---

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

              Monday, March 21, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 56

                             Headlines

A.H. BELO CORP: Settlement in California Suit Fully Funded
ACCELRYS INC: Final Hearing on Suit Settlement Set for April 22
AFFINIA GROUP: Continues to Defend Oil Filters Class Suit
ALLSTATE LIFE: Continues to Defend "Romero I" Suit
ALLSTATE LIFE: Continues to Defend "ERISA" Suit

AMBASSADORS GROUP: Still Defends Securities Lawsuit in Washington
ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Lorcaserin Lawsuits
BC FERRIES: Lawyer Mulls Class Action Over Prepaid Fares
BENTON HARBOR, MI: Commissioners Mull Class Action Over H.B. 4214
BIDZ.COM INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California

BRAVO SPORTS: Recalls 169,000 Pogo Sticks
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Still Faces Class Action Suits in Israeli Courts
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Still Defends Two Antitrust Suits in Nevada
CINEMARK USA: Defending Suit by Disability Rights Group in Calif.
CITIMORTGAGE INC: Berger & Montague Files Class Action in N.J.

CLEARWATER PAPER: Cellu Continues to Defend "Glembockie" Suit
CROSS COUNTRY: Awaits Final Approval of MedStaff Suit Settlement
DANVERS BANCORP: Class Suits Over PUFI Merger Still Pending
DEUTSCHE BANK: Appeal From Class Suit Settlement Still Pending
DEUTSCHE BANK: Continues to Defend Asset-Backed Securities Suits

DEUTSCHE BANK: Plaintiff Has Until August 18 to Appeal Dismissal
DEUTSCHE BANK: Awaits Outcome of Appeals From N.Y. Suits Dismissal
DEUTSCHE BANK: Motion to Dismiss TruPs Suit Still Pending in N.Y.
DIREXION: Gilman & Pastor Appointed Class Action Co-Lead Counsel
DREW INDUSTRIES: Appeal Briefs Due in May 2011

EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: To Enter Into Stipulation Settling Suits
FBR CAPITAL: Awaits Court Decision on Motion to Amend Complaint
FERRELLGAS LP: Faces Consumer Protection Class Suit in Kansas
FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit
FLORIDA: To Compensate Homeowners for Destroying Citrus Trees

GENTIVA HEALTH: Still Defends "Rindfleisch" Suit in Georgia
GENTIVA HEALTH: Continues to Defend "Wilkie" Suit in California
GENTIVA HEALTH: Continues to Defend "Alleman" Suit in Georgia
GENTIVA HEALTH: Still Faces 3 Class Suits Over Odyssey Merger
GENTIVA HEALTH: Still Defends Shareholder Class Suit in New York

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Awaits Final Ruling in Inkjet Printer Litigation
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Two Inkjet Class Suits Remain Pending in Canada
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Awaits Final Ruling on "Baggett" Suit Settlement
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Continues to Defend FLSA-Violation Suits
KNOLOGY INC: Continues to Defend "Manard" Class Suit

LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Court to Consider Settlement on March 22
LIONBRIDGE TECH: Appeals on Settlement of N.Y. Suits Still Pending
LORAL SPACE: Reinstated Appeal in "Beleson" Suit Still Pending
LORAL SPACE: Distribution of Proceeds Approved in "Christ" Suit
MASSEY ENERGY: Testimony Begins in Marsh Fork Silo Class Action

MATTEL INC: Suits Involving Bryant and MGA Remain Pending
MERCK & CO: Faces Class Action Over Baldness Drug Propecia
NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Hearing Set for Superbowl Class Action
NEIMAN MARCUS: Continues to Defend "Monjazeb" Suit
NEW YORK: Trespassing Arrests Drop Following NYPD Class Action

NOKIA CORP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss New York Suit
NOKIA CORP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
NUCLEAR FUEL: Erwin Residents Mull Class Action
ORIENT PAPER: Seeks Dismissal of "Henning" Class Action Suit
PARIGI GROUP: Recalls 1,600 Girls' Jeans for Toddlers

PRUCO LIFE: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of Nevada Suit
PRUCO LIFE: Suits on Retained Asset Accounts Remain Pending
QC HOLDINGS: Arguments on Class Certification in 1st Half of 2011
QC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Torrence" Suit in North Carolina
QC HOLDINGS: Will Argue Arbitration Issues in Early to Mid-2011

QUICKLOGIC CORP: Appeals in Securities Suit Remain Pending
RADIENT PHARMA: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in Calif.
RESTAURANT.COM: Sued for Selling Useless Coupons to Customers
SOUTHERN STAR: Awaits Plaintiffs' Next Step in Price Litigation I
SOUTHERN STAR: Awaits Outcome of Price Litigation II in Kansas

SUPPORT.COM: Awaits Ruling on Appeal From Settlement of IPO Suit
UBS AG: Continues to Defend Municipal Bond-Related Suits
UBS AG: Auction Rate Securities Matters Remain Pending
UBS AG: Lehman Principal Protection Notes Matters Still Pending
UBS AG: Awaits Dismissal of Rights Offering Suit in New York

UBS AG: Awaits Dismissal of Consolidated Retirement Plan Suit
UNITED STATES: Accused of Discriminating Against Latino Farmers
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Awaits Plaintiffs' Next Step in Securities Suit
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs Ask Israeli Court for Leave to Appeal
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Awaits Court Okay of Hypercom Merger Suit Deal

WAL-MART STORES: Sex Bias Class Action Threatens Large Employers
WELLINGTON, AUSTRALIA: May Face Class Action Over Water Crisis
WELLS REIT: Units Continue to Defend Securities Litigation in Md.
WEST BANCORP: Subsidiary Faces Class Suit Over Overdraft Fees

* Yoss & Adorno to Dissolve After Partner's Suspension



                             *********

A.H. BELO CORP: Settlement in California Suit Fully Funded
----------------------------------------------------------
A. H. Belo Corporation has fully funded its obligation under the
approved settlement in the class action lawsuit filed by four
contractors in California, according to the Company's March 11,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On April 13, 2009, four former independent home delivery
contractors of The Press-Enterprise filed a purported class action
lawsuit against A. H. Belo Corporation, Belo Corp., Press-
Enterprise Company, and others in The Superior Court of the State
of California, Riverside County.  Plaintiffs allege, on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, that they were improperly
classified as independent contractors instead of as employees.
Plaintiffs assert that they and members of the purported class
were not paid all wages owed, including minimum wages, hourly
wages, and overtime wages; and that Defendants failed to provide
meal periods and rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof,
failed to reimburse for reasonable and necessary business
expenses, unlawfully withheld wages due, failed to provide
accurate wage statements, failed to keep accurate payroll records,
failed to pay wages timely, and thus committed unfair business
practices.  Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint in July
2010 that added a claim under the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act.  The original and amended complaints seek recovery of
allegedly unpaid wages, meal and rest period payments, penalties,
expenses, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.  During the second
quarter of 2010, A. H. Belo and the other parties to the lawsuit
reached a preliminary agreement to settle the lawsuit.  The Court
preliminarily approved the agreement on September 16, 2010 and
granted final approval on February 25, 2011.  A. H. Belo's
liability under the settlement is $2,112,000 which was fully
accrued as of December 31, 2010.

The Company says accrual for the settlement is recorded in Other
accrued expenses in the consolidated balance sheets and the
corresponding expense is included in Other production,
distribution and operating costs in the consolidated statements of
operations.  The Company has made $1,200,000 in payments to an
escrow account per the terms of the preliminary agreement, as of
December 31, 2010, and its obligation under the approved
settlement was fully funded in the first quarter of 2011.


ACCELRYS INC: Final Hearing on Suit Settlement Set for April 22
---------------------------------------------------------------
Accelrys, Inc., disclosed its March 15, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
transition period from April 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010, that
the final hearing to consider approval of its settlement of a
class action lawsuit related to its proposed merger with Symyx
Technologies, Inc., has been scheduled for April 22, 2011.

Prior to the completion of the Merger, several lawsuits were filed
against Symyx, the members of the Symyx board of directors and
certain executive officers of Symyx, Accelrys and Alto Merger Sub,
Inc., in purported class action lawsuits brought by individual
Symyx stockholders challenging the Merger.  The first of such
lawsuits was a class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Santa Clara, purportedly on
behalf of the stockholders of Symyx, against Symyx and its
directors and chief financial officer, as well as Accelrys and
Merger Sub, alleging, among other things, that Symyx's directors
breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders of Symyx in
connection with the proposed Merger.  Subsequent to the filing of
such lawsuit, several additional suits were filed, also in Santa
Clara County, each of which was substantially similar to the first
lawsuit.  The lawsuits were ultimately consolidated into a single
action and on May 20, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a single
consolidated complaint.  The Complaint serves as the only
complaint in the combined litigation going forward, which is
pending in the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara.  The
Complaint, like the previously filed complaints, alleges, among
other things, that Symyx's directors breached their fiduciary
duties to the stockholders of Symyx in connection with the Merger,
and was seeking, among other things, to enjoin the defendants from
completing the Merger pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement.

On June 22, 2010, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding  with the plaintiffs, pursuant to which the
defendants and the plaintiffs agreed to settle the Consolidated
Action.  Subject to court approval and further definitive
documentation, the MOU resolves the allegations by the plaintiffs
against the defendants made in connection with the Merger and the
Merger Agreement, and provides a release and settlement by the
purported class of Symyx stockholders with prejudice of all
asserted claims against the defendants without costs to any
defendant, other than as expressly provided in the MOU, in
exchange for Symyx's agreement to provide additional supplemental
disclosures to the joint proxy statement/prospectus issued by
Accelrys and Symyx in connection with the Merger.  Accelrys and
Symyx made the appropriate supplemental disclosures on June 23,
2010.  On January 28, 2011, the plaintiffs filed the Unopposed
Notice of Motion for Preliminary Approval of a Class Action
Settlement and supporting documents.  On February 25, 2011, the
Court signed a preliminary approval order, which granted
preliminary certification of a non-opt out class and set a
settlement hearing for April 22, 2011 to determine whether a final
order and judgment should be granted to settle this matter.

Upon settlement, the Company will be obligated to pay any
attorneys fees and expenses awarded to the plaintiffs, if any.  If
the settlement is not approved or the conditions of the MOU are
not satisfied, the Company intends to take all appropriate actions
to defend against the allegations made in the Complaint.

Accelrys develops and commercializes scientific informatics
software products and services for industries and organizations
that rely on scientific innovation to differentiate themselves in
the marketplace.


AFFINIA GROUP: Continues to Defend Oil Filters Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Affinia Group Intermediate Holdings Inc. continues to defend
itself in a class action lawsuit filed by S&E Quick Lube
Distributors, Inc., of Utah, according to the Company's March 11,
2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On March 31, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed by S&E Quick
Lube Distributors, Inc., of Utah against several auto parts
manufacturers for allegedly conspiring to fix prices for
replacement oil, air, fuel and transmission filters. Several auto
parts companies are named as defendants, including Champion
Laboratories, Inc., Purolator Filters NA LLC, Honeywell
International Inc., Cummins Filtration Inc., Donaldson Company,
Baldwin Filters Inc., Bosch USA., Mann + Hummel USA Inc.,
ArvinMeritor Inc., United Components Inc. and Wix Filtration Corp
LLC, one of the Company's subsidiaries. The lawsuit is currently
pending as a consolidated Multi-District Litigation Proceeding in
Chicago, IL because of multiple "tag-along" filings in several
jurisdictions. Two suits have also been filed in the Canadian
provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Wix Filtration, along with other
named defendants, has filed various motions to dismiss plaintiffs'
complaints, which were denied by the court in December 2009.
Several defendants, including Wix Filtration, have refiled motions
to dismiss based upon plaintiffs' most recent amended complaint.
The court denied those motions in September 2010. Discovery in the
action continues. Despite the U.S. Department of Justice closing
its investigation in this matter, the State of Washington Attorney
General has also issued Civil Investigative Demands to all
defendants. The Company believes that Wix Filtration did not have
significant sales in this particular market at the relevant time
periods so the Company does not expect the lawsuit to have a
material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of
operations. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.

Affinia Group Intermediate Holdings Inc. --
http://www.affiniagroup.com/-- operates in the on- and off-
highway replacement products and services industry.  Affinia
Group Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of the company.  The
Company offers primarily three types of products: brake products,
which include brake drums, rotors, pads and shoes and hydraulic
brake system components; filtration products, which include oil,
fuel, air and other filters, and chassis products, which include
steering, suspension and driveline components.  The company's
products are primarily sold in North America, Europe and South
America. During the year ended December 31, 2008, North America
accounted for 63% of net sales; Europe, 18% and South America,
19%.  The company's customers primarily comprise aftermarket
distributors and retailers selling to professional technicians or
installers.  On Oct. 31, 2008, Affinia Acquisition LLC completed
the purchase of 85% interests in HBM Investment Limited (HBM).


ALLSTATE LIFE: Continues to Defend "Romero I" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Allstate Life Insurance Company continues to defend itself against
a class action lawsuit filed by former employee agents, according
to the Company's March 11, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

AIC is defending certain matters relating to its agency program
reorganization announced in 1999.  These matters include a lawsuit
filed in 2001 by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
alleging retaliation under federal civil rights laws (the "EEOC I"
suit) and a class action filed in 2001 by former employee agents
alleging retaliation and age discrimination under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, breach of contract and ERISA
violations (the "Romero I" suit).  In 2004, in the consolidated
EEOC I and Romero I litigation, the trial court issued a
memorandum and order that, among other things, certified classes
of agents, including a mandatory class of agents who had signed a
release, for purposes of effecting the court's declaratory
judgment that the release is voidable at the option of the release
signer.  The court also ordered that an agent who voids the
release must return to AIC "any and all benefits received by the
[agent] in exchange for signing the release."  The court also
stated that, "on the undisputed facts of record, there is no basis
for claims of age discrimination."  The EEOC and plaintiffs asked
the court to clarify and/or reconsider its memorandum and order
and in January 2007, the judge denied their request.

In June 2007, the court granted AIC's motions for summary
judgment.  Following plaintiffs' filing of a notice of appeal, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an order in
December 2007 stating that the notice of appeal was not taken from
a final order within the meaning of the federal law and thus not
appealable at this time.  In March 2008, the Third Circuit decided
that the appeal should not summarily be dismissed and that the
question of whether the matter is appealable at this time will be
addressed by the Third Circuit along with the merits of the
appeal.  In July 2009, the Third Circuit vacated the decision
which granted AIC's summary judgment motions, remanded the cases
to the trial court for additional discovery, and directed that the
cases be reassigned to another trial court judge.  In January
2010, the cases were assigned to a new judge for further
proceedings in the trial court.

AIC says it has been vigorously defending against the lawsuit and
other matters related to its agency program reorganization.

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


ALLSTATE LIFE: Continues to Defend "ERISA" Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Allstate Life Insurance Company continues to defend itself against
a lawsuit by former employee agents alleging various violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, according to
the Company's March 11, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

A putative nationwide class action has been filed against the
Company by former employee agents alleging various violations of
ERISA, including a worker classification issue.  These plaintiffs
are challenging certain amendments to the Agents Pension Plan and
are seeking to have exclusive agent independent contractors
treated as employees for benefit purposes.  This matter was
dismissed with prejudice by the trial court, was the subject of
further proceedings on appeal, and was reversed and remanded to
the trial court in 2005.  In June 2007, the court granted AIC's
motion to dismiss the case.  Following plaintiffs' filing of a
notice of appeal, the Third Circuit issued an order in December
2007 stating that the notice of appeal was not taken from a final
order within the meaning of the federal law and thus not
appealable at this time.  In March 2008, the Third Circuit decided
that the appeal should not summarily be dismissed and that the
question of whether the matter is appealable at this time will be
addressed by the Third Circuit along with the merits of the
appeal.  In July 2009, the Third Circuit vacated the decision
which granted AIC's motion to dismiss the case, remanded the case
to the trial court for additional discovery, and directed that the
case be reassigned to another trial court judge.  In January 2010,
the case was assigned to a new judge for further proceedings in
the trial court.

AIC says it has been vigorously defending the lawsuit and other
matters related to its agency program reorganization.

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


AMBASSADORS GROUP: Still Defends Securities Lawsuit in Washington
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ambassadors Group, Inc., is still defending itself against a
securities class action lawsuit in Washington, according to the
Company's March 11, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On July 14, 2009, a securities class action was filed against the
Company and certain of its executive officers on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased the Company's Common Stock
between February 8, 2007 and October 23, 2007, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. On
March 11, 2010, the Company, and certain of its executive
officers, moved to dismiss the class action. On June 2, 2010, the
Court issued an order denying the Company, and certain of its
executive officers', motions.  The current amended complaint
alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by
making untrue statements of material fact and/or omitting to state
material facts, thereby artificially inflating the price of the
Company's Common Stock. The Company has reviewed the amended
complaint and deny the allegations contained therein. This action
is currently in discovery. The Company has tendered its defense
and indemnity under applicable insurance coverage and defense
counsel in Seattle, Washington has been retained to represent the
Company.

The Company says it cannot estimate the possible loss, if any, at
this time.  The actual cost to resolve this case will depend upon
many factors such as the outcome of mediation, pre-trial motions,
trial and any appeals.  The Company says it intends to vigorously
defend this lawsuit and any alleged claims for damages.


ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Lorcaserin Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc., disclosed in its March 15, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, that it continues to
defend itself against securities class suits related to
lorcaserin, its drug candidate.

Beginning September 20, 2010, a number of complaints were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
against the Company and certain of its employees and directors on
behalf of certain purchasers of its common stock.  The complaints
have been brought as purported stockholder class actions, and, in
general, include allegations that the Company and certain of its
employees and directors violated federal securities laws by making
materially false and misleading statements regarding its
"lorcaserin" trials, thereby artificially inflating the price of
its common stock.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary
damages and other relief.  On November 19, 2010, eight prospective
lead plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate, to appoint a lead
plaintiff, and to appoint lead counsel.  The Court took the
motions to consolidate under submission on January 14, 2011.  The
Company expects the Court to consolidate the actions, to appoint a
lead plaintiff and lead counsel, and to order the lead plaintiff
to file a consolidated complaint.  In addition to the class
actions, a complaint involving similar legal and factual issues
has been brought by at least one individual stockholder.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims
advanced, and intends to seek dismissal of these complaints.

Arena Pharmaceuticals is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company focused on discovering, developing and commercializing
oral drugs that target G protein-coupled receptors, or GPCRs, an
important class of validated drug targets, in four major
therapeutic areas: cardiovascular, central nervous system,
inflammatory and metabolic diseases.  Its most advanced drug
candidate is lorcaserin hydrochloride, or lorcaserin, which is
intended for weight management.


BC FERRIES: Lawyer Mulls Class Action Over Prepaid Fares
--------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Fournier, writing for Postmedia News, reports that a
high-profile lawyer who has won key class-action lawsuits calls
BC Ferries' "grab" of $1.2 million in prepaid fares "absolutely
outrageous."

James Poyner, who has negotiated millions of dollars in plaintiff
settlements, plans to launch a class-action suit for ferry riders
who paid for 15,765 trips that BC Ferries now refuses to provide
or reimburse.

"The ferry-riding public paid for fares, in advance, in good faith
and BC Ferries now refuses to provide those trips or to reimburse
people for unused cards and tickets that most people had no idea
would expire," said Mr. Poyner.

"The main issue in a successful class action suit is that of
commonality and I have no difficulty saying there is a commonality
among the thousands of people who lost money to BC Ferries."

Mr. Poyner said he's won lawsuits on behalf of "tens of thousands"
of plaintiffs who sued corporations from Nissan to Bausch & Lomb
and Canada Life, as well as drug companies over medications with
harmful side effects.

BC Ferries' spokeswoman Deborah Marshall confirmed on March 15
that money was "seized" not only from prepaid Assured Loading
Tickets but also from many vouchers and paper tickets that were
phased out in 2009.

Paper tickets made "forgery simple if a person was so inclined,"
said Ms. Marshall.

BC Ferries president David Hahn, who decided to keep prepaid fare
revenue in a meeting with only one other executive member present,
said in an earlier interview that the people who lost money are
"sophisticated travellers who paid to cut in line."

Bruce Cran, Consumers' Association of Canada president, said he
has heard from more than 600 people "who depend on BC Ferries as
their highway system.  They're retired, often small business
people, or on a fixed income."


BENTON HARBOR, MI: Commissioners Mull Class Action Over H.B. 4214
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Lewis, writing for WNDU.com, reports that several
commissioners voiced their opposition to State Rep. Al Pscholka's
bill to give emergency financial managers more power during a town
hall meeting on March 14.

Five commissioners and Mayor Wilce Cooke said House Bill 4214,
which passed Michigan's House and Senate, would remove democracy
from the city.

H.B. 4214 gives state appointed emergency financial managers, such
as Joe Harris who serves Benton Harbor, the power to disband
elected officials.

Mr. Harris previously said he is not planning to disband the
commission and is holding out hope he can work with commissioners,
but would not say he won't exercise the option at some point.

Benton Harbor commissioners and Harris have frequently butted
heads over what they consider extreme and ineffective cost-cutting
measures.

Mayor Pro-tem Marcus Muhammad encouraged citizens to go with him
to Lansing on Wednesday for a large protest against H.B. 4214.
Muhammad presented a letter from documentary filmmaker Michael
Moore who is encouraging Michigan residents from across the state
to take the day off and protest.

State Rep. Pscholka disagreed with the criticism from the
commissioners, instead saying most of the bill focuses on keeping
local government in place.

"This new law encourages local governments to fix their own
problems and if local leaders continue to ignore or hide their
financial responsibility or blame others for it, then the state
will have a process to help them avoid bankruptcy.  That's what
this bill does. The political spin that's being put forward right
now, quite frankly is just way off base," said Mr. Pscholka, who
added if the commissioners spent as much time fixing the budget as
they did fighting this bill they may not be in the current
situation.

Commissioners said they have little choice, but to argue against
the bill in order to save their city and the democratic process.

"[Pscholka] will go down as being the worst state rep to ever
represent this area.  We did have a lot of respect for John Proos
who carried that position before Al Pscholka, but I support every
recall that's going to happen concerning Al Pscholka," said
Commissioner Duane Seats.

Also discussed during the March 14 meeting were subpoenas planned
for the Consortium for Community Development and Citizens for
Progressive Change.

Mr. Muhammad presented several documents discussing the non-
profit's board members and how it spent its money.  He said the
organizations received more than $8 million to benefit Benton
Harbor residents, but does not believe the majority of the money
went to helping those in need.

The subpoenas were initially scheduled to be delivered on
March 14, but Messs. Muhammad and Cooke said their lawyer found an
error and is working to correct it before the subpoenas are
delivered.

Finally, commissioners are hoping other cities will band with them
to file a class action lawsuit against the state for H.B. 4214.
Mr. Knowles said this lawsuit would not be the same suit announced
by commissioners a few months ago.

The six commissioners behind the class action lawsuit against
Harris, the State of Michigan and other unannounced defendants,
have not found a lawyer willing to take the case for free.


BIDZ.COM INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bidz.com, Inc., continues to defend itself in a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit pending before the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, according
to the Company's March 11, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

In May and June, 2009, the Company and certain of its officers
were named as defendants in three parallel class action complaints
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California (Ramon Gomez v. Bidz.com, Inc., et al., cv09-3216
(CBM) (C.D. Cal.; filed on May 7, 2009); James Mitchell v.
Bidz.com, Inc., et al., cv09-03671 (CBM) (C.D. Cal.; filed on May
22, 2009); Mark Walczyk v. Bidz.com, Inc., et al., cv09-0397 (CBM)
(C.D. Cal.; filed on June 3, 2009)). On July 30, 2009, the Court
consolidated the cases. The consolidated complaint charges
violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that the Company failed to
disclose unethical and fraudulent business practices, that it did
not have controls in place to prevent "shill bidding," that it
uses unreliable or false appraisal prices on its merchandise, and
that it failed to correctly account for and disclose in detail its
co-op marketing contributions and minimum gross profit guarantees.

On May 25, 2010, in a 30-page opinion, the Honorable Consuelo B.
Marshall of the United States District Court granted the Company's
Motion to Dismiss the securities fraud complaint with leave to
amend. On June 22, 2010, the plaintiff filed its amended
complaint. On July 30, 2010, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss
the amended complaint and on September 8, 2010, the Plaintiff
filed another amended complaint. On September 27, 2010, the
Company filed another Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint,
which was heard by the Court on November 1, 2010.  The Court took
the Company's Motion under submission in November 2010, and in
February 2011 the Court denied the Motion to Dismiss. The Company
believes that the lawsuit is meritless and intends to defend the
cases vigorously.

Bidz.com (Nasdaq:BIDZ) -- http://www.bidz.com/-- founded in 1998,
is a leading online retailer of jewelry. Bidz offers its products
through a live auction format as well as a fixed price online
retail store, Buyz.com.  Bidz.com's auctions are also available in
Arabic, German and Spanish.  Bidz also operates Modnique --
http://www.modnique.com/-- a division of Bidz.com, an exclusive
private sale shopping site for members-only, offering authentic
premium brand name merchandise. Modnique offers its members
exclusive access to 24-72 hour sales events on designer apparel,
accessories, shoes, and houseware and much more at price points up
to 85% below traditional retail prices.


BRAVO SPORTS: Recalls 169,000 Pogo Sticks
-----------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Bravo Sports, of Santa Fe Springs, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 169,000 Pogo Sticks.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The bottom of the pogo stick's frame tube can break or come apart
and a pin holding the spring in place can break, posing laceration
and fall hazards to consumers.

Bravo has received 123 reports of incidents involving the pogo
sticks, including nine reports of injuries.  Injuries include one
report of a child who chipped a tooth and required stitches for a
facial laceration, another child who chipped a tooth and one child
who fell after the pogo stick broke and knocked out a tooth.

This recall involves the Rocket Stick Pogo, Pop Stick Pogo,
Monster Stick Pogo and Twin Stick Pogo.  They were sold in red,
green and blue colors.  Rocket, Pop, Monster or Twin are printed
on the stem and on the foot pedals. Only pogo sticks with
manufacturing date codes between 04/01/2010 -- 046HE and
10/31/2010 -- 046HE are included in the recall.  The manufacturing
date code is located on a white label underneath the foot pedal or
on the stem of the pogo near the foot pedals.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11172.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
mass merchandisers nationwide and online by Web retailers from May
2010 through March 2011 for between $25 and $40.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled pogo sticks
and contact Bravo to receive a full refund.  For additional
information, contact Bravo toll-free at (877) 992-9905 between
7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through Friday or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.bravopogorecall.com/


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Still Faces Class Action Suits in Israeli Courts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. continues to defend itself from purported
class action lawsuits filed in Israeli district courts, according
to the Company's March 15, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

In September 2000, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Cellcom in the District Court of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa by one of
its subscribers in connection with VAT charges in respect of
insurance premiums and the provision of insurance services that
were allegedly provided not in accordance with the law. In
February 2006, the motion for certification as a class action was
denied.  In March 2006, an appeal was filed with the Supreme Court
challenging the dismissal. In December 2008, the appeal was
partially allowed and the claim was returned for further
consideration by the District Court of certain issues determined
by the Supreme Court. If the lawsuit is certified as a class
action, the amount claimed is estimated by the plaintiff to be NIS
402 million.

In August 2001, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
Cellcom in the District Court of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa by one of its
subscribers in connection with its outgoing call tariffs on the
"Talkman" (pre-paid) plan and the collection of a distribution fee
for "Talkman" calling cards.  In June 2004, the motion for
certification as a class action was denied.  In September 2004,
this decision was appealed to the Israeli Supreme Court.  In July
2007, the Israeli Supreme Court accepted a petition filed by both
parties with mutual consent, in light of the Israeli Class Action
Law, 2006, to resubmit the purported class action lawsuit for
consideration in the District Court of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa. If the
lawsuit is certified as a class action, the amount claimed is
estimated by the plaintiff to be NIS 135 million.  In January
2010, during preliminary proceedings, the District Court accepted
Cellcom's defense of limitations for the period prior to March
1999. In April 2010, the plaintiff appealed the decision to the
Supreme Court.

In August 2003, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
Cellcom in the District Court of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa (and later
transferred to the District Court of the Central Region) by one of
its subscribers in connection with its method of rounding the
rates of calls, its method of linking rates of calls to the
consumer price index and an alleged unlawful approval of a certain
rate that was approved by the Ministry of Communications in 1996.
Following the amendment to the Consumer Protection Law in December
2005, the plaintiff filed an amended statement of its claim in
March 2006, to which Cellcom has replied.  If the lawsuit is
certified as a class action, the amount claimed (for the original
claim) is estimated by the plaintiff to be NIS 150 million. In
August 2009 and September 2010, during preliminary proceedings,
the court rejected most of the alleged causes of action. As a
result, the request to certify the lawsuit as a class action will
continue to be heard in respect of one cause of action only: that
Cellcom did not provide its customers full information in regards
to the maximum airtime tariff set in the calling plan and its
license, prior to entering into a calling plan. In November 2010,
the plaintiff appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

In August 2006, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
Cellcom (and two other cellular operators) in the District Court
of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa by plaintiffs alleging to be subscribers of the
defendants in connection with sums allegedly unlawfully charged
for a segment of a call that was not actually carried out. In
November 2010, the purported class action was dismissed with
prejudice. In December 2010, an appeal was filed with the Supreme
Court challenging the dismissal. If the lawsuit is certified as a
class action, the total amount claimed is estimated by the
plaintiffs to exceed NIS 100 million without specifying the amount
claimed from Cellcom individually.

In December 2007, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Cellcom (and two other cellular operators) in the District
Court of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa by plaintiffs alleging to be residing next
to cell sites of the defendants which the plaintiffs allege were
built in violation of the law. The plaintiffs allege that the
defendants have created environmental hazards by unlawfully
building cell sites and therefore demand that the defendants will
compensate the public for damages (other than personal damages,
such as depreciation of property and/or health related damages
which are excluded from the purported class action), demolish
existing unlawfully built cell sites and refrain from unlawfully
building new cell sites. If the lawsuit is certified as a class
action, the compensation claimed from the defendants (without any
allocation of this amount among the defendants) is estimated by
the plaintiffs to be NIS 1 billion.

In March 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
Cellcom in the District Court of Central Region by plaintiffs
alleging to be subscribers, in connection with allegations that
Cellcom unlawfully charged its subscribers for providing them with
call details records. In August 2009 the request to certify the
lawsuit as a class action was approved by the court and the claim
will be tried as a class action, relating to an allegation that
Cellcom breached the agreements with its subscribers by charging
them for the service Cellcom previously provided free of charge,
without obtaining their consent. In May 2010, Cellcom's appeal and
request to stay proceedings until the appeal is decided was not
accepted by the Supreme Court, for reasons not related to the
merits of the matter, and the lawsuit is tried in the District
Court as a class action in relation to such allegation. If the
lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total amount claimed
is estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS 440
million.

In April 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
Cellcom in the District Court of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa, by plaintiffs
alleging to be subscribers, in connection with allegations that
Cellcom overcharged certain subscribers entitled to rebates under
their agreement with the Company, by miscalculating the rebate. If
the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the amount claimed is
estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS 100 million.

In July 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
Cellcom in the District Court of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa, by a plaintiff
alleging to be its subscriber, in connection with allegations that
Cellcom mislead and overcharge certain subscribers, in relation to
airtime packages. If the lawsuit is certified as a class action,
the amount claimed is estimated by the plaintiff to be
approximately NIS 72 million.

In May 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
Cellcom in the District Court of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa, by a plaintiff
alleging to be its subscriber, in connection with allegations that
it misled its subscribers whose calling plan includes certain
reduced tariff calls, by failing to specify certain limitations on
reduced tariff calls. The plaintiff did not specify the amount
claimed if the lawsuit is certified as a class action.

In November 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Cellcom in the District Court of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa, by a
plaintiff alleging to be a subscriber in connection with
allegations that Cellcom unlawfully included commercial content in
internet pages viewed by its subscribers through cellular
"surfing", and unlawfully charged them for such surfing. The
plaintiff did not estimate the total amount claimed, if the
lawsuit is certified as a class action.

In March 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
Cellcom and another cellular operator, in the District Court of
Tel-Aviv-Jaffa, by two plaintiffs alleging to be subscribers of
the defendants, in connection with allegations that the defendants
breached their license by failing to purchase insurance against
monetary liability which the defendants may suffer due to bodily
damages that allegedly may be caused by cellular radiation. The
plaintiffs request the court to award compensation in an amount
equal to the insurance premiums allegedly payable for insuring
such liability (estimated by the plaintiffs to be NIS 300 million
per year per defendant) for the past seven years and to order the
defendants to purchase such insurance coverage in the future. If
the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total amount
claimed is estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS 4.2
billion, out of which NIS 2.1 billion is attributed to Cellcom
individually.

In May 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
Cellcom and two other defendants in the District Court of Central
Region, by a plaintiff alleging to be a subscriber, in connection
with allegations that the defendants unlawfully sent  commercial
messages to certain recipients. In June 2010, one of the other
defendants was deleted from the list of defendants at its request
and with the consent of the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not
estimate the total amount claimed if the lawsuit is certified as a
class action.

In May 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
Cellcom (and the three other Israeli cellular operators) in the
District Court of Central Region, by four plaintiffs alleging to
be subscribers of the defendants. The plaintiffs allege that the
defendants unlawfully and in violation of their license and
agreements with their subscribers fail to construct cell sites in
a sufficient quantity, scope and coverage in order to provide
cellular services in the requisite quality; fail to test, repair
and notify the subscribers that non-ionizing radiation level for
repaired handsets may exceed the manufacturer's specifications and
the maximum level allowed by law; fail to inform and caution the
subscribers of the risks related to the manner of carrying the
handset and its distance from the subscriber's body; all of which
allegedly increase the level of non-ionizing radiation and health
risks to which the subscribers are exposed. In September 2010, at
Cellcom's and two other cellular operators' request, the Court
instructed the transfer of this purported class action to the Tel-
Aviv-Jaffa District Court, to be heard by the Judge hearing the
purported class action filed against Cellcom in December 2007 (by
plaintiffs alleging that Cellcom and the two other Israeli
cellular operators have created environmental hazards by
unlawfully building cell sites). If the lawsuit is certified as a
class action, the total amount claimed from Cellcom is estimated
by the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS 3.68 billion (the total
amount claimed from the four defendants is estimated by the
plaintiffs to be approximately NIS 12 billion).

In May 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
Cellcom in the District Court of Tel Aviv, by a plaintiff alleging
to be a subscriber, in connection with the allegation that Cellcom
unlawfully returned certain amounts to its subscribers at their
nominal value without adjustments for  interest and consumer price
index differences. If the lawsuit is certified as a class action,
the total amount claimed from Cellcom is estimated by the
plaintiff to be approximately NIS 54 million.

In July 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
Cellcom in the District Court of Central region, by a plaintiff
alleging to be a subscriber in connection with the allegation that
Cellcom unlawfully charged its subscribers with value added tax
for services provided abroad. In October 2010, this purported
class action was joined with two other similar purported class
actions, filed against two other Israeli cellular operators. In
December 2010,  the Israeli Tax Authority was joined as defendant
at Cellcom's and another defendant's request . The plaintiff did
not estimate the total amount claimed if the lawsuit is certified
as a class action.

In July 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
Cellcom in the District Court of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa, by two plaintiffs
alleging to be a subscribers, in connection with the allegation
that their subscribers' agreements violate certain format
requirements under the Israeli Standard Contracts Law. If the
lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total amount claimed
from Cellcom is estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately
NIS 100 million.

In September 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Cellcom in the District Court of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa, by a
plaintiff alleging to be a subscriber, in connection with the
allegation that its handset repair services violate the Israeli
Consumer Protection Law. If the lawsuit is certified as a class
action, the total amount claimed from Cellcom is estimated by the
plaintiff to be approximately NIS 100 million.

In September 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Cellcom in the District Court of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa, by a
plaintiff alleging to be a subscriber, in connection with the
allegation that Cellcom did not provide the plaintiff with a
written document containing information about the right to cancel
a non frontal transaction, in violation of the Israeli Consumer
Protection Law. If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the
total amount claimed from Cellcom is estimated by the plaintiff to
be approximately NIS 98 million.

In October 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Cellcom in the District Court of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa, by a
plaintiff alleging to be a subscriber and her son, in connection
with the allegation that Cellcom unlawfully misused data bases
regarding its customers, in violation of the Israeli Privacy
Protection Law. If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the
total amount claimed from Cellcom is estimated by the plaintiffs
to be approximately NIS 50 million.

In November 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Cellcom in the District Court of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa, by a
plaintiff alleging to be a subscriber, in connection with the
allegation that Cellcom charges its subscribers for certain
content services without obtaining their consent. If the lawsuit
is certified as a class action, the total amount claimed from
Cellcom is estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS 405
million (out of which NIS 300 million for mental anguish).

In November 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Cellcom in the District Court of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa, by a
plaintiff alleging to be a subscriber, in connection with the
allegation that it breached its agreements with its subscribers in
relation to rebates for handsets. If the lawsuit is certified as a
class action, the total amount claimed from Cellcom is estimated
by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS 79 million.

In November 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Cellcom in the District Court of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa, by a
plaintiff alleging to be a subscriber, in connection with
allegations that Cellcom, unlawfully and in violation of its
license, does not allow its subscribers to review their agreements
prior to signing them. If the lawsuit is certified as a class
action, the total amount claimed from Cellcom is estimated by the
plaintiff to be approximately NIS 150 million.

In December 2010, nine purported class action lawsuits were filed
against Cellcom in various District Courts, by plaintiffs alleging
to be subscribers, claiming compensation for damages (in some of
the lawsuits mental anguish as well), in connection with
allegations (in all or some of the lawsuits) that Cellcom misled
its subscribers and unlawfully and in violation of its license and
agreements with its subscribers, failed to provide service to its
subscribers during the network malfunction that occurred on
December 1, 2010.  As per Cellcom's request, all lawsuits (except
for one in which the plaintiff has requested its dismissal) were
transferred to the District Court of Central Region to be heard by
the same judge. If the lawsuits are certified as a class action,
the total amount claimed in each lawsuit is estimated by the
respective plaintiffs to be approximately NIS 1.3 billion, NIS
1.32 billion, NIS 1.18 billion, NIS 990 million, NIS 200 million,
NIS 61 million, NIS 57 million (in which the plaintiff has
requested its dismissal) and NIS 25 million. An additional
purported class action lawsuit for NIS 22 million was dismissed
without prejudice at the plaintiff's request. In addition, the
Ministry of Communications appointed an examination committee to
investigate the causes and Cellcom's handling of the malfunction.

In December 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Cellcom in the District Court of Central region, by a
plaintiff alleging to be a subscriber, in connection with
allegations that Cellcom misled its subscribers by not allowing
them to update reduced tariff destinations in breach of their
agreements. If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the
total amount claimed from Cellcom is estimated by the plaintiff to
be approximately NIS 148 million.

In January 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Cellcom in the District Court of Jerusalem, by a plaintiff
alleging to be a subscriber, in connection with allegations that
Cellcom unlawfully charged its subscribers for "surfing" services
provided abroad while the handset shifted from WiFi to cellular
"surfing" without prior notice and without the subscriber's
consent. If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total
amount claimed from Cellcom is estimated by the plaintiff to be
approximately NIS 69 million.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Still Defends Two Antitrust Suits in Nevada
---------------------------------------------------------------
A large number of lawsuits were filed against numerous gas market
participants in a number of federal and western state courts in
connection with the operation of the natural gas markets in 2000-
2002. CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp.'s former affiliate, RRI
Energy, Inc., was a participant in gas trading in the California
and Western markets. These lawsuits, many of which have been filed
as class actions, allege violations of state and federal antitrust
laws. Plaintiffs in these lawsuits are seeking a variety of forms
of relief, including, among others, recovery of compensatory
damages (in some cases in excess of $1 billion), a trebling of
compensatory damages, full consideration damages and attorneys'
fees.  CenterPoint Energy and/or Reliant Energy were named in
approximately 30 of these lawsuits, which were instituted between
2003 and 2009. CenterPoint Energy and its affiliates have been
released or dismissed from all but two of such cases.

CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc., a subsidiary of CERC Corp., is
a defendant in a case now pending in federal court in Nevada
alleging a conspiracy to inflate Wisconsin natural gas prices in
2000-2002.  Additionally, CenterPoint Energy was a defendant in a
lawsuit filed in state court in Nevada that was dismissed in 2007,
but in March 2010 the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the
Nevada Supreme Court. CenterPoint Energy believes that neither it
nor CES is a proper defendant in these remaining cases and will
continue to pursue dismissal from those cases.  CenterPoint Energy
does not expect the ultimate outcome of these remaining matters to
have a material impact on its financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.

No updates were reported in the Company's March 11, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.


CINEMARK USA: Defending Suit by Disability Rights Group in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cinemark USA, Inc., is defending itself against a class action
claim in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California from a disability rights group and two
individuals, according to the Company's March 11, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

On December 10, 2010, the Company was made a party to a putative
class action claim in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.  The claim has been filed by a
disability rights group and two individuals for injunctive relief,
damages and attorney's fees concerning captioning the movie
exhibitions at the Company's theatres in California.  Monetary
damages are also sought on behalf of all hearing-disabled patrons
of the Company's theatres in California. This case is in an early
pretrial phase.  The Company says it intends to vigorously defend
this suit.


CITIMORTGAGE INC: Berger & Montague Files Class Action in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. has filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on behalf of all New Jersey homeowners whose mortgage
loans have been serviced by CitiMortgage, Inc., and who, since
April 13, 2009, (1) have entered into a Trial Period Plan contract
with CitiMortgage and made all payments required by their TPP
contract, but (2) have been denied a permanent loan modification
agreement that complied with the U.S. Department of the Treasury's
Home Affordable Modification Program rules.

If you believe that you have been improperly denied a permanent
loan modification by CitiMortgage, Inc., after April 13, 2009,
please contact plaintiff's counsel, Eric Lechtzin of Berger &
Montague , P.C. at 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000, or by e-mail at
elechtzin@bm.net

A copy of the Complaint can be viewed on Berger & Montague, P.C.'s
Web site at http://www.bergermontague.com/or may be requested
from the Court.  The docket number is 11CV1432.

The Complaint alleges that CitiMortgage accepted billions in
government bailout money under the Troubled Asset Relief Program
earmarked to help struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure.
CitiMortgage, like other TARP-funded financial institutions, is
contractually obligated to modify mortgage loans it services for
homeowners who qualify under HAMP, a federal program designed to
abate the foreclosure crisis by providing mortgage loan
modifications to eligible homeowners.

According to the lawsuit, CitiMortgage systematically slows or
thwarts homeowners' requests to modify mortgages, depriving
borrowers of federal bailout funds that could save them from
foreclosure.  The bank ends up reaping the financial benefits
provided by TARP-funds and also collects higher fees and interest
rates associated with stressed home loans.

For more information about this case, please contact:

          Sherrie R. Savett, Esq.
          Russell D. Paul, Esq.
          Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Walker
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 1-888-891-2289
                     215-875-3000
          E-mail: ssavett@bm.net
                  rpaul@bm.net
                  elechtzin@bm.net

Berger & Montague, founded in 1970, is a pioneer in class action
litigation.  The firm's approximately 70 attorneys concentrate
their practice in complex litigation, including consumer
protection, securities fraud, whistleblower and false claims
actions, antitrust, labor and employment rights, and environmental
and mass torts, and have recovered several billion dollars for
consumers and investors.


CLEARWATER PAPER: Cellu Continues to Defend "Glembockie" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cellu Tissue Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit filed by Edward Glembockie against in
Georgia, according to Clearwater Paper Corporation's March 11,
2011, Form 8-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On December 27, 2010, Clearwater Paper Corporation completed its
acquisition of Cellu Tissue Holdings, Inc.

On September 20, 2010, Edward Glembockie, on behalf of himself and
the public shareholders of Cellu, filed a putative class action
complaint in the Superior Court of Fulton County, State of
Georgia, captioned Edward Glembockie v. Cellu Tissue Holdings,
Inc., et al.  The lawsuit names as defendants Cellu, Clearwater,
and each member of Cellu's Board of Directors.  The lawsuit
alleges that Cellu's directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with Clearwater's planned acquisition of Cellu, as
publicly disclosed on September 16, 2010.  In addition, the
lawsuit alleges that Cellu and Clearwater aided and abetted those
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  Based on these allegations,
the lawsuit seeks to enjoin the acquisition and to obtain other
related equitable relief.  It also seeks recovery of the costs of
the action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.  It
is possible that additional lawsuits seeking similar relief may be
filed.  The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint.

Based on the facts known to date, the defendants believe that the
claims asserted against them in this lawsuit are without merit,
and the defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously.


CROSS COUNTRY: Awaits Final Approval of MedStaff Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Country Healthcare, Inc., is awaiting final court approval
of its settlement of a class action lawsuit filed against its
subsidiary in California, according to the Company's March 11,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On February 18, 2005, the Company's MedStaff subsidiary became the
subject of a purported class action lawsuit (Maureen Petray and
Carina Higareda v. MedStaff, Inc.) filed in the Superior Court of
California in Riverside County. The lawsuit relates to only
MedStaff corporate employees working in California. The claims
alleged under this lawsuit were generally similar in nature to
those brought by Darrelyn Renee Henry in a lawsuit against the
Company, which was dismissed (Darrelyn Renee Henry vs. MedStaff,
Inc., et. al.).  The lawsuit alleges, among other things,
violations of certain sections of the California Labor Code, the
California Business and Professions Code, and recovery of unpaid
wages and penalties. MedStaff currently has less than 50 corporate
employees in California. The Plaintiffs, Maureen Petray and Carina
Higareda, purport to sue on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, and allege that MedStaff failed, under
California law, to provide corporate employees while in on-call
status with meal periods and rest breaks, and pay for those missed
meal periods and rest breaks; failed to compensate the employees
for all hours worked; failed to compensate the employees for
working overtime; failed to keep appropriate records to keep track
of time worked; failed to pay Plaintiffs and their purported class
as required by law. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, an order
enjoining MedStaff from engaging in the practices challenged in
the complaint and for full restitution of all monies, for
interest, for certain penalties provided for by the California
Labor Code and for attorneys' fees and costs. On February 5, 2007,
the court granted class certification. In December 2009, the
Company reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter.
As a result, the Company accrued a pre-tax charge of $345,000
related to this lawsuit. In October 2010, the court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement.


DANVERS BANCORP: Class Suits Over PUFI Merger Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Danvers Bancorp Inc. continues to defend itself from three
purported class action lawsuits, which stemmed from the proposed
merger with People's United Financial Inc., according to the
Company's March 15, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

Danvers, the Danvers board of directors and People's United are
named as defendants in three purported class action lawsuits, two
in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware and one in the
Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, challenging
the proposed merger and seeking, among other things, to enjoin the
defendants from completing the merger on the agreed-upon terms and
rescission of the merger to the extent it has been completed.

One of the conditions to the closing of the merger is that no
order, injunction or decree or other order (whether temporary or
permanent) that prohibits the completion of the merger be in
effect. If any plaintiff were successful in obtaining an
injunction prohibiting the Danvers or People's United defendants
from completing the merger on the agreed upon terms, then such
injunction may prevent the merger from becoming effective or from
becoming effective within the expected timeframe.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Appeal From Class Suit Settlement Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from court approval of a settlement of a class action
lawsuit involving Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft's subsidiary
remains pending, according to the Company's March 15, 2011 Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2010.

Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., the Company's U.S. broker-dealer
subsidiary, and its predecessor firms, along with numerous other
securities firms, have been named as defendants in over 80
putative class action lawsuits pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  These
lawsuits allege violations of securities and antitrust laws in
connection with the allocation of shares in a large number of
initial public offerings by issuers, officers and directors of
issuers, and underwriters of those securities.  DBSI is named in
these suits as an underwriter.  The securities cases allege
material misstatements and omissions in registration statements
and prospectuses for the IPOs and market manipulation with respect
to aftermarket trading in the IPO securities.  A related putative
antitrust class action was finally dismissed in 2007.  Among the
allegations in the securities cases are that the underwriters tied
the receipt of allocations of IPO shares to required aftermarket
purchases by customers and to the payment of undisclosed
compensation to the underwriters in the form of commissions on
securities trades, and that the underwriters caused misleading
analyst reports to be issued.  In the securities cases, the
motions to dismiss the complaints of DBSI and others were denied
on February 13, 2003.  Plaintiffs' motion to certify six "test"
cases as class actions in the securities cases was granted on
October 13, 2004.  On December 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit vacated the decision and held that the
classes in the six cases, as defined, could not be certified.  On
March 26, 2008, the trial court granted in part and denied in part
motions to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaints.  The extent to
which the court granted the motions did not affect any cases in
which DBSI is a defendant.  Following mediation, a settlement was
reached and approved by the trial court on October 6, 2009.  On
October 23, 2009, an objector filed a Rule 23(f) petition with the
Second Circuit, seeking leave to appeal the trial court's
certification of the settlement class in connection with all 310
cases, including the cases in which DBSI was named as a defendant.
The plaintiffs objected, and all the underwriter defendants
responded, to the petition on November 2, 2009.  The petition was
subsequently withdrawn and substituted with an appeal of the
district court's order.  That appeal is currently pending before
the Second Circuit.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Continues to Defend Asset-Backed Securities Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft's holding company of its
subsidiaries remains a defendant in class action lawsuits
relating to asset-backed securities transactions, according to the
Company's March 15, 2011 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Deutsche Bank AG, the direct or indirect holding company of the
Company's subsidiaries, along with certain affiliates,
collectively referred to as Deutsche Bank, has received subpoenas
and requests for information from certain regulators and
government entities concerning its activities regarding the
origination, purchase, securitization, sale and trading of asset
backed securities, asset backed commercial paper and credit
derivatives, including, among others, residential mortgage backed
securities, collateralized debt obligations and credit default
swaps.  Deutsche Bank is cooperating fully in response to those
subpoenas and requests for information.  Deutsche Bank has also
been named as defendant in various civil litigations, including
putative class actions, brought under federal and state securities
laws and state common law, related to residential mortgage backed
securities.  Included in those litigations are (1) a putative
class action pending in California Superior Court in Los Angeles
County regarding the role of Deutsche Bank's subsidiary Deutsche
Bank Securities Inc., along with other financial institutions, as
an underwriter of offerings of certain securities issued by
Countrywide Financial Corporation or an affiliate, as to which
there is a settlement agreement that has been preliminarily but
not yet finally approved by the Court, and a putative class action
pending in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California regarding the role of DBSI, along with
other financial institutions, as an underwriter of offerings of
certain mortgage pass-through certificates issued by Countrywide;
(2) a putative class action pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York regarding the role of
DBSI, along with other financial institutions, as an underwriter
of offerings of certain mortgage pass-through certificates issued
by affiliates of Novastar Mortgage Funding Corporation; (3) a
putative class action pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York regarding the role of DBSI,
along with other financial institutions, as an underwriter of
offerings of certain mortgage pass-through certificates issued by
affiliates of IndyMac MBS, Inc.; (4) a putative class action
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California regarding the role of DBSI, along with
other financial institutions, as an underwriter of offerings of
certain mortgage pass-through certificates issued by affiliates of
Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corporation; (5) a putative class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York regarding the role of a number of financial
institutions, including DBSI, as underwriter, of certain mortgage
pass-through certificates issued by affiliates of Residential
Accredit Loans, Inc.; and (6) a lawsuit filed by the Federal Home
Loan Bank of San Francisco pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California regarding the role
of a number of financial institutions, including certain
affiliates of Deutsche Bank, as issuer and underwriter of certain
mortgage pass-through certificates purchased by FHLB SF.  In
addition, certain affiliates of Deutsche Bank, including DBSI,
have been named in a putative class action pending in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
regarding their roles as issuer and underwriter of certain
mortgage pass-through securities. On April 5, 2010, the Court
granted in part and denied in part Deutsche Bank's motion to
dismiss this complaint.  Each of the civil litigations is
otherwise in its early stages.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Plaintiff Has Until August 18 to Appeal Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
A plaintiff in a putative class action filed in New York has until
August 18, 2011, to file a notice of appeal from the dismissal of
the lawsuit, according to Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft's
March 15, 2011 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Deutsche Bank AG, the indirect or direct holding company of the
Company's subsidiaries, and Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., the
Company's U.S. broker-dealer subsidiary, are the subjects of a
putative class action, filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, asserting various claims
under the federal securities laws on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased and continue to hold auction rate preferred
securities and auction rate securities offered for sale by
Deutsche Bank AG and DBSI between March 17, 2003 and February 13,
2008.  On December 9, 2010, the court dismissed the putative
class action with prejudice.  By agreement, Plaintiff has until
August 18, 2011 to file a notice of appeal of the dismissal.
Deutsche Bank AG, DBSI and/or Deutsche Bank Alex. Brown, a
division of DBSI, have also been named as defendants in 17
individual actions asserting various claims under the federal
securities laws and state common law arising out of the sale of
ARS.  Nine of the individual actions are pending, and eight of the
individual actions have been resolved and dismissed with
prejudice.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Awaits Outcome of Appeals From N.Y. Suits Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft's subsidiary is awaiting the
outcome of appeals from a federal court's dismissal of two
putative class actions in New York, according to the Company's
March 15, 2011 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Deutsche Bank AG, the  indirect or direct holding company of the
Company's subsidiaries, was named as a defendant, along with ten
other financial institutions, in two putative class actions, filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, asserting violations of the antitrust laws.  The
putative class actions allege that the defendants conspired to
artificially support and then, in February 2008, restrain the ARS
market.  On or about January 26, 2010, the court dismissed the two
putative class actions.  The plaintiffs have filed appeals of the
dismissals.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Motion to Dismiss TruPs Suit Still Pending in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss a consolidated putative class action in New
York against Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft's operating arm,
remains pending, according to the Company's March 15, 2011 Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2010.

Deutsche Bank AG, the indirect or direct holding company of the
Company's subsidiaries, and certain of its affiliates and officers
are the subject of a consolidated putative class action, filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, asserting claims under the federal securities laws on behalf
of persons who purchased certain trust preferred securities issued
by Deutsche Bank and its affiliates between October 2006 and May
2008.  Claims are asserted under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933.  An amended and consolidated class
action complaint was filed on January 25, 2010.  A motion to
dismiss is pending.


DIREXION: Gilman & Pastor Appointed Class Action Co-Lead Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gilman and Pastor LLP has been appointed co-lead counsel to
represent the proposed class in the consolidated class action
proceeding concerning certain exchange-traded funds issued by
Direxion entitled In re Direxion Shares ETF Trust Securities
Litigation.  The case is currently pending in the United States
District Court of the Southern District of New York.

Please contact our office toll-free at (877) 428-7374 or email
kgilman@gilmanpastor.com if you would like additional information
concerning the suit or have purchased any of the following
Direxion funds during the calendar year 2008 and/or prior to
April 30, 2009 and intend to seek compensation for any losses:

    * Direxion Financial Bear 3X Shares (FAZ)
    * Direxion Energy Bear 3x Shares (ERY)
    * Direxion Financial Bull 3x Shares (FAS)
    * Direxion Large Cap Bear 3x Shares (BGZ)
    * Direxion Large Cap Bull 3x Shares (BGU)
    * Direxion Small Cap Bear 3x Shares (TZA)

Gilman and Pastor LLP is a law firm that represents institutional
and individual investors in class action, complex securities and
corporate governance litigation.


DREW INDUSTRIES: Appeal Briefs Due in May 2011
----------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' briefs in the appeal from the dismissal of a lawsuit
against Drew Industries Incorporated in California are due in May
2011, according to the Company's March 11, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2010.

On or about January 3, 2007, an action was commenced in the United
States District Court, Central District of California, entitled,
as amended, Gonzalez and Royalty vs. Drew Industries Incorporated,
Kinro, Inc., Kinro Texas Limited Partnership d/b/a Better Bath
Components; Skyline Corporation, and Skyline Homes Inc. (Case No.
CV06-08233).  The case purported to be a class action.  At various
times in the course of the proceedings during 2010, the Court
dismissed each of the seven claims asserted by the named
plaintiffs.  The named plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, and
their appeal briefs are due in May 2011.

Plaintiffs alleged that certain bathtubs manufactured by Kinro
Texas Limited Partnership, a subsidiary of Kinro, and sold under
the name "Better Bath" for use in manufactured homes, failed to
comply with certain safety standards relating to flame spread
established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.  Plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that sale of
these products is in violation of various provisions of the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1770
et seq.), the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 2301 et
seq.), the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Cal.
Civ. Code Sec. 1790 et seq.), and the California Unfair
Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200 et seq.).

Plaintiffs sought to require defendants to notify members of the
class of the allegations in the proceeding and the claims made, to
repair or replace the allegedly defective products, to reimburse
members of the class for repair, replacement and consequential
costs, to cease the sale and distribution of the allegedly
defective products, and to pay actual and punitive damages and
plaintiffs' attorneys fees.  The Company's liability insurer
denied coverage on the ground that plaintiffs did not sustain any
personal injury or property damage.

Kinro conducted a comprehensive investigation of the allegations
made in connection with the claims, including with respect to the
HUD safety standards, test results, testing procedures, and the
use of labels.  In addition, at Kinro's initiative, independent
laboratories conducted multiple tests on materials used by Kinro
in the manufacture of bathtubs, the results of which tests
indicate that Kinro's bathtubs are in compliance with HUD
regulations.

If the Court of Appeals reverses the District Court's rulings,
which dismissed all claims asserted by the named plaintiffs, and
if plaintiffs pursue their claims, protracted litigation could
result.  Although the outcome of such litigation cannot be
predicted, if certain essential findings are ultimately
unfavorable to Kinro, the Company could sustain a material
liability.  However, based upon all the developments in this case
to date, the Company believes that it will not incur a material
liability in connection with this case.


EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: To Enter Into Stipulation Settling Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emergent BioSolutions, Inc., and parties to class actions relating
to the acquisition of Trubion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., will enter
into a stipulation of settlement as contemplated in a settlement
in principle executed by the parties in October 2010, according to
the Company's March 11, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

On August 17, 2010, two class action lawsuits were filed in the
Superior Court of Washington, King County, or State Court, against
Trubion, its board of directors, and the Company, or collectively,
the Defendants, alleging in summary that, in connection with the
proposed merger of Trubion with a subsidiary of the Company, or
the Acquisition, the members of the Trubion board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties by conducting an unfair sale
process and agreeing to an unfair price.  Both complaints also
claim that Trubion and the Company aided and abetted the Trubion
board of directors in its breach of fiduciary duties.  On
September 9, 2010, the actions were consolidated into a single
action, or State Action.  On October 1, 2010, the plaintiffs in
the State Action served on the Defendants a consolidated amended
class action complaint, or Amended Complaint.  The Amended
Complaint alleges, among other things and in addition to the
matters alleged in the initial complaints, that the Defendants
omitted material information from the Proxy Statement/Prospectus.

On October 4, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington against the
Defendants, which makes allegations related to the Acquisition
that are substantially similar to those matters alleged in the
Amended Complaint, includes additional allegations regarding
purported violations of the federal securities laws and seeks
substantially similar relief.

On October 8, 2010, the Defendants reached agreement in principle
with the plaintiffs in the Actions regarding the settlement of the
Actions.  In connection with the settlement contemplated by that
agreement in principle, the Actions will be stayed pending
approval of the settlement of the State Action by the State Court.
Thereafter, the State Action and all claims asserted therein will
be dismissed with prejudice and counsel for the plaintiff in the
Federal Action will take all necessary steps to dismiss the
Federal Action and all claims asserted therein with prejudice.
The terms of the settlement contemplated by that agreement in
principle require that Trubion and the Company make certain
additional disclosures related to the Acquisition.  The parties
also agreed that the plaintiffs in the Actions may seek attorneys'
fees and costs in an aggregate amount up to $475,000, to be paid
by Trubion if such fees and costs are approved by the State Court.

There will be no other payment by Trubion, any of the members of
the Trubion board of directors or the Company to the plaintiffs or
their respective counsels in connection with the settlement and
dismissal of the Actions.  The agreement in principle further
contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of
settlement, which will be subject to customary conditions,
including State Court approval following notice to Trubion's
shareholders.  In the event that the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the State Court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and
adequacy of the settlement.  There can be no assurance that the
parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement,
that the State Court will approve any proposed settlement, or that
any eventual settlement will be under the same terms as those
contemplated by the agreement in principle.


FBR CAPITAL: Awaits Court Decision on Motion to Amend Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
FBR Capital Markets Corporation is awaiting a court ruling on a
motion to amend a class action complaint against FBR & Co.,
according to the Company's March 15, 2011, 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

In May 2008, the lead plaintiff in a previously filed and
consolidated action filed an amended consolidated class action
complaint that, for the first time, named Friedman, Billings,
Ramsey & Co., Inc. (now FBR & Co.) and eight other underwriters as
defendants. The lawsuit, styled In Re Thornburg Mortgage, Inc.
Securities Litigation and pending in the United States District
Court for the District of New Mexico, was originally filed in
August 2007 against Thornburg Mortgage, Inc., and certain of its
officers and directors, alleging material misrepresentations and
omissions about, inter alia, the financial position of TMI. The
amended complaint now includes claims under Sections 11 and 12 of
the Securities Act against nine underwriters relating to five
separate offerings (May 2007, June 2007, September 2007 and two
offerings in January 2008). The allegations against FBR & Co.
relate only to its role as underwriter or member of the syndicate
that underwrote TMI's total of three offerings in September 2007
and January 2008 -- each of which occurred after the filing of the
original complaint -- with an aggregate offering price of
approximately $818 million. The plaintiffs seek restitution,
unspecified compensatory damages and reimbursement of certain
costs and expenses. Although FBR & Co. is contractually entitled
to be indemnified by TMI in connection with this lawsuit, TMI
filed for bankruptcy on May 1, 2009 and this likely will decrease
or eliminate the value of the indemnity that FBR & Co. receives
from TMI.

On September 22, 2008, FBR & Co. filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint as to FBR & Co. The District
Court granted that motion on January 27, 2010. Plaintiffs were
granted leave by the District court to file a motion for leave to
amend the complaint and a motion for reconsideration of the
Court's order dismissing the amended complaint. FBR & Co. opposed
those motions; briefing is complete and the motions were argued on
November 3, 2010. The District Court's decision is still pending.


FERRELLGAS LP: Faces Consumer Protection Class Suit in Kansas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas, L.P., is still defending itself against a class action
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court in Kansas,
according to the Company's March 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 31, 2011.

The complaint alleges that the Company violated consumer
protection laws in the manner it sets prices and fees for
customers.

Based on Ferrellgas, L.P.'s business practices, Ferrellgas, L.P.
believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend
the claims vigorously.


FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its motion
to dismiss a class action complaint alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the Company related in
its March 15, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 3, 2010.

In February 2010, the Company was named in a putative class action
alleging that it violated its fiduciary duty pursuant to the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act to employees who
participated in the Company's 401(k) plan by continuing to offer
Company stock as an investment option after investment in the
stock allegedly ceased to be prudent.  On July 16, 2010, the
Company moved to dismiss the complaint and asserted, among other
things, that the Plan's investment in employer stock was protected
by a presumption of prudence under ERISA, and that plaintiff's
allegations failed to overcome such presumption.  The parties
submitted relevant materials to the court as of February 2, 2011,
and the court has not yet issued a ruling on the motion to
dismiss.

Flagstar is Michigan-based savings and loan holding company
founded in 1993.  It operates 162 banking centers, including 113
located in Michigan, 22 located in Indiana and 27 located in
Georgia.


FLORIDA: To Compensate Homeowners for Destroying Citrus Trees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Grossman Roth, P.A. reports that a Palm Beach County jury decided
that the Florida Department of Agriculture owes more than $13
million to homeowners whose 66,493 healthy, uninfected,
residential citrus trees were destroyed during the state's
unsuccessful attempt to protect the state's commercial citrus
industry from citrus canker.

The verdict, on March 8, followed two weeks of testimony in which
Palm Beach homeowners -- represented by Miami trial lawyer
Robert Gilbert of Grossman Roth -- presented compelling testimony
from a number of witnesses about the value of the homeowners'
trees on the date they were destroyed.

The homeowners offered testimony from expert witnesses to show
that the state's figure was grossly inadequate.  Eric Hoyer, a
Florida arborist and tree appraiser, testified that a tree's value
is based on its height, condition and planting costs, among other
factors, and described the valuation process in detail.  An
economist, Bernard Pettingill Jr. then used Mr. Hoyer's data to
determine that the average tree destroyed by the Department was
about 11 feet tall and had a replacement cost of $438.

The jury's verdict -- which worked out to be an average of $210
per tree -- substantially exceeded the compensation the state
offered as WalMart gift cards and cash during the failed
eradication program, which ended in January 2006.  The state
argued that $100 Wal-Mart gift vouchers, offered to each homeowner
for the first tree destroyed, plus $55 for each subsequent tree
destroyed, was sufficient compensation.  The jury rejected the
state's claim that the WalMart gift vouchers were compensation,
since they could only be used for certain goods at WalMart, had a
limited time before expiration, and could not be redeemed for
cash.  The jury agreed that the $55 payments offered by the state
were compensation, and found that the state was entitled to a
credit for the total amount of $55 checks issued to the
homeowners.

Mr. Gilbert, of Grossman Roth, called the verdict a vindication
for the homeowners.  "We are very gratified by the jury's
decision," he said.  In addition to the more than $13 million in
compensation, Mr. Gilbert estimates that the state will have to
pay another $2 million more in interest.

Speaking with the Daily Business Review, Mr. Gilbert said he
intends to reach out to Florida Agriculture Commissioner Adam
Putnam "in the hopes that he, unlike his predecessor, will act
like a statesman and see that the time has come to close this ugly
chapter in Florida history."

Grossman Roth, P.A. is a law firm for injury and class action
cases.


GENTIVA HEALTH: Still Defends "Rindfleisch" Suit in Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gentiva Health Services Inc. is still defending itself against a
class action lawsuit filed by employees over wage violations,
according to the Company's March 11, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2010.

On May 10, 2010, a collective and class action complaint entitled
Lisa Rindfleisch et al. v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc. was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York against the Company in which five former employees allege
wage and hour law violations. On October 8, 2010, the Court
granted the Company's motion to transfer the venue of the lawsuit
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia. The former employees claim they were paid pursuant to "an
unlawful hybrid" compensation plan that paid them on both a per
visit and an hourly basis, thereby voiding their exempt status and
entitling them to overtime pay. The plaintiffs allege continuing
violations of federal and state law and seek damages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as under the New York Labor Law
and North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. Plaintiffs seek class
certification of similar employees and seek attorneys' fees, back
wages and liquidated damages going back three years under the
FLSA, six years under the New York statute and two years under the
North Carolina statute.

The Company says it continues to vigorously defend the lawsuit.


GENTIVA HEALTH: Continues to Defend "Wilkie" Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gentiva Health Services, Inc., continues to face a class action
lawsuit over labor law violations in California, according to the
Company's March 11, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

On June 11, 2010, a collective and class action complaint entitled
Catherine Wilkie, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc. was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California against the Company in which a former employee alleges
wage and hour violations under the FLSA and California law. The
complaint alleges that the Company paid some of its employees on
both a per visit and hourly basis, thereby voiding their exempt
status and entitling them to overtime pay. The complaint further
alleges that California employees were subject to violations of
state laws requiring meal and rest breaks, accurate wage
statements and timely payment of wages. The plaintiff seeks class
certification, attorneys' fees, back wages, penalties, and damages
going back three years on the FLSA claim and four years on the
state wage and hour claims.


GENTIVA HEALTH: Continues to Defend "Alleman" Suit in Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gentiva Health Services Inc. was sued by Nelson Alleman, on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated, in a collective
actioncomplaint over wage violations, according to the Company's
March 11, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On July 29, 2010, a collective action complaint entitled Nelson
Alleman, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Gentiva Health Services, Inc. was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Gainesville
Division, against the Company in which a former employee employed
as a certified respiratory therapist alleges overtime wage
violations under the FLSA. The plaintiff seeks collective action
certification of similar employees, attorneys' fees, back wages
and damages going back three years under the FLSA.


GENTIVA HEALTH: Still Faces 3 Class Suits Over Odyssey Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gentiva Healthcare Inc. continues to face three putative class
action lawsuits in connection with its acquisition of Odyssey
HealthCare, Inc., according to the Company's March 11, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Three putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection
with the Company's acquisition of Odyssey. The first, entitled
Pompano Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement System v. Odyssey
HealthCare, Inc. et al., was filed on May 27, 2010 in the County
Court, Dallas County, Texas. The second, entitled Eric Hemminger
et al. v. Richard Burnham et al., was filed on June 9, 2010 in the
District Court, Dallas, Texas. The third, entitled John O. Hansen
v. Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. et al., was filed on July 2, 2010 in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas. All three lawsuits name the Company, GTO Acquisition Corp.,
Odyssey and the members of Odyssey's board of directors as
defendants. All three lawsuits are brought by purported
stockholders of Odyssey, both individually and on behalf of a
putative class of stockholders, alleging that Odyssey's board of
directors breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the
Merger by failing to maximize shareholder value and that the
Company and Odyssey aided and abetted the alleged breaches. The
Company is unable to assess the probable outcome or potential
liability, if any, arising from these matters.


GENTIVA HEALTH: Still Defends Shareholder Class Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gentiva Health Services Inc. is still defending itself against a
class action complaint in New York, according to the Company's
March 11, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On November 2, 2010, a putative shareholder class action
complaint, captioned Endress v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc. et
al., Civil Action No. 10-CV-5064, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The action,
which names Gentiva and certain current and former officers as
defendants, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Company's
participation in the Medicare Home Health Prospective Payment
System. The complaint alleges that the Company's public
disclosures misrepresented and failed to disclose that the Company
improperly increased the number of in-home therapy visits to
patients for the purposes of triggering higher reimbursement rates
under the HH PPS, which caused an artificial inflation in the
price of Gentiva's common stock during the period between July 31,
2008 and July 20, 2010. The defendants have not yet responded to
the complaint, and, given the preliminary stage of this action,
the Company is unable to assess the probable outcome or potential
liability, if any, arising from this action. The defendants intend
to defend themselves vigorously in this action.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Awaits Final Ruling in Inkjet Printer Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company is awaiting final approval of its proposed
settlement with the plaintiffs of three lawsuits related to the
inkjet printer litigation, according to the Company's March 11,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2011.

Hewlett-Packard Company is involved in several lawsuits claiming
breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment,
deceptive advertising and unfair business practices where the
plaintiffs have alleged, among other things, that HP employed a
"smart chip" in certain inkjet printing products in order to
register ink depletion prematurely and to render the cartridge
unusable through a built-in expiration date that is hidden, not
documented in marketing materials to consumers, or both.  The
plaintiffs have also contended that consumers received false ink
depletion warnings and that the smart chip limits the ability of
consumers to use the cartridge to its full capacity or to choose
competitive products.

The Inkjet Printer Litigation pending in the United States are:

   (a) A consolidated lawsuit captioned In re HP Inkjet Printer
       Litigation is pending in the United States District Court
       for the Northern District of California where the
       plaintiffs are seeking class certification, restitution,
       damages (including enhanced damages), injunctive relief,
       interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.  On January 4, 2008,
       the court heard plaintiffs' motions for class
       certification and to add a class representative and HP's
       motion for summary judgment.  On July 25, 2008, the court
       denied all three motions.  On March 30, 2009, the
       plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification.
       A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class
       certification scheduled for April 9, 2010, was postponed;

   (b) A lawsuit captioned Blennis v. HP was filed on January 17,
       2007, in the United States District Court for the Northern
       District of California where the plaintiffs are seeking
       class certification, restitution, damages (including
       enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest, costs, and
       attorneys' fees.  A class certification hearing was
       scheduled for May 21, 2010, but was taken off the
       calendar; and

   (c) A lawsuit captioned Rich v. HP was filed against HP on
       May 22, 2006, in the United States District Court for the
       Northern District of California.  The suit alleges that HP
       designed its color inkjet printers to unnecessarily use
       color ink in addition to black ink when printing black and
       white images and text.  The plaintiffs are seeking to
       certify a nationwide injunctive class and a California-
       only damages class.  A class certification hearing was
       scheduled for May 7, 2010, but was taken off the calendar.

On August 25, 2010, HP and the plaintiffs in In re HP Inkjet
Printer Litigation, Blennis v. HP and Rich v. HP, entered into an
agreement to settle those lawsuits on behalf of the proposed
classes, which agreement is subject to approval of the court
before it becomes final.  Under the terms of the proposed
settlement, the lawsuits will be consolidated, and eligible class
members will each have the right to obtain e-credits not to exceed
$5 million in the aggregate for use in purchasing printers or
printer supplies through HP's Web site.  As part of the proposed
settlement, HP also agreed to provide class members with
additional information regarding HP inkjet printer functionality
and to change the content of certain software and user guide
messaging provided to users regarding the life of inkjet printer
cartridges.  In addition, class counsel and the class
representatives will be paid attorneys' fees and expenses and
stipends in an amount that is yet to be approved by the court.

On October 1, 2010, the court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement.  The court held a fairness hearing on
January 28, 2011, to determine whether to grant final approval of
the proposed settlement.  The court has not yet issued a decision.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Two Inkjet Class Suits Remain Pending in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two class action lawsuits against Hewlett-Packard Company and its
subsidiary, Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co., remain pending in
Canada, according to the Company's March 11, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended January 31, 2011.

HP is involved in several lawsuits claiming breach of express and
implied warranty, unjust enrichment, deceptive advertising and
unfair business practices where the plaintiffs have alleged, among
other things, that HP employed a "smart chip" in certain inkjet
printing products in order to register ink depletion prematurely
and to render the cartridge unusable through a built-in expiration
date that is hidden, not documented in marketing materials to
consumers, or both. The plaintiffs have also contended that
consumers received false ink depletion warnings and that the smart
chip limits the ability of consumers to use the cartridge to its
full capacity or to choose competitive products.

There were four class actions against Hewlett-Packard Company and
its subsidiary, Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co., pending in Canada,
one commenced in British Columbia in February 2006, two commenced
in Quebec in April 2006 and May 2006, and one commenced in Ontario
in June 2006, where the plaintiffs are seeking class
certification, restitution, declaratory relief, injunctive relief
and unspecified statutory, compensatory and punitive damages.  In
March 2010, one of the Quebec cases was voluntarily dismissed by
the plaintiff.  In February 2011, the other Quebec case was
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Awaits Final Ruling on "Baggett" Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company is awaiting final approval of a proposed
settlement in a consumer class action captioned Baggett v. HP,
currently pending in California, according to the Company's
March 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2011.

A consumer class action captioned Baggett v. HP was filed against
HP on June 6, 2007, in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California alleging that HP employs a
technology in its LaserJet color printers whereby the printing
process shuts down prematurely, thus, preventing customers from
using the toner that is allegedly left in the cartridge.  The
plaintiffs also allege that HP fails to disclose to consumers that
they will be unable to utilize the toner remaining in the
cartridge after the printer shuts down.  The complaint seeks
certification of a nationwide class of purchasers of all HP
LaserJet color printers and seeks unspecified damages,
restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and
costs.  On September 29, 2009, the court granted HP's motion for
summary judgment against the named plaintiff and denied
plaintiff's motion for class certification as moot.  On
November 3, 2009, the court entered judgment against the named
plaintiff.

On November 17, 2009, plaintiff filed an appeal of the court's
summary judgment ruling with the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.  On August 25, 2010, HP and the plaintiff
entered into an agreement to settle the lawsuit on behalf of the
proposed class, which agreement is subject to approval of the
court before it becomes final.  Under the terms of the proposed
settlement, eligible class members will each have the right to
obtain e-credits not to exceed $5 million in the aggregate for use
in purchasing printers or printer supplies through HP's Web site.
In addition, class counsel and the class representative will be
paid attorneys' fees and expenses and stipends in an amount that
is yet to be approved by the court.  On October 13, 2010, the
court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement.
The court held a fairness hearing on February 14, 2011, to
determine whether to grant final approval of the proposed
settlement.  The court has not yet issued a decision.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Continues to Defend FLSA-Violation Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company continues to defend itself and its
subsidiaries from lawsuits alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, according to the Company's March 11, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended January 31, 2011.

A class action captioned Heffelfinger, et al. v. Electronic Data
Systems Corporation was filed in November 2006 in California
Superior Court claiming that certain EDS information technology
workers in California were misclassified as exempt employees.  The
case was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, which, on January 7, 2008,
certified a class of information technology workers in California.
On June 6, 2008, the court granted the defendant's motion for
summary judgment.  The plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which is
pending.

Two other purported class actions originally filed in California
Superior Court, Karlbom, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems
Corporation, which was filed on March 16, 2009, and George, et
al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, which was filed on
April 2, 2009, allege similar facts.  The Karlbom case is pending
in San Diego County Superior Court but has been temporarily stayed
based on the pending motions in the consolidated matter in
Steavens, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation.  The
George case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York and has been consolidated for pretrial
purposes with the Cunningham and Cunningham, et al. v. Electronic
Data Systems Corporation and Steavens cases, which cases allege
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.


KNOLOGY INC: Continues to Defend "Manard" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Knology Inc. continues to defend itself against a class suit
related to an online advertising delivery system pending in
Georgia.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit captioned
Manard v. Knology, Inc. filed in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia.  The complaint was filed on
February 2, 2010, as a punative class action.  The case arose out
of an online advertising trial of a system designed by a third-
party advertising company, NebuAd, Inc., for delivery of
advertising to computer users while they are navigating the
Internet.  The complaint, which was filed on behalf of Knology
customers using the Internet during the trial period, alleges that
electronic communications were intercepted and used in violation
of the federal and state privacy statutes and seeks statutory
damages for such alleged violations.  The action was initially
filed in California against Knology and other defendants where it
was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  Counsel for the plaintiff
has filed new complaints against the same defendants, but they
filed separate complaints against each company trialing NebuAd's
system.  Knology filed its motion to dismiss on March 26, 2010.
On April 22, 2010, Knology filed a motion to compel arbitration
and stay the proceedings in the District Court.  On June 18, 2010,
the District Court granted the Company's motion to compel
arbitration and stay court proceedings and determined that
Knology's motion to dismiss was moot.

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

The Company intends to vigorously defend the case in arbitration.
The Company says that given that the claim is still in its initial
stages, it is premature to estimate the impact it could have to
the Company's results of operation, financial condition or cash
flows.

Knology is a fully integrated provider of video, voice, data and
advanced communications services to residential and business
customers in ten markets in the southeastern United States and
three markets in the midwestern United States.


LIMELIGHT NETWORKS: Court to Consider Settlement on March 22
------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court in Arizona will consider approval of a settlement
entered by Limelight Networks, Inc., and other parties to a
consolidated class action lawsuit on March 22, 2011, according to
the Company's March 11, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

In August 2007, the Company, certain of its officers and
directors, and the firms that served as the lead underwriters in
the Company's initial public offering were named as defendants in
several purported class action lawsuits.  These lawsuits have been
consolidated into a single lawsuit in United States District Court
for the District of Arizona.  The consolidated complaint asserts
causes of action under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, on behalf of a professed class consisting
of all those who were allegedly damaged as a result of acquiring
the Company's common stock in its initial public offering (IPO)
between June 8, 2007 and August 8, 2007.  The complaint seeks
compensatory damages and plaintiffs' costs and expenses in the
litigation.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Company omitted and/or misstated certain facts concerning the
seasonality of its business and the loss of revenue with respect
to certain customers.  On March 17, 2008, the Company and the
individual defendants moved to dismiss all of the plaintiffs'
claims, and a hearing was held on this motion on June 16, 2008.
On August 8, 2008, the court granted the motion to dismiss,
dismissing plaintiffs' claims under Section 12 with prejudice and
granting leave to amend the claims under Sections 11 and 15.
Plaintiffs chose not to amend the claims under Sections 11 and 15,
and on August 29, 2008 the court entered judgment in favor of the
Company.  On September 5, 2008, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal, and appellate briefs were filed by the parties in January
and February 2009.  The Company does have in place directors and
officers liability insurance and notice of this matter has been
given to the insurance carriers.  The insurance has reimbursed
certain of the expenses incurred by the Company in defending this
action.  In November 2009 the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding to settle this lawsuit for an amount well within the
coverage limits of the primary carrier of the Company's directors
and officers liability insurance, and on July 7, 2010 the parties
entered into a settlement agreement consistent with the terms of
the Memorandum of Understanding, which will require court
approval.  A hearing before the Federal District Court is
currently scheduled for March 22, 2011.  The Company anticipates
court approval of the settlement.  Although the Company believes
that it and the individual defendants have meritorious defenses to
the claims made in the complaint, there can be no assurance at
this time that the settlement will be approved by the court, or
otherwise completed.  If the Company receives an adverse ruling
with respect to the approval of the settlement in this case and
the Company subsequently receives an adverse judgment which
exceeds the amount of its directors and officers liability
insurance coverage or that insurance is not available to satisfy
the judgment, such a ruling could harm the Company's liquidity and
overall financial position.


LIONBRIDGE TECH: Appeals on Settlement of N.Y. Suits Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals to reconsider final court approval of a settlement of
securities class action lawsuits against Lionbridge Technologies
Inc. remain pending.

On July 24, 2001, a purported securities class action lawsuit
captioned "Samet v. Lionbridge Technologies, Inc. et al." (01-CV-
6770) was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and certain underwriters involved in the
Company's initial public offering.  The complaint in this action
asserted, among other things, that omissions regarding the
underwriters' alleged conduct in allocating shares in Lionbridge's
initial public offering to the underwriters' customers.  In March
2002, the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York entered an order dismissing without prejudice the
claims against Lionbridge and its officers and directors -- the
case remained pending against the underwriter defendants.

On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
naming as defendants not only the underwriter defendants but also
Lionbridge and certain of its officers and directors.  The amended
complaint asserts claims under both the registration and antifraud
provisions of the federal securities laws relating to, among other
allegations, the underwriters' alleged conduct in allocating
shares in the Company's initial public offering and the
disclosures contained in the Company's registration statement.  On
July 15, 2002, the Company, together with the other issuers named
as defendants in these coordinated proceedings, filed a collective
motion to dismiss the complaint on various legal grounds common to
all or most of the issuer defendants.  In October 2002, the claims
against officers and directors were dismissed without prejudice.
In February 2003, the Court issued its ruling on the motion to
dismiss, ruling that the claims under the antifraud provisions of
the securities laws could proceed against the Company and a
majority of the other issuer defendants.

In June 2003, Lionbridge elected to participate in a proposed
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation.  If
the proposed settlement had been approved by the Court, it would
have resulted in the dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in
the litigation against Lionbridge and against any other of the
issuer defendants who elected to participate in the proposed
settlement, together with the current or former officers and
directors of participating issuers who were named as individual
defendants.  This proposed settlement was conditioned on, among
other things, a ruling by the District Court that the claims
against Lionbridge and against the other issuers who had agreed to
the settlement would be certified for class action treatment for
purposes of the proposed settlement, such that all investors
included in the proposed classes in these cases would be bound by
the terms of the settlement unless an investor opted to be
excluded from the settlement.

On December 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit issued a decision in In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation that six purported class action lawsuits
containing allegations substantially similar to those asserted
against the Company may not be certified as class actions due, in
part, to the Appeals Court's determination that individual issues
of reliance and knowledge would predominate over issues common to
the proposed classes.  On January 8, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a
petition seeking rehearing en banc of the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals' decision.  On April 6, 2007 the Court of Appeals denied
the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing of the Court's December 5,
2006 ruling but noted that the plaintiffs remained free to ask the
District Court to certify classes different from the ones
originally proposed which might meet the standards for class
certification that the Court of Appeals articulated in its
December 5, 2006 decision.  In light of the Court of Appeals'
December 5, 2006 decision regarding certification of the
plaintiffs' claims, the District Court entered an order on June
25, 2007, terminating the proposed settlement between the
plaintiffs and the issuers, including Lionbridge.

On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints in the
six focus cases.  The issuer defendants and the underwriter
defendants separately moved to dismiss the claims against them in
the amended complaints in the six focus cases.  On March 26, 2008,
the District Court issued an order in which it denied in
substantial part the motions to dismiss the amended complaints in
the six focus cases.

On February 25, 2009, the parties advised the District Court that
they had reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the
litigation in its entirety.  A stipulation of settlement was filed
with the District Court on April 2, 2009.  On June 9, 2009, the
District Court preliminarily approved the proposed global
settlement.  Notice was provided to the class, and a settlement
fairness hearing, at which members of the class had an opportunity
to object to the proposed settlement, was held on September 10,
2009.  On October 6, 2009, the District Court issued an order
granting final approval to the settlement.  Ten appeals have been
filed objecting to the definition of the settlement class and
fairness of the settlement, five of which have been dismissed with
prejudice.  Two appeal briefs have been filed by the remaining
five objector groups, and those appeals remain pending.

No updates were reported in the Company's March 15, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

While Lionbridge cannot guarantee the outcome of these
proceedings, the Company believes that the final result of this
lawsuit will have no material effect on its consolidated financial
condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Lionbridge is a provider of language, development and testing
solutions that enable clients to develop, release, manage and
maintain their technology applications and content globally.


LORAL SPACE: Reinstated Appeal in "Beleson" Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A reinstated appeal from an order granting summary judgment in a
securities class action lawsuit in New York remains pending, Loral
Space & Communications Inc. disclosed in its March 15, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In August 2003, plaintiffs Robert Beleson and Harvey Matcovsky
filed a purported class action complaint against Bernard L.
Schwartz, the former Chief Executive Officer of Old Loral, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The complaint sought, among other things, damages in an
unspecified amount and reimbursement of plaintiffs' reasonable
costs and expenses.  The complaint alleged (a) that Mr. Schwartz
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making material
misstatements or failing to state material facts about the
Company's financial condition relating to the sale of assets by
Old Loral to Intelsat Global S.A. and Old Loral's chapter 11
filing and (b) that Mr. Schwartz is secondarily liable for these
alleged misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act as an alleged "controlling person" of Old Loral.  The
class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been asserted
consists of all buyers of Old Loral common stock during the period
from June 30, 2003 through July 15, 2003, excluding the defendant
and certain persons related to or affiliated with him.  In
November 2003, three other complaints against Mr. Schwartz with
substantially similar allegations were consolidated into the
Beleson case.  The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment
in July 2008, and plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for partial
summary judgment in September 2008.  In February 2009, the court
granted defendant's motion and denied plaintiffs' cross motion. In
March 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with respect to
the court's decision.  Pursuant to stipulations entered into in
February, May, July, August and October 2010 among the parties and
the plaintiffs in a related "Christ" case, the appeal, which had
been consolidated with the Christ case, was withdrawn, provided
however, that plaintiffs could reinstate the appeal on or before
November 19, 2010.  In November 2010, plaintiffs did reinstate the
appeal, which is fully briefed and pending before the Second
Circuit.

Since this case was not brought against Old Loral, but only
against one of its officers, the Company believes, although no
assurance can be given, that, to the extent that any award is
ultimately granted to the plaintiffs in this action, the liability
of Loral, if any, with respect thereto is limited solely to the
Directors & Officers Claims.

Loral Space, together with its subsidiaries, is a satellite
communications company engaged in satellite manufacturing with
ownership interests in satellite-based communications services.


LORAL SPACE: Distribution of Proceeds Approved in "Christ" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A New York court has approved the distribution of settlement
proceeds in a securities class action lawsuit brought by
Tony Christ, Loral Space & Communications Inc. disclosed in its
March 15, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In November 2003, plaintiffs Tony Christ, individually and as
custodian for Brian and Katelyn Christ, Casey Crawford, Thomas
Orndorff and Marvin Rich, filed a purported class action complaint
against Bernard L. Schwartz, the former Chief Executive Officer of
Old Loral, and Richard J. Townsend, the former Chief Financial
Officer of Old Loral, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The complaint sought, among other
things, damages in an unspecified amount and reimbursement of
plaintiffs' reasonable costs and expenses.  The complaint alleged
(a) that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making material
misstatements or failing to state material facts about Old Loral's
financial condition relating to the restatement in 2003 of the
financial statements for the second and third quarters of 2002 to
correct accounting for certain general and administrative expenses
and the alleged improper accounting for a satellite transaction
with APT Satellite Company Ltd. and (b) that each of the
defendants is secondarily liable for these alleged misstatements
and omissions under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as an
alleged "controlling person" of Old Loral.  The class of
plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been asserted consists
of all buyers of Old Loral common stock during the period from
July 31, 2002 through June 29, 2003, excluding the defendants and
certain persons related to or affiliated with them.  In September
2008, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the case,
pursuant to which a settlement will be funded entirely by Old
Loral's directors and officers liability insurer, and Loral will
not be required to make any contribution toward the settlement.
By order dated February 26, 2009, the court finally approved the
settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best
interests of the class.  Certain class members objected to the
settlement and filed a notice of appeal, and other class members,
who together had class period purchases valued at approximately
$550,000, elected to opt out of the class action settlement and
commenced individual lawsuits against the defendants.  In August
2009, the objecting and opt-out class members entered into an
agreement with the defendants to settle their claims, pursuant to
which a settlement will be funded entirely by Old Loral's
directors and officers liability insurer, and Loral will not be
required to make any contribution toward the settlement.  In
addition, in March 2009, at the time that they filed a notice of
appeal with respect to a court decision in a certain "Beleson"
suit, the plaintiffs in the Beleson case also filed a notice of
appeal with respect to the court's decision approving the Christ
settlement, arguing that the Christ settlement impairs the rights
of the Beleson class.  In September 2010, counsel for the Beleson
class agreed to voluntarily dismiss this appeal and, in November
2010, a stipulation of voluntary dismissal was approved by the
court.  In February 2011, the court approved distribution of the
settlement proceeds.  As a result of the settlement and final
dismissal of all appeals, Loral will not incur any liability as a
result of this case.

Loral Space, together with its subsidiaries, is a satellite
communications company engaged in satellite manufacturing with
ownership interests in satellite-based communications services.


MASSEY ENERGY: Testimony Begins in Marsh Fork Silo Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Lannom, writing for The Register-Herald, reports that
testimony began on March 15 before Raleigh County Circuit Judge
H.L. Kirkpatrick in a medical monitoring case which alleges that
Marsh Fork Elementary children could have been exposed to coal
dust from a Massey Energy's train-loading silo.

The class action lawsuit, represented by Woody and Elva Dillon,
deals with children who attended Marsh Fork Elementary from 2003
to 2004.

In his opening statement, plaintiffs' attorney Kevin Thompson told
the jury that the court should allow medical monitoring to show if
children could have a latent disease, which he believes would be
directly caused by the corporation.

Mr. Thompson explained that children are at risk and said the
company was negligent for building a silo "50 times bigger than
their former hopper and built it twice as close."  The silo, he
says, is 78 yards from the school.

"We have proved coal dust to be in the school and proved the dust
is from the silo and that the dust contained coal," Mr. Thompson
said. "We have done this from wipe samples at the school."

These wipe samples are said to include particulate matter small
enough to enter into a person's lungs.  To determine the
particles' origin, Mr. Thompson said they have conducted Dust Trak
monitoring, which measures particulate matter.  By this
monitoring, Mr. Thompson says they were able to determine that the
dust was Massey's.

"There has been black substance on the playground equipment which
has tested positive for PAH, which is part of coal," Mr. Thompson
says.  "They will argue that PAH is everywhere, but it's the same
in coal dust and the school is 78 yards away from the silo."

Mr. Thompson also alleged that the silo is not fully enclosed.

"The dust is coming from somewhere," he said.  "The dust is coming
from the silo."

Defense attorney Dan Stickler showed the jury a photo of both the
new and old silos.  He said the coal dust could have emanated from
the old silo, but that the new one is upgraded and there is "no
open storage."

This silo is built to permit specifications, he explained, and
there has never been violations of that permit the entire time the
silo has been there.

"There's not a lot of coal dust in that silo," he said.  "It's
fully contained."

Mr. Stickler also charged that the plaintiffs had five years to
monitor the interior of the school for particulate matter but they
chose not to do so.  He explained that the silo is heavily
inspected by the Division of Air Quality and the EPA.

"This is the most inspected facility in the world," he explained.
"The EPA said there was no problem with the silo in relation to
the school."

Addressing Mr. Thompson's charge of building the new silo closer
to the school, Mr. Stickler argued that regardless of how close
the silo is, the construction was improved significantly.

He recommended the court to rule against medical monitoring
because the tests themselves would be "unnecessary" since no one
outside of the coal mining work environment has developed
pneumoconiosis.

"What medical monitoring means is that there will be one X-ray per
child and then they will follow up with another X-ray five years
down the road."

Mr. Stickler also explained that the PAHs present on the
playground equipment could have even been caused by car exhaust.

"Also, (Thompson) says (the children) have been significantly
exposed," Mr. Stickler said.  "How do you determine that?  By
testing.  And an increased risk of latent disease?  They cannot
find any case from a person who has contracted pneumoconiosis.
They have not been able to do that."

At this, Mr. Stickler referred to a photo taken of the inside of
the silo.

"Where's this coal dust? It's not there," he said.  "Make them
prove it's there."

Following opening statements, Mr. Thompson called the plaintiffs'
first witness, Dr. Dewey Sanderson, a professor of geology at
Marshall University.  Dr. Sanderson is an expert is microscopy,
creation and preparation of slides and identification of coal
particles.

As Mr. Thompson displayed several pictures, Dr. Sanderson pointed
out that the wipe samples from the school contained everything
from mineral fragments, grains of sand, fibers and little grains
of coal.

Mr. Thompson asked him if these photos proved particles of coal
were in the school and Dr. Sanderson said it did.

On cross-examination, Mr. Stickler asked Dr. Sanderson to clarify
if his role was limited to looking at the slides and Dr. Sanderson
said it was.

"It wasn't to quantify how much was there, how long it was there
or how long it took to get there, right?"

Dr. Sanderson said that it was not.  Mr. Stickler then asked if
Dr. Sanderson was able to identify the source of the coal
particles and Dr. Sanderson said, once again that he was unable to
do so.

Prior to opening statements and testimony, pre-trial motions were
also heard on March 15.  Judge Kirkpatrick ruled that there would
be no reference to the plaintiffs' attorney who was from out-of-
state, that there would be no personal attacks and there would be
no reference to threats of jobs or businesses.

Judge Kirkpatrick also granted a motion that there would be no
testimony about personal injury since the case refers to latent
diseases, meaning that a person could have a disease but not know
it.

Mr. Stickler argued that excluding this evidence would place a
huge burden on the defense because the plaintiff is saying that a
person has a risk to the disease but "can't point to a single
person who is diagnosed with it."

Judge Kirkpatrick said he would stick with the Bower case law,
which does not include present injury as proof.

Testimony was set to continue at 9:00 a.m. on March 16.


MATTEL INC: Suits Involving Bryant and MGA Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits on the issue of Carter Bryant's violation of his contract
with Mattel, Inc., by creating MGA Entertainment, Inc.'s Bratz
brand remain pending, Mattel disclosed in its Fifth Amended and
Restated Credit Agreement with Bank of America, N.A., as
administrative agent, which was an exhibit of its March 11, 2011,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In April 2004, Mattel filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County
Superior Court against Carter Bryant, a former Mattel design
employee.  The suit alleges that Bryant aided and assisted a
Mattel competitor, MGA Entertainment, Inc., during the time he was
employed by Mattel, in violation of his contractual and other
duties to Mattel.  In September 2004, Bryant asserted
counterclaims against Mattel, including counterclaims in which
Bryant sought, as a putative class action representative, to
invalidate Mattel's Confidential Information and Proprietary
Inventions Agreements with its employees.  Bryant also removed
Mattel's suit to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  In December 2004, MGA intervened as a
party-defendant in Mattel's action against Bryant, asserting that
its rights to Bratz properties are at stake in the litigation.

Separately, in November 2004, Bryant filed an action against
Mattel in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  The action sought a judicial declaration
that Bryant's purported conveyance of rights in Bratz was proper
and that he did not misappropriate Mattel property in creating
Bratz.

In April 2005, MGA filed suit against Mattel in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.  MGA's
action alleges claims of trade dress infringement, trade dress
dilution, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and
unjust enrichment.  The suit alleges, among other things, that
certain products, themes, packaging, and/or television commercials
in various Mattel product lines have infringed upon products,
themes, packaging, and/or television commercials for various MGA
product lines, including Bratz.  The complaint also asserts that
various alleged Mattel acts with respect to unidentified
retailers, distributors, and licensees have damaged MGA and that
various alleged acts by industry organizations, purportedly
induced by Mattel, have damaged MGA.  MGA's suit alleges that MGA
has been damaged in an amount "believed to reach or exceed tens of
millions of dollars" and further seeks punitive damages,
disgorgement of Mattel's profits and injunctive relief.

In June 2006, the three cases were consolidated in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.  On
July 17, 2006, the Court issued an order dismissing all claims
that Bryant had asserted against Mattel, including Bryant's
purported counterclaims to invalidate Mattel's Confidential
Information and Proprietary Inventions Agreements with its
employees, and Bryant's claims for declaratory relief.

In November 2006, Mattel asked the Court for leave to file an
Amended Complaint that included not only additional claims against
Bryant, but also included claims for copyright infringement, RICO
violations, misappropriation of trade secrets, intentional
interference with contract, aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of duty of loyalty, and unfair
competition, among others, against MGA, its CEO Isaac Larian,
certain MGA affiliates and an MGA employee.  The RICO claim
alleged that MGA stole Bratz and then, by recruiting and  hiring
key Mattel employees and directing them to bring with them Mattel
confidential and proprietary information, unfairly competed
against Mattel using Mattel's trade secrets, confidential
information, and key employees to build their business.  On
January 12, 2007, the Court granted Mattel leave to file these
claims as counterclaims in the consolidated cases, which Mattel
did that same day.

Mattel sought to try all of its claims in a single trial, but in
February 2007, the Court decided that the consolidated cases would
be tried in two phases, with the first trial to determine claims
and defenses related to Mattel's ownership of Bratz works and
whether MGA infringed those works.  On May 19, 2008, Bryant
reached a settlement agreement with Mattel and is no longer a
defendant in the litigation. In the public stipulation entered by
Mattel and Bryant in connection with the resolution, Bryant agreed
that he was and would continue to be bound by all prior and future
Court Orders relating to Bratz ownership and infringement,
including the Court's summary judgment rulings.

The first phase of the first trial, which began on May 27, 2008,
resulted in a unanimous jury verdict on July 17, 2008 in favor of
Mattel.  The jury found that almost all of the Bratz design
drawings and other works in question were created by Bryant while
he was employed at Mattel; that MGA and Isaac Larian intentionally
interfered with the contractual duties owed by Bryant to Mattel,
aided and abetted Bryant's breaches of his duty of loyalty to
Mattel, aided and abetted Bryant's breaches of the fiduciary
duties he owed to Mattel, and converted Mattel property for their
own use.  The same jury determined that defendants MGA, Larian,
and MGA Entertainment (HK) Limited infringed Mattel's copyrights
in the Bratz design drawings and other Bratz works, and awarded
Mattel total damages of approximately $100 million against the
defendants.  On December 3, 2008, the Court issued a series of
orders rejecting MGA's equitable defenses and granting Mattel's
motions for equitable relief, including an order enjoining the MGA
party defendants from manufacturing, marketing, or selling certain
Bratz fashion dolls or from using the "Bratz" name.  The Court
stayed the effect of the December 3, 2008 injunctive orders until
further order of the Court and entered a further specified stay of
the injunctive orders on January 7, 2009.

The parties filed and argued additional motions for post-trial
relief, including a request by MGA to enter judgment as a matter
of law on Mattel's claims in MGA's favor and to reduce the jury's
damages award to Mattel.  Mattel additionally moved for the
appointment of a receiver.  On April 27, 2009, the Court entered
an order confirming that Bratz works found by the jury to have
been created by Bryant during his Mattel employment were Mattel's
property and that hundreds of Bratz female fashion dolls infringe
Mattel's copyrights.  The Court also upheld the jury's award of
damages in the amount of $100 million and ordered an accounting of
post-trial Bratz sales.  The Court further vacated the stay of the
December 3, 2008 orders, except to the extent specified by the
Court's January 7, 2009 modification.

MGA appealed the Court's equitable orders to the Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.  On December 9, 2009, the Ninth Circuit
heard oral argument on MGA's appeal and issued an order staying
the District Court's equitable orders pending a further order to
be issued by the Ninth Circuit.  The Ninth Circuit opinion
vacating the relief ordered by the District Court was issued on
July 22, 2010.  The Ninth Circuit stated that, because of several
jury instruction errors it identified, a significant portion -- if
not all -- of the jury verdict and damage award should be vacated.

In its opinion, the Ninth Circuit found that the District Court
erred in concluding that Mattel's Invention agreement
unambiguously applied to "ideas;" that it should have considered
extrinsic evidence in determining the application of the
agreement; and if the conclusion turns on conflicting evidence, it
should have been up to the jury to decide.  The Ninth Circuit also
concluded that the District Judge erred in transferring the entire
brand to Mattel based on misappropriated names and that the Court
should have submitted to the jury, rather than deciding itself,
whether Bryant's agreement assigned works created outside the
scope of his employment and whether Bryant's creation of the Bratz
designs and sculpt was outside of his employment.  The Court then
went on to address copyright issues which would be raised after a
retrial, since Mattel "might well convince a properly instructed
jury" that it owns Bryant's designs and sculpt.  The Ninth Circuit
stated that the sculpt itself was entitled only to "thin"
copyright protection against virtually identical works, while the
Bratz sketches were entitled to "broad" protection against
substantially similar works; in applying the broad protection,
however, the Ninth Circuit found that the lower court had erred in
failing to filter out all of the unprotectable elements of
Bryant's sketches.  This mistake, the Court said, caused the lower
court to conclude that all Bratz dolls were substantially similar
to Bryant's original sketches.

Judge Stephen Larson, who presided over the first trial, has since
retired from the bench, and the case has been transferred to Judge
David O. Carter.  Discovery has now been largely concluded.  Judge
Carter had previously granted Mattel leave to file a Fourth
Amended Answer and Counterclaims which focused on RICO, trade
secret and other claims, and added additional parties.  On
August 16, 2010, MGA asserted several new claims against Mattel in
response to Mattel's Fourth Amended Answer and Counterclaims.
These claims are for alleged trade secret misappropriation, an
alleged violation of RICO, and wrongful injunction.  Mattel moved
to strike and/or dismiss these claims, as well as certain MGA
allegations regarding Mattel's motives for filing suit.  The Court
granted that motion as to the wrongful injunction claim, which it
dismissed with prejudice, and as to the allegations about Mattel's
motives, which it struck.  The Court denied the motion as to MGA's
trade secret misappropriation claim and its claim for violations
of RICO.

The Court resolved summary judgment motions in late 2010.  Among
other rulings, the Court dismissed both parties' RICO claims;
dismissed Mattel's claim for breach of fiduciary duty and portions
of other claims as "preempted" by the trade secrets act; dismissed
MGA's trade dress infringement claims; dismissed MGA's unjust
enrichment claim; dismissed MGA's common law unfair competition
claim; and dismissed portions of Mattel's copyright infringement
claim as to "later generation" Bratz dolls.

Trial of all remaining claims began in early January 2011.  In
February 2011, MGA commenced litigation in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California alleging
that Mattel's conduct in response to MGA's sale of Bratz violated
both the federal antitrust statute and the California Business &
Professions Code, and constituted abuse of process under
California law.  Mattel believes these claims are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend against them.


MERCK & CO: Faces Class Action Over Baldness Drug Propecia
----------------------------------------------------------
Debra Cassens Weiss, writing for ABA Journal, reports that a class
action lawsuit filed against Merck & Co. claims its baldness drug
Propecia can cause permanent sexual dysfunction and mental
problems such as anxiety and insomnia.

One of the plaintiffs is a man forced to drop out of law school
because the drug caused an inability to concentrate, the Hartford
Courant reports.  The story didn't give his name.

The suit filed in federal court in Camden claims Merck did not
change drug labels in the United States to warn of possibly
permanent side effects after European regulators required stronger
warnings.  Merck does warn of possible sexual problems, but the
company says the side effects go away after men stop taking
Propecia.

The drug's active ingredient, finasteride, is sold in higher doses
in a pill called Proscar, used to treat enlarged prostates.  Some
balding men buy Proscar and split it in half to save money,
according to a story in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Merck says it plans to vigorously defend the lawsuit.


NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Hearing Set for Superbowl Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Mosier, writing for The Dallas Morning News, reports that
fans were still leaving town when the first lawsuit was filed over
the Super Bowl XLV seating troubles.

A month later, three cases are pending against the NFL and Dallas
Cowboys, and there has already been maneuvering worthy of a
coach's game plan.  Legal experts and the attorneys involved were
asked to explain what's happened so far and discuss strategies.

There have already been skirmishes about whether one lawsuit
should be in state or federal court and even how much money the
cases are worth.  A hearing is scheduled this week to address
whether one case should stay in federal court or return to the
state court where it was filed.  Because of construction problems,
400 fans at the Super Bowl didn't have seats and a couple of
thousand others were inconvenienced.

The first legal challenge -- filed by the Los Angeles-area firm of
Eagan Avenatti in federal court -- came two days after the Feb. 6
game was played at Cowboys Stadium.

The Dallas-based law firm of Goldfarb Branham followed with a pair
of lawsuits in state court, one seeking class-action status and
one that did not.  The prospective class-action case was
transferred to federal court at the request of the defendants.

Although both cases in federal court are seeking class-action
status, experts said that's not something easily obtained.

Alexandra Lahav, a University of Connecticut law professor and
editor on the Mass Tort Litigation Blog, said these cases take a
lot of time, effort and money.  And through all that, not many get
certified as class-action lawsuits.

She said that if the cases are certified, the attorneys can use
this type of lawsuit to represent a larger "class" of potential
plaintiffs.  More clients often mean a potentially bigger payday
in court or more leverage in negotiations.

Tough case to make

The federal court system, though, is perceived as a difficult
place for these cases.  To make matters worse for the ticket
holders, Ms. Lahav and other attorneys said the federal Fifth
Judicial Circuit, which includes Dallas, has a reputation as
unfriendly to prospective class-action lawsuits.

Trey Branham, a partner with Goldfarb Branham, said his firm's
decision to file in state court was based in part on cost.  It's
more expensive to litigate in federal than state court, and his
clients' damages will likely be in the thousands of dollars each,
not the millions.

The NFL has made offers to the affected ticket holders that would
be worth a minimum of $5,000 for those 400 without seats.

His clients' other state lawsuit isn't subject to a move to
federal court.  Mr. Branham also said the cases were filed in
state court because the economic damages occurred at a single
event in Texas rather than in multiple places throughout the
country.

Standard tactic

The attempt, though, to get the case moved to federal court is a
standard tactic by defendants.

Andrei Rado, a partner in the New York City law firm of Milberg
LLP, which has worked on class-action lawsuits since the early
1970s, said defendants don't want to be spread among multiple
jurisdictions.  He said that having to deal with different courts
increases uncertainty.

"Generally speaking in litigation, uncertainty favors the
plaintiff," he said.  "It's much better to have one judge deciding
things versus several."

The lawyers with Goldfarb Branham are trying to get their case
"remanded" back to state court, but Mr. Rado said that could be a
tough fight.  If the potential damages are greater than $5
million, the case will stay in federal court.  Mr. Rado said
federal judges generally tend to lean toward keeping jurisdiction
in cases like this unless damages aren't even close to that $5
million mark.

The plaintiffs didn't cite a damage amount in their state lawsuit,
but the Eagan Avenatti case is asking for damages greater than $5
million.

Mr. Branham said he doesn't have enough information yet to suggest
estimated damages.  He said he doesn't know how much money his
clients are out for their expenses, and the NFL hasn't told him
how many people have taken the league's voluntary settlements,
which would reduce the number of litigants.

Michael Avenatti was unavailable for comment, but some of his
clients are opposing the motion to move that case back to state
court.  If both cases continue in federal court, there would
eventually be a consolidation.

Ms. Lahav said that essentially pits the two law firms against
each other for control of the case.  But even if the lawsuits
continue in different courts and on parallel paths, there could
still be competition between the firms to be the first to settle.

Linda S. Mullenix, a law professor at the University of Texas,
said that if a case goes forward without a settlement, the biggest
fight often is class certification.  She said defendants usually
don't want to go to a jury.

More often that not, Ms. Mullenix said, "If the class gets
certified, it's game over."


NEIMAN MARCUS: Continues to Defend "Monjazeb" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus, Inc., continues to defend itself in a class action
lawsuit brought by Sheila Monjazeb, according to the Company's
March 11, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 29, 2011.

On April 30, 2010, a Class Action Complaint for Injunction and
Equitable Relief was filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California by Sheila Monjazeb,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, against the Company, Newton Holding, LLC, TPG
Capital, L.P. and Warburg Pincus, LLC.  On July 12, 2010, all
defendants except for the Company were dismissed without
prejudice, and on August 20, 2010, this case was refiled in the
Superior Court of California for San Francisco County.  This
complaint, along with a similar class action lawsuit originally
filed by Bernadette Tanguilig in 2007, alleges that the Company
has engaged in various violations of the California Labor Code and
Business and Professions Code, including without limitation (1)
asking employees to work "off the clock," (2) failing to provide
meal and rest breaks to its employees, (3) improperly calculating
deductions on paychecks delivered to its employees, and (4)
failing to provide a chair or allow employees to sit during
shifts.  The plaintiffs in these matters seek certification of
their cases as class actions, reimbursement for past wages and
temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief preventing
defendant from allegedly continuing to violate the laws cited in
their complaints.  The Company intends to vigorously defend its
interests in these matters.  Currently, the Company cannot
reasonably estimate the amount of loss, if any, arising from these
matters.  However, the Company does not currently believe the
resolution of these matters will have a material adverse impact on
its financial position.  The Company will continue to evaluate
these matters based on subsequent events, new information and
future circumstances.

Neiman Marcus, Inc.'s operations include the Specialty Retail
Stores segment and the Direct Marketing segment.  The Specialty
Retail Stores segment consists primarily of Neiman Marcus and
Bergdorf Goodman stores. The Direct Marketing segment conducts
both online and print catalog operations under the Neiman Marcus,
Horchow and Bergdorf Goodman brand names.  On the Net:
http://www.neimanmarcusgroup.com/


NEW YORK: Trespassing Arrests Drop Following NYPD Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Walsh and Rocco Parascandola, writing for Daily News Police
Bureau, report that the number of trespassing arrests dropped last
year, and NYPD critics say it's the result of a class-action suit
challenging the way police patrol housing projects.

Trespassing arrests plunged 9% in 2010 to 18,290 from 20,031 in
2009.

Despite the dip, such arrests have actually risen 44% since 2002.

Lawyers involved in a class-action suit filed in January 2010 said
it forced police to reevaluate how they deal with the 404,000
residents of public housing.

After the suit was filed, the NYPD retrained officers and told the
Housing Authority it had overhauled its vertical-patrol policy to
prevent unjustified arrests.

"The pressure from the lawsuit seems to have helped," said
William Gibney, a director at the Legal Aid Society, one of the
groups that filed the suit.

Police have long maintained that questioning those who loiter
curtails drug dealing and other crimes in public housing.

Critics say vertical patrols are done to meet illegal quotas, and
many young minority men are arrested without good reason.

Nine of the 16 people who sued the city in the federal class-
action suit recently settled for a total of about $170,000.

One of the remaining plaintiffs, Eleanor Britt, 63, blasted cops
for arresting her grandson at East Harlem's Taft Houses in January
2009.

The Manhattan district attorney's office declined to prosecute
Roman Jackson, then 25, who lived with Ms. Britt and was talking
with a friend in the stairwell, she said.

The officers knocked on her door and asked for his ID.

"I gave him his ID, and they still arrested him," said Ms. Britt,
a bookkeeper.  "They took him out of the building in handcuffs
like a common criminal."


NOKIA CORP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss New York Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Nokia Corporation's motion to dismiss a securities class action in
New York remains pending, according to the Company's March 11,
2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

On February 5, 2010, a lawsuit was initiated by a municipal
retirement fund in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of itself, and seeking
class action status on behalf of purchasers of the American
Depositary Shares, or ADSs, of Nokia between January 24, 2008 and
September 5, 2008, inclusive, to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  An amended complaint was filed
in the same lawsuit on August 23, 2010, by a different municipal
retirement fund that was appointed lead plaintiff.  The amended
complaint names Nokia Corporation, and its former executives,
Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo and Richard Simonson as well as its current
executive Kai Oistamo, and claims violations of the Exchange Act.
In particular, the complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period, Nokia and the individual defendants failed to disclose
alleged material adverse facts about the Company's business,
including specifically that: (i) Nokia was experiencing
significant software-related problems with the development of its
Symbian operating system, which were delaying scheduled product
launch dates; (ii) Nokia was allegedly losing market share because
of intense price cuts by its competitors; and (iii) the dynamics
of the emerging Chinese market for mobile phones were changing.
Plaintiff claims that as a result of the above allegations, the
price of Nokia ADSs dropped substantially.  Plaintiff seeks to
recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Nokia ADSs during
the Class Period.  A motion to dismiss has been filed and is
pending before the Court.

The Company believes that the allegations are without merit, and
it will continue to defend itself against the action vigorously.


NOKIA CORP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nokia Corporation is awaiting a ruling on its motion to dismiss a
consolidated class action alleging failure by the defendants to
comply with their statutory and fiduciary duties when they failed
to remove Nokia stock as a plan investment option, according to
the Company's March 11, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

On April 19, 2010, and April 21, 2010, two individuals filed
separate putative class action lawsuits against Nokia Inc. and the
directors and officers of Nokia Inc., and certain other employees
and representatives of the company, claiming to represent all
persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Nokia
Retirement Savings and Investment Plan who participated in the
Plan between January 1, 2008 and the present and whose accounts
included investments in Nokia stock.  The plaintiffs allege that
the defendants failed to comply with their statutory and fiduciary
duties when they failed to remove Nokia stock as a plan investment
option.  The cases were consolidated and an amended consolidated
complaint was filed on September 15, 2010.  The amended complaint
alleges that the named individuals knew of the matters alleged in
a securities case against the Company pending in New York, that
the matters significantly increased the risk of Nokia stock
ownership, and as a result of that knowledge, the named defendants
should have removed Nokia stock as a Plan investment option.  A
motion to dismiss has been filed and is pending before the Court.

The Company believes that the allegations are without merit, and
it will continue to defend itself against the action vigorously.


NUCLEAR FUEL: Erwin Residents Mull Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Lizz Marrs, writing for TriCities.com, reports that a group of
attorneys met with concerned citizens in Erwin on March 16 to
gauge the community's interest in a potential class-action lawsuit
against Nuclear Fuel Services.

The three attorneys say they are looking into a possible
relationship, if any, between nuclear contamination and cancer in
the Erwin-area.

Lisa Smith came to the first meeting to see if her family's cancer
problems may be caused by a local business.

"Too many people from Erwin that's got cancer and it's related to
something," says Ms. Smith.  "There's a possibility it is nuclear
fuels."

Nearly fifty other people shared Ms. Smith's concerns at the
1:00 p.m. meeting on March 16.

"Why does he have these weird illnesses," asks Donna Groom about
her husband.  "Is it something from NFS? Is it something from the
river?"

Attorney John Rogers believes there is a relation between sickness
and nuclear fuel services.

"Erwin's N-F-S facility has been criticized for safety violations
and cited for chronic non-compliance with federal regulations.  As
a result of that there are a number of concerned citizens --
concerned about a possible relationship, if any, between nuclear
contamination and cancer and other illnesses," said attorney John
Rogers from Greeneville.

"They're standard of operating is extremely relevant to a
determination of a cancer epidemic in this area," Mr. Rogers adds.

NFS Spokeswoman Lauri Turpin said the company cannot comment on a
potential class-action lawsuit right now because there is not one
in the works yet, so to comment would be pure speculation.

Ms. Turpin said there is no data to suggest the company's
operations have impacted the surrounding community's health in any
way.

"We consistently operate well within our federal and state
regulations with regards to emissions or anything that may have an
environmental impact," said Ms. Turpin.

The visiting attorneys also met with citizens at 5:30 p.m. at the
Masonic Lodge in Unicoi.


ORIENT PAPER: Seeks Dismissal of "Henning" Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Orient Paper Inc. has filed a motion to dismiss an amended
stockholder class action complaint brought against the Company by
a certain Mark Henning, according to the Company's March 15, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On August 20, 2010, the Company was served notice of a stockholder
class action lawsuit filed on August 6, 2010 in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California against the Company,
certain current and former officers and directors of the Company,
and Roth Capital Partners, LLP.  The complaint in the lawsuit,
Mark Henning v. Orient Paper et al., CV-10-5887 RSWL (AJWx),
alleges, among other claims, that the Company issued materially
false and misleading statements and omitted to state material
facts that rendered its affirmative statements misleading as they
related to the Company's financial performance, business
prospects, and financial condition, and that the defendants failed
to prevent such statements from being issued or corrected.  The
complaint seeks, among other relief, compensatory damages and
plaintiff's counsel's fees and experts' fees.  Mr. Henning
purports to sue on his own behalf and on behalf of a class
consisting of the Company's stockholders (other than the
defendants and their affiliates).  One group of three
shareholders, including Mr. Henning, with a total alleged loss of
approximately $150,000 has filed a motion to be appointed as lead
plaintiff and has been so appointed by the court.  The Company and
the defendant officers and directors have retained the law firm
DLA Piper US LLP to represent them in connection with the lawsuit.

The Company believes that the lawsuit has no merit and intends to
mount a vigorous defense. The plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on January 28, 2011, and the Company filed a motion to
dismiss with the court on March 14, 2011. Nevertheless, at this
stage of the proceedings, management cannot opine that a favorable
outcome for the company is probable or that an unfavorable outcome
to the company is remote. While certain legal defense costs may be
later reimbursed by the Company's insurance carrier, no reasonable
estimate of any impact of the outcome of the litigation or related
legal fees on the financial statements can be made as of March 15,
2011.


PARIGI GROUP: Recalls 1,600 Girls' Jeans for Toddlers
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Parigi Group, Ltd., of New York, NY, announced a voluntary recall
of about 1,600 Girls' Jeans for Toddlers.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Decorative rhinestones and sequins on the jeans' pockets can pose
a choking hazard to young children.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves "Baby Phat" branded jeans for toddlers in
sizes 2T to 4T. Style number BM02545 can be found on a label sewn
in the rear waistband.  The rear pockets have colored rhinestones
and sequins attached and the right rear pocket has an appliqu‚ of
a cat below the sequins.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11173.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
various specialty stores nationwide and online through Amazon.com
from May 2010 through June 2010 for about $13.

Consumers should immediately take the jeans away from children and
return them to the retail store where they were purchased for a
full refund, or contact the firm for instructions on how to return
the product by mail for a full refund.  For additional
information, contact Parigi Group collect at (212) 378-1205
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.parigigroup.com/


PRUCO LIFE: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of Nevada Suit
------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a purported state-wide class
action filed against Prudential Insurance in Nevada state court
alleging that Prudential Insurance delayed payment of death
benefits is pending, according to Pruco Life Insurance Company's
March 11, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In July 2010, the Company and certain affiliates, as well as other
life insurance industry participants, received a formal request
for information from the State of New York Attorney General's
Office in connection with its investigation into industry
practices relating to life insurance policies for which death
benefits, unless the beneficiary elects another settlement method,
are placed in retained asset accounts, which earn interest and are
subject to withdrawal in whole or in part at any time by the
beneficiary.  The Company is cooperating with this investigation.
The Company has also been contacted by state insurance regulators
and other governmental entities regarding retained asset accounts.
In April 2010, a purported state-wide class action was filed
against Prudential Insurance in Nevada state court alleging that
Prudential Insurance delayed payment of death benefits and
improperly retained undisclosed profits by placing death benefits
in retained asset accounts.  In January 2011, this action was
dismissed.  In February 2011, the plaintiff appealed the
dismissal.  An earlier case by the same plaintiff making
substantially the same allegations was dismissed in federal court.
In December 2010, a purported state-wide class action was filed in
state court against Prudential Insurance and Prudential Financial
and removed to federal court in Illinois.  The complaint makes
allegations under Illinois law substantially similar to the other
retained asset account cases on behalf of a class of Illinois
residents.


PRUCO LIFE: Suits on Retained Asset Accounts Remain Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits against Prudential Insurance relating to retained asset
accounts associated with life insurance covering U.S. service
members and veterans remain pending, according to Pruco Life
Insurance Company's March 11, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

In July 2010, a purported nationwide class action was filed in
Massachusetts federal court against Prudential Insurance relating
to retained asset accounts associated with life insurance covering
U.S. service members and veterans.  The Company has moved to
dismiss the complaint.  In November and December 2010, three
additional purported class actions making substantially the same
allegations on behalf of the same purported class of beneficiaries
were filed against Prudential Insurance and Prudential Financial
in New Jersey federal court and were transferred to the
Massachusetts federal court by the Judicial Panel on Multi-
District Litigation.  In October 2010, a purported nationwide
class action was filed in Pennsylvania federal court on behalf of
beneficiaries of ERISA-governed welfare benefit plans claiming
that the use of retained asset accounts violates ERISA.

The Company says additional investigations, information requests,
hearings, claims, litigation and adverse publicity may arise with
respect to the retained asset accounts.


QC HOLDINGS: Arguments on Class Certification in 1st Half of 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc., will possibly argue class certification in
first half of 2011 in an arbitration proceeding filed by a
plaintiff of a purported class action in Missouri, according to
the Company's March 15, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

On October 13, 2006, one of the Company's Missouri customers sued
the Company in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri in
a purported class action.  The lawsuit alleges violations of the
Missouri statute pertaining to unsecured loans under $500 and the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.  The lawsuit seeks monetary
damages and a declaratory judgment that the arbitration agreement
with the plaintiff is not enforceable on a variety of theories.
The Company moved to compel arbitration of this matter.  In
December 2007, the court entered an order striking the class
action waiver provision in the Company's customer arbitration
agreement, ordered the case to arbitration and dismissed the
lawsuit filed in Circuit Court.  In July 2008, the Company filed
its appeal of the court's order with the Missouri Court of
Appeals.  In December 2008, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision of the trial court.  In September 2009, the plaintiff
filed her action in arbitration.  The Company has filed its
answer, and a three-person arbitration panel has been chosen.
Discovery has commenced, and the parties will possibly argue class
certification in first half of 2011.


QC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend "Torrence" Suit in North Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself and its subsidiaries
in a class action lawsuit filed by James B. Torrence, Sr. and Ben
Hubert Cline, according to the Company's March 15, 2011 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

On February 8, 2005, the Company, two of its subsidiaries,
including its subsidiary doing business in North Carolina, and Mr.
Don Early, the Company's Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer, were sued in Superior Court of New Hanover County, North
Carolina in a putative class action lawsuit filed by James B.
Torrence, Sr. and Ben Hubert Cline, who were customers of a
Delaware state-chartered bank for whom the Company provided
certain services in connection with the bank's origination of
payday loans in North Carolina, prior to the closing of the
Company's North Carolina branches in fourth quarter 2005.  The
lawsuit alleges that the Company violated various North Carolina
laws, including the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act, the North
Carolina Check Cashers Act, the North Carolina Loan Brokers Act,
the state unfair trade practices statute and the state usury
statute, in connection with payday loans made by the bank to the
two plaintiffs through the Company's retail locations in North
Carolina.  The lawsuit alleges that the Company made the payday
loans to the plaintiffs in violation of various state statutes,
and that if the Company is not viewed as the "actual lenders or
makers" of the payday loans, its services to the bank that made
the loans violated various North Carolina statutes.  Plaintiffs
are seeking certification as a class, unspecified monetary
damages, and treble damages and attorneys fees under specified
North Carolina statutes.  Plaintiffs have not sued the bank in
this matter and have specifically stated in the complaint that
plaintiffs do not challenge the right of out-of-state banks to
enter into loans with North Carolina residents at such rates as
the bank's home state may permit, all as authorized by North
Carolina and federal law. This case is in the preliminary stages.


QC HOLDINGS: Will Argue Arbitration Issues in Early to Mid-2011
---------------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc., said it will argue its own issues concerning
arbitration and class certification before a trial court in early
to mid-2011 regarding three purported class actions similar to
James B. Torrence, Sr.'s lawsuit against the Company, according to
the Company's March 15, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

James B. Torrence, Sr. and Ben Hubert Cline, who were customers of
a Delaware state-chartered bank for whom the Company provided
certain services in connection with the bank's origination of
payday loans in North Carolina, filed a class action lawsuit
alleging that the Company violated various North Carolina laws,
including the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act, the North
Carolina Check Cashers Act, the North Carolina Loan Brokers Act,
the state unfair trade practices statute and the state usury
statute, in connection with payday loans made by the bank to the
two plaintiffs through the Company's retail locations in North
Carolina.  The lawsuit alleges that the Company made the payday
loans to the plaintiffs in violation of various state statutes,
and that if the Company is not viewed as the "actual lenders or
makers" of the payday loans, its services to the bank that made
the loans violated various North Carolina statutes.

There are three similar purported class action lawsuits filed in
North Carolina against three other companies unrelated to the
Company.  In December 2005, the judge in those three cases (1)
granted the defendants' motions to stay the purported class action
lawsuits and to compel arbitration in accordance with the terms of
the arbitration provisions contained in the consumer loan
contracts, (2) ruled that the class action waivers in those
consumer loan contracts are valid, and (3) denied plaintiffs'
motions for class certifications.  The plaintiffs in those three
cases, who are represented by the same law firms as the plaintiffs
in the case filed against the Company, appealed that ruling.  In
January 2007, the North Carolina Court of Appeals heard the appeal
in the three companion cases.  In May 2008, the appellate court
remanded the three companion cases to the state court to review
its ruling in light of a recent North Carolina Supreme Court
decision.  In June 2009, the trial court denied defendants' motion
to compel arbitration and granted each of the respective
plaintiffs' motions for class certification.  Defendants appealed
those rulings, but by the end of 2010, tentative settlements in
each of the three companion cases were reached.  However the
settlements do not provide reasonable guidance on settlements in
the Company's case.  The Company will argue its own issues
concerning arbitration and class certification before the trial
court in early to mid 2011.

The judge handling the lawsuit against the Company in the
"Torrence" Suit in North Carolina is the same judge who is
handling the three companion cases.


QUICKLOGIC CORP: Appeals in Securities Suit Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the dismissal of a securities class action in New
York against QuickLogic Corporation and other defendants remain
pending, according to the Company's March 11, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended January 2, 2011.

On October 26, 2001, a putative securities class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against certain investment banks that underwrote QuickLogic's
initial public offering, QuickLogic and some of QuickLogic's
officers and directors.  The complaint alleges excessive and
undisclosed commissions in connection with the allocation of
shares of common stock in QuickLogic's initial and secondary
public offerings and artificially high prices through "tie-in"
arrangements which required the underwriters' customers to buy
shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices in violation of
the federal securities laws.  Plaintiffs seek an unspecified
amount of damages on behalf of persons who purchased QuickLogic's
stock pursuant to the registration statements between October 14,
1999 and December 6, 2000.  Various plaintiffs have filed similar
actions asserting virtually identical allegations against over 300
other public companies, their underwriters, and their officers and
directors arising out of each company's public offering.  These
actions, including the action against QuickLogic, have been
coordinated for pretrial purposes and captioned In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92, or IPO Securities
Litigation.

The parties have reached a global settlement of the litigation.
Under the settlement, the insurers are to pay the full amount of
settlement share allocated to the Company, and the Company will
bear no financial liability.  The Company and the other defendants
will receive complete dismissals from the case.  Certain objectors
have filed appeals.  No hearing date has been set.  The Company
says it did not accrue any amounts related to the proposed
settlement because it was not reasonably estimable.


RADIENT PHARMA: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the common
stock of Radient Pharmaceuticals Corporation during the period
between January 18, 2011 and March 4, 2011, inclusive, seeking to
recover damages for violations of federal securities laws.

To join the Radient class action, visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/ or call Laurence Rosen, Esq. or
Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email
lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.  The case is pending in the U.S. District Court
for Central District of California.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION.  UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN
AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

The Complaint asserts violations of the Securities Exchange Act
against Radient and its officers and directors for materially
misrepresenting the involvement of the prestigious Mayo Clinic in
the Company's clinical trial of Onko-Sure.  On Jan. 18, 2011,
Radient issued a press release announcing "progress on its
clinical study with the Mayo Clinic . . ." In connection with the
clinical study, the Company claimed that samples were being tested
by the Company and the Mayo Clinic to directly compare the
efficacy of the Onko-Sure test with another test.  On March 7,
2011, TheStreet.com issued an article refuting claims that the
Mayo Clinic was conducting a clinical trial with Radient.  In the
article, the Mayo Clinic is quoted as stating that: "Mayo is not
engaged in clinical studies with Radient and does not have a
partnership agreement with Radient." The Mayo Clinic added that:
"The services Mayo was required to provide to Radient have been
fulfilled. Any clinical study results about Onko-Sure would be
provided by Radient, not Mayo Clinic."  As a result of this
adverse news, the price of Radient stock fell, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 10, 2011.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Weekends Tel: (917) 797-4425
          Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com
          Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


RESTAURANT.COM: Sued for Selling Useless Coupons to Customers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action accuses
Internet merchant Restaurant.com of selling restaurant coupons to
restaurants that are no longer in business.

A copy of the Complaint in Cora v. Restaurant.com, Inc., Case No.
11-08065 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Miami-Dade Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/16/Restaurant.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence J. McGuinness, Esq.
          MCGUINNESS & GONZALEZ, P.A.
          1627 S.W. 37th Ave., Suite 100
          Miami, FL 33145
          Telephone: (305) 448-9557
          E-mail: ljmpalaw@comcast.net


SOUTHERN STAR: Awaits Plaintiffs' Next Step in Price Litigation I
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Star Central Corp. said it is unknown whether the
plaintiffs in a putative class action known as Price Litigation I
intend to proceed with the merits of their claims, absent class
certification or plan to move to dismiss the lawsuit, according to
the Company's March 15, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

In re Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al., Case
No. 99 C 30, District Court, Stevens County, Kansas, or Price
Litigation I filed May 28, 1999, the named plaintiffs, or
Plaintiffs, have sued over 50 defendants, including the Company's
subsidiary, Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. or "Central."
Asserting theories of civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting,
accounting and unjust enrichment, their Fourth Amended Class
Action Petition alleges that the defendants have under measured
the volume of, and therefore have underpaid for, the natural gas
they have obtained from or measured for Plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs
seek unspecified actual damages, attorney fees, pre- and post-
judgment interest, and reserved the right to plead for punitive
damages.  On August 22, 2003, an answer to that pleading was filed
on behalf of Central.  Despite a denial by the Court on April 10,
2003 of their original motion for class certification, the
Plaintiffs continued to seek the certification of a class.  The
Plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification for a second time
was fully briefed and the Court heard oral argument on the motion
on April 1, 2005.  On September 18, 2009, the Court denied the
Plaintiffs' most recent motion for class certification.  The
Plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider that ruling on October 2,
2009.  The defendants, including Central, filed a response in
opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration on
January 18, 2010.  The Plaintiffs filed a reply, and oral
argument, which was presented before a different judge, was heard
on February 10, 2010.  By order dated March 31, 2010, the Court
denied the Plaintiffs' October 2, 2009 motion to reconsider the
earlier denial of class certification.  The Plaintiffs did not
file for interlocutory review of the March 31, 2010 order;
however, it is unknown at this time whether the Plaintiffs intend
to proceed with the merits of their claims, absent class
certification or plan to move to dismiss the lawsuit.


SOUTHERN STAR: Awaits Outcome of Price Litigation II in Kansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Star Central Corp. said it is unknown whether the
plaintiffs in "Price Litigation II" in Kansas intend to proceed
with the merits of their claims, absent class certification or
plan to move to dismiss the lawsuit, according to the Company's
March 15, 2011 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

In re Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al., Case
No. 03 C 23, District Court, Stevens County, Kansas, or Price
Litigation II filed May 12, 2003, the named Plaintiffs from Price
Litigation I have sued the same defendants, including the
Company's subsidiary, Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. or
"Central."   Asserting substantially identical legal and/or
equitable theories, as in Price Litigation I, this petition
alleges that the defendants have under measured the British
thermal units, or Btu, content of, and therefore have underpaid
for, the natural gas they have obtained from or measured for
Plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorney
fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and reserved the right to
plead for punitive damages.  On November 10, 2003, an answer to
that pleading was filed on behalf of Central. The Plaintiffs'
motion seeking class certification, along with Plaintiffs' second
class certification motion in Price Litigation I, was fully
briefed and the Court heard oral argument on this motion on
April 1, 2005.  On September 18, 2009, the Court denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The Plaintiffs filed
a motion to reconsider that ruling on October 2, 2009.  The
defendants, including Central, filed a response in opposition to
the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration on January 18, 2010.
The Plaintiffs filed a reply, and oral argument, which was
presented before a different judge, was heard on February 10,
2010.  By order dated March 31, 2010, the Court denied the
Plaintiffs' October 2, 2009 motion to reconsider the earlier
denial of class certification.  The Plaintiffs did not file for
interlocutory review of the March 31, 2010 order; however, it is
unknown at this time whether the Plaintiffs intend to proceed with
the merits of their claims, absent class certification or plan to
move to dismiss the lawsuit.


SUPPORT.COM: Awaits Ruling on Appeal From Settlement of IPO Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Support.com, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on an appeal from a court
order approving the settlement of a securities class action,
according to the Company's March 11, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2010.

In November 2001, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company, two of its former officers and certain underwriters in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. Similar complaints have been filed against 55 underwriters
and more than 300 other companies and other individual officers
and directors of those companies; the consolidated case is In re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)
(S.D.N.Y.). The lawsuit, which sought unspecified damages, fees
and costs, alleged that the Company's registration statement and
prospectus dated July 18, 2000 for the issuance and initial public
offering of 4,250,000 shares of its common stock contained
material misrepresentations and/or omissions related to alleged
inflated commissions received by the underwriters of the offering.
On April 1, 2009, all parties entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement that would resolve all claims and dismiss
the case against the Company and its former officers, without any
payment by the Company or its former officers. On October 5, 2009,
the court issued an order approving the settlement. Certain
parties have appealed the settlement and the appeal is pending.


UBS AG: Continues to Defend Municipal Bond-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
UBS AG remains a defendant in several putative class actions in
federal courts relating to the Company's municipal bond
transactions, according to the Company's March 15, 2011 Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

In November 2006, the Company and others received subpoenas from
the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and the
SEC seeking information relating to the investment of proceeds of
municipal bond issuances and associated derivative transactions.
In addition, various state Attorneys General have issued subpoenas
seeking similar information.  The investigations are ongoing, and
the Company is cooperating.  Several putative class actions also
have been filed in Federal District Courts against the Company and
numerous other firms.


UBS AG: Auction Rate Securities Matters Remain Pending
------------------------------------------------------
UBS AG remains subject of arbitration and litigation claims,
including putative class actions, by clients and issuers relating
to auction rate securities or ARS, according to the Company's
March 15, 2011 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company was the subject of an SEC investigation and state
regulatory actions relating to the marketing and sale of ARS to
clients, and its role and participation in ARS auctions and
underwriting of ARS.  The Company was also named in several
putative class actions and individual civil suits and
arbitrations.  The regulatory actions and investigations and the
civil proceedings followed the disruption in the markets for these
securities and related auction failures since mid-February 2008.
At the end of 2008 UBS entered into settlements with the SEC, the
New York Attorney General and the Massachusetts Securities
Division whereby the Company agreed to offer to buy back ARS from
eligible customers within certain time periods, the last of which
began on 30 June 2010, and to pay penalties of $150 million. The
Company's settlement is largely in line with similar industry
regulatory settlements.  The Company has settled with the majority
of states and is continuing to finalize settlements with the rest.
The fines being paid in these state settlements are being charged
against the $150 million provision that was established in 2008.
The SEC continues to investigate individuals affiliated with the
Company regarding the trading in ARS and disclosures.  During the
third quarter of 2010, a claimant alleging consequential damages
from the illiquidity of ARS was awarded approximately $80 million
by an arbitration panel and the Company has booked a provision of
CHF78 million relating to the case.  The Company moved in state
court to vacate the award and oral argument was heard on that
motion in December 2010.  The Company is the subject of other
pending arbitration and litigation claims by clients and issuers
relating to ARS.


UBS AG: Lehman Principal Protection Notes Matters Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
UBS AG remains the subject of customer litigations, including a
putative class action, and regulatory investigations on whether it
has adequately disclosed risks of "principal protection notes"
issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., according to the
Company's March 15, 2011 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

From March 2007 through September 2008, the Company sold
approximately $1 billion face amount of structured notes issued by
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., a majority of which were referred
to as "principal protection notes," reflecting the fact that while
the notes' return was in some manner linked to market indices or
other measures, some or all of the investor's principal was an
unconditional obligation of Lehman as issuer of the notes.  The
Company has been named along with other defendants in a putative
class action alleging materially misleading statements and
omissions in the prospectuses relating to these notes and
asserting claims under US securities laws.  The Company has also
been named in numerous individual civil suits and customer
arbitrations, was named in a proceeding brought by the New
Hampshire Bureau of Securities, and is responding to
investigations by other state regulators and FINRA relating to the
sale of these notes to the Company's customers.  The customer
litigations and regulatory investigations relate primarily to
whether the Company adequately disclosed the risks of these notes
to its customers.


UBS AG: Awaits Dismissal of Rights Offering Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
UBS AG is awaiting a New York court's ruling on its motion to
dismiss a putative class action arising from the Company's May
2008 Rights Offering, according to the Company's March 15, 2011
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2010.

The putative consolidated class action has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company, a number of current and former directors and
senior officers and certain banks that underwrote the Company's
May 2008 Rights Offering, including UBS Securities LLC, alleging
violation of the US securities laws in connection with the firm's
disclosures relating to its positions and losses in mortgage-
related securities, its positions and losses in auction rate
securities, and its US cross-border business.  Defendants have
moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.


UBS AG: Awaits Dismissal of Consolidated Retirement Plan Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
UBS AG is awaiting a court's decision on its motion to dismiss a
putative class action filed by current and former participants in
two retirement plans of the Company, according to the Company's
March 15, 2011 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company, a number of senior officers and employees and various
UBS committees have been sued in a putative consolidated class
action for breach of fiduciary duties brought on behalf of current
and former participants in two UBS Employee Retirement Income
Security Act retirement plans in which there were purchases of UBS
stock.  Defendants have moved to dismiss the ERISA complaint for
failure to state a claim.


UNITED STATES: Accused of Discriminating Against Latino Farmers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action from
Latino and female farmers claims the Departments of Justice and
Agriculture discriminated against them in settling similar
discrimination complaints from black and Native American farmers.

A copy of the Complaint in Cantu v. The United States of America,
et al., Case No. 11-cv-00541 (D.D.C.) (Roberts, J.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/16/Farmers.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen S. Hill Esq.
          HOWREY LLP
          1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20004-2402
          Telephone: (202) 783-0800
          E-mail: HillStephen@howrey.com

               - and -

          Robert L. Green, Jr., Esq.
          Kenneth C. Anderson, Esq.
          HOWREY LLP
          1299 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004-2401
          Telephone: (202) 783-0800
          E-mail: GreenR@howrey.com
                  AndersonKen@howrey.com


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Awaits Plaintiffs' Next Step in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Verifone Systems, Inc., is awaiting whether plaintiffs in a
consolidated securities class action will appeal a court's
dismissal of their lawsuit, according to the Company's March 11,
2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2011.

On or after December 4, 2007, several securities class action
claims were filed against the Company and certain of its officers,
former officers, and a former director. These lawsuits were
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California as In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation, C 07-6140 MHP. The original actions were: Eichenholtz
v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6140 MHP; Lien v. VeriFone
Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6195 JSW; Vaughn et al. v. VeriFone
Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6197 VRW (Plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed this complaint on March 7, 2008); Feldman et al. v.
VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6218 MMC; Cerini v. VeriFone
Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6228 SC; Westend Capital Management
LLC v. VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6237 MMC; Hill v.
VeriFone Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6238 MHP; Offutt v. VeriFone
Holdings, Inc. et al., C 07-6241 JSW; Feitel v. VeriFone Holdings,
Inc., et al., C 08-0118 CW. On August 22, 2008, the court
appointed plaintiff National Elevator Fund lead plaintiff and its
attorneys lead counsel. Plaintiff filed its consolidated amended
class action complaint on October 31, 2008, which asserts claims
under the Securities Exchange Act Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A
and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 for securities
fraud and control person liability against the Company and certain
of its current and former officers and directors, based on
allegations that the Company and the individual defendants made
false or misleading public statements regarding the Company's
business and operations during the putative class periods and
seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The Company
filed its motion to dismiss on December 31, 2008. The court
granted the motion on
May 26, 2009 and dismissed the consolidated amended class action
complaint with leave to amend within 30 days of the ruling. The
proceedings were stayed pending a mediation held in October 2009
at which time the parties failed to reach a mutually agreeable
settlement. Plaintiffs' first amended complaint was filed on
December 3, 2009 followed by a second amended complaint filed on
January 19, 2010. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint and the hearing on the motion was held on
May 17, 2010. In July 2010, prior to any court ruling on the
motion, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third
amended complaint on the basis that they have newly discovered
evidence. Pursuant to a briefing schedule issued by the court the
Company submitted its motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint and plaintiffs filed their opposition, following which
the court took the matter under submission without further
hearing. On March 7, 2011, the court ruled in the Company's favor
and dismissed the consolidated securities class action without
leave to amend. Judgment in the Company's favor was issued
March 8, 2011. Plaintiffs have the right to appeal this ruling to
the Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit within the statutory
period following the court's judgment. At this time, the Company
has recorded any liabilities related to this action as it is
unable to determine the outcome or estimate the potential
liability.

VeriFone Systems, Inc. -- http://www.verifone.com/-- is the
global leader in secure electronic payment solutions.  VeriFone
provides expertise, solutions and services that add value to the
point of sale with merchant-operated, consumer-facing and self-
service payment systems for the financial, retail, hospitality,
petroleum, government and healthcare vertical markets.  VeriFone
solutions are designed to meet the needs of merchants, processors
and acquirers in developed and emerging economies worldwide.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs Ask Israeli Court for Leave to Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for leave to appeal filed by plaintiffs in a securities
class action lawsuit in Israel on behalf of purchasers of Verifone
Systems, Inc.'s stock on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange remains
pending, according to the Company's March 11, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended January 31, 2011.

On January 27, 2008, a class action complaint was filed against
the Company in the Central District Court in Tel Aviv, Israel on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock on the Tel Aviv Stock
Exchange. The complaint seeks compensation for damages allegedly
incurred by the class of plaintiffs due to the publication of
erroneous financial reports. The Company filed a motion to stay
the action, in light of the proceedings already filed in the
United States, on March 31, 2008. A hearing on the motion was held
on May 25, 2008. Further briefing in support of the stay motion,
specifically with regard to the threshold issue of applicable law,
was submitted on June 24, 2008. On September 11, 2008, the Israeli
District Court ruled in the Company's favor, holding that U.S. law
would apply in determining the Company's liability. On October 7,
2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to appeal the District
Court's ruling to the Israeli Supreme Court. The Company's
response to plaintiffs' appeal motion was filed on January 18,
2009. The District Court has stayed its proceedings until the
Supreme Court rules on plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal. On
January 27, 2010, after a hearing before the Supreme Court, the
court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal and
addressed the case back to the District Court. The Supreme Court
instructed the District Court to rule whether the Israeli class
action should be stayed, under the assumption that the applicable
law is U.S. law. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an application for
reconsideration of the District Court's ruling that U.S. law is
the applicable law. Following a hearing on plaintiffs'
application, on April 12, 2010, the parties agreed to stay the
proceedings pending resolution of the U.S. securities class
action, without prejudice to plaintiffs' right to appeal the
District Court's decision regarding the applicable law to the
Supreme Court. Plaintiffs have filed a motion with the Israeli
Supreme Court for leave to appeal the District Court's decision.
No briefing schedule or hearing date has been set for plaintiffs'
motion. At this time, the Company has not recorded any liabilities
for this action as it is unable to determine the outcome or
estimate the potential liability.

VeriFone Systems, Inc. -- http://www.verifone.com/-- is the
global leader in secure electronic payment solutions.  VeriFone
provides expertise, solutions and services that add value to the
point of sale with merchant-operated, consumer-facing and self-
service payment systems for the financial, retail, hospitality,
petroleum, government and healthcare vertical markets.  VeriFone
solutions are designed to meet the needs of merchants, processors
and acquirers in developed and emerging economies worldwide.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Awaits Court Okay of Hypercom Merger Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Verifone Systems, Inc., is awaiting court approval of an
agreement-in-principle of the class action lawsuit arising from
the Company's announced merger with Hypercom Corporation,
according to the Company's March 11, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 31, 2011.

In connection with the Company's announced merger with Hypercom
Corporation, several purported class action lawsuits have been
filed in Arizona and Delaware state courts alleging variously,
among other things, that the board of directors of Hypercom
breached its fiduciary duties in not securing a higher price in
the merger and that VeriFone, Hypercom, FP Hypercom Holdco, LLC
and Francisco Partners II, L.P. aided and abetted that alleged
breach. The actions seek injunctive relief and unspecified
damages. An agreement in principle has been reached to resolve the
litigation based on confirmatory discovery, enhanced public
disclosures, and contingent upon closing of the merger,
reimbursement by Hypercom of a portion of the plaintiffs'
attorneys fees. Settlement between the parties is subject to court
approval.

VeriFone Systems, Inc. -- http://www.verifone.com/-- is the
global leader in secure electronic payment solutions.  VeriFone
provides expertise, solutions and services that add value to the
point of sale with merchant-operated, consumer-facing and self-
service payment systems for the financial, retail, hospitality,
petroleum, government and healthcare vertical markets.  VeriFone
solutions are designed to meet the needs of merchants, processors
and acquirers in developed and emerging economies worldwide.


WAL-MART STORES: Sex Bias Class Action Threatens Large Employers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Stohr, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that more than 100
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. workers paint a similar picture in sworn
complaints about the company: Local managers made sexist decisions
about promotions and pay, and top officials did nothing to stop
them.

The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to consider whether those
allegations warrant a class-action suit of unprecedented size,
potentially on behalf of more than 1 million female Wal-Mart
workers.  At issue is whether the claims point to a companywide
practice of alleged discrimination or instead amount to isolated
anecdotes at a company with almost 1.4 million employees.

The case, set for argument March 29, marks the court's first look
in 12 years at the standards for certifying a class action.
Worker advocates say a victory for Wal-Mart would crush efforts to
force change at companies steeped in bias, while corporate groups
say a ruling allowing the suit might unleash a wave of employment,
antitrust and product-liability suits.

"It has a huge impact for large employers," said Lisa Blatt, a
Washington appellate lawyer at Arnold & Porter LLP who filed a
brief supporting Wal-Mart for the company-backed Retail Litigation
Center.  "If you're an employer with a million people, you're
subject to these nationwide, massive, sprawling lawsuits."

By any measure, the suit against Wal-Mart is massive, threatening
the country's largest private employer with billions of dollars in
damages.  Filed in 2001, the suit aims to cover every woman who
worked at the retailer's Wal-Mart and Sam's Club's stores at any
point since December 1998, including those not hired until years
after the suit was filed.

At Least a Million

In letting the suit go forward, a federal appeals court said the
class would consist of 500,000 women, a number that included only
current employees.  In certifying the class in 2004, a trial judge
said the group had more than 1.5 million members, including former
employees.  Both figures may be low given that Wal-Mart says it
has employed 3 million women since the 2004 order.

"I have no doubt that the class would exceed a million," said
Brad Seligman, the lead lawyer for the women.

Wal-Mart says the size of the class is only part of the problem.
At the time of the certification order, the company's hourly
employees worked in 53 departments and with 170 job
classifications.  The company had divided its retail operations
into 41 regions, each with its own vice president, and had 3,400
stores, each with a manager who was afforded significant
discretion in making pay and promotion decisions.

Sprawling Class

Allowing such a sprawling class would deprive the company of its
right to contest the claims of each woman individually, says
Theodore Boutrous, Wal-Mart's lead lawyer.

"Class actions can be helpful for efficiency, and there's an
attraction to that.  But at some point they can start chopping
away rights," he said.

More than 20 companies are supporting Wal-Mart at the high court,
including Intel Corp. (INTC), Altria Group Inc. (MO), Bank of
America Corp. (BAC), Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) and General Electric
Co. (GE)

Wal-Mart contends in its appeal that the suit doesn't adhere to
the rules that govern class actions in federal court.  Under those
rules, claims must have common questions and the representative
plaintiffs must be typical of the class as a whole.

Mr. Seligman says the claims of the Wal-Mart workers -- a group
that includes six women seeking to serve as class representatives
and more than 100 who filed sworn statements about their
experiences -- meet that standard.  The women tell stories about
being leapfrogged by more junior male colleagues into management
positions and about supervisors who quietly directed promotions to
their male friends.

Gender Stereotypes

"They have a system that fosters the use of gender stereotypes at
all levels of the company without safeguards to protect against
that," Mr. Seligman said.  Many of the Wal-Mart workers don't have
enough money at stake to warrant pressing individual suits, he
said.

A second issue in the case is potentially even more consequential,
according to David Frederick, an appellate lawyer at Kellogg Huber
Hansen Todd Evans & Figel PLLC in Washington.

The question is whether the workers must meet the standards that
normally apply to class actions seeking damages or instead the
looser requirements for plaintiffs seeking an injunction.  The
answer is in dispute in part because courts traditionally consider
back pay to be an injunctive award.

'Hugely Important'

A ruling for Wal-Mart on that issue would be "hugely important for
lots of cases outside the employment context," Mr. Frederick said.
He said such a decision could endanger some consumer-fraud suits.

A federal trial judge certified a class of past and current
employees, saying that "rough justice is better than the
alternative of having no remedy at all for any class member."

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, on a
6-5 vote, upheld that ruling as to women who were working when the
lawsuit was filed.  The appeals court said the trial judge might
be able to create an additional class for former employees.

Writing for the 9th Circuit majority, Judge Michael Daly Hawkins
said that a class action was better than "clogging the federal
courts" with individual suits.  "Mere size does not render a case
unmanageable," Judge Hawkins said.

In dissent, Judge Sandra Ikuta said, "Never before has such a low
bar been set for certifying such a gargantuan class."

The Supreme Court is scheduled to rule by the end of June in the
case, Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, 10-277.


WELLINGTON, AUSTRALIA: May Face Class Action Over Water Crisis
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wellington Times reports that a group of residents, angry about
the town's water crisis, has contacted a law firm about a class
action against council.

A Canberra law firm, acting on a pro bono basis, has been
approached to take on the case.

The firm would put together a case that would have wide
ramifications for the community as water users across town banded
together to fight council about alleged mismanagement of the water
crisis.

More than 800 people have signed petitions for the cause and
people are being asked to send letters of support so a full case
can be mounted against the council, a spokesperson for the group
organizing the claim said.

"While we have a number of people who have agreed to take this
class action we will need support from as many water users as
possible.

"The petition in local stores was received very well and people
were upset about the state of the water."

A Wellington Times street survey found many water users still
angry.

"Yes, I bloody well would be in a class action," Garry Dorin said,
while Tina Kitch said: "maybe, depending on the final outcome of
the tests they're doing."

Council said it had no comment on the issue.

The Wellington Times understands the claim will demand affected
water users are compensated or given a rebate on their dirty water
claims.

These claims will extend to damages to clothes and bed linen and
the purchase of water, which people were doing before the council
offered clean water from Council Chambers.

The NSW Ombudsman has been called and asked to investigate the
group's claims.

The residents' group asked if people should pay their water
charges but at the time of going to print no comment had come from
the ombudsman's office.

Some ratepayers have sent dirty water samples to the NSW
Department of Health and other test laboratories to investigate
the levels of chlorine.

When contacted the health department said it had not completed its
full testing.

Some residents have also seen their local GP to ensure the quality
of water was safe to drink, despite council's statements saying it
was clear to drink.

"The Department of Health would notify us immediately if they
believed people's health was at risk," council's technical
services director Owen Johns said.

The Wellington Council issued a press release clearing itself of
the water issue, indicating it was now clear to drink and followed
national drinking guidelines.

"Our staff is currently scouring about 1.1. kilometers of water
mains every day and this is expected to speed up as they get into
longer runs," Mr. Johns said.

"If they are able to do this it looks as though they will be able
to complete the project within the eight week time frame."

The Wellington Times is still getting reports of dirty water and
people are still concerned about the quality of water, but
Wellington Council is staying with its eight week time frame and
advised residents "to be calm.  They may be discoloring after the
process has been completed".

"People are not expected to drink dirty water," Mr. Johns said.


WELLS REIT: Units Continue to Defend Securities Litigation in Md.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain Wells Real Estate Investment Trust II, Inc., affiliates
continue to defend themselves against a securities class action
lawsuit in Maryland.

On March 12, 2007, a stockholder of Piedmont Office Realty Trust,
Inc., filed a putative class action and derivative complaint,
presently styled In re Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc.
Securities Litigation, in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland against, among others, Piedmont REIT; Leo F.
Wells, III, the Chairman of the Company's Board of Directors;
Wells Capital, Inc.; Wells Management Company, Inc., the Company's
former property manager; certain affiliates of Wells Estate Real
Estate Fund, Inc.; the directors of Piedmont REIT; and certain
individuals who formerly served as officers or directors of
Piedmont REIT prior to the closing of the internalization
transaction on April 16, 2007.  The complaint alleged, among other
things, violations of the federal proxy rules and breaches of
fiduciary duty arising from the Piedmont REIT internalization
transaction and the related proxy statement filed with the SEC on
February 26, 2007, as amended.  The complaint sought, among other
things, unspecified monetary damages and nullification of the
Piedmont REIT internalization transaction.

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

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

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

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

On December 4, 2009, the parties filed motions for summary
judgment.  On August 2, 2010, the Court entered an order denying
the defendants' motion for summary judgment and granting, in part,
the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. The Court
ruled that the question of whether certain expressions of interest
in acquiring Piedmont REIT constituted "material" information
required to be disclosed in the proxy statement to obtain approval
for the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction raises questions
of fact that must be determined at trial.  A trial date has not
been set.

No updates were reported in the Company's March 11, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, and Wells Management believe that the
allegations contained in the complaint are without merit and
intend to vigorously defend this action.  The Company states that
any financial loss incurred by Wells Capital, Wells Management, or
their affiliates could hinder their ability to successfully manage
the Company's operations and portfolio of investments.

Wells REIT II is a Maryland corporation that has elected to be
taxed as a real estate investment trust or REIT for federal income
tax purposes.  Wells REIT II engages in the acquisition and
ownership of commercial real estate properties, including
properties that are under construction, are newly constructed, or
have operating histories.


WEST BANCORP: Subsidiary Faces Class Suit Over Overdraft Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
West Bancorporation Inc.'s subsidiary, West Bank, was named a
defendant on September 29, 2010, in a purported class action
lawsuit that asserts overdraft fees charged by West Bank on bank
card transactions are in fact interest charges that violate Iowa
usury laws.

West Bank believes the allegations of the lawsuit are both
factually and legally inaccurate.  West Bank says it will
vigorously defend the litigation.

No updates were reported in the Company's March 11, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.


* Yoss & Adorno to Dissolve After Partner's Suspension
------------------------------------------------------
Debra Cassens Weiss, writing for ABA Journal, reports that
another law firm is dissolving after several defections by its
lawyers and reports of financial troubles.

The firm is Yoss, known as Yoss & Adorno before founding partner
Henry "Hank" Adorno was suspended for his handling of a $7 million
class action settlement.  The Florida law firm was once the
nation's largest certified minority-owned firm.

Managing partner George Yoss announced in an e-mail to employees
on Friday that the firm will close on March 31, the Daily Business
Review reports in an article reprinted by the New York Lawyer.
The Miami Herald and the South Florida Business Journal also have
stories.

About 180 lawyers and at least 100 staffers will be laid off, a
spokeswoman told the South Florida Business Journal.  The Am Law
Daily reports, however, that 124 lawyers were listed in the firm's
web directory.

In the e-mail, Mr. Yoss noted "extremely difficult times for the
firm."

"After meeting with the bank and evaluating the firm's status and
financial position, the decision was made to wind down its
operation," Mr. Yoss said.


                            *********

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  * * *