---

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

             Thursday, June 2, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 108

                             Headlines

ABINGTON BANCORP: Court Dismisses RSD Capital Suit in Pennsylvania
ABINGTON BANCORP: Continues to Defend "Exum" Suit in Pennsylvania
ACCURAY INC: Reaches $13MM Settlement in Consolidated Calif. Suit
ACCURAY INC: Dismissed in Class Suit Over TomoTherapy Merger
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Four Merger-Related Suits Remain Stayed

AMBASSADORS GROUP: To Submit Securities Suit Deal for Court Okay
AMERICAN REPROGRAPHICS: Continues to Defend California Suit
ANADIGICS INC: Awaits Outcome on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
ASIAINFO-LINKAGE: Appeals in IPO Allocation Cases Still Pending
BECKMAN COULTER: 2010 Securities Suit in Calif. Still Pending

BECKMAN COULTER: Reaches Settlement in Three Shareholder Actions
BERKSHIRE HILLS: Continues to Await Court OK on "Rome" Settlement
BLUEKNIGHT ENERGY: Awaits Final Nod of Stipulation of Settlement
BROADWIND ENERGY: Motions to Consolidate Illinois Suits Pending
C.BG. FLEET: Settles Class Action Over Laxative for $12 Million

CAPITAL ONE: Continues to Defend Interchange Suit in New York
CAPITAL ONE: Continues to Defend Interchange Suit in Canada
CAPITAL ONE: "Late Fees" Suit Remains Stayed Pending Bankruptcy
CAPITAL ONE: Discovery to Begin in "Rubio" Suit in Calif.
CAPITAL ONE: Continues to Conduct Discovery in Georgia Suit

CAPITAL ONE: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Reconsider in Florida Suit
CARDIONET INC: Continues to Defend IPO Class Action Lawsuit
CARE INVESTMENT: Obtains Nod on Settlement Ending Securities Suit
CBIZ INC: Continues to Defend "Facciola" Suit in Arizona
CENTER FINANCIAL: Faces Class Suit Over Nara Bancorp Merger

CENTURY ALUMINUM: Appeal in Securities Suit Still Pending
CHINA NATURAL: Continues to Defend "Vandevelde" Securities Suit
CHINA NORTH: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
CHOICE HOTELS: Court Stays Class Suit Pending Arbitration
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Faces Six Class Suits Over Exelon Merger

CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Still Defends Securities Class Suits
DEAN FOODS: Trial in Dairy Farmers' Suit Set to Begin in August
DEAN FOODS: Defends RICO Class Suit in Mississippi
DEAN FOODS: Awaits Order on Summary Judgment Plea in Retailer Suit
DEAN FOODS: Indirect Purchaser Suit Still Stayed in Tennessee

DEAN FOODS: Final Hearing on Vermont Suit Settlement Set July 18
DEER CONSUMER: Defends "Rose" Class Suit in California
DG FASTCHANNEL: Securities Suit Still Pending in New York
DIRECTV: To Seek Arbitration in Cancellation Fees Suit
DRIL-QUIP INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Deepwater Horizon

DUNCAN ENERGY: Continues to Defend Unitholders Litigation in Del.
DUNCAN ENERGY: Awaits Order on Motion to Consolidate Texas Suits
DYNEGY HOLDINGS: Awaits Summary Judgment Ruling in Nevada Suits
DYNEGY HOLDINGS: Opposes Payment of Attorneys' Fees in Texas Suit
DYNEX CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Teamsters Suit in New York

DYNEX CAPITAL: GLS Unit Continues to Defend Pennsylvania Suit
EL PASO CORP: Appeal From Dismissal of "Tomlinson" Still Pending
FAIR ISAAC: Appeals From Braun IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Awaits Appointment of Lead Plaintiff
FBL FINANCIAL: Class Certification Plea in Harrington Due June 24

FIDELITY NATIONAL: Discovery in FCRA Case Against eFunds Ongoing
FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Plaintiffs Appeal From ERISA Suit Dismissal
FORCE PROTECTION: Plaintiffs Did Not Appeal Settlement Approval
GENON ENERGY: Court OKs Settlement in Mirant Merger Litigation
GENON ENERGY: Remains a Defendant in Natural Gas Litigation

GENTIVA HEALTH: Continues to Defend "Rindfleisch" Class Suit
GENTIVA HEALTH: Continues to Defend "Wilkie" Suit in California
GENTIVA HEALTH: Remains a Defendant in Merger-Related Suits
GENTIVA HEALTH: Continues to Defend "Endress" Class Suit
GMX RESOURCES: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit in Okla.

HYPERCOM CORP: Signs MOU to Settle Suits Over VeriFone Merger
IBERIABANK CORP: Continues to Defend "Eivet" Suit in Florida
IBERIABANK CORP: Continues to Defend "Sachar" Suit in Arkansas
INSMED INC: Continues to Defend Class Suit Over Transave Merger
INTERNET CAPITAL: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Appeal

K-SEA TRANSPORTATION: Faces Nine Class Suits Over Kirby Merger
KENEXA CORP: Court Concludes Class Action Suit in Pennsylvania
KFORCE INC: Awaits Final Approval of Calif. Class Suit Settlement
KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Continues to Defend Wage & Hour Class Suits
LEXMARK INT'L: Appeal From $8.3MM Award in "Molina" Suit Pending

LIONBRIDGE TECH: Appeals in "Samet" Class Suit Remain Pending
LORAL SPACE: Awaits Appeal From Plaintiffs in Consolidated Suit
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Sheriff Fights Discrimination Class Action
MARSHALL & ILSLEY: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Wis.
MARSHALL & ILSLEY: "Folisi" Suit Remains Pending in Wisconsin

MARSHALL & ILSLEY: Continues to Defend ERISA Suit in Wisconsin
MARSHALL & ILSLEY: Awaits Decision on Appeal in Consumer Suit
MATRIX SERVICE: Final Settlement Payment in Calif. Pay Suits Paid
MBIA INC: 2008 Securities Suit Remains Pending
MBIA INC: Continues to Defend 2005 Securities Class Suit

MBIA INC: Stay in Aureluis Suit Still in Effect Pending Appeal
METALTEC STEEL: Faces Class Action Over Metallic Flakes
METLIFE INC: Appeal in "Clark" Suit Remains Pending
METLIFE INC: Appeal in "Faber" Suit Remains Pending
METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend Against "Kiefe" Class Suit

METLIFE INC: May Have to Indemnify Sun Life in "Kang" Suit
METLIFE INC: Unit Continues to Defend Against Clean Air Act Suit
MICHAELS STORES: May Face Class Action Over Data Breach
MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Continues to Face Gambling Claim in Bussey Suit
MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Awaits Ruling on Class Cert. Bid in Hardy I Suit

MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Hardy II Suit
NETWORK ENGINES: Ruling on Appeal of IPO Settlement Still Pending
OLD REPUBLIC: ORNTIC Unit Continues to Defend Suits in Pa. & Texas
OLD REPUBLIC: ORNTIC Unit Continues to Defend Calif. Consumer Suit
OLD REPUBLIC: ORHP Unit Continues to Defend Suit in Calif. & Ala.

ORIENT PAPER: Awaits Order on Motion to Dismiss Calif. Class Suit
PACKAGING CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Illinois
PENN NATIONAL: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Class Suit
PEOPLE'S UNITED: Court Dismisses In re Smithtown Bancorp Suit
PEOPLE'S UNITED: Awaits Order on Motion to Consolidate N.Y. Suits

PEOPLE'S UNITED: Subsidiary Defends Overdraft Fee Suit in Conn.
PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT: Court to Hear "Gobel" Suit Deal on June 6
POPULAR INC: Awaits Court Approval of ERISA Suit Settlement
PROGRESS ENERGY: Faces 11 Class Suits Over Duke Merger
PROGRESS ENERGY: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Florida

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeal From "Garcia" Suit Dismissal Pending
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Dropped as Defendant in "Phillips" Suit
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Consolidated Suit in Mass. Court Pending
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Withdraws Bid to Dismiss "Huffman" Lawsuit
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Enters Into Deal to Settle Suit in NJ

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: "Bouder" Suit Still Pending in NJ Court
QUEENS, NY: Faces Class Action Over Disability Benefits
REALPAGE INC: Continues to Defend "Minor" Class Suit
REALPAGE INC: Continues to Defend "Taylor" Class Suit in Texas
REALPAGE INC: Dismissed From "Cohorst" Class Action Litigation

RESEARCH IN MOTION: Intends to Vigorously Defend Class Action Suit
SAVVIS Inc: Faces Three Class Suits Over Merger With CenturyLink
SEARS HOLDING: Sued for Failing to Provide Seats to Kmart Cashiers
SEARS ROEBUCK: Court Reverses Class Action Certification
SOAPSTONE NETWORKS: Appeals in IPO-Related Suit Still Pending

STEC INC: Calif. Court to Hear Motion to Dismiss Suit on June 13
STEWART INFORMATION: Continues to Defend Antitrust Lawsuits
TD AMERITRADE: Awaits Final Okay of Settlement in Date Breach Suit
TD AMERITRADE: Motions to Dismiss "Ross" Suit Still Pending
TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Completes $6.2MM Share in "Phillips" Settlement

TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Continues to Defend Canadian Horsepower Suits
TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: "Liverman" Suit Still Pending in Quebec
TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suits
TEMPLE-INLAND INC: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Illinois
TIGER BRANDS: Awaits Decision in Bread Price Fixing Class Action

TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Continues to Defend Puerto Rico Class Suit
TYSON FOODS: Parties Explore Settlement in FLSA MDL Proceeding
TYSON FOODS: Remains a Defendant in "Thompson" Suit
UNITED AIRLINES: Federal Law Preempts Airport Kiosk Class Action
UNITED ONLINE: Appeals From Settlement Approval Remain Pending

UNITED ONLINE: Unit Awaits OK of Revised Settlement in Wash. Suit
UNITED STATES: May Face Class Action Over DMZ Defoliant Agents
VALERO ENERGY: Still Defends Sales Practices MDL in Kansas
WILSHIRE BANCORP: Continues to Defend "Fairservice" Class Suit
ZORAN CORP: Accused of Breaching Fiduciary Duties in California

ZORAN CORP: Delaware Court Consolidates Two Suits Over CSR Merger

* Florida Food Banks to Get $1.7MM From Class Action Settlement




                             *********

ABINGTON BANCORP: Court Dismisses RSD Capital Suit in Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------------
A state court in Pennsylvania dismissed a putative class action
lawsuit arising from the proposed merger of Abington Bancorp,
Inc. and Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc., according to the Company's
May 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On January 26, 2011, the Company and Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc.,
announced the signing of a definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger
under which Susquehanna will acquire all outstanding shares of
common stock of the Company in a stock-for-stock transaction.
Under the terms of the agreement, shareholders of the Company will
receive 1.32 shares of Susquehanna's common stock for each share
of common stock of the Company. The proposed transaction is
expected to be completed during the third quarter of 2011.

On March 17, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania,
against the directors of the Company and Susquehanna, RSD Capital
vs. Robert W. White, et al., C.A. No. 2011-06590. The lawsuit in
Montgomery County alleged that the named directors, in approving
the Agreement and Plan of Merger, by and between the Company and
Susquehanna, dated January 26, 2011, and Susquehanna, by entering
into the Merger Agreement, intentionally interfered with a
contractual relationship between the Company and its shareholders
and interfered with a prospective economic advantage of the
Company's shareholders. On April 13, 2011, upon consideration of
the defendants' Preliminary Objections, the lawsuit in Montgomery
County was dismissed with prejudice.

Abington Bancorp, Inc. is the stock holding company for Abington
Savings Bank.


ABINGTON BANCORP: Continues to Defend "Exum" Suit in Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abington Bancorp, Inc., continues to defend itself in a putative
class action lawsuit filed before a state court in Philadelphia
County, Pennsylvania, according to the Company's May 10, 2011 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.


On January 26, 2011, the Company and Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc.,
announced the signing of a definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger
under which Susquehanna will acquire all outstanding shares of
common stock of the Company in a stock-for-stock transaction.
Under the terms of the agreement, shareholders of the Company will
receive 1.32 shares of Susquehanna's common stock for each share
of common stock of the Company. The proposed transaction is
expected to be completed during the third quarter of 2011.

On March 25, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
separate plaintiffs in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia
County, Pennsylvania, against the Company, the Company's directors
and Susquehanna -- Exum, et al. vs. Robert W. White, et al., C.A.
No. 110302814. The lawsuit in Philadelphia County, which was also
brought as a shareholders' derivative suit on behalf of the
Company, generally alleged, among other things, that the Abington
Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties in connection
with its approval of the Merger Agreement in that the
consideration offered to the Company's shareholders in the Merger
was alleged to be inadequate and the process used to negotiate the
Merger Agreement was alleged to be unfair, and that such breaches
of fiduciary duty were exacerbated by preclusive transaction
protection devices. The Philadelphia County complaint also alleged
that Abington and Susquehanna aided and abetted the Abington Board
of Directors in breaching its fiduciary duties, and that the
disclosure provided to the Company's shareholders in the joint
proxy statement/prospectus of Abington and Susquehanna, dated
March 18, 2011, and included in the registration statement on Form
S-4 filed by Susquehanna with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, failed to provide required material information
necessary for the Company's shareholders to make a fully informed
decision concerning the Merger Agreement and the transactions
contemplated thereby.

Abington Bancorp, Inc. is the stock holding company for Abington
Savings Bank.


ACCURAY INC: Reaches $13MM Settlement in Consolidated Calif. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Accuray Incorporated has negotiated a $13.5 million settlement to
resolve allegations in a consolidated class action suit in
California, according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On July 22, 2009, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against Accuray and certain of its current and former directors
and officers.  On August 7, 2009 and August 9, 2009, two
securities class action complaints, both similar to the one filed
on July 22, 2009, were filed against the same defendants in the
same court.  These three actions were consolidated.  The
consolidated complaint generally alleges that the Company and the
individual defendants made false or misleading public statements
regarding the Company's operations and seek unspecified monetary
damages and other relief.  On August 31, 2010, the Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint and
granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.  On
September 27, 2010, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  The
amended complaint names the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors as defendants and generally alleges
that the defendants made false or misleading public statements
regarding the Company's operations.  The amended complaint seeks
unspecified monetary damages and other relief.  Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On April 28, 2011, the
parties filed a stipulation of settlement with the court,
providing for the settlement of the litigation for a payment of
$13.5 million covered by insurance.  The settlement is subject to
notice to the members of the class and the approval of the court.

Accuray Incorporated designs, develops and sells the CyberKnife
system, which is an image-guided robotic radiosurgery system used
for the treatment of solid tumors anywhere in the body.


ACCURAY INC: Dismissed in Class Suit Over TomoTherapy Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Accuray Incorporated has been dismissed as a defendant in
purported class suits related to its merger deal with TomoTherapy
Incorporated, according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On March 15, 2011, two purported class action complaints were
filed in the Circuit Court for the State of Wisconsin, Dane
County, on behalf of a putative class of TomoTherapy Incorporated
shareholders and naming as defendants TomoTherapy, TomoTherapy's
board of directors, the Company and Jaguar Acquisition, Inc., a
wholly owned subsidiary of the Company ("Merger Sub").  The
complaints generally allege that, in connection with the Company's
proposed merger transaction with TomoTherapy, TomoTherapy's board
breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to
maximize the value of TomoTheapy to its shareholders and
purportedly agreeing to certain terms in the merger agreement
which are allegedly preclusive and onerous.  The complaints
further allege that the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted
TomoTherapy's board of directors in their alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties.  The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an
injunction barring consummation of the merger, rescission or
recessionary damages, costs and attorneys' fees.  The Company and
Merger Sub were dismissed from the litigation without prejudice on
April 19, 2011.

Accuray Incorporated designs, develops and sells the CyberKnife
system, which is an image-guided robotic radiosurgery system used
for the treatment of solid tumors anywhere in the body.


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Four Merger-Related Suits Remain Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Four of the six lawsuits filed against Allscripts Healthcare
Solutions, Inc., in connection with its merger with Eclipsys
Corporation, remain stayed, according to the Company's May 9,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On June 15, 2010, Rajesh Nama, on behalf of himself and the public
stockholders of Eclipsys Corporation, filed a purported class
action complaint in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, State of
Georgia, captioned Nama v. Pead, et al.  The lawsuit names
Allscripts, Arsenal Merger Corp., Eclipsys, and each of the
directors of Eclipsys as defendants.  On or about June 17, 2010,
John Scoggins, on behalf of himself and the public stockholders of
Eclipsys, filed a second purported class action complaint in the
same court and against the same defendants (except not Arsenal)
captioned Scoggins v. Eclipsys Corp., et al.  On June 18, 2010,
Colleen Witmer, on behalf of herself and the public stockholders
of Eclipsys, filed a third purported class action complaint in the
same court and against the same defendants as the first case and
captioned Witmer v. Casey, et al.  On June 22, 2010, Michael
Hiers, on behalf of himself and the public stockholders of
Eclipsys, filed a fourth purported class action complaint in the
same court and against the same parties as the first case and
captioned Hiers v. Casey, et al.  On June 22, 2010, the Iron
Workers of Western Pennsylvania Pension Plan, on behalf of itself
and the public stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a fifth purported
class action complaint in the Superior Court of Fulton County,
State of Georgia, and against the same defendants as the first
case (except not Allscripts or Arsenal) and captioned Iron Workers
of W. Pennsylvania Pension Plan v. Pead, et al.

On June 30, 2010, the plaintiff in the Iron Workers case dismissed
its complaint in the Superior Court of Fulton County, State of
Georgia and refiled its complaint in the Superior Court of
Gwinnett County, State of Georgia.  On July 9, 2010, the plaintiff
in the Iron Workers case filed an Amended Complaint.  On or about
July 9, 2010, Jody Madala, individually and on behalf of the
public stockholders of Eclipsys, filed a sixth purported class
action complaint in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, State
of Georgia against the same defendants as the first case (except
not Allscripts or Arsenal) captioned Madala v. Pead et al.  The
cases in the Superior Court of DeKalb County were subsequently
transferred to the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Business
Case Division.

On August 24, 2010, Allscripts completed the merger contemplated
by an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated June 9, 2010, among
Allscripts, Arsenal Merger Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Allscripts, and Eclipsys Corporation.  Eclipsys became a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Allscripts as a result of the merger.

The lawsuits relating to the merger allege, among other things,
that the Eclipsys directors breached their fiduciary duties and
that Eclipsys aided and abetted those breaches.  Five of the
complaints (excepting the first) also allege facts concerning the
proposed secondary public offering of certain Allscripts shares
owned by Misys and the buy back by Allscripts of certain shares
owned by Misys.  Certain lawsuits also contain allegations that
the joint proxy statement/prospectus/information statement on Form
S-4 is materially misleading in certain respects including the
omission of information concerning certain financial projections
and whether or how the parties and their financial advisors have
accounted for certain proceeds to be paid to Misys in the stock
buy back.  Certain lawsuits also allege that Allscripts aided and
abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the directors
of Eclipsys.  Based on these allegations, the lawsuits seek, among
other relief, rescission of the merger or damages.  They also
purport to seek recovery of the costs of the action, including
reasonable attorneys' fees.

On or about July 27, 2010, the Superior Court of Gwinnett County,
Business Case Division, granted the Eclipsys defendants' motion to
dismiss the Iron Workers' Amended Complaint.  On August 5, 2010,
the Georgia Court of Appeals denied Iron Workers' emergency
request for an injunction pending appeal.  The appeal was then
briefed in the ordinary course.  On November 12, 2010, Iron
Workers moved to dismiss its appeal, which the Georgia Court of
Appeals granted, rendering conclusive the Superior Court's
dismissal with prejudice of the Iron Workers lawsuit.

Also on November 12, 2010, the plaintiff in the Madala case filed
a motion to amend her complaint and to lift the litigation stay
that had been entered by the Superior Court in the other five
cases pending the Iron Workers appeal.  Defendants opposed
Madala's motion.  On January 19, 2011, the parties filed a
stipulation of dismissal, pursuant to which the Superior Court
dismissed Madala's claims with prejudice.  The remaining four
lawsuits remain stayed by the Superior Court.

The outcome of any such litigation is inherently uncertain, and no
reasonable estimate of potential damages is possible.  Each
company may incur substantial defense costs and expenses.  An
unfavorable outcome may adversely affect the combined company's
business, financial condition or results of operations.


AMBASSADORS GROUP: To Submit Securities Suit Deal for Court Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
A formal settlement agreement resolving a securities class action
lawsuit filed against Ambassadors Group, Inc. will be negotiated
and submitted to court for preliminary approval, according to the
Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2011.

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 its 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 its Common
Stock.  The parties commenced discovery and were continuing,
however, on April 14, 2011, an agreement was reached to settle the
pending class action as to the Company and all parties, following
participation in mediation before a retired federal judge.  Under
the terms of the agreement, the Company's insurance carriers have
agreed to pay the settlement amount of $7.5 million, in complete
settlement of all claims, subject to a mutual reservation of
rights.  The settlement is entered into without any admission of
wrongdoing or liability by the Company or any party in the action.
Throughout the litigation, the Company and its individuals have
denied, and continue to deny, the allegations made against them.

The Company agreed with the insurance carriers to settle the
action on these terms, because it was in the best interests of the
Company to avoid the burdens, risk, uncertainties and expense that
would be inherent in continued litigation.  The formal settlement
agreement, which will include release for all defendants and other
provisions common in such agreements, will now be negotiated and
submitted to the Court for preliminary approval and notice to
class members.  It will then be subject to final Court approval.
The settlement is not expected to have a material adverse effect
on the Company's business, financial condition or results of
operations.


AMERICAN REPROGRAPHICS: Continues to Defend California Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Reprographics Company continues to defend itself against
a lawsuit brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of all
non-exempt employees, who work or worked for the Company and
American Reprographics Company LLC in California at any time from
October 21, 2006, through October 21, 2010, according to the
Company's May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On October 21, 2010, a former employee, individually and on behalf
of a purported class consisting of all non-exempt employees who
work or worked for American Reprographics Company, LLC and
American Reprographics Company in the State of California at any
time from October 21, 2006 through October 21, 2010, filed an
action against the Company in the Superior Court of California for
the County of Orange.  The complaint alleges, among other things,
that the Company violated the California Labor Code by failing to
(i) provide meal and rest periods, or compensation in lieu
thereof, (ii) timely pay wages due at termination, and (iii) that
those practices also violate the California Business and
Professions Code.  The relief sought includes damages,
restitution, penalties, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees and
such other relief as the court deems proper.

The Company says it has not included any liability in its
Consolidated Financial Statements in connection with this matter.
The Company adds that it cannot reasonably estimate the amount or
range of possible loss, if any, at this time.


ANADIGICS INC: Awaits Outcome on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANADIGICS, Inc., is awaiting a federal court's ruling on its
motion to dismiss the consolidated class action captioned In re
Anadigics, Inc. Securities Litigation, according to the Company's
May 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 2, 2011.

On or about November 11, 2008, plaintiff Charlie Attias filed a
putative securities class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Charlie
Attias v. Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. 3:08-cv-05572, and, on or
about November 21, 2008, plaintiff Paul Kuznetz filed a related
class action lawsuit in the same court, captioned Paul J. Kuznetz
v. Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. 3:08-cv-05750.  The Complaints in
the Class Actions, which were consolidated under the caption In re
Anadigics, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:08-cv-05572, by an
Order of the District Court dated November 24, 2008, seek
unspecified damages for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder, in connection with alleged
misrepresentations and omissions in connection with, among other
things, the Company's  manufacturing capabilities and the demand
for its products.  On October 23, 2009, plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, which names the
Company, a current officer and a former officer-director, and
alleges a proposed class period that runs from July 24, 2007
through August 7, 2008.  On December 23, 2009, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint; that motion was
fully briefed as of March 30, 2010.  After holding extensive oral
argument on defendants' motion on August 3, 2010, the District
Court found plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint to be deficient,
but afforded them another opportunity to amend their pleading.
The District Court therefore denied defendants' motion to dismiss
without prejudice to defendants' renewing the motion in response
to plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, which plaintiffs filed on
October 4, 2010.  The Second Amended Complaint, which contains the
same substantive claims that were alleged in the First Amended
Complaint, alleges a proposed class period that runs from February
12, 2008 through August 7, 2008.  Defendants' motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint was filed on December 3, 2010, and
has now been fully briefed by defendants.

Because the Class Actions, which are in a preliminary stage, do
not specify alleged monetary damages, the Company is unable to
reasonably estimate a possible range of loss, if any, to the
Company in connection therewith.

ANADIGICS, Inc., is a provider of semiconductor solutions in the
growing broadband wireless and wireline communications markets.
The Company's products include radio frequency (RF) power
amplifiers (PAs), tuner integrated circuits, active splitters,
line amplifiers and other components, which can be sold
individually or packaged as integrated front end modules (FEMs).


ASIAINFO-LINKAGE: Appeals in IPO Allocation Cases Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the final approval of a settlement in the numerous
lawsuits filed in New York against publicly traded companies and
their underwriters, including AsiaInfo Holdings, Inc., remain
pending, according to the Company's May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

In December 2001, a securities class action case was filed in New
York City against the Company, certain of its officers and
directors and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering.  The lawsuit alleged violations of the U.S. federal
securities laws and was docketed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York as Hassan v. AsiaInfo Holdings,
Inc., et al.  The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that the
underwriters of the Company's IPO improperly required their
customers to pay the underwriters excessive commissions and to
agree to buy additional shares of the Company's common stock in
the aftermarket as conditions of their purchasing shares in the
Company's IPO.  The lawsuit further claimed that the alleged
practices of the underwriters should have been disclosed in the
Company's IPO prospectus and registration statement.  The suit
seeks rescission of the plaintiffs' alleged purchases of the
Company's common stock as well as unspecified damages.  In
addition to the case against the Company, various other plaintiffs
have filed approximately 1,000 other, substantially similar class
action cases against approximately 300 other publicly traded
companies and their IPO underwriters in New York City, which along
with the case against the Company, have all been transferred to a
single federal district judge for purposes of case management.

In April 2009, the Company and most of the other issuer defendants
in the IPO Allocation Cases reached a definitive agreement with
the plaintiffs and the underwriter defendants to settle the IPO
Allocation Cases.  The agreement was filed with the court in April
2009 and a final approval was granted by the court in October
2009.  The final approval was subject to appeal until November
2009.  Ten appeals were 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 objector groups, and those appeals remain
pending.  If the settlement is approved, the Company expects any
damages payable to the plaintiffs to be fully funded by its
directors' and officers' liability insurance policies.  If the
litigation proceeds, the Company intends to continue to defend the
litigation vigorously.  Moreover, if the litigation proceeds, the
Company believes that the underwriters may have an obligation to
indemnify the Company for the legal fees and other costs of
defending this suit and that its directors' and officers'
liability insurance policies would also cover the defense and
potential exposure in the suit.

The Company says it intends to continue to defend vigorously the
two litigation matters.  While the Company cannot guarantee the
outcome of these proceedings, the Company believes that the final
results of these lawsuits will not have a material effect on the
Company's consolidated financial condition, results of operations
or cash flows.


BECKMAN COULTER: 2010 Securities Suit in Calif. Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Beckman Coulter, Inc., continues to vigorously defend itself
against a consolidated securities class action in California.

On September 3, 2010 and September 7, 2010, respectively, two
securities class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District
Court in the Central District of California against the Company;
Scott Garrett, the Company's former Chairman of the Board of
Directors, former President and former Chief Executive Officer;
and Charles P. Slacik, the Company's Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants,
and violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 against
the individual defendants.  The Securities Action asserts that the
defendants issued allegedly materially false and misleading
statements including statements related to the Company's troponin
test kits, FDA compliance, product quality and assurance, customer
loyalty, and earnings guidance for fiscal year 2010.  On
December 8, 2010, the Honorable Josephine Staton Tucker issued an
order consolidating the two cases under the caption In re Beckman
Coulter, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 8:10-CV-01327-JST
(RNBx), and appointing Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and Iron
Workers District Council of New England Pension Fund as Lead
Plaintiff.  On February 7, 2011, Lead Plaintiff filed a
Consolidated Class Action Complaint asserting claims on behalf of
an alleged class of stock purchasers between July 31, 2009 and
July 22, 2010, claiming that the stock price was artificially
inflated during the alleged class period due to the alleged
misrepresentations and omissions.  The Securities Action seeks
unspecified damages based on declines in the stock price after
disclosures regarding FDA matters, troponin test kits and downward
guidance for 2010.

No updates were reported in the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Beckman Coulter, Inc., is a manufacturer of biomedical testing
instrument systems, tests and supplies that simplify and automate
laboratory processes.  On February 6, 2011, Beckman Coulter,
Danaher Corporation, and Djanet Acquisition Corp., and an indirect
wholly-owned subsidiary of Danaher (Purchaser) entered into a
definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which
Danaher, through the Purchaser, commenced an offer to acquire all
of the outstanding shares of the Company's common stock for $83.50
per share in cash, without interest.  The Offer is set to expire
on June 6, 2011.  Following the consummation of the Offer,
Purchaser will be merged with and into the Company, and the
Company will become an indirectly, wholly-owned subsidiary of
Danaher.


BECKMAN COULTER: Reaches Settlement in Three Shareholder Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beckman Coulter, Inc., has negotiated a memorandum of
understanding to resolve claims asserted in three shareholder
class actions, according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On September 8, 2010, and December 13, 2010, respectively,
shareholder derivative suits were filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California in the County of Orange (collectively, the
"California Shareholder Actions") purportedly on behalf of the
Company, which was named as nominal defendant.  The California
Shareholder Actions asserted claims against all members of the
Board of Directors and certain of its former and current officers
and asserted that the defendants are liable to the Company based
on allegations similar to those alleged in the Securities Action,
including that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
allegedly failing to reasonably oversee FDA compliance with
respect to troponin tests, product quality and disclosure of 2010
guidance.  The second derivative suit filed on December 13 also
alleged that the Company Board was considering entering into a
merger transaction at an inadequate price.  The Court entered an
Order on January 26, 2011, consolidating for all purposes the two
California Shareholder Actions under the caption In re Beckman
Coulter, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. 30-2010-
00406352.  On February 9, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Shareholder Derivative and Class Action Complaint
adding direct claims based on the Company's February 7, 2011
announcement that the Company and Danaher Corporation signed an
Agreement and Plan of Merger.  In the Consolidated Shareholder
Derivative and Class Action Complaint, plaintiffs continue to
assert derivative causes of action on behalf of the Company for
breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control,
gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets, and to seek
unspecified damages, restitution and disgorgement of alleged
profits, injunctive relief and corrective action.  In the direct
claims, plaintiffs assert that each member of the Company Board
breached his or her fiduciary duties to the Company's
stockholders, that the Company aided and abetted in those breaches
of fiduciary duty, that the Merger Agreement between the Company
and Danaher involves an unfair price and an inadequate sales
process, and that defendants agreed to the Merger to benefit
themselves personally.  On February 25, 2011, the Court granted
plaintiffs in the California Shareholder Actions leave to file a
proposed First Amended Consolidated Shareholder Derivative and
Class Action Complaint, adding allegations on behalf of an alleged
class of Company stockholders that the Company's Schedule 14D-9
omitted material information necessary for the Company's
stockholders to be fully informed about the Contemplated
Transactions.  In particular, the proposed First Amended
Consolidated Shareholder Derivative and Class Action Complaint
alleges that (i) the opinion that Goldman Sachs rendered to the
Company Board omits information necessary for the Company's
stockholders to understand the methodology of Goldman Sachs in
reaching its opinion, (ii) the Schedule 14D-9 fails to adequately
address potential conflicts of interest between Goldman Sachs, the
Company and Danaher, and (iii) the disclosure found in the section
entitled "Background of the Offer" in the Schedule 14D-9 omits
material information necessary for the Company's stockholders to
understand why the Contemplated Transaction was reached.
Plaintiffs in the California Shareholder Actions seek a
declaration that the merger agreement was entered into in breach
of the individual defendants' fiduciary duties, and damages and to
enjoin the transaction, and other equitable relief.  Plaintiffs in
the California Shareholder Actions also allege that the damages
recoverable on the derivative claims asserted on behalf of the
Company against the individual defendants include the damages
allegedly recoverable by the stockholders from the Company in the
Securities Action.

On February 18, 2011, an alleged class action complaint was filed
in the Superior Court of the State of California in the County of
Orange on behalf of an alleged class of the Company's stockholders
against all members of the Company Board, the Company and Danaher,
captioned City of Royal Oak Retirement System v. Beckman Coulter,
Inc. et al., Case No. 30-2011-00451801-CU-BT-CXC (the "Second
California Shareholder Action").  Based on largely the same
allegations as the California Shareholder Actions, the plaintiff
in the Second California Shareholder Action asserts that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
stockholders, and that the Company and Danaher aided and abetted
the individual defendants' alleged breaches of their fiduciary
duties, with respect to the Contemplated Transactions, including
allegations that the proposed sale involves an unfair price, that
there was an inadequate sales process, that the defendants agreed
to the Merger to benefit themselves personally, that Goldman Sachs
had conflicts of interest in issuing a fairness opinion due to the
disclosed facts that Goldman Sachs also advises Danaher on other
matters, and that the Schedule 14D-9 omitted or misrepresented
material information necessary for the Company's stockholders to
make an informed decision whether to tender their Shares in the
Offer.  The complaint in the Second California Shareholder Action
seeks a declaration that the merger agreement was entered into in
breach of the individual defendants' fiduciary duties, and seeks
damages and to enjoin the transaction, and other equitable relief.

On February 23, 2011, an alleged class action complaint was filed
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on behalf of an
alleged class of Company stockholders against all members of the
Company Board, the Company, Danaher and Purchaser, captioned Yuri
Levin v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., et al., Case No. 6213-VCS (the
"Initial Delaware Shareholder Action").  On March 23, 2011, a
second alleged class action complaint was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware on behalf of an alleged class of
Company stockholders against all members of the Company Board, the
Company, Danaher and Purchaser, captioned Richard Cox v. Beckman
Coulter, Inc., et al., Case No. 6306-VCS (together with the
Initial Delaware Shareholder Action, the "Delaware Shareholder
Actions").  The plaintiffs in the Delaware Shareholder Actions
assert that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's stockholders, or aided and abetted the other defendants'
breaches of their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders,
based on allegations similar to those alleged in the consolidated
California Shareholder Actions and the Second California
Shareholder Action, including that the Merger Agreement between
the Company and Danaher involves an unfair price, that there was
an inadequate sales process, that the defendants agreed to the
Merger to benefit themselves personally, and that the Schedule
14D-9 omitted or misrepresented material information necessary for
the Company's stockholders to make an informed decision whether to
tender their Shares in the Offer.  The complaints in the Delaware
Shareholder Actions seek a declaration that the merger agreement
was entered into in breach of the individual defendants' fiduciary
duties, and seek damages and to enjoin the transaction, and other
equitable relief.

On February 25, 2011, an alleged class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of an alleged class of Company stockholders
against the Company, all members of the Company Board, Danaher,
and Djanet Acquisition Corp., captioned Astor BK Realty Trust v.
Beckman Coulter, Inc., et al., Case No. CV11-01695 GAF (SSx) (the
"Federal Shareholder Action").  The plaintiff in the Federal
Shareholder Action asserts that the defendants violated Sections
14(d)(4) and 14(e) of the Exchange Act by making inadequate
disclosures or material misstatements in the Schedule 14D-9 and
also either breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
stockholders, or aided and abetted the other defendants' breaches
of their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders, based on
allegations similar to those alleged in the consolidated
California Shareholder Actions, the Second California Shareholder
Action, and the Delaware Shareholder Actions, including that the
Merger Agreement between the Company and Danaher involves an
unfair price, that there was an inadequate sales process, that the
defendants agreed to the Merger to benefit themselves personally,
and that the Schedule 14D-9 omitted or misrepresented material
information necessary for the Company's stockholders to make an
informed decision whether to tender their Shares in the Offer.
The complaint in the Federal Shareholder Action seeks a
declaration that the Schedule 14D-9 is materially misleading and
contains material omissions, and seeks damages and to enjoin the
transaction, and other equitable relief.

On April 14, 2011, the parties to the California Shareholder
Actions and the Initial Delaware Shareholder Action entered into a
memorandum of understanding regarding a proposed settlement of all
claims asserted therein.  In connection with the MOU, the Company
has agreed to further amend the Schedule 14D-9, previously filed
with the SEC, to include certain supplemental disclosures.  The
settlement is contingent upon, among other items, the execution of
a formal stipulation of settlement and court approval, as well as
the Merger becoming effective under applicable law.  Subject to
satisfaction of the conditions set forth in the MOU, the
defendants will be released by the plaintiffs and all members of
the relevant class of Company stockholders from all claims arising
out of the Offer, the Merger and transactions contemplated by the
Merger Agreement, upon which occurrence defendants will seek
termination of any and all continuing shareholder actions in which
the released claims are asserted.  In the event the settlement is
not approved or such conditions are not satisfied, the Company
will continue to vigorously defend the California Shareholder
Actions, the Initial Delaware Shareholder Action and all other
actions.

Beckman Coulter, Inc. is a manufacturer of biomedical testing
instrument systems, tests and supplies that simplify and automate
laboratory processes.  On February 6, 2011, Beckman Coulter,
Danaher Corporation, and Djanet Acquisition Corp., and an indirect
wholly-owned subsidiary of Danaher (Purchaser) entered into a
definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which
Danaher, through the Purchaser, commenced an offer to acquire all
of the outstanding shares of the Company's common stock for $83.50
per share in cash, without interest.  The Offer is set to expire
on June 6, 2011.  Following the consummation of the Offer,
Purchaser will be merged with and into the Company, and the
Company will become an indirectly, wholly-owned subsidiary of
Danaher.


BERKSHIRE HILLS: Continues to Await Court OK on "Rome" Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Berkshire Hills Bancorp continues to await court approval of a
settlement resolving the issues raised in a stockholder class
action lawsuit filed against the Company and Rome Bancorp, Inc.,
according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

Following the public announcement of the execution of an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated October 12, 2010, by and among
the Company and Rome Bancorp, on October 18, 2010, Stephen
Bushansky filed a stockholder class action lawsuit in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of the Bronx.  On
October 27, 2010, James and Liliana DiCastro filed a stockholder
class action lawsuit in the Chancery Court of the State of
Delaware, and on November 15, 2010, Samuel S. Rapasodi filed a
stockholder class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, County of Oneida.  Each suit was brought against Rome
Bancorp, the Directors of Rome Bancorp, and the Company.  The
lawsuit filed in Delaware was subsequently withdrawn voluntarily.
The active lawsuits in New York state purport to be brought on
behalf of all of Rome Bancorp's public stockholders and allege
that the directors of Rome Bancorp breached their fiduciary duties
to Rome Bancorp's stockholders by failing to take steps necessary
to obtain a fair and adequate price for Rome Bancorp's common
stock and that the Company knowingly aided and abetted Rome
Bancorp directors' breach of fiduciary duty.

On February 23, 2011, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation and to allow stockholders to
vote on the proposals required in connection with the merger at
the scheduled meeting, Rome Bancorp entered into a memorandum of
understanding with plaintiffs' counsel and other named defendants
regarding the settlement of the Rome shareholder litigation.
Under the terms of the memorandum negotiated by Rome Bancorp, Rome
Bancorp, the other named defendants and the plaintiffs have agreed
to settle the two lawsuits subject to court approval.  If the
court approves the settlement contemplated in the memorandum, the
Rome shareholder litigation will be dismissed with prejudice.
Pursuant to the terms of the memorandum, Rome Bancorp has agreed
to make available additional information to its stockholders.  In
return, the plaintiffs have agreed to the dismissal of the Rome
shareholder litigation and to withdraw all motions filed in
connection with such lawsuits, including any motions seeking to
enjoin the proposed merger from proceeding.

In connection with the settlement, plaintiffs intend to seek an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses not to exceed $395,000,
subject to court approval.  Rome Bancorp and its insurance carrier
have agreed to pay the legal fees and expenses of plaintiffs'
counsel, in an amount not to exceed $395,000.  This payment is not
being made by the Company and will not affect the amount of merger
consideration to be paid in the merger. If the settlement is
finally approved by the court, it is anticipated that it will
resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or could
have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed merger,
the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection
therewith (but excluding claims for appraisal under Section 262 of
the Delaware General Corporation Law).

Rome Bancorp, the Company and the other defendants have vigorously
denied, and continue to vigorously deny, that they have committed
or aided and abetted in the commission of any violation of law or
engaged in any of the wrongful acts that were or could have been
alleged in the Rome shareholder litigation, and expressly maintain
that, to the extent applicable, they diligently and scrupulously
complied with their fiduciary and other legal burdens and are
entering into the contemplated settlement solely to eliminate the
burden and expense of further litigation, to put the claims that
were or could have been asserted to rest, and to avoid any
possible delay in the consummation of the merger.  As a result of
the settlement, management of the Company believes the Rome
shareholder litigation will not have any material adverse effect
on the financial condition or operations of the Company.

Berkshire Hills Bancorp is the holding company for Berkshire Bank,
which serves individuals and small businesses through about 45
branches in western Massachusetts, eastern New York, and southern
Vermont. Established in 1846, the bank provides standard deposit
products such as savings, checking, and money market accounts,
CDs, and IRAs, in addition to credit cards, investments, private
banking, wealth management, and lending services.


BLUEKNIGHT ENERGY: Awaits Final Nod of Stipulation of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blueknight Energy Partners, L.P. is awaiting final court approval
of a stipulation of settlement in the consolidated class action
entitled In Re: SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. Securities
Litigation, according to the Company's May 10, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Between July 21, 2008 and September 4, 2008, these class action
complaints were filed:

1. Poelman v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P., et al., Civil Action
   No. 08-CV-6477, in the United States District Court for the
   Southern District of New York (filed July 21, 2008).  The
   plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this case on August 26, 2008;

2. Carson v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al., Civil Action
   No. 08-cv-425, in the Northern District of Oklahoma (filed July
   22, 2008);

3. Charles D. Maurer SIMP Profit Sharing Plan f/b/o Charles D.
   Maurer v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al., Civil Action
   No. 08-cv-6598, in the United States District Court for the
   Southern District of New York (filed July 25, 2008);

4. Michael Rubin v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al., Civil
   Action No. 08-cv-7063, in the United States District Court for
   the Southern District of New York (filed August 8, 2008);

5. Dharam V. Jain v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al., Civil
   Action No. 08-cv-7510, in the United States District Court for
   the Southern District of New York  (filed August 25, 2008); and

6. William L. Hickman v. SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. et al.,
   Civil Action No. 08-cv-7749, in the United States District
   Court for the Southern District of New York (filed September 4,
   2008).

Pursuant to a motion filed with the MDL Panel, the Maurer case has
been transferred to the Northern District of Oklahoma and
consolidated with the Carson case.  The Rubin, Jain, and Hickman
cases have also been transferred to the Northern District of
Oklahoma.

A hearing on motions for appointment as lead plaintiff was held in
the Carson case on October 17, 2008. At that hearing, the court
granted a motion to consolidate the Carson and Maurer cases for
pretrial proceedings, and the consolidated litigation is now
pending as In Re: SemGroup Energy Partners, L.P. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 08-MD-1989-GKF-FHM. The court entered an
order on October 27, 2008, granting the motion of Harvest Fund
Advisors LLC to be appointed lead plaintiff in the consolidated
litigation. On January 23, 2009, the court entered a Scheduling
Order providing, among other things, that the lead plaintiff may
file a consolidated amended complaint within 70 days of the date
of the order, and that defendants may answer or otherwise respond
within 60 days of the date of the filing of a consolidated amended
complaint. On January 30, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a motion
to modify the stay of discovery provided for under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act. The court granted Plaintiff's
motion, and the Company and certain other defendants filed a
Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals that was denied after oral argument on April 24, 2009.

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on
May 4, 2009. In that complaint, filed as a putative class action
on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's units from July 17,
2007 to July 17, 2008, lead plaintiff asserts claims under the
federal securities laws against the Company, its General Partner,
certain of the Company's current and former officers and
directors, certain underwriters in its initial and secondary
public offerings, and certain entities who were investors in
SemCorp and their individual representatives who served on
SemCorp's management committee. Among other allegations, the
amended complaint alleges that the Company's financial condition
throughout the class period was dependent upon speculative
commodities trading by SemCorp and its Chief Executive Officer,
Thomas L. Kivisto, and that defendants negligently and
intentionally failed to disclose this speculative trading in the
Company's public filings during the class period. The amended
complaint further alleges there were other material omissions and
misrepresentations contained in the Company's filings during the
class period. The amended complaint alleges claims for violations
of sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 for
damages and rescission with respect to all persons who purchased
the Company's units in the initial and secondary offerings, and
also asserts claims under section 10b, Rule 10b-5, and section
20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. The amended
complaint seeks certification as a class action under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, compensatory and rescissory damages for
class members, pre-judgment interest, costs of court, and
attorneys' fees.

On July 22, 2009, all of the defendants filed motions to dismiss
the amended complaint. The lead plaintiff filed a response in
opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss on September 1,
2009. On October 8, 2009, the defendants filed a reply in support
of their motion to dismiss. The lead plaintiff filed a
supplemental opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss on
October 29, 2009. On April 30, 2010, the court dismissed all
claims against Brent Cooper (SemCorp's former treasurer) and
dismissed the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim against W.
Anderson Bishop (a former member of the Board) and Brian F.
Billings (a former member of the Board). The court denied the
remainder of the motions to dismiss, including the motion to
dismiss that the Company filed. Under the operative scheduling
order, the remaining defendants filed their answers on June 21,
2010.

On May 3, 2011, the Company entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement to settle the Class Action Litigation.  As set forth
more fully in the Stipulation, if the proposed settlement is given
final approval by the court, among other things, the shareholder
class will receive a total payment of approximately $28.0 million
from the defendants. The Company has accrued a contingent loss of
$20.2 million as of March 31, 2011 related to its portion of the
proposed settlement. Of that amount, the Company expects to
receive insurance proceeds of $13.0 million to $13.9 million and
accordingly recognized an insurance recovery receivable of $13.0
million as of March 31, 2011. Of the difference, the Company
expects to issue common units of its partnership with a value
equal to approximately $5.2 million.  The net loss of $7.2 million
attributable to this action was recognized in the fourth quarter
of 2010.  No parties admit any wrongdoing as part of the proposed
settlement.  The proposed settlement is subject to a number of
conditions and approvals, including, among other items,
preliminary and final court approval. Details regarding any
proposed settlement will be communicated to potential class
members prior to final court approval. At this time, there can be
no assurance that the conditions to effect the settlement will be
met or that the settlement of the Class Action Litigation will
receive the required court and other approvals.  The ultimate
resolution of these actions could have a material adverse effect
on the Company's business, financial condition, results of
operations, cash flows, ability to make distributions to the
Company's unitholders, the trading price of its common units and
its ability to conduct its business.

Blueknight Energy Partners, L.P., is a publicly traded master
limited partnership with operations in twenty-two states.


BROADWIND ENERGY: Motions to Consolidate Illinois Suits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Broadwind Energy, Inc., is facing lawsuits in Illinois alleging it
issued a series of allegedly false and misleading statements
concerning its financial results and motions to consolidate them
lawsuits are pending, according to the Company's May 9, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On February 11, 2011, a putative class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, against Broadwind and certain of its
current or former officers and directors.  The lawsuit is
purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between March 17, 2009 and August 9, 2010.  The
complaint seeks to allege that the defendants violated Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing a series of
allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the
Company's financial results, operations, and prospects, including
with respect to the January 2010 secondary public offering of
Broadwind common stock.  Between February 15, 2011 and March 30,
2011, three putative shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, and four putative shareholder
derivative lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, Chancery Division, against certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors, and certain
Tontine entities (Tontine Capital Management, L.L.C., a Delaware
limited liability company; Tontine Capital Overseas GP, L.L.C., a
Delaware limited liability company; Tontine Management, L.L.C., a
Delaware limited liability company; Tontine Overseas Associates,
L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company; Tontine Capital
Overseas Master Fund II, L.P., a Cayman Islands limited
partnership ("TCP 2"); Tontine Asset Associates, L.L.C., a
Delaware limited liability company; Tontine Power Partners, L.P.,
a Delaware limited partnership; and Tontine Associates, L.L.C., a
Delaware limited liability company, seeking to challenge alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust
enrichment, including in connection with the January 2010
secondary public offering of Broadwind common stock.  One of the
lawsuits also alleges that certain directors violated Section
14(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with the Company's Proxy
Statement for its 2010 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.  All of
these matters are in their early stages, with motions to appoint a
Lead Plaintiff pending in the federal securities class action and
motions to consolidate being pursued in the federal and state
derivative suits.  The Company has received a request from the
Tontine defendants for indemnification in the derivative suits
pursuant to various agreements related to shares owned by Tontine.
Because of the preliminary nature of these lawsuits, the Company
says it is not able to estimate a loss or range of loss at this
time.


C.BG. FLEET: Settles Class Action Over Laxative for $12 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lesley Ciarula Taylor, writing for Healthzone.ca, reports that
Canadians whose kidneys have been damaged by a laxative used in
colonoscopy preparation are eligible for a share of $12 million
awarded by the Ontario Superior Court.

Lawyers for Siskinds LLP, representing Ontario plaintiffs Lynda
and Fred Quinton, announced the victory on May 25 in their class-
action lawsuit.

"It's one of the larger settlements of this kind in the country,"
lawyer Michael Peerless, Esq., told the Star.  "We're very, very
pleased with it."

C.BG. Fleet Company Inc., makers of Fleet Phospho-Soda, and
Johnson & Johnson-Merck Consumer Pharmaceuticals of Canada were
first sued in 2007 over reports of kidney injury and damage from
the over-the-counter bowel cleaner.

Health Canada and Johnson & Johnson, which distributed the Fleet
product in Canada, issued a series of warnings starting in 2005
that detailed dozens of cases of renal failure from Fleet Phospho-
Soda.  The first study linking Fleet's product to kidney problems
had been published in 2003.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a warning in December
2008, after which Fleet recalled the purgative.  Some lawsuits in
the U.S. have been settled, others are pending.

"Fleet continued for many years up until this recall to advise
doctors and consumers to use twice the daily amount of its product
that was permitted by the FDA," U.S. lawyer Thomas Valet said
during litigation in the States.

Damage from the sodium-phosphate solution ranged from kidney
failure requiring a transplant or dialysis to isolated illness,
said Mr. Peerless.  Lynda Quinton, who brought the suit in
Ontario, suffered "moderate kidney damage."

Fleet did not admit liability in the settlement, Mr. Peerless
said.

People who believe they have suffered kidney damage from the Fleet
product can apply to representative law firms across the country
for compensation by Sept. 22.  The payout will be based on a point
system that factors in the extent of the injury, said
Mr. Peerless.

He estimated about 60 people across the country were affected.  As
far as he knows, no one died from exposure to the laxative.


CAPITAL ONE: Continues to Defend Interchange Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation continues to defend itself in a
consolidated class action over alleged conspiracy with Mastercard
and Visa and other member banks in fixing interchange fees,
according to the Company's May 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

In 2005, a number of entities, each purporting to represent a
class of retail merchants, filed antitrust lawsuits against
MasterCard and Visa and several member banks, including the
Company and its subsidiaries, alleging among other things, that
the defendants conspired to fix the level of interchange fees. The
complaints seek injunctive relief and civil monetary damages,
which could be trebled. Separately, a number of large merchants
have asserted similar claims against Visa and MasterCard only. In
October 2005, the class and merchant Interchange Lawsuits were
consolidated before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York for certain purposes, including discovery.
Fact and expert discovery have closed. The parties have briefed
and presented oral argument on motions to dismiss and class
certification and are awaiting decisions from the court.

The defendant banks are members of Visa U.S.A., Inc. As members,
the Company's subsidiary banks have indemnification obligations to
Visa with respect to final judgments and settlements of certain
litigation against Visa. In the first quarter of 2008, Visa
completed an IPO of its stock. With IPO proceeds, Visa established
an escrow account for the benefit of member banks to fund certain
litigation settlements and claims, including the Interchange
Lawsuits. As a result, in the first quarter of 2008, the Company
reduced its Visa-related indemnification liabilities of $91
million recorded in other liabilities with a corresponding
reduction of other non-interest expense. The Company has made an
election in accordance with the accounting guidance for fair value
option for financial assets and liabilities on the indemnification
guarantee to Visa, and the fair value of the guarantee at December
31, 2010 and March 31, 2011 was zero. In January 2011, the Company
entered into a MasterCard Settlement and Judgment Sharing
Agreement, along with other defendant banks, which apportions
between MasterCard and its member banks any costs and liabilities
of any judgment or settlement arising from the Interchange
Lawsuits.

Capital One Financial Corporation is a diversified financial
services holding company with banking and non-banking subsidiaries
that offer a broad array of financial products and services to
consumers, small businesses and commercial clients through
branches, the internet and other distribution channels.


CAPITAL ONE: Continues to Defend Interchange Suit in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action filed on behalf of merchants who accept Visa and
MasterCard-branded credit cards is still pending in British
Columbia, Canada, according to Capital One Financial Corporation's
May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In March 2011, a furniture store owner, on behalf of himself and
other merchants who accept Visa and MasterCard-branded credit
cards, filed a class action in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia (Vancouver Registry) against the Visa and MasterCard
membership associations related to credit card interchange fees.
The class action names Visa and MasterCard and a number of member
banks, including Capital One Financial Corporation, which only
issues MasterCard branded credit cards in Canada. The class action
complaint alleges that the associations and member banks are
liable for civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, constructive trust
and unlawful interference with economic interests and violated
Canadian anti-competition laws by (a) conspiring to fix supra-
competitive interchange fees and merchant discounts, and (b)
requiring participation in the respective networks and adherence
to Visa and MasterCard Rules to acceptance of payment guarantee
services.

Capital One Financial Corporation is a diversified financial
services holding company with banking and non-banking subsidiaries
that offer a broad array of financial products and services to
consumers, small businesses and commercial clients through
branches, the internet and other distribution channels.


CAPITAL ONE: "Late Fees" Suit Remains Stayed Pending Bankruptcy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Proceedings of a consolidated class action against Capital One
Financial Corporation remain stayed pending one of the defendant
financial institution's bankruptcy proceeding, according to the
Company's May 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In 2007, a number of individual plaintiffs, each purporting to
represent a class of cardholders, filed antitrust lawsuits in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against several issuing banks, including the Company. These
lawsuits allege, among other things, that the defendants conspired
to fix the level of late fees and over-limit fees charged to
cardholders, and that these fees are excessive. In May 2007, the
cases were consolidated for all purposes, and a consolidated
amended complaint was filed alleging violations of federal
statutes and state law. The amended complaint requests civil
monetary damages, which could be trebled, and injunctive relief.
In November 2007, the court dismissed the amended complaint.
Plaintiffs appealed that order to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. The plaintiffs' appeal challenges the dismissal of their
claims under the National Bank Act, the Depository Institutions
Deregulation Act of 1980 and the California Unfair Competition
Law, but not their antitrust conspiracy claims. In June 2009, the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the matter pending the
bankruptcy proceedings of one of the defendant financial
institutions. In December 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
entered an additional order continuing the stay of the matter
pending the bankruptcy proceedings.

Capital One Financial Corporation is a diversified financial
services holding company with banking and non-banking subsidiaries
that offer a broad array of financial products and services to
consumers, small businesses and commercial clients through
branches, the internet and other distribution channels.


CAPITAL ONE: Discovery to Begin in "Rubio" Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation's subsidiary is awaiting
discovery to begin in the putative class action entitled Rubio v.
Capital One Bank, in California, according to the Company's
May 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In July 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed a dismissal entered in favor of Capital One Bank,
National Association or COBNA in Rubio v. Capital One Bank, which
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California in 2007. The plaintiff in Rubio alleged in a putative
class action that COBNA breached its contractual obligations and
violated the Truth In Lending Act and the UCL when it raised
interest rates on certain credit card accounts. The plaintiff
seeks damages, restitution, attorney's fees and an injunction
against future rate increases. The District Court granted COBNA's
motion to dismiss all claims as a matter of law prior to any
discovery. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District
Court's dismissal with respect to the TILA and UCL claims,
remanding the case back to the District Court for further
proceedings. The Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal of the
plaintiff's breach of contract claim, finding that the Company was
contractually allowed to increase interest rates. In September
2010, the Ninth Circuit denied the Company's Petition for Panel
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc. In January 2011, COBNA filed a
writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, seeking
leave to appeal the Ninth Circuit's ruling. On April 4, 2011, the
United States Supreme Court denied Capital One's writ of
certiorari, and as a result, the Ninth Circuit will now remand the
case back to the District Court to begin discovery.

Capital One Financial Corporation is a diversified financial
services holding company with banking and non-banking subsidiaries
that offer a broad array of financial products and services to
consumers, small businesses and commercial clients through
branches, the internet and other distribution channels.


CAPITAL ONE: Continues to Conduct Discovery in Georgia Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation and plaintiffs in a multi-
district litigation arising from credit card interest in Georgia
are conducting discovery, according to the Company's May 10, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

The Capital One Bank Credit Card Interest Rate Multi-district
Litigation matter involves similar issues as Rubio v. Capital One
Bank. This multi-district litigation matter was created as a
result of a June 2010 transfer order issued by the United States
Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation, which consolidated
for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia two pending putative class actions
against Capital One Bank, National Association or COBNA -- Nancy
Mancuso, et al. v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al., (E.D.
Virginia); and Kevin S. Barker, et al. v. Capital One Bank (USA),
N.A., (N.D. Georgia), A third action, Jennifer L. Kolkowski v.
Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., (C.D. California) was subsequently
transferred into the MDL. On
August 2, 2010, the plaintiffs in the MDL filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint. The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges in a
putative class action that COBNA breached its contractual
obligations, and violated the Truth In Lending Act, the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition
Law, the California False Advertising Act, the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act, and the Kansas Consumer Protection Act when it raised
interest rates on certain credit card accounts. The MDL plaintiffs
seek statutory damages, restitution, attorney's fees and an
injunction against future rate increases. The parties are
currently conducting discovery.

Capital One Financial Corporation is a diversified financial
services holding company with banking and non-banking subsidiaries
that offer a broad array of financial products and services to
consumers, small businesses and commercial clients through
branches, the internet and other distribution channels.


CAPITAL ONE: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Reconsider in Florida Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation is awaiting a court's ruling on
its motion to reconsider certain portions of an order denying the
Company's motion to dismiss in In re Checking Account Overdraft
Litigation, according to the Company's May 10, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In May 2010, the Company and Capital One Bank, National
Association or COBNA were named as defendants in a putative class
action named Steen v. Capital One Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana. Plaintiff challenges the Company's practices relating
to fees for overdraft and non-sufficient funds fees on consumer
checking accounts. Plaintiff alleges that the Company's
methodology for posting transactions to customer accounts is
designed to maximize the generation of overdraft fees, supporting
claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion, unjust
enrichment and violations of state unfair trade practices laws.
Plaintiff seeks a range of remedies, including restitution,
disgorgement, injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorneys'
fees. In May 2010, the case was transferred to the Southern
District of Florida for coordinated pre-trial proceedings as part
of a multi-district litigation (MDL) involving numerous defendant
banks, In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation. In January
2011, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint against Capital
One, National Association or CONA in the MDL court. In February
2011, CONA filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.
On March 21, 2011, the MDL court granted the motion to dismiss
claims of breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing
under Texas law, but denied the motion to dismiss in all other
respects. On April 18, 2011, CONA moved for reconsideration of
those portions of the court's ruling denying its motion to
dismiss.

Capital One Financial Corporation is a diversified financial
services holding company with banking and non-banking subsidiaries
that offer a broad array of financial products and services to
consumers, small businesses and commercial clients through
branches, the internet and other distribution channels.


CARDIONET INC: Continues to Defend IPO Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
CardioNet Inc. continues to defend itself from an amended class
action complaint filed in connection with its public offerings,
according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2011.

On March 5, 2010, West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund filed a
putative class action complaint in California Superior Court, San
Diego County asserting claims for violations of Sections 11, 12
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, against
CardioNet, nine current and former officers and directors of
CardioNet and six underwriters of CardioNet's initial public
offering (IPO) and/or Secondary Offering.  The complaint filed
also asserted claims for alleged violations of Sections 25401 and
25501 of the California Corporations Code against defendants
James M. Sweeney and Fred Middleton.  The plaintiff seeks to bring
claims on behalf of all those who acquired the common stock of
CardioNet pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Offerings.
On March 10, 2010, plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint that
deleted the claims for violations of the California Corporations
Code.  The claims are based on purported misrepresentations and
omissions in the Registration Statements for the Offerings
relating to alleged business decisions made by CardioNet that were
supposedly not disclosed to investors and alleged misstatements
concerning CardioNet's business.  On April 5, 2010, all defendants
removed the case to the Southern District of California, where it
is pending.  On April 7, 2010, defendants filed a Motion to
Transfer the case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  On
April 23, 2010, the plaintiff moved to remand the case to state
court.  On March 24, 2011, the court granted the plaintiff's
Motion remanding the case to the Superior Court of the State of
California.  Consistent with the accounting for contingent
liabilities, no accrual has been recorded in the financial
statements.  The Company believes that the claims are without
merit and intends to defend the litigation vigorously.


CARE INVESTMENT: Obtains Nod on Settlement Ending Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Care Investment Trust Inc. obtained in January 2011 court approval
of a stipulation ending a securities class action before a New
York federal court, according to the Company's May 10, 2011 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On September 18, 2007, a class action complaint for violations of
federal securities laws was filed in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York alleging that the
Registration Statement relating to the initial public offering of
shares of the Company's common stock, filed on June 21, 2007,
failed to disclose that certain of the assets in the contributed
portfolio were materially impaired and overvalued and that the
Company was experiencing increasing difficulty in securing its
warehouse financing lines. On January 18, 2008, the court entered
an order appointing co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. On
February 19, 2008, the co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint citing additional evidentiary support for the
allegations in the complaint. The Company believes the complaint
and allegations are without merit and intends to defend against
the complaint and allegations vigorously. The parties filed
various motions between April 2008 and July 2010. The plaintiffs
filed an opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss on July 9,
2008, to which it filed its reply on September 10, 2008. On
March 4, 2009, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss.
Care filed its answer on April 15, 2009. At a conference held on
May 15, 2009, the Court ordered the parties to make a joint
submission setting forth: (i) the specific statements that
Plaintiffs claim are false and misleading; (ii) the facts on which
Plaintiffs rely as showing each alleged misstatement was false and
misleading and (iii) the facts on which Defendants rely as showing
those statements were true. The parties filed the Joint Statement
on June 3, 2009. On July 31, 2009, the parties entered into a
stipulation that narrowed the scope of the proceeding to the
single issue of the warehouse financing disclosure in the
Registration Statement. Fact discovery closed on April 23, 2010.

The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on July 9, 2010.
By Opinion and Order dated December 22, 2010, the Court granted
Care summary judgment motion in its entirety and directed the
Clerk of the Court to enter judgment accordingly.

On January 11, 2011, the parties entered into a stipulation ending
the litigation. In the stipulation: (i) plaintiffs waived any and
all appeal rights that they had in the action, including, without
limitation, the right to appeal any portion of the Court's Opinion
and Order granting Care's summary judgment or the judgment entered
by the Clerk; (ii) Care waived any and all rights that they had to
seek sanctions of any form against plaintiffs or their counsel in
connection with the action; and (iii) each party agreed it would
bear its own fees and costs in connection with the action. The
stipulation was so ordered by the Court on January 12, 2011,
bringing the litigation to a close.

Care Investment Trust Inc. was originally structured as an
externally-managed REIT positioned to make mortgage investments in
healthcare-related properties, and to invest in healthcare-related
real estate, through utilizing the origination platform of its
then external manager, CIT Healthcare LLC), a wholly-owned
subsidiary of CIT Group Inc.


CBIZ INC: Continues to Defend "Facciola" Suit in Arizona
--------------------------------------------------------
CBIZ, Inc., and its subsidiaries continue to defend themselves in
a purported class action lawsuit captioned Robert Facciola, et al.
v. Greenberg Traurig LLP, et al., in Arizona, according to the
Company's May 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In May, June, July, August and September of 2010, the Company and
its subsidiary, CBIZ MHM, LLC (fka CBIZ Accounting, Tax & Advisory
Services, LLC), were named as defendants in lawsuits filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Robert
Facciola, et al v. Greenberg Traurig LLP, et al.) and in the
Superior Court for Maricopa County Arizona (Victims Recovery, LLC
v. Greenberg Traurig LLP, et al.; Roger Ashkenazi, et al v.
Greenberg Traurig LLP, et al.; Mary Marsh, et al v. Greenberg
Traurig LLP, et al.; and ML Liquidating Trust v. Mayer Hoffman
McCann, PC, et al.), respectively. The Maricopa County cases were
removed to the United States District Court or Bankruptcy Court
but have since been remanded to the Superior Court for Maricopa
County. These remand orders are currently being appealed. The
Facciola plaintiffs seek to proceed as a class action.
Additionally, in November 2009, CBIZ MHM, LLC was named as a
defendant in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona (Jeffery C. Stone v. Greenberg Traurig LLP, et al.). These
matters arise out of the bankruptcy proceedings related to
Mortgages Ltd., a mortgage lender to developers in the Phoenix,
Arizona area. Various other professional firms not related to the
Company are also defendants in these lawsuits. The motion phase of
these proceedings has commenced.

The plaintiffs, except for those in the Stone and ML Liquidating
Trust cases, are all alleged to have directly or indirectly
invested in real estate mortgages through Mortgages Ltd. The
Facciola, Victims Recovery, Ashkenazi and Marsh plaintiffs seek
monetary damages equivalent to the amounts of their investments.
The plaintiff in Stone sought monies it allegedly lost based on
the claim that Mortgages Ltd. did not fund development projects in
which it was a contractor. The Stone case has been voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff in that matter. The plaintiff in the ML
Liquidating Trust matter asserts errors and omissions and breach
of contract claims, and is seeking monetary damages. The
plaintiffs in these suits also seek pre- and post-judgment
interest, punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

Mortgages Ltd. had been audited by Mayer Hoffman McCann PC, a CPA
firm which has an administrative services agreement with CBIZ. The
claims against the CBIZ Parties seek to impose auditor-type
liabilities upon the Company for audits it did not conduct.
Specific claims include securities fraud, common law fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, Arizona Investment Management Act
violations, control-person liability, aiding and abetting and
conspiracy. CBIZ is not a CPA firm, does not provide audits, and
did not audit any of the entities at issue in these lawsuits.
The CBIZ Parties deny all allegations of wrongdoing made against
them in these actions and are vigorously defending the
proceedings. The Company has been advised by Mayer Hoffman McCann
PC that it denies all allegations of wrongdoing made against it
and that it intends to continue vigorously defending the matters.
Although the proceedings are subject to uncertainties inherent in
the litigation process and the ultimate disposition of these
proceedings is not presently determinable, management believes
that the allegations are without merit and that the ultimate
resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse
effect on the consolidated financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows of CBIZ.

CBIZ provides professional business services that help clients
manage their finances and employees.


CENTER FINANCIAL: Faces Class Suit Over Nara Bancorp Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Center Financial Corporation is facing a purported class action in
Los Angeles County Superior Court over its proposed merger with
Nara Bancorp Inc., according to the Company's May 9, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On May 2, 2011, a purported class action was filed in Los Angeles
County Superior Court against the Company, its directors and Nara
Bancorp Inc. alleging that the directors breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with their approval of the proposed merger
with Nara Bancorp and that the Company breached its fiduciary
duties in connection with the disclosures it made regarding the
proposed merger.  The complaint seeks compensatory or
rescissionary damages and other unspecified relief.


CENTURY ALUMINUM: Appeal in Securities Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
An appeal filed by a plaintiff from the dismissal of a
consolidated stockholder class action captioned In re Century
Aluminum Company Securities Litigation remains pending, according
to Century Aluminum Company's  May 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

On April 27, 2010, the purported stockholder class actions pending
against the Company consolidated as In re Century Aluminum Company
Securities Litigation, were dismissed without prejudice.  On
May 28, 2010 and June 24, 2010 plaintiffs submitted amended
complaints and on July 9, 2010, the Company moved to dismiss the
amended complaint.  On March 3, 2011, the court granted the
Company's motion, dismissed the actions with prejudice and entered
judgment in the Company's favor.  On March 10, 2011, plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal from the order and judgment entered by
the court on March 3, 2011.

Century Aluminum Company owns primary aluminum capacity in the
United States and Iceland. Century's corporate offices are located
in Monterey, California.


CHINA NATURAL: Continues to Defend "Vandevelde" Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
China Natural Gas, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
securities class action complaint in Delaware.

China Natural Gas and certain of its officers and directors have
been named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit,
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.  The action,
captioned Vandevelde v. China Natural Gas, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
10-728, was filed on August 26, 2010, in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware.  The plaintiff in
Vandevelde asserts that the Company, Qinan Ji, Zhiqiang Wang,
Donald Yang, David She, Carl Yeung and Lawrence Leighton violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 thereunder, when it failed to disclose and properly account
for the Loan in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2009, and Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.  The complaint alleges that
the Pledge to secure the Loan violated the Indenture for the
Senior Notes and the warrant agreement relating to the warrants
issued to Abax Lotus Ltd., giving the holder of those notes and
warrants the right to declare a default under the Indenture.  The
complaint further alleges that, on August 20, 2010, the Company
amended its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2009, and Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010, to disclose the Loan and restate its
financial statements in light of the note and warrant holder's
right to declare a default under the Indenture, and that the
announcement of this news caused the price of the Company's stock
to drop by 20%.  The plaintiff seeks damages in an unspecified
amount to recover the losses purportedly suffered by the putative
class as a result of that decline.  The complaint also asserts
claims against the individual defendants as controlling persons of
the Company for violations of Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

A second action, captioned Baranowski v. China Natural Gas, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 10-6572, was filed on September 3, 2010, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The plaintiff in that action, which was based on the same
claims as those asserted by the plaintiff in Vandevelde and on
substantially similar allegations, voluntarily dismissed the
action without prejudice on November 23, 2010.

Two putative class members in the Vandevelde action have moved for
appointment as lead plaintiff.  After the Court decides those
motions, the putative class member who is appointed lead plaintiff
will have an opportunity to file an amended complaint.  The
defendants will not be required to answer or otherwise respond to
the complaint until after the lead plaintiff either decides to
proceed on the basis of the original complaint or files an amended
complaint.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 10, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

The Company intends to defend the case vigorously.  The Company
currently cannot estimate the outcome of the litigation.

China Natural Gas, Inc., through its wholly owned subsidiaries and
variable interest entity, Xi'an Xilan Natural Gas Co., Ltd. and
subsidiaries of its VIE, which are located in Hong Kong, Shaanxi
Province, Henan Province and Hubei Province in the People's
Republic of China, engages in sales and distribution of natural
gas and gasoline to commercial, industrial and residential
customers through fueling stations and pipelines, construction of
pipeline networks, installation of natural gas fittings and parts
for end-users, and conversions of gasoline-fueled vehicles to
hybrid (natural gas/gasoline) powered vehicles at automobile
conversion sites.


CHINA NORTH: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
China North East Petroleum Holdings Limited is currently awaiting
a court ruling on its motion to dismiss a consolidated securities
class action suit in New York, according to the Company's May 10,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

The Company, along with certain of its officers and directors, is
involved in six legal actions, three of which are securities class
actions and three of which are shareholder derivative actions, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The three class actions assert claims under the federal securities
laws and the three derivative actions assert common law claims
based on breach of duty.

The six actions are: (1) Rosado v. China North East Petroleum
Holdings Limited, et al., 10 CV 4577 (MGC), filed June 11, 2010;
(2) Weissmann v. China North East Petroleum Holdings Limited, et
al. , 10 CV 4775 (MGC), filed June 18, 2010; (3) Moore v. China
North East Petroleum Holdings Limited, et al., 10 CV 5263 (MGC),
filed July 9, 2010; (4) Strickland v. Hongjun, et al., 10 CV 5445
(RMB), filed July 19, 2010; (5) Drobner v. Hongjun, et al., 10 CV
6193 (No Judge has been assigned at this time), filed August 23,
2010; and (6) Nicoln v. Hongjun, et al., 10 CV 6344 (No Judge has
been assigned at this time), filed August 24, 2010.

The three securities class actions were consolidated as In re
China North East Petroleum Holdings Limited Securities Litigation,
10 CV 4577 (MGC).  A consolidated class action complaint was filed
on January 14, 2011, adding new defendants Ralph E. Davis
Associates, Robert C. Bruce, Edward M. Rule, Li Jing Fu, and Yu Li
Guo.  On March 22, 2010, the Company, on behalf of itself and the
Individual Defendants, filed a motion to dismiss.  Oral argument
on the motion to dismiss was scheduled for May 12, 2011.

China North East Petroleum Holdings Limited is is a petroleum
exploitation, development and production company engaged in
locating and developing hydrocarbon resources, primarily in the
Jilin Province of the People's Republic of China.  Its principal
business is the acquisition of leasehold interests in petroleum
rights, and the exploitation and development of properties subject
to these leases.  The Company is currently focusing its drilling
efforts in the Songyuan City region of Jilin Province, PRC.  Also,
the Company is providing contract drilling services through its
Tiancheng subsidiary to customers for exploration of crude oil in
the PRC.


CHOICE HOTELS: Court Stays Class Suit Pending Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
Florida has stayed, pending arbitration, a class action lawsuit
against Choice Hotels International, Inc., according to the
Company's May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In December 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Central
District of Florida by several current and former franchisees.
The lawsuit relates to certain Company practices in connection
with its Choice Privileges guest rewards program.  The plaintiffs'
complaint alleges breach of contract, unjust enrichment and unfair
and deceptive trade practices under Florida law.

On April 4, 2011, the Company's Motion to Dismiss or for Stay
Pending Arbitration was granted by the court and the action was
stayed pending arbitration.  The Company, thus far, is unaware of
any arbitration actions filed by the plaintiffs.


CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Faces Six Class Suits Over Exelon Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Energy Group, Inc., is facing six shareholder class
action lawsuits filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City in
Maryland over its proposed merger with Exelon Corporation,
according to the Company's May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

In late April and early May 2011, shortly after Constellation
Energy and Exelon Corporation announced their agreement to merge
the two companies, six shareholder class action lawsuits were
filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City in Maryland.  Each
class action suit was filed on behalf of a proposed class of the
shareholders of Constellation Energy against Constellation Energy,
members of Constellation Energy's board of directors, and Exelon.
The shareholder class actions generally allege that the individual
directors breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the
proposed merger because they failed to maximize the value that the
shareholders would receive from the merger, and failed to disclose
adequately all material information relating to the proposed
merger.  The class actions also allege that Constellation Energy
and Exelon aided and abetted the individual directors' breaches of
their fiduciary duties.  The lawsuits challenge the proposed
merger, seek to enjoin a shareholder vote on the proposed merger
until all material information is provided relating to the
proposed merger, and ask for rescission of the proposed merger and
any related transactions that have been completed as of the date
that the court grants any relief.  The class action lawsuits also
seek certification as class actions, compensatory damages, costs
and disbursements related to the action, including attorneys' and
experts' fees, and rescission damages.  Plaintiffs in three of the
six lawsuits subsequently filed motions to consolidate their
lawsuits.

Given that these lawsuits were recently filed, that the court has
not certified any class and the plaintiffs have not quantified
their potential damage claims, the Company says it is unable at
this time to provide an estimate of the range of possible loss
relating to these proceedings or to determine the ultimate outcome
of these lawsuits or their possible effect on the Company's, or
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company's, financial results or their
possible effect on the pending merger with Exelon.


CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Still Defends Securities Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Energy Group, Inc., continues to defend class action
lawsuits alleging violations of securities laws by issuing a false
and misleading registration statement, according to the Company's
May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Three federal securities class action lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Courts for the Southern District of New
York and the District of Maryland between September 2008 and
November 2008.  The cases were filed on behalf of a proposed class
of persons who acquired publicly traded securities, including the
Series A Junior Subordinated Debentures (Debentures), of
Constellation Energy between January 30, 2008 and September 16,
2008, and who acquired Debentures in an offering completed in June
2008.  The securities class actions generally allege that
Constellation Energy, a number of its present or former officers
or directors, and the underwriters violated the securities laws by
issuing a false and misleading registration statement and
prospectus in connection with Constellation Energy's June 27, 2008
offering of Debentures.  The securities class actions also allege
that Constellation Energy issued false or misleading statements or
was aware of material undisclosed information which contradicted
public statements including in connection with its announcements
of financial results for 2007, the fourth quarter of 2007, the
first quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2008 and the
filing of its first quarter 2008 Form 10-Q.  The securities class
actions seek, among other things, certification of the cases as
class actions, compensatory damages, reasonable costs and
expenses, including counsel fees, and rescission damages.

The Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion
to transfer the two securities class actions filed in Maryland to
the District of Maryland, and the actions have since been
transferred for coordination with the securities class action
filed there.  On June 18, 2009, the court appointed a lead
plaintiff, who filed a consolidated amended complaint on
September 17, 2009.  On November 17, 2009, the defendants moved to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety.  On
August 13, 2010, the District Court of Maryland issued a ruling on
the motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs failed to state
a claim with respect to the claims of the common shareholders
under the Securities Act of 1934 and restricting the suit to those
persons who purchased Debentures in the June 2008 offering.

Given that the discovery phase has just begun, that the court has
not certified any class and the plaintiffs have not quantified
their potential damage claims relating to the June 2008 offering,
the Company says it is unable at this time to provide an estimate
of the range of possible loss relating to these proceedings or to
determine the ultimate outcome of the securities class actions or
their possible effect on the Company's, or Baltimore Gas and
Electric Company's, financial results.


DEAN FOODS: Trial in Dairy Farmers' Suit Set to Begin in August
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in a consolidated class action initiated by dairy farmers in
Tennessee and Mississippi against Dean Foods Company and others in
the milk industry is scheduled to begin in August 2011, according
to the Company's May 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

The Company was named, along with several other defendants, in two
putative class action antitrust complaints filed on July 5, 2007.
The complaints were filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee, Columbia Division, and allege
generally that the Company and others in the milk industry worked
together to limit the price Southeastern dairy farmers are paid
for their raw milk and to deny these farmers access to fluid Grade
A milk processing facilities. Four additional putative class
action complaints were filed in 2007 and 2008 in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville
Division. The allegations in these complaints are similar to those
in the dairy farmer actions. All six of the class actions were
consolidated and were transferred to the Eastern District of
Tennessee, Greeneville Division.

Class certification in the dairy farmer actions was granted in
September 2010. The Company's petition seeking pre-trial leave to
appeal that decision was denied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit in March 2011. Defendants asked the district
court to decertify the class in a motion filed in April 2011. That
motion is pending before the court. A motion for summary judgment
was filed by defendants in the dairy farmer actions on July 27,
2010 and remains pending. Presently, trial in the dairy farmer
actions is scheduled to begin in August 2011.

Fact discovery and expert discovery are complete, and the parties
have submitted expert reports regarding potential damages.
Plaintiffs in the dairy farmer actions have submitted expert
reports estimating damages at $697 million based on the theories
outlined in those reports. The Company's own expert reports
conclude that plaintiffs' theories of liability and damages are
unfounded, and that if proven at trial, would result in no
monetary damages. If plaintiffs do prevail on their antitrust
claims, any award of monetary damages will be trebled as a matter
of law and plaintiffs will also be entitled to apply for an award
of attorneys' fees.

Dean Foods Company is one of the largest food and beverage
companies in the United States, as well as a global leader in
branded plant-based beverages such as soy, almond and coconut
milks and soy-based food products.


DEAN FOODS: Defends RICO Class Suit in Mississippi
--------------------------------------------------
Dean Foods Company is defending itself in a putative class action
alleging violations under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations act and common law fraud in Mississippi, according
to the Company's May 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

On April 26, 2011, the Company, along with Gregg Engles and other
defendants, were named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi, Hattiesburg Division. The allegations in this
complaint are similar to those in the Tennessee dairy farmer
actions. In addition, plaintiffs have alleged generally that
defendants committed civil violations of the federal Racketeering
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, as well as common law
fraud. Plaintiffs are seeking treble damages for the alleged
antitrust and RICO violations, and compensatory and consequential
damages for the common law fraud claim. At this time, the Company
is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter.

Dean Foods Company is one of the largest food and beverage
companies in the United States, as well as a global leader in
branded plant-based beverages such as soy, almond and coconut
milks and soy-based food products.


DEAN FOODS: Awaits Order on Summary Judgment Plea in Retailer Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Foods Company is awaiting a court ruling on its motion for
summary judgment, as supplemented, and motion for reconsideration
in a retailer class action in Tennessee, according to the
Company's May 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

A putative class action antitrust complaint was filed on August 9,
2007 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Tennessee. Plaintiffs allege generally that the Company, either
acting alone or in conjunction with others in the milk industry
who are also defendants in the retailer action, lessened
competition in the Southeastern United States for the sale of
processed fluid Grade A milk to retail outlets and other
customers, and that the defendants' conduct also artificially
inflated wholesale prices for direct milk purchasers. Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in the retailer action is still
pending. A motion for summary judgment in the retailer action was
granted in part and denied in part in August 2010. Defendants
filed a motion for reconsideration on September 10, 2010, and
filed a supplemental motion for summary judgment as to the
remaining claims on September 27, 2010. Those motions are
currently pending before the Court. The Court has not set a trial
date yet for the retailer action.

Dean Foods Company is one of the largest food and beverage
companies in the United States, as well as a global leader in
branded plant-based beverages such as soy, almond and coconut
milks and soy-based food products.


DEAN FOODS: Indirect Purchaser Suit Still Stayed in Tennessee
-------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action known as indirect purchaser action remains
stayed pending the outcome of the summary judgment motions in the
"retailer action" in Tennessee, according to Dean Foods Company's
May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On June 29, 2009, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
Eastern District of Tennessee, Greeneville Division, on behalf of
indirect purchasers of processed fluid Grade A milk.  The
allegations in this complaint are similar to those in a putative
class action antitrust complaint known as the retailer action, but
primarily involve state law claims. Because the allegations in the
indirect purchaser action substantially overlap with the
allegations in the retailer action, the Court granted the parties'
joint motion to stay all proceedings in the indirect purchaser
action pending the outcome of the summary judgment motions in the
retailer action.

Dean Foods Company is one of the largest food and beverage
companies in the United States, as well as a global leader in
branded plant-based beverages such as soy, almond and coconut
milks and soy-based food products.


DEAN FOODS: Final Hearing on Vermont Suit Settlement Set July 18
----------------------------------------------------------------
The final fairness hearing to determine whether the settlement
agreement entered in a putative class action against Dean Foods
Company in Vermont is fair, reasonable and adequate, will be on
July 18, 2011, according to Dean Foods Company's May 10, 2011 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On October 8, 2009, the Company was named, among several
defendants, in a putative class action filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Vermont. The original complaint
was amended on January 21, 2010, and contained allegations similar
in nature to that of the dairy farmer actions, and alleges
generally that the Company and others in the milk industry worked
together to limit the price dairy farmers in the Northeastern
United States are paid for their raw milk and to deny these
farmers access to fluid Grade A milk processing facilities. A
second similar complaint was filed by a different plaintiff on
January 14, 2010. The Company has reached an agreement with the
plaintiffs to settle all claims against the Company in this
action. Pursuant to the agreement, the Company would be obligated
to pay $30 million, and agreed to make certain changes with
respect to its raw milk procurement activities at certain of its
processing plants located in the Northeast. The latter provision
can be modified by the parties or the court, and it is severable
from the agreement. Certain parties to the litigation have
challenged the provisions of the settlement agreement with respect
to milk procurement activities. On April 29, 2011, the plaintiffs
and the Company agreed to modify the agreement by eliminating the
provision requiring changes in the Company's raw milk procurement
activities, and submitted the modified agreement to the court for
preliminary approval. On May 4, 2011, the court entered an order
granting preliminary approval of the settlement agreement,
certifying the settlement class, and staying further proceedings
against the Company in the matter. A final fairness hearing is
scheduled for July 18, 2011, at which time the court will
determine whether the settlement agreement is fair, reasonable and
adequate. The court also denied the motions to intervene. There
can be no assurance that the court will approve the agreement as
proposed by the parties.

Dean Foods Company is one of the largest food and beverage
companies in the United States, as well as a global leader in
branded plant-based beverages such as soy, almond and coconut
milks and soy-based food products.


DEER CONSUMER: Defends "Rose" Class Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------
Deer Consumer Products, Inc., is defending itself against a
purported securities class action lawsuit captioned James Rose v.
Deer Consumer Products, Inc. et al., in California, according to
the Company's May 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

On April 29, 2011, a purported securities class action lawsuit on
behalf of the purchasers of the Company's common stock between
March 31, 2009, and March 21, 2011, James Rose v. Deer Consumer
Products, Inc. et al, was filed against the Company and certain of
its current and former officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California. The court
has not yet certified the class action status. The complaint
alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange
Act, as well as, in the case of the individual defendants, the
Section 20(a) control person provisions of the Exchange Act. The
factual assertions in the complaint, based expressly on the
published statements at issue in the Alfred Little suit, consist
primarily of allegations that the defendants made materially false
or misleading public statements concerning the Company's financial
condition in fiscal years 2010 and 2009 and the Company's
acquisition of Winder in 2008. The complaint seeks unspecified
damages and other relief relating to the purported inflation in
the price of the Company's common stock during the class period.
The Company strongly denies the allegations in the complaint. The
Company believes this lawsuit is frivolous and without merit and
will contest it vigorously. The Company plans to pursue all legal
remedies available to it if the complaint is not withdrawn in its
entirety.

Deer Consumer Products, Inc., is engaged in the manufacture,
marketing, distribution and sale of a broad range of small home
and kitchen electric appliances and personal care products.


DG FASTCHANNEL: Securities Suit Still Pending in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities class action lawsuit against DG
FastChannel, Inc., remains pending before a New York federal
court, according to the Company's May 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

In September 2010, a securities class-action lawsuit captioned
Duncan v. Ginsburg, et al, was filed against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (10 Civ. 6523).
Subsequently, an identical lawsuit by the same plaintiff, also
captioned Duncan v. Ginsburg, et al, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas (10 Civ. 1769),
and a similar lawsuit, captioned Tours v. DG FastChannel Inc., et
al, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York by a different plaintiff (10 Civ. 6930). The Northern
District of Texas lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiff and the other two lawsuits were consolidated before
Judge Richard J. Sullivan in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned In re DG FastChannel,
Inc. Securities Litigation (10 Civ. 6523). On November 24, 2010,
Judge Sullivan appointed a lead plaintiff and ordered that a
consolidated amended complaint be filed. On January 24, 2011, the
lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of
a purported class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
DG FastChannel common stock between August 4, 2010 and August 27,
2010, inclusive. The consolidated amended complaint alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
false or misleading statements of material fact, or failed to
disclose material facts, about the Company's financial condition
during the class period. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages and other relief. While the outcome of such lawsuits
cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company intends to defend
the action vigorously.

The Company expects its defense costs and any loss that may result
from this claim will be covered under its insurance policies.

DG FastChannel, Inc., is a provider of digital technology services
that enable the electronic delivery of advertisements, syndicated
programs, and video news releases from advertising agencies and
other content providers to traditional broadcasters, online
publishers and other media outlets.


DIRECTV: To Seek Arbitration in Cancellation Fees Suit
------------------------------------------------------
DIRECTV Holdings LLC is considering resolving class action
complaints over the Company's early cancellation fees through
arbitration, according to its May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2011.

In 2008, a number of plaintiffs filed putative class action
lawsuits in state and federal courts challenging the early
cancellation fees the Company assesses its customers when they do
not fulfill their programming commitments.  Several of these
lawsuits are pending -- some in California state court purporting
to represent statewide classes, and some in federal courts
purporting to represent nationwide classes.  The lawsuits seek
both monetary and injunctive relief.  While the theories of
liability vary, the lawsuits generally challenge these fees under
state consumer protection laws as both unfair and inadequately
disclosed to customers.  In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's
recent decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, the Company
intends to move to compel these cases to arbitration in accordance
with its Customer Agreement.  The Company believes that its early
cancellation fees are adequately disclosed, and represent
reasonable estimates of the costs the Company incurs when
customers cancel service before fulfilling their programming
commitments.


DRIL-QUIP INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Deepwater Horizon
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several entities filed cross claims against Dril-Quip, Inc., in
connection with the Deepwater Horizon incident, which claims
generally seek subrogation and contribution, and allege
negligence, comparative fault and strict liability for
manufacturing, according to the Company's May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On April 22, 2010, a deepwater U.S. Gulf of Mexico drilling rig
known as the Deepwater Horizon, operated by BP Exploration &
Production, Inc., sank after an explosion and fire that began on
April 20, 2010.  The Company is a party to an ongoing contract
with an affiliate of BP to supply wellhead systems in connection
with BP's U.S. Gulf of Mexico operations, and the Company's
wellhead and certain of its other equipment were in use on the
Deepwater Horizon at the time of the incident.

The Company has been named, along with other unaffiliated
defendants, in nine class action lawsuits and ten other lawsuits
arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident.  These actions were
filed against the Company between April 28, 2010 and March 11,
2011.  As of April 28, 2011, all of the lawsuits have been
consolidated, along with hundreds of other lawsuits not directly
naming the Company, in the multi-district proceeding In Re: Oil
Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on
April 20, 2010, and are pending in the federal court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana.  The lawsuits generally allege,
among other things, violation of state and federal environmental
and other laws and regulations, negligence, gross negligence,
strict liability and/or property damages and generally seek awards
of unspecified economic, compensatory and punitive damages and/or
declaratory relief.

The judge presiding over the MDL Proceeding is also presiding over
a separate but related proceeding filed by affiliates of
Transocean Ltd. under the Limitation of Liability Act in the
federal court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.  In the
Limitation Action, Transocean seeks to limit its liability for
claims arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident to the value
of its rig and its freight.  On February 18, 2011, Transocean
filed a Third-Party Complaint, tendering the Company to the
plaintiffs/claimants in the Limitation Action.  The procedural
effect of Transocean's action is to make the Company a defendant
in any of the actions where the plaintiff has filed a claim in the
Limitation Action.  However, at this time there are no new
allegations against the Company as a result of Transocean's
action, and the Company is entitled to assert all the defenses
available to it in the actions to which it was already a named
party.  In April 2011, the Company moved to dismiss Transocean's
Third-Party Complaint and the consolidated complaints alleging
economic losses from the oil spill and personal injury or property
damage arising from efforts to contain and clean up the oil spill.
The Company contends that those complaints fail to satisfy federal
pleading standards, fail to allege facts necessary to support
their theories of recovery and/or allege claims that are preempted
by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.  Also in April 2011, the Company
filed its answer to Transocean's Limitation petition denying all
claims and responsibility for the incident and denying
Transocean's right to limit its liability.  The Company also filed
cross claims against Transocean seeking contribution from
Transocean in the event the Company is found liable for damages
arising from the incident.

In April 2011, Transocean, Cameron International Corporation, and
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., each filed cross claims against
the Company, generally seeking subrogation and/or contribution
from the Company and alleging negligence, comparative fault and
strict liability for manufacturing, design and marketing defects
by the Company.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend any litigation,
fine and/or penalty relating to the Deepwater Horizon incident.
Accordingly, no liability has been accrued in conjunction with
these matters.

Additional lawsuits may be filed and additional investigations may
be launched in the future.  An adverse outcome with respect to any
of these lawsuits or investigations, or any lawsuits or
investigations that may arise in the future, could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's results of operations.

At the time of the Deepwater Horizon incident, the Company had a
general liability insurance program with an aggregate coverage
limit of $100 million for claims with respect to property damage,
injury or death and pollution.  The insurance policies may not
cover all potential claims and expenses relating to the Deepwater
Horizon incident.  In addition, the Company's policies may not
cover fines, penalties or costs and expenses related to
government-mandated clean up of pollution.  The incident may also
lead to further tightening of the availability of insurance
coverage.  The Company may not be able to obtain adequate
insurance at a reasonable price, thereby making certain projects
unfeasible from an economic standpoint.  If liability limits are
increased or the insurance market becomes more restricted, the
risks and costs of conducting offshore exploration and development
activities may increase, which could materially impact the
Company's results of operations.

The Company is continuing to assess its rights to indemnification
from BP's affiliate and other parties for potential claims and
expenses arising from the Deepwater Horizon incident under the
Company's existing contract with the affiliate of BP.  The
Company's indemnity rights under the contract cover potential
claims for personal injury, property damage and the control and
removal of pollution or contamination, except for, among other
things, claims brought by employees of the Company and claims
brought by third parties to the extent the Company is at fault or
as a result of a defect in the Company's products.  Under the
contract, the Company has generally agreed to indemnify BP and its
affiliates for claims for personal injury of the Company's
employees or subcontractors, for claims brought by third parties
to the extent the Company is at fault, and for claims resulting
from pollution or contamination as a result of a defect in the
Company's products.  The Company's indemnification obligation for
pollution or contamination arising from a defect in the Company's
products is limited to $5 million under the contract.  To the
extent that BP's other contractors performing work on the well
agreed in their contracts with BP to indemnify the Company for
claims of personal injury of such contractor's employees or
subcontractors as well as for claims of damages to their property,
the Company has entered into a reciprocal agreement to indemnify
those other contractors.


DUNCAN ENERGY: Continues to Defend Unitholders Litigation in Del.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Duncan Energy Partners, L.P., continues to defend itself in a
consolidated putative class action captioned In re Duncan Energy
Partners L.P. Unitholders Litigation in Delaware, according to the
Company's May 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On March 8, 2011, Michael Crowley, a purported unitholder of
Duncan Energy Partners, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware, as a putative class action on behalf of
the unitholders of Duncan Energy Partners, captioned Michael
Crowley v. Duncan Energy Partners L.P., DEP Holdings, LLC, W.
Randall Fowler, Bryan F. Bulawa, William A. Bruckmann, III, Larry
J. Casey, Richard S. Snell, Enterprise Products Partners L.P.,
Enterprise Products Holdings LLC, and Enterprise Products
Operating LLC.  The Crowley Complaint alleges, among other things,
that the named directors of DEP GP have breached fiduciary duties
in connection with Enterprise's proposal to acquire the Company's
outstanding publicly-held common units and that the Company and
DEP GP aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties and that Enterprise along with EPO have breached
unspecified duties in connection with Enterprise's proposal.

On March 11, 2011, Sanjay Israni, a purported unitholder of Duncan
Energy Partners, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, as a putative class action on behalf of the
unitholders of Duncan Energy Partners, captioned Sanjay Israni v.
Duncan Energy Partners L.P., DEP Holdings, LLC, Enterprise
Products Partners L.P., Enterprise Products Holdings LLC,
Enterprise Products Operating LLC, W. Randall Fowler, Bryan F.
Bulawa, William A. Bruckmann, III, Larry J. Casey, and Richard S.
Snell.  The Israni Complaint II alleges, among other things, that
the named directors of DEP GP have breached fiduciary duties in
connection with Enterprise's proposal to acquire the Company's
outstanding publicly-held common units and that the Company along
with all of the other named defendants aided and abetted in these
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

On March 28, 2011, Michael Rubin, a purported unitholder of Duncan
Energy Partners, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, as a putative class action on behalf of the
unitholders of Duncan Energy Partners, captioned Michael Rubin v.
Duncan Energy Partners L.P., DEP Holdings, LLC, W. Randall Fowler,
Bryan F. Bulawa, William A. Bruckmann, III, Larry J. Casey,
Richard S. Snell, Enterprise Products Partners L.P., Enterprise
Products Holdings LLC, and Enterprise Products Operating LLC.  The
Rubin Complaint alleges, among other things, that the named
directors of DEP GP have breached fiduciary duties in connection
with Enterprise's proposal to acquire the Company's outstanding
publicly-held common units and that the Company and DEP GP aided
and abetted in these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and that
Enterprise along with EPO have breached unspecified duties in
connection with Enterprise's proposal.

On April 5, 2011, the plaintiffs in the Crowley Complaint, the
Israni Complaint II, and the Rubin Complaint filed a Proposed
Order of Consolidation and Appointment of Lead Counsel and the
Court granted that Order on the same day consolidating the three
actions into a single consolidated action, captioned In re Duncan
Energy Partners L.P. Unitholders Litigation.  The Company intends
to vigorously defend against these lawsuits and any similar
actions.

Duncan Energy Partners, L.P. is a publicly traded partnership that
provides midstream energy services, including gathering,
transportation, marketing and storage of natural gas, in addition
to NGL fractionation, transportation and storage and petrochemical
transportation and storage.


DUNCAN ENERGY: Awaits Order on Motion to Consolidate Texas Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duncan Energy Partners, L.P. is awaiting an order consolidating
two putative class action lawsuits filed by unitholders before a
Texas court, according to the Company's May 10, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On March 7, 2011, Merle Davis, a purported unitholder of Duncan
Energy Partners, filed a petition in the 269th District Court of
Harris County, Texas, as a putative class action on behalf of the
unitholders of Duncan Energy Partners, captioned Merle Davis, on
Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Duncan
Energy Partners L.P., W. Randall Fowler, Bryan F. Bulawa, William
A. Bruckmann, III, Larry J. Casey, Richard S. Snell, DEP Holdings,
LLC, and Enterprise Products Partners L.P.  The Davis Petition
alleges, among other things, that Enterprise and the named
directors of DEP GP have breached fiduciary duties in connection
with Enterprise's proposal to acquire the Company's outstanding
publicly-held common units and that the Company and Enterprise
aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

On March 9, 2011, Donald Weilersbacher, a purported unitholder of
Duncan Energy Partners, filed a petition in the 334th District
Court of Harris County, Texas, as a putative class action on
behalf of the unitholders of Duncan Energy Partners, captioned
Donald Weilersbacher, on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Duncan Energy Partners L.P., Enterprise
Products Partners L.P., DEP Holdings, LLC, W. Randall Fowler,
Bryan F. Bulawa, William A. Bruckmann, III, Larry J. Casey, and
Richard S. Snell.  The Weilersbacher Petition alleges, among other
things, that the named directors of DEP GP have breached fiduciary
duties in connection with Enterprise's proposal to acquire the
Company's outstanding publicly-held common units and that
Enterprise aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties.

On March 17, 2011, the plaintiffs in the Davis Petition and the
Weilersbacher Petition filed a motion and proposed Order for
Consolidation of Related Actions, Appointment of Interim Co-Lead
Counsel, and Order Compelling Limited Expedited Discovery.
Plaintiffs and defendants subsequently agreed to postpone
discovery until after the plaintiffs file a consolidated petition.
On March 28, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended motion and
proposed Order for Consolidation of Related Actions and
Appointment of Interim Co-Lead Counsel.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend against these lawsuits and any similar actions.


DYNEGY HOLDINGS: Awaits Summary Judgment Ruling in Nevada Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dynegy Holdings Inc. is awaiting a ruling on its and other
defendants' motions for summary judgment in the lawsuits filed
against them in Nevada alleging they engaged in an illegal scheme
to inflate natural gas prices, according to the Company's May 9,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

The Company, several of its affiliates, its former joint venture
affiliate and other energy companies were named as defendants in
numerous lawsuits in state and federal court claiming damages
resulting from alleged price manipulation and false reporting of
natural gas prices to various index publications in the 2000-2002
timeframe.  Many of the cases have been resolved and those which
remain are pending in Nevada federal district court.  Recent
developments include:

   -- In February 2007, the Tennessee state court dismissed a
      class action on defendants' motion.  Plaintiffs appealed
      and, in October 2008, the appellate court reversed the
      dismissal.  Thereafter, defendants appealed to the
      Tennessee Supreme Court which, in April 2010, reversed the
      appellate court ruling and dismissed all of plaintiffs'
      claims.  Plaintiffs' deadline to appeal to the United
      States Supreme Court has expired;

   -- In February 2008, the United States District Court in Las
      Vegas, Nevada, granted defendants' motion for summary
      judgment in a Colorado class action and, ultimately,
      dismissed the case and all of plaintiffs' claims.  The
      decision is subject to appeal once the remaining
      defendants' claims are adjudicated; and

   -- The remaining five cases, three of which seek class
      certification, are also pending in Nevada federal court.
      All of the cases contain similar claims that individually,
      and in conjunction with other energy companies, the Company
      engaged in an illegal scheme to inflate natural gas prices
      in four states by providing false information to natural
      gas index publications.  In November 2009, following
      defendants' motion for reconsideration, the court invited
      defendants to renew their motions for summary judgment on
      preemption of plaintiffs' state law claims, which were
      filed shortly thereafter.  Plaintiffs concurrently moved to
      amend their complaints to add federal claims.  In October
      2010, the court denied plaintiffs' motion to amend.  The
      Company awaits an order on defendants' motions for summary
      judgment or further instruction from the court.  In the
      interim, discovery and plaintiffs' class certification
      motions are stayed.

The Company continues to analyze the Gas Index Pricing Litigation
and is vigorously defending the remaining individual matters.  Due
to the uncertainty of litigation, the Company says it cannot
predict whether it will incur any liability in connection with
these lawsuits.  The Company believes these cases lack merit and
it will continue to oppose plaintiff's claims vigorously.


DYNEGY HOLDINGS: Opposes Payment of Attorneys' Fees in Texas Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dynegy Holdings Inc. is opposing a motion seeking attorneys' fees
and expenses for $1.6 million filed by counsel of the plaintiffs
in a consolidated state court action in Texas, according to the
Company's May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In connection with the merger agreement with an affiliate of The
Blackstone Group L.P. and the merger agreement with an affiliate
of Icahn Enterprises L.P., numerous stockholder lawsuits were
filed in the District Courts of Harris County, Texas, the Southern
District of Texas, and the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.  The cases in these three jurisdictions were ultimately
consolidated into one action in each jurisdiction.  One
stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed in a District Court in
Harris County, Texas.

On November 7, 2010, during the pendency of the Blackstone
transaction, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding providing for the full and final settlement of the
Texas state stockholder class actions and the Delaware actions.
The memorandum of understanding and settlement were expressly
subject to and conditioned upon the consummation of the
transactions contemplated by the Blackstone Merger Agreement.
Accordingly, when the Blackstone Merger Agreement was terminated,
the settlement became null and void.  Thereafter, the motion by
the plaintiff in the stockholder derivative action to nonsuit all
defendants without prejudice was granted on December 14, 2010.

Following the termination of the Icahn Merger Agreement and upon
Dynegy's insistence, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Texas
Federal Action and Consolidated Delaware Chancery Court Action
moved to dismiss their claims without prejudice.  The courts
dismissed the cases on March 1, 2011, and March 16, 2011,
respectively.  On March 28, 2011, plaintiff's counsel in the
Consolidated Texas State Court Action filed a motion seeking
attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of approximately $1.6
million for their efforts in representing plaintiff.  Dynegy is
vigorously opposing this motion.


DYNEX CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Teamsters Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dynex Capital, Inc., continues to defend itself in a securities
class action suit brought by a local labor union in New York,
according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

Dynex Capital, its subsidiary MERIT Securities Corporation, and
the former President and Chief Executive Officer and current Chief
Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Dynex Capital are
defendants in a putative class action brought by the Teamsters
Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  The original complaint,
which was filed on February 7, 2005, alleged violations of the
federal securities laws and was purportedly filed on behalf of
purchasers between February 2000 and May 2004 of MERIT Series 12
and MERIT Series 13 securitization financing bonds (the "Bonds"),
which are collateralized by manufactured housing loans.  After a
series of rulings by the District Court and an appeal by the
Company and MERIT, on February 22, 2008, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the litigation against
the Company and MERIT.  The Teamsters filed an amended complaint
on August 6, 2008, which essentially restated the same allegations
as the original complaint and added the Company's former
President/Chief Executive Officer and current Chief Operating
Officer/Chief Financial Officer as defendants.  The District Court
denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  The
Teamsters seek unspecified damages and allege, among other things,
fraud and misrepresentation in connection with the issuance of and
subsequent reporting related to the Bonds.  On March 7, 2011, the
District Court granted the Teamsters' motion to certify the class
for the action.  On March 18, 2011, the Defendants filed a
Petition for Permission to Appeal with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, seeking to reverse the class
certification by the District Court.  Prior to the District
Court's certification of the class, the Defendants also filed with
the District Court a motion to dismiss on the basis of fraud on
the court related to statements attributed to alleged confidential
witnesses in the amended complaint which the Company believes to
be fabricated by plaintiff's counsel.  The District Court referred
the motion to dismiss to a Magistrate Judge, who, on April 29,
2011, recommended that the motion be denied.  The Company intends
to file in the District Court an objection to the Magistrate
Judge's recommendation.  The Company has evaluated the allegations
made in the amended complaint, and continues to believe them to be
without merit and is vigorously defending itself in the matter.

Dynex Capital, Inc., is an internally-managed real estate
investment trust, or REIT, which invests in mortgage assets on a
leveraged basis.  The Company was formed in 1987 and commenced
operations in 1988.  Since 200, the Company has been an investor
in mortgage-backed securities ("MBS"), and is no longer
originating or securitizing mortgage loans.


DYNEX CAPITAL: GLS Unit Continues to Defend Pennsylvania Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dynex Capital, Inc's subsidiary continues to defend itself against
a class action suit alleging improper recovery by the subsidiary
of attorneys' fees in relation to property tax collection.

GLS Capital, Inc., a Dynex Capital subsidiary, and the County of
Allegheny, Pennsylvania, are defendants in a class action lawsuit
filed in 1997 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania.  Between 1995 and 1997, GLS purchased from Allegheny
County delinquent county property tax receivables for properties
located in the County.  The plaintiffs in the matter have alleged
that GLS improperly recovered or sought recovery for certain
attorneys' fees expenses associated with the forced collection of
delinquent property tax receivables.   The Court granted class
action status in August 2007.  Throughout the course of the
litigation, the Court has dismissed all claims against GLS except
for the reasonableness of attorneys' fees charged by GLS in
connection with the collection of the delinquent property tax
receivables which were permitted to be assessed under the
Municipal Claims and Tax Lien Act and set by ordinance approved by
the County Council for the County of Allegheny.   Specifically,
the Court has allowed the pursuit by the named plaintiffs on
behalf of the certified class of the claim that the ordinance(s)
adopted by the County of Allegheny, set forth in the ordinance and
used by GLS for certain legal work are unreasonable.  Plaintiffs
have not enumerated their damages in the matter.

No further update were reported in Dynex's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Dynex Capital, Inc., is an internally-managed real estate
investment trust, or REIT, which invests in mortgage assets on a
leveraged basis.  The Company was formed in 1987 and commenced
operations in 1988.  Since 200, the Company has been an investor
in mortgage-backed securities ("MBS"), and is no longer
originating or securitizing mortgage loans.


EL PASO CORP: Appeal From Dismissal of "Tomlinson" Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2004, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Tomlinson, et al. v. El Paso Corporation and El Paso Corporation
Pension Plan was filed in U.S. District Court for Denver,
Colorado.  The lawsuit alleges various violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act and the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act as a result of the Company's change from a final
average earnings formula pension plan to a cash balance pension
plan.  In 2010, a trial court dismissed all of the claims in this
matter.  The dismissal of the case has been appealed.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 9, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.


FAIR ISAAC: Appeals From Braun IPO Suit Settlement Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the order approving the settlement of a class action
lawsuit against Braun Consulting, Inc., an affiliate of Fair Isaac
Corp., remain pending, according to Fair Isaac's May 10, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Braun, which Fair Isaac acquired in November 2004, was a defendant
in a lawsuit filed on November 26, 2001, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 01
CV 10629) that alleges violations of federal securities laws in
connection with Braun's initial public offering in August 1999.
This lawsuit is among approximately 300 coordinated putative class
actions against certain issuers, their officers and directors, and
underwriters with respect to such issuers' initial public
offerings. As successor-in-interest to Braun, Fair Isaac entered
into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement along with most of
the other defendant issuers in this coordinated litigation, where
such issuers and their officers and directors would be dismissed
with prejudice, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions,
including approval of the Court. Under the terms of this
Agreement, Fair Isaac would not pay any amount of the settlement.
However, since December 2006, certain procedural matters
concerning the class status have been decided in the district and
appellate courts of the Second Circuit, ultimately determining
that no class status exists for the plaintiffs. Since there is no
class status, there could be no agreement, thus the District Court
entered an order formally denying the motion for final approval of
the settlement agreement.

On April 2, 2009, a stipulation and agreement of settlement
between the plaintiffs, issuer defendants and underwriter
defendants was submitted to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York for preliminary approval. This
settlement requires no financial contribution from Fair Isaac.
The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval
and preliminarily certified the settlement classes on June 10,
2009. The settlement "fairness" hearing was held on September 10,
2009. The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for final approval
of the settlement and certified the settlement classes on
October 5, 2009. The Court determined that the settlement is fair
to the class members, approved the settlement and dismissed, with
prejudice, the case against the Company and its individual
defendants. Notices of appeal of the opinion granting final
approval have been filed. Due to the inherent uncertainties of
litigation and because the settlement remains subject to appeal,
the ultimate outcome of the matter is uncertain.

Incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, Fair Isaac
Corporation ("FICO") is a provider of analytic, software and data
management products and services that enable businesses to
automate, improve and connect decisions.  FICO provides a range of
analytical solutions, credit scoring and credit account management
products and services to banks, credit reporting agencies, credit
card processing agencies, insurers, retailers and healthcare
organizations.


FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: Awaits Appointment of Lead Plaintiff
---------------------------------------------------------
FalconStor Software, Inc., is awaiting a federal court's
appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel in a consolidated
securities class action in New York, according to the Company's
May 10, 2011 Form 10-Q with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In October 2010, two purported securities class actions were filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of the
Company between February 5, 2009 and September 29, 2010. The two
Actions contain substantially similar allegations and causes of
actions. The complaint in each of the Actions name as defendants
the Company and ReiJane Huai, former president and chief executive
officer of the Company, as well as Wayne Lam an officer of the
Company and James Weber the Company's Chief Financial Officer and
interim Chief Operating Officer. The complaint in each of the
actions alleges that the defendants made a series of materially
false and misleading statements related to the Company's business
and operations in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The following adverse facts are alleged: (i) that the
Company was experiencing weak demand for its products and
services; (ii) that the Company was making improper payments to
secure a contract with at least one of its customers; and (iii) as
a result of the foregoing, the defendants lacked a reasonable
basis for their positive statements about the Company and its
prospects. The plaintiffs in each Action seek damages from the
defendants. On November 3, 2010, the Actions were consolidated
before Judge Edward R. Korman. Motions for the appointment of
"lead plaintiff" and for the approval of selection of "lead
counsel" have been filed in the Class Action. The Company
anticipates that following decisions on these motions, it will
receive an amended complaint.

The Company is thus unable to determine what claims will
ultimately be asserted in the Class Action.  In addition key
issues such as whether a class will be certified and, if so, who
the members of the class will be and what time period the class
will cover, have not yet been determined. The Company believes it
has meritorious defenses to some or all of the claims of the
Actions as filed and intends to file a motion to dismiss. The
Company is therefore unable to estimate reasonably its exposure
for the Class Action.

FalconStor Software, Inc. (NASDAQ: FALC) provides disk-based data
protection.


FBL FINANCIAL: Class Certification Plea in Harrington Due June 24
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The deadline for the plaintiff in Harrington v. EquiTrust Life
Insurance Company to file a motion for class certification is on
June 24, 2011, according to the Company's May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

The Company is currently a defendant in two purported class action
lawsuits against its subsidiary, EquiTrust Life Insurance Company,
alleging certain claims.  The Company believes that many of the
asserted claims will be defeated by dispositive motions.  Several
of the claims were eliminated from class certification in a ruling
certifying a class in one of the two pending cases.  The Company
says it remains optimistic that class certification will be
defeated in the other lawsuit.  However, courts have a great deal
of discretion in deciding whether to certify a class, and it is
impossible to accurately predict how the court will rule on such a
motion.  Other theories of potential liability may develop as
these cases progress.  This is especially true as plaintiffs
continue to alter their theories of liability during discovery.
Given these uncertainties, the Company says it is unable to make a
reliable evaluation of the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or
an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss to the extent
the matters proceed through litigation.  The Company does not
believe that these lawsuits will have a material adverse effect on
its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
However, the outcome of such matters is always uncertain, and
unforeseen results can occur.  It is possible that such outcomes
could materially affect net income in a particular quarter or
annual period.

The first case is Tabares v. EquiTrust Life Insurance Company,
filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on May 5, 2008.  Tabares is a
California class action on behalf of all persons who purchased
certain deferred index annuities from EquiTrust Life.  The
complaint asserts a sub-class of purchasers that were age 60 or
older at the time of purchasing those annuities from EquiTrust
Life.  Plaintiffs sought restitution and injunctive relief on
behalf of all class members, compensatory damages for breach of
contract, punitive and treble damages for common law fraud, and
declaratory relief.  Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
was heard on June 22, 2010.  On August 2, 2010, the trial court
issued an Order "Denying in Part and Granting in Part Class
Certification."  The Court denied certification on Plaintiffs'
core claims: for fraud and violation of the consumer protection
statute.  The Court did grant certification on the claims for
breach of contract (breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing) and declaratory relief.  This certification does not
represent a finding on the merits with respect to Plaintiffs'
claim, only that it meets the criteria for the establishment of a
class.  In addition, the Court dismissed the only class
representative of "senior" status and ordered the attorneys to
confer and draft a suitable notice to be sent to all class
members.  Plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider the August 2,
2010 ruling.  EquiTrust Life opposed that motion.  A brief hearing
was conducted and in January 2011, the Court denied Plaintiff's
motion but requested further briefing on a specific statutory
claim.  The parties have submitted those briefs and are awaiting a
hearing on the issue or the court's ruling.

The second case is Harrington v. EquiTrust Life Insurance Company,
filed in United States District Court, District of Arizona, on
January 12, 2009.  The original first named defendant, Mary Eller,
was voluntarily dismissed from the case in 2010.  This purported
national class action includes all persons who purchased EquiTrust
Life deferred index annuities, with one sub-class for all persons
age 65 and older that purchased an EquiTrust Life index annuity
contract with a maturity date beyond the annuitant's actuarial
life expectancy; and a 30-state sub-class under various consumer
protection and unfair insurance practices statutes.  Plaintiff
alleges causes of action for violation of the RICO statute,
violation of various state consumer protection and unfair
insurance practices statutes on behalf of the multistate class,
conspiracy, and unjust enrichment.  Plaintiff seeks compensatory
damages; treble damages; consequential and incidental damages;
punitive damages; equitable and injunctive relief including
restitution, disgorgement, a constructive trust and an equitable
lien; and attorneys' fees.  Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion
for class certification is June 24, 2011.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Discovery in FCRA Case Against eFunds Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in an amended class action complaint filed against
eFunds Corporation and its affiliate is ongoing, according to
Fidelity National Information Services Inc.'s May 6, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

eFunds is a wholly owned subsidiary of Fidelity National
Information Services, Inc.

A nationwide putative class action captioned Searcy, Gladys v.
eFunds Corporation was filed against eFunds and its affiliate
Deposit Payment Protection Services, Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois during the first
quarter of 2008.  The complaint seeks damages for an alleged
willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act in connection
with the operation of the Shared Check Authorization Network.
Plaintiff's principal allegation is that consumers did not receive
appropriate disclosures pursuant to Section 1681g of the FCRA
because the disclosures did not include: (i) all information in
the consumer's file at the time of the request; (ii) the source of
the information in the consumer's file; and/or (iii) the names of
any persons who requested information related to the consumer's
check writing history during the prior year.  Plaintiff filed a
motion for class certification which was granted with respect to
two subclasses during the first quarter of 2010.  The motion was
denied with respect to all other subclasses.  The Company filed a
motion for reconsideration.  The motion was granted and the two
subclasses were decertified.  The plaintiff also filed motions to
amend her complaint to add two additional plaintiffs to the
lawsuit.  The court granted the motions.

During the second quarter of 2010, the Company filed a motion for
summary judgment as to the original plaintiff and a motion for
sanctions against the plaintiff and her counsel based on
plaintiff's alleged false statements that were filed in support of
the motion for class certification.  In the third quarter of 2010,
the court denied the motion for summary judgment and granted in
part and denied in part the motion for sanctions.  The Company
filed a motion requesting the court to allow it to file an
interlocutory appeal on the order denying the motion for summary
judgment.  The court granted the motion, however, in the first
quarter of 2011, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied the
Company's petition for interlocutory appeal.  Discovery regarding
the new plaintiffs is ongoing.


FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Plaintiffs Appeal From ERISA Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs have appealed from an order dismissing their putative
class action alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act against Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., according to the
Company's May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

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 on March 31, 2011, the court granted the Company's motion and
dismissed the case.  The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal
of the court's decision.


FORCE PROTECTION: Plaintiffs Did Not Appeal Settlement Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 30-day time period to appeal from the order and final judgment
approving the settlement in the consolidated class action lawsuit
against Force Protection, Inc., has expired with no appeal being
filed, according to the Company's May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

On March 10, 2008, the first of ten related class action lawsuits
was filed against the Company and certain of its former and
current directors and officers in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina, Charleston Division, on behalf of a
purported class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's stock during the period between August 14, 2006 and
February 29, 2008.  The complaints sought class certification, and
the allegations include, but are not limited to, that the
defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and made
false or misleading public statements and/or omissions concerning
the Company's business, internal controls, and financial results.
The individual class action lawsuits were consolidated on June 10,
2008, under the caption In Re Force Protection, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Action No. 2:08-cv-845-CWH (Securities Class Action).
The parties to the Securities Class Action filed a stipulation of
settlement on September 27, 2010 calling for payment of $24
million to the settlement class.  Following a hearing on
January 25, 2011, the Court issued an Order and Final Judgment
approving the settlement on March 8, 2011.  The thirty-day time
period for appealing the Order and Final Judgment has expired with
no appeal having been filed.

Neither the Company nor any of its present and former directors
and officers has admitted any wrongdoing or liability in
connection with these settlements.  Additionally, each settlement
provides that the parties have reached a mutually agreeable
resolution of the case to avoid protracted and expensive
litigation, including the outcome and risks associated with
proceeding.  In connection with the shareholder class action and
federal derivative action settlements, the Company recorded an
$8.5 million charge to General and administrative expenses in the
third quarter of 2010.  As of March 31, 2011 and December 31,
2010, the Company recorded a $24.0 million asset within Other
current assets in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet,
reflecting the escrow account that relates to the class action
settlement.  In addition, the Company recorded a $24.0 million
litigation reserve for the class action settlement, which is
included in Other current liabilities in the accompanying
consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2011 and December 31,
2010.  Furthermore, the Company have established an asset account
and a liability account based on management's estimates and
beliefs, to address certain litigation-related matters.


GENON ENERGY: Court OKs Settlement in Mirant Merger Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, gave final approval
to a settlement, and awarded $555,000 of attorneys' fees and
expenses to plaintiffs' counsel, in the consolidated shareholder
lawsuit relating to the merger of GenOn Energy, Inc., and Mirant
Corporation, according to the Company's May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In April 2010, GenOn Energy, Inc., previously known as RRI Energy
Inc., Mirant Corporation and the members of the Mirant board of
directors were named as defendants in four purported class action
lawsuits filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia,
brought in connection with the merger of RRI Energy and Mirant on
behalf of proposed classes consisting of holders of Mirant common
stock, excluding the defendants and their affiliates: Rosenbloom
v. Cason, et al., No. 2010CV184223, filed April 13, 2010; The
Vladmir Gusinsky Living Trust v. Muller, et al., No. 2010CV184331,
filed April 15, 2010; Ng v. Muller, et al., No. 2010CV184449,
filed April 16, 2010; and Bayne v. Muller, et al., No.
2010CV184648, filed April 21, 2010.  The complaints allege, among
other things, that the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to maximize the value to be received
by Mirant's public stockholders and that the other defendants
aided and abetted the individual defendants' breaches of fiduciary
duties.  In three of the actions, amended complaints were filed
adding allegations that defendants breached their fiduciary duties
by failing to disclose certain information in the preliminary
joint proxy statement/prospectus related to the Merger.  The
complaints seek, among other things, rescission of the merger
and/or granting the class members any profits or benefits
allegedly improperly received by defendants in connection with the
Merger.

In August 2010, the court entered an order, consented to by all
parties, consolidating the four cases under the caption In re
Mirant Corporation Shareholder Litigation, No. 2010CV184223,
directing that the amended complaint in Rosenbloom v. Cason, et
al., No. 2010CV1c824223, serve as the operative complaint, and
appointing co-lead counsel.  In January 2011, the parties entered
into a settlement agreement that, upon final approval by the
court, would dismiss the actions.  The settlement was based on the
inclusion of additional disclosures in the Form S-4 filed with the
SEC on September 13, 2010.  On April 15, 2011, the court gave
final approval to the settlement and awarded $555,000 of
attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel.


GENON ENERGY: Remains a Defendant in Natural Gas Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
GenOn Energy, Inc., is a party to five lawsuits, several of which
are class action lawsuits, in state and federal courts in Kansas,
Missouri, Nevada and Wisconsin.  These lawsuits were filed in the
aftermath of the California energy crisis and the resulting
investigations by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and
relate to alleged conduct to increase natural gas prices in
violation of antitrust and similar laws.  The lawsuits seek treble
or punitive damages, restitution and/or expenses.  The lawsuits
also name a number of unaffiliated energy companies as parties.
The Company has agreed to indemnify CenterPoint Energy Inc.
against certain losses relating to these lawsuits.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 9, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.


GENTIVA HEALTH: Continues to Defend "Rindfleisch" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Gentiva Health Services, Inc., continues to defend itself against
a class action lawsuit filed by Lisa Rindfleisch, according to the
Company's May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

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.  On April 13, 2011, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion
for conditional certification of the action as a collective
action.  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.

Given the preliminary stage of the Rindfleisch lawsuit, the
Company says it is unable to assess the probable outcome or
potential liability, if any, arising from these proceedings.  The
Company intends to defend itself vigorously in these lawsuits.


GENTIVA HEALTH: Continues to Defend "Wilkie" Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gentiva Health Services, Inc., continues to defend itself from a
class action lawsuit commenced by Catherine Wilkie in California,
according to the Company's May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

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.

Given the preliminary stage of the Wilkie lawsuit, the Company
says it is unable to assess the probable outcome or potential
liability, if any, arising from these proceedings.  The Company
intends to defend itself vigorously in these lawsuits.


GENTIVA HEALTH: Remains a Defendant in Merger-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gentiva Health Services, Inc., remains a defendant in three class
action lawsuits filed in connection with its acquisition of
Odyssey HealthCare, Inc., according to the Company's May 9, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Three putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection
with the Company's acquisition of Odyssey HealthCare, Inc.  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 says it is unable to assess the probable outcome or
potential liability, if any, arising from these matters.


GENTIVA HEALTH: Continues to Defend "Endress" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Gentiva Health Services, Inc., and the other defendants in the
putative shareholder class action lawsuit captioned Endress v.
Gentiva Health Services, Inc. et al., have not yet filed their
response to that complaint, according to the Company's May 9,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

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 ("HH PPS").  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 says it 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.


GMX RESOURCES: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit in Okla.
------------------------------------------------------------------
GMX Resources Inc. continues to defend itself against a
stockholder class action initiated in Oklahoma, according to the
Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

A putative class action lawsuit was filed by purported
stockholders of the Northumberland County Retirement System and
Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System in the District Court
in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, purportedly on March 10, 2011,
against the Company and certain of its officers along with certain
underwriters of the Company's July 2008, May 2009 and October 2009
public offerings.  Discovery requests and summons were filed and
issued, respectively, on April 21, 2011.  The complaint alleges
that the registration statement and the prospectus for the
offering contained material misstatements and omissions and
seeking damages under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 of an unspecified amount and rescission.  The Company is
currently unable to assess the probability of loss or estimate a
range of potential loss, if any, associated with the securities
class action case, which is at an early stage.

GMX Resources Inc. and its subsidiaries is an independent oil and
natural gas exploration and production company historically
focused on the development of the Cotton Valley group of
formations, specifically the Cotton Valley Sands layer in the
Schuler formation and the Upper Bossier, Middle Bossier and
Haynesville/Lower Bossier layers of the Bossier formation, in the
Sabine Uplift of the Carthage, North Field of Harrison and Panola
counties of East Texas.


HYPERCOM CORP: Signs MOU to Settle Suits Over VeriFone Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Commencing shortly after VeriFone Systems Inc. publicly announced
on September 30, 2010, that it had made an offer to acquire
Hypercom Corporation and continuing following the announcement by
the Company and VeriFone on November 17, 2010, that the Company
had entered into a definitive merger agreement, certain putative
class action lawsuits were filed in Arizona and Delaware state
courts alleging variously, among other things, that the board of
directors of Hypercom breached its fiduciary duties in connection
with the merger and that VeriFone, Honey Acquisition Co.,
Hypercom, FP Hypercom Holdco, LLC, and Francisco Partners II, L.P.
aided and abetted that alleged breach.  These actions include:
Gerber v. Hypercom, Delaware Court of Chancery, Case no. CA5868;
Anarkat v. Hypercom, Maricopa County Superior Court, CV2010-
032482; Small v. Hypercom Corporation, Delaware Court of Chancery,
Case no. CA6031; Grayson v. Hypercom Corporation, Delaware Court
of Chancery, Case no. CA6044; and The Silverstein Living Trust v.
Hypercom Corporation, Maricopa County Superior Court, Case no.
CV2010-030941.  The Anarkat and Silverstein cases have been
consolidated in Maricopa County Superior Court as In Re Hypercom
Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. CV2010-032482,
and the Small and Grayson cases have been consolidated in the
Delaware Court of Chancery as In Re Hypercom Corporation
Shareholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 6031-VCL.  The
Gerber case is dormant as the plaintiffs in that case have not
prosecuted it since it was filed.

On February 14, 2011, counsel for the plaintiffs and defendants in
the Actions executed a Memorandum of Understanding pursuant to
which (i) the Company provided additional disclosures recommended
by the plaintiffs to supplement its proxy statement filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, (ii) the defendants agreed to
provide plaintiffs' counsel with reasonable confirmatory discovery
regarding the fairness and adequacy of the settlement and the
additional disclosures, and (iii) the parties agreed to use their
best efforts to execute and present to the court a formal
stipulation of settlement within 45 days seeking court approval of
(a) the settlement and dismissal of the Actions with prejudice,
(b) the stay of all proceedings in the Actions, (c) the
conditional certification of the Actions as a class action under
Arizona law, (d) the release of all claims against the parties,
(e) the defendants' payment of $510,000 to the plaintiffs' counsel
for their fees and expenses, (f) the defendants' responsibility
for providing notice of the settlement to members of the class,
and (g) the dismissal of the Delaware actions following the
court's final approval of the settlement.

While the defendants deny that they have committed any violations
of law or breaches of duties to the plaintiffs, the class or
anyone else, and believe that their disclosures in the proxy
statement regarding the merger were appropriate and adequate under
applicable law, the defendants are entering into the settlement
solely to eliminate the uncertainty, distraction, burden and
expense of further litigation and to lessen the risk of any delay
of the closing of the merger as a result of the litigation.  The
defendants have agreed that the payment to the plaintiffs' counsel
will be jointly funded equally by VeriFone and the carrier of
Hypercom's directors and officers liability insurance policy,
while the Company will bear the cost of the $250,000 deductible
amount under the insurance policy.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 9, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.


IBERIABANK CORP: Continues to Defend "Eivet" Suit in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
IBERIABANK Corporation and its subsidiary continue to defend
themselves in a putative class action relating to the imposition
of overdraft fees captioned Eivet v. IBERIABANK in Florida,
according to the Company's May 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

IBERIABANK and the Company have been named as defendants in a
putative class action relating to the imposition of overdraft fees
on customer accounts.  Eivet v. IBERIABANK, is pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
and presently bears Case No. 1:10-CV-23790-JLK. The case was
originally filed in Florida and in October 2010 was transferred to
the Southern District of Florida for coordinated pre-trial
proceedings as part of a multi-district litigation involving
numerous defendant banks, In re Checking Account Overdraft
Litigation, Case No. 09-MD-02036-JLK. Plaintiff challenges
IBERIABANK's practices relating to the imposition of overdraft
fees and non-sufficient fund fees on consumer checking accounts.
Plaintiff alleges that IBERIABANK's methodology for posting
transactions to customer accounts is designed to maximize the
generation of overdraft fees and brings claims for breach of
contract and of a covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment and violations of
state unfair trade practices laws. Plaintiff seeks a range of
remedies, including restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief,
punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

IBERIABANK Corporation offers commercial and retail banking
products and services to customers in locations in six states
through IBERIABANK.


IBERIABANK CORP: Continues to Defend "Sachar" Suit in Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
IBERIABANK Corporation and its subsidiary continue to defend
themselves in a putative class action relating to the imposition
of overdraft fees captioned Sachar v. IBERIABANK Corporation in
Arkansas, according to the Company's May 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

IBERIABANK and the Company have been named as defendants in a
putative class action relating to the imposition of overdraft fees
on customer accounts.  Sachar v. IBERIABANK Corporation, Case No.
60CV2011-0770, was filed in Pulaski County, Arkansas Circuit Court
on February 18, 2011. Plaintiff asserts that IBERIABANK
Corporation engaged in the practice of re-sequencing customers'
accounts in high-to-low order by posting the largest transactions
first and the smallest transactions last which is alleged to
increase the number of overdraft fees. The complaint seeks damages
for allegedly deceptive trade practices under Arkansas state law,
for breach of contract, for unjust enrichment, for conversion, and
for injunctive relief.

IBERIABANK Corporation offers commercial and retail banking
products and services to customers in locations in six states
through IBERIABANK.


INSMED INC: Continues to Defend Class Suit Over Transave Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Insmed Incorporated continues to defend itself against a class
action over the Company's merger deal with Transave Inc., the
Company disclosed in its May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

The purported class action was commenced on February 24, 2011,
against the Company, its subsidiary Transave LLC, Transave Inc.,
its directors and the former directors of Transave, captioned
Mackinson et al. v. Insmed Incorporated et al., C.A. No. 6216,
seeking a quasi-appraisal remedy for alleged violations of
Delaware's appraisal statute and the fiduciary duty of disclosure
in connection with the merger consummated pursuant to that certain
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of December 1, 2010, by and
among Insmed Incorporated, River Acquisition Co., Transave, LLC,
Transave and TVM V Life Science Ventures GmbH & Co. KG, in its
capacity as stockholders' agent.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend the action.  It
is not possible at this time to estimate the amount of loss or
range of possible loss, if any, that might result from an adverse
resolution of the action, the Company states.

Insmed Inc. -- http://www.insmed.com/-- is a biopharmaceutical
company.


INTERNET CAPITAL: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
The completion of briefing on the two remaining appeals from the
approval of the settlement in the consolidated class action
lawsuit against Internet Capital Group, Inc., will await
resolution of a motion to dismiss the appeal filed by Theodore
Bechtold, according to the Company's May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

In May and June 2001, certain of ICG's present directors, along
with ICG, certain of its former directors, certain of its present
and former officers and its underwriters, were named as defendants
in nine class action complaints filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
plaintiffs and the putative classes they seek to represent include
present and former stockholders of the ICG.  The complaints
generally allege violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
under the Exchange Act, based on, among other things, the
dissemination of statements allegedly containing material
misstatements and/or omissions concerning the commissions received
by the underwriters of the initial public offering and follow-on
public offering of ICG as well as failure to disclose the
existence of purported agreements by the underwriters with some of
the purchasers in these offerings to buy additional shares of
ICG's stock subsequently in the open market at pre-determined
prices above the initial offering prices.  The plaintiffs seek for
themselves and the alleged class members an award of damages and
litigation costs and expenses.  The claims in these cases have
been consolidated for pre-trial purposes (together with claims
against other issuers and underwriters) before one judge in the
Southern District of New York federal court.  In April 2002, a
consolidated, amended complaint was filed against these defendants
which generally alleges the same violations and also refers to
alleged misstatements or omissions that relate to the
recommendations regarding ICG's stock by analysts employed by the
underwriters.  In June and July 2002, defendants, including ICG
defendants, filed motions to dismiss plaintiffs' complaints on
numerous grounds.  ICG's motion was denied in its entirety in an
opinion dated February 19, 2003.  In July 2003, a committee of
ICG's Board of Directors approved a proposed settlement with the
plaintiffs in this matter, which was preliminarily approved by the
District Court overseeing the litigation in February 2005.  A
final fairness hearing on the settlement was held on April 24,
2006.  On December 5, 2006, however, the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed the certification of plaintiff classes in six
actions related to other issuers that had been designated as test
cases with respect to the non-settling defendants in those matters
(the "Focus Cases") and made other rulings that drew into question
the legal viability of the claims in the Focus Cases.  The Court
of Appeals later rejected the plaintiffs' request that it
reconsider that decision.  As a result, on June 25, 2007, the
District Court approved a stipulation and order terminating the
proposed settlement.  While the Court of Appeals decision did not
automatically apply to the case against ICG, the defendants moved
for, and the Court granted, an order that would apply the decision
to all cases, including the consolidated action against ICG.  On
August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an amended "master"
complaint containing allegations purportedly common to all
defendants in all actions and filed amended complaints containing
specific allegations against the six issuer defendants in the
Focus Cases.  In addition, on September 27, 2007, the plaintiffs
again moved to certify classes in each of the Focus Cases.  The
defendants in the Focus Cases moved to dismiss the amended
complaints.  Rulings on both the motion to certify the Focus Cases
as class actions and to dismiss those cases remain outstanding.
The District Court has approved a stipulation extending the time
within which the plaintiffs must file amended pleadings containing
specific allegations against the other issuer defendants,
including ICG, and the time within which those defendants must
move, answer or otherwise respond to those specific allegations.

On April 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of a proposed global settlement of all claims asserted in
the coordinated class action securities litigation on behalf of
the class plaintiffs in the respective actions against the various
issuer and underwriter defendants, including all claims asserted
against ICG.  The motion further seeks certification of settlement
classes as to each action against the defendants, including ICG.
ICG has assented to the proposed settlement, which does not
require any monetary contribution from ICG and would be funded by
various underwriter defendants and the defendants' insurers.  On
June 10, 2009, the District Court granted preliminary approval of
the proposed settlement and of the form of notice of the proposed
settlement to be provided to members of the proposed settlement
class.  The District Court scheduled a hearing for September 10,
2009 to determine whether to approve the proposed settlement.

The final hearing was held on September 10, 2009. On October 5,
2009, the District Court granted final approval of the proposed
global settlement, subject to the rights of the parties to appeal
the settlement within 30 days of such approval.  Pursuant to the
terms of the approved settlement, ICG is not required to make any
monetary contribution to fund the required settlement payments,
which are being funded by various underwriter defendants and the
defendants' insurers.

On or about October 23, 2009, three members of the settlement
class who had been shareholders of an issuer other than ICG filed
a petition seeking leave to appeal the District Court's final
approval to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on an
interlocutory basis.  No judicial ruling or action has been taken
on the motion.  On or before November 6, 2009, three notices of
appeal were filed with respect to the District Court's order
granting final approval of the global settlement.  On December 14,
2009, the District Court entered a final judgment approving and
giving effect to the global settlement as it related to the
consolidated actions against ICG.  The final judgment created a
settlement class of plaintiffs comprised of persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired the common stock and call options of ICG
during the period of August 4, 1999 through December 6, 2000,
provided for the distribution of settlement proceeds to the
members of the class and approval of attorneys' fees to class
counsel consistent with the terms of the global settlement, barred
prosecution of all settled claims by members of the class and
their representatives, released the defendants and other protected
persons from such claims and dismissed all claims against ICG and
other defendants in the consolidated amended action with
prejudice.

The appeals referenced in the November 6, 2009 notices of appeal
have been docketed in the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
By order dated April 7, 2010, the District Court directed that the
appealing class members identify the specific class, by company,
to which they purport to belong.  The District Court's order
further directed the clerk of the court to enter the appealing
class members' notices of appeal only in those cases as to which
the appealing class members identify themselves as members of the
class certified.  No such notice of appeal has been entered in the
action against ICG.  Separately, on June 17, 2010, the District
Court entered an order requiring the appellants to post a bond in
the amount of $25,000, jointly and severally, as a condition of
pursuing their appeals from the October 5, 2009 order approving
the global settlement.  The bond was posted and a briefing
schedule with respect to the appeals was set.  The distribution of
settlement proceeds is currently being held in abeyance.

Since September 2010, four of the six individuals or groups that
filed appeals from the class settlement have dropped their
appeals, leaving two, a pro se appeal by James Hayes and an appeal
filed by Theodore Bechtold, an attorney filing on his own behalf.
Each filed opening briefs challenging the settlement and/or class
certification on a variety of grounds.  Responsive briefs from the
appellees were due to be filed by December 17, 2010.  On December
8, 2010, however, the plaintiff-appellees (class counsel defending
the class settlement) moved to dismiss the Bechtold appeal on a
variety of technical grounds.  That motion is still pending before
the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  Its filing suspended
the date by which the responsive briefs in both appeals were to be
filed.  Accordingly, completion of briefing on the two remaining
appeals will await resolution of the motion to dismiss Mr.
Bechtold's appeal.


K-SEA TRANSPORTATION: Faces Nine Class Suits Over Kirby Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
K-Sea Transportation Partners L.P. is facing nine class action
lawsuits in connection with its proposed merger with Kirby
Corporation, according to the Company's May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On March 13, 2011, K-Sea Transportation Partners L.P., its general
partner, K-Sea General Partner L.P., K-Sea IDR Holdings LLC, a
wholly owned subsidiary of GP which owns the incentive
distribution rights in the Company, and K-Sea General Partner GP
LLC, the sole general partner of GP, entered into a definitive
merger agreement with Kirby Corporation and certain wholly owned
subsidiaries of Kirby, including KSP Merger Sub, LLC.

As of April 28, 2011, nine class action complaints have been filed
in connection with the proposed Merger.  Five of these complaints
were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, all
of which have been consolidated into one action.  Four complaints
were filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey; however, the first
filed complaint in New Jersey was subsequently withdrawn.  These
complaints generally allege, among other things, that the Company,
GP, GP LLC, IDR Holdings, Kirby, Merger Sub and the directors of
GP LLC have either breached their fiduciary duties and/or aided
and abetted in these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in
connection with the proposed Merger.  The complaints seek to
enjoin the proposed Merger or, alternatively, if the Merger is
consummated, to rescind the Merger or to obtain rescissory
damages.

The Company says it cannot predict the outcome of these or any
other lawsuits that might be filed subsequent to the date of the
filing of this report, nor can it predict the amount of time and
expense that will be required to resolve these lawsuits.  The
Company says it intends to vigorously defend against these and any
other actions.


KENEXA CORP: Court Concludes Class Action Suit in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against Kenexa Corporation was
concluded in favor of the Company following the plaintiffs'
failure to timely appeal dismissal of the case, according to the
Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2011.

On June 11, 2009 and July 16, 2009, two putative class actions
were filed against Kenexa Corporation and its Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, purportedly on
behalf of a class of investors who purchased its publicly traded
securities between May 8, 2007, and November 7, 2007.  The
complaint filed on July 16, 2009, has since been voluntarily
dismissed.  On September 28, 2010, the court granted Kenexa's
motion to dismiss the complaint filed on June 11, 2009, in its
entirety.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of
the court's decision on October 12, 2010, which was denied by the
court on November 29, 2010.  The plaintiffs failed to file a
timely appeal, and, as a result, the actions were concluded in
Kenexa's favor.


KFORCE INC: Awaits Final Approval of Calif. Class Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kforce Inc. is awaiting final court approval of its settlement of
a California class action, which hearing is scheduled for May
2011, according to the Company's May 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

As disclosed in the Company's previous filings with the SEC,
Kforce is a defendant in a California class action lawsuit
alleging misclassification of California Account Managers and
seeking unspecified damages.  The tentative settlement referred to
in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2010, has been preliminarily approved by the Court in
the amount of $2,526, which has been recorded within accounts
payable and other accrued liabilities in the accompanying
unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets.  A hearing on the
final approval is scheduled to take place in May 2011.  The
Company cannot provide any assurance that the Court will grant its
final approval of this settlement.

Kforce (Nasdaq:KFRC) -- http://www.kforce.com/-- is a
professional staffing and solutions firm providing flexible and
permanent staffing solutions in the areas of technology, finance &
accounting, and health and life sciences.  Kforce operates with 64
offices located throughout the United States and two offices in
the Philippines.


KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Continues to Defend Wage & Hour Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Knight Transportation, Inc., continues to be involved in certain
class action litigation in which the plaintiffs allege claims for
failure to provide meal and rest breaks, unpaid wages,
unauthorized deductions, and other items, according to the
Company's May 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Based on its knowledge of the facts and advice of outside counsel,
management does not believe the outcome of this litigation is
likely to have a materially adverse effect on the Company.
However, the final disposition of these matters and the impact of
such final dispositions cannot be determined at this time.

Knight Transportation, Inc., is provider of multiple truckload
transportation services, which generally involve the movement of
full trailer loads of freight from origin to destination for a
single customer without intermediate stops or handling.


LEXMARK INT'L: Appeal From $8.3MM Award in "Molina" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lexmark International, Inc.'s appeal from a trial court's award of
approximately $8.3 million in damages to plaintiffs in the class
action lawsuit captioned Molina v. Lexmark remains pending,
according to the Company's May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

On August 31, 2005 former Company employee Ron Molina filed a
class action lawsuit in the California Superior Court for Los
Angeles under a California employment statute which in effect
prohibits the forfeiture of vacation time accrued.  This statute
has been used to invalidate California employers' "use or lose"
vacation policies.  The class is comprised of less than 200
current and former California employees of the Company.  The trial
was bifurcated into a liability phase and a damages phase.  On May
1, 2009, the trial court Judge brought the liability phase to a
conclusion with a ruling that the Company's vacation and personal
choice day's policies from 1991 to the present violated California
law.  In a Statement of Decision, received by the Company on
August 27, 2010, the trial court Judge awarded the class members
approximately $8.3 million in damages which included waiting time
penalties and interest but did not include post judgment interest,
costs and attorneys' fees.  On November 17, 2010, the trial court
Judge partially granted the Company's motion for a new trial
solely as to the argument that current employees are not entitled
to any damages.  On March 7, 2011 the trial court Judge reduced
the original award to $7.8 million.

The Company filed a notice of appeal with the California Court of
Appeals objecting to the trial court Judge's award on
September 30, 2010.  The appeal is pending.

The Company believes an unfavorable outcome in the matter is
probable.  The range of potential loss related to this matter is
subject to a high degree of estimation.  In accordance with U.S.
GAAP, if the reasonable estimate of a probable loss is a range and
no amount within the range is a better estimate, the minimum
amount of the range is accrued.  The Company has reserved a total
of $1.8 million including attorney fees for estimated damages in
the matter.  The amount recorded represents an estimate at the
minimum amount of the range.  At the high end of the range, the
class has sought approximately $16.7 million, the highest
forfeiture amount asserted by the class' expert based on an
assumption that none of the California employees ever used any of
their accrued vacation or personal choice days and this $16.7
million amount does not include post judgment interest, costs and
attorneys' fees which also may be assessed against the Company.


LIONBRIDGE TECH: Appeals in "Samet" Class Suit Remain Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
On or about 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 further updates were reported in the Company's May 9, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.  The Company says the
litigation process is inherently uncertain and unpredictable,
however, and there can be no guarantee as to the ultimate outcome
of this pending lawsuit.  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.  The Company says it does not expect any liability from
these proceedings, if any, to have a material adverse effect on
its financial position, results of operations or liquidity.


LORAL SPACE: Awaits Appeal From Plaintiffs in Consolidated Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Unless plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action
lawsuit against Loral Space & Communications Inc. successfully
appeal to the United States Supreme Court within the applicable
time period for filing an appeal and prevail on that appeal, the
Company says in its May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011, that it would not incur any liability in connection with the
case.

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 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
District Court granted defendant's motion and denied plaintiffs'
cross motion.  In March 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
with respect to the District Court's decision.  Pursuant to
stipulations entered into in February, May, July, August and
October 2010 among the parties and the plaintiffs in the lawsuit
filed by Tony Christ, 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, and, in
April 2011, the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the
District Court.  As a result of this decision, unless plaintiffs
successfully appeal to the United States Supreme Court within the
applicable time period for filing such an appeal and prevail on
such an appeal, Loral will not incur any liability as a result of
this case.

                           Christ Case

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 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 the Beleson decision, 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.


MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Sheriff Fights Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fox News Latino reports that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's
lawyers are fighting a move by Latino plaintiffs to get class-
action status for their discrimination suit against his office.

Attorneys for the office of Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County
in Arizona say a lawsuit claiming that Hispanics were profiled by
the law enforcement agency should not be granted class-action
status.

The attorneys want the judge to either deny or postpone his ruling
on a request for class-action status in the lawsuit, which was
filed by a group of Latinos whose lawyers say should cover
thousands of Hispanics who allege they have been discriminated
against by Mr. Arpaio's office.

Tim Casey, Esq., an attorney representing the sheriff's office,
asks U.S. District Judge Murray Snow to hold off on ruling on the
class-action request until other issues are resolved in the case.

Mr. Casey also suggests that the judge deny the request because he
says those who filed the lawsuit haven't met the criteria for
winning class-action status.


MARSHALL & ILSLEY: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Wis.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marshall & Ilsley Corporation continues to defend itself in a
consolidated putative class action lawsuit before a state court in
Wisconsin, according to the Company's May 10, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On December 17, 2010, the Corporation and BMO Financial Group
("BMO" or "Bank of Montreal") announced that they had entered into
a definitive merger agreement under which BMO will acquire all
outstanding shares of common stock of the Corporation in a stock-
for-stock transaction.  The transaction, which has been approved
by the Corporation's Board of Directors and the Board of Directors
of BMO, is expected to close prior to July 31, 2011 subject to
customary closing conditions, including regulatory approvals and
approval by the Corporation's shareholders.

Eight putative class action complaints have been filed in the
Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin against the
Corporation, its directors, and BMO challenging the merger:
Berens v. Marshall & Ilsley Corp., et al., Case No. 10CV021273
(filed Dec. 20, 2010); Ohlgart v. Marshall & Ilsley Corp., et al.,
Case No. 10CV021485 (filed Dec. 22, 2010); Sayeg v. Marshall &
Ilsley Corp., et al., Case No. 10CV021622 (filed Dec. 22, 2010);
Schindler v. Marshall & Ilsley Corp., et al., Case No. 10CV021528
(filed Dec. 27, 2010); Stadler v. Marshall & Ilsley Corp., et al.,
Case No. 10CV021676 (filed Dec. 28, 2010); Onwudebe v. Marshall &
Ilsley Corp., et al., Case No. 10CV021742 (filed Dec. 28, 2010);
Anthony v. Marshall & Ilsley Corp., et al., Case No. 11CV000338
(filed Jan. 6, 2011); and Drummond v. Marshall & Ilsley Corp., et
al., Case No. 11CV000380 (filed Jan. 7, 2011).  Each of these
complaints names the Company and the members of its board of
directors as defendants and alleges that the Company's s directors
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders by
approving the merger following a flawed process that resulted in
an unfair price to the Corporation's shareholders.  The complaints
also variously allege that the directors approved provisions in
the merger agreement and the related stock option agreement that
constitute impermissible deal protection devices and that certain
officers and directors of the Corporation will receive personal
benefits from the merger not shared in by other shareholders of
the Corporation.  Each of the complaints except the Onwudebe
action also names BMO as a defendant and alleges that BMO aided
and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duty.  In addition,
the Anthony action names Gregory A. Smith, the Company's Senior
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, as a defendant and
alleges that Mr. Smith breached fiduciary duties to the Company's
shareholders.  On February 10, 2011, the Schindler and Sayeg
plaintiffs filed amended complaints, and on February 14, 2011, the
Berens plaintiff filed an amended complaint.  The amended
complaints all add allegations that the registration statement on
Form F-4 in connection with the pending merger contains materially
misleading misrepresentations and/or omissions.  On April 6, 2011,
the Wisconsin state court issued its order to consolidate the
eight actions and appointed the counsel for the plaintiffs.

All the lawsuits seek, among other things, to enjoin completion of
the merger and an award of costs and attorneys' fees.  Certain of
the actions also seek the imposition of a constructive trust for
benefits allegedly improperly received by the defendants and/or an
accounting of damages sustained as a result of the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.

At this stage of the lawsuits, it is not possible for management
of the Corporation to assess the probability of a material adverse
outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any potential loss at
this time. The Corporation intends to vigorously defend these
lawsuits.

Marshall & Ilsley Corporation (NYSE: MI) is a diversified
financial services corporation headquartered in Milwaukee, Wis.
with $51.9 billion in assets.


MARSHALL & ILSLEY: "Folisi" Suit Remains Pending in Wisconsin
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two putative class actions consolidated into the case captioned
Folisi v. Marshall & Ilsley Corp., et al., remain pending before a
federal court in Wisconsin, according to the Company's May 10,
2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On December 17, 2010, the Corporation and BMO Financial Group
("BMO" or "Bank of Montreal") announced that they had entered into
a definitive merger agreement under which BMO will acquire all
outstanding shares of common stock of the Corporation in a stock-
for-stock transaction.  The transaction, which has been approved
by the Corporation's Board of Directors and the Board of Directors
of BMO, is expected to close prior to July 31, 2011 subject to
customary closing conditions, including regulatory approvals and
approval by the Corporation's shareholders.

Two putative class actions challenging the merger have also been
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Wisconsin: Fruchter v. Marshall & Ilsley Corp., et al., No.
10-cv-01157 (filed Dec. 22, 2010), and Folisi v. Marshall & Ilsley
Corp., et al., No. 11-cv-00025 (filed Jan. 11, 2011).  These
complaints allege that the Corporation and its directors breached
fiduciary duties to the Corporation's shareholders by approving
the merger following a flawed process that resulted in an unfair
price to the Company's shareholders and that the merger will
result in personal benefits to certain directors and officers of
the Company.  The complaints further allege that BMO aided and
abetted these alleged breaches.  On March 15, 2011, the federal
court consolidated the Fruchter and Folisi actions into a single
proceeding.  An amended complaint was filed in the Folisi action
on April 5, 2011 adding claims that allege inadequate disclosures
regarding the merger agreement, the transactions contemplated
thereby and the process leading up to the execution of the merger
agreement and in the preliminary prospectus/proxy statement that
are part of the registration statement on Form F-4.

All the lawsuits seek, among other things, to enjoin completion of
the merger and an award of costs and attorneys' fees.  Certain of
the actions also seek the imposition of a constructive trust for
benefits allegedly improperly received by the defendants and/or an
accounting of damages sustained as a result of the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.

At this stage of the lawsuits, it is not possible for management
of the Company to assess the probability of a material adverse
outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any potential loss at
this time. The Company intends to vigorously defend these
lawsuits.

Marshall & Ilsley Corporation (NYSE: MI) is a diversified
financial services corporation headquartered in Milwaukee, Wis.
with $51.9 billion in assets.


MARSHALL & ILSLEY: Continues to Defend ERISA Suit in Wisconsin
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marshall & Ilsley Corp. continues to defend itself in a
consolidated putative class action relating to its retirement
program, according to the Company's May 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

In April 2010, two substantially identical putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin against the Company, the M&I
Retirement Plan Investment Committee, and certain of the Company's
officers and directors.  The lawsuits were purportedly filed on
behalf of M&I Retirement Program, three other retirement savings
plans and a class of former and current participants in those
plans, relating to the holdings of the Company common stock during
the period from November 10, 2006 to December 17, 2009.  The
complaints, which were consolidated into a single complaint in
July 2010, allege breaches of fiduciary duties in violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) relating to
Corporation common stock being offered as an investment
alternative for participants in the retirement plans and seek
monetary damages.  At this early stage of the lawsuit, it is not
possible for management of the Company to assess the probability
of a material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of
any potential loss at this time. The Corporation intends to
vigorously defend this lawsuit.

Marshall & Ilsley Corporation (NYSE: MI) is a diversified
financial services corporation headquartered in Milwaukee, Wis.
with $51.9 billion in assets.


MARSHALL & ILSLEY: Awaits Decision on Appeal in Consumer Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marshall & Ilsley Corp.'s subsidiary is awaiting a ruling on its
appeal from an order denying arbitration in a putative class
action before a Florida court, according to the Company's May 10,
2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In June 2010, M&I Bank was named as a defendant in a putative
class action alleging that M&I Bank's posting of debit card
transactions is a breach of the implied obligation of good faith
and fair dealing, is a breach of the Wisconsin Consumer Act, is
unconscionable, constitutes conversion, and unjustly enriches the
Company. The plaintiffs allege that the daily high to low postings
of debit card entries, rather than chronological postings, results
in excessive overdraft fees.  The plaintiffs seek to represent a
nationwide class for all of the claims except that involving the
Wisconsin Consumer Act, for which it seeks to represent a class of
Wisconsin customers of M&I Bank. The lawsuit, while initially
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, has been transferred for pretrial purposes in a multi-
district litigation proceeding in the Southern District of
Florida, in which numerous other putative class actions against
financial institutions asserting similar claims are pending.  The
consolidation in the MDL is for pre-trial discovery and motion
proceedings.  M&I Bank filed a motion to compel the two plaintiffs
to arbitrate the dispute.  This motion was denied in an order
dated April 7, 2011, and M&I Bank has appealed the order.  At this
stage of the lawsuit, it is not possible for management of the
Company to assess the probability of a material adverse outcome or
reasonably estimate the amount of any potential loss at this time.
M&I Bank intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

Marshall & Ilsley Corporation (NYSE: MI) is a diversified
financial services corporation headquartered in Milwaukee, Wis.
with $51.9 billion in assets.


MATRIX SERVICE: Final Settlement Payment in Calif. Pay Suits Paid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matrix Service Company paid final payments settling class action
lawsuits filed in California over wage and hour laws, according to
the Company's May 3, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

On December 8, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County alleging that
Matrix Service Company's subsidiary, Matrix Service Inc., and any
subsidiary or affiliated company within the State of California
had a consistent policy of failing to pay overtime wages in
violation of California state wage and hour laws.  Specifically,
the lawsuit alleged that the Company was requiring employees to
work more than 8 hours per day and failing to compensate at a rate
of time and one-half, failing to pay double time for all hours
worked in excess of twelve in one day, and not paying all wages
due at termination.  The class sought all unpaid overtime
compensation, waiting time penalties, injunctive and equitable
relief and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.  The class
included approximately 1,500 current and former employees.

On September 1, 2009, a second class action lawsuit was filed in
the Superior Court of California, Alameda County also alleging
that MSI and Matrix Service Company failed to comply with
California state wage and hour laws.  The September 2009 Action
included similar allegations to the December 2008 Action but also
alleged that the Company did not provide second meal periods and
third rest periods for employees who worked more than 10 hours in
a day, complete and accurate itemized wage statements,
compensation for all compensable travel time, and did not take
bonus payments into account when calculating the regular wage
rate, leading to incorrect overtime rates.  The class sought all
allowable compensation, penalties for rest and meal periods not
provided, restitution and restoration of sums owed, statutory
penalties, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees
and costs.  The plaintiffs then amended the September 2009 Action
to assert damages under the Private Attorney General's Act.  The
September 2009 Action increased the class to approximately 2,300
current and former employees.

The cases were coordinated in Alameda County.  At the plaintiff's
request, mediation was held on September 7, 2010.  In mediation,
the parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding awarding the
plaintiffs $4.0 million.  The award was in addition to amounts
previously paid to the class members of $1.9 million.  The
September Settlement was subject to court approval and resolved
all class member claims included in the December 2008 Action and
the September 2009 Action.  The award was designated to pay the
class member claims, an enhancement award to the three named
plaintiffs, the cost of administration, and the class members'
attorneys' fees and costs.  As a result of these actions and the
related settlement, the Company recorded a cumulative charge of
$6.1 million, of which $5.1 million was recorded in fiscal 2010
and $1.0 million was recorded in fiscal 2009.  The fiscal 2010
charge included an estimate of the cost that will be incurred by
the Company for payroll taxes that will be paid in conjunction
with the September Settlement.

On January 20, 2011, the Company received final court approval of
the September Settlement.  Final payments of $4.1 million have
been made, which include $4.0 million deposited with the claim
administrator in December 2010 and $0.1 million for applicable
payroll taxes submitted in February 2011.


MBIA INC: 2008 Securities Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit commenced in 2008 against
MBIA, Inc., remains pending in New York.

On October 17, 2008, a consolidated amended class action complaint
in a separate shareholder class action lawsuit against the Company
and certain of its officers, In re MBIA Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 08-CV-264, (KMK) was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations
of the federal securities laws.  Lead plaintiff, the Teachers'
Retirement System of Oklahoma, seeks to represent a class of
shareholders who purchased MBIA stock between July 2, 2007 and
January 9, 2008.  The amended complaint alleges that defendants
MBIA Inc., Gary C. Dunton and C. Edward Chaplin violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Among
other things, the complaint alleges that defendants issued false
and misleading statements with respect to the Company's exposure
to CDOs containing RMBS, specifically its exposure to so-called
"CDO-squared" securities, which allegedly caused the Company's
stock to trade at inflated prices.  On April 30, 2010, plaintiffs
filed their Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.
The motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint filed on behalf of Messrs. Chaplin and Dunton was fully
briefed as of October 29, 2010.

No updates were reported in the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

MBIA provides financial guarantee insurance, as well as related
reinsurance, advisory and portfolio services, for the public and
structured finance markets, and asset management advisory
services, on a global basis.  The Company was incorporated as a
business corporation under the laws of the state of Connecticut in
1986.


MBIA INC: Continues to Defend 2005 Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
MBIA, Inc., continues to defend itself in a securities class
action initiated in 2005.

The Company was named as a defendant, along with certain of its
current and former officers, in private securities actions that
were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York as In re MBIA Inc. Securities Litigation;
(Case No. 05-CV-03514(LLS); S.D.N.Y.) (filed October 3, 2005).
The plaintiffs asserted claims under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The lead
plaintiffs purport to be acting as representatives for a class
consisting of purchasers of the Company's stock during the period
from August 5, 2003 to March 30, 2005.  The lawsuit asserts, among
other things, violations of the federal securities laws arising
out of the Company's allegedly false and misleading statements
about its financial condition and the nature of the arrangements
entered into by MBIA Corp. in connection with a health care
transaction loss.  The plaintiffs allege that, as a result of
these misleading statements or omissions, the Company's stock
traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class
Period.

The defendants, including the Company, filed motions to dismiss
this lawsuit on various grounds.  On February 13, 2007, the Court
granted those motions, and dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety,
on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims are barred by the
applicable statute of limitations.  The Court did not reach the
other grounds for dismissal argued by the Company and the other
defendants.  On November 12, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal on
statute of limitations grounds, but remanded the case to allow the
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.  The Second Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on February 18, 2009.  On
September 24, 2009, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' complaint with
prejudice.  On November 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of
Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On
June 22 and 24, 2010, individual defendants Juliette Tehrani and
David Elliot, respectively, were voluntarily dismissed from the
litigation.  On February 28, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit vacated the district court's grant of the
Company's motion to dismiss and remanded the case back to the
district court for reconsideration of the statute of limitations
analysis in light of the intervening U.S. Supreme Court decision
in Merck & Co. v. Reynolds as well as to consider additional
arguments in favor of dismissal propounded by the Company.

No updates were reported in the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

MBIA provides financial guarantee insurance, as well as related
reinsurance, advisory and portfolio services, for the public and
structured finance markets, and asset management advisory
services, on a global basis.  The Company was incorporated as a
business corporation under the laws of the state of Connecticut in
1986.


MBIA INC: Stay in Aureluis Suit Still in Effect Pending Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The complaint captioned Aurelius Capital Master, Ltd. et al. v.
MBIA Inc. et al., 09-cv-2242 (S.D.N.Y.) continues to be stayed
pending resolution of an appeal in another lawsuit involving MBIA.

On March 11, 2009, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court of the Southern District of New York against the Company and
its subsidiaries, MBIA Corp. and National Public Finance Guarantee
Corporation.  The lead plaintiffs, Aurelius Capital Master, Ltd.,
Aurelius Capital Partners, LP, Fir Tree Value Master Fund, L.P.,
Fir Tree Capital Opportunity Master Fund, L.P., and Fir Tree
Mortgage Opportunity Master Fund, L.P. purport to be acting as
representatives for a class consisting of all holders of
securities, instruments, or other obligations for which MBIA
Corp., before February 18, 2009, issued financial guarantee
insurance other than U.S. municipal/governmental bond securities.
The complaint alleges that certain of the terms of the
transactions entered into by the Company and its subsidiaries,
which were approved by the New York State Insurance Department,
constituted fraudulent conveyances under Sections 273, 274 and 276
of New York Debtor and Creditor Law and a breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing under New York common law.
The Complaint seeks, inter alia, (a) a declaration that the
alleged fraudulent conveyances are null and void and set aside,
(b) a declaration that National is responsible for the insurance
policies issued by MBIA Corp. up to February 17, 2009, and (c) an
award of damages in an unspecified amount together with costs,
expenses and attorneys' fees in connection with the action.  On
February 11, 2010, Judge Sullivan entered an order denying MBIA's
motion to dismiss.  On January 20, 2011, in light of the Appellate
Division of the New York State Supreme Court's order dismissing
the ABN AMRO Bank N.V. et al. v. MBIA Inc. et al., Judge Sullivan
stayed this action pending plaintiffs' appeal to the New York
State Court of Appeals.

No updates were reported in the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

MBIA provides financial guarantee insurance, as well as related
reinsurance, advisory and portfolio services, for the public and
structured finance markets, and asset management advisory
services, on a global basis.  The Company was incorporated as a
business corporation under the laws of the state of Connecticut in
1986.


METALTEC STEEL: Faces Class Action Over Metallic Flakes
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Rosenfield, writing for WXYZ, reports that the mysterious
fallout damaging people's cars near Joy and Haggerty Roads in
Canton has them angry not only about the damage, but worried about
what the metallic flakes falling from the sky might be doing to
their health.

"If it's landing on my car . . . it has to be going inside our
bodies," says Canton resident Liz Foote.

Action News first reported the complaints in February.

After the story aired, attorney Steve Liddle, Esq., contacted
residents in the impacted area and now a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Metaltec Steel Abrasive.

Mr. Liddle specializes in environmental law and class action
lawsuits.

As Action News reported earlier this year, state officials have
been investigating Metaltec as a possible source of the particles.

Mr. Liddle says there is no doubt the fallout is coming from
Metaltec, and the lawsuit accuses the company of negligence.

But in a statement on May 20, Chris Ethridge from the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality tells Action News that recent
results collected from Metaltec ". . . were not similar to samples
collected from the complainants' vehicles.  Therefore, the
evidence is inconclusive and our investigation is ongoing."

Mr. Liddle disputes the findings, and says the DNQ's samples
collected from the Metaltec building are in fact consistent with
the samples taken from cars.  He says the samples contain metals
like iron, lead and manganese.

"There are obviously health concerns," Mr. Liddle says.  "There
has to be some concern for your lungs . . . it's not just dust."

A spokesperson for Metaltec, Claudia Steinheiser, told Action News
on May 20 the company has been a good neighbor, and it takes ". .
. positive steps to ensure the environmental integrity of our site
. . ."

Ms. Steinheier also says Metaltec is located in a mixed
residential/industrial area ". . . where there are a number of
companies potentially capable of emitting particulates into the
air."

The lawsuit seeks monetary damages and a permanent fix to the
problem.


METLIFE INC: Appeal in "Clark" Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a summary judgment order in favor of Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company in a 2008 lawsuit alleging breach of
contract remains pending, according to MetLife, Inc.'s May 10,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for quarter ended March 31, 2011.

A putative class action lawsuit entitled Clark, et al. v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company was filed in Nevada on
March 28, 2008.  It alleges breach of contract and breach of a
common law fiduciary and/or quasi-fiduciary duty arising from use
of the Company's retained asset account known as the Total Control
Account (TCA) to pay life insurance policy death benefits.  As
damages, plaintiffs seek disgorgement of the difference between
the interest paid to the account holders and the investment
earnings on the assets backing the accounts.  In March 2009, the
court granted in part and denied in part MLIC's motion to dismiss,
dismissing the fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims but
allowing a breach of contract claim and a special or confidential
relationship claim to go forward.  On September 9, 2010, the court
granted MLIC's motion for summary judgment.  On September 20,
2010, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

MetLife Inc. is a global provider of insurance, annuities and
employee benefit programs throughout the United States, Japan,
Latin America, Asia Pacific, Europe and the Middle East.  Through
its subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, auto and homeowners insurance, mortgage and deposit
products and other financial services to individuals, as well as
group insurance and retirement & savings products and services to
corporations and other institutions.  On April 7, 2000,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC) converted from a mutual
life insurance company to a stock life insurance company and
became a wholly owned subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.


METLIFE INC: Appeal in "Faber" Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a dismissal order in favor Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company in a lawsuit alleging ERISA violations remains
pending, according to MetLife, Inc.'s May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

A putative class action entitled Faber, et al. v. Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company filed in New York on December 4, 2008,
alleges that MLIC's use of the TCA as the settlement option under
group life insurance policies violates MLIC's fiduciary duties
under ERISA.  As damages, plaintiffs seek disgorgement of the
difference between the interest paid to the account holders and
the investment earnings on the assets backing the accounts.  On
October 23, 2009, the court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss with
prejudice.  On November 24, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Notice of
Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

MetLife Inc. is a global provider of insurance, annuities and
employee benefit programs throughout the United States, Japan,
Latin America, Asia Pacific, Europe and the Middle East.  Through
its subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, auto and homeowners insurance, mortgage and deposit
products and other financial services to individuals, as well as
group insurance and retirement & savings products and services to
corporations and other institutions.  On April 7, 2000,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC) converted from a mutual
life insurance company to a stock life insurance company and
became a wholly owned subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.


METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend Against "Kiefe" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company continues to defend itself
against a 2010 Nevada class suit alleging breach of contract,
according to MetLife, Inc.'s May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

The putative class action lawsuit, entitled Keife, et al. v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, was filed in a Nevada state
court on July 30, 2010, and removed to federal court on
September 7, 2010.  The lawsuit raises a breach of contract claim
arising from MLIC's use of the TCA to pay life insurance benefits
under the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance program.  As
damages, plaintiffs seek disgorgement of the difference between
the interest paid to the account holders and the investment
earnings on the assets backing the accounts.  In September 2010,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification of the breach of
contract claim, which the court has stayed.  On April 28, 2011,
the court denied MLIC's motion to dismiss.

MetLife Inc. is a global provider of insurance, annuities and
employee benefit programs throughout the United States, Japan,
Latin America, Asia Pacific, Europe and the Middle East.  Through
its subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, auto and homeowners insurance, mortgage and deposit
products and other financial services to individuals, as well as
group insurance and retirement & savings products and services to
corporations and other institutions.  On April 7, 2000,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC) converted from a mutual
life insurance company to a stock life insurance company and
became a wholly owned subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.


METLIFE INC: May Have to Indemnify Sun Life in "Kang" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Sun Life Assurance Co. continues to assert that Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company may be obligated to indemnify it in a class
action pending in Ontario.

In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, as successor to the
purchaser of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's Canadian
operations, filed a lawsuit in Toronto, seeking a declaration that
MLIC remains liable for "market conduct claims" related to certain
individual life insurance policies sold by MLIC and that have been
transferred to Sun Life.  The case was titled Sun Life Assurance
Company of Canada v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Super. Ct.,
Ontario, October 2006).  Sun Life had asked that the court require
MLIC to indemnify Sun Life for these claims pursuant to indemnity
provisions in the sale agreement for the sale of MLIC's Canadian
operations entered into in June of 1998.  In January 2010, the
court found that Sun Life had given timely notice of its claim for
indemnification but, because it found that Sun Life had not yet
incurred an indemnifiable loss, granted MLIC's motion for summary
judgment.  Both parties appealed.  In September 2010, Sun Life
notified MLIC that a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Sun Life in Toronto, Kang v. Sun Life Assurance Co.
(Super. Ct., Ontario, September 2010), alleging sales practices
claims regarding the same individual policies sold by MLIC and
transferred to Sun Life.  Sun Life contends that MLIC is obligated
to indemnify Sun Life for some or all of the claims in this
lawsuit.  MLIC is currently not a party to the Kang v. Sun
Life lawsuit.

No updates were reported in MetLife, Inc.'s May 10, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

MetLife Inc. is a global provider of insurance, annuities and
employee benefit programs throughout the United States, Japan,
Latin America, Asia Pacific, Europe and the Middle East.  Through
its subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, auto and homeowners insurance, mortgage and deposit
products and other financial services to individuals, as well as
group insurance and retirement & savings products and services to
corporations and other institutions.  On April 7, 2000,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC) converted from a mutual
life insurance company to a stock life insurance company and
became a wholly owned subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.


METLIFE INC: Unit Continues to Defend Against Clean Air Act Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Homer City OL6 LLC, an entity owned Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company, continues to defend itself against a class action lawsuit
alleging violation of the Clean Air Act in Pennsylvania.

On January 4, 2011, the United States commenced a civil action in
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania against EME Homer City Generation L.P., Homer City
OL6 LLC, and other defendants regarding the operations of the
Homer City Generating Station, an electricity generating facility.
Homer City OL6 LLC, an entity owned by MLIC, is a passive investor
with a non-controlling interest in the electricity generating
facility, which is solely operated by the lessee, EME Homer City.
The complaint seeks injunctive relief and assessment of civil
penalties for alleged violations of the federal Clean Air Act and
Pennsylvania's State Implementation Plan.  The alleged violations
were the subject of Notices of Violations ("NOVs") that the
Environmental Protection Agency issued to EME Homer City, Homer
City OL6 LLC, and others in June 2008 and May 2010.  On January 7,
2011, the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania granted the motion by the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection and the State of New York to intervene in
the lawsuit as additional plaintiffs.  On February 16, 2011, the
State of New Jersey filed an Intervenor's Complaint in the
lawsuit.  On January 7, 2011, two plaintiffs filed a putative
class action titled Scott Jackson and Maria Jackson v. EME Homer
City Generation L.P., et al., in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of a putative
class of persons who have allegedly incurred damage to their
persons and/or property because of the violations alleged in the
action brought by the United States.  Homer City OL6 LLC is a
defendant in the action.  EME Homer City has acknowledged its
obligation to indemnify Homer City OL6 LLC for any claims relating
to the NOVs.

No updates were reported in MetLife, Inc.'s May 10, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

MetLife Inc. is a global provider of insurance, annuities and
employee benefit programs throughout the United States, Japan,
Latin America, Asia Pacific, Europe and the Middle East.  Through
its subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, auto and homeowners insurance, mortgage and deposit
products and other financial services to individuals, as well as
group insurance and retirement & savings products and services to
corporations and other institutions.  On April 7, 2000,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC) converted from a mutual
life insurance company to a stock life insurance company and
became a wholly owned subsidiary of MetLife, Inc.


MICHAELS STORES: May Face Class Action Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Infosecurity reports that Brandi F. Ramundo, who had $1,300 stolen
from her checking account as a result of the data breach at
Michaels Stores, has filed a lawsuit in federal court charging the
crafts store chain with lax information security.

Ms. Ramundo's suit seeks class-action status, a jury trial,
compensatory damages, and consequential and statutory damages,
according to a report by BankInfo Security.  The suit also demands
that Michaels pay for card fraud monitoring services for consumers
affected by the breach.

Earlier this month, Michaels Stores said that customer debit and
credit card numbers and PINs had been stolen through PIN-pad
tampering at its stores nationwide.  The company disabled and
quarantined suspicious PIN pads and removed around 7,200 of them
from its stores.

In the suit filed in US District Court in Chicago, Ms. Ramundo
charges that Michaels violated federal and state law by failing to
take reasonable steps to safeguard its customers' personal
financial data, including credit and debit card numbers and PINs.

"In essence, Michaels' security failure enabled cyber-pickpockets
to steal customer financial data from within the retailer's stores
and subsequently loot the customers' bank accounts from remote
[ATMs]," the suit alleges, as quoted by ConsumerAffairs.com.

Ms. Ramundo said she used her Fifth Third Bank debit card to buy
$19.35 worth of merchandise from a Michaels store on April 18.  On
May 3, her card was rejected when she tried to use it at a Costco
store, according to the ConsumerAffairs.com report.

Ms. Ramundo telephoned the bank and was told that the card had
been suspended because of "suspicious activity," specifically
three withdrawals totaling $1,300 from the account to which the
card was linked.  She contacted the police and learned that
numerous other Michaels customers had filed similar complaints,
the report said.

The class action seeks to represent all US residents who made an
in-store purchase at Michaels and used a debit or credit card that
was swiped through a PIN pad.


MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Continues to Face Gambling Claim in Bussey Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc., continues to face a claim
for recovery of gambling losses under Sec. 8-1-150(A) of the
Alabama Code in a purported class action filed by Walter Bussey in
Alabama, according to the Company's May 4, 2011 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

A civil action captioned Walter Bussey, et al., v. Macon County
Greyhound Park, Inc., et al., was filed on March 8, 2010 in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama
Eastern Division against the Company, Macon County Greyhound Park,
Inc. (VictoryLand), as a corporation, International Gaming
Technologies, Cadillac Jack, Inc., Colossus, Inc., Rocket Gaming
Systems, LLC, Nova Gaming, LLC, and Bally Gaming, Inc.  The
plaintiffs, who claim to have been patrons of VictoryLand,
originally sought actual damages, compensatory damages, treble
damages and/or punitive damages based on both Ala. Code, Sec 8-1-
150(A), and RICO, and claim, in part, that the defendants
conspired to promote gambling and/or to advance or profit from
gambling activity in violation of Ala. Code Sec. 13 A-12-23 and
have requested that the court certify the action as a Class Action
as required under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  On
April 28, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the entire
complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2), (5) and (6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure based, in part, on the grounds that the
plaintiffs failed to state a claim against the Company upon which
relief could be granted.  After the Company filed its motion to
dismiss, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their RICO claim,
leaving only a claim for recovery of gambling losses under Ala.
Code Sec. 8-1-150(A).  On March 31, 2011, the court entered an
order declining to dismiss the 8-1-150(A) claim at this stage of
the litigation.  The Company continues to vigorously defend this
matter.  Given the inherent uncertainties in this litigation, the
Company is unable to make any prediction as to the ultimate
outcome, but believes this lawsuit is not material to the Company
as the RICO claims against the Company have been dismissed.

Austin-based Multimedia Games Inc. supplies interactive systems,
server-based gaming systems, interactive electronic games, player
terminals, stand-alone player terminals, video lottery terminals,
electronic scratch ticket systems, electronic instant lottery
systems, player tracking systems, casino cash management systems,
slot accounting systems, slot management systems, unified
currencies and electronic and paper bingo systems for Native
American, racetrack casino, casino, charity and commercial bingo,
sweepstakes, lottery and video lottery markets and provide support
and services and operations support for the Company's customers
and products.


MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Awaits Ruling on Class Cert. Bid in Hardy I Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc., is awaiting an Alabama
federal court's ruling on a class certification request in a
civil action captioned Ozetta Hardy v. Whitehall Gaming Center,
LLC, et al., according to the Company's May 4, 2011 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

The civil action was filed against Whitehall Gaming Center, LLC
(an entity that does not exist), Cornerstone Community Outreach,
Inc., and Freedom Trail Ventures, Ltd., in the Circuit Court of
Lowndes County, Alabama.  On June 3, 2010, Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint adding the Company, International Gaming
Technologies, Bally, Inc., Eclipse Gaming Systems, LLC, Video
Gaming Technologies, Inc., Cadillac Jack, Inc., and AGS, LLC.  The
plaintiffs, who claim to have been patrons of White Hall, seek
recovery of gambling losses based on Ala. Code, Sec 8-1-150(A) and
have requested that the court certify the action as a Class Action
as required under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  On
July 2, 2010, the defendants removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Alabama Northern
Division.  On July 9, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(2), (5) and (6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure based, in part, on the grounds
that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim against the Company
upon which relief could be granted.  On September 7, 2010, the
court, without opinion, denied the Company's (and other
manufacturers') motion to dismiss.  The court has entered a
scheduling order that bifurcates the case to allow for resolution
of class certification issues before consideration of the merits.
Following several months of discovery on the class certification
issues, on March 15, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  On April 15, 2011, the Company filed an opposition
to the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The court has
not ruled on plaintiffs' motion.  The Company continues to
vigorously defend this matter.  Given the inherent uncertainties
in this litigation, the Company is unable to make any prediction
as to the ultimate outcome, but because the Company's exposure is
limited to its share of revenue from plaintiff classes' losses
during a six month period, the Company believes this lawsuit is
not material to the Company.

Austin-based Multimedia Games Inc. supplies interactive systems,
server-based gaming systems, interactive electronic games, player
terminals, stand-alone player terminals, video lottery terminals,
electronic scratch ticket systems, electronic instant lottery
systems, player tracking systems, casino cash management systems,
slot accounting systems, slot management systems, unified
currencies and electronic and paper bingo systems for Native
American, racetrack casino, casino, charity and commercial bingo,
sweepstakes, lottery and video lottery markets and provide support
and services and operations support for the Company's customers
and products.


MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Hardy II Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc., is awaiting an Alabama
federal court's ruling on its motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by
Ozetta Hardy in Alabama, according to the Company's May 4, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In Ozetta Hardy (II), a civil action, was filed on October 27,
2010, in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Alabama against the Company and other manufacturers of bingo
equipment, including International Gaming Technologies, Bally
Gaming, Inc., Eclipse Gaming Systems, LLC, Video Gaming
Technologies, Inc., Cadillac Jack, Inc., AGS, LLC, Nova Gaming,
LLC, Gateway Gaming, LLC, WMS Gaming, Inc., Rocket Gaming Systems,
LLC, and Konami Gaming, Inc. The plaintiffs, who were patrons of
any one of three bingo facilities in Alabama operated by the
Poarch Band of Creek Indians, seek recovery of gambling losses
based on Ala. Code, Sec 8-1-150(A) and have requested that the
court certify the action as a Class Action as required under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The Company filed a motion to
dismiss on December 14, 2010, on the grounds that, among other
things, the Poarch Band of Creek Indians is a necessary and
indispensible party to the case.  Plaintiffs have filed a
response, but the court has not ruled on the Company's motion.
The Company continues to vigorously defend this matter.  Given the
inherent uncertainties in this litigation, the Company is unable
to make any prediction as to the ultimate outcome, but because the
Company's exposure is limited to its share of revenue from
plaintiff classes' losses during a six month period, the Company
believes this lawsuit is not material to the Company.

Austin-based Multimedia Games Inc. supplies interactive systems,
server-based gaming systems, interactive electronic games, player
terminals, stand-alone player terminals, video lottery terminals,
electronic scratch ticket systems, electronic instant lottery
systems, player tracking systems, casino cash management systems,
slot accounting systems, slot management systems, unified
currencies and electronic and paper bingo systems for Native
American, racetrack casino, casino, charity and commercial bingo,
sweepstakes, lottery and video lottery markets and provide support
and services and operations support for the Company's customers
and products.


NETWORK ENGINES: Ruling on Appeal of IPO Settlement Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Network Engines, Inc., continues to await a ruling on appeals
filed regarding the settlement of an IPO class action suit.

A putative class action lawsuit was filed on December 3, 2001, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company and several underwriters of the Company's
July 2000 initial public offering, alleging that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing and selling securities
pursuant to the IPO without disclosing to investors that the
underwriter defendants had solicited and received excessive and
undisclosed commissions from certain investors.  The suit seeks
damages and certification of a plaintiff class, consisting of all
persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock between
July 13, 2000 and December 6, 2000.  On July 9, 2003, a Special
Committee of the Company's Board of Directors authorized the
Company to negotiate a settlement of the pending claims
substantially consistent with a memorandum of understanding
negotiated among the class plaintiffs, all issuer defendants and
their insurers.  The parties have negotiated the settlement, which
provides, among other things, for a release of the Company and the
individual defendants for the conduct alleged in the amended
complaint to be wrongful.  The Company would agree to undertake
other responsibilities under the settlement, including agreeing to
assign, or not assert, certain potential claims that it may have
against the underwriters.  Any direct financial impact of the
proposed settlement is expected to be borne by the Company's
insurers.  Any such settlement would be subject to various
contingencies, including approval by the court overseeing the
litigation.  On February 15, 2005, the District Court issued an
Opinion and Order preliminarily approving the settlement, provided
that the defendants and plaintiffs agree to a modification
narrowing the scope of the bar order set forth in the original
settlement agreement.  The parties agreed to a modification
narrowing the scope of the bar order, and on August 31, 2005, the
District Court issued an order preliminarily approving the
settlement and setting a public hearing on its fairness, which
took place on April 24, 2006.  On December 5, 2006, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned the
District Court's certification of the class of plaintiffs who are
pursuing the claims that would be settled in the settlement
against the underwriter defendants.  Thereafter, the District
Court ordered a stay of all proceedings in all of the lawsuits
pending the outcome of plaintiffs' petition to the Second Circuit
for rehearing en banc and resolution of the class certification
issue.  On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs'
petition for rehearing, but clarified that the plaintiffs may
seek to certify a more limited class in the District Court.  On
June 25, 2007, the District Court signed an order terminating the
settlement.  On October 5, 2009, the District Court issued an
opinion granting plaintiffs' motion for final approval of a
proposed settlement, approval of the plan of distribution of the
settlement fund, and certification of the settlement classes.  An
Order and Final Judgment was entered on December 30, 2009.
Various notices of appeal of the District Court's October 5, 2009
order were filed.  On October 7, 2010, all but two parties who had
filed a notice of appeal filed a stipulation with the District
Court, withdrawing their appeals with prejudice, and the two
remaining objectors filed briefs in support of their appeals.  On
December 8, 2010, plaintiffs moved to dismiss with prejudice the
appeal filed by one of the two appellants based on alleged
violations of the Second Circuit's rules, including failure to
serve, falsifying proofs of service, and failure to include
citations to the record.  The motion was fully briefed as of
December 30, 2010, but the Second Circuit has not yet ruled on the
motion.  The filing of plaintiffs' motion tolled the deadline for
appellees to file answering briefs on both appeals.  The Company
is unable to predict the outcome of the suit and as a result, no
amounts have been accrued as of March 31, 2011.

No updates were reported in the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Networks Engine Inc., as a system integrator, designs and
manufactures application platforms and appliance solutions on
which software applications are applied to both enterprise and
telecommunications networks.  The Company markets its application
platform solutions and services to original equipment
manufacturers, or OEMs, and independent software vendors, or ISVs,
that then deliver their software applications in the form of a
network-ready hardware or software platform.


OLD REPUBLIC: ORNTIC Unit Continues to Defend Suits in Pa. & Texas
------------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation's title insurance
subsidiary continues to defend itself against class actions in
Pennsylvania and Texas, according to the Company's May 10, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Purported class action lawsuits are pending against the Company's
principal title insurance subsidiary, Old Republic National Title
Insurance Company ("ORNTIC"), in federal courts in two states --
Pennsylvania (Markocki et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court,
Eastern District, Pennsylvania, filed June 8, 2006), and Texas
(Ahmad et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court, Northern District,
Texas, Dallas Division, filed February 8, 2008).  The plaintiffs
allege that ORNTIC failed to give consumers reissue and/or
refinance credits on the premiums charged for title insurance
covering mortgage refinancing transactions, as required by rate
schedules filed by ORNTIC or by state rating bureaus with the
state insurance regulatory authorities.  The Pennsylvania suit
also alleges violations of the federal Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act ("RESPA").  The Court in the Texas suit dismissed
similar RESPA allegations.  Classes have been certified in both
actions.

The Company and its subsidiaries say they intend to defend
vigorously against the actions.

Old Republic International Corporation (Old Republic) is among
U.S.'s 50 largest publicly held insurance organizations, with a
substantial interest in major segments of the industry.  The
Company is primarily a commercial lines underwriter, serving many
of America's leading industrial and financial services companies
as valued customers.


OLD REPUBLIC: ORNTIC Unit Continues to Defend Calif. Consumer Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation's title insurance
subsidiary continues to defend itself against consumer class suits
in California, according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

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

The Company and its subsidiaries say they intend to defend
vigorously against the actions.

Old Republic International Corporation (Old Republic) is among
U.S.'s 50 largest publicly held insurance organizations, with a
substantial interest in major segments of the industry.  The
Company is primarily a commercial lines underwriter, serving many
of America's leading industrial and financial services companies
as valued customers.


OLD REPUBLIC: ORHP Unit Continues to Defend Suit in Calif. & Ala.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation's subsidiary continues to
defend itself against consumer class suits in California and
Alabama, according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

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

The Company and its subsidiaries say they intend to defend
vigorously against the actions.

Old Republic International Corporation (Old Republic) is among
U.S.'s 50 largest publicly held insurance organizations, with a
substantial interest in major segments of the industry.  The
Company is primarily a commercial lines underwriter, serving many
of America's leading industrial and financial services companies
as valued customers.


ORIENT PAPER: Awaits Order on Motion to Dismiss Calif. Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Orient Paper, Inc., is awaiting a federal court's decision on its
motion to dismiss a stockholder class action lawsuit in
California, according to the Company's May 10, 2011 Form 10-Q with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

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.  The plaintiffs
subsequently filed their opposition to the Company's motion to
dismiss on April 28, 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 the date
of this statement.

Orient Paper, Inc., was incorporated under the laws of the State
of Nevada on December 9, 2005, under the name of Carlateral, Inc.
Carlateral, Inc. started its business by providing financing
services specializing in subprime title loans, secured primarily
using automobiles as collateral.


PACKAGING CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Packaging Corporation of America continues to defend a
consolidated class suit in Illinois alleging violations of anti-
trust laws, according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

During September and October 2010, PCA and eight other U.S. and
Canadian containerboard producers were named as defendants in five
purported class action lawsuits filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging
violations of the Sherman Act.  The lawsuits have been
consolidated in a single complaint under the caption Kleen
Products LLC v Packaging Corp. of America et al.  The consolidated
complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to limit the
supply of containerboard, and that the purpose and effect of the
alleged conspiracy was to artificially increase prices of
containerboard products during the period of August 2005 to the
time of filing of the complaints.  The complaint was filed as a
purported class action suit on behalf of all purchasers of
containerboard products during such period.  The complaint seeks
treble damages and costs, including attorney's fees.  The
defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint were denied by the
court in April 2011.

PCA believes the allegations are without merit and will defend the
lawsuit vigorously.  However, as the lawsuit is in preliminary
stages, PCA is unable to predict the ultimate outcome or estimate
a range of reasonably possible losses.

Packaging Corporation of America, or PCA, is the fifth largest
producer of containerboard and corrugated products in the United
States, based on production capacity.  It produces a wide variety
of corrugated products ranging from basic corrugated shipping
containers to specialized packaging, such as wax-coated boxes for
the agriculture industry.  It also has multi-color printing
capabilities to make high-impact graphics boxes and displays that
offer the Company's customers more attractive packaging.


PENN NATIONAL: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeals court affirmed a lower court decision, dismissing a
purported class action lawsuit against Penn National Gaming, Inc.,
over alleged misleading disclosures with respect to the Company's
proposed transaction with Fortress Investment Group LLC and
Centerbridge Partners, L.P., according to the Company's May 4,
2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On July 16, 2008, the Company was served with a purported class
action lawsuit brought by plaintiffs seeking to represent a class
of shareholders who purchased shares of the Company's Common Stock
between March 20, 2008, and July 2, 2008.  The lawsuit alleges
that the Company's disclosure practices relative to the proposed
transaction with Fortress Investment Group LLC and Centerbridge
Partners, L.P. and the eventual termination of that transaction
were misleading and deficient in violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint, which seeks class
certification and unspecified damages, was filed in federal court
in Maryland.  The complaint was amended, among other things, to
add three new named plaintiffs and to name Peter M. Carlino,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and William J. Clifford,
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, as additional
defendants.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
in November 2008, and the court granted the motion and dismissed
the complaint with prejudice.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration, which was denied on October 21, 2009.  The
plaintiffs subsequently appealed the dismissal to the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals and an oral argument was heard on
October 26, 2010.  On March 14, 2011, the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court.

Penn National Gaming, Inc., owns and operates twenty-five gaming
facilities in thirteen jurisdictions including Colorado, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New
Jersey, Maine, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ontario, Canada.
The company generates about $2.4 billion of annual net revenues.


PEOPLE'S UNITED: Court Dismisses In re Smithtown Bancorp Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Supreme Court issued a final judgment dismissing the
complaint in the class-action lawsuit captioned In re Smithtown
Bancorp, according to People's United Financial, Inc.'s May 10,
2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

The Company was named as a defendant in a class-action lawsuit
filed on behalf of Smithtown Bancorp, Inc. stockholders in New
York state court (In re Smithtown Bancorp Shareholder Litigation
("In re Smithtown Bancorp")). The primary claims in the complaint
are directed towards the directors and certain executive officers
of Smithtown, alleging that in approving the merger agreement
between the Company and Smithtown, those individuals did not
maximize shareholder value and agreed to deal protection devices
that impermissibly limit their ability to pursue and accept any
competing offer for Smithtown. The Company is alleged to have
aided and abetted the actions of the individual defendants. The
complaint also alleges that the proxy statement/prospectus
relating to the proposed merger contains material omissions which,
if not cured, would prevent Smithtown shareholders from casting an
informed vote in connection with the proposed merger. The
complaint seeks an order enjoining the defendants from proceeding
with the transaction, other equitable relief, damages, and
attorneys' fees.

On October 12, 2010, all parties to the proceedings entered into
an agreement to settle the litigation. As part of that agreement,
the defendants agreed (without admitting any wrongdoing or other
liability) to make certain additional disclosures requested by the
plaintiffs in the proxy statement/prospectus. The proposed
settlement is subject to, among other things, court approval,
plaintiffs conducting confirmatory discovery to confirm the
fairness and adequacy of the terms of the settlement and the
additional disclosures relating to the proposed merger, and the
closing of the proposed merger. On February 4, 2011, a Preliminary
Approval Order on the Stipulation of Settlement was signed by the
court. On May 2, 2011, following a final settlement hearing on the
Stipulation of Settlement, the New York Supreme Court issued an
Order and Final Judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice.

People's United Financial, Inc.'s subsidiary, People's United Bank
is a diversified financial services company with $25 billion in
assets.


PEOPLE'S UNITED: Awaits Order on Motion to Consolidate N.Y. Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
People's United Financial, Inc., is awaiting a court ruling on a
motion to consolidate two putative class actions captioned
Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement v. Smithtown Bancorp,
Inc., et al., and Yourgal v. Smithtown Bancorp, Inc. et al. in New
York, according to the Company's May 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

On February 25, 2010 and March 29, 2010, Smithtown Bancorp, Inc.
and several of its officers and its directors were named in two
lawsuits commenced in United States District Court, Eastern
District of New York (Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement
v. Smithtown Bancorp, Inc., et al.) and Yourgal v. Smithtown
Bancorp, Inc. et al.) on behalf of a putative class of all persons
and entities who purchased Smithtown's common stock between
March 13, 2008 and February 1, 2010, alleging claims under Section
10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Smithtown's loan
loss reserve, fair value of its assets, recognition of impaired
assets and its internal and disclosure controls were materially
false, misleading or incomplete. As a result of the consummation
of the merger on November 30, 2010, The Company has become the
successor party to Smithtown in this matter.

On April 26, 2010, the named plaintiff in the Waterford action
moved to consolidate its action with the Yourgal action, to have
itself appointed lead plaintiff in the consolidated action and to
obtain approval of its selection of lead counsel. These motions
are currently pending.

People's United Financial, Inc.'s subsidiary, People's United Bank
is a diversified financial services company with $25 billion in
assets.


PEOPLE'S UNITED: Subsidiary Defends Overdraft Fee Suit in Conn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
People's United Financial, Inc.'s subsidiary continues to defend
itself in a purported class action arising from the collection of
overdraft fees in Connecticut, according to the Company's May 10,
2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

People's United Bank has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit
arising from its assessment and collection of overdraft fees on
checking accounts. The complaint was filed in the Superior Court
of Connecticut, Judicial District of Waterbury, on April 22, 2011
and alleges that People's United Bank engaged in certain unfair
practices in the posting of electronic debit card transactions
from highest to lowest dollar amount. The complaint also alleges
that such practices were inadequately disclosed to customers and
were unfairly used by People's United Bank for the purpose of
generating revenue by maximizing the number of overdraft fees a
customer is assessed. The complaint seeks certification of a class
of checking account holders residing in Connecticut and who have
incurred at least one overdraft fee, injunctive relief,
compensatory, punitive and treble damages, disgorgement and
restitution of overdraft fees paid, and attorneys' fees.

Management has reviewed the allegations made in the complaint and
intends to defend the action vigorously. Management is not
currently in a position to assess the likelihood of success of the
plaintiffs' claims against People's United Bank, or the extent (if
any) to which these actions may affect the Company's financial
condition, results of operations or liquidity.

People's United Financial, Inc.'s subsidiary, People's United Bank
is a diversified financial services company with $25 billion in
assets.


PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT: Court to Hear "Gobel" Suit Deal on June 6
----------------------------------------------------------------
An $8.7 million settlement deal Petroleum Development Corporation
negotiated to resolve a royalty owner class action will be
considered by a Virginia court for preliminary approval on June 6,
2011, according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

David W. Gobel, individually and allegedly as representative of
all royalty owners in the Company's West Virginia oil and gas
wells, filed the lawsuit against the Company, alleging that the
Company failed to properly pay royalties.  The suit is captioned
Gobel et al v. Petroleum Development Corporation, Case No. 09-C-
40, was filed on January 27, 2009, in the U. S. District Court for
the Northern District of West Virginia.  The allegations state
that the Company improperly deducted certain charges and costs
before applying the royalty percentage.  Punitive damages are
requested in addition to breach of contract, tort and fraud
allegations.  On August 31, 2010, the federal judge issued an
order remanding the case to state court.  On October 27, 2010, the
state court set a trial date of April 2012.

In April 2011, the Company entered into an oral settlement
agreement with respect to the lawsuit.  The oral settlement
agreement has been approved by the Company's Board of Directors
and involves the payment of a total of $8,750,000.  The parties
are currently drafting definitive documentation to reflect the
oral agreement.  There can be no assurance that such definitive
documentation will be completed on terms satisfactory to the
Company.  A hearing has been set for June 6, 2011, for the court
to consider preliminary approval of the settlement.  For the three
months ended 2011, the Company recorded a charge to general and
administrative expense in the statement of operations of $1.6
million.  As of March 31, 2011, the Company had the total oral
settlement accrued and included in other accrued expenses on the
accompanying balance sheet.

Petroleum Development Corporation, doing business as PDC Energy,
is a domestic independent natural gas and crude oil company
engaged in the exploration for and the acquisition, development,
production and marketing of natural gas, natural gas liquids
("NGLs") and crude oil.  As of March 31, 2011, the Company owns an
interest in approximately 5,000 wells located primarily in the
Rocky Mountain Region and the Permian and Appalachian Basins.


POPULAR INC: Awaits Court Approval of ERISA Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Popular Inc. is awaiting court approval of the settlement it
negotiated in a consolidated ERISA class action pending in Puerto
Rico, according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

Between May 14, 2009 and September 9, 2009, five putative class
actions and two derivative claims were filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rico
Court of First Instance, San Juan Part, against Popular, Inc., and
certain of its directors and officers, among others.  The five
class actions were consolidated into two separate actions: a
securities class action captioned Hoff v. Popular, Inc., et al.
(consolidated with Otero v. Popular, Inc., et al.) and an Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) class action entitled In re
Popular, Inc. ERISA Litigation (comprised of the consolidated
cases of Walsh v. Popular, Inc., et al.; Monta¤ez v. Popular,
Inc., et al.; and Dougan v. Popular, Inc., et al.).

On October 19, 2009, plaintiffs in the Hoff case filed a
consolidated class action complaint which included as defendants
the underwriters in the May 2008 offering of Series B Preferred
Stock, among others.  The consolidated action purported to be on
behalf of purchasers of Popular's securities between January 24,
2008 and February 19, 2009 and alleged that the defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by
issuing a series of allegedly false and/or misleading statements
and/or omitting to disclose material facts necessary to make
statements made by the Corporation not false and misleading.  The
consolidated action also alleged that the defendants violated
Section 11, Section 12(a)(2) and Section 15 of the Securities Act
by making allegedly untrue statements and/or omitting to disclose
material facts necessary to make statements made by the
Corporation not false and misleading in connection with the May
2008 offering of Series B Preferred Stock.  The consolidated
securities class action complaint sought class certification, an
award of compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses,
including counsel fees.  On January 11, 2010, Popular, the
underwriter defendants and the individual defendants moved to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action complaint.  On
August 2, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto
Rico granted the motion to dismiss filed by the underwriter
defendants on statute of limitations grounds.  The Court also
dismissed the Section 11 claim brought against Popular's directors
on statute of limitations grounds and the Section 12(a)(2) claim
brought against Popular because plaintiffs lacked standing.  The
Court declined to dismiss the claims brought against Popular and
certain of its officers under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
(and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder), Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act,
holding that plaintiffs had adequately alleged that defendants
made materially false and misleading statements with the requisite
state of mind.

On November 30, 2009, plaintiffs in the ERISA case filed a
consolidated class action complaint.  The consolidated complaint
purported to be on behalf of employees participating in the
Popular, Inc. U.S.A. 401(k) Savings and Investment Plan and the
Popular, Inc. Puerto Rico Savings and Investment Plan from
January 24, 2008 to the date of the Complaint to recover losses
pursuant to Sections 409 and 502(a)(2) of ERISA against Popular,
certain directors, officers and members of plan committees, each
of whom was alleged to be a plan fiduciary.  The consolidated
complaint alleged that defendants breached their alleged fiduciary
obligations by, among other things, failing to eliminate Popular
stock as an investment alternative in the plans.  The complaint
sought to recover alleged losses to the plans and equitable
relief, including injunctive relief and a constructive trust,
along with costs and attorneys' fees.  On December 21, 2009, and
in compliance with a scheduling order issued by the Court, Popular
and the individual defendants submitted an answer to the amended
complaint.  Shortly thereafter, on December 31, 2009, Popular and
the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint or, in the alternative, for
judgment on the pleadings.  On May 5, 2010, a magistrate judge
issued a report and recommendation in which he recommended that
the motion to dismiss be denied except with respect to Banco
Popular de Puerto Rico, as to which he recommended that the motion
be granted.  On May 19, 2010, Popular filed objections to the
magistrate judge's report and recommendation.  On September 30,
2010, the Court issued an order without opinion granting in part
and denying in part the motion to dismiss and providing that the
Court would issue an opinion and order explaining its decision.
No opinion was, however, issued prior to the settlement in
principle.

The derivative actions (Garcia v. Carrion, et al. and Diaz v.
Carrion, et al.) were brought purportedly for the benefit of
nominal defendant Popular, Inc. against certain executive officers
and directors and alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, waste of
assets and abuse of control in connection with the Company's
issuance of allegedly false and misleading financial statements
and financial reports and the offering of the Series B Preferred
Stock. The derivative complaints sought a judgment that the action
was a proper derivative action, an award of damages, restitution,
costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' fees,
costs and expenses.  On October 9, 2009, the Court coordinated for
purposes of discovery the Garcia action and the consolidated
securities class action.  On October 15, 2009, Popular and the
individual defendants moved to dismiss the Garcia complaint for
failure to make a demand on the Board of Directors prior to
initiating litigation.  On November 20, 2009, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint, and on December 21, 2009, Popular and the
individual defendants moved to dismiss the Garcia amended
complaint.  At a scheduling conference held on January 14, 2010,
the Court stayed discovery in both the Hoff and Garcia matters
pending resolution of their respective motions to dismiss.  On
August 11, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
motion to dismiss the Garcia action.  The Court dismissed the
gross mismanagement and corporate waste claims, but declined to
dismiss the breach of fiduciary duty claim.  The Diaz case, filed
in the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance, San Juan, was removed
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.  On
October 13, 2009, Popular and the individual defendants moved to
consolidate the Garcia and Diaz actions.  On October 26, 2009,
plaintiff moved to remand the Diaz case to the Puerto Rico Court
of First Instance and to stay defendants' consolidation motion
pending the outcome of the remand proceedings.  On September 30,
2010, the Court issued an order without opinion remanding the Diaz
case to the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance.  On October 13,
2010, the Court issued a Statement of Reasons In Support of Remand
Order.  On October 28, 2010, Popular and the individual defendants
moved for reconsideration of the remand order.  The court denied
Popular's request for reconsideration shortly thereafter.

On April 13, 2010, the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance in San
Juan granted summary judgment dismissing a separate complaint
brought by plaintiff in the Garcia action that sought to enforce
an alleged right to inspect the books and records of the
Corporation in support of the pending derivative action.  The
Court held that plaintiff had not propounded a "proper purpose"
under Puerto Rico law for such inspection.  On April 28, 2010,
plaintiff in that action moved for reconsideration of the Court's
dismissal.  On May 4, 2010, the Court denied plaintiff's request
for reconsideration.  On June 7, 2010, plaintiff filed an appeal
before the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals.  On June 11, 2010,
Popular and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the appeal.
On June 22, 2010, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.  On
July 6, 2010, plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the Court's
dismissal.  On July 16, 2010, the Court of Appeals denied
plaintiff's request for reconsideration.

At the Court's request, the parties to the Hoff and Garcia cases
discussed the prospect of mediation and agreed to non-binding
mediation in an attempt to determine whether the cases could be
settled.  On January 18 and 19, 2011, the parties to the Hoff and
Garcia cases engaged in non-binding mediation before the Honorable
Nicholas Politan.  As a result of the mediation, the Corporation
and the other named defendants to the Hoff matter entered into a
memorandum of understanding to settle the matter.  Under the terms
of the memorandum of understanding, subject to certain customary
conditions including court approval of a final settlement
agreement in consideration for the full settlement and release of
all defendants, the amount of $37.5 million will be paid by or on
behalf of defendants (of which management expects approximately
$30 million will be covered by insurance).  The parties intend to
file a stipulation of settlement and a joint motion for
preliminary approval within the next few weeks.  The Corporation
recognized a charge, net of the amount expected to be covered by
insurance, of $7.5 million in December 2010 to cover the uninsured
portion of the settlement.

In addition, the Corporation is aware that a suit asserting
similar claims on behalf of certain individual shareholders under
the federal securities laws was filed on January 18, 2011.

A separate memorandum of understanding was subsequently entered by
the parties to the Garcia and Diaz actions in April 2011.  Under
the terms of the memorandum of understanding, subject to certain
customary conditions, including court approval of a final
settlement agreement, and in consideration for the full and final
settlement and release of all defendants, Popular has agreed, for
a period of three years, to maintain or implement certain
corporate governance practices, measures and policies, as set
forth in the memorandum of understanding.  Aside from the payment
by or on behalf of Popular of approximately $2.1 million of
attorneys' fees and expenses of counsel for the plaintiffs (of
which management expects $1.6 million will be covered by
insurance), the settlement does not require any cash payments by
or on behalf of Popular or the defendants.  The parties intend to
file a joint request to approve the settlement within the next few
weeks.

Prior to the Hoff and derivative action mediation, the parties to
the ERISA class action entered into a separate memorandum of
understanding to settle that action.  Under the terms of the ERISA
memorandum of understanding, subject to certain customary
conditions including court approval of a final settlement
agreement and in consideration for the full settlement and release
of all defendants, the amount of $8.2 million will be paid by or
on behalf of the defendants (all of which management expects will
be covered by insurance).  The parties filed a joint request to
approve the settlement on April 13, 2011.  On April 29, 2011, the
court entered an order scheduling a hearing for May 27, 2011,
regarding preliminary approval of the proposed settlement in the
ERISA class action.

Popular does not expect to record any material gain or loss as a
result of the settlements.  Popular has made no admission of
liability in connection with these settlements.

At this point, the settlement agreements are not final and are
subject to a number of future events, including approval of the
settlements by the relevant courts, the Company notes.  There can
be no assurances that the settlements will be finalized or as to
the timing of the payments, the Company adds.

Founded in 1893, Popular, Inc. is the leading banking institution
by both assets and deposits in Puerto Rico and ranks 35th by
assets among U.S. banks.  In the United States, Popular has
established a community-banking franchise providing a broad range
of financial services and products with branches in New York, New
Jersey, Illinois, Florida and California.


PROGRESS ENERGY: Faces 11 Class Suits Over Duke Merger
------------------------------------------------------
Progress Energy, Inc., is facing 11 class action lawsuits in
connection with its proposed merger with Duke Energy Corporation,
according to the Company's May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

Progress Energy and its directors have been named as defendants in
eleven purported class action lawsuits with ten lawsuits brought
in the Superior Court, Wake County, N.C. and one lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina, each in connection with the proposed merger between
Progress Energy and Duke Energy Corporation.  The complaints in
the actions allege, among other things, that the Merger Agreement
was the product of breaches of fiduciary duty by the individual
defendants, in that it allegedly does not provide for full and
fair value for Progress Energy's shareholders; that the Merger
Agreement contains coercive deal protection measures; and that the
Merger Agreement and the Merger were approved as a result,
allegedly, of improper self-dealing by certain defendants who
would receive certain alleged employment compensation benefits and
continued employment pursuant to the Merger Agreement.  The
complaints in the actions also allege that Progress Energy aided
and abetted the individual defendants' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.  As relief, the plaintiffs in the actions seek,
among other things, to enjoin completion of the Merger.  The
defendants believe that the allegations of the complaints in the
actions are without merit and that they have substantial
meritorious defenses to the claims made in the actions.

In each of the actions, the parties have agreed that the
defendants need not move, plead, or otherwise respond to the
complaint until thirty days after the plaintiff has filed an
amended or consolidated amended complaint, or advised the
defendants that it will not be filing such pleadings.  These
actions brought in the Superior Court, Wake County, N.C., have all
been designated as Complex Business Cases and assigned to the
North Carolina Business Court.  The court scheduled an initial
hearing and status conference for March 31, 2011, which by order
dated March 30, 2011, the court continued until further notice.
The court has not yet ruled on the pending motions.

Additionally, the complaint in the federal action was amended in
early April 2011 to include allegations that the defendants
violated federal securities laws in connection with statements
contained in Duke Energy's Registration Statement on Form S-4,
filed with the SEC on March 17, 2011.  Given the new allegations
invoking federal securities laws, the defendants intend to move,
plead, or otherwise respond to the amended federal complaint
consistent with the provisions of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act, which now governs the federal action.

On March 31, 2011, counsel for the federal action plaintiff sent a
derivative demand letter to Mr. William D. Johnson, Chairman,
President and CEO of Progress Energy, demanding that the Progress
Energy board of directors desist from moving forward with the
Merger, make certain disclosures, and engage in an auction of the
company.  Also on March 31, 2011, the same counsel sent Mr.
Johnson a substantially identical derivative demand letter on
behalf of two other purported Progress Energy shareholders.

On April 13, 2011, counsel for the federal action plaintiff sent
another derivative demand letter to Mr. Johnson further demanding
that the Progress Energy board of directors desist from moving
forward with the Merger unless certain changes are made to the
Merger Agreement and additional disclosures are made. Also on
April 13, 2011, the same counsel sent Mr. Johnson a substantially
identical derivative demand letter on behalf of two other
purported Progress Energy shareholders.

The Company says it cannot predict the outcome of these matters.


PROGRESS ENERGY: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument was held on May 5, 2011, with respect to the motion
to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed against Florida Power
Corporation, doing business as Progress Energy Florida, Inc.,
according to Progress Energy, Inc.'s May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

On February 8, 2010, a lawsuit was filed against Florida Power
Corporation, doing business as Progress Energy Florida, Inc., in
state circuit court in Sumter County, Fla., alleging that the
Florida nuclear cost-recovery statute (Section 366.93, Florida
Statutes) violates the Florida Constitution, and seeking a refund
of all monies collected by PEF pursuant to that statute with
interest.  The complaint also requests that the court grant class
action status to the plaintiffs.  On April 6, 2010, PEF filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.  The trial judge issued an order
on May 3, 2010, dismissing the complaint.  The plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on June 1, 2010.

PEF believes the lawsuit is without merit and filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint on July 12, 2010.  On October 1,
2010, the plaintiffs filed an appeal of the trial court's order
dismissing the complaint.  Initial and reply briefs have been
filed by the appellants and PEF.  The appellants filed their
response brief on January 25, 2011.  Oral argument was held on
May 5, 2011.

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


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeal From "Garcia" Suit Dismissal Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit captioned
Garcia v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America remains
pending, according to Prudential Financial, Inc.'s May 6, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

Prudential Insurance is a subsidiary of Prudential Financial.

In January 2011, a purported state-wide class action, Garcia v.
The Prudential Insurance Company of America was dismissed by the
Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, Nevada.  The
complaint is brought on behalf of Nevada beneficiaries of life
insurance policies sold by the Company for which, unless the
beneficiaries elected another settlement method, death benefits
were placed in retained asset accounts that earn interest and are
subject to withdrawal in whole or in part at any time by the
beneficiaries.  The complaint alleges that by failing to disclose
material information about the accounts, the Company wrongfully
delayed payment and improperly retained undisclosed profits, and
seeks damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and prejudgment
and post-judgment interest.  In February 2011, plaintiff appealed
the dismissal.  As previously reported, in December 2009, an
earlier purported nationwide class action raising substantially
similar allegations brought by the same plaintiff in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Garcia v.
Prudential Insurance Company of America, was dismissed.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Dropped as Defendant in "Phillips" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. was dropped as a defendant in the class
action complaint, Phillips v. Prudential Financial, Inc., pending
in Illinois, according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

In December 2010, a purported state-wide class action complaint,
Phillips v. Prudential Financial, Inc., was filed in the Circuit
Court of the First Judicial Circuit, Williamson County, Illinois.
The complaint makes allegations under Illinois law, substantially
similar to the Garcia cases, on behalf of a class of Illinois
residents whose death benefits were settled by retained assets
accounts.  In January 2011, the case was removed to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  In
March 2011, the complaint was amended to drop the Company as a
defendant and add Pruco Life Insurance Company as a defendant.
The matter is now captioned Phillips v. Prudential Insurance and
Pruco Life Insurance Company.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Consolidated Suit in Mass. Court Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial Inc. continues to defend itself from a
consolidated class action complaint pending in Massachusetts,
according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2011.

In July 2010, a purported nationwide class action that makes
allegations similar to those in the Garcia and Phillips actions
relating to retained asset accounts of beneficiaries of a group
life insurance contract owned by the United States Department of
Veterans Affairs that covers the lives of members and veterans of
the U.S. armed forces, Lucey et al. v. Prudential Insurance
Company of America, was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts.  The complaint challenges the
use of retained asset accounts to settle death benefit claims,
asserting violations of federal and state law, breach of contract
and fraud and seeking compensatory and treble damages and
equitable relief.  In October 2010, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint.  In November 2010, a second purported
nationwide class action brought on behalf of the same
beneficiaries of the VA Contract, Phillips v. Prudential Insurance
Company of America and Prudential Financial, Inc., was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
and makes substantially the same claims.  In November and December
2010, two additional actions brought on behalf of the same
putative class, alleging substantially the same claims and the
same relief, Garrett v. The Prudential Insurance Company of
America and Prudential Financial, Inc. and Witt v. The Prudential
Insurance Company of America were filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.  In February 2011,
Phillips, Garrett and Witt were transferred to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Massachusetts by the
Judicial Panel for Multi-District Litigation and consolidated with
the Lucey matter as In re Prudential Insurance Company of America
SGLI/VGLI Contract Litigation.  In March 2011, the motion to
dismiss was denied.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Withdraws Bid to Dismiss "Huffman" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial Inc. withdrew its motion to dismiss a class
action lawsuit filed by beneficiaries of group life insurance
contracts in Pennsylvania, according to the Company's May 6, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

In September 2010, Huffman v. The Prudential Insurance Company, a
purported nationwide class action brought on behalf of
beneficiaries of group life insurance contracts owned by ERISA-
governed employee welfare benefit plans was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
alleging that using retained asset accounts in employee welfare
benefit plans to settle death benefit claims violates ERISA and
seeking injunctive relief and disgorgement of profits.  The
Company moved to dismiss the complaint.  In April 2011, the
Company withdrew its motion to dismiss the complaint.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Enters Into Deal to Settle Suit in NJ
-----------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial Inc. entered into a settlement, subject to
court approval, to resolve amended class action complaint pending
in New Jersey, according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

In March 2009, a purported class action, Bauer v. Prudential
Financial, et al., was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey.  The case names as defendants, the
Company, certain Company Directors, the Chief Financial Officer,
Controller and former Chief Executive Officer and former Principal
Accounting Officer, underwriters and the Company's independent
auditors.  The complaint, brought on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's 9% Junior Subordinated Notes (retail hybrid subordinated
debt), alleges that the Company's March 2006 Form S-3 Registration
Statement and Prospectus and the June 2008 Prospectus Supplement,
both of which incorporated other public filings, contained
material misstatements or omissions.  In light of the Company's
disclosures in connection with its 2008 financial results,
plaintiffs contend that the earlier offering documents failed to
disclose impairments in the Company's asset-backed securities
collateralized with subprime mortgages and goodwill associated
with certain subsidiaries and other assets, and that the Company
had inadequate controls relating to such reporting.  The complaint
asserts violations of the Securities Act of 1933, alleging Section
11 claims against all defendants, Section 12(a)(2) claims against
the Company and underwriters and Section 15 claims against the
individual defendants, and seeks unspecified compensatory and
rescission damages, interest, costs, fees, expenses and such
injunctive relief as may be deemed appropriate by the court.

In April 2009, two additional purported class action complaints
were filed in the same court, Haddock v. Prudential Financial,
Inc. et al. and Pinchuk v. Prudential Financial, Inc. et al. The
complaints essentially allege the same claims and seek the same
relief as Bauer.  In June 2009, Pinchuk was voluntarily dismissed
and the Haddock and Bauer matters were consolidated.  In July
2009, an amended consolidated complaint was filed that added
claims regarding contingent liability relating to the auction rate
securities markets and reserves relating to annuity contract
holders.  The complaint restates the claims regarding impairments
related to mortgage-backed securities, but does not include prior
claims regarding goodwill impairments.  The complaint names all of
the same defendants as the prior complaints, with the exception of
the Company's independent auditors.  In September 2009, defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  In June 2010, the court
dismissed without prejudice the claim relating to contingent
liability in connection with auction rate securities and denied
the motion with respect to the other claims.  In July 2010,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint restating their contingent
liability claim and, in September 2010, defendants moved to
dismiss the restated claim.  In April 2011, the matter settled in
principle.  The settlement will be subject to court approval.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: "Bouder" Suit Still Pending in NJ Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit filed against Prudential
Financial Inc. in New Jersey for failing to pay for overtime work
to insurance agents is still pending, according to its May 6,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

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


QUEENS, NY: Faces Class Action Over Disability Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------
Bieske & Associates, P.C. disclosed that disability advocates
filed a class action lawsuit in federal court in Brooklyn, New
York alleging bias in Social Security disability benefits cases.
Eight plaintiffs represent a class of individuals who were denied
benefits after seeking review hearings in the Queens Social
Security Administration (SSA) office.  They complain of harsh,
combative questioning and systematic denials based largely upon
race and economic status.

Many of the representative applicants are poor or immigrants, and
their brutish experiences are well-known.  Some lawyers have
advised their clients establish residences in other boroughs so
they can avoid the Queens office.  Federal judges have overturned
a number of Queens rulings in recent years, citing legal errors,
and problematic hearings where questioning has been called
"brusque, intemperate and unhelpful."

The plaintiffs seek to have rulings from five administrative law
judges rescinded.  They also want to bar the judges from hearing
future cases.  According to the New York Times, these judges have
rejected an average of 63% of the cases they have heard; much
higher than the national average of 36%.  An SSA audit revealed
that the Queens office was in the top five nationally for the
percentage of review decisions sent back for rehearing in 2007.

The federal court's ruling could affect thousands of people who
were previously denied benefits.

Disability lawyers and the chronically injured understand that
applying for benefits can be an arduous process.  On average, the
Social Security Administration rejects 65% of initial
applications.  However, applicants can have their petitions
reconsidered by someone who was not involved with the initial
review.  Applicants are entitled to a review hearing before an
administrative law judge if reconsideration results in a denial.
The Journal, a Delaware-based newspaper, noted that administrative
law judges in Michigan reject, on average, 35% of all disability
petitions, with one Grand Rapids judge denying benefits in 66% of
cases.  If you have applied for benefits and your initial claim
has been rejected, it is important to have an attorney review your
petition and medical records in preparation for an appeal.


REALPAGE INC: Continues to Defend "Minor" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
RealPage, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class action
lawsuit commenced by Angela Minor, who alleges that the Company
willfully failed to employ reasonable procedures to ensure the
maximum accuracy of its resident screening reports, according to
the Company's May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

On June 15, 2009, a prospective resident of one of the Company's
customers filed a class action lawsuit styled Minor v. RealPage,
Inc. against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.  By the parties' mutual
stipulation in August 2009, the action was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (No. 4:09CV-
00439).  The plaintiff has alleged two individual claims and three
class-based causes of action against the Company.  Individually,
the plaintiff alleges that the Company (i) willfully failed to
employ reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum accuracy of the
Company's resident screening reports as required by 15 U.S.C.
Section 1681e(b) and, in the alternative, (ii) negligently (within
the meaning of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681o(a)) failed to employ
reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum accuracy of the
Company's resident screening reports, as required by 15 U.S.C.
Section 1681e(b), in each case stemming from the Company's
provision of a report that allegedly included inaccurate criminal
conviction information.  The plaintiff seeks actual, statutory and
punitive damages on her individual claims.  In her capacity as the
putative class representative, the plaintiff also alleges that the
Company: (i) willfully failed to provide legally mandated
disclosures upon a consumer's request inconsistent with 15 U.S.C.
Section 1681g; (ii) willfully failed to provide prompt notice of
consumers' disputes to the data furnishers who provided the
Company with the information whose accuracy was in question, as
required by 15 U.S.C. Sections 1681i(a)(2); and (iii) willfully
failed to provide prompt notice of consumers' disputes to the
consumer reporting agencies providing the Company with the
information whose accuracy was in question, as required by 15
U.S.C. Section 1681i(f).

The plaintiff sought certification of three separate classes in
connection with these claims.  The plaintiff also sought statutory
and punitive damages, a declaration that the Company's practices
and procedures were in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
and attorneys' fees and costs.  The parties achieved a resolution
of both Angela Minor's individual claims, on November 29, 2010, as
well as the class-based claims at approximately the same time.
Plaintiff filed her Motion for Preliminary Approval, including the
previously executed Settlement Agreement, with the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas on January 6, 2011.


REALPAGE INC: Continues to Defend "Taylor" Class Suit in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
RealPage, Inc., remains a defendant in the consolidated class
action lawsuit captioned Taylor, et al. v. Acxiom Corp., et al.,
according to the Company's May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

In January 2007, plaintiffs filed five separate but nearly
identical class action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas against more than 100 defendants.  The
Company were named as a defendant in one of those actions, Taylor,
et al. v. Safeway, Inc., et al. (No. 2:07-CV-00017). On March 4,
2008, the Court consolidated these actions with the lead case,
Taylor, et al. v. Acxiom Corp., et al. (No. 2:07-CV-00001).  In
their operative pleading, plaintiffs alleged that the Company
obtained and held motor vehicle records in bulk from the State of
Texas, an allegedly improper purpose in violation of the federal
Driver's Privacy Protection Act, or the DPPA.  In addition, the
plaintiffs alleged that the Company obtained these records for the
purpose of re-selling them, another allegedly improper purpose in
violation of the DPPA.  Plaintiffs further purported to represent
a putative class of approximately 20.0 million individuals
affected by the defendants' alleged DPPA violations.  They sought
statutory damages of $2,500 per each violation of the DPPA,
punitive damages and an order requiring defendants to destroy
information obtained in violation of the DPPA.

In September 2008, the U.S. District Court dismissed plaintiffs'
complaint for failure to state a claim.  The plaintiffs
subsequently appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit.  The primary issue on appeal is whether
plaintiffs alleged any injury-in-fact that would give them
standing to bring their claims.  Predicate issues include whether
obtaining and merely holding data states a claim under the DPPA,
and whether re-selling data likewise states an actionable claim.
In November 2009, the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument on the
appeal.  In July 2010, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the U.S.
District Court's dismissal.  The Plaintiff-Appellants filed a
petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court on
October 12, 2010, seeking review of the Fifth Circuit's decision,
and the Company received service of the petition on October 15,
2010.  The Supreme Court of the United States denied Taylor's
petition for certiorari on January 10, 2011.


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

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 9, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.


RESEARCH IN MOTION: Intends to Vigorously Defend Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Research In Motion Limited on May 30 confirmed that it intends to
vigorously defend against a purported class action lawsuit filed
against the Company and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  The lawsuit alleges that during the period from
December 16, 2010, through April 28, 2011, the Company and certain
of its officers made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial condition and business
prospects, and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of an alleged
class of purchasers of the Company's common shares during this
period.  RIM believes that the allegations are without merit.


SAVVIS Inc: Faces Three Class Suits Over Merger With CenturyLink
----------------------------------------------------------------
SAVVIS, Inc., is facing three purported class action lawsuits in
connection with its proposed merger with CenturyLink, Inc., and
Mimi Acquisition Company, according to the Company's May 9, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

Three purported class action lawsuits have been filed in
connection with the Company's Agreement and Plan of Merger with
CenturyLink, Inc. and Mimi Acquisition Company: (i) Michael
Jiannaras v. Savvis, Inc., et al., filed on April 29, 2011 in the
Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri; (ii) Hilary Kramer v.
Savvis, Inc., et al., filed on May 2, 2011 in the Delaware Court
of Chancery; and (iii) Tatyana Andreyeva v. Savvis, Inc. et al.,
filed on May 6, 2011 (Andreyeva suit).  All suits name the
Company, the members of its board of directors, CenturyLink, Inc.,
and Mimi Acquisition Company as defendants other than the
Andreyeva suit, which names the Company, the members of its board
of directors and CenturyLink, Inc. as defendants, and all are
brought by purported holders of the Company's common stock.  The
lawsuits allege that the Company's board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties to the holders of its common stock in
connection with the Merger by, among other things, failing to
maximize shareholder value.  The lawsuits seek various forms of
relief, including, but not limited to, enjoining consummation of
the merger, rescission of the actions taken to date and awards of
compensatory damages, rescissory damages and all costs, including
reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.

While no assurance of the outcome of these lawsuits can be
provided, the Company believes that the claims of these lawsuits
are without merit and intends to vigorously defend its interests.


SEARS HOLDING: Sued for Failing to Provide Seats to Kmart Cashiers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Garvey, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Sears Holding Management Corporation, et al., Case No.
RG11571349 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.), was filed
on April 11, 2011.  The plaintiff says defendants violated
California Labor Code Section 1198 and Wage Order 7-2001, section
14 by failing to provided suitable seats to plaintiff and other
current and former employees.

Wage Order 7-2001, which covers the "mercantile industry," states:
"All working employees shall be provided with suitable seats when
the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats." Id..,
section 14(a).

Sears Holdings Management Corporation and Does 1-50 own and
operate retail stores throughout California.

Ms. Garvey, a resident of the State of California, was employed as
a cashier at a Kmart retail store owned and operated by
defendants.

On the basis of diversity jurisdiction, Sears Holdings Management
Corporation (erroneously sued as "Sears Holding Management
Corporation), on May 27 2011, removed the lawsuit to the Northern
District of California, and the Clerk assigned Case No.
11-cv-02575 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James F. Clapp, Esq.
          Marita Murphy Lauinger, Esq.
          Zachariah P. Dostart, Esq.
          DOSTART CLAPP GORDON & COVENEY LLP
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 970
          San Diego, California 92122-1253
          Telephone: (858) 623-4200
          E-mail: jclapp@sdlaw.com
                  mlauinger@sdlaw.com
                  zdostart@sdlaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin J. McInerney, Esq.
          McINERNEY & JONES
          18124 Wedge Parkway, Suite 503
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 849-3811
          E-mail: kevin@mcinerneylaw.net

               - and -

          Matthew Righetti, Esq.
          RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI,P.C
          456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 983-0900
          E-mail: matt@righettilaw.com

Defendant Sears Holdings Management Corporation (erroneously sued
as Sears Holding Management Corporation) is represented by:

          Amanda C. Sommerfeld, Esq.
          Benjamin M. Gipson, Esq.
          Michelle S. Kunihiro, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3800
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
          Telephone: (213) 615-1700
          E-mail: asommerfeld@winston.com
                  bgipson@winston.com
                  mkunihiro@winston.com

               - and -

          Mari Overbeck, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          101 California Street, Suite 3900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 591-1000
          E-mail: moverbeck@winston.com


SEARS ROEBUCK: Court Reverses Class Action Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
Ann Knef, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports that
the Fifth District Appellate Court has reversed a ruling by St.
Clair County Associate Judge Andrew Gleeson who in 2009 certified
a class action against Sears Roebuck over fees paid for
refrigerator waterline installation.

In a Rule 23 order filed May 17, Justice Stephen Spomer wrote that
the amended class definition included members who no longer lived
in the homes where the "saddle" valves were installed and
"therefore have suffered no actual injury, and therefore the
definition is overbroad."

Saddle valves are illegal under state plumbing code.

The case was filed in 2006 by St. Louis attorney, Erich Vieth,
Esq., on behalf of plaintiffs Louise Bradley and Earleen Morris.
The class included Illinois residents who, since Feb. 10, 1996,
paid Sears a fee for the installation of a refrigerator waterline
for icemakers.

Justices Melissa Chapman and Thomas Welch concurred with Justice
Spomer.

Though the justices reversed class certification and remanded the
case to St. Clair County for further proceedings, the court held
that the general requirements for certification were met on issues
of commonality and adequacy of representation.

They also found that the cost of bringing waterline installations
up to code would constitute actual damages under state law if a
violation could be proven.

But, in this case, when a class member who purchased a waterline
installation subsequently moved and/or no longer possessed the
refrigerator, he or she would have no claim of injury, the
justices held.

"These class members are not entitled to relief because they are
not at risk of an injury and are no longer in a position to have
the allegedly defective installations corrected," Justice Spomer
wrote.

"As a result, the class definition is overbroad and must be
amended so that class membership is limited to individuals with
valid claims for relief."

William "Barney" Shultz, Esq., of Edwardsville represents Sears.

On the front page of the decision, Judge Gleeson's name is
misspelled "Gleason."

Rule 23 orders are non-precedential.


SOAPSTONE NETWORKS: Appeals in IPO-Related Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Twelve purported securities class action lawsuits were filed
against Soapstone Networks Inc. and one or more of its
underwriters in its initial public offering, and certain officers
and directors of the Company.  The lawsuits alleged violations of
the federal securities laws and were docketed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court") as:
Felzen, et al. v. Avici Systems, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-
3363; Lefkowitz, et al. v. Avici Systems, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
01-CV-3541; Lewis, et al. v. Avici Systems, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
01-CV-3698; Mandel, et. al v. Avici Systems, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 01-CV-3713; Minai, et al. v. Avici Systems, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 01-CV-3870; Steinberg, et al. v. Avici Systems Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 01-CV-3983; Pelissier, et al. v. Avici Systems, Inc., et
al., C.A. No. 01-CV-4204; Esther, et al. v. Avici Systems, Inc.,
et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-4352; Zhous, et al. v. Avici Systems, Inc.
et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-4494; Mammen, et al. v. Avici Systems,
Inc., et. al., C.A. No. 01-CV-5722; Lin, et al. v. Avici Systems,
Inc., et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-5674; and Shives, et al. v. Banc of
America Securities, et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-4956.  On April 19,
2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint (the
"Complaint"), which superseded these twelve purported securities
class action lawsuits, was filed in the Court. The Complaint is
captioned "In re Avici Systems, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation" (21 MC 92, 01 Civ. 3363 (SAS)) and names as
defendants the Company, certain of the underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering, and certain of the Company's
officers and directors.  The Complaint, which seeks unspecified
damages, alleges violations of the federal securities laws,
including among other things, that the underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering improperly required their
customers to pay the underwriters excessive commissions and to
agree to buy additional shares of stock in the aftermarket as
conditions of receiving shares in the Company's IPO.  The
Complaint further claims that these supposed practices of the
underwriters should have been disclosed in the Company's IPO
prospectus and registration statement.  In addition to the
Complaint against the Company, various other plaintiffs have filed
other substantially similar class action cases against
approximately 300 other publicly traded companies and their IPO
underwriters in New York City, which along with the case against
the Company have all been transferred to a single federal district
judge for purposes of case management.  The Company and its
officers and directors believe that the claims against the Company
lack merit, and have defended the litigation vigorously.  In that
regard, 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 consolidated amended
complaints against them on various legal grounds common to all or
most of the issuer defendants.

On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed without prejudice all
claims against the individual current and former officers and
directors who were named as defendants in the Company's
litigation, and they are no longer parties to the lawsuit.  On
February 19, 2003, the Court issued its ruling on the motions to
dismiss filed by the issuer defendants and separate motions to
dismiss filed by the underwriter defendants.  In that ruling, the
Court granted in part and denied in part those motions.  As to the
claims brought against the Company under the antifraud provisions
of the securities laws, the Court dismissed all of these claims
with prejudice, and refused to allow the plaintiffs an opportunity
to re-plead these claims against the Company.  As to the claims
brought under the registration provisions of the securities laws,
which do not require that intent to defraud be pleaded, the Court
denied the motion to dismiss these claims as to the Company and as
to substantially all of the other issuer defendants as well.  The
Court also denied the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss in
all respects.

In June 2003, the Company 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 the Company and against any of the other
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 the Company 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 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 this ruling.  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 the
Company.  On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed amended
complaints in the six focus cases.  On November 13, 2007, 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.  Several objectors have
since appealed the order approving the settlement, and those
appeals remain pending.  While the Company can make no promises or
guarantees as to the outcome of these proceedings, the Company
does not believe that a loss is probable.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 9, 2011,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.


STEC INC: Calif. Court to Hear Motion to Dismiss Suit on June 13
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEC, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a second amended consolidated
securities lawsuit is set to be considered by a California court
on June 13, 2011, according to the Company's May 10, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

From November 6, 2009 through March 2, 2010, seven purported class
action complaints were filed against the Company and several of
its senior officers and directors in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.  The Court
consolidated the first six actions on January 21, 2010, and
appointed Lead Plaintiffs on February 8, 2010.  Lead Plaintiffs
filed a consolidated complaint on April 9, 2010, and the
defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint.  On
July 15, 2010, prior to hearing the defendants' motion, the Court
replaced the former Lead Plaintiffs with a new Lead Plaintiff.
The new Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on
August 13, 2010.  The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint and on January 21, 2011, the Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice.  On February 22,
2011, Lead Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, purportedly
on behalf of all persons and entities who acquired the Company's
common stock between June 16, 2009 and February 23, 2010.  The
second amended complaint alleges claims against the Company and
several of its senior officers and directors for violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder, and claims against several of its senior
officers and directors for violations of Section 20A and Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.  In addition, the second amended
complaint alleges claims against the Company, several of its
senior officers and directors, and four of its underwriters for
violations of Section 11 and Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities
Act of 1933, and claims against several of the Company's senior
officers and directors for violations of Section 15 of the
Securities Act.  The second amended complaint seeks compensatory
damages for all damages sustained as a result of the defendants'
alleged actions including reasonable costs and expenses,
rescission, counsel fees, and other relief the Court deems just
and proper.  The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint on March 24, 2011, and the Lead Plaintiff's
filed an opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss on
April 25, 2011.  A hearing is set for June 13, 2011.  The Company
believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously
defend itself.  No amounts have been recorded in the consolidated
financial statements for this matter as the Company believes it is
too early in the proceedings to determine an outcome.

STEC, Inc. is a global provider of solid-state drives (SSDs) using
NAND Flash that are designed specifically for enterprise systems
and applications that require high input and output capabilities
with low latencies for fast access to critical user data.  It
designs and develops SSD controllers, enhance them with
proprietary firmware and combine them with multi-sourced Flash
media to form high-performance SSDs, which provide a level of IO
performance not currently possible with traditional hard disk
drives.  The Company sells its SSDs to leading global enterprise
hardware original equipment manufacturers, which integrate them
into products used in a variety of industries including cloud
computing, financial services, virtualization, Web 2.0,
government, transportation, defense and transaction processing.


STEWART INFORMATION: Continues to Defend Antitrust Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Information Services Corporation continues to defend
itself against class action lawsuits in various states alleging
violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act, according to the Company's May 4, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In February 2008, an antitrust class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against Stewart Title Insurance Company, Monroe Title Insurance
Corporation, Stewart Information Services Corporation, several
other unaffiliated title insurance companies and the Title
Insurance Rate Service Association, Inc. (TIRSA).  The complaint
alleges that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act by collectively filing proposed rates for title
insurance in New York through TIRSA, a state-authorized and
licensed rate service organization.

Complaints were subsequently filed in the United States District
Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York and in
the United States District Courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
Ohio, Florida, Massachusetts, Arkansas, California, Washington,
West Virginia, Texas and Delaware.  All of the complaints make
similar class action allegations, except that certain of the
complaints also allege violations of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act (RESPA) and various state antitrust and consumer
protection laws.  The complaints generally request treble damages
in unspecified amounts, declaratory and injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees.  Seventy-eight complaints have been filed, each
of which names the Company and/or one or more of its affiliates as
a defendant (and have been consolidated in the aforementioned
states), of which seven have been voluntarily dismissed.

As of April 12, 2011, the Company has obtained dismissals of the
claims in Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts,
New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania (where the court
dismissed the damages claims and granted defendants summary
judgment on the injunctive claims), Texas and Washington.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss in West Virginia (where all
proceedings have been stayed and the docket closed).  The
plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal in Ohio to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the dismissals
in Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  The dismissals in New
York and Texas have been affirmed by the United States Courts of
Appeals for the Second and Fifth Circuits, respectively, and on
October 4, 2010, the United States Supreme Court denied the
plaintiffs' petitions for review of those decisions.  The
plaintiffs have appealed to the Second Circuit the dismissal of
the RESPA claims by the court in New York.  Although the Company
cannot predict the outcome of these actions, it intends to
vigorously defend itself against the allegations and does not
believe that the outcome will materially affect its consolidated
financial condition or results of operations.

Stewart Information Services Corp. -- http://www.stewart.com/--
is a real estate information, title insurance and transaction
management company.  The company provides title insurance and
related information services required for settlement by the real
estate and mortgage industries throughout the United States and
international markets.  Stewart also provides post-closing lender
services, automated county clerk land records, property ownership
mapping, geographic information systems, property information
reports, flood certificates, document preparation, background
checks and expertise in tax-deferred exchanges.  The company's
international division delivers products and services protecting
and promoting private land ownership worldwide.  Stewart's primary
international operations are in Canada, the United Kingdom,
Central Europe, Mexico, Central America and Australia.


TD AMERITRADE: Awaits Final Okay of Settlement in Date Breach Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation is awaiting final court approval
of an agreement to settle a consolidated class action complaint in
California, according to the Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

A purported class action, captioned Elvey v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.,
was filed on May 31, 2007 in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California.  The complaint alleges that
there was a breach in TD Ameritrade, Inc.'s systems, which allowed
access to e-mail addresses and other personal information of
account holders, and that as a result account holders received
unsolicited e-mail from spammers promoting certain stocks and have
been subjected to an increased risk of identity theft. The
complaint requests unspecified damages and injunctive and other
equitable relief.

A second lawsuit, captioned Zigler v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., was
filed on September 26, 2007, in the same jurisdiction on behalf of
a purported nationwide class of account holders.  The factual
allegations of the complaint and the relief sought are
substantially the same as those in the first lawsuit.  The cases
were consolidated under the caption In re TD Ameritrade
Accountholders Litigation and a consolidated complaint was filed.
The Company hired an independent consultant to investigate whether
identity theft occurred as a result of the breach.  The consultant
conducted four investigations from August 2007 to June 2008 and
reported that it found no evidence of identity theft.  On
December 20, 2010, TD Ameritrade, Inc. received preliminary Court
approval of a proposed class settlement agreement between TD
Ameritrade, Inc. and plaintiffs Richard Holober and Brad Zigler.
Under the proposed settlement, the Company will pay no less than
$2.5 million in settlement benefits.  Total compensation to be
paid to all eligible members of the settlement class will not
exceed $6.5 million, inclusive of any award of attorneys' fees and
costs.  In addition, the settlement agreement provides that the
Company will retain an independent information technology security
consultant to assess whether the Company has met certain
information technology security standards.  The proposed
settlement is subject to final approval by the Court.  A hearing
on final approval of the proposed settlement was held on April 19,
2011.  The Court has not yet ruled on the matter.


TD AMERITRADE: Motions to Dismiss "Ross" Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation is awaiting court approval of
its bid to dismiss an amended class action complaint captioned
Ross v. Reserve Management Company, Inc. et al., according to the
Company's May 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2011.

In November 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed with
respect to the Yield Plus Fund.  The lawsuit is captioned Ross v.
Reserve Management Company, Inc. et al. and is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The Ross
lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased shares of Reserve
Yield Plus Fund.  On November 20, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a
first amended complaint naming as defendants the fund's advisor,
certain of its affiliates and the Company and certain of its
directors, officers and shareholders as alleged control persons.
The complaint alleges claims of violations of the federal
securities laws and other claims based on allegations that false
and misleading statements and omissions were made in the Reserve
Yield Plus Fund prospectuses and in other statements regarding the
fund.  The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages including interest, attorneys' fees, rescission, exemplary
damages and equitable relief.  On January 19, 2010, the defendants
submitted motions to dismiss the complaint.  The motions are
pending.


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Completes $6.2MM Share in "Phillips" Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tecumseh Products Company disclosed that a settlement agreement
entered in a nationwide class action lawsuit captioned Ronnie
Phillips et al. v Sears Roebuck Corporation et al. is final and it
has paid the balance of its $6.2 million allocable portion of the
settlement in the first quarter of 2011, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

A nationwide class-action lawsuit filed against the Company and
other defendants (Ronnie Phillips et al v. Sears Roebuck
Corporation et al., No. 04-L-334 (20th Judicial Circuit, St. Clair
County, IL)) alleged that the horsepower labels on the products
the plaintiffs purchased, which included products manufactured by
the Company's former Engine & Power Train business, were
inaccurate. The plaintiffs sought certification of a class of all
persons in the United States who, beginning January 1, 1995
through the present, purchased a lawnmower containing a two stroke
or four stroke gas combustible engine up to 20 horsepower that was
manufactured by defendants. On March 30, 2007, the Court issued an
order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss, and on May 8,
2008 the Court issued an opinion that (i) dismissed all the claims
made under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act
with prejudice; (ii) dismissed all claims of the 93 non-Illinois
plaintiffs with instructions to re-file amended claims in
individual state courts; and (iii) ordered that any amended
complaint for the three Illinois plaintiffs be re-filed by May 30,
2008. Since that time, eleven plaintiff's firms have filed 64
class action matters in 48 states, the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico, asserting claims on behalf of consumers in each of
those jurisdictions with respect to lawnmower purchases from
January 1, 1994 to the present. The Company has joined the joint
defense group with other lawnmower and component manufacturers who
are defendants. In the fourth quarter of 2009, a conceptual offer
by a group of the defendants, including the Company, of $51.0
million was accepted in principle with the actual settlement terms
to be negotiated. On February 24, 2010, the Company, along with
the other settling defendants, executed a settlement agreement
with plaintiffs resolving claims against the group of settling
defendants in exchange for a group payment of $51 million, a one-
year warranty extension for qualifying class members and
injunctive relief regarding future lawnmower engine labeling
practices. On February 26, 2010, the court entered an order
preliminarily approving the group settlement, certifying the
settlement class, appointing settlement class counsel and staying
proceedings against the settling defendants. The settlement class
consists of all persons or entities in the United States who,
beginning January 1, 1994, up to the date when notice of the
preliminary approval was published (April 12, 2010) purchased, for
their own use and not for resale, a lawn mower containing a gas
combustible engine up to 30 horsepower provided that either the
lawn mower or the engine of the lawn mower was manufactured or
sold by a defendant. On August 16, 2010, the District Court
entered orders approving each of the settlements. A number of
objectors filed appeals regarding the settlement approval orders
and other related orders in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit, but as of February 16, 2011, all of those
appeals have now been dismissed. Accordingly, the Company's
settlement agreement is final and the Company paid the balance of
its $6.2 million allocable portion of the settlement in the first
quarter of 2011. The Company accrued the expected costs of its
performance of the settlement obligations in prior periods and, as
such, management does not currently expect that the settlement
will have a material adverse effect on the Company's 2011
consolidated operating results or financial condition.

Tecumseh Products Company is in the refrigeration and air
conditioning industry.


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Continues to Defend Canadian Horsepower Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tecumseh Products Company continues to defend itself in several
purported class actions alleging that the Company and other
defendants conspired to fix prices of lawnmowers and lawn mower
engines in Canada, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

On March 19, 2010, Robert Foster and Murray Davenport filed a
lawsuit under the Class Proceedings Act in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against the Company and several other defendants
(including Sears Canada Inc., Sears Holdings Corporation, John
Deere Limited, Platinum Equity, LLC, Briggs & Stratton
Corporation, Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA, MTD Products Inc., The
Toro Company, American Honda Motor Co., Electrolux Home Products,
Inc., Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor Products N.A., Inc. and Kohler
Co.), alleging that defendants conspired to fix prices of
lawnmowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, to lessen competition
in lawnmowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, and to mislabel
the horsepower of lawnmower engines and lawnmowers in violation of
the Canadian Competition Act, civil conspiracy prohibitions and
the Consumer Packaging and Labeling Act. Plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of all persons in Canada who purchased, for
their own use and not for resale, a lawnmower containing a gas
combustible engine of 30 horsepower or less provided that either
the lawnmower or the engine contained within the lawnmower was
manufactured and/or sold by a defendant or their predecessors
between January 1, 1994 and the date of judgment. Plaintiffs seek
undetermined money damages, punitive damages, interest, costs and
equitable relief. In addition, Snowstorm Acquisition Corporation
and Platinum Equity, LLC, the purchasers of Tecumseh Power Company
and its subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. in November 2007, have
notified the Company that they claim indemnification with respect
to this lawsuit under the Company's Stock Purchase Agreement with
them.  At this time, the Company does not have a reasonable
estimate of the amount of its ultimate liability, if any, or the
amount of any potential future settlement, but the amount could be
material to its financial position, consolidated results of
operations and cash flows.

Tecumseh Products Company is in the refrigeration and air
conditioning industry.


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: "Liverman" Suit Still Pending in Quebec
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action commenced by Eric Liverman and Sidney Vadish
against Tecumseh Products Company remains pending in Quebec,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

On May 3, 2010, a class action was commenced in the Superior Court
of the Province of Quebec by Eric Liverman and Sidney Vadish
against the Company and several other defendants advancing
allegations similar to the Canadian Horsepower Label Litigation.
Plaintiffs seek undetermined money damages, punitive damages,
interest, costs, and equitable relief. Snowstorm Acquisition
Corporation and Platinum Equity, LLC, the purchasers of Tecumseh
Power Company and its subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. in November
2007, have notified the Company that they claim indemnification
with respect to this lawsuit under the Company's Stock Purchase
Agreement with them.  At this time, the Company does not have a
reasonable estimate of the amount of its ultimate liability, if
any, or the amount of any potential future settlement, but the
amount could be material to its financial position, consolidated
results of operations and cash flows.

Tecumseh Products Company is in the refrigeration and air
conditioning industry.


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Continues to Defend Antitrust Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Tecumseh Products Company continues to defend itself in several
class action lawsuits filed before courts in Canada and the United
States arising from the public disclosure of investigations
relating to anti-competitive pricing investigations among
manufacturers in the compressor industry, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On February 17, 2009, the Company received a subpoena from the
United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division and a
formal request for information from the Secretariat of Economic
Law of the Ministry of Justice of Brazil related to investigations
by these authorities into possible anti-competitive pricing
arrangements among certain manufacturers in the compressor
industry. The European Commission began an investigation of the
industry on the same day.

The Company is cooperating fully with these investigations. In
addition, the Company has entered into a conditional amnesty
agreement with the DOJ under the Antitrust Division's Corporate
Leniency Policy. Pursuant to the agreement, the DOJ has agreed to
not bring any criminal prosecution with respect to the
investigation against the Company as long as it, among other
things, continues its full cooperation in the investigation. The
Company has received similar conditional immunity from the
European Commission, the SDE, and the competition authorities in
other jurisdictions.

While the Company has taken steps to avoid fines, penalties and
other sanctions as the result of proceedings brought by regulatory
authorities, the amnesty grants do not extend to civil actions
brought by private plaintiffs. The public disclosure of these
investigations has resulted in class action lawsuits filed in
Canada and numerous class action lawsuits filed in the United
States, including by both direct and indirect purchaser groups.
All of the U.S. actions have been transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings under Multidistrict Litigation
procedures.

On June 24, 2010, Tecumseh Products Company, Tecumseh Compressor
Company, Tecumseh do Brasil, Ltda, and Tecumseh do Brasil U.S.A.
LLC entered into a settlement agreement with the direct-purchaser
plaintiffs to resolve claims in the action in order to avoid the
costs and distraction of this ongoing class action litigation. The
Settlement Agreement was made by and between the Company and its
subsidiaries and affiliates, and plaintiffs, both individually and
on behalf of a class of persons who purchased in the United
States, its territories and possessions, directly from a defendant
during the period from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2008:
(a) compressors of less than one horsepower used for
refrigeration, freezing or cooling purposes, and/or (b)
refrigeration products, including condensers, containing
compressors of less than one horsepower used for refrigeration,
freezing or cooling purposes. Compressors used for air-
conditioning applications are specifically excluded.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, in exchange for
plaintiffs' full release of all U.S. direct-purchaser claims
against the Company relating to the Covered Products, the Company
agreed to pay a settlement amount of $7.0 million and, in
addition, agreed to pay up to $250,000 for notice and
administrative costs associated with administering the settlement.
These costs were accrued as an expense in the second quarter of
2010 (and paid in the third quarter of 2010). The Company also
agreed to assist plaintiffs in obtaining the Court's approval of
the settlement and to share with plaintiffs information relating
to the anti-competitive conduct alleged in the action. If the
Court refuses to approve the Settlement Agreement or if the
Settlement Agreement is modified or set aside on appeal,
plaintiffs and the Company each may rescind the Settlement
Agreement and the settlement amount will be returned to the
Company. In addition, if the Company's customers representing a
significant percentage of purchases of Covered Products choose not
to participate in the settlement (opt-out), the Company has the
right under certain circumstances to withdraw from the Settlement
Agreement and have the settlement funds returned. The Court has
not yet scheduled a hearing for preliminary approval of the
Settlement Agreement.

In the United States, the remaining indirect purchaser class
actions are in a preliminary stage. A consolidated amended
complaint was filed on June 30, 2010. The Company and other
defendants filed motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser class
action on August 30, 2010. Briefing on the motions has been
completed and the motions are still pending before the Court.
Persons who engage in price-fixing in violation of U.S. antitrust
law generally are jointly and severally liable to private
claimants for three times the actual damages caused by their joint
conduct. As a conditional amnesty recipient, however, the
Company's civil liability will be limited pursuant to the
Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004, as
amended. As long as the Company continues to cooperate with the
civil claimants and comply with the requirements of ACPERA, the
Company will be liable only for actual, as opposed to treble,
damages and will not be jointly and severally liable for claims
against other participants in the alleged anticompetitive conduct
being investigated.

In Canada, the class actions are in a preliminary stage. Due to
uncertainty of the Company's liability in these cases, or other
cases that may be brought in the future, the Company has not
accrued any liability in its financial statements, other than for
the claims subject to the Settlement Agreement. The Company's
ultimate liability, if any, or the amount of any potential future
settlements or resolution of these claims could be material to its
financial position, consolidated results of operations and cash
flows.

The Company anticipates that it will incur additional expenses as
it continues to cooperate with the investigations and defend the
lawsuits. The Company expensed all legal costs as incurred in the
consolidated statements of operations. Such expenses and any
restitution payments could negatively impact the Company's
reputation, compromise its ability to compete and result in
financial losses in an amount which could be material to its
financial position, consolidated results of operations and cash
flows.

Tecumseh Products Company is in the refrigeration and air
conditioning industry.


TEMPLE-INLAND INC: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Temple-Inland Inc. continues to defend itself in a consolidated
class suit alleging violations of antitrust laws, according to the
Company's May 10, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On September 9, 2010, the Company was were one of eight
containerboard producers named as defendants in a class action
complaint that alleged a civil violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.  The suit is captioned Kleen Products LLC v.
Packaging Corp. of America (N.D. Ill.).  The complaint alleges
that the defendants, beginning in August 2005, conspired to limit
the supply and thereby increase prices of containerboard products.
The alleged class is all persons who purchased containerboard
products directly from any defendant for use or delivery in the
United States during the period August 2005 to November 2010.  The
complaint seeks to recover an unspecified amount of treble actual
damages and attorney's fees on behalf of the purported class.
Four similar complaints were filed and have been consolidated in
the Northern District of Illinois.

The Company strongly disputes the allegations made in the lawsuit
and intends to defend vigorously against the litigation.  However,
because the action is in its preliminary stages, the Company is
unable to predict an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably
possible loss.

According to the Company, there were no significant changes to the
status of the litigation in first quarter 2011.

Temple-Inland Inc. manage its operations through two business
segments: corrugated packaging and building products.  It
manufactures linerboard, corrugating medium, and white-top
linerboard (collectively referred to as containerboard) that is
then converted into corrugated packaging.  It also manufactures
lumber, gypsum wallboard, particleboard, medium density fiberboard
and fibreboard.


TIGER BRANDS: Awaits Decision in Bread Price Fixing Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Times LIVE reports that judgment was reserved in the Western Cape
High Court in the appeal by the Black Sash Advocacy Programme and
others against a decision denying them a class action lawsuit
against major bread companies.

Acting Judge Francois van Zyl said judgment would be delivered in
about two weeks.

A class action lawsuit is filed on behalf of a group of people who
were in some way injured by the actions of a company.

In November last year, Judge Van Zyl dismissed an application by
the Black Sash and its co-applicants to certify them as the
representatives of bread eaters in the Western Cape in their class
action lawsuit against bread makers Tiger Brands, Pioneer Foods
and Premier Foods.

The other applicants included the Congress of South African Trade
Unions, the National Consumer Forum, the Children's Resources
Centre and five individual bread consumers.

The application for a class action lawsuit followed the
Competition Commission's findings that all the major bread
producers had participated in a bread price fixing cartel.

Shortly after the court case on Saturday, Black Sash Advocacy
Programme Manager Nkosikhulule Nyembezi said they awaited the
judgment with "anticipation".

"We remain confident on the strength of the case given the fact
that the competition authorities made a ruling that they were
guilty of collusion."

He said Statistics South Africa reported that over 20% of people
in the country went to bed without food and this proved the case
was very important for the people.

He said the Black Sash and its co-applicants remained committed
and determined to pursue and secure compensation on behalf of the
millions of consumers who had suffered as a result of corrupt and
corrosive business practices.

Attorney Charles Abrahams, Esq., representing the consumers, said
an appeal was filed because they believed that a different judge
may see the case differently.

"We think that his [Van Zyl] findings might be set aside by a
different court.  A different court might come to a different
conclusion."

Mr. Abrahams said one of the reasons the application was dismissed
in November was because the judge found, based on the papers
presented to him, that there was no clear definition as to who
constituted the "class".

"He could not see how the broad classes rights had been infringed
. . .  It was difficult to certify such a class."

Mr. Abrahams said it was not just about who they represented, but
about the fact that people's constitutional rights were violated
by the companies that participated in the cartel to fix the price
of bread.


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Continues to Defend Puerto Rico Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management Corporation continues to defend a class action
lawsuit commenced by the Puerto Rico Dentists Association,
according to the Company's May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

On February 11, 2009, the Puerto Rico Dentists Association
(Colegio de Cirujanos Dentistas de Puerto Rico) filed a complaint
in the Court of First Instance against 24 health plans operating
in Puerto Rico that offer dental health coverage.  The Company and
two of its subsidiaries, Triple-S Salud Inc. and Triple-C, Inc.,
were included as defendants.  This litigation purports to be a
class action filed on behalf of Puerto Rico dentists who are
similarly situated.

The complaint alleges that the defendants, on their own and as
part of a common scheme, systematically deny, delay and diminish
the payments due to dentists so that they are not paid in a timely
and complete manner for the covered medically necessary services
they render.  The complaint also alleges, among other things,
violations to the Puerto Rico Insurance Code, antitrust laws, the
Puerto Rico racketeering statute, unfair business practices,
breach of contract with providers, and damages in the amount of
$150 million.  In addition, the complaint claims that the Puerto
Rico Insurance Companies Association is the hub of an alleged
conspiracy concocted by the member plans to defraud dentists.
There are numerous available defenses to oppose both the request
for class certification and the merits.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend this claim.

Two codefendant plans, whose main operations are outside Puerto
Rico, removed the case to federal court in Florida, which the
plaintiffs and the other codefendants, including the Company,
opposed.  The federal district court in Florida decided that it
lacked jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act and
remanded the case to state court.  The removing defendants
petitioned to appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
Having accepted the appeal, the First Circuit Court of Appeals
issued an order in late October 2009 which found the lower court's
decision premature.  The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the
federal district court in Puerto Rico and allowed limited
discovery to determine whether the case should be heard in federal
court pursuant to CAFA.  The parties completed the limited
discovery in August 2010 and supplemented their previous filings.

On February 8, 2011, the DC issued its Opinion and Order, denying
plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court because the
injuries alleged in the complaint could be suffered outside Puerto
Rico.  It also decided to retain jurisdiction.  The defendants
filed a joint motion to dismiss the case on the merits, because
the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.  In addition, the parties are engaged in motions practice
involving venue.


TYSON FOODS: Parties Explore Settlement in FLSA MDL Proceeding
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties to the consolidated lawsuit In re: Tyson Foods, Inc., Fair
Labor Standards Act Litigation (MDL Proceedings) agreed to stay
further MDL proceedings to allow them to continue to explore
settlement of remaining lawsuits, according to the Company's
May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 2, 2011.

Several private lawsuits are pending against Tyson Foods Inc.
alleging that it failed to compensate poultry plant employees for
all hours worked, including overtime compensation, in violation of
the Federal Labor Standards Act.  These lawsuits include DeAsencio
v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (DeAsencio), filed on August 22, 2000, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
This matter involves similar allegations that employees should be
paid for the time it takes to engage in pre- and post-shift
activities such as changing into and out of protective and
sanitary clothing, obtaining clothing and walking to and from the
changing area, work areas and break areas.  They seek back wages,
liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs appealed a jury verdict and final
judgment entered in the Company's favor on June 22, 2006, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  On
September 7, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
reversed the jury verdict and remanded the case to the District
Court for further proceedings.  The Company sought rehearing en
banc, which was denied by the Court of Appeals on October 5, 2007.
The United States Supreme Court denied the Company's petition for
a writ of certiorari on June 9, 2008.  The new trial date has not
been set.

The other private lawsuits are Sheila Ackles, et al. v. Tyson
Foods, Inc. (N. Dist. Alabama, October 23, 2006); McCluster, et
al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (M. Dist. Georgia, December 11, 2006);
Dobbins, et al. v. Tyson Chicken, Inc., et al. (N.D. Alabama,
December 21, 2006); Buchanan, et al. v. Tyson Chicken, Inc., et
al. and Potter, et al. v. Tyson Chicken, Inc., et al. (N.D.
Alabama, December 22, 2006); Jones, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.,
et al., Walton, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al. and Williams,
et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al. (S.D. Mississippi, February 9,
2007); Balch, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (E.D. Oklahoma, March 1,
2007); Adams, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (W.D. Arkansas, March 2,
2007); Atkins, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (M.D. Georgia, March 5,
2007); Laney, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. and Williams, et al. v.
Tyson Foods, Inc. (M.D. Georgia, May 23, 2007) (the Williams
Case).  Similar to DeAsencio, each of these matters involves
allegations that employees should be paid for the time it takes to
engage in pre- and post-shift activities such as changing into and
out of protective and sanitary clothing, obtaining clothing and
walking to and from the changing area, work areas and break areas.
The plaintiffs in each of these lawsuits seek or have sought to
act as class representatives on behalf of all current and former
employees who were allegedly not paid for time worked and seek
back wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
and attorneys' fees.

On April 6, 2007, the Company filed a motion for transfer of the
actions for coordinated pretrial proceedings before the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, which was granted on August 17,
2007.  These cases and five other cases subsequently filed
involving the same allegations, Armstrong, et al. v. Tyson Foods,
Inc. (W.D. Tennessee, January 30, 2008); Maldonado, et al. v.
Tyson Foods, Inc. (E.D. Tennessee, January 31, 2008); White, et
al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (E.D. Texas, February 1, 2008); Meyer, et
al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (W.D. Missouri, February 2, 2008); and
Leak, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (W.D. North Carolina,
February 6, 2008), were transferred to the U.S. District Court in
the Middle District of Georgia, In re: Tyson Foods, Inc., Fair
Labor Standards Act Litigation (MDL Proceedings).  On January 2,
2008, the Court issued a Joint Scheduling and Case Management
Order.  This order granted Conditional Class Certification and
called for notice to be given to potential putative class members
via a third party administrator.  The potential class members had
until April 18, 2008, to "opt in" to the class.  Approximately
13,800 employees and former employees filed their consents to
"opt-in" to the class.  On October 15, 2008, the Court denied the
plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling, which, if granted, would
have extended the time period in which the plaintiffs could have
sought damages.  However, in addition to the consents already
obtained, the Court allowed the plaintiffs to obtain corrected and
reaffirmed opt-in consents that were previously filed in the
matter of M.H. Fox, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (N.D. Alabama,
June 22, 1999).  The deadline for filing these consents was
December 31, 2008, and according to the third party administrator,
approximately 4,000 reaffirmed consents were filed, some or all of
which may be in addition to the approximately 13,800 consents
filed previously.

The parties have completed discovery at eight of the Company's
facilities and its corporate headquarters in Springdale, Arkansas.
In July 2009, the Company filed class decertification motions for
the eight facilities involved in discovery.  The Company also
filed Motions for Partial Summary Judgment for these eight
facilities.  Oral arguments for these motions occurred on
February 3, 2010, and, on March 16, 2010, the Court granted
partial summary judgment with respect to two unionized facilities
and denied the remaining motions.  The Court concluded that the
activities at these two facilities met the definition of "clothes
changing" under Section 203(o) of the FLSA and that the time
engaged in pre- and post-shift donning and doffing is not
compensable.  The Court did not rule on whether Section 203(o)
activity could begin the continuous work day, thereby making all
walking, sanitizing and washing time after that activity
compensable.  The Company then filed a motion for certification of
a permissive appeal on whether Section 203(o) activity can start
the continuous workday and whether washing required clothing items
is covered by Section 203(o).

On April 23, 2010, the Court granted the Company permission to
appeal these issues to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  The
Court also retained jurisdiction with respect to the eight
facilities while staying proceedings with respect to seven.  It
then scheduled trial in the Williams Case for October 12, 2010.
On April 16, 2010, the Court lifted a previously entered stay of
discovery with respect to the Company's remaining 32 facilities
subject to the MDL Proceedings and ordered the parties to meet,
confer, and report to the Court any discovery agreements and
disputed issues within 45 days.  On June 7, 2010, the Court issued
a scheduling order which set the close of discovery for the
remaining 32 facilities for May 31, 2012.  On September 22, 2010,
the Court granted the parties' joint motion to stay further
proceedings in the MDL Proceedings, including the trial in the
Williams case, in order to allow the parties an opportunity to
explore settlement.  The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to
lift the stay, and the Court granted this motion on November 15,
2010.  The parties have reached a settlement agreement for the
back pay liability (exclusive of attorneys' fees) in the Williams
case, which was set for trial on February 14, 2011.

On January 21, 2011, the parties notified the court of their
intention to file a motion for approval of the settlement
agreement and a motion to file the agreement under seal.  As part
of the settlement, the parties also agreed to stay further MDL
proceedings to allow the parties to continue to explore settlement
of the remaining lawsuits.


TYSON FOODS: Remains a Defendant in "Thompson" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
On October 23, 2001, a putative class action lawsuit styled R.
Lynn Thompson, et al. vs. Tyson Foods, Inc. was filed in the
District Court for Mayes County, Oklahoma, by three property
owners on behalf of all owners of lakefront property on Grand Lake
O' the Cherokees.  Simmons Foods, Inc. and Peterson Farms, Inc.
also are defendants.  The plaintiffs allege the defendants'
operations diminished the water quality in the lake thereby
interfering with the plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their
properties.  The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.  While the District Court certified a
class, on October 4, 2005, the Court of Civil Appeals of the State
of Oklahoma reversed, holding the plaintiffs' claims were not
suitable for disposition as a class action.  This decision was
upheld by the Oklahoma Supreme Court and the case was remanded to
the District Court with instructions that the matter proceed only
on behalf of the three named plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief, restitution and compensatory and punitive
damages in an unspecified amount in excess of $10,000.

The Company and the other defendants have denied liability and
asserted various defenses.  The defendants have requested a trial
date, but the court has not yet scheduled the matter for trial

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 9, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended April 2, 2011.


UNITED AIRLINES: Federal Law Preempts Airport Kiosk Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Long, writing for Westlaw Journals, reports that federal
law preempts a class action brought by the National Federation of
the Blind and several visually impaired people over the
accessibility of airport ticketing kiosks, a California federal
judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of
California dismissed the NFB's lawsuit, finding the claims
preempted by the Air Carrier Access Act and the Airline
Deregulation Act.

The NFB and other plaintiffs alleged United Airlines violates
California disability law by failing to make airport ticketing
kiosks accessible to the blind.

According to the complaint, the kiosks employ a visual computer
screen with prompts and touch-screen navigation but do not offer
an audio output or other medium to make the kiosks accessible to
the blind.

The plaintiffs brought their class action on behalf of all legally
blind people in the United States who have flown on United from a
California airport and have been unable to use the airline's
kiosks.

United moved for dismissal, arguing that the Airline Deregulation
Act and the Air Carrier Access Act preempt the plaintiffs' claims.

Judge Alsup agreed.

The claims are field-preempted under the ACAA because the
Department of Transportation pervasively regulates airport kiosk
accessibility, Judge Alsup said.

In addition, the Airline Deregulation Act expressly preempts the
claims because the defendants provide an airline "service" as
defined in the statute.

Finally, the judge rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the
Airline Deregulation Act was meant to target airline deregulation
rather than discrimination.

"The Airline Deregulation Act unequivocally declares that no state
may enact a law related to airline service," Judge Alsup said.
"Congress could have drawn the preemption provision more narrowly.
It did not."

National Federation of the Blind et al. v. United Airlines Inc.,
No. C 10-04816 WHA, 2011 WL 1544524 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2011).


UNITED ONLINE: Appeals From Settlement Approval Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the final approval of a settlement in the coordinated
class action lawsuits against numerous entities, including United
Online, Inc.'s subsidiary, NetZero Inc., remain pending, according
to the Company's May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

In April 2001 and in May 2001, lawsuits were filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against NetZero, Inc., certain officers and directors of NetZero
and the underwriters of NetZero's initial public offering, Goldman
Sachs Group, Inc., BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. and Salomon
Smith Barney, Inc.  A consolidated amended complaint was filed in
April 2002.  The complaint alleges that the prospectus through
which NetZero conducted its initial public offering in September
1999 was materially false and misleading because it failed to
disclose, among other things, that (i) the underwriters had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from
certain investors in exchange for which the underwriters allocated
to those investors material portions of the restricted number of
NetZero shares issued in connection with the offering; and (ii)
the underwriters had entered into agreements with customers
whereby the underwriters agreed to allocate NetZero shares to
those customers in the offering in exchange for which the
customers agreed to purchase additional NetZero shares in the
aftermarket at pre-determined prices.  Plaintiffs are seeking
injunctive relief and damages.  The case against NetZero was
coordinated with approximately 300 other suits filed against more
than 300 issuers that conducted their initial public offerings
between 1998 and 2000, their underwriters and an unspecified
number of their individual corporate officers and directors.  The
parties in the approximately 300 coordinated class actions,
including NetZero, the underwriter defendants in the NetZero class
action, and the plaintiff class in the NetZero action, have
reached an agreement in principle under which the insurers for the
issuer defendants in the coordinated cases will make a settlement
payment on behalf of the issuers, including NetZero.

On October 5, 2009, the district court issued an order granting
final approval of the settlement and certifying the settlement
class.  Two individuals have appealed the October 5, 2009 order
and plaintiffs have filed motions to dismiss the appeals.  The
appellate court has not ruled on either the appeals or the motions
to dismiss.


UNITED ONLINE: Unit Awaits OK of Revised Settlement in Wash. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
United Online Inc.'s subsidiary, Memory Lane Inc., is awaiting a
ruling on the motion for preliminary approval of the revised
settlement agreement filed by plaintiffs in the consolidated class
action lawsuit pending in Washington, according to the Company's
May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On October 30, 2008, Anthony Michaels filed a purported class
action complaint against Classmates Online, Inc., now known as
Memory Lane, Inc., Classmates Media Corporation and United Online,
Inc. in Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, alleging causes of action for intentional
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence,
fraudulent concealment, and for violations of California Business
and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500 et seq.  On
December 19, 2008, Xavier Vasquez filed a purported class action
complaint against Classmates Online, Inc., Classmates Media
Corporation and United Online, Inc. in Superior Court of
Washington, Kings County, alleging causes of action for violation
of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law, violation of California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, unjust enrichment and violation of
California Civil Code section 1694, dealing with dating services
contracts.  In both actions, the plaintiffs are seeking injunctive
relief and damages.  On April 30, 2009, the United States District
Court of the Western District of Washington consolidated the
Michaels and the Vasquez actions and designated the Michaels
action as the lead case.  On March 12, 2010, the parties entered
into a comprehensive class action settlement agreement.  On
December 16, 2010, the court conducted a final approval hearing on
the settlement.

On February 22, 2011, the court issued an Order formally denying
final approval of the settlement.  On March 24, 2011, the parties
entered into a revised settlement agreement, and on March 25,
2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
revised settlement.  The court has not yet ruled on the motion.


UNITED STATES: May Face Class Action Over DMZ Defoliant Agents
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Chosun Ilbo reports that according to declassified documents
sent as a reply to Senator John Glenn by the U.S. Department of
the Army (USDA), which included a USFK management plan forwarded
to the department in 1968, defoliant Agents Orange, Blue and
Monuron were sprayed along the DMZ during 1968 to 1969 with the
support and agreement of the South Korean government of the time.
The documents stated that, "as there have been continuous
infiltrations by North Korean commando teams, the commanders of
the USFK including the commander of the 1st army corps have been
recommending since 1963 the use of defoliant to provide easier
target acquisition and firing solutions."

The USDA "Vegetation Control Program CY-1968" continues; "In 1967,
they tested defoliant in certain areas and decided that it was
desirable to introduce it over wide areas.  In September 1967,
USFK Bohnsteel recommended this measure which was endorsed by
Prime Minister Chung Il-kwon and Secretary of State Dean Rusk gave
permission for its use.  On January 12, 1968, the South Korean
Ministry of National defense announced the plan to spray defoliant
at the DMZ.  The U.S. personnel only advised the South Korean
personnel and did not conduct any of the actual spray missions;
this was undertaken by the South Korean 1st army command.  In the
U.S. 2nd infantry division zone of the DMZ, defoliant was sprayed
by the 98th combat engineering brigade."

Defoliant was sprayed by up to 70,000 South Korean soldiers over
the two year period in areas "to improve observation and fields of
fire and to deny hostile forces the concealment provided by
vegetation."  The defoliants were so toxic that U.S. forces
stopped using them in 1972 after use during the Vietnam War.  In
the latter conflict, 48,000 South Korea troops were exposed to
Agent Orange, of which 2,755 have been recognized as victims of,
and 20,618 are suspected of suffering from, side effects of the
toxic defoliant.  All receive subsidized pensions to cover related
medical costs.

To date, the governments of the U.S. and South Korea have been
reluctant to comment on the use of defoliant, but an American
veteran obtained a copy of the declassified USFK communique to the
USDA and used it in a lawsuit which recognized him as a victim of
the side effects.  South Korean commanders at the time failed to
provide their men with the appropriate protective clothing as
"using hand and trailer mounted apparatus" they conducted the
defoliant operation.

In contrast to Vietnam veterans, no veterans of the spraying
operation complained of suffering from side effects, indicating
that possible weaker variants of the defoliants were used.  It is
expected that a class action suit may be pursued for compensation
from the U.S. and South Korean governments and the manufacturer.
Currently 24,000 U.S. and 1,200 Australian Vietnam War veterans
have been recognized and are receiving compensation.


VALERO ENERGY: Still Defends Sales Practices MDL in Kansas
----------------------------------------------------------
Valero Energy Corporation continues to defend itself from the
multi-district litigation relating to sales practices currently
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas,
according to the Company's May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

In 2006, a class action complaint was filed against the Company
and several other defendants engaged in the retail and wholesale
petroleum marketing business.  The complaint alleges that because
fuel volume increases with fuel temperature, the defendants
violated state consumer protection laws by failing to adjust the
volume or price of fuel when the fuel temperature exceeded 60
degrees Fahrenheit.  The complaints seek to certify classes of
retail consumers who purchased fuel in various locations.  The
complaints seek an order compelling the installation of
temperature correction devices as well as monetary relief.
Following the 2006 complaint, numerous other federal complaints
were filed, and there are now a total of 46 lawsuits of which 21
involve the Company.  (The Company is named in classes involving
several states where it has no retail presence.)  The lawsuits are
consolidated into a multi-district litigation case in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City) (Multi-
District Litigation Docket No. 1840, In re: Motor Fuel Temperature
Sales Practices Litigation).  In May 2010, the court issued an
order in response to the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification of the Kansas cases.  The court certified an
"injunction class" covering nonmonetary relief but deferred ruling
on a "damages class."  The court has scheduled trial in the Kansas
cases for May 2012.

The Company anticipates that the non-Kansas cases will be remanded
in late 2011 or early 2012 with no additional rulings on the
merits or class certification.  The Company is a party to the
Kansas cases, but it has no company-owned retail locations in
Kansas.  The Company believes that it has several strong defenses
to these lawsuits and intends to contest them.  The Company says
it has not recorded a loss contingency liability with respect to
this matter, but due to the inherent uncertainty of litigation, it
believes that it is reasonably possible that it may suffer a loss
with respect to one or more of the lawsuits.  An estimate of the
possible loss or range of loss from an adverse result in all or
substantially all of these cases cannot reasonably be made.


WILSHIRE BANCORP: Continues to Defend "Fairservice" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wilshire Bancorp, Inc., is facing a purported class action lawsuit
commenced by Michael Fairservice, who alleges that the Company and
other defendants made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose that it had deficiencies in its underwriting,
origination, and renewal processes and procedures, according to
the Company's May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

On March 29, 2011, Wilshire Bancorp, its former Chief Executive
Officer, and its current Chief Financial Officer were named as
defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, in a
case entitled Michael Fairservice v. Wilshire Bancorp, Inc. et al.
The complaint arises out of the Company's announcement that it had
concluded an internal investigation in connection with the
activities of its former senior marketing officer and implemented
remedial procedures in response to that investigation.  The
internal investigation was conducted by the Company's audit
committee with assistance of outside independent professional
firms and the Company's internal audit department, and was
undertaken following questions from the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation regarding the loan files originated by that marketing
officer and after the execution of a search warrant related to
loan files involving the former officer, as well as to address
activities of the former officer that had previously come to the
attention of management.  The scope of the Company's internal
investigation focused on loan-related and other business
activities of the former senior marketing officer.  As part of its
investigation, management discovered a deficiency in the operating
effectiveness of loan underwriting, approval and renewal processes
for those loan originations and asset sales associated with the
former officer.  Specifically, these processes lacked effective
supervision and oversight by the Company's former Chief Executive
Officer.  The Company's former Chief Executive Officer, who was
responsible for overseeing these matters, resigned following the
reporting of these activities to the Company's Board of Directors.

The purported class action complaint alleges, among other things,
that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that Wilshire Bancorp had deficiencies in its
underwriting, origination, and renewal processes and procedures;
was not adhering to its underwriting policies; lacked adequate
internal and financial controls; and, as a result, its financial
statements were materially false and misleading.  Plaintiffs seek
unspecified compensatory damages, among other remedies.


ZORAN CORP: Accused of Breaching Fiduciary Duties in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zoran Corporation is facing a purported class action lawsuit in
California alleging that the Company and its directors breached
fiduciary duties allegedly owed to its stockholders by engaging in
a flawed sale process that culminated in the merger agreement with
CSR PLC, according to the Company's May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

On March 29, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
California Superior Court, Santa Clara County by Clal Finance
Mutual Funds Corporation, an alleged stockholder of Zoran that
seeks to represent a class comprised of Zoran stockholders.  The
complaint in this action, referred to herein as the Clal Finance
complaint, names as defendants Zoran, four members of Zoran's
board of directors, CSR PLC and Zeiss Merger Sub, Inc.  The  Clal
Finance complaint alleges that the director defendants breached
fiduciary duties allegedly owed to Zoran and its stockholders by
engaging in a flawed sale process that culminated in the merger
agreement with CSR that was announced on February 20, 2011; that
Zoran, CSR and Zeiss Merger Sub, Inc. aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty; and that if the merger is
allowed to proceed, the stockholders will suffer damages because
their shares will be acquired for less than their actual value.
The plaintiff seeks an order of the Court certifying the action as
a class action; rescinding the merger and/or preliminarily
enjoining the defendants from consummating the merger; directing
the director defendants to commence a sale process designed to
secure the best possible consideration for Zoran stockholders;
and/or awarding damages, attorneys' fees and costs."

Accordingly, the Company says its potential loss, if any, is not
reasonably estimable at this time.


ZORAN CORP: Delaware Court Consolidates Two Suits Over CSR Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Chancery Court consolidated the two class action
lawsuits filed by Judy Kauffman Goldstein and Lawrence Zucker over
the merger of Zoran Corporation and CSR PLC, according to the
Company's May 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On February 23, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
in Delaware Chancery Court by Judy Kauffman Goldstein, an alleged
stockholder of Zoran who seeks to represent a class comprised of
Zoran stockholders.  The complaint in this action names as
defendants Zoran, the members of Zoran's board of directors as of
the date of the Goldstein complaint, CSR PLC, and Zeiss Merger
Sub, Inc.  The Goldstein complaint alleges that the director
defendants breached fiduciary duties assertedly owed to Zoran and
its stockholders by entering into the merger agreement with CSR
that was announced on February 22, 2011; that CSR and Merger Sub
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty; and that
if the merger is allowed to proceed, the stockholders will suffer
damages because their shares will be acquired for less than their
actual value.  The plaintiff seeks an order of the Court
certifying the action as a class action; rescinding the merger
and/or preliminarily enjoining the defendants from consummating
the merger; enjoining the defendants from taking any further
action to interfere with a consent solicitation previously
commenced by Ramius Value and Opportunity Master Fund Ltd.; and/or
awarding damages, attorney's fees and costs.

On February 25, 2011, a second purported class action was filed in
the same court by Lawrence Zucker, an alleged stockholder of
Zoran, who seeks to represent the same purported class.  The
complaint in this action names as defendants the members of
Zoran's board of directors as of the date of the complaint and
Zoran.  The allegations contained in the Zucker complaint are
largely similar to the allegations contained in the Goldstein
complaint, except that the Zucker complaint also alleges that
Zoran aided and abetted alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the
director defendants; does not name CSR or Merger Sub as
defendants; and does not allege that CSR or Merger Sub aided or
abetted any alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The plaintiff
seeks similar relief to that sought in the Goldstein complaint,
except that the Zucker complaint does not seek any relief with
respect to the Ramius consent solicitation.

On March 10, 2011, the Chancery Court consolidated the Goldstein
and Zucker actions and designated the Goldstein complaint as the
operative complaint in the consolidated action.


* Florida Food Banks to Get $1.7MM From Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Riggs, writing for Pensacola News Journal, reports that
eight Florida food banks will share nearly $1.7 million in grants
following a settlement against an illegal vitamin price-fixing
conspiracy.

Attorney General Pam Bondi officially announced the decision on
May 23.

"I am pleased that we can distribute these funds to food banks
throughout Florida, which will help our fellow citizens who are in
need," Ms. Bondi said.  "Each of these organizations is a member
of the Florida Association of Food Banks, which feeds an estimated
three million Floridians annually."

The settlement agreement required the money to be used for the
improvement of health and nutrition of the citizens of Florida and
the advancement of nutritional, dietary or agricultural science.

A list of the food banks follows.  None are located in Northwest
Florida.

    * Harry Chapin Food Bank of Southwest Florida: $78,999.14

    * Second Harvest Food Bank Northeast Florida: $174,983.89

    * Feeding South Florida: $538,251.73

    * Bay Area Food Bank: $78,999.14

    * Second Harvest Food Bank of Central Florida: $318,239.93

    * All Faiths Food Bank: $29,324.22

    * America's Second Harvest of the Big Bend: $48,713.46

    * Feeding America Tampa Bay: $334,905.07


                             *********

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, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Rousel Elaine Fernandez, Joy A.
Agravante, Ronald Sy, Julie Anne Lopez, 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  * * *