 47,775 plaintiffs had been dismissed as of
December 31, 2010, the vast majority of which were dismissed as a
result of the settlement process.

On November 9, 2007, Old Merck announced that it had entered into
an agreement with the law firms that comprise the executive
committee of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee of the federal
Vioxx MDL, as well as representatives of plaintiffs' counsel in
the Texas, New Jersey and California state coordinated
proceedings, to resolve state and federal myocardial infarction
and ischemic stroke claims filed as of that date in the United
States.  The Settlement Agreement applied only to U.S. legal
residents and those who alleged that their MI or IS occurred in
the United States.  The Settlement Agreement provided for Old
Merck to pay a fixed aggregate amount of $4.85 billion into two
funds.  As of December 31, 2010, the processing of all MI and IS
claims in the Settlement Program was completed and final payments
were made to more than 99% of all claimants.  The majority of
claimants not yet paid are finalizing documents.  There was one
U.S. Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuit trial held in 2010.  That
trial, in the Louisiana Attorney General matter, is discussed
below.  There are three U.S. Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits
currently scheduled for trial in 2011.  Old Merck has previously
disclosed the outcomes of several Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits
that were tried prior to 2010.

Of the cases that went to trial, there are two unresolved post-
trial appeals: Ernst v. Merck and Garza v. Merck.

There are still pending in various U.S. courts putative class
actions purportedly brought on behalf of individual purchasers or
users of Vioxx and seeking reimbursement of alleged economic loss.
In the MDL proceeding, approximately 30 such class actions remain.
On June 30, 2010, Old Merck moved to strike the class claims or
for judgment on the pleadings regarding the master complaint,
which includes the above-referenced cases, and briefing on that
motion was completed on September 23, 2010. The MDL court heard
oral argument on Old Merck's motion on October 7, 2010, and took
it under advisement.

On June 12, 2008, a Missouri state court certified a class of
Missouri plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs
relating to Vioxx.  Trial is scheduled to begin on October 31,
2011.  In addition, in Indiana, plaintiffs have filed a motion to
certify a class of Indiana Vioxx purchasers in a case pending
before the Circuit Court of Marion County, Indiana.  On April 1,
2010, a Kentucky state court denied Old Merck's motion for summary
judgment and certified a class of Kentucky plaintiffs seeking
reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs relating to Vioxx.  An
intermediate appellate court denied Old Merck's petition for a
writ of mandamus, and Old Merck has appealed that decision to the
Kentucky Supreme Court.

Old Merck has also been named as a defendant in several lawsuits
brought by, or on behalf of, government entities.  Twelve of these
suits are being brought by state Attorneys General, one on behalf
of a county, and one is being brought by a private citizen.  All
of these actions, except for a suit brought by the Attorney
General of Michigan, are in the MDL proceeding.  The Michigan
Attorney General case has been remanded to state court.  These
actions allege that Old Merck misrepresented the safety of Vioxx.
All but one of these suits seeks recovery for expenditures on
Vioxx by government-funded health care programs such as Medicaid,
along with other relief such as penalties and attorneys' fees.
The action brought by the Attorney General of Kentucky seeks only
penalties for alleged consumer fraud violations.  The lawsuit
brought by the county is a class action filed by Santa Clara
County, California on behalf of all similarly situated California
counties. Old Merck moved to dismiss the False Claims Act claims
brought by a qui tam plaintiff on behalf of the District of
Columbia in November 2010.  The court heard oral argument on the
motion on December 21, 2010, and took it under advisement.  Old
Merck also moved to dismiss the case brought by the Attorney
General of Oklahoma in December 2010.

On March 31, 2010, Judge Fallon partially granted and partially
denied Old Merck's motion for summary judgment in the Louisiana
Attorney General case.  A trial on the remaining claims before
Judge Fallon began on April 12, 2010 and was completed on
April 21, 2010.  Judge Fallon found in favor of Old Merck on June
29, 2010, dismissing the Attorney General's remaining claims with
prejudice.  The Louisiana Attorney General is appealing that
ruling.


MERCK & CO: Continues to Face Vioxx Shareholder Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., continues to defend itself against a multi-
district litigation over alleged violations of securities laws and
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, according to the
Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

Various putative class actions and individual lawsuits under
federal and state securities laws have been filed against Old
Merck and various current and former officers and directors.  The
Vioxx Securities Lawsuits have been transferred by the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey before District Judge Stanley R.
Chesler for inclusion in a nationwide MDL, and have been
consolidated for all purposes.  In June 2010, Old Merck moved to
dismiss the Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint in the
consolidated securities action.  Plaintiffs filed their opposition
in August 2010, and Old Merck filed its reply in September 2010.
The motion is currently pending before the district court.

Several individual securities lawsuits filed by foreign
institutional investors also are consolidated with the Vioxx
Securities Lawsuits.  By stipulation, defendants are not required
to respond to these complaints until the resolution of any motions
to dismiss in the consolidated securities class action.

In addition, various putative class actions have been filed in
federal court under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
against Old Merck and certain current and former officers and
directors.  Those cases were consolidated in the Shareholder MDL
before Judge Chesler.  Fact discovery in the Vioxx ERISA Lawsuits
closed on September 30, 2010.  The parties have filed a proposed
schedule for expert discovery, dispositive motions, and trial.


MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend International Suits Over Vioxx
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., remains a defendant in various lawsuits filed
worldwide relating to Vioxx, according to the Company's
February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Old Merck has been named as a defendant in litigation relating to
Vioxx in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Europe and Israel.

Following trial of a representative action in 2009, the Federal
Court in Australia entered orders in 2010 which dismissed all
claims against Old Merck.  With regard to Old Merck's Australian
subsidiary, Merck Sharp & Dohme (Australia) Pty Ltd, the court
dismissed certain claims but awarded the named plaintiff, whom the
court found suffered an MI after ingesting Vioxx for approximately
33 months, AU $330,465 based on statutory claims that Vioxx was
not fit for purpose or of merchantable quality, even though the
court rejected the applicant's claim that Old Merck and its
Australian subsidiary knew or ought to have known prior to the
voluntary withdrawal of Vioxx in September 2004 that Vioxx
materially increased the risk of MI.  The court also determined
which of its findings of fact and law are common to the claims of
other group members whose individual claims would proceed with
reference to those findings.  Old Merck's subsidiary has appealed
the adverse findings and the full Federal Court is scheduled to
hear the appeal and a cross-appeal in August 2011.

In Canada, in 2006, the Superior Court in Quebec authorized a
class action on behalf of Vioxx users in Quebec who alleged
negligence and, in 2008, the Superior Court of Ontario certified a
class of Vioxx users in Canada, except those in Quebec and
Saskatchewan, who alleged negligence and an entitlement to elect
to waive the tort.  These procedural decisions in the Canadian
litigation do not address the merits of the plaintiffs' claims and
litigation in Canada remains in an early stage.


MERCK & CO: Discovery in Fosamax Litigation Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in New York, New Jersey and other
jurisdictions where cases relating to Fosamax are pending,
according to Merck & Co., Inc.'s February 28, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

Old Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the
United States involving Fosamax, a medication intended to prevent
osteoporosis.  As of December 31, 2010, approximately 1,295 cases,
which include approximately 1,675 plaintiff groups, had been filed
and were pending against Old Merck in either federal or state
court, including one case which seeks class action certification,
as well as damages and/or medical monitoring.  In these actions,
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they have suffered
osteonecrosis of the jaw, generally subsequent to invasive dental
procedures, such as tooth extraction or dental implants and/or
delayed healing, in association with the use of Fosamax.  In
addition, plaintiffs in approximately 20% of these actions allege
that they sustained stress and/or low energy femoral fractures in
association with the use of Fosamax.  In August 2006, the JPML
ordered that certain Fosamax product liability cases pending in
federal courts nationwide should be transferred and consolidated
into one multidistrict litigation for coordinated pre-trial
proceedings.  The Fosamax MDL has been transferred to Judge John
Keenan in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  As a result of the JPML order, approximately 870 of the
cases are before Judge Keenan. Judge Keenan issued a Case
Management Order which set forth a schedule governing the
proceedings focused primarily upon resolving the class action
certification motions in 2007 and completing fact discovery in an
initial group of 25 cases by October 1, 2008.  Briefing and
argument on plaintiffs' motions for certification of medical
monitoring classes were completed in 2007 and Judge Keenan issued
an order denying the motions on January 3, 2008.  In January 2008,
Judge Keenan issued a further order dismissing with prejudice all
class claims asserted in the first four class action lawsuits
filed against Old Merck that sought personal injury damages and/or
medical monitoring relief on a class wide basis. Daubert motions
were filed in May 2009 and Judge Keenan conducted a Daubert
hearing in July 2009.  In July 2009, Judge Keenan issued his
ruling on the parties' respective Daubert motions.  The ruling
denied the Plaintiff Steering Committee's motion and granted in
part and denied in part Old Merck's motion.  In the first Fosamax
MDL trial, Boles v. Merck, the Fosamax MDL court declared a
mistrial because the eight person jury could not reach a unanimous
verdict.  The Boles case was retried in June 2010 and resulted in
a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $8 million.
Merck filed post-trial motions seeking judgment as a matter of law
or, in the alternative, a new trial.  On October 4, 2010, the
court denied Merck's post-trial motions but sua sponte ordered a
remittitur, reducing the verdict to $1.5 million.  Plaintiff
rejected the remittitur ordered by the court and requested a new
trial on damages.  The Company has filed a motion for
interlocutory appeal.

In the next Fosamax MDL case set for trial, Maley v. Merck, the
jury in May 2010 returned a unanimous verdict in Merck's favor.
On February 1, 2010, Judge Keenan selected a new bellwether case,
Judith Graves v. Merck, to replace the Flemings bellwether case,
which the Fosamax MDL court dismissed when it granted summary
judgment in favor of Old Merck.  In November 2010, the Second
Circuit affirmed the Court's granting of summary  judgment in
favor of Old Merck in the Flemings case.  In Graves, the jury
returned a unanimous verdict in favor of Old Merck in November
2010.

The next trials scheduled in the Fosamax MDL are Secrest v. Merck,
which is scheduled to begin on March 14, 2011, and Hester v.
Merck, which is scheduled to begin on May 9, 2011.  In addition,
Judge Keenan ordered on February 4, 2011 that there will be two
further bellwether trials conducted in the Fosamax MDL.  The cases
to be tried and the trial dates for those cases have not yet been
determined.

Outside the Fosamax MDL, a trial in Florida was scheduled to begin
on June 21, 2010 but the Florida state court postponed the trial
date until sometime after January 1, 2011.

In addition, in July 2008, an application was made by the Atlantic
County Superior Court of New Jersey requesting that all of the
Fosamax cases pending in New Jersey be considered for mass tort
designation and centralized management before one judge in New
Jersey.  In October 2008, the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered
that all pending and future actions filed in New Jersey arising
out of the use of Fosamax and seeking damages for existing dental
and jaw-related injuries, including osteonecrosis of the jaw, but
not solely seeking medical monitoring, be designated as a mass
tort for centralized management purposes before Judge Higbee in
Atlantic County Superior Court.  As of December 31, 2010,
approximately 385 cases were pending against Old Merck in Atlantic
County, New Jersey. On July 20, 2009, Judge Higbee entered a Case
Management Order (and various amendments thereto) setting forth a
schedule that contemplates completing fact and expert discovery in
an initial group of cases to be worked up for trial.  On
February 14, 2011, the jury in Rosenberg v. Merck, the first trial
in the New Jersey coordinated proceeding, returned a verdict in
Merck's favor.

Discovery is ongoing in the Fosamax MDL litigation, the New Jersey
coordinated proceeding, and the remaining jurisdictions where
Fosamax cases are pending.  The Company intends to defend against
these lawsuits.


METROPOLITAN TAXICAB: Sued Over Illegal Charges at Airport
----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that Cabbies say the
Metropolitan Taxicab Commission make them pay an illegal $1 or $2
surcharge each time they leave Lambert St. Louis Airport.

The class action claims that cabbies have been charged the fees
every time they left the airport since July 2005.  They estimate
cab drivers make 400 trips to the airport a day and 12,000 trips
to the airport each month.

Cab owners Raja Naeem and Charles Cole say the co-defendant
Commission and Central Parking Systems of Missouri have been
assessing the illegal charges since June 13, 2005.

The cabbies say "that the MTC Taxicab Fee is being collected by
CPS and 'held in trust' for the MTC.  . . . That this revenue can
only be used for the capital, or operating, costs of the airport,
or other facilities owned, or operated by the airport owner or
operator and substantially related to the air transportation of
passengers or property; [and that] the MTC is not authorized by
city ordinance, or FAA regulations, to collect fees at the airport
and use them for the benefit of MTC."

The class seeks $7 million in damages, alleging fraud and
conversion.

A copy of the Complaint in Naeem, et al. v. Metropolitan Taxicab
Commission, et al., Case No. 1122-CC0C792 (Mo. Cir. Ct., St. Louis
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/09/Taxis.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          MacArthur Moten, Esq.
          MACARTHUR MOTEN, P.C.
          3920 Lindell Blvd., Suite 200
          St. Louis, MO 63108
          Telephone: (314) 535-2948


MGM RESORTS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------------
MGM Resorts International continues to defend itself against a
securities class action lawsuit filed in Nevada, according to the
Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

In November 2009, the U.S. District Court for Nevada consolidated
the Robert Lowinger v. MGM MIRAGE, et al. (Case No. 2:09-cv-01558-
RCL-LRL, filed August 19, 2009) and Khachatur Hovhannisyan v. MGM
MIRAGE, et al. (Case No. 2:09-cv-02011-LRH-RJJ, filed October 19,
2009) putative class actions under the caption "In re MGM MIRAGE
Securities Litigation." The cases name the Company and certain
former and current directors and officers as defendants and allege
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. These cases
were transferred in July 2010 to the Honorable Gloria M. Navarro.
In October 2010 the court appointed several employee retirement
benefits funds as co-lead plaintiffs and their counsel as co-lead
and co-liaison counsel. In January 2011, lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint, alleging that between August 2,
2007 and March 5, 2009, the Company, its directors and certain of
its officers artificially inflated the market price of the
Company's securities by knowingly making materially false and
misleading public statements and omissions concerning the
Company's financial condition, its liquidity, its access to
credit, and the costs and progress of construction of the
CityCenter development. The consolidated amended complaint asserts
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. These cases remain pending
before the court. The Company and the other defendants have yet to
answer and plan to file motions to dismiss the cases.


MOTRICITY INC: Obtains Final Okay of "Williams" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Motricity, Inc., obtained final approval of a settlement agreement
with Scott Williams, according to the Company's February 28, 2011
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company was a party in four purported class action lawsuits it
brought against individuals on behalf of customers receiving
premium content from its content providers.  The cases alleged
that the Company and its content providers charged consumers for
mobile phone content without proper authorization and/or engaged
in misleading marketing for premium content.  The cases sought
unspecified damages.  The cases were:

   * Camellia Walker individually and on behalf of a class of
     similarly situated individuals v. Motricity, Inc., California
     Superior Court, Alameda County, filed July 3, 2008;

   * Susan Rynearson individually and on behalf of a class of
     similarly situated individuals v. Motricity, Inc., Washington
     Superior Court, King County, filed April 16, 2008;

   * Baker v. Sprint and New Motion, Inc. (Motricity is a third-
     party defendant), Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court, Miami-Dade
     County, claim against Motricity filed May 29, 2008; and

   * Scott Williams, et al, individually and on behalf of a class
     of similarly situated individuals v. Motricity, Inc., et al,
     Cook County Circuit Court, claim against Motricity filed
     March 17, 2010.

The class representatives in these matters, except for the
Williams matter, all purchased content from Atrinsic, Inc. d/b/a
New Motion, Inc.  Atrinsic content is also at issue in several
similar lawsuits brought against carriers who have, in turn,
sought indemnification from the Company.  Atrinsic entered into a
settlement in a class action not involving the Company that it
believes has released it from any claims that a consumer could
bring and that is related to the Atrinsic content.  Atrinsic
received final court approval of its settlement on March 10, 2010.

On August 4, 2010, the Company entered into a Stipulation of Class
Action Settlement in the Williams action.  On December 2, 2010,
the Circuit Court of Cook County in Illinois, issued an order in
that case that approved the settlement and dismissed all claims.
The Stipulation and the Williams order resolved the Lawsuits.  The
Williams order is now final, and the time period for claims to be
submitted has ended.


NUCOR CORP: Defends "Anti-Competition" Lawsuit in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
Nucor Corporation is defending itself against class action
complaints alleging that it engaged in anticompetitive activities,
according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2010.

The Company has been named, along with other major steel
producers, as a co-defendant in several related antitrust class-
action complaints filed by Standard Iron Works and other steel
purchasers in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. The plaintiffs allege that from January 2005
to the present eight steel manufacturers, including Nucor, engaged
in anticompetitive activities with respect to the production and
sale of steel. The plaintiffs seek monetary and other relief.
Although the Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit and will vigorously defend against them, the Company cannot
at this time predict the outcome of this litigation or estimate
the range of Nucor's potential exposure.


OLD REPUBLIC: ORHP Unit Still Defends Suits in Calif. & Alabama
---------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic Home Protection Company, a subsidiary of Old Republic
International Corp., continues to defend itself against two class
action lawsuits in California and Alabama, according to the
Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

National class action suits have been filed against the Company's
subsidiary, Old Republic Home Protection Company in the California
Superior Court, San Diego, and the U.S. District Court in
Birmingham, Alabama. The California suit has been filed on behalf
of all persons who made a claim under an ORHP home warranty
contract from March 6, 2003 to the present. The suit alleges
breach of contract, breach of the implicit covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, violations of certain California consumer
protection laws and misrepresentation arising out of ORHP's
alleged failure to adopt and implement reasonable standards for
the prompt investigation and processing of claims under its home
warranty contracts. The suit seeks unspecified damages consisting
of the rescission of the class members' contracts, restitution of
all sums paid by the class members, punitive damages, and
declaratory and injunctive relief. ORHP removed the action to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, and
on January 6, 2011 the Court denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification. The Alabama suit alleges that ORHP pays fees to the
real estate brokers who market its home warranty contracts and
that the payment of such fees is in violation of Section 8(a) of
RESPA. The suit seeks unspecified damages, including treble
damages under RESPA. No class has been certified in the Alabama
action.


OLD REPUBLIC: Unit Defends "Moses" Class Suit in D.C.
-----------------------------------------------------
Republic Mortgage Insurance Company continues to defend itself
against a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act, according to Old Republic
International Corp.'s February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

On November 29, 2010, a purported class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, against SunTrust Bank,
its two captive reinsurance subsidiaries, and seven mortgage
guaranty insurance companies, including the Company's principal
mortgage insurance subsidiary, Republic Mortgage Insurance Company
(Moses v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al.; Case No. 1:10-CV-02029-
PLF). The suit alleges that the cession of mortgage guaranty
premiums to SunTrust's captive reinsurers amounted in part to a
kickback to SunTrust for the referral of mortgage guaranty
insurance business, in violation of RESPA. The suit also alleges
violations of the federal Truth-in-Lending Act, Regulation Z, the
District of Columbia's Consumer Protection Procedures Act,
fraudulent misrepresentation and civil conspiracy, emanating
principally from a failure by SunTrust to disclose to its mortgage
loan customers its captive reinsurance arrangements. The suit
seeks unspecified actual, statutory, compensatory and punitive
damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs.


OLD REPUBLIC: Unit Awaits Ruling on Appeal From Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, a subsidiary of Old
Republic International Corp., is awaiting a ruling of an appeal
made by plaintiffs of a dismissed class action lawsuit, according
to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

Beginning in early February 2008, some 80 purported consumer class
action lawsuits were filed against the title industry's principal
title insurance companies, their subsidiaries and affiliates, and
title insurance rating bureaus or associations in at least 10
states.  ORNTIC was named a defendant in actions filed in 5 of the
states.  The suits were substantially identical in alleging that
the defendant title insurers engaged in illegal price-fixing
agreements to set artificially high premium rates and conspired to
create premium rates which the state insurance regulatory
authorities could not evaluate and therefore, could not adequately
regulate. Most of the suits have since been dismissed. Of those
remaining, ORNTIC is currently among the named defendants in only
one of these actions, in California. The anti-trust allegations in
the California action have been dismissed and only the allegations
of improper business practices under state law remain. The other
suits in which ORNTIC was a named defendant were dismissed at the
trial court level, and the dismissals are on appeal before the 3rd
and 6th Circuits U.S. Courts of Appeals.


ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ormat Technologies, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated
securities class action suit remains pending, according to the
Company's February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

Following Ormat Technologies, Inc.'s public announcement that it
would restate certain of its financial results due to a change in
the Company's accounting treatment for certain exploration and
development costs, three securities class action lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada on March 9, 2010, March 18, 2010 and April 7, 2010.  These
complaints assert claims against the Company and certain officers
and directors for alleged violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.  One complaint also asserts claims for alleged
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act.
All three complaints allege claims on behalf of a putative class
of purchasers of Company stock between May 6, 2008 or May 7, 2008,
and February 23, 2010 or February 24, 2010.

These three lawsuits were consolidated by the Court in an order
issued on June 3, 2010, and the Court appointed three of the
Company's stockholders to serve as lead plaintiffs.  Lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint
(CAC) on July 9, 2010 that asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of Company stock between May 7, 2008, and February 24,
2010.  The CAC alleges that certain of the Company's public
statements were false and misleading for failing to account
properly for the Company's exploration and development costs based
on the Company's announcement on February 24, 2010, that it was
going to restate its financial results to change its method of
accounting for exploration and development costs in certain
respects.  The CAC also alleges that certain of the Company's
statements concerning the North Brawley project were false and
misleading.  The CAC seeks compensatory damages, expenses, and
such further relief as the Court may deem proper.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the CAC on August 13, 2010,
which remains pending.

The Company does not believe that these lawsuits have merit and is
defending the actions vigorously.


PITNEY BOWES: Motion to Dismiss Class Suits v. Imagitas Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pitney Bowes, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on its request to dismiss
class action lawsuits filed against one of its subsidiaries,
according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, Imagitas, Inc., is a
defendant in several purported class actions initially filed in
five different states. These lawsuits have been coordinated in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
In re: Imagitas, Driver's Privacy Protection Act Litigation
(Coordinated, May 28, 2007). Each of these lawsuits alleges that
the Imagitas DriverSource program violates the federal Drivers
Privacy Protection Act (DPPA). Under the DriverSource program,
Imagitas entered into contracts with state governments to mail out
automobile registration renewal materials along with third party
advertisements, without revealing the personal information of any
state resident to any advertiser. The DriverSource program
assisted the state in performing its governmental function of
delivering these mailings and funding the costs of them. The
plaintiffs in these actions were seeking statutory damages under
the DPPA. On December 21, 2009, the Eleventh Circuit Court
affirmed the District Court's summary judgment decision in Rine,
et al. v. Imagitas, Inc. (United States District Court, Middle
District of Florida, filed August 1, 2006), which ruled in
Imagitas' favor and dismissed that litigation. That decision is
now final, with no further appeals available. With respect to the
remaining state cases, Imagitas filed its motion to dismiss these
cases on October 8, 2010. Plaintiff's opposition brief was filed
on December 6, 2010, and Imagitas filed its reply brief on
December 22, 2010. Although the plaintiffs are still contending
that the cases filed in Ohio and Missouri can proceed, they have
admitted in their response that the reasoning in the Rine decision
does require that actions based on Minnesota and New York laws be
dismissed.


PITNEY BOWES: Oral Arguments in Conn. Suit Scheduled for April 15
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A court has scheduled April 15, 2011, as the date to hear oral
arguments regarding a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit
against Pitney Bowes, Inc., according to the Company's
February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On October 28, 2009, the Company and certain of its current and
former officers were named as defendants in NECA-IBEW Health &
Welfare Fund v. Pitney Bowes Inc. et al., a class action lawsuit
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
The complaint asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 on behalf of those who purchased the common stock of the
Company during the period between July 30, 2007 and October 29,
2007 alleging that the Company, in essence, missed two financial
projections. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
September 20, 2010. On December 3, 2010, defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint. Oral argument on that motion is scheduled
for April 15, 2011.


PRE-PAID LEGAL: Continues to Defend Merger-Related Suits in Okla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-paid Legal Services, Inc., remains a defendant in two putative
shareholder class action lawsuits filed by Andrew D. McMullan and
James E. McCurdy, and Czar Fredrik Reyes in Oklahoma, according to
the Company's February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

The Company entered into a definitive merger agreement on
January 30, 2011, with MidOcean PPL Holdings Corp. and PPL
Acquisition Corp., both newly created entities formed by MidOcean
Partners, a New York based private equity firm. The merger
agreement provides that Parent will acquire all of the Company's
outstanding shares for a cash payment of $66.50 per share, or
approximately $650 million in the aggregate. The closing of the
transaction is subject to certain terms and conditions customary
for transactions of this type, including receipt of shareholder
and regulatory approvals.  The Company currently anticipates
consummating the transaction on or before July 31, 2011.

On February 8, 2011, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the Oklahoma District Court of Oklahoma County by
Messrs. McMullan and McCurdy, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, against the Company and each member of
its board of directors.  The complaint generally alleges that the
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders by
agreeing to sell the Company pursuant to an unfair process and at
an unfair price.  The complaint alleges that the directors
breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, candor, good
faith and independence and have acted to put their personal
interests ahead of the interests of the Company's shareholders.
The complaint also alleges that the Company aided and abetted such
breaches.  The complaint seeks injunctive relief, rescission of
any barriers to the maximization of shareholder value and
attorneys' fees.  The ultimate outcome of this matter is not
determinable but the Company will vigorously defend its interests
in this matter.

On February 11, 2011, a putative shareholder class action
complaint was filed in the Oklahoma District Court of Pontotoc
County by Mr. Reyes, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, against the Company, each member of its board
of directors, and MidOcean PPL Holdings Corp., and PPL Acquisition
Corp.  The complaint generally alleges that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders by
agreeing to sell the Company pursuant to an unfair process and at
an unfair price.  The complaint alleges that the directors
breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care,
independence, good faith and fair dealing, and that Pre-Paid and
MidOcean have aided and abetted such breaches.  The complaint also
alleges that the Company agreed to onerous and preclusive deal
protection devices as part of the merger, including a no
solicitation provision.  The complaint seeks injunctive relief,
damages and costs of the action, including attorneys' fees.  The
ultimate outcome of this matter is not determinable but the
Company will vigorously defend its interests in this matter.


REALPAGE INC: Awaits Court Approval of "Minor" Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
RealPage, Inc., has reached, and is awaiting approval of, a
settlement of a class action lawsuit filed in California,
according to the Company's February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2010.

On June 15, 2009, a prospective resident of one of the Company's
customers filed a class action lawsuit styled Minor v. RealPage,
Inc. against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.  By the parties' mutual
stipulation in August 2009, the action was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (No. 4:09CV-
00439).  The plaintiff has alleged two individual claims and three
class-based causes of action against the Company.  Individually,
the plaintiff alleges that the Company (i) willfully failed to
employ reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum accuracy of its
resident screening reports as required by 15 U.S.C. Section
1681e(b) and, in the alternative, (ii) negligently (within the
meaning of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681o(a)) failed to employ reasonable
procedures to ensure the maximum accuracy of the Company's
resident screening reports, as required by 15 U.S.C. Section
1681e(b), in each case stemming from the Company's provision of a
report that allegedly included inaccurate criminal conviction
information.  The plaintiff seeks actual, statutory and punitive
damages on her individual claims. In her capacity as the putative
class representative, the plaintiff also alleges that RealPage:
(i) willfully failed to provide legally mandated disclosures upon
a consumer's request inconsistent with 15 U.S.C. Section 1681g;
(ii) willfully failed to provide prompt notice of consumers'
disputes to the data furnishers who provided the Company with the
information whose accuracy was in question, as required by 15
U.S.C. Sections 1681i(a)(2); and (iii) willfully failed to provide
prompt notice of consumers' disputes to the consumer reporting
agencies providing RealPage with the information whose accuracy
was in question, as required by 15 U.S.C. Section 1681i(f).  The
plaintiff sought certification of three separate classes in
connection with these claims.  The plaintiff also sought statutory
and punitive damages, a declaration that the Company's practices
and procedures were in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
and attorneys' fees and costs.  The parties achieved a resolution
of both Angela Minor's individual claims, on November 29, 2010, as
well as the class-based claims at approximately the same time.
Plaintiff filed her Motion for Preliminary Approval, including the
previously executed Settlement Agreement, with the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas on January 6, 2011.


REALPAGE INC: Court Denies Certiorari Petition in Taylor Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the United States has denied a petition for
certiorari filed in a class action lawsuit wherein RealPage,
Inc., has been named a defendant, according to the Company's
February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In January 2007, plaintiffs filed five separate but nearly
identical class action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas against more than 100 defendants.
RealPage was named as a defendant in one of those actions, Taylor,
et al. v. Safeway, Inc., et al. (No. 2:07-CV-00017).  On March 4,
2008, the Court consolidated these actions with the lead case,
Taylor, et al. v. Acxiom Corp., et al. (No. 2:07-CV-00001).  In
their operative pleading, plaintiffs alleged that RealPage
obtained and held motor vehicle records in bulk from the State of
Texas, an allegedly improper purpose in violation of the federal
Driver's Privacy Protection Act, or the DPPA.  In addition, the
plaintiffs alleged that the Company obtained these records for the
purpose of re-selling them, another allegedly improper purpose in
violation of the DPPA.  Plaintiffs further purported to represent
a putative class of approximately 20.0 million individuals
affected by the defendants' alleged DPPA violations.  They sought
statutory damages of $2,500 per each violation of the DPPA,
punitive damages and an order requiring defendants to destroy
information obtained in violation of the DPPA.  In September 2008,
the U.S. District Court dismissed plaintiffs' complaint for
failure to state a claim.  The plaintiffs subsequently appealed
the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
The primary issue on appeal is whether plaintiffs alleged any
injury-in-fact that would give them standing to bring their
claims.  Predicate issues include whether obtaining and merely
holding data states a claim under the DPPA, and whether re-selling
data likewise states an actionable claim.  In November 2009, the
Fifth Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal.  In July 2010,
the Fifth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court's dismissal.
The Plaintiff-Appellants filed a petition for certiorari with the
United States Supreme Court on October 12, 2010, seeking review of
the Fifth Circuit's decision, and the Company received service of
the petition on October 15, 2010.  The Supreme Court of the United
States denied Taylor's petition for certiorari on January 10,
2011.


REALPAGE INC: Dismissed From "Cohorst" Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
RealPage, Inc., has been dismissed from a class action lawsuit
captioned Cohorst v. BRE Properties, Inc., et al., according to
the Company's February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

On November 17, 2010, a prospective resident of a Level One
customer named RealPage as a defendant in a class action lawsuit
styled Cohorst v. BRE Properties, Inc., et al. filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, San Diego County, North
County Division.  The plaintiff alleges that the defendants,
pursuant to an alleged practice of monitoring and recording all
inbound and outbound telephone calls, monitored and recorded a
telephone conversation with the plaintiff without the plaintiff's
knowledge and consent, when the plaintiff responded to an
advertisement for an apartment for rent.  The putative class
consists of all persons in California whose inbound or outbound
telephone conversations were monitored, recorded, eavesdropped
upon and/or wiretapped by the defendants without their consent
during the four-year period commencing on November 12, 2006.  The
plaintiff alleges four class-based causes of action consisting of
(i) invasion of privacy in violation of California Penal Code
Section 630, et seq.; (ii) common law invasion of privacy; (iii)
negligence; and (iv) unlawful, fraudulent and unfair business acts
and practices in violation of California Business & Professions
Code Section 17200, et seq.  The plaintiff seeks statutory damages
of at least $5,000 per violation; disgorgement and restitution of
any ill-gotten gains; general, special, exemplary and punitive
damages; injunctive relief; attorneys' fees; costs of the suit and
prejudgment interest.  The Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed
RealPage on December 3, 2010, by filing a Request for Dismissal
with the Superior Court of the State of California, San Diego
County, North County Division.  While the Request for Dismissal
was pending, certain Defendants removed the case to federal court,
No. 3:10-CV-02666-JM-BGS.  Accordingly, Plaintiff again attempted
to dismiss RealPage on December 29, 2010, and effected the
dismissal by filing a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California on January 3, 2011.


REHABCARE GROUP: Defends Merger-Related Lawsuit in Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------
RehabCare Group, Inc., is defending itself against a class action
lawsuit over its merger with Kindred Healthcare, Inc., according
to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

On February 10, 2011, a purported class action complaint relating
to Kindred's proposed acquisition of the Company was filed in the
Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, against the Company
and certain of its directors and officers, as well as Kindred, by
Arthur I. Murray, Jr., individually and on behalf of all of the
Company's stockholders, excluding the defendants and their
affiliates. The complaint alleges, among other allegations, that
the consideration the Company's stockholders will receive in
connection with the proposed transaction is inadequate and that
the individual director and officer defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to its stockholders in approving the Merger
Agreement. The complaint further alleges that the individual
director and officer defendants were aided and abetted in such
breaches by the Company and Kindred. The complaint seeks various
forms of relief, including injunctive relief that would, if
granted, prevent the Merger from being consummated in accordance
with the agreed-upon terms. The case is styled Arthur I. Murray,
Jr. v. RehabCare Group, Inc., et al. (No. I.I.S.L. - CC00566,
Circuit Court, St. Louis Co., MO). Another purported class action
complaint, styled Norfolk County Retirement System v. Harry E.
Rich, et al. (C.A. No. 6197 (DE (Wilmington) Court of Chancery)
and filed on February 15, 2011, asserts substantially identical
claims and seeks similar relief against the Company, certain of
its directors and officers and Kindred, on behalf of all of its
stockholders, excluding the defendants and their affiliates. The
Company believes that these complaints are without merit and
intend to defend them vigorously.


RENEWABLE ENVIRONMENTAL: Judge Rejects Class Action Arguments
-------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Redden, writing for The Joplin Globe, reports that a Jasper
County circuit court judge has rejected arguments for a class
action lawsuit against Renewable Environmental Solutions of
Carthage.

Two Carthage women are suing the plant for damages they say they
suffered due to odors from the now-closed operation.  But motions
that the suit be expanded to a class action has been rejected in a
ruling by Circuit Judge David Dally.

Dally ruled the arguments on behalf of Cynthia Sundy and Tricia
Orr did not prove there was enough in common among people around
the plant for them to be combined in a class action.

Rhon Jones, attorney for the two plaintiffs, said the ruling may
be appealed and that the case will go forward.

"We've not made decision on whether to appeal at this time, but I
believe there will be a case," he said.  "What form it will take
and how it will proceed, we'll have to look at in the coming days
and weeks.  But there's no doubt in my mind the RES plant was
omitting an offensive odor."


ROCKWOOD HOLDINGS: Unit Continues to Face Product Liability Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Rockwood Holdings, Inc., continues to face several
purported product liability class action lawsuits in Louisiana,
Florida and Arkansas, according to the Company's February 28, 2011
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The sale of the company's products involves the risk of product
liability claims.  For example, some of the chemicals or
substances that are used in its businesses, such as arsenic
pentoxide, have been alleged to represent potentially
significant health and safety concerns.

Class actions had been filed in Louisiana, Florida and Arkansas,
for example, naming one of the company's subsidiaries and a
number of competitors of its Timber Treatment Chemicals business
line in the company's Performance Additives segment, as well as
treaters and retailers, as defendants.

Rockwood Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.rockwoodspecialties.com/
-- is a global developer, manufacturer and marketer of value-
added specialty chemicals and advanced materials used for
industrial and commercial purposes.  The Company's products
consist primarily of inorganic chemicals and solutions, and
engineered materials.  Rockwood operates globally, manufacturing
its products in 91 facilities in 25 countries, and selling its
products and providing its services to more than 60,000
customers.  It operates its business through five business
segments: Specialty Chemicals, Performance Additives, Titanium
Dioxide Pigments, Advanced Ceramics and Specialty Compounds.


SIOUXLAND UROLOGY: Class Action Plaintiffs Mull Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
KMEG 14 reports that plaintiffs in Siouxland Urology case have
responded to Federal Judge Karen Schreier's earlier ruling denying
their request for class action certification.

In an exclusive statement sent only to KMEG14 and its sister
station Fox 44, the plaintiff's attorneys said, "The patients
disagree with the ruling and will seek immediate review of class
certification by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals."

The Woods Fuller Law Firm of Sioux Falls goes on to say that Judge
Schreier's ruling does not address the merits of the patients
claims and allows them to assert individual actions while the
appeal is pending.  The suit is a debate over the safety of a
procedure previously used at the clinic.  The law firm says
they'll continue to pursue the case while vigorously seeking an
appeal.


SOLVAY: Class Action Settlement Benefits Local Organizations
------------------------------------------------------------
Geert De Lombaerde, writing for the Nashville Post, reports that
Vanderbilt University Medical Center and Meharry Medical College
will both receive checks of more than $1 million to fund research
projects as part of the settlement of a class-action case against
drug maker Solvay.

Two other Nashville organizations, Safe Haven Family Shelter and
the local chapter of the Lawyers' Association for Women, also have
been tabbed to receive a combined $750,000 as part of an order
issued on March 8 by a U.S. District Court in Minnesota.  The
funds are coming from a $16.5 million pool funded by Solvay to
settle claims that it deceptively marketed and falsely advertised
its hormone replacement drug Estratest.  Medical schools and
community groups in Minnesota and California also will get money
from the settlement.

"We are delighted that the court accepted our request to
distribute the funds to local organizations," said Elizabeth
Alexander, a Nashville-based Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
attorney who worked on the case.  "The awards will provide a
substantial benefit to each recipient in a difficult time of
budget cuts in order to improve the health and well-being of women
and their families."

The Vanderbilt and Meharry money comes with the condition that it
be used to advance research, education or other activities
directly related to the improvement of the health of menopausal
women.  VUMC officials plan to conduct research into caring for
osteoporosis patients with fragility fractures, while Meharry
plans to continue work into hormone therapies and other women's
health issues.

Safe Haven is getting $650,000 from the settlement.  Executive
Director Joyce Lavery said her team will use "this unexpected
gift" to kickstart a capital campaign that will allow it to
renovate and expand the group's shelter.  Donna Roberts, president
of the Marion Griffin chapter of the Lawyers' Association for
Women, says the $100,000 her group is getting will help it
continue to advocate for women to be nominated or elected to the
bench.

Lieff Cabraser attorneys worked with peers from Minneapolis law
firm Gustafson Gluek on the case against Belgium-based Solvay, for
which a settlement was approved a year ago.  The $16.5 million
pool provided refunds of up to 30% for buyers of Estratest and set
aside money for nonprofits "whose work serves the underlying
objectives of the lawsuit."


SUNBEAM PRODUCTS: Recalls 159,000 Wine Bottle Openers
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Sunbeam Products Inc., of Boca Raton, Fla., announced a voluntary
recall of about 159,000 Wine Bottle Openers.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The wine bottles can break when opened with the recalled opener,
posing a laceration hazard to consumers.

Sunbeam has received 52 reports of wine bottles breaking while the
opener was being used on them, including 22 reports of injuries.
Injuries include lacerations to the hands.  This recall involves
the "skybar (TM) Air Pump Wine Opener" model number NBSKWA2600.
The wine bottle opener was sold as a four piece set in the
following colors: gray, blue, red or silver and black-colored with
a black storage box. "skybar" is printed on the side of the wine
bottle opener.  Model number NBSKWA2600 is printed on the bottom
of the wine bottle opener.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11161.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
QVC retail and employees stores nationwide, QVC's televised
shopping programs, and online at www.qvc.com and
http://www.skybarhome.com/from November 2010 through December
2010 for between $30 and $60.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled wine bottle
openers.  Consumers who purchased the wine bottle openers at a QVC
store should return them to any QVC store for a full refund.
Consumers who purchased the wine bottle openers through QVC's
televised shopping programs or at http://www.qvc.com/were mailed
instructions for obtaining a refund.  Purchasers who have not
received the mailed instructions should contact QVC.  If the wine
openers were not purchased through QVC, contact Sunbeam for
instructions to obtain a full refund.  Contact QVC at (800) 367-
9444 between 7:00 a.m. and 1:00 a.m., Eastern Time, daily or visit
the firm's Web site at http://www.qvc.com/ Consumers can also
contact Sunbeam toll-free at (888) 759-2279 between 9:00 a.m. and
6:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.skybarhome.com/


SUNPOWER CORP: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SunPower Corporation continues to defend itself against a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit in California,
according to the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.

Three securities class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of a class consisting of those who acquired
the Company's securities from April 17, 2008, through November 16,
2009. The actions arise from the Company's announcement on
November 16, 2009, that the Company's Audit Committee commenced an
internal investigation regarding certain unsubstantiated
accounting entries. The complaints allege that the defendants made
material misstatements and omissions concerning the Company's
financial results for 2008 and 2009, seek an unspecified amount of
damages, and allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933. These cases were consolidated under Case
No. CV-09-5473-RS (N.D. Cal.).

The Company says it cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit.


TORCHMARK CORP: Discovery in "Hoover" Suit Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in a purported class action captioned Hoover v. American
Income Life Insurance Company is still ongoing, according to
Torchmark Corporation's February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

On September 23, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company's subsidiary American Income Life Insurance
Company in the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, California
captioned Hoover v. American Income Life Insurance Company, Case
No. CIVRS 910758.  The plaintiffs, former insurance sales agents
of American Income who are suing on behalf of all current and
former American Income sales agents in California for the four
year period prior to the filing of this litigation, assert that
American Income's agents are employees, not independent
contractors as they are classified by American Income.  They
allege failure to indemnify and reimburse for business expenses as
well as failure to pay all wages due upon termination in violation
of the California Labor Code; failure to pay minimum wages in
violation of the California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
Order No. 4-2001, originally and as amended; and unfair business
practices in violation of the California Business and Professions
Code Section 17200, et seq.  They seek, in a jury trial,
reimbursement for business expenses and indemnification for
losses, payment of minimum wages for their training periods,
payment of moneys due immediately upon termination under the
California Labor Code, disgorgement of profits resulting from
unfair and unlawful business practices, and injunctive relief
granting employee status to all of American Income's California
agents.  On October 29, 2009, American Income filed a motion
seeking to remove this litigation from the Superior Court in San
Bernadino County to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Eastern Division.  The U.S. District Court
remanded the case without prejudice to the Superior Court and
denied American Income's motion to dismiss on December 15, 2009.
On January 19, 2010, American Income filed a motion to dismiss
which was denied by the Superior Court after a hearing held on
March 16, 2010.  On September 20, 2010, American Income again
filed a motion to remove the case to federal court based upon
jurisdictional grounds that had not been available previously.
The Company's motion was not successful, however, and the case was
remanded back to Superior Court.  On January 12, 2011, the
Superior Court denied the Company's motion to exercise the
arbitration clauses of those agent contracts that contain them;
the Company has appealed that denial.  Discovery is proceeding.


UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs' Lawyers in Cobell Suit Defend Fee Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted The Blog of Legal Times by
Mike Scarcella, plaintiffs' lawyers handling a landmark Indian
trust case in Washington say their argument that they deserve at
least $223 million in legal fees should not come as a shock to
critics in Congress who are now seeking to cap their compensation.

Congress was informed last year that the presiding judge in the
class action has the final say on fees for the lawyers
representing lead plaintiff Elouise Cobell, the attorneys said in
court papers filed on March 7 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia.

The plaintiffs' lawyers agreed in the settlement not to argue for
more than $99.9 million in fees.  In their fee petition, the
attorneys asserted $99.9 million, keeping with the terms of the
settlement agreement, but argued that they deserve at least $223
million in fees.

The submission from the attorneys, including Kilpatrick Townsend &
Stockton partner Keith Harper and Washington solo Dennis Gingold,
is a response to the Justice Department's opposition to a fee
award of $223 million.  DOJ wants Senior Judge Thomas Hogan to
grant no more than a $50 million award to Ms. Cobell's lawyers.

Two Republicans members of the House, citing the Justice
Department's position on fees, introduced legislation to cap fees
in Cobell v. Salazar at $50 million.  A similar effort to cap the
fees failed last year.

"There is simply no question that members of both houses of
Congress fully understood that there was no cap and that the court
would decide the fee question consistent with controlling law,"
Messrs. Harper and Gingold said in the court papers.  "Those who
are feigning surprise know better or should know better."

Ms. Cobell's lawyers said they accomplished for Native Americans
what no other lawyer or government official ever had -- meaningful
reform in the management of Indian trust accounts.  The $3.4
billion settlement announced in December 2009 resolves claims the
government botched its handling of accounts for more than a
century.

In an interview on March 8, Mr. Harper said he is not surprised
that some members of Congress -- Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) and Don
Young (R-Alaska) co-sponsored the fee cap bill -- are pouncing on
the plaintiffs' fee petition.

"For some politicians on the more conservative side, it's easy to
demagogue plaintiffs' lawyers," Mr. Harper said.  "It's an easy
political shot to take with few consequences."

Mr. Harper said the demand for $223 million in legal fees is
rooted in "our signed, executed longstanding agreements with the
plaintiffs."  The fee request stems from a 14.75% contingency
agreement with the plaintiffs, Mr. Harper said.  Ms. Cobell's
lawyers said the demand comports with controlling law and is on
the low end of the scale for attorney compensation in mega-fund
cases.

The plaintiffs have not included the agreement in the record in
the case, and Harper said the plaintiffs' team should not be
required to submit the document.  Mr. Harper said contingency fee
documents are not typically made a part of the official record in
class actions.  "Is there a reason to treat this case different
from other cases? In our mind, there isn't," he said.

Messrs. Harper and Gingold, who have both traveled in recent weeks
to meet with potential beneficiaries, said the fee petition is not
the hot topic.  Potential class members want to know more about
how to participate in the settlement, not how much the lawyers are
getting paid, Mr. Harper said.

Still, he said there have been a handful of questions about fees.
But the dialogue, Harper said, has not been hostile.  "I think
beneficiaries understand that to get attorneys dedicated to
working on a matter, as they were in this case, they ought to be
compensated fairly.  They get that point."


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Court Approves Settlement in "Ethridge" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Health Services, Inc., disclosed that a court recently
approved a settlement it entered in the class action captioned
Ethridge v. Universal Health Services et al., according to the
Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

In June 2008, the Company and one of its acute care facilities,
Lancaster Community Hospital, were named as defendants in a wage
and hour lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court.  This is a
purported class action lawsuit alleging that the hospital failed
to provide sufficient meal and break periods to certain employees.
In June 2010, a settlement was reached with the attorneys for the
class representative.  The settlement was recently approved by the
court.  The reserve established for the settlement of this matter
did not have a material impact on the Company's 2010 consolidated
financial position or results of operations.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Continues to Defend Wage Suits in Calif. & Tenn.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Health Services, Inc., remains a defendant in three wage
and hour class action cases filed in California and Tennessee,
according to the Company's February 28, 2011 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

The Company and its subsidiaries are presently involved in three
wage and hour class action cases in California and Tennessee.  Two
of those cases have been certified as a class by the California
State Superior Court in Alameda County and the United States
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee,
respectively.  At present, the Company and its subsidiaries are
uncertain as to the extent of potential financial exposure but do
not believe potential settlements or judgments in these cases will
have a material impact on their consolidated financial position or
results of operations.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Shareholder Suit in Tennessee Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A purported shareholder class action lawsuit captioned Garden City
Employees' Retirement System v. PSI remains pending in Tennessee,
according to Universal Health Services, Inc.'s February 28, 2011
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2010.

This is a purported shareholder class action lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
against Psychiatric Solutions, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company,
and the former directors in 2009 alleging violations of federal
securities laws.  The Company is uncertain at this time as to
potential liability and damages but intend to defend the case
vigorously.


VALEANT PHARMA: Delaware Court Okays Consolidated Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Delaware court approved a settlement closing a consolidated
class action lawsuit filed against Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc., according to the Company's February 28, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On July 16, 2010, a stockholder of Valeant filed a purported class
action complaint in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware captioned Porto v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International,
et al., Case No. 5644, on behalf of himself and all other
stockholders of Valeant against Valeant, Valeant's directors,
Biovail, BAC and Merger Sub. On July 21, 2010, a stockholder of
Valeant filed a purported class action complaint in the Court of
Chancery captioned Marion v. Pearson, et al., Case No. 5658, on
behalf of himself and all other stockholders of Valeant against
Valeant and its directors. On July 22, 2010, a stockholder of
Valeant filed a purported class action complaint in the Court of
Chancery captioned Soukup v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, et al., Case No. 5664, on behalf of himself and all
other stockholders of Valeant against Valeant, Valeant's
directors, Biovail, BAC and Merger Sub. The complaints variously
allege that the individual defendants, aided and abetted by
Valeant, Biovail, BAC and Merger Sub, breached their fiduciary
duties of care, loyalty, candor, good faith and independence to
stockholders in connection with the Merger of Valeant with
Biovail. On July 28, 2010, the plaintiff in the Porto Action filed
a motion for a preliminary injunction and a motion for expedited
proceedings.

On August 2, 2010, the Court of Chancery granted an order
consolidating the Porto, Soukup and Marion Actions into a single
action. On August 3, 2010, the Court of Chancery conditionally
certified the Delaware Action as a class action. On August 4,
2010, the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action filed a Verified
Consolidated Class Action Complaint on behalf of the holders of
the common stock of Valeant against Valeant, the directors of
Valeant, BAC and Merger Sub. The Consolidated Complaint alleged
that the directors of Valeant, aided and abetted by BAC and Merger
Sub, breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, candor and
good faith to Valeant stockholders in connection with the proposed
Merger of Valeant with Biovail.

On September 16, 2010 the parties to the Delaware Action executed
a Memorandum of Understanding containing the terms for the
parties' agreement in principle to resolve the Delaware Action. In
exchange for Valeant and Biovail's supplemental disclosures in the
definitive proxy statement disseminated to all holders of record
of Valeant stock as of the close of business on August 18, 2010
and additional disclosures in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on September 20,
2010, and subject to court approval, plaintiffs' counsel agreed,
on behalf of the class, to, among other things, the dismissal of
all claims asserted in the Delaware Action and a release of claims
related to the Merger on behalf of the putative class of Valeant
stockholders. The MOU further provides that the plaintiffs'
counsel will petition the Court for an award of fees and expenses
in the amount of $0.45 million. The defendants deny all
allegations of wrongdoing.

After a settlement agreement was executed between the parties in
the Delaware Action pursuant to the terms of the MOU and the
settlement was approved by the Court, the Court entered an Order
and Final Judgment on January 24, 2011, dismissing the Delaware
Action and Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice pursuant to the terms
of the parties' Settlement Agreement, together with the
accompanying documents and the MOU executed by the parties on
September 16, 2010. The Court granted plaintiffs' counsel petition
for an award of fees and expenses in connection with the Delaware
Action of $0.4 million in attorneys' fees and expenses.


VERIZON COMMS: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in "September 11" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Verizon Communications Inc. is still awaiting a ruling of an
appeal made by plaintiffs over the dismissal of a class action
lawsuit alleging that the Company participated in intelligence
gathering activities after the September 11 attacks, according to
the Company's February 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

The Company, and a number of other telecommunications companies,
have been the subject of multiple class action suits concerning
its alleged participation in intelligence-gathering activities
allegedly carried out by the federal government, at the direction
of the President of the United States, as part of the government's
post-September 11 program to prevent terrorist attacks. Plaintiffs
generally allege that Verizon has participated by permitting the
government to gain access to the content of its subscribers'
telephone calls and/or records concerning those calls and that
such action violates federal and/or state constitutional and
statutory law. Relief sought in the cases includes injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees, and statutory and punitive damages. On
August 9, 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(Panel) ordered that these actions be transferred, consolidated
and coordinated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. The Panel subsequently ordered that a
number of "tag along" actions also be transferred to the Northern
District of California. Verizon believes that these lawsuits are
without merit. On July 10, 2008, the President signed into law the
FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which provides for dismissal of these
suits by the court based on submission by the Attorney General of
the United States of a specified certification. On September 19,
2008, the Attorney General made such a submission in the
consolidated proceedings. Based on this submission, the court
ordered dismissal of the complaints on June 3, 2009. Plaintiffs
have appealed this dismissal, and the appeal remains pending in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.




                            *********

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  * * *