---

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

              Thursday, June 9, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 113

                             Headlines

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Practices
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Signs MOU to Resolve Merger-Related Suits
ATRINSIC INC: Engages in Arbitration Over Mobile Messenger Deal
AUDIOVOX CORP: Consolidated Class Suits Still Pending in Maryland
BEIERSDORF NA: Accused of Deceiving NIVEA Customers in Illinois

BFC FINANCIAL: Awaits Approval of Settlement in "Dance" Suit
BFC FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs to Appeal Order Setting Aside Verdict
BFC FINANCIAL: Class Certification in "Schwarz" Suit Still Pending
BFC FINANCIAL: Awaits Order on Plea to Dismiss Overdraft Fee Suit
BRINKER TEXAS: Sued for Printing CC Expiration Dates on Receipts

BUTTE COUNTY, CA: Group Opposes Medical Marijuana Ordinance
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Clergy Sexual Abuse Victims File Class Action
CHINA EDUCATION: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
CHINA FIRE: Continues to Defend Suit Related to Proposed Buy-out
CHINA SHENGHOU: Receives Final Approval of N.Y. Class Suit Deal

COMMERCIAL BARGE: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Delaware Suit
COMMERCIAL BARGE: Still Defends "Collision" Suits in Louisiana
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Faces Investor Class Action in Virginia
CONVERTED ORGANICS: Continues to Defend "Leeseberg" Suit in Del.
COVENTRY HEALTH: Court Approves Class Action Settlement

CUMULUS MEDIA: Faces Three Class Suits Over Merger With Citadel
CVS PHARMACIES: Plaintiff Outlines Plan for Class Action Notice
DJO FINANCE: Continues to Defend Pain Pump Class Suit in Canada
EGAIN COMMUNICATIONS: Appeal in Securities Suit Still Pending
FIRST CALIFORNIA: Continues to Defend Account Charges Class Suit

FOOD COS: Taiwan Gov't. to Help Consumers File Class Action
FOOT LOCKER: Removes "Brown" Wage and Hour Suit to N.D. Calif.
FOUR AMIGOS: Women Employees File Sexual Harassment Class Action
FXCM INC: Defends IPO-Related Class Action in New York
FXCM INC: Decision on Arbitration Motion Pending in RICO Suit

GEORGIA: Immigration Law Unconstitutional, Class Action Claims
GREEN BANKSHARES: Has Until July 11 to Respond to Complaint
GREEN BANKSHARES: Defends Class Suit Over North American Deal
HALLIBURTON: Judge Refuses to Certify Securities Class Action
HINDS COUNTY, MS: Sued Over Abuse at Youth Detention Facility

IMH FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Defends Class Suit Over Charter Amendments
LIVEDEAL INC: Remains a Defendant in "Global Education" Suit
MEDQUIST HOLDINGS: Awaits Final Approval of Suit Settlement
NORTEL NETWORKS: Pension Class Suit Still Stayed Pending CCAA Case

PARTNER COMMS: Faces Class Action Over Cellular Handsets
PROSPECT MEDICAL: Still Defends Suits Over Ivy Holdings Merger
REACHLOCAL INC: Wage & Hour Suits Remain Pending in California
REDCATS USA: Accused of Violating Song-Beverly Act in California
SAKS INC: Continues to Defend FLSA-Violations Suit in California

SAP AG: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay
SIRIUS XM RADIO: Sued Over False Advertising on Subscriptions
SKYPEOPLE FRUIT: Continues to Defend "Kubala" Suit in New York
SOLAR POWER: Defends California Class Action Suit Over LDK Deal
SPRINGLEAF FINANCE: Continues to Defend "King" Suit in S.C.

TIMBERLAND COMPANY: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action
TOWERS WATSON: Still Faces Shareholder Class Suits in Pennsylvania
TOYOTA MOTOR: Appeal From Harel Pia Suit Dismissal Still Pending
TOYOTA MOTOR: Settlement Order in Rees-Levering Suit Now Final
TREE.COM INC: Summary Judgment Motion Hearing Set for June 23

VOLCOM INC: Signs MOU to Resolve Two PPR Merger-Related Suits
WHIRLPOOL KITCHENAID: Sued Over Defective Self-Cleaning Ovens
XFONE INC: Continues to Await Ruling on Settlement in "Tzur" Suit
YAHOO! INC: Accused of Issuing False and Misleading Statements




                             *********

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
that American Express routes customers' calls to foreign call
centers without their permission or knowledge, subjecting them to
intrusive, warrantless snooping by the U.S. government.

A copy of the Complaint in Pickman, et al. v. American Express
Travel Related Services, Inc., et al., Case No. RG11578840 (Calif.
Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/06/AmEx.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Margaret Mullins Weems, Esq.
          Robert C. Weems, Esq.
          WEEMS LAW OFFICES
          769 Center Blvd., PMB 38
          Fairfax, CA 94930
          Telephone: (415) 881-7653
          E-mail: mmweems@weemslawoffices.com
                  rcweems@weemslawoffices.com

               - and -

          Joseph Aloysius Hennessey, Esq.
          BEINS, GOLDBERG & HENNESSEY, LLP
          2 Wisconsin Circle, Suite 700
          Chevy Chase, MD 20815
          Telephone: (301) 351-5614
          E-mail: jhennessey@bghllp.com


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Signs MOU to Resolve Merger-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Medical Systems Holdings, Inc., entered into a memorandum
of understanding to resolve two putative class action lawsuits
relating to its proposed merger with Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings
Inc., and NIKA Merger Sub, Inc., according to the Company's
June 2, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

As previously disclosed, putative class action lawsuits captioned
Walker v. Bihl, et al., and Prime Investors Fund v. Bihl, et al.,
were filed in the Hennepin County District Court on April 29,
2011, and May 5, 2011, respectively.  The Merger Litigation
relates to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of April 10,
2011, by and among Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc., NIKA Merger
Sub, Inc., a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of Endo, and
American Medical Systems Holdings, Inc.

On June 2, 2011, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, AMS and the other named defendants in the
Merger Litigation signed a memorandum of understanding with the
plaintiffs to settle the Merger Litigation.  This memorandum of
understanding provides, among other things, that the parties will
seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement which provides for
the release of all asserted claims.  The asserted claims will not
be released until such stipulation of settlement is approved by
the court.

The Company says there can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
court will approve such settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such stipulation.  Additionally, as part of the
memorandum of understanding, AMS has agreed to make certain
additional disclosures related to the proposed merger.  Finally,
in connection with the proposed settlement, plaintiffs intend to
seek, and the defendants have agreed to pay, an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount to be determined by the
Hennepin County District Court.  This payment will not affect the
amount of merger consideration to be paid in the merger or the
timing of the special meeting of AMS stockholders scheduled for
June 15, 2011 in Minnetonka, Minnesota.


ATRINSIC INC: Engages in Arbitration Over Mobile Messenger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Atrinsic, Inc., engaged in arbitration in connection with its
settlement agreement in the lawsuit it filed against Mobile
Messenger Americas, Inc., and Mobile Messenger Americas Pty, Ltd.,
according to the Company's May 16, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

In November 2009, the Company reached a settlement regarding a
suit it had filed earlier that year against Mobile Messenger
Americas, Inc. and Mobile Messenger Americas Pty, Ltd. to recover
monies owed to the Company in connection with transaction activity
incurred in the ordinary and normal course of business.  The
complaint also sought declaratory relief concerning demands made
by Mobile Messenger for indemnification for amounts paid by Mobile
Messenger in late 2008 in settlement of a class action lawsuit in
Florida, Grey v. Mobile Messenger, et al.  Mobile Messenger
brought upon the Company a cross complaint, seeking injunctive
relief, indemnification for the settlement of the Florida Class
Action and other matters.  The terms of the settlement are
confidential, but in general resulted in a complete dismissal of
the entire action, including the cross-complaint, with prejudice.
Pursuant to the settlement agreement, independent auditors
conducted an accounting of payments made to the Company by Mobile
Messenger.  In August 2010, the independent auditors issued their
report detailing their findings which Mobile Messenger disputed,
and as dictated by the terms of the settlement agreement, the
parties have engaged in arbitration.

The Company says it expects this matter to be finalized in the
second quarter of 2011.  Any payments arising out of the
settlement are not expected to have a material impact on the
Company's financial condition or results from operations, beyond
what has already been expensed and accrued for.


AUDIOVOX CORP: Consolidated Class Suits Still Pending in Maryland
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AudioVox Corporation disclosed in its May 16, 2011 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended February 28, 2011, that certain consolidated class
actions transferred to a Multi-District Litigation Panel of the
United States District Court of the District of Maryland against
the Company and other suppliers, manufacturers and distributors of
hand-held wireless telephones alleging damages relating to
exposure to radio frequency radiation from hand-held wireless
telephones are still pending.  No assurances regarding the outcome
of this matter can be given, as the Company is unable to assess
the degree of probability of an unfavorable outcome or estimated
loss or liability, if any.  Accordingly, no estimated loss has
been recorded for the case.

Audiovox Corporation is an international distributor and value
added service provider in the accessory, mobile and consumer
electronics industries.


BEIERSDORF NA: Accused of Deceiving NIVEA Customers in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Joseph, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Beiersdorf North America, Inc., and Beiersdorf, Inc.,
Case No. 2011-CH-20147 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Cty. June 6, 2011),
alleges fraudulent, deceptive and otherwise improper advertising,
sales and marketing practices by the Defendants regarding their
personal care products.

Ms. Joseph alleges violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  She also alleges that the
Defendants' schemes or artifices to defraud her and other members
of the proposed Class have consisted of systemic and continuing
practices of disseminating false and misleading information via
television commercials, Internet Web sites and postings, point of
purchase advertisements, national magazine advertisements and the
packaging of these products -- NIVEA brand Body Care products,
NIVEA Good-Bye Cellulite Gel-Cream, NIVEA Good-Bye Cellulite
Patches, NIVEA Good-Bye Cellulite Fast Acting Serum, and NIVEA My
Silhouette! Slimming and Reshaping Gel-Cream -- all of which is
intended to coax unsuspecting consumers into purchasing millions
of dollars worth of the Performance Products, which may be
manufactured, and are marketed, advertised and sold, by the
Defendants.

Beiersdorf NA, which is incorporated in Delaware and has its
principal place of business in Wilton, Connecticut, is a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Beiersdorf AG, a branded consumer goods'
company, and distributes, markets and sells skin and beauty care
products in the U.S.  Beiersdorf Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Beiersdorf NA, and manufactures, as well as distributes,
markets and sells, some or all of the Performance Products.

Ms. Joseph is a resident of Illinois, and has purchased NIVEA
Good-Bye Cellulite Gel-Cream, NIVEA Good-Bye Cellulite Fast Acting
Serum, and NIVEA My Silhouette! Slimming and Reshaping Gel-Cream
for her personal use.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          Adam M. Tamburelli, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, Illinois 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440-0020
          E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com


BFC FINANCIAL: Awaits Approval of Settlement in "Dance" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
BFC Financial Corporation is awaiting a federal court's approval
of a settlement entered into with Robert D. Dance, plaintiff in a
purported class action in Florida, according to the Company's
May 16, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On January 25, 2008, plaintiff Robert D. Dance filed a purported
class action complaint as a putative purchaser of securities
against Woodbridge and certain of its officers and directors,
asserting claims under the federal securities law and seeking
damages. This action was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida and is captioned Dance v.
Levitt Corp. et al., No. 08-CV-60111-DLG. The securities
litigation purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of
Woodbridge's securities beginning on January 31, 2007 and ending
on August 14, 2007. The complaint alleges that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing a series of false and/or
misleading statements regarding financial results, prospects and
condition. During April 2011, a preliminary agreement was reached
to settle matter, pursuant to which Woodbridge would pay to the
plaintiffs a total of $1.95 million which amount is fully insured
without participation by the Company. The agreement does not
contain any admission of responsibility by Woodbridge or any other
of the named defendants. The settlement remains subject to notice
to the class and approval by the presiding court, and may not be
consummated on the contemplated terms, or at all.

BFC Financial Corporation is a diversified holding company whose
principal holdings include a controlling interest in BankAtlantic
Bancorp, Inc. and its subsidiaries, including BankAtlantic, a
controlling interest in Bluegreen Corporation and its
subsidiaries, and a non-controlling interest in Benihana Inc.


BFC FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs to Appeal Order Setting Aside Verdict
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in In re BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 0:07-cv-61542-UU, United States District Court,
Southern District of Florida, indicated their intent to appeal an
order setting aside a jury verdict against BFC Financial
Corporation's subsidiary, according to the Company's May 16, 2011
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On October 29, 2007, Joseph C. Hubbard filed a class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
against the Company's subsidiary BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. and
five of its current or former officers. The defendants in this
action are BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., James A. White, Valerie C.
Toalson, Jarett S. Levan, John E. Abdo, and Alan B. Levan. The
Complaint, which was later amended, alleges that during the
purported class period of November 9, 2005 through October 25,
2007, BankAtlantic Bancorp and the named officers knowingly and/or
recklessly made misrepresentations of material fact regarding
BankAtlantic and specifically BankAtlantic's loan portfolio and
allowance for loan losses. The Complaint sought to assert claims
for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 and unspecified damages. On December 12, 2007, the Court
consolidated into Hubbard a separately filed action captioned
Alarm Specialties, Inc. v. BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., No. 0:07-
cv-61623-WPD. On February 5, 2008, the Court appointed State-
Boston Retirement System lead plaintiff and Lubaton Sucharow LLP
to serve as lead counsel pursuant to the provisions of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.

On November 18, 2010, a jury returned a verdict awarding $2.41 per
share to shareholders who purchased shares of BankAtlantic
Bancorp's Class A Common Stock during the period of April 26, 2007
to October 26, 2007 and retained those shares until the end of the
period. The jury rejected the plaintiffs' claim for the six month
period from October 19, 2006 to April 25, 2007. Prior to the
beginning of the trial, plaintiffs abandoned any claim for any
prior period. On April 25, 2011, the Court granted defendants'
post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law and vacated the
jury verdict, resulting in a judgment in favor of all defendants
on all claims. On May 5, 2011, defendants filed a motion for
sanctions against plaintiffs and their counsel seeking
reimbursement of their attorneys' fees and costs incurred in
connection with this lawsuit. The Plaintiffs have indicated that
they intend to appeal the Court's order setting aside the jury
verdict.

BFC Financial Corporation is a diversified holding company whose
principal holdings include a controlling interest in BankAtlantic
Bancorp, Inc. and its subsidiaries, including BankAtlantic, a
controlling interest in Bluegreen Corporation and its
subsidiaries, and a non-controlling interest in Benihana Inc.


BFC FINANCIAL: Class Certification in "Schwarz" Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court in Georgia has yet to decide on whether a class
will be certified in a lawsuit initiated by Paul A. Schwarz and
Barbara S. Schwarz against BFC Financial Corporation's subsidiary,
according to the Company's May 16, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

On September 18, 2008, in Cause No. 2008-5U-CV-1358-WI, styled
Paul A. Schwarz and Barbara S. Schwarz v. Bluegreen Communities of
Georgia, LLC and Bluegreen Corporation, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Brunswick
Division, the plaintiffs brought suit alleging fraud and
misrepresentation with regards to the construction of a marina at
the Sanctuary Cove subdivision located in Camden County, Georgia.
The plaintiff subsequently withdrew the fraud and
misrepresentation counts and filed a count alleging violation of
racketeering laws. On January 25, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
second complaint seeking approval to proceed with the lawsuit as a
class action on behalf of more than 100 persons alleged to have
been harmed by the alleged activities in a similar manner. No
decision has yet been made by the Court as to whether a class will
be certified. Bluegreen denies the allegations and intends to
vigorously defend the lawsuit.

BFC Financial Corporation is a diversified holding company whose
principal holdings include a controlling interest in BankAtlantic
Bancorp, Inc. and its subsidiaries, including BankAtlantic, a
controlling interest in Bluegreen Corporation and its
subsidiaries, and a non-controlling interest in Benihana Inc.


BFC FINANCIAL: Awaits Order on Plea to Dismiss Overdraft Fee Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BFC Financial Corporation's subsidiary is awaiting a court order
on its motion to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit
associated with overdraft fees, according to the Company's May 16,
2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In November 2010, the two pending class action complaints against
the Company's subsidiary BankAtlantic associated with overdraft
fees were consolidated. The Complaint, which asserts claims for
breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing, alleges that BankAtlantic improperly re-sequenced debit
card transactions from largest to smallest, improperly assessed
overdraft fees on positive balances, and improperly imposed
sustained overdraft fees on customers. BankAtlantic has filed a
motion to dismiss which is pending with the Court.

BFC Financial Corporation is a diversified holding company whose
principal holdings include a controlling interest in BankAtlantic
Bancorp, Inc. and its subsidiaries, including BankAtlantic, a
controlling interest in Bluegreen Corporation and its
subsidiaries, and a non-controlling interest in Benihana Inc.


BRINKER TEXAS: Sued for Printing CC Expiration Dates on Receipts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Keahey, writing for the Southeast Texas Record, reports
that a class action has been filed against a restaurant chain for
violating the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act by printing
customers' credit card expiration dates on receipts.

Marilyn Frey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed suit against Brinker Texas Inc., doing business as
Chili's Grill & Bar, on June 1 in the Eastern District of Texas,
Sherman Division.

Under the FACTA, merchants who accept credit cards or debit cards
had until December 2006 to comply with the requirement that it
would not print more than the last five digits of the card number
or the expiration date on the receipt provided to the cardholder
at the point of sale or transaction.

Ms. Frey argues that the defendant has violated this law by
continuing to print the expiration date on paper receipts.  She
states the defendant is failing to protect her and others
similarly situated against identity theft and credit card and
debit card fraud.

The proposed class action will include all persons to whom
defendant provided an electronically printed receipt at a point of
sale or transaction occurring after Dec. 4, 2006, on which was
printed more than the last five digits of the credit card or debit
card number or the expiration date of the credit card.  The class
action does not include anyone who has suffered identity theft as
a result of the violations.

The plaintiff is asking for an award of statutory damages,
punitive damages, court costs and attorney's fees.

Ms. Frey is represented by:

          Emil Lippe, Jr., Esq.
          Lippe & Associates
          600 N. Pearl Street, Suite S2460
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 855-1850
          E-mail: emil@texaslaw.com

               - and -

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          Carlson Lynch Ltd.
          231 Melville Lane
          P.O. Box 367
          Sewickley, PA 15143
          Telephone: (412) 749-1677
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com

A jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge Michael H. Schneider is assigned to the case.

Case No. 4:11-cv-00318


BUTTE COUNTY, CA: Group Opposes Medical Marijuana Ordinance
-----------------------------------------------------------
KPAY reports that Butte County's new medical marijuana ordinance
is facing opposition from a group calling itself Citizens for
Compassionate Use.  Organizers hope to turn in just more than 76
hundred valid signatures before the ordinance takes effect on June
23rd to stop the measure.  Bob Galia with the group says the
claims made recently against medical marijuana are exaggerated.
The group is also filing a class action lawsuit against the
ordinance.  One provision of the recently passed ordinance said
there will be no plants on a half acre of property or less.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Clergy Sexual Abuse Victims File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Catholic News Service reports that more than five dozen victims of
clergy sexual abuse have filed a class-action suit against the
Catholic Church -- including the Holy See -- for failing to
prevent the abuse.

The announcement by lawyers in Ghent came two days after Belgian
bishops agreed to compensate victims of abuse even if the statute
of limitations had run out.

Lawyer Walter van Steenbrugge, Esq., said Vatican officials and
Belgian bishops would be called to testify in the proceedings.

Last year, after reports of abuse rocked the Belgian church, an
independent commission discovered sexual abuse in most Catholic
dioceses and all church-run boarding schools and religious orders.

The commission said 475 cases of abuse had been reported to it
between January and June.  The cases included more than 300 cases
that involved boys younger than 15 at the time the abuse occurred,
sometimes decades ago.  Two-thirds of victims were male, the
report said, while 13 had killed themselves and six more attempted
suicide.

In one of the more prominent cases, Bruges Bishop Roger Vangheluwe
was forced to resign after admitting to years of abusing his
nephew.  In April of this year, he told Belgian television that he
had molested another nephew and that it had all started "as a
game."


CHINA EDUCATION: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
China Education Alliance, Inc., continues to defend itself against
a consolidated securities action suit in California, according to
the Company's May 16, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

The Company is presently involved in two putative class action
laws suits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.  The first action, Apicella v. China
Education Alliance, Inc., et al., No. 10-cv-09239 (CAS)(JCx), was
filed on December 2, 2010; the second action, Clemens v. China
Education Alliance, Inc., et al., No. 10-cv-09987 (JFW)(AGRx), was
filed on December 28, 2010.  On March 2, 2011, both actions were
consolidated in In re China Education Alliance, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 10-cv-09239 (CAS) (JCx)(C.D. Cal.).  The
Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges that the Company and the
other defendants are liable under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 for allegedly false and
misleading statements and omissions in the Company's public
filings during 2008 and 2009.  The Consolidated Amended Complaint
also asserts claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 against the individual defendants.  Additionally, the
Company has reason to believe that another derivative lawsuit may
be commenced against the individuals named as defendants in the
securities class action lawsuit, although the timing of such
potential lawsuit is uncertain.  If the Company was to be
subsequently involved in more litigation proceedings, and/or it
was unable to settle this lawsuit or any other similar lawsuits on
terms favorable to it and/or if adverse judgments were to be
levied against it, the Company's profitability could be severely
impacted.  Also, this class action suit against the Company could
result in substantial costs, potential liabilities and the
diversion of management's attention and resources and result in a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition and
results of operations.

China Education Alliance, Inc., formerly known as ABC Realty Co.,
was originally organized under the laws of the State of North
Carolina on December 2, 1996.  The Company's principal business is
the distribution of educational resources through the Internet and
training centers.  The Company's website, www.edu-chn.com, is a
comprehensive education network platform, which is based on
network video technology and large data sources of elementary and
secondary education resources.  The Company has a database
comprised of such resources as test papers that are used for
elementary and secondary education courses.  The database includes
more than 350,000 exams and test papers and courseware for
elementary and secondary school students.  The Company markets
this database under the name "Famous Instructor Test Paper Store."
The Company also provides on-site teaching services in Harbin and
other cities, which are marketed under the name "Famed Instructors
Classroom."  The Company has a 36,600 sq. ft. training facility in
Harbin, Heilongjiang Province, the People's Republic of China,
which has 17 classrooms and can accommodate up to 1,200 students.


CHINA FIRE: Continues to Defend Suit Related to Proposed Buy-out
----------------------------------------------------------------
China Fire & Security Group, Inc., continues to defend a class
action lawsuit filed in response to a private equity firm's
proposed acquisition of the Company's outstanding shares of common
stock, according to the Company's May 16, 2011 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2010.

On March 7, 2011, the Company issued a press release announcing
that the Special Committee of its Board of Directors had received
a non-binding letter from a leading global private equity firm,
pursuant to which the PE proposes to acquire all of the
outstanding shares of common stock of the Company in cash at a
price which represents a premium over the current stock price.
The press release further announced that the Board cautioned the
Company's shareholders and others considering trading in its
securities that no decision has been made by the Special Committee
with respect to the Company's response to the Proposal and that
there can be no assurance that any definitive offer will be made,
that any agreement will be executed or that this or any other
transaction will be approved or consummated.

In response to this announcement, on April 1, 2011, a purported
class action lawsuit captioned Ira Brown v. China Fire & Security
Group, Inc., et al., was filed in the Broward County Circuit Court
of the State of Florida against the Company and its individual
directors.  The complaint purports to allege breaches of fiduciary
duties by the individual directors relating to the disclosure of
information concerning the Proposal.  The complaint seeks
compensatory damages and injunctive relief, including to enjoin
any transactions related to the Proposal and any related going
private transaction, and an award of attorneys' and other fees and
costs, in addition to other relief.  The Company believes the
plaintiff's allegations lack merit, and will contest them
vigorously.  However, based upon information that is presently
available to it, the Company's management does not believe this
class action could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.


CHINA SHENGHOU: Receives Final Approval of N.Y. Class Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
China Shenghou Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc., received final
approval in March of the settlement in the consolidated class
action lawsuit filed in New York, according to the Company's
May 16, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

In 2008, putative class action lawsuits were asserted against the
Company and certain other parties in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  On February 12,
2009, an amended complaint was served on the Company by new lead
counsel for the class, consolidating the putative class actions
and bearing the caption Beni Varghese, Individually and on Behalf
of All Other Similarly Situated v. China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical
Holdings, Inc., et al., Index No. 1:08 CIV. 7422.  The defendants
include the Company, the Company's controlling shareholders, Lan's
International Medicine Investment Co., Limited, the Company's
chief executive officer, Gui Hua Lan, the Company's former chief
financial officer, Qiong Hua Gao, and the Company's former
independent registered public accounting firm, Hansen, Barnett &
Maxwell, P.C. (HB&M).  Both the Company and HB&M filed motions to
dismiss the complaint, but those motions were denied by the Court.
The substantive allegations of the amended consolidated complaint
have previously been summarized in disclosures by the Company.

On July 21, 2010, in a mediation conducted by Retired Judge
Nicolas H. Politan, the Company entered into an agreement in
principle with counsel for plaintiffs in this litigation and HB&M,
in which the parties agreed to settle all claims by the putative
class members in exchange for payments of US$200,000 by the
Company and US$600,000 by HB&M's professional liability insurer.
The settlement must be approved by the Court to become effective
and, on or about November 2, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion
with the Court seeking such approval.

On March 18, 2011, the Court issued an Order and Judgment finally
approving the Settlement of all claims and dismissing the
complaint.


COMMERCIAL BARGE: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Delaware Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Barge Line Company is awaiting execution and court
approval of a stipulation settling a class action lawsuit pending
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, according to
the Company's May 16, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

CBL is a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Commercial Lines Inc.
("ACL"). ACL is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ACL I Corporation
("ACL I"), formerly known as Finn Intermediate Holding
Corporation. ACL I is a wholly owned subsidiary of Finn Holding
Corporation ("Finn"). Finn is primarily owned by certain
affiliates of Platinum Equity, LLC (certain affiliates of Platinum
Equity, LLC are referred to herein as "Platinum"). On December 21,
2010, ACL announced the consummation of the previously announced
acquisition of ACL by Platinum. The Acquisition was accomplished
through the merger of Finn Merger Corporation, a Delaware
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of ACL I, a Delaware
corporation, with and into ACL. The assets of ACL consist
principally of its ownership of all of the stock of CBL.

On October 22, 2010, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against American Commercial Lines, Inc., the direct parent of the
Company, ACL's directors, Platinum Equity LLC, Finn and Merger Sub
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  The lawsuit is
captioned Leonard Becker v. American Commercial Lines Inc., et al,
Civil Action No. 5919-VCL.  Plaintiff amended his complaint on
November 5, 2010, prior to a formal response from any defendant.
On November 9, 2010, a second putative class action lawsuit was
commenced against the Company, its directors, Platinum Equity,
Finn and Merger Sub in the Superior/Circuit Court for Clark County
in the State of Indiana.  The lawsuit is captioned Michael Eakman
v. American Commercial Lines Inc., et al., Case No. 1002-1011-CT-
1344.  In both actions, plaintiffs allege generally that the
Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the Transaction by, among other things, carrying out a
process that they allege did not ensure adequate and fair
consideration to the Company's stockholders.  They also allege
that various disclosures concerning the Transaction included in
the Definitive Proxy Statement are inadequate.  They further
allege that Platinum Equity aided and abetted the alleged breaches
of duties.  Plaintiffs purport to bring the lawsuits on behalf of
the public stockholders of the Company and seek equitable relief
to enjoin consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger and
rescissory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, among other
relief.  The Company believes the lawsuits are without merit.  On
December 3, 2010, counsel for the parties in the Delaware action
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding in which they agreed on
the terms of a settlement of the Delaware litigation, which
includes the supplementation of the Definitive Proxy Statement and
the dismissal with prejudice of all claims against all of the
defendants in both the Delaware and Indiana actions.  The proposed
settlement is conditional upon, among other things, the execution
of an appropriate stipulation of settlement and final approval of
the proposed settlement by the Delaware Court of Chancery.
Counsel for the named plaintiffs in both actions agreed to stay
the actions pending consideration of final approval of the
settlement in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  Assuming such
approval, the named plaintiffs in both actions would dismiss their
respective lawsuits with prejudice against all defendants.  In
connection with the settlement agreed upon in the MOU, the parties
contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will seek an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses as part of the settlement.  There can
be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the Delaware Court of Chancery
will approve the settlement as stipulated by the parties.  In such
event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be
terminated.

Commercial Barge Line Company, headquartered in Jeffersonville,
Indiana, is the sole first tier subsidiary holding company of
American Commercial Lines Inc., also headquartered in
Jeffersonville, Indiana.  ACLI is one of the largest integrated
marine transportation and services companies in the United States,
providing barge transportation and related services, and
construction of barges, towboats and other vessels.


COMMERCIAL BARGE: Still Defends "Collision" Suits in Louisiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Barge Line Company continues to defend itself in class
action lawsuits relating to the collision of its tank barge with a
motor vessel in the Mississippi river, according to the Company's
May 16, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

American Commercial Lines, Inc., and American Commercial Lines
LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of CBL, have been named as
defendants in these putative class action lawsuits, filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana:

   -- Austin Sicard et al on behalf of themselves and others
      similarly situated vs. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc.,
      Whitefin Shipping Co. Limited, D.R.D. Towing Company, LLC,
      American Commercial Lines, Inc. and the New Orleans-Baton
      Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, Case No. 08-4012, filed
      on July 24, 2008; and

   -- Stephen Marshall Gabarick and Bernard Attridge, on behalf of
      themselves and others similarly situated vs. Laurin Maritime
      (America) Inc., Whitefin Shipping Co. Limited, D.R.D. Towing
      Company, LLC, American Commercial Lines, Inc. and the New
      Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, Case No.
      08-4007, filed on July 24, 2008; and Alvin McBride, on
      behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
      Laurin Maritime (America) Inc.; Whitefin Shipping Co. Ltd.;
      D.R.D. Towing Co. LLC; American Commercial Lines Inc.; The
      New Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, Case
      No. 09-cv-04494 B, filed on July 24, 2009.

The McBride v. Laurin Maritime, et al. action has been dismissed
with prejudice because it was not filed prior to the deadline set
by the Court.  The claims in the Class Action Lawsuits stem from
the incident on July 23, 2008, involving one of ACLLLC's tank
barges that was being towed by DRD Towing Company L.L.C., an
independent towing contractor.  The tank barge was involved in a
collision with the motor vessel Tintomara, operated by Laurin
Maritime, at Mile Marker 97 of the Mississippi River in the New
Orleans area.  The tank barge was carrying approximately 9,900
barrels of #6 oil, of which approximately two-thirds was released.
The tank barge was damaged in the collision and partially sunk.
There was no damage to the towboat.  The Tintomara incurred minor
damage.  The Class Action Lawsuits include various allegations of
adverse health and psychological damages, disruption of business
operations, destruction and loss of use of natural resources, and
seek unspecified economic, compensatory and punitive damages for
claims of negligence, trespass and nuisance.  The Class Action
Lawsuits were stayed pending the outcome of the two actions filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana seeking exoneration from, or limitation of, liability
related to the incident.  All claims in the class actions have
been settled with payment to be made from funds on deposit with
the court in the IINA interpleader.  IINA is DRD's primary
insurer.  The settlement is agreed to by all parties and the
Company is awaiting final approval from the court and a dismissal
of all lawsuits against all parties, including the Company, with
prejudice.  Claims under the Oil Pollution Act were dismissed
without prejudice.  There is a separate administrative process for
making a claim under OPA 90 that must be followed prior to
litigation.  The Company is processing OPA 90 claims properly
presented, documented and recoverable.  The Company has also
received numerous claims for personal injury, property damage and
various economic damages, including notification by the National
Pollution Funds Center of claims it has received.  Additional
lawsuits may be filed and claims submitted.  The claims that
remain for personal injury are by the three DRD crewmen on the
vessel at the time of the incident.  Two crew members have agreed
to a settlement of their claims to be paid from the funds on
deposit in the interpleader action.  The Company is in early
discussions with the Natural Resource Damage Assessment Group,
consisting of various State and Federal agencies, regarding the
scope of environmental damage that may have been caused by the
incident.  Recently Buras Marina filed suit in the Eastern
District of Louisiana in Case No. 09-4464 against the Company
seeking payment for "rental cost" of its marina for cleanup
operations.  ACL and ACLLLC have also been named as defendants in
the following interpleader action brought by DRD's primary insurer
IINA seeking court approval as to the disbursement of the funds:
Indemnity Insurance Company of North America v. DRD Towing
Company, LLC; DRD Towing Group, LLC; American Commercial Lines,
LLC; American Commercial Lines, Inc.; Waits Emmet & Popp, LLC,
Daigle, Fisse & Kessenich; Stephen Marshall Gabarick; Bernard
Attridge; Austin Sicard; Lamont L. Murphy, individually and on
behalf of Murphy Dredging; Deep Delta Distributors, Inc.; David
Cvitanovich; Kelly Clark; Timothy Clark, individually and on
behalf of Taylor Clark, Bradley Barrosse; Tricia Barrosse; Lynn M.
Alfonso, Sr.; George C. McGee; Sherral Irvin; Jefferson Magee; and
Acy J. Cooper, Jr., United States District Court, Eastern District
of Louisiana, Civil Action 08-4156, Section "I-5," filed on
August 11, 2008.  DRD's excess insurers, IINA and Houston Casualty
Company intervened into this action and deposited $9,000 into the
Court's registry.  ACLLLC has filed two actions in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
seeking exoneration from or limitation of liability relating to
the foregoing incident as provided for in Rule F of the
Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims and
in Sections 30501, 30505 and 30511 of the Shipping Code.  The
Company has also filed a declaratory judgment action against DRD
seeking to have the contracts between them declared "void ab
initio."  Trial has been set for August of 2011 and discovery has
begun.  The Company participated in the U.S. Coast Guard
investigation of the matter and participated in the hearings which
have concluded.  A finding has not yet been announced.  The
Company has also made demand on DRD (including its insurers as an
additional insured) and Laurin Maritime for reimbursement of
cleanup costs, defense and indemnification.  However, there is no
assurance that any other party that may be found responsible for
the accident will have the insurance or financial resources
available to provide such defense and indemnification.  The
Company has various insurance policies covering pollution,
property, marine and general liability.  While the cost of cleanup
operations and other potential liabilities are significant, the
Company believes its company has satisfactory insurance coverage
and other legal remedies to cover substantially all of the cost.

Commercial Barge Line Company, headquartered in Jeffersonville,
Indiana, is the sole first tier subsidiary holding company of
American Commercial Lines Inc., also headquartered in
Jeffersonville, Indiana.  ACLI is one of the largest integrated
marine transportation and services companies in the United States,
providing barge transportation and related services, and
construction of barges, towboats and other vessels.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Faces Investor Class Action in Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on June 30 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia on behalf of purchasers of Computer Sciences Corporation
common stock during the period August 11, 2010, and May 25, 2011.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from June 3.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins,
Esq., of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-
mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

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

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


CONVERTED ORGANICS: Continues to Defend "Leeseberg" Suit in Del.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Converted Organics Inc. continues to defend itself in a class
action lawsuit filed by Gerald S. Leeseberg in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware, according to the Company's
May 16, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On December 11, 2008, the Company received notice that a complaint
had been filed in a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of 59
persons or entities that purchased units pursuant to a financing
terms agreement, or FTA, dated April 11, 2006, captioned Gerald S.
Leeseberg, et al. v. Converted Organics, Inc., filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware.  The lawsuit alleges
breach of contract, conversion, unjust enrichment, and breach of
the implied covenant of good faith in connection with the alleged
failure to register certain securities issued in the FTA, and the
redemption of the Company's Class A warrants in November 2008.
The lawsuit seeks damages related to the failure to register
certain securities, including alleged late fee payments, of
approximately $5.25 million, and unspecified damages related to
the redemption of the Class A warrants.  In February 2009, the
Company filed a Motion for Partial Dismissal of Complaint.  On
October 7, 2009, the Court concluded that Leeseberg has properly
stated a claim for actual damages resulting from the Company's
alleged breach of contract, but that Leeseberg has failed to state
claims for conversion, unjust enrichment and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith, and the Court dismissed such claims.  On
November 6, 2009, the Company filed its answer to the Complaint
with the Court.  On March 4, 2010, the parties participated in a
conference, and began discussing discovery issues.  Plaintiff
filed a Motion for Class Certification on June 22, 2010, which was
denied on November 22, 2010.  On March 3, 2011, the court denied
the Company's motion for partial summary judgment.  On March 25,
2011, some individual investors filed a new complaint against the
Company asserting similar claims to those in the Leeseberg
litigation.  On March 25, 2011, a number of other investors filed
a new complaint against Converted Organics.  The Court
consolidated this case with the existing lawsuit and, on May 12,
2011, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint.  The Company plans to
vigorously defend these matters and is unable to estimate any
losses that may be incurred as a result of this litigation and new
complaint and upon their eventual disposition.  Accordingly, no
loss has been recorded related to these matters.

                    About Converted Organics

Converted Organics Inc. -- http://www.convertedorganics.com/--
operates processing facilities that use food waste as raw
material to manufacture all-natural soil amendment products
combining nutritional and disease suppression characteristics.
In addition to its sales in the agribusiness market, the company
sells and distributes its products in the turf management and
retail markets.  As of Dec.31, 2008, the company operated two
facilities: Woodbridge facility and Gonzales facility.  The
company derives revenue from two sources: tip fees and product
sales.  Waste haulers pay the tip fees to the company for
accepting food waste generated by food distributors, such as
grocery stores, produce docks, fish markets and food processors,
and by hospitality venues, such as hotels, restaurants,
convention centers and airports.  In March 2010, the company
acquired a line of poultry-based organic fertilizer products.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Court Approves Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Coventry Health Care Inc. on May
31 said a court approved its $150.5 million settlement of a class
action lawsuit that accused the health insurer of violating
Louisiana laws.

The company will record a gain of $159.3 million, or 68 cents per
share, in the second quarter because it set aside more money than
it needed to cover the settlement.  In July, a state appeals court
affirmed a $262 million judgment against Coventry's First Health
Group Corp. unit.  In February, the plaintiffs and Coventry agreed
to settle the case for $150.5 million.

The lawsuit alleged that First Health Group violated notice
provisions of Louisiana's Any Willing Provider Act related to the
treatment of injured workers with worker's compensation claims.

Shares of Coventry Health fell 6 cents to $34.75 on May 31.


CUMULUS MEDIA: Faces Three Class Suits Over Merger With Citadel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulus Media Inc. is facing three putative class action lawsuits
in connection with its proposed merger with Citadel Broadcasting
Corporation, according to the Company's May 16, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On March 9, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Citadel Broadcasting Corporation, Cumulus Media
Holdings Inc., a direct wholly owned subsidiary of the Company,
and Cadet Merger Corporation, an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary
of the Company.

On March 14, 2011, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed against Citadel, its board of directors, and the Company
in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, generally alleging
that the Citadel Board breached its fiduciary duties to Citadel
stockholders in connection with its approval of the Citadel
Acquisition and breached its duty of disclosure to Citadel
stockholders by allegedly withholding material information
relating to the Citadel Acquisition, and also alleged that Citadel
and the Company each aided and abetted the Citadel Board in its
alleged breach of its fiduciary duties.  The complaint seeks,
among other things, an injunction against the consummation of the
Citadel Acquisition or rescission of the Citadel Acquisition in
the event it is consummated.

On March 23, 2011, a second putative class action complaint was
filed in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, against
Citadel, the Citadel Board, the Company, Holdco and Merger Sub.
The complaint generally alleges that the Citadel Board breached
its fiduciary duties to Citadel shareholders in connection with
its approval of the Citadel Acquisition and that Citadel, the
Company and the Merger Entities aided and abetted the Citadel
Board's alleged breach of its fiduciary duties. The complaint
seeks, among other things, an injunction against the consummation
of the Citadel Acquisition, rescission of the Citadel Acquisition
in the event it is consummated, and any damages arising from the
defendants' alleged breaches.

On May 6, 2011, a third putative class action complaint was filed
in the Chancery Court of Delaware against Citadel, the Citadel
Board, Cumulus and the Merger Entities.  The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the members of the Citadel Board breached
their fiduciary duties to the Citadel shareholders by their
approval of the Citadel Acquisition.  The complaint further
alleges that the Company and the Merger Entities knowingly aided
and abetted the Citadel Board's breach of fiduciary duties.  The
complaint seeks, among other things: (i) the court's declaration
that the lawsuit is properly maintainable as a class action; (ii)
an injunction against the consummation of the Citadel Acquisition;
(iii) rescission of the Citadel Acquisition, to the extent certain
terms have already been implemented; (iv) that the Citadel Board
account to the plaintiffs for all damages suffered as a result of
the Citadel Board's alleged wrongdoing; and (v) the award of
reasonable attorneys' fees.  The Company and the Merger Entities
intend to vigorously defend themselves against the allegations in
this complaint.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend itself against
the allegations in the complaints.


CVS PHARMACIES: Plaintiff Outlines Plan for Class Action Notice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that the lead plaintiff in a class action brought against CVS
Pharmacies Inc. over claims its version of a popular immune system
booster doesn't work has laid out how he will notify other class
members.

Lead plaintiff Iean Finley filed a motion to amend the plan for
class notice in his case May 4.

CVS had previously objected to Mr. Finley's class notice form,
contending it was overly broad.

Mr. Finley is leading a class of CVS customers who bought the
store's version of the immune system supplement Airborne.

The lawsuit alleges that class members were duped and that the CVS
drug did not boost the immune system as claimed.

CVS denies the claims.

St. Clair County Circuit Judge Lloyd Cueto certified the class
last year.

CVS later objected that Mr. Finley's proposed class notice was
overly broad and that it sought to include class members
previously compensated in a Federal Trade Commission settlement.

In Mr. Finley's May 4 class notice plan, the plaintiff includes a
class of CVS customers who purchased "AirShield" from December
2003 to the class's certification date in January 2010.

Mr. Finley proposes five forms of class member notice:

   -- Direct notice via mailings sent to members taken from CVS's
      ExtraCare Rewards Program

   -- Point of sale notice printed on CVS customer receipts for a
      six week period

   -- In store circular publication of a notice

   -- The publication of notices in Sunday newspapers including
      the St. Louis Post-Dispatch

   -- Internet notice

The suit is one of a number of immune system supplement class
actions filed in St. Clair County three years ago.

The suits were filed by the same team of attorneys:

          Kevin Hoerner, Esq.
          BECKER, PAULSON, HOERNER & THOMPSON, P.C.
          5111 West Main Street
          Belleville, Illinois 62226

               - and -

          Paul M. Weiss, Esq.
          FREED & WEISS LLC
          111 W. Washington Street
          Suite 1331
          Chicago, Illinois 60602

               - and -

          Richard J. Burke, Esq.
          FREED & WEISS LLC
          1010 Market Street, Suite 600
          St. Louis, Missouri 63101
          Telelphone: (314) 880-7000
          E-mail: richard@freedweiss.com

At least one of those suits, filed against Target Corporation,
remains pending before a St. Clair County judge.

CVS and others represent are represented by:

          Robert J. Bassett, Esq.
          WILLIAMS VENKER & SANDERS LLC
          Bank of America Tower
          100 North Broadway, 21st Floor
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 345-5034
          E-mail: rbassett@wvslaw.com

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


DJO FINANCE: Continues to Defend Pain Pump Class Suit in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
DJO Finance LLC is currently named as one of several defendants in
a number of product liability lawsuits involving approximately 80
plaintiffs, including a lawsuit in Canada seeking class action
status, related to a disposable drug infusion pump product (pain
pump) manufactured by two third party manufacturers that the
Company distributed through its Bracing and Vascular Segment.  The
Company sold pumps manufactured by one manufacturer from 1999 to
2003 and then sold pumps manufactured by a second manufacturer
from 2003 to 2009.  The Company discontinued its sale of these
products in the second quarter of 2009. These cases have been
brought against the manufacturers and certain distributors of
these pumps, and in some cases, the manufacturers of the
anesthetics used in these pumps. All of these lawsuits allege that
the use of these pumps with certain anesthetics for prolonged
periods after certain shoulder surgeries has resulted in cartilage
damage to the plaintiffs. The lawsuits allege damages ranging from
unspecified amounts to claims of up to $10 million. Many of the
lawsuits which have been filed in the past three years have named
multiple pain pump manufacturers and distributors without having
established which manufacturer manufactured or sold the pump in
issue. In the past three years, the Company has been dismissed
from a large number of cases when product identification was later
established showing that the Company did not sell the pump at
issue.  At present, the Company is named in approximately 20
lawsuits in which product identification has yet to be determined
and, as a result, the Company believes that it will be dismissed
from a meaningful number of such cases in the future. In addition,
the Company is named in approximately 6 cases in which it appears
the Company did not distribute the pump in issue and expect to be
dismissed in the future. To date, the Company is aware of only two
pain pump trials which have gone to verdict, one in early 2010
which involved a manufacturer whose pump the Company did not sell
and one in September 2010 involving pain pumps that DJO sold to
two plaintiffs. In the earlier trial, the plaintiff obtained a
verdict of approximately $5.5 million against the manufacturer. In
the second trial involving DJO, the jury rendered a verdict in
favor of DJO and its manufacturer on all counts as to two
plaintiffs and a verdict on all counts for the manufacturer as to
a third plaintiff who had sued only the manufacturer. In the past
six months, the Company has entered into settlements with
plaintiffs in approximately 30 pain pump lawsuits. Of these, the
Company has settled approximately 20 cases in joint settlements
involving its first manufacturer and the Company has settled
approximately 8 cases involving its second manufacturer. In each
of these settlements, the manufacturer's carrier has made some
contribution to its settlement amount or any joint settlement, but
the Company is seeking indemnity for the balance of its costs.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 16, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.


EGAIN COMMUNICATIONS: Appeal in Securities Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the consolidated securities class action lawsuit
against numerous companies, including eGain Communications
Corporation, relating to initial public offerings remains pending,
according to the Company's May 16, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

Beginning on October 25, 2001, a number of securities class action
complaints were filed against the Company, and certain of its then
officers and directors and underwriters connected with the
Company's initial public offering of common stock.  The class
actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The complaints alleged generally that the
prospectus under which such securities were sold contained false
and misleading statements with respect to discounts and excess
commissions received by the underwriters as well as allegations of
"laddering" whereby underwriters required their customers to
purchase additional shares in the aftermarket in exchange for an
allocation of IPO shares.  The complaints sought an unspecified
amount in damages on behalf of persons who purchased the common
stock between September 23, 1999 and December 6, 2000.  Similar
complaints were filed against 55 underwriters and more than 300
other companies and other individuals.  The over 1,000 actions
were consolidated into a single action called In re Initial Public
Offering Sec. Litig.  In 2003, the Company and the other issuer
defendants (but not the underwriter defendants) reached an
agreement with the plaintiffs to resolve the cases as to the
Company's liability and that of its officers and directors.  The
settlement involved no monetary payment or other consideration by
the Company or its officers and directors and no admission of
liability.  On August 31, 2005, the Court issued an order
preliminarily approving the settlement.  On April 24, 2006, the
Court held a public hearing on the fairness of the proposed
settlement.  Meanwhile the consolidated case against the
underwriters proceeded.  In October 2004, the Court certified a
class.  On December 5, 2006, however, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that the class
certified by the District Court could not be certified.  In re
Initial Public Offering Sec. Litig., 471 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2006),
modified 483 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2007).  The Second Circuit's
holding, while directly affecting only the underwriters, raised
doubt as to whether the settlement class contemplated by the
proposed issuer settlement could be approved.  On June 25, 2007,
the district court entered a stipulated order terminating the
proposed issuer settlement.  Thereafter pretrial proceedings
resumed.

In March 2009, all parties agreed on a new global settlement of
the litigation; this settlement included underwriters as well as
issuers.  Under the settlement, the insurers would pay the full
amount of settlement share allocated to the Company, and the
Company would bear no financial liability.  The Company, as well
as the officer and director defendants, who were previously
dismissed from the action pursuant to a stipulation, would receive
complete dismissals from the case.  On June 10, 2009, the Court
entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement.
On October 5, 2009, the Court issued an order finally approving
the settlement.  Starting on or about October 23, 2009, some
would-be objectors to the certification of a settlement class
(which occurred as part of the October 5, 2009 order) petitioned
the Court for permission to appeal from the order certifying the
settlement class, and on October 29 and November 2, 2009, several
groups of objectors filed notices of appeal seeking to challenge
the Court's approval of the settlement.  On November 24, 2009, the
Court signed, and on, December 4, 2009, the Court entered final
judgment pursuant to the settlement dismissing all claims
involving the Company.

The appeals remain pending and briefing on the appeals is set to
begin in October 2010 and end in the spring of 2011.  On
October 7, 2010, lead plaintiffs and all but two of the objectors
filed a stipulation pursuant to which these objectors withdrawing
their appeals with prejudice.  The remaining two objectors,
however, are continuing to pursue their appeals and have filed
their opening briefs.  On December 8, 2010, plaintiffs moved to
dismiss the appeals.  On March 2, 2011, one of the two appellants,
appearing pro se, filed a stipulated dismissal of his appeal with
prejudice.  If the settlement and final judgment were to be
overturned on appeal and litigation were to proceed, the Company
believes that it has meritorious defenses to plaintiffs' claims
and intends to defend the action vigorously.  The Company has not
accrued any liability in connection with this matter as it does
not expect the outcome of this litigation to have a material
impact on the Company's financial condition.


FIRST CALIFORNIA: Continues to Defend Account Charges Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
First California Financial Group, Inc., relates in its May 16,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, that it is still
defending itself against a class action complaint over charges on
customer deposit accounts.

In February 2011, First California Bank was named as a defendant
in a putative class action, alleging that the manner in which the
Bank posted charges to its consumer demand deposit accounts
breached an implied obligation of good faith and fair dealing and
violates the California Unfair Competition Law.  The action also
alleges that the manner in which the Bank posted charges to its
consumer demand deposit accounts is unconscionable, constitutes
conversion and unjustly enriches the Bank.  The action is pending
in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.  The action seeks to
establish a class consisting of all similarly situated customers
of the Bank in the State of California.  The case is in early
stages, with no responsive pleadings or motions having been filed.
No class has been certified in the case.  At this state of the
case, the Company has not established an accrual for probable
losses as the probability of a material adverse result cannot be
determined and the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of
potential exposures, if any.  The Company intends to defend the
action vigorously.

First California Financial Group, Inc. --
http://www.fcalgroup.com/-- (NASDAQ: FCAL) is the holding company
of First California Bank.  The company specializes in serving the
comprehensive financial needs of the commercial market,
particularly small- and middle-sized businesses, professional
firms and commercial real estate development and construction
companies.  Committed to providing the best client service
available in its markets, First California offers a full line of
quality commercial banking products through 17 full-service branch
offices in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San
Diego and Ventura counties.


FOOD COS: Taiwan Gov't. to Help Consumers File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hsieh Chia-chen and Deborah Kuo, writing for Central News Agency,
report that Vice Premier Sean Chen on June 2 said that the
administration will seek to simplify legal proceedings to enable
consumers to file class-action lawsuits against unscrupulous
traders who have supplied contaminated food and beverages.

Mr. Chen, who doubles as head of the Consumer Protection
Commission, said that under the existing Consumer Protection Act,
only the commission and the non-profit Consumers' Foundation, but
not ordinary consumers, can file such lawsuits.

The vice premier, however, did not elaborate how the "legal
proceedings" should be simplified, or how the Consumer Protection
Act would be amended.

The premier's comments came amidst a government scramble to show
citizens that they are taking the food contamination scandal
seriously and seeking penalties against the companies involved.

The Executive Yuan passed a draft amendment to the Act Governing
Food Sanitation on June 2, calling for heavier penalties against
companies that added banned plasticizers to clouding agents to cut
food production costs.

DEHP, an industrial-grade plasticizer, is banned for use in food
products throughout the world.  But two local companies -- Yu
Sheng Chemical Co. and Pin Han Perfumery Co. -- have been
supplying DEHP-contaminated clouding agents to food processing
companies for over five years.

The amendment raises the fine for adding plasticizers to clouding
agents from NT$300,000 (US$9,375) to a maximum of NT$10 million.
Violators will also be subject to a maximum jail sentence of five
years, up from three years currently.

Unfortunately, according to Deputy Justice Minister Chen Shou-
huang, the two major culprits -- Yu Sheng and Pin Han -- could not
be penalized so heavily because any amendments are not
retroactively applied.

He said, however, these two companies will face criminal charges.

He repeated the remarks made by Premier Wu Den-yih earlier in the
day that managers and procurement officers of major food companies
should also be probed for the contamination scandal.

Vice Premier Chen said that although the existing Food Sanitation
Act stipulates a maximum jail sentence of three years, the owners
of Yu Sheng and Pin Han could face jail terms of up to 30 years
because the government plans to charge them for multiple
violations.

The two companies could also be fined heavily based on the profit
they have made from this affair, he said.


FOOT LOCKER: Removes "Brown" Wage and Hour Suit to N.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hallie Brown, David Cheatham, Jr., Eric Guzman and Edward Woo, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Foot
Locker, Inc., Foot Locker Retail Inc. and Does 1-10, Case No. CGC-
11-510549 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.), was filed on
April 27, 2011.  The Plaintiffs allege:

   (1) failure to pay minimum wage in violation of Section 1194
       of the California Labor Code;

   (2) failure to pay overtime premiums for hours worked in
       excess of 40 per week and eight hours per day, in
       violation of Sections 510(a) and 1194 of the California
       Labor Code, as well as Industrial Wage Order No. 4-2001, 8
       CCR Section 11040;

   (3) failure to provide a meal period or, alternatively, pay a
       meal period premium, in violation of Sections 512(a) and
       226.7 of the California Labor Code;

   (4) failure to provide a rest period or, alternatively, to pay
       a rest period premium, in violation of Section 226.7;

   (5) failure to pay all wages due by the end of employment, in
       violation of Sections 201 and 202 of the California Labor
       Code;

   (6) unfair competition, in violation of Section 17200 of the
       California Business and Professions Code et seq.;

   (7) failure to provide accurate wage statements, in violation
       of Section 226(a) of the California Labor Code;

   (8) breach of contract;

   (9) quantum merit; and

  (10) unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs are citizens of California.

Foot Locker removed the lawsuit on June 6, 2011, from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California because at the time the Complaint was filed, and at the
present time: (i) the Defendants are citizens of New York, while
Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class are citizens of
California; (ii) Plaintiffs have filed a class action complaint in
San Francisco Superior Court; and (iii) Plaintiffs allege claims
where the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:11-cv-02731 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          BRAUN LAW GROUP, PC
          10680 W, Pico Blvd., Suite 280
          Los Angeles, California 90064
          Telephone: (310) 836-6000
          Facsimile: (310)836-6010
          E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
          James A. Maro, Esq.
          BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, Pennsylvania 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: pmuhic@ktmc.com
                  jmaro@ktmc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Tracy Thompson, Esq.
          Timothy C. Travelstead, Esq.
          MILLER LAW GROUP
          A Professional Corporation
          111 Sutter Street, Suite 700
          San Francisco, California 94104
          Telephone: (415)464-4300
          Facsimile: (415) 464-4336
          E-mail: tt@millerlawgroup.com
                  tct@milleriawgroup.com


FOUR AMIGOS: Women Employees File Sexual Harassment Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Madison, writing for Largo Patch, reports that five women,
employees for Four Amigos Travel Inc. and Top Dog Travel Inc.
Largo office, filed a sexual harassment law suit, alleging male
supervisors at the companies acted inappropriately.

The class-action sexual harassment lawsuit was filed in Federal
Court last week.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed the suit
after the women complained that their supervisors acted
inappropriately.

The suit alleges that the general manager and other male
supervisors conducted sexually inappropriate sales meetings on a
daily basis and asked females for sex.  They would drum up
sexually explicit conversations, use profane terms for female
employees and inappropriately touch themselves and the female
employees, according to the lawsuit.

In one instance cited by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, a male supervisor showed a female employee a photo of
his genitals and asked "Impressive, aren't I?"

The class-action lawsuit comes after the EEOC failed to reach a
voluntary settlement with the companies.  The companies use
telemarketers to sell vacation packages in three Florida locations
including Largo.  They employ more than 200 workers.

Miami Regional Attorney Robert Weisberg, of the EEOC, said in a
press release "All employees have the right to work in an
environment free of harassment," and that "The EEOC continues,
with this class lawsuit, to seek vigorous enforcement of the laws
that protect all women from this kind of egregious
discrimination."

If the allegations are true, they violate Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964.

In the same release, Miami District Director Malcolm Medley said
"Every employer needs to take action to remedy sexual harassment,
which is a serious situation requiring serious attention.  The
EEOC will continue to aggressively pursue employers who tolerate
and/or dismiss verbal and physical forms of sexual harassment in
the workplace."


FXCM INC: Defends IPO-Related Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------
FXCM Inc., a Delaware corporation, was incorporated on August 10,
2010, as a holding company for the purpose of facilitating an
initial public offering of the Corporation's common equity. On
December 1, 2010, a registration statement filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission relating to shares of Class A
common stock of the Corporation to be offered and sold in an IPO
was declared effective. On December 7, 2010, the Corporation
completed an IPO of 17,319,000 shares of Class A common stock at a
public offering price of $14.00 per share. Prior to the IPO, the
Corporation had not engaged in any business or other activities
except in connection with its formation and the IPO.

On March 3, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against FXCM Inc., as well as certain of the Company's
officers and directors and three underwriters in its IPO.  The
complaint asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act, alleges false or misleading statements in the IPO
prospectus regarding the Company's business model and trading
platforms, and seeks an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of
persons who purchased its Class A common stock in the IPO,
according to the Company's May 16, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2011.


FXCM INC: Decision on Arbitration Motion Pending in RICO Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
On February 8, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York by a single former customer against FXCM Inc.'s indirect
subsidiary, Forex Capital Markets LLC. The complaint asserts
claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, 18 U.S.C Section 1961 et seq., as well as the New York
General Business Law. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of
damages, trebled, and alleges false and deceptive trade practices,
fraudulent and unfair trade execution and account handling
practices. A motion to compel arbitration was filed by the Company
during April 2011 and a decision is pending, according to the
Company's May 16, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2011.


GEORGIA: Immigration Law Unconstitutional, Class Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline J. Holness at Courthouse News Service reports that ten
unions and civil rights groups want Georgia's draconian
immigration law enjoined before it takes effect July 1.  The
federal class action claims Georgia's "punitive and comprehensive
immigration system" has the same constitutional defects as
Arizona's law, parts of which already have been declared
unconstitutional by an Arizona Federal Court and the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Lead defendant, Gov. Nathan Deal, signed H.B. 87 on May 13.

The plaintiffs, led by the Georgia Latino Alliance for Human
Rights, say the bill is "unconstitutional in its entirety."

They say "HB 87 is unconstitutional in myriad ways.  It violates
the Supremacy Clause and core civil rights and liberties secured
by the U.S. Constitution, including the Fourth Amendment's right
to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, the Right to
Travel, and the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantees to equal
protection and due process under the law.  It also violates
separation-of powers safeguards in the Georgia Constitution."

The bill purportedly has four major objectives.

It "authorizes state and local law enforcement officers to
investigate the immigration status of individuals who do not carry
one of a limited set of documents prescribed by the state, and to
arrest individuals on suspicion that they have violated federal
civil immigration laws"; it "creates new criminal immigration laws
specific to and wholly administered by the State of Georgia";
it "denies public benefits to anyone unable to provide one of
several enumerated documents that Georgia deems sufficient proof
of identity"; and it "outlaws the use of consular identification
cards, which several foreign governments issue to their citizens,
for any official purpose."

The Georgia General Assembly approved HB 87 on April 14.

"The legislative record makes clear that a primary motivating
factor in passing this law was the Georgia General Assembly's
disagreement with federal immigration policy," the complaint
states.  The plaintiffs say the law usurps federal authority by
subjecting Georgians, including U.S. citizens and non citizens who
have federal permission to be in the United States, to unlawful
interrogations, searches and seizures, and invites racial
profiling.

Section 8 of HB 87 authorizes all Georgia peace officers to
investigate the immigration status of people they stop for traffic
violations and other routine stops.

In addition, Georgians will be forced to carry additional
identification specified by the state.

"This is because HB 87 makes individuals who do not carry the
prescribed documentation subject to lengthy investigations into
immigration status that last over 80 minutes on average under the
best case scenario," according to the complaint.

The accepted forms of identification are a "secure and verifiable
document," defined in Section 19 of HB 87 as a valid Georgia
driver's license, a valid Georgia identification card, a valid
driver's license from an entity requiring proof of legal presence,
a valid identification card issued by the federal government or a
valid driver's license issued to a nonresident by his or her home
state or country accompanied by proof of citizenship or legal
residency.

The plaintiffs say the law may deprive Georgians of benefits to
which they are entitled: "These deprivations will force
individuals and families, including those with young children, to
be without food and shelter, simply due to an inability to produce
a qualifying identity document."

The plaintiffs also say the law will prevent them from carrying
out their missions.

The Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights "emphasizes community
outreach to immigrant communities in Georgia in order to ease
their transition into a new culture."  It does this primarily
through educating immigrant communities about Georgia laws.  If HB
takes effect, the alliance "will no longer be able to conduct
education around local ordinances, and instead will have to focus
all of its educational efforts on determining the effects of HB 87
and educating its members about it."

The alliance says that attendance has dropped sharply since
Gov. Deal signed the bill.  It says immigrants have told it "they
are too afraid to attend these events because they believe that
they will be targeted by the police based on their ethnic
appearance."

Plaintiff DREAM Activist.org is a "multicultural, migrant youth-
led movement [which seeks] to pass the DREAM Act, also known as
the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act."  It
says: "If HB 87 takes effect, DREAM members are at risk of being
subject to prolonged immigration status checks even if they are
authorized by the federal government to remain in the United
States."

Other plaintiffs include the Southern Regional Joint Board of
Workers' United, Instituto de Mexico of Atlanta and the Asian
American Legal Advocacy Center.

Individual plaintiffs say they could face criminal prosecution
under HB 87, as it allows fines and jail terms for people who
assist in "transporting or moving an illegal alien."  Plaintiff
Paul Bridges, mayor of Uvaulda, says he often helps interpret in
schools and other settings, as he can speak English and Spanish.
He also provides transportation for "undocumented individuals" to
the Mexican Consulate in Atlanta.  In addition, he has traveled to
Florida to pick up friends, some of whom are undocumented, and has
given them rides to Georgia and has housed them in his home.

A copy of the Complaint in Georgia Latino Alliance for Human
Rights, et al. v. Deal, et al., Case No. 11-cv-01804 (D. Ga.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/06/GaImmig.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Omar C. Jadwat, Esq.
          Andre Segura, Esq.
          Elora Mukherjee, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549-26 60
          E-mail: ojadwat@aclu.org
                  asegura@aclu.org
                  emukherjee@aclu.org

               - and -

          Cecillia D. Wang, Esq.
          Katherine Desormeau, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT
          39 Drumm Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 343-0775
          E-mail: cwang@aclu.org
                  kdesormeau@aclu.org

               - and -
          Chara Fisher Jackson, Esq.
          Azadeh N. Shahshahani, Esq.
          ACLU OF GEORGIA
          1900 The Exchange, Suite 425
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 303-8111
          E-mail: cfjackson@acluga.org
                  ashahshahani@acluga.org

               - and -

          G. Brian Spears, Esq.
          1126 Ponce de Leon Ave., N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30306
          Telephone: (404) 872-7086
          E-mail: Bspears@mindspring.com

               - and -

          R. Keegan Federal, Jr., Esq.
          FEDERAL & HASSON, LLP
          Two Ravinia Drive, Suite 1776
          Atlanta, GA 30346
          Telephone: (678) 443-4044
          E-mail: keegan@federalhasson.com

               - and -

          Charles H. Kuck, Esq.
          Danielle M. Conley, Esq.
          KUCK IMMIGRATION PARTNERS LLC
          8010 Roswell Road, Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30350
          Telephone: (404) 816-8611
          E-mail: CKuck@immigrafion.nef
                  DConley@immigrafion.nef

               - and -

          Linton Joaquin, Esq.
          Karen C. Tumlin, Esq.
          Nora A. Preciado, Esq.
          Melissa S. Keaney, Esq.
          NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
          3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2850
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 639-3900
          E-mail: Joaquin@nilc.org
                  Tumlin@nilc.org
                  Preciado@nilc.org
                  Keaney@nilc.org

               - and -

          Naomi Tsu, Esq.
          Michelle R. Lapointe, Esq.
          Daniel Werner, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          233 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 2150
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 521-6700
          E-mail: naomi.tsu@splcenter.org
                  michelle.lapointe@Splcenter.org
                  daniel.werner@splcenter.org

               - and -

          Mary Bauer, Esq.
          Andrew H. Turner, Esq.
          Samuel Brooke, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          400 Washington Ave.
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (404) 956-8200
          E-mail: mary.bauer@splcenter.org
                  andrew.turner@splcenter.org
                  samuel.brooke@Splcenter.org

               - and -

          Tanya Broder, Esq.
          Jonathan Blazer, Esq.
          NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
          405 14th Street, Suite 1400
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 663-8282
          E-mail: Broder@nilc.org
                  Blazer@nilc.org

               - and -

          Sin Yen Ling, Esq.
          ASIAN LAW CAUCUS
          55 Columbus Avenue
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 896-1701 x 110
          E-mail: sinyenL@asianlawcaucus.org


GREEN BANKSHARES: Has Until July 11 to Respond to Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
Green Bankshares, Inc., has until July 11, 2011, to respond to an
amended complaint filed in a consolidated putative class action
lawsuit pending in Tennessee, according to the Company's
May 16, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On November 18, 2010 a shareholder of the Company filed a putative
class action lawsuit (styled Bill Burgraff v. Green Bankshares,
Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee,
Northeastern Division, Case No. 2:10-cv-00253) against the Company
and certain of its current and former officers in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee in
Greeneville, Tennessee on behalf of all persons that acquired
shares of the Company's common stock between January 19, 2010 and
November 9, 2010. On January 18, 2011, a separate shareholder of
the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit (styled Brian
Molnar v. Green Bankshares, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of Tennessee, Northeastern Division, Case No.
2:11-cv-00014) against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers in the same court on behalf of all persons that
acquired shares of the Company's common stock between January 19,
2010 and October 20, 2010. These lawsuits were filed following,
and relate to the drop in value of the Company's common stock
price after, the Company announced its third quarter performance
results on October 20, 2010. The Burgraff case also complains of
the Company's decision on November 9, 2010, to suspend payment of
certain quarterly cash dividends.

The plaintiffs allege that defendants made false and/or misleading
statements or failed to disclose that the Company was purportedly
overvaluing collateral of certain loans; failing to timely take
impairment charges of these certain loans; failing to properly
account for loan charge-offs; lacking adequate internal and
financial controls; and providing false and misleading financial
results. The plaintiffs have asserted federal securities laws
claims against all defendants for alleged violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The plaintiffs have also asserted control
person liability claims against the individual defendants named in
the complaints pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The two cases were consolidated on February 4, 2011.  On
February 11, 2011, the Court appointed movant Jeffrey Blomgren as
lead plaintiff. On May 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed an amended and
consolidated complaint alleging a class period of January 19, 2010
to November 9, 2010. Defendants have until July 11, 2011 to file a
response to this amended complaint.

The Company and the individual named defendants collectively
intend to vigorously defend themselves against these allegations.

Green Bankshares, Inc. is the bank holding company for GreenBank,
a Tennessee-chartered commercial bank that conducts the principal
business of the Company.


GREEN BANKSHARES: Defends Class Suit Over North American Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Green Bankshares, Inc., is defending itself against a putative
class action arising from the Company's entry into an investment
agreement with North American Financial Holdings, Inc., according
to the Company's May 16, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

On May 12, 2011, a shareholder of the Company filed a putative
class action lawsuit (styled Betty Smith v. Green Bankshares, Inc.
et al., Case No. 11-625-III, Davidson County, Tennessee, Chancery
Court) against the Company, the Bank, the Company's Board of
Directors (Steven M. Rownd, Robert K. Leonard, Martha M. Bachman,
Bruce Campbell, W.T. Daniels, Samuel E. Lynch, Bill Mooningham,
John Tolsma, Kenneth R. Vaught, and Charles E. Whitfield, Jr.),
and North American on behalf of all persons holding common stock
of the Company. This lawsuit was filed following the Company's
public announcement on May 5, 2011 of its entering into the
Investment Agreement with North American and relates to the
proposed investment in the Company by North American.
The complaint alleges that the individual defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by accepting a sale price for the shares to
be sold to North American that was unfair to the Company's
shareholders. The complaint also alleges that the Company, the
Bank and North American aided and abetted these breaches of
fiduciary duty. It seeks injunctive relief and/or rescission of
the proposed investment by North American and fees and expenses in
an unspecified amount.

The Company and the individual defendants collectively intend to
vigorously defend themselves against these class action
allegations.

Green Bankshares, Inc. is the bank holding company for GreenBank,
a Tennessee-chartered commercial bank that conducts the principal
business of the Company.


HALLIBURTON: Judge Refuses to Certify Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that investors seeking class
certification in securities fraud litigation do need to prove that
a company's deceptive conduct caused their economic loss, though
that connection is necessary to ultimately prevail on the merits,
the Supreme Court ruled on June 6.

A Texas federal judge had refused to certify a class action
against Halliburton and its former CEO David Lesar, filed by lead
plaintiff Erica P. John Fund.  To artificially inflate its stock
price between 1999 and 2001, Halliburton lied about the scope of
its potential liability in asbestos litigation, its expected
revenue from certain construction contracts and the benefits of
its merger with another company, according to the investors'
complaint.

The fund survived a motion to dismiss, but the Northern District
of Texas would not certify the class, even though it met the basic
requirements of numerosity and commonality.

After the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
affirmed, the Supreme Court took up the fund's appeal to resolve a
conflict among the federal appeals courts.

On June 6, the high court said that the trial court improperly
used the loss-causation theory as a basis to deny class
certification.

Though circuit precedent requires plaintiffs in securities fraud
litigation to prove that a company's deceptive conduct caused
their economic loss, they have more latitude for class
certification, according to the 10-page ruling.

In deciding differently, the 5th Circuit misapplied the
requirements set in the Supreme Court's 1988 decision for Basic
Inc v. Levinson.

"To begin, we have never before mentioned loss causation as a
precondition for invoking Basic's rebuttable presumption of
reliance," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for unanimous court.
"The term 'loss causation' does not even appear in our Basic
opinion.  And for good reason: Loss causation addresses a matter
different from whether an investor relied on a misrepresentation,
presumptively or otherwise, when buying or selling a stock."

Since the requirements for proof of reliance could amount to an
unnecessarily unrealistic evidentiary burden for plaintiffs and
effectively foreclose the possibility of class actions, the court
in Basic green-lit the "fraud-on-the-market" theory.

"According to that theory, 'the market price of shares traded on
well-developed markets reflects all publicly available
information, and, hence, any material misrepresentations," Chief
Justice Roberts wrote.

"According to the Court of Appeals, however, an inability to prove
loss causation would prevent a plaintiff from invoking the
rebuttable presumption of reliance," he added.  "Such a rule
contravenes Basic's fundamental premise -- that an investor
presumptively relies on a misrepresentation so long as it was
reflected in the market price at the time of his transaction.  The
fact that a subsequent loss may have been caused by factors other
than the revelation of a misrepresentation has nothing to do with
whether an investor relied on the misrepresentation in the first
place, either directly or presumptively through the fraud-on-the-
market theory.  Loss causation has no logical connection to the
facts necessary to establish the efficient market predicate to the
fraud-on-the-market theory.

The Court of Appeals erred by requiring EPJ Fund to show loss
causation as a condition of obtaining class certification."

Halliburton had argued that the court simply used the words "loss
causation" and rejected class certification on the basis of price
impact, but the high court called this a "wishful interpretation."

"Whatever Halliburton thinks the Court of Appeals meant to say,
what it said was loss causation," Chief Justice Roberts wrote,
adding: "We take the Court of Appeals at its word.  Based on those
words, the decision below cannot stand."

A copy of the ruling in Erica P. John Fund, Inc., et al. v.
Halliburton Co., et al., Case No. 09-cv-01403 (5th Cir.), is
available at:

     http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1403.pdf


HINDS COUNTY, MS: Sued Over Abuse at Youth Detention Facility
-------------------------------------------------------------
WLBT reports that a federal lawsuit targets abuse at the youth
detention facility in Jackson.

The Southern Poverty Law Center and Disabilities Rights
Mississippi have filed a class action lawsuit against Hinds
County.

The suit is on behalf of youth at the Henley-Young Juvenile
Justice Detention Center on McDowell Road.

It details incidents that the organizations say violate the
constitutional rights of the children.

The detainees were allegedly subjected to prolonged isolation and
sensory deprivation, verbal abuse and threats of physical harm,
and denied mental health services.

Here are some of the incidents cited in the lawsuit:

   -- A staff member taunted one young man and encouraged him to
kill himself so that there would be "one less person officers have
to worry about" after the teen began cutting himself with a
razor.

   -- Staff regularly verbally abuse children at HY including
cursing them and threatening harm to the children and their family
members.

   -- A staff member cursed one child and threatened to harm the
child's family -- all because the child took too long to return to
his cell after his shower.

   -- Youth are forced to stay in their small cells for 20-23
hours everyday with very little human contact, exercise or access
to education and rehabilitation programs.

   -- Staff at the facility regularly withholds necessary
medication from children with serious mental health problems.


IMH FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IMH Financial Corporation is still awaiting a decision on its
motion to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit pending in
Delaware, according to the Company's May 16, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

IMH Financial Corporation, IFC or the Company, was formed from the
conversion of IMH Secured Loan Fund, LLC, or the Fund, on June 18,
2010.  The conversion was effected following a consent
solicitation process pursuant to which approval was obtained from
a majority of the members of the Fund to effect a series of
transactions referred to as the Conversion Transactions which
involved (i) the conversion of the Fund from a Delaware limited
liability company into a Delaware corporation named IMH Financial
Corporation, and (ii) the acquisition by IFC of all of the
outstanding shares of the manager of the Fund, Investors Mortgage
Holdings Inc., or the Manager, as well as all of the outstanding
membership interests of a related entity, IMH Holdings LLC, or
Holdings, on June 18, 2010.

Three proposed class action lawsuits were filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery (May 26, 2010, June 15, 2010 and June 17, 2010)
against the Company and its affiliated named individuals and
entities. The May 26 and June 15, 2010 lawsuits contain similar
allegations, claiming that fiduciary duties owed to Fund members
and to the Fund were breached because the Conversion Transactions
were unfair to Fund members, constitute self-dealing and because
the Form S-4 and/or information provided about the Form S-4 or
Conversion Transactions were false and misleading. The June 17,
2010 lawsuit focuses on whether the Conversion Transactions
constitute a "roll up" transaction under the Fund's operating
agreement, and seeks damages for breach of the operating
agreement. The Company and its affiliated named individuals and
entities dispute these claims and will defend vigorously against
these actions.

An action was filed on June 14, 2010 by Fund members Ronald Tucek
and Cliff Ratliff, as well as LGM Capital Partners, LLC (also
known as The Committee to Protect IMH Secured Loan Fund, LLC) in
the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company and affiliated
named individuals and entities. The June 14, 2010 lawsuit claims
that fiduciary duties and the duty of disclosure owed to Fund
members and to the Fund were breached because the Conversion
Transactions were unfair to Fund members, constitute self-dealing
and because the Form S-4 and/or information provided about the
Form S-4 or Conversion Transactions were false and misleading.
Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the Conversion Transactions, have an
independent advisor appointed on behalf of Fund members, remove
the Manager and obtain access to contact information for Fund
members and certain broker-dealers.  The Company and its
affiliated named individuals and entities dispute these claims and
will defend vigorously against this action.

In July 2010, the parties in the four actions filed various
motions and/or briefs seeking competing forms of consolidation
and/or coordination of the four actions. During a hearing on these
motions on October 14, 2010, the parties in the actions agreed to
consolidate the four actions for all purposes, subject to certain
provisions with "respect to the unique individual count brought"
by the Tucek plaintiffs. On October 25, 2010, the Delaware Court
of Chancery granted the parties' proposed "Order of Consolidation
and Appointment of Co-lead Plaintiffs: Counsel and Co-Liaison
Counsel," which, among other things, consolidated the four
actions, ordered that a consolidated complaint shall be filed
within 45 days of October 25, 2010, followed by consolidated
discovery, and designated the plaintiffs' counsel from the May 25,
2010 and June 17, 2010 lawsuits as co-lead counsel. The
consolidated class action complaint was filed on December 17,
2010. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on January 31, 2011.
The motion to dismiss has been fully briefed, but a hearing date
has not yet been set.  The consolidated action is in its early
stage and it is not possible to estimate at this time the range of
exposure, if any, the consolidated action presents. However, the
Company and its affiliated named individuals and entities dispute
these claims and will defend vigorously against these actions.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Defends Class Suit Over Charter Amendments
----------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., is defending itself in a class
action lawsuit alleging the Company of filing unauthorized false,
invalid amendments to its corporate charter, according to the
Company's May 16, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On May 10, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the United States District court, Central district of California
as Case No. SACV11-00717 entitled Norma B. Power Trust,
individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., et al.  The action alleges that the
Defendants filed unauthorized false, invalid amendments to the
Company's corporate charter with regards to the holders of series
B Preferred Stock and Series C Preferred Stock.  The action seeks
recovery under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5,
Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act, Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-11.
It also seeks recovery under Rule 14(e) and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.  The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, costs,
expenses, attorney's fees and rescission.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the
claims and intends to defend these claims vigorously and as such
it believes the final outcome of such matters will not have a
material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of
operations.  Nevertheless, litigation is uncertain and the Company
may not prevail in the lawsuits and can express no opinion as to
their ultimate resolution.  An adverse judgment in any of these
matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position and results of operations.


LIVEDEAL INC: Remains a Defendant in "Global Education" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
On June 6, 2008, Global Education Services, Inc., filed a consumer
fraud class action lawsuit against LiveDeal, Inc., in King County
(Washington) Superior Court.  GES has alleged in its complaint
that the Company's use of activator checks violated the Washington
Consumer Protection Act.  GES seeks injunctive relief against the
Company's use of the checks, as well as judgment in an amount
equal to three times the alleged damages sustained by GES and the
members of the class.  LiveDeal has denied the allegations.  Early
in 2010, the Court denied both parties' dispositive motions after
oral argument.  Active litigation is temporarily suspended, but
Plaintiff is seeking to restart the litigation.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 16, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.


MEDQUIST HOLDINGS: Awaits Final Approval of Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
MedQuist Holdings Inc. is awaiting final court approval of its
settlement of class action lawsuits filed in connection with its
February 2011 public exchange offer, according to the Company's
May 16, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On February 8, 2011 and February 10, 2011, two of MedQuist Inc.'s
minority shareholders filed class action complaints in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Burlington County, Chancery
Division, (the Court) against MedQuist Inc., the individual
members on MedQuist Inc.'s board of directors and the Company (the
Shareholder Litigation).  Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants
breached certain fiduciary duties they owed to minority
shareholders of MedQuist Inc. in connection with the structuring
and disclosure of the Public Exchange Offer.

On March 4, 2011, the parties to the Shareholder Litigation
entered into a memorandum of understanding (the MOU) that outlined
the material terms of a proposed settlement of the Shareholder
Litigation.  Under the terms of the MOU, the Company agreed to
extend the expiration of the Public Exchange Offer and further
agreed that if, as a result of the Public Exchange Offer, the
Company obtained ownership of at least 90% of the outstanding
common stock of MedQuist Inc., it would conduct a short-form
merger under applicable law to acquire the remaining shares of
MedQuist Inc. common stock that the Company does not currently own
at the same exchange ratio applicable under the Public Exchange
Offer.  MedQuist Inc. agreed to make certain supplemental
disclosures concerning the Public Exchange Offer, which were
contained in an amendment to Schedule 14D-9 that MedQuist Inc.
filed with the SEC on March 7, 2011.  The Company also agreed to
use its best efforts to finalize a Stipulation of Settlement (the
Settlement Stipulation) and present it to the Court for
preliminary approval within thirty days of the date of the MOU.

On April 1, 2011, the parties finalized the Settlement Stipulation
that contained all the terms of the parties' proposed settlement
of the Shareholder Litigation.  Among other things, the Settlement
Stipulation recognized that, subject to court approval, a non-opt
out settlement class would be certified consisting of all holders
of MedQuist Inc.'s common stock, except the defendants and their
immediate families and their affiliates (the Class).  The
Settlement Stipulation acknowledged that updated disclosures were
made with respect to the Public Exchange Offer and that the Public
Exchange Offer expiration date was extended until March 11, 2011.
The Settlement Stipulation also memorialized the parties'
agreement that, following Court approval, the Company would
conduct a short-form merger to acquire the remaining shares of
MedQuist Inc. common stock at the same exchange ratio applicable
under the Public Exchange Offer.

On April 19, 2011, the Court held a hearing to review the
Settlement Stipulation and determine whether to preliminarily
approve the settlement.  On this same date, the Court entered a
preliminary approval order (the Preliminary Approval Order) that,
among other things, certified the Class for settlement purposes,
set deadlines for providing notice of the settlement to Class
members, and scheduled June 17, 2011 as the return date for a
fairness hearing to determine final approval of the settlement.
The Preliminary Approval Order also set May 27, 2011, as the
deadline for the filing of a motion for final approval of the
settlement, and June 3, 2011, as the deadline for any Class
members to file objections to the settlement.  The settlement will
not become final until the Court determines, following a hearing,
that the terms of the settlement are fair, reasonable and
adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Pension Class Suit Still Stayed Pending CCAA Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit filed against Nortel Networks
Corporation and its subsidiary remains stayed pending the
Company's proceedings under the Companies Creditors Arrangement
Act, according to the Company's May 16, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

Beginning on January 14, 2009, Nortel and certain of its
subsidiaries in Canada, the U.S., and in certain EMEA countries
filed for creditor protection under the relevant jurisdictions of
Canada, the U.S., the United Kingdom and subsequently commenced
separate proceedings in Israel, followed by secondary proceedings
in France.

On June 24, 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and Nortel Networks Inc. in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice in Ottawa, Canada alleging, among other
things, that certain recent changes related to the Company's
pension plan did not comply with the Pension Benefits Act
(Ontario) or common law notification requirements. The plaintiffs
seek declaratory and equitable relief, and unspecified monetary
damages. As a result of the Creditor Protection Proceedings, this
lawsuit has been stayed.


PARTNER COMMS: Faces Class Action Over Cellular Handsets
--------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd., an Israeli mobile
communications operator, on June 6 disclosed that it was served
with a lawsuit filed June 6, 2011, and a motion for the
recognition of this lawsuit as a class action, in the Central
District Court.

The claim alleges that the defendants sell or supply accessories
that are intended for carrying cellular handsets on the body, in a
manner that contradicts the instructions and warnings of the
cellular handset manufacturers and the recommendations of the
Ministry of Health, all this without disclosing the risks entailed
in the use of these accessories when they are sold or marketed.

If the lawsuit is recognized as a class action, the total amount
claimed against Partner is estimated by the plaintiff to be
approximately NIS1,010 million.

Partner is reviewing and assessing the lawsuit and is unable, at
this preliminary stage, to evaluate, with any degree of certainty,
the probability of success of the lawsuit or the range of
potential exposure, if any.


PROSPECT MEDICAL: Still Defends Suits Over Ivy Holdings Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself from
class action lawsuits in connection with its merger with Ivy
Holdings Inc., according to the Company's May 16, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On August 16, 2010, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Ivy Holdings Inc. and Ivy Merger Sub Corp.,
an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Ivy Holdings.  On
December 15, 2010, at a special meeting of the Company's
stockholders, the adoption of the Ivy Merger Agreement was
approved by the affirmative vote of a majority of the Company's
common stock outstanding as of the record date for the special
meeting.  In accordance with the Ivy Merger Agreement and the
Delaware General Corporation Law on the Merger Effective Date,
Merger Sub subsequently merged with and into the Company on
December 15, 2010, and the Company became an indirect, wholly-
owned subsidiary of Ivy Holdings.  Following the consummation of
the merger, the Company's common stock ceased trading on the
NASDAQ Global Market and was delisted.

Following the announcement of the merger, two putative class
action complaints were filed against the Company, each of the
Rollover Investors, each of the special committee members, Ivy
Holdings, the Merger Sub, and Leonard Green & Partners, L.P. These
complaints, which were consolidated into a single action, allege
generally that defendants breached their fiduciary duties, or
aided and abetted others' breaches of their fiduciary duties, in
connection with the transaction with the Company by, among other
things, authorizing the transaction for what plaintiffs claim to
be inadequate consideration and pursuant to what plaintiffs claim
to be an inadequate process and with inadequate disclosures.  The
complaint seeks, among other relief, an injunction against the
proposed merger, rescission of the merger or recessionary damages
to the putative class if the merger is completed and an award of
costs, including attorneys' fees and experts' fees.  On
December 28, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification which remains pending, and plaintiffs have indicated
that they are planning to amend and update the complaint in light
of the completion of the merger and to amend their motion for
class certification.

On December 30, 2010, another lawsuit was filed in Delaware
Chancery Court by six shareholders against the same defendants.
The complaint alleges generally that the consideration offered to
shareholders in connection with the transaction with the Company
was inadequate in light of the revenue received under the one-time
supplemental payments to certain medical facilities pursuant to
Assembly Bill 1653, and that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties, or aided and abetted others' breaches of their fiduciary
duties by not obtaining a higher price in light of this additional
revenue.

Defendants believe the claims alleged in both suits are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend against the suits.


REACHLOCAL INC: Wage & Hour Suits Remain Pending in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
ReachLocal Inc. continues to defend itself against class action
lawsuits alleging wage and hour violations in California,
according to the Company's May 16, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2011.

On March 1, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by two of the
Company's former employees in California Superior Court in Los
Angeles, California.  The complaint alleged wage and hour
violations in a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action and a
California class action.  On November 17, 2010, the Company
executed a memorandum of understanding to settle the class action
for $800,000, which includes legal costs resulting in a charge of
$832,000.  On or about February 2, 2011, a second class action
lawsuit was filed by former employees alleging substantially
similar wage and hour violations.  Accordingly, this lawsuit will
be consolidated with the prior class action and it is not expected
to disrupt the prior settlement or result in material additional
costs.

ReachLocal, Inc. (ReachLocal) offers online marketing and
reporting solutions, including search engine marketing, display
advertising, remarketing and online marketing analytics, each
targeted to the small and medium-sized businesses (SMB) market.
The Company delivers these solutions to SMBs through a combination
of it RL Platform and its direct, feet-on-the-street sales force
of Internet Marketing Consultants (IMCs), and select third-party
agencies and resellers. The Company uses its RL Platform to create
advertising campaigns for SMBs to target potential customers in
their geographic area, optimize those campaigns in real time and
track tangible results.


REDCATS USA: Accused of Violating Song-Beverly Act in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvia Anderson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. Redcats USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-02660,
(N.D. Calif. June 02, 2011), brings a class action lawsuit on
behalf of herself and "all persons from whom Defendant requested
and recorded personal identification information in conjunction
with a credit card transaction in California."

Ms. Anderson alleges four causes of action for (1) violation of
the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, Section 1747.08 of the
California Civil Code, (2) common law negligence, (3) invasion of
privacy, and (4) unlawful intrusion.  More specifically, she
alleges that Redcats requests its customers paying with credit
cards to provide personal identification information in the form
of their zip codes in violation of Song-Beverly, and then uses
that information to obtain its customers' home addresses.

Ms. Anderson is a resident of California.

Redcats is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of
business located in Indiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          P. Craig Cardon, Esq.
          Elizabeth S. Berman, Esq.
          SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, California 90067-6017
          Telephone: (310) 228-3700
          Facsimile: (310) 228-3701
          E-mail: ccardon@sheppardmullin.com
                  eberman@sheppardmullin.com


SAKS INC: Continues to Defend FLSA-Violations Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Saks Incorporated continues to defend itself against a purported
class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the California Labor Code, according to the
Company's June 2, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2011.

On February 2, 2011, the plaintiffs in Dawn Till and Mary Josephs
v. Saks Incorporated et al., filed a complaint, with which the
Company was served on March 10, 2011, in a purported class and
collective action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs
were improperly classified as exempt from the overtime pay
requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California
Labor Code and that the Company failed to pay overtime, provide
itemized wage statements and provide meal and rest periods.  On
March 8, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding a
claim for penalties under the California Private Attorneys General
Act of 2004.  The plaintiffs seek to proceed collectively under
the FLSA and as a class under the California statutes on behalf of
individuals who have been employed by Saks Fifth Avenue OFF 5TH as
Selling and Service Managers, Merchandise Team Managers, or
Department Managers.

The Company believes that its managers at OFF 5TH have been
properly classified as exempt under both federal and state law and
intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.  The Company says it is
not possible to predict whether the court will permit this action
to proceed collectively or as a class.


SAP AG: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay
-----------------------------------------------------------
SAP AG on June 6 disclosed that the Superior Court of Alameda
County, California (USA) has granted preliminary approval to a
settlement of class action litigation arising out of the July 2010
acquisition of Sybase, Inc. by SAP's subsidiary, SAP America, Inc.
The litigation was commenced following the May 12, 2010
announcement of the tender offer by SAP America, Inc. to acquire
all of the outstanding shares of Sybase, Inc. common stock.  Among
other things, certain plaintiffs in the lawsuits claimed that the
price paid to Sybase shareholders in the tender offer was too low
and that the information disclosed to Sybase shareholders was
insufficient.

The settlement affects the rights of persons who held Sybase, Inc.
common stock between May 12, 2010, and July 29, 2010.  Under the
terms of the settlement, which was agreed to in principle prior to
the closing of the tender offer, investors were provided
additional disclosures concerning the transaction; Class Members
will release their claims relating to the transaction; and the
defendants agreed not to oppose a request for attorney's fees by
plaintiffs' counsel in an amount not exceeding $1,075,000, with
the court ultimately deciding what amount to award to plaintiffs'
counsel.

This is an abbreviated description of the settlement.  Class
Members may learn more about the settlement, and their rights
regarding the settlement, by visiting any of these Web sites where
a detailed Notice of Settlement of Class Action is posted:

     http://www.rgrdlaw.com/sybasesettlement
     http://www.ktmc.com/sybasetakeoverlitigation
     http://www.prickett.com/index.html
     http://www.weiserlawfirm.com
     http://www.gilardi.com
     http://www.sap.com/classnotice
     http://www.sybase.com

In addition, the court has ordered a copy of the Notice to be
mailed to Class Members.

Class Members who wish to take action regarding the settlement
must do so no later than August 22, 2011.  It is anticipated that
the court will hold a hearing on or about September 9, 2011, to
determine whether to grant final approval to the settlement.


SIRIUS XM RADIO: Sued Over False Advertising on Subscriptions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Sirius XM Radio advertised 2-year subscriptions for $227.05 but
charged $249.99 for them.

A copy of the Complaint in Broida v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc.,
Case No. 11-cv-01219 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/06/Sirius.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen B. Morris, Esq.
          MORRIS AND ASSOCIATES
          444 West C Street, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-1300


SKYPEOPLE FRUIT: Continues to Defend "Kubala" Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
SkyPeople Fruit Juice, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
securities fraud class action lawsuit in New York filed by Paul
Kubala, according to the Company's May 16, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2011.

On April 20, 2011, plaintiff Paul Kubala (on behalf of his minor
child N.K.), filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York
against the Company, certain of its individual officers and/or
directors, Yongke Xue and Xiaoqin Yan, and Rodman & Renshaw, LLC,
the underwriter of the Company's public offering consummated in
August 2010, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.   The purported class period is from
March 31, 2010 through and including April 1, 2011.  The Complaint
alleges that certain public statements made by the Company were
materially misleading in violation of U.S. securities laws.  In
particular, the Complaint alleges that the Company's Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, filed
with the SEC on March 31, 2010, was not in compliance with FAS No.
57, and therefore misleading under U.S. securities laws because it
did not identify the Company's acquisition of Yingkou Trusty
Fruits, Co., Ltd. as a "related party transaction."  The Complaint
also alleges that the prospectus contained in the Registration
Statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC on April 20, 2010, as
amended, for the Company's public offering that was consummated in
August 2010 was likewise misleading because it stated that "there
has not been a reportable transaction between us and a related
party since January 1, 2009."  Plaintiff maintains that the
Company's stock price dropped, and its shareholders suffered
damages, once the Yingkou Acquisition was disclosed as a "related
party transaction" in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, which was filed with the
SEC on April 1, 2011.  The Company's CEO and chairman of the
board, Xue Yongke, and a director, Yan Xiaoqin, were parties
related to the Yingkou Acquisition.

Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and attorneys fees and costs
"in an amount to be proven at trial."  It is unclear at this time
what Plaintiff's damages will be, if any.  The Company has
retained a defense counsel to represent it in the matter.  The
Company has not yet responded to the Complaint, but believes the
allegations contained in the Complaint are without merit and
intends to defend itself vigorously against Plaintiff's claims.


SOLAR POWER: Defends California Class Action Suit Over LDK Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Solar Power, Inc., is defending itself against a class action
lawsuit alleging fiduciary duty breaches by its directors in
relation to a recent stock purchase agreement, according to the
Company's May 16, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On January 25, 2011, a putative class action was filed by William
Rogers against the Company, the Company's directors Stephen C.
Kircher, Francis Chen, Timothy B. Nyman, Ronald A. Cohan, D. Paul
Regan, and LDK Solar Co., Ltd., in the Superior Court of
California, County of Placer.  The complaint alleges violations of
fiduciary duty by the individual director defendants concerning
the Stock Purchase Agreement entered into on January 5, 2011,
pursuant to which defendant LDK agreed to acquire 70% interest in
the Company.  Plaintiff contends that the independence of the
individual director defendants was compromised because they are
allegedly beholden to defendant LDK for continuation of their
positions as directors and possible future employment.  Plaintiff
further contends that the transaction is unfair because it
allegedly contains onerous and preclusive deal protection devices,
such as no shop, standstill and no solicitation provisions and a
termination fee that operates to effectively prevent any competing
offers.  The complaint alleges that the Company aided and abetted
the breaches of fiduciary duty by the individual director
defendants by providing aid and assistance.  Plaintiff asks for
class certification, the enjoining of the sale, or if the sale is
completed prior to judgment, rescission of the sale and damages.

The case is in its early stages and the Company is gathering facts
and information to refute the applicant's claims.  The Company
intends to vigorously defend the action.  Because the complaint
was recently filed, it is difficult at this time to fully evaluate
the claims and determine the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome
or provide an estimate of the amount of any potential loss.  The
Company discloses that it does have insurance coverage for this
type of action.

Solar Power, Inc., and its subsidiaries is engaged in development,
sales, installation and integration of photovoltaic systems and
manufactures and sells solar panels and related hardware and
cable, wire and mechanical assemblies.


SPRINGLEAF FINANCE: Continues to Defend "King" Suit in S.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Springleaf Finance, Inc., continues to defend itself in the
purported class action lawsuit captioned King v. American General
Finance, Inc., before a state court in South Carolina, according
to the Company's May 16, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

In re King v. American General Finance, Inc., Case No. 96-CP-38-
595 in the Court of Common Pleas for Orangeburg County, South
Carolina, Plaintiffs assert class action claims against the
Company's South Carolina operating entity for alleged violations
of S.C. Code Section 37-10-102(a), which requires, inter alia, a
lender making a mortgage loan to ascertain the preference of the
borrower as to an attorney who will represent the borrower in
closing the loan. The Plaintiffs and SLFI have filed various
motions, which remain pending. The case has been reassigned to a
new judge, who will hear and rule on the motions, including
Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The Company has filed
additional motions to be heard by the new judge. Based on
Plaintiffs' allegations, if the case proceeds as a class action
and if the court should find liability, the size of the class will
range from about 5,000 to 9,000 members depending upon the final
class definition. The statute provides for a penalty range of
$1,500 to $7,500 per class member, to be determined by the judge.
The Company is defending the case vigorously.

Springleaf Finance, Inc. (formerly American General Finance,
Inc.). is the parent company of Springleaf Finance Corporation,
Inc. and its subsidiaries.


TIMBERLAND COMPANY: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
On June 3, 2011, Scott+Scott LLP filed a class action complaint
against The Timberland Company and certain of the Company's
officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Hampshire.  The action for violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 is brought on behalf of those purchasing the common
stock of Timberland between February 17, 2011, and May 4, 2011,
inclusive.

If you purchased the common stock of Timberland during the Class
Period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the action, you
must move the Court no later than 60 days from June 6, or
August 5, 2011.  Any member of the investor class may move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice, or
may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.  If
you wish to discuss this action or have questions concerning this
notice or your rights, please contact:

          Scott+Scott
          E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com
          Telephone: (800) 404-7770
                     (860) 537-5537
          Web site: http://www.scott-scott.com/timberland

for more information.  There is no cost or fee to you.

The complaint filed in the action charges that, during the Class
Period, the Company disseminated bullish statements about then-
present sales trends, cost discipline and inventory levels and an
anticipated return to a 15% operating profit, and that, as a
result of these representations, Timberland share prices traded at
artificially inflated prices.  However, the complaint alleges, in
making the positive Class Period statements, Timberland and
certain of its officers and directors concealed that demand for
the Company's key products had actually dramatically declined,
that the Company's inventory levels were rising and that
Timberland had significantly increased the Company's advertising
spending in order to buttress sagging sales demand, which would
decrease operating income.

On May 5, 2011, Timberland disclosed the financial results for the
Company's first quarter 2011 that far underperformed that which
Timberland had led the market to expect during the Class Period.
As a result of this revelation, prices of the Company's common
stock declined precipitously.

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals and other entities worldwide.


TOWERS WATSON: Still Faces Shareholder Class Suits in Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------------
Towers Watson & Co. continues to defend itself from class action
lawsuits filed by former shareholders of the Company, according to
its May 16, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On December 9, 2009, Watson Wyatt was informed by Towers Perrin of
a settlement demand from the plaintiffs in a putative class action
lawsuit filed by certain former shareholders of Towers Perrin (the
Dugan Action).  Although the complaint in the Dugan Action does
not contain a quantification of the damages sought, plaintiffs'
settlement demand, which was orally communicated to Towers Perrin
on December 8, 2009 and in writing on December 9, 2009, sought a
payment of $800 million to settle the action on behalf of the
proposed class.  Plaintiffs requested that Towers Perrin
communicate the settlement demand to Watson Wyatt.

The complaint was filed on November 5, 2009 against Towers Perrin,
members of its board of directors, and certain members of senior
management in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  Plaintiffs in this action are former
members of Towers Perrin's senior management, who left Towers
Perrin at various times between 1995 and 2000.  The Dugan
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of former Towers Perrin
shareholders who separated from service on or after January 1,
1971, and who also meet certain other specified criteria.

On December 17, 2009, four other former Towers Perrin
shareholders, all of whom voluntarily left Towers Perrin in May or
June 2005 and all of whom are excluded from the proposed class in
the Dugan Action, commenced a separate legal proceeding (the Allen
Action) in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania alleging the same claims in substantially
the same form as those alleged in the Dugan Action.  These
plaintiffs are proceeding in their individual capacities and do
not seek to represent a proposed class.

On January 15, 2010, another former Towers Perrin shareholder who
separated from service with Towers Perrin in March 2005 when
Towers Perrin and EDS launched a joint venture that led to the
creation of a corporate entity known as ExcellerateHRO, commenced
a separate legal proceeding (the Pao Action) in the United States
District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania also
alleging the same claims in substantially the same form as those
alleged in the Dugan Action.  Towers Perrin contributed its Towers
Perrin Administrative Solutions business to eHRO and formerly was
a minority shareholder (15%) of eHRO.  Pao seeks to represent a
class of former Towers Perrin shareholders who separated from
service in connection with Towers Perrin's contribution to eHRO of
its TPAS business and who are excluded from the proposed class in
the Dugan Action.  Towers Watson is also named as a defendant in
the Pao Action.

Pursuant to the Towers Perrin Bylaws in effect at the time of
their separations, the Towers Perrin shares held by each of these
plaintiffs were redeemed by Towers Perrin at book value at the
time these individuals separated from employment.  The complaints
allege variously that there either was a promise that Towers
Perrin would remain privately owned in perpetuity (Dugan Action)
or that in the event of a change to public ownership plaintiffs
would receive compensation (Allen and Pao Actions).  Plaintiffs
allege that by agreeing to sell their shares back to Towers Perrin
at book value upon retirement, they and other members of the
putative classes relied upon these alleged promises, which they
claim were breached as a result of the consummation of the Merger
between Watson Wyatt and Towers Perrin.  The complaints assert
claims for breach of contract, breach of express trust, breach of
fiduciary duty, promissory estoppel, quasi-contract/unjust
enrichment, and constructive trust, and seek equitable relief
including an accounting, disgorgement, rescission and/or
restitution, and the imposition of a constructive trust.  On
January 20, 2010, the court consolidated the three actions for all
purposes.

On February 22, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaints in their entireties.  By order dated September 30,
2010, the court granted the motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claim
for a constructive trust and denied the motion with respect to all
other claims alleged.  Pursuant to the court's September 30 order,
defendants also filed answers to plaintiffs' complaints on
October 22, 2010.  The parties are currently engaged in fact
discovery.  At this stage of the proceedings, the Company has
concluded that, largely because the parties are in the relatively
early stages of discovery, a loss is neither probable nor
estimable, and that the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably
possible loss or range of loss.

Towers Watson continues to believe the claims in these lawsuits
are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.
However, the cost of defending against the claims could be
substantial and the outcome of these legal proceedings is
inherently uncertain and could be unfavorable to Towers Watson.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Appeal From Harel Pia Suit Dismissal Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the order dismissing a putative bondholder class
action lawsuit filed by Harel Pia Mutual Fund against Toyota Motor
Credit Corporation remains pending, according to the Company's
June 2, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2011.

Toyota Motor Credit Corporation and certain affiliates had also
been named as defendants in a putative bondholder class action,
Harel Pia Mutual Fund vs. Toyota Motor Corp., et al., filed in the
Central District of California on April 8, 2010, alleging
violations of federal securities laws.  The plaintiff filed a
voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit on July 20, 2010.

On July 22, 2010, the same plaintiff in the federal bondholder
action refiled the case in California state court on behalf of
purchasers of TMCC bonds traded on foreign exchanges (Harel Pia
Mutual Fund v. Toyota Motor Corp., et al., Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles).  The complaint alleged
violations of California securities laws, fraud, breach of
fiduciary duty and other state law claims.  On September 15, 2010,
defendants removed the state court action to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California pursuant to
the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act and the Class
Action Fairness Act.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on
October 15, 2010.  After a hearing on January 10, 2011, the court
granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice on
January 11, 2011.  The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on
January 27, 2011.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these
claims and intends to defend against them vigorously.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Settlement Order in Rees-Levering Suit Now Final
--------------------------------------------------------------
No appeal was filed from the order approving a settlement
agreement in the consolidated class action lawsuit alleging that
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation's post-repossession notice failed
to comply with the Automobile Sales Finance Act of California,
rendering the order as final, according to the Company's June 2,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended March 31, 2011.

A cross-complaint alleging a class action in the Superior Court of
California Stanislaus County, Garcia v. Toyota Motor Credit
Corporation, filed in August 2007, claims that TMCC's post-
repossession notice failed to comply with the Rees-Levering
Automobile Sales Finance Act of California.  Three additional
putative class action complaints or cross-complaints were filed
making similar allegations.  The cases were coordinated in the
California Superior Court, Stanislaus County and a Second Amended
Consolidated Cross-Complaint and Complaint was subsequently filed
in March 2009.  The Second Amended Consolidated Cross-Complaint
and Complaint seeks injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement
and other equitable relief under California's Unfair Competition
Law.  As a result of mediation in January 2010, the parties agreed
to settle all of the matters in an amount within the Company's
reserves and not material to its results of operations.  A fourth
case was later filed, which was included in the settlement.  On
January 7, 2011, the court entered an order granting final
approval of the settlement.  Plaintiffs did not appeal so the
order has become final.


TREE.COM INC: Summary Judgment Motion Hearing Set for June 23
-------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court is set to hold a hearing on June 23,
2011, to consider the motion for summary judgment filed in
connection with a putative class action against Tree.com Inc.'s
subsidiary, according to the Company's May 16, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2011.

On November 30, 2006, The Mortgage Store, Inc. and Castleview Home
Loans, Inc. filed a putative class action against Home Loan
Center, Inc. dba LendingTree Loans in the California Superior
Court for Orange County --  Mortgage Store, Inc. v. LendingTree
Loans d/b/a Home Loan Center, Inc., No. 06CC00250 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Orange Cty.).  Plaintiffs, two former Network Lenders, allege
that HLC interfered with LendingTree's contracts with Network
Lenders by taking referrals from LendingTree.  The complaint is
largely based upon the factual allegations made in the Schnee
complaint.  Based upon these factual allegations, Plaintiffs
assert claims for intentional interference with contractual
relations, intentional interference with prospective economic
advantage, and violation of the UCL and California Business and
Professions Code Section 17500.  Plaintiffs purport to represent
all Network Lenders from December 14, 2004 to date, and seek
damages, restitution, attorneys' fees, and punitive damages.

Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted April 29,
2010.  Defendant's motion for summary judgment was filed April 12,
2011.  The hearing date for the motion for summary judgment is
scheduled on June 23, 2011.  This matter is currently scheduled
for trial in July 2011.


VOLCOM INC: Signs MOU to Resolve Two PPR Merger-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Volcom Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding to resolve
two putative class action lawsuits commenced in connection with
its proposed merger with PPR S.A. and Transfer Holding, Inc.,
according to the Company's June 2, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

As previously disclosed, on May 4, 2011, a putative class action
lawsuit captioned Greenwood v. Volcom, Inc., et al. was filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange,
and on May 13, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Graff v. Volcom Inc., et al., was filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery.  The Merger Litigation relates to the Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated as of May 2, 2011, by and among Volcom, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company"), PPR S.A., a "societe anonyme
a conseil d'administration" (a corporation with a board of
directors) organized under the laws of France, and Transfer
Holding, Inc., a Delaware corporation and an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of PPR ("Purchaser").  The complaint filed with respect
to the Merger Litigation names as defendants the members of the
Board of Directors of the Company, as well as the Company, PPR and
Purchaser.

On June 2, 2011, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, the Company and the other
named defendants in the Merger Litigation signed a memorandum of
understanding regarding a proposed settlement of all claims
asserted therein.  This MOU provides, among other things, that the
parties will seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement which
provides for the release of all asserted claims.  The asserted
claims will not be released until such stipulation of settlement
is approved by the court.

The Company says there can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
court will approve such settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such stipulation.  Additionally, as part of the MOU,
the Company has agreed to make certain additional disclosures
related to the proposed merger.  Finally, in connection with the
proposed settlement, plaintiffs intend to seek, and the defendants
have agreed to pay, an award of attorneys fees and expenses in an
amount to be determined by the Delaware Court of Chancery.  This
payment will not affect the amount to be paid to Company
stockholders pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement.


WHIRLPOOL KITCHENAID: Sued Over Defective Self-Cleaning Ovens
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Whirlpool KitchenAid self-
cleaning ovens break after as few as two cleaning cycles, and "use
of the self-cleaning cycle five or six times damages the ovens
beyond repair," a class action claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Wolfson v. Whirlpool Corporation,
Case No. 11-cv-_____ (E.D.N.Y.) (Spatt, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/06/CCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Oren Giskan, Esq.
          Iliana Konidaris, Esq.
          GISKAN SOLOTAROFF ANDERSON & STEWART LLP
          11 Broadway, Suite 2150
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 847-8315
          E-mail: ogiskan@gslawny.com
                  ikonidaris@gslawny.com


XFONE INC: Continues to Await Ruling on Settlement in "Tzur" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Xfone Inc. subsidiary continues to await a court ruling on a
settlement it negotiated to resolve a consumer class action suit
filed in Israel, according to the Company's May 16, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On January 19, 2010, Eliezer Tzur, et al., filed a request to
approve a claim as a class action against Xfone 018 Ltd., the
Company's former 69% Israel-based subsidiary, and four other
Israeli telecom companies, all of which are entities unrelated to
the Company, in the District Court in Petach Tikva, Israel.  The
Petitioners' claim alleges that the Defendants have not fully
fulfilled their alleged legal requirement to bear the cost of
telephone calls by consumers to the Defendants' respective
technical support numbers.  One of the Petitioners, Mr. Eli
Sharvit, seeks damages from Xfone 018 for the cost such telephone
calls allegedly made by him during the 5.5-year period preceding
the filing of the Class Action Request, which he assessed at
NIS54.45 (approximately US$15.71).  The Class Action Request, to
the extent it pertains to Xfone 018, states total damages of
NIS7,500,000 (approximately US$2,164,502), which reflects the
Petitioners' estimation of damages caused to all consumers that
(pursuant to the Class Action Request) allegedly called Xfone
018's technical support number during a certain period defined in
the Class Action Request.  An internal court deliberation with
respect to the Class Action Request has been scheduled by the
Israeli court for October 11, 2011.

On February 22, 2011, Xfone 018 and Mr. Sharvit entered into a
settlement agreement, which following the request of the Israeli
Court was supplemented on May 3, 2011.  Pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement, Xfone 018 agreed to compensate its current and past
registered customers of international calling services who called
its telephone service center from December 15, 2004 until
December 31, 2009, due to a problem in the Services, and were
charged for such calls.  The Compensation includes a right for a
single, up to ten minutes, free of charge, international call to
one landline destination around the world, and shall be valid for
a period of six months.  In addition, Xfone 018 agreed to pay Mr.
Sharvit a one time special reward in the amount of NIS10,000
(approximately US$2,886).  Xfone 018 further agreed to pay Mr.
Sharvit attorneys' fee for professional services in the amount of
NIS40,000 (approximately $11,544) plus VAT.  In return, Mr.
Sharvit and the members of the Represented Group agreed to waive
any and all claims in connection with the Class Action Request.
As required by Israeli law in such cases, the Settlement Agreement
is subject to the approval of the Israeli Court.

On May 14, 2010, the Company entered into an agreement with
Marathon Telecom Ltd. for the sale of its majority (69%) holdings
in Xfone 018.  Pursuant to Section 10 of the Agreement, the
Company is fully and exclusively liable for any and all amounts,
payments or expenses which will be incurred by Xfone 018 as a
result of the Class Action Request.  Section 10 of the Agreement
provides that the Company will bear any and all expenses or
financial costs, which are entailed by conducting the defense on
behalf of Xfone 018 and/or the financial results thereof,
including pursuant to a judgment or settlement (it was agreed that
in the event that Xfone 018 will be obligated to provide services
at a reduced price, the Company shall bear only the cost of such
services).  Section 10 of the Agreement further provides that the
defense by Xfone 018 will be performed in full cooperation with
the Company and with mutual assistance.  Subject to and upon the
approval of the Settlement Agreement by the Israeli Court, the
Company will bear and/or pay: (i) the costs of the Compensation;
(ii) the Reward; (iii) the Attorneys Fee; and (iv) Xfone 018
attorneys' fees for professional services in connection with the
Class Action Request, estimated at approximately NIS75,000
(approximately US$21,645).

In the event the Settlement Agreement is not approved by the
Israeli Court, Xfone 018 will vigorously defend the Class Action
Request.

Xfone, Inc. -- http://www.xfone.com/-- is a holding and
managing company providing international voice, video, and data
communications services with operations in the United States,
the United Kingdom, and Israel offering a range of services,
which includes local, long distance and international telephony
services; video; prepaid and postpaid calling cards; cellular
services; Internet services; messaging services (Email/Fax
Broadcast, Email2Fax and Cyber-Number); and reselling
opportunities.  The divisions of the company include Partner
Division, Customer Service Division, Operations Division,
Administration Division, Research and Development Division and
Marketing Division.


YAHOO! INC: Accused of Issuing False and Misleading Statements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vince Bonato, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Yahoo! Inc., Carol A. Bartz and Jerry Yang, Case No.
3:11-cv-02732 (N.D. Calif. June 06, 2011), brings this securities
class action on behalf of all persons, who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Yahoo! between April 19, 2011, and
May 13, 2011, inclusive, for violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff alleges that during the Class Period, the Defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results.  Specifically, the
Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants failed to disclose that an
important corporate asset in China had been transferred at much
less than market value.  As a result of the Defendants' false
statements, Yahoo's stock traded at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period, reaching a high of $18.65 per share on
May 6, 2011.

The Plaintiff purchased Yahoo's common stock during the Class
Period.

Yahoo is a digital media company that delivers personalized
digital content and experiences across devices and worldwide.
Yahoo is headquartered in Sunnyvale, California.  Ms. Bartz is
chief executive officer and a director of Yahoo.  Mr. Yang founded
Yahoo and has been chief and a director of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by

          Dennis J. Herman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, California 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          E-mail: dennish@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          David C. Walton, Esq.
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, California 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  davew@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES BERNARD M. GROSS, P.C.
          Wanamaker Bldg., Suite 450
          100 Penn Square East
          Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
          Telephone: (215) 561-3600
          Facsimile: (215) 561-3000
          E-mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com


                             *********

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  * * *