CAR_Public/090615.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, June 15, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 116

                           Headlines

ACXIOM CORP: Awaits Court Approval of Fla. DPPA Suit Settlement
AURORA ORGANIC: Colo. Judge Dismisses Suit Over "Organic" Milk
BIGBAND NETWORKS: Sept. 15 Hearing Set for $11M Suit Settlement
COMCAST CABLEVISION: Faces Antitrust Litigation in Alabama
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Final Settlement Hearing Set for August 2009

COMPUTER SCIENCES: Ruling on Judgment Bids in ERISA Suit Pending
EBAY INC: N.Y. Judge Transfers Antitrust Litigation Over "Coins"
FOREST LABORATORIES: Settlement of N.Y. Securities Suit Approved
FOREST LABORATORIES: To Defend Lawsuits by Celexa/Lexapro Buyers
GREAT ESCAPE: N.Y. Judge Allows Lawsuit Over Norovirus Outbreak

HEARTLAND PAYMENT: JPMDL Orders Consolidation of Suits in Tex.
IPO LITIGATION: N.Y. Judge Approves Proposed Settlement
K.P. KAUFFMAN: Wins Colo. Lawsuit Defending Sale of Natural Gas
KINGATE MANAGEMENT: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Madoff Ponzi Scheme
LAWRENCE LOOMIS: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme

LEGG MASON: To Defend Appeal on Dismissal of Securities Claims
LEGG MASON: Unit Faces Suits Over Asset Management Activities
LIFE PARTNERS: Breach of Contract Suit Remains Pending in Texas
MATCH.COM L.L.P.: Faces Consumer Fraud Litigation in New York
PETSMART INC: Appeals to Approval of U.S. Settlement Pending

PETSMART INC: "Langton" Suit for Unpaid Wages Pending in Calif.
PETSMART INC: Settlement of Suits by Calif. Employees Approved
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: "Schultz" Lawsuit for ERISA Breach Pending
SEARS HOLDINGS: Moldowan Suit Settlement Pending Final Approval
SEARS HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss N.Y. Securities Suit Pending

SUN-TIMES MEDIA: Ill. Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: N.Y. Court Approves "Zwickel" Settlement
U.S. POSTAL: Faces Lawsuit in Texas Alleging FLSA Violations
WELLS REAL: Certification Bid in Securities Suit Still Pending


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

KENEXA CORP: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.
RAYMOND JAMES: Gard Nortis Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.


                           *********

ACXIOM CORP: Awaits Court Approval of Fla. DPPA Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement of a purported class-action suit filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
against Acxiom Corp. and several other information providers,
alleging violations of the Drivers Privacy Protection Act, is
pending approval.

The suit, "Linda Brooks and Richard Fresco v. Auto Data Direct,
Inc., et al., Case No. 03-61063," was originally filed with the
state court, but was later removed to federal court in May 2003.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants obtained and used
driver's license data in violation of the federal Drivers
Privacy Protection Act.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, statutory damages, and
attorneys' fees.  To date, a class has not been certified.

Acxiom has made an informal offer to settle the case and has
accrued $4.0 million for the offer of settlement and possible
expenses associated with the notice and claims administration
process.

The parties have agreed to stay the proceedings while mediation
is conducted under the purview of the Court (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 19, 2009).

To date, a class has not been certified.

Acxiom and Polk have agreed to settle the case and have sought
preliminary approval of the settlement by the Court.  The
process of achieving final approval of the settlement is
anticipated to take several months.  Acxiom has accrued $5.0
million for the settlement and ancillary costs to obtain final
approval, according to the company's May 29, 2009 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2009.

The suit is "Linda Brooks and Richard Fresco v. Auto Data
Direct, Inc., et al., Case No. 03-61063," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Judge Jose
E. Martinez, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Tod N. Aronovitz, Esq. (ta@aronovitzlaw.com)
         Aronovitz Trial Lawyers
         150 W Flagler Street, Suite 2700 Museum Tower
         Miami, FL 33130
         Phone: 305-372-2772
         Fax: 305-375-0243

         Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
         James Hoyer Newcomer & Smiljanich
         3301 Thomasville Road, Suite A-200
         Tallahassee, FL 32308
         Phone: 850-325-2680
         Fax: 850-325-2681

         Lawrence Dean Goodman, Esq.
         (lgoodman@devinegoodman.com)
         Devine Goodman Pallot & Wells
         777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 850
         Miami, FL 33131
         Phone: 305-374-8200
         Fax: 305-374-8208

              - and -

         James Kellogg Green, Esq. (jameskgreen@bellsouth.net)
         222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 1650 Esperante
         West Palm Beach, FL 33401
         Phone: 561-659-2029
         Fax: 561-655-1357


AURORA ORGANIC: Colo. Judge Dismisses Suit Over "Organic" Milk
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Colorado judge dismissed claims against Aurora Organic Dairy
in a class-action lawsuit asserting that the dairy's product was
not organic, according to the Northern Colorado Business Report.

Aurora and other defendants in the lawsuit -- including Safeway
Inc., Target Corp. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. -- had all claims
dismissed.  The allegations against Aurora included violation of
the Colorado Consumer Protection Act; breach of express
warranty; breach of implied warranty of merchantability;
negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment, the NCBR
reported.

The judge ruled that the plaintiffs' claims "attempt to erode
the 'national standards'..." in place to certify and regulate
the organic industry. If the plaintiffs' case had proceeded,
every organic producer would be at threat of lawsuit under 50
states' laws.  The judge also decided that plaintiffs' claims
that the milk produced did not meet organic standards does not
hold merit because Aurora's organic license was never revoked,
suspended or surrendered, reports NCBR.

According to NCBR, the legal battle erupted back in 2005 between
Aurora and the Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based advocacy
group.  The group had filed a complaint with the U.S. Department
of Agriculture, asking the agency to investigate violations of
the federal organic law at Aurora's Platteville dairy operation.
In August 2007, Aurora agreed to meet several conditions
required by the USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service in order
to maintain organic certification for its Platteville plant.

In 2007, the Cornucopia Institute filed the class-action suit,
which sought reimbursement to consumers "harmed by the company's
actions and (requested) an injunction be put in place to halt
the ongoing sale of Aurora's organic milk until it can be
demonstrated that the company is complying with federal
regulations," according to a Cornucopia press release, NCBR
reports.


BIGBAND NETWORKS: Sept. 15 Hearing Set for $11M Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 15, 2009 at 1:00 p.m. For
the proposed $11,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In re
BigBand Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:2007-
cv-05101."

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Saundra B.
Armstrong at the United States Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street,
Courtroom 3, Oakland, CA 94612.

Todd Spangler of Multichannel News previously reported that
BigBand Networks, Inc. agreed to pay $1.5 million to settle a
consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed against
the company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 30, 2009).

The agreement, reached on Jan. 27, 2009, gives BigBand a full
release for all potential claims arising from the securities
laws alleged in the initial and consolidated complaints,
including claims for alleged violations of the Securities Act of
1933 and the Exchange Act of 1934, the company told Multichannel
News.

As a result of the settlement, BigBand said it would incur a
$1.5 million charge for litigation and related expenses to its
results of operations for the three months ended Dec. 31, 2008,
according to Multichannel News.

                         Case Background

Since Oct. 3, 2007, several purported shareholder class action
complaints were filed against the company, certain of its
officers and directors, and the underwriters of its initial
public offering.  One of these suits was subsequently dismissed
(Class Action Reporter, Dec. 16, 2008).

The lawsuits allege that the company officers and directors made
false or misleading statements to investors in connection with
the company's initial public offering and that its registration
statement and prospectus contained false or misleading
statements regarding its business prospects.

The plaintiffs purport to represent anyone who purchased the
company's common stock in the initial public offering, or
purchased the company's common stock between March 14, 2007, and
Sept. 27, 2007.

The lawsuits assert causes of action for violations of Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, and
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  It seeks unspecified monetary damages.

In February 2008, the lawsuits were consolidated and a lead
plaintiff was appointed by the Court.

In May 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint
against the Company, the directors and officers who signed the
Company's IPO registration statement, and the underwriters of
the Company's initial public offering.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the Company's IPO
prospectus contained false and misleading statements regarding
the Company's business strategy and prospects, and the prospects
of the Company's CMTS division in particular.

The lead plaintiff purports to represent anyone who purchased
the Company's common stock in the initial public offering.

The consolidated complaint asserts causes of action for
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933.  It seeks unspecified monetary damages.

The suit is "In re BigBand Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 4:2007cv05101," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, Judge Saundra Brown
Armstrong, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. (reed@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Phone: 510-725-3000
          Fax: 510-725-3001

               - and -

          Lewis S. Kahn, Esq. (Lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com)
          Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA  70130
          Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100

Representing the defendants is:

          Michael Carl Tu, Esq. (mtu@orrick.com)
          Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
          777 S. Figueroa St., Ste 3200
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-629-2020
          Fax: 213-612-2499


COMCAST CABLEVISION: Faces Antitrust Litigation in Alabama
----------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Cablevision of Alabama, Inc. faces a purported class-
action suit, alleging that the cable company's rules requiring
customers to lease a cable box for premium services violates
antitrust laws, Brendan Kirby of The Press-Register reports.

The suit was filed on May 27, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama by Glenda Cordier, under
the caption, "Cordier v. Comcast Cablevision of Alabama, Inc.,
Case No. 1:2009-cv-00293."

Ms. Cordier contends that Comcast is violating the Sherman
Antitrust Act by forcing her to pay a monthly rental fee for a
cable box in order to receive premium channels, according to The
Press-Register report.

The lawsuit also accuses Comcast of discriminating against Ms
Cordier based on her ZIP code.  It states that Comcast, through
"specials" and other offers, charges different rates in
different geographic areas.

"Essentially, Comcast offers the same service for a (different)
price, depending upon the perceived affluence of particular
areas and their ability to pay, in violation of state and
federal law," according to the suit.

For more details, contact:

          Stephen Wright Mullins, Esq. (jackfish28@aol.com)
          Luckey & Mullins, PLLC
          Post Office Box 990
          Ocean Springs, MS 39566
          Phone: 228-875-3175
          Fax: 228-872-4719


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Final Settlement Hearing Set for August 2009
---------------------------------------------------------------
An August 2009 final approval hearing has been set for the
settlement of two putative class actions filed against Computer
Sciences Corporation in the Circuit Court of Miller County,
Arkansas.

On Feb. 7, 2005, the company was named, along with other vendors
to the insurance industry and dozens of insurance companies in
"Hensley, et al. vs. Computer  Sciences Corporation, et al.,"
filed as a putative nationwide class action in state court in
the Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas, shortly before
President Bush signed the Class Action Fairness Act into law.

The plaintiffs allege the defendants conspired to wrongfully use
software products licensed by the company and the other software
vendors to reduce the amount paid to the licensees' insured for
bodily injury claims.

Plaintiffs also allege wrongful concealment of the manner in
which these software programs evaluate claims and wrongful
concealment of information about alleged inherent errors and
flaws in the software.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive and monetary relief of less than
$75,000 for each class member, as well as attorney's fees and
costs.

On June 11, 2008, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to sever
certain defendants, including the company, from the Hensley
litigation.  As a result, the company continues as a defendant
in the Hensley litigation and is also now a defendant in a
separate putative class action pending in the Circuit Court of
Miller  County,  Arkansas (styled "Basham, et al. vs. Computer
Sciences Corporation,  et  al."), along with certain insurance
companies previously named  as  defendants  in  the  Hensley
litigation.

During the second, third, and fourth quarters of fiscal 2009,
the company, along with certain other defendants in the Hensley
and Basham litigation, engaged in settlement discussions with
legal counsel representing the putative class members through
mediation proceedings facilitated by an independent mediator.

In February 2009, the company and the class representatives in
the Hensley and Basham litigation agreed to a settlement of the
pending litigation and the parties have obtained preliminary
approval of the settlement from the court.  The parties are in
the process of sending class notice in advance of a final
approval hearing currently scheduled in August 2009.

According to its May 28, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
April 3, 2009, as part of the settlement, the company has agreed
to certain injunctive relief, primarily involving the
publication of information regarding the use of the company's
software by its licensees in adjusting bodily injury claims, and
to the payment of legal fees to legal counsel representing the
classes in the litigation.

Computer Sciences Corporation -- http://www.csc.com/-- is
engaged in the information technology (IT) and professional
services industry.  CSC offers an array of services to clients
in the commercial and government markets.  Its service offerings
include IT and business process outsourcing, and IT and
professional services.  Outsourcing involves operating all or a
portion of a customer's technology infrastructure, including
systems analysis, applications development, network operations,
desktop computing and data center management.  IT and
professional services include systems integration, consulting
and other professional services.  Consulting and professional
services includes advising clients on the acquisition and
utilization of IT and on business strategy, security, modeling,
simulation, engineering, operations, change management and
business process reengineering.  In December 2008, the Company
acquired Object Builder Software.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Ruling on Judgment Bids in ERISA Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A decision on the summary judgment motions in the consolidated
class action alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) is expected in late June 2009,
according to Computer Sciences Corporation's May 28, 2009 Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended April 3, 2009.

The company and certain directors and other individuals have
also been sued in a class action proceeding alleging violations
of the ERISA statute related to claims of alleged backdating of
stock options.

On Aug. 15, 2006, a federal ERISA class action involving
allegations of backdating at CSC was filed in U.S. District
Court in the Eastern District of New York, entitled, "Quan, et
al.  v. CSC, et al., CV 06-3927."

On Sept. 21, 2006, a related ERISA class action was filed in the
same court, entitled, "Gray, et al. v. CSC, et al., CV 06-5100."

The complaints named as defendants CSC, the CSC Retirement and
Employee Benefits Plans Committee, and various directors and
officers, and alleged various violations of the ERISA statute.

The two ERISA actions have been consolidated and, on Feb. 28,
2007, plaintiffs filed an amended ERISA class action complaint.

On Jan. 8, 2008, the district court granted a motion to transfer
the consolidated cases to the federal district court in Los
Angeles, California.  Upon arrival in the Central District of
California, the two cases were consolidated before U.S. District
Judge James Otero in Case No. CV 08-2398-SJO.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and plaintiffs filed their
memorandum in opposition to the motion.  Plaintiffs also filed a
motion for class certification, and Defendants filed their
memorandum in opposition to the motion on Aug. 11, 2008.

On Sept. 2, 2008, Judge Otero issued orders denying defendants'
motion to dismiss, and also denying plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  Defendants have since answered the complaint and
discovery is currently proceeding.

On Nov. 13, 2008, plaintiffs filed a new motion for class
certification and the defendants filed a memorandum in
opposition on Dec. 8, 2008.  On Dec. 29, 2008, Judge Otero
granted plaintiffs motion for class certification.

On Jan. 13, 2009, defendants filed a petition with the Ninth
Circuit pursuant to Rule 23(f) of the federal Rules, requesting
that the court of appeals accept their appeal from the order
granting class certification.  Plaintiffs filed their opposition
on Jan. 23, 2009.  The Ninth Circuit denied defendants' request
for permission to appeal on March 12, 2009.

Each of the defendants and the plaintiffs filed a motion for
summary judgment in district court on May 4, 2009.  Reply briefs
were filed on May 22, 2009.

Computer Sciences Corporation -- http://www.csc.com/-- is
engaged in the information technology (IT) and professional
services industry.  CSC offers an array of services to clients
in the commercial and government markets.  Its service offerings
include IT and business process outsourcing, and IT and
professional services.  Outsourcing involves operating all or a
portion of a customer's technology infrastructure, including
systems analysis, applications development, network operations,
desktop computing and data center management.  IT and
professional services include systems integration, consulting
and other professional services.  Consulting and professional
services includes advising clients on the acquisition and
utilization of IT and on business strategy, security, modeling,
simulation, engineering, operations, change management and
business process reengineering.  In December 2008, the Company
acquired Object Builder Software.


EBAY INC: N.Y. Judge Transfers Antitrust Litigation Over "Coins"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles P. Sifton of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York has decided to transfer a proposed
antitrust class-action suit that claims eBay Inc. and several
coin grading services took part in a scheme to oust small
grading services from participating in the online marketplace
for certified coins, Law360 reports.

On June 9, 2009, Judge Sifton chose not to dismiss the case, but
opted to transfer it to another venue, according to the Law360
report.

David L. Ganz of Numismatic News previously reported that eBay,
Inc., along with the American Numismatic Association, the
Professional Numismatists Guild, and the ANA president's coin
firm, are facing a purported class-action-lawsuit in New York
federal court, alleging anti-competitive conduct.

The suit, styled, "Universal Grading Service, John Callandrello,
Joseph Komito and Vadim Kirichenko, vs. EBay, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:08-cv-03557-CPS-RML," Case No. 1:2008cv03557," was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
on Aug. 29, 2008.

There are four named plaintiffs in the case.  They are:

       -- Universal Grading Service of New Jersey;

       -- John Callandrello, a UGS shareholder;

       -- Joseph Komito, a New Jersey coin dealer; and

       -- Vadim Kirichenko, a New York coin dealer.

They claim damages in excess of $75,000, exclusive of costs,
interest and attorney's fees and permanent injunctive relief.

Basis for the claim is an allegation of conduct "constituting
violation of antitrust policies, as well as violation of
anticompetitive conduct."

There is also a claim for "civil conspiracy and trade libel"
pursuant to New York common law.  Under the rules of defamation,
truth is an affirmative defense to trade libel, if the action
complained of actually took place.

The plaintiffs claim a "conspiracy between [Barry Suppler & Co.,
LLC], ANA, PNG and eBay to obstruct the ability of the smaller
coin grading services to participate in the coin marketplace on
eBay."

The basis of the claim: In 2001, eBay "formed a group that
became known as the 'Internet rules committee' made up of coin
industry insiders, including Barry Stuppler, in his capacity as
then ANA governor and chairman of the ANA Consumer Protection
Committee (the precursor to the "Coins Community Watch Group"),
Doug Winter, a PNG dealer, and R. Steven Ivy," of Heritage.

The plaintiffs charge that through the effort of this group and
others, PNG, in conjunction with the Industry Council for
Tangible Assets and spearheaded by Mr. Stuppler, commissioned a
survey of rare coin authentication and grading services, which
it is claimed gave rise to false and damaging results because of
insufficient data.

With small grading companies like UGS never being referenced in
2006 Grading Service Survey, coupled with an eBay policy
permitting "only coins that have been graded by five grading
services (NGC, NCS, PCGS, ICG and ANACS) to be listed for sale
on eBay as "certified" coins," the plaintiffs claim these
actions are anti-competitive and illegal.

The plaintiffs hope to prove that the policies are "destroying
the competitive free market by prohibiting consumers and dealers
from purchasing or dealing in certified coins graded from any
coin grading service except for the ones listed in eBay's
policy."

According to Numismatic News, attorneys for the companies that
claim to be besmirched brought it as a class-action lawsuit on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated who
comprise the ... "class."  That includes "all companies and
individuals who provide coin grading services on the market for
coin auctions to the public at large and who have not been
certified by eBay as 'the authorized grading company" pursuant
to eBay's Counterfeit Currency and Stamps policy and who are
interested in pursuing this lawsuit.'  The class period is from
January 2004 to the present.

The lawsuit is also claiming that "eBay's policy enacted on
Sept. 17, 2007 ... is per se unlawful because it limits the flow
of goods in commerce."

The suit is "Universal Grading Service et al v. EBay, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:08-cv-03557-CPS-RML," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Charles P.
Sifton, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Marina Trubitsky, Esq. (dtcassociates@yahoo.com)
          Law Office of Marina Trubitsky
          11 Broadway
          Suite 861
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: 212-732-7707
          Fax: 212-732-7708


FOREST LABORATORIES: Settlement of N.Y. Securities Suit Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a consolidated securities fraud class-action
suit filed against Forest Laboratories, Inc., and certain of its
officers was approved by the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York following a hearing held in April
2009.

Initially, several lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a
purported class of all purchasers of the company's securities
between Aug. 15, 2002, and Aug. 31, 2004, or Sept. 1, 2004.

These actions, the first of which was filed on March 11, 2005,
were consolidated under the caption, "In re Forest Laboratories,
Inc. Securities Litigation, 05-CV-2827-RMB."

The consolidated complaint, which asserts substantially similar
claims, alleges that the defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and omitted to disclose material facts
with respect to the company's business, prospects and
operations, including the company's drugs for the treatment of
depression and Alzheimer's disease, in violation of Section
19(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5.

In July 2006, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
company's motion to dismiss the case.  Claims remain pending
with respect to alleged marketing statements and omissions with
respect to the company's drugs for the treatment of depression.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

Fact and expert discovery have been completed and a trial date
is expected to be set shortly.

In December 2008, the company entered into a definitive
Stipulation of Settlement with respect to consolidated
securities class action cases pending against it and certain of
its executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under the caption "In re Forest
Laboratories, Inc. Securities Litigation" pursuant to which the
company paid $65 million to settle these actions.

While it believes a majority of the settlement will be covered
by its insurance and is engaged in discussions with the carriers
concerning their liability for payment, the company has recorded
a $25 million provision in connection with this settlement,
according to Forest Laobratories' May 29, 2009 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2009.

The suit is "In re Forest Laboratories, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:05-cv-02827-RMB," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Richard M. Berman presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Matthew Montgomery, Esq. (mattm@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-231-1058
          Fax: 619-231-7423

          Jonathan Watson Cuneo, Esq. (jonc@cuneolaw.com)
          Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca. LLP
          Washington, DC 20002
          507 C Street, Ne
          Phone: 202-789-3960
          Fax: 202-789 1813

               - and -

          William H. Narwold, Esq. (bnarwold@motleyrice.com)
          Motley Rice LLC
          One Corporate Center
          20 Church Street, 17th Floor
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Phone: 860-882-1676
          Fax: 860-882-1682

Representing the defendants is:

          Gary W. Kubek, Esq. (gwkubek@debevoise.com)
          Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP
          919 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-909-6000
          Fax: 212-909-6836


FOREST LABORATORIES: To Defend Lawsuits by Celexa/Lexapro Buyers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Forest Laboratories, Inc. intends to defend against two
purported class-action suits filed in relation to Celexa or
Lexapro purchases, which are in the preliminary stage.

In March 2009, Forest was named as a defendant in two actions
purportedly brought as class actions on behalf of various
persons and entities that purchased or reimbursed the purchase
of Celexa or Lexapro from 1998 to the present for use by a
minor.

One such action, captioned, "Universal Care, Inc., Angela
Jaeckel and Melvin M. Fullmer v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and Forest Laboratories, Inc.," was brought in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri; the other action is
captioned, "New Mexico UFCW Union's and Employers' Health and
Welfare Trust Fund v. Forest Laboratories, Inc., Forest
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Pfizer, Inc. and Warner Lambert Company,"
and was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

The cases allege Federal and state law causes of action arising
from Forest's marketing of Celexa and Lexapro.

According to the company's May 29, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2009, Forest has initially filed a motion to
consolidate these actions, together with any similar actions
which may be filed in the future, in a multi-district
proceeding.

Forest Laboratories, Inc. -- http://www.frx.com/-- and its
subsidiaries develop, manufacture and sell both branded and
generic forms of ethical drug products, which require a
physician's prescription.  The company's products in the United
States consist of branded ethical drug specialties marketed
directly or detailed to physicians by its Forest
Pharmaceuticals, Forest Therapeutics, Forest Healthcare, Forest
Ethicare and Forest Specialty Sales.  Its products include
Lexapro, the company's selective serotonium reuptake inhibitor
(SSRI) for the treatment of major depression and generalized
anxiety disorder (GAD); Namenda, its N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA)
antagonist for the treatment of moderate and severe Alzheimer's
disease; Bystolic, its beta-blocker for the treatment of
hypertension, and Savella, a dual reuptake inhibitor for the
treatment of fibromyalgia.


GREAT ESCAPE: N.Y. Judge Allows Lawsuit Over Norovirus Outbreak
---------------------------------------------------------------
A state Supreme Court judge in Warren County allowed a lawsuit
filed against the Great Escape Lodge and Indoor Water Park in
Queensbury, N.Y., to proceed as a class-action case, The
Business Review (Albany) reports.

The suit was filed in 2008 after hundreds of people became ill
at the park.  It contends nearly 600 people contracted norovirus
at the park in March 2008 due to unsanitary conditions in the
indoor water park's restaurants and other facilities, according
to The Business Review (Albany) report.

Potential damages could exceed $6 million, according to
attorneys at DeGraff, Foy & Kunz, LLP, and Dreyer Boyajian, LLP,
in Albany, The Business Review (Albany) reported.

Norovirus is highly contagious and causes sudden gastro-
intestinal problems such as nausea, vomiting and diarrhea.  The
New York State Department of Health investigated the outbreak,
reports The Business Review (Albany).


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: JPMDL Orders Consolidation of Suits in Tex.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL) in
Louisville, Kentucky on June 10, 2009 issued its decision to
consolidate the class-action suits brought against Heartland
Payment Systems, Linda McGlasson of BankInfoSecurity.com
reports.

The lawsuits will be heard in the Southern District Court of
Texas in Houston by Judge Lee H. Rosenthal.  The decision notes
that the panel's members "are persuaded that the Southern
District of Texas is an appropriate transferee forum for this
litigation," according to BankInfoSecurity.com report.

Linda McGlasson of BankInfoSecurity.com previously reported that
the JPMDL will hear the arguments on May 27, 2009 on whether to
consolidate the class action lawsuits brought against Heartland
Payment Systems (HPY) by financial institutions (Class Action
Reporter, May 22, 2009).

According to Benjamin Johns, Esq., one of the attorneys
representing the class-action lawsuit from the law firm of
Chimicles & Tikellis, Haverford, PA, "These cases tend to be
long and drawn out - there have been multiple class-action suits
filed in New Jersey and in Texas."

Two class-action suits have been filed by Chimicles & Tikellis,
and a third class-action suit was also filed in Texas against
Heartland by Lone Star National Bank of Pharr, Texas, according
to the BankInfoSecurity.com report.

As first reported on Jan. 20, 2009, Heartland, the sixth-largest
payments processor in the U.S., revealed that its processing
systems were breached in 2008, exposing an undetermined number
of consumers to potential fraud.

Since then, a growing number of banking institutions have
stepped forward to announce that their customers were among
those affected by the breach, reports BankInfoSecurity.com.

Mr. Johns tells BankInfoSecurity.com that generally multiple
class-action suits are consolidated and heard in one court.
"Nothing of substance has happened before this," he says.  "The
court, once it hears the argument, will take anywhere from a
month or two to release its ruling on where the suit will be
heard."

Motions have been made to hear the case in Florida, Texas and
New Jersey U.S. district courts, according to Mr. Johns.

There are three types of class-action suits being brought
against Heartland: the financial institutions' class-action
suits; consumer cases; and also some securities fraud class-
action suits have been filed by Heartland's investors,
BankInfoSecurity.com reported.

Mr. Johns tells BankInfoSecurity.com that there are a total of
30 suits filed against Heartland in various federal courts.


IPO LITIGATION: N.Y. Judge Approves Proposed Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
     Bernstein Liebhard LLP announced that the Honorable Shira
A. Scheindlin of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York has granted preliminary approval
to the proposed settlement of the consolidated action, styled,
"In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21-MC-
92 (S.D.N.Y.) (the "IPO Securities Litigation")."

     The IPO Securities Litigation is one of the largest
securities class actions in history.  It consists of 309 class
actions involving initial public offerings marketed between 1998
and 2000.  The lawsuits allege that the IPOs were manipulated by
the investment banks to artificially inflate the market price of
securities and to conceal the amounts of compensation actually
received by the underwriters.  The defendants include the
companies brought public, certain of their officers and
directors, and fifty-five of the investment banks that
underwrote the offerings.

For more information, visit: http://www.bernlieb.comor
http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com.


K.P. KAUFFMAN: Wins Colo. Lawsuit Defending Sale of Natural Gas
---------------------------------------------------------------
     K.P. Kauffman Company, Inc., prevailed in a class-action
royalty underpayment case tried in Denver District Court. The
jury returned its verdict in KPK's favor on Monday, June 8,
2009, in the case of "Helen Mleynek v. K.P. Kauffman Company,
Inc."

     The win for KPK is a victory for natural gas producers in
the state of Colorado.  KPK successfully argued that it
fulfilled its duty to market natural gas under state law by
selling its gas at the wellhead.  The jury rejected the Class'
claim that KPK's gas was not marketable until it was processed,
and that royalties should have been paid on the residue gas and
natural gas liquids.

     The case, filed in Denver District Court in 2007, was a
class-action lawsuit with approximately 2,500 royalty owners
seeking over $10.6 million in damages and increased royalties
for future production.

     "I am proud of my family, our staff and the legal team at
Holland & Hart for supporting our efforts to stand up to this
legal challenge," KPK chairman, CEO and president, Kevin P.
Kauffman, stated after the victory.  "This victory is not just
for my company, but it is for the entire oil and gas industry in
Colorado.  The lawsuit demanded we pay royalties on money we do
not have, and will not receive.  I always believed it was
important to fight it, and I am thankful to those who stood by
me."

     The KPK win in court successfully proved that the first
commercial marketplace for natural gas is at the wellhead.

     Tony Shaheen and Chris Chrisman of Holland & Hart LLP tried
the case for KPK.

     According to Shaheen, "Until now, conventional wisdom was
that, because of the Rogers v. Westerman Farm Co. case, you
could not prove gas was marketable at the wellhead.  Kauffman's
win proves that the conventional wisdom was wrong."

K.P. Kauffman Company, Inc.  -- http://www.kpk.com/-- is an
independent oil and gas exploration and production, drilling,
well service and transportation company headquartered in Denver,
Colo. Principal well service operations are in the Rocky
Mountain states with oil and gas exploration and production
activities in the Denver-Julesburg Basin, North Park Basin,
Piceance Basin, Powder River Basin, Williston Basin and Permian
Basin.  KPK subsidiary and affiliate companies include Kauffman
Well Service, JWS of New Mexico, Kauffman Transportation
Company, Wattenberg Disposal, Kauffman Pump and Supply, Kauffman
Land and Development, and Aviation Technology Services.  Kevin
P. Kauffman founded the company in 1984 and serves as the
chairman, chief executive officer and president.


KINGATE MANAGEMENT: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Madoff Ponzi Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Angry investors with Kingate Management Ltd. have filed a
proposed class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in
Manhattan against Kingate Management Ltd. and its directors on
behalf of investors in the Kingate Global and Kingate Euro over
alleged $3.5 billion losses in connection to the $65 billion
ponzi scheme by Bernard Madoff.

     According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that
Kingate Management Ltd. and its directors made negligent
misrepresentations to them and breached its duty.  The
plaintiffs are seeking to recover losses for investors in the
Kingate Global Fund Ltd. and Kingate Euro Fund Ltd, which were
set up by Italian Carlo Grosso.

     The lawsuit names fund manager Kingate Management Ltd.;
Grosso's FIM Advisers LLP, which acted as a consultant to the
funds; and others as defendants.

     The plaintiff alleges that the "Defendants in fact did not
properly vet or monitor Madoff and, instead, falsely reported
steadily increasing account values to plaintiffs while paying
themselves hundreds of millions of dollars in fees."

     According to the complaint Kingate Management Ltd, FIM
Advisers LLP and others ignored "red flags" that Madoff was
operating a Ponzi scheme.  "Reportedly, over $3 billion was
invested in Kingate Global and Kingate Euro, and virtually all
of those moneys were funneled to Madoff," the lawsuit said.

     The lawsuit makes claims of fraud against Madoff and claims
of breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentations and
unjust enrichment against all the defendants.

     In April, the trustee appointed to liquidate Madoff
Securities sued the two Kingate funds in U.S. Bankruptcy Court
in New York seeking the return of $255 million transferred to
the firm's funds between October and November 2008 before
Madoff's collapse.


LAWRENCE LOOMIS: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
Granite Bay resident Lawrence "Lee" Loomis faces a purported
class-action lawsuit for allegedly perpetrating a massive Ponzi
scheme that would leave many of Californians in financial ruin
-- decimating retirements and savings accounts.

The suit, filed recently in Sacramento County Superior Court, is
seeking class-action status in an attempt to recover clients'
lost funds.

In the suit, attorneys describe an elaborate ruse from at least
2006 through 2008 in which local residents with good credit were
courted to invest with Mr. Loomis's company, Loomis Wealth
Solutions, in various real-estate projects that turned out to be
either phony or highly misrepresented.

According to plaintiff's attorney Mark Redland, Esq., the civil
case was brought on behalf of Sacramento resident Ernest P.
Sanchez, and names Mr. Loomis, Aviva Life Insurance Co., Naras
Secured Fund LLC, Lismar Financial Services, and Nationwide
Lending Group as defendants.

The plaintiff claims the companies colluded to defraud perhaps
100 investors, many of them from Placer County, up to $100
million.

"Through the sale of overpriced, worthless or sham investments,
Defendants propped up an ever-growing portfolio of hollow assets
that eventually caved in on itself," the lawsuit states.


LEGG MASON: To Defend Appeal on Dismissal of Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Legg Mason, Inc. intends to defend the class action claims filed
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act
of 1933 still under appeal.

Legg Mason and a current and former officer, together with an
underwriter in a public offering, are named as defendants in a
consolidated legal action that was initially filed in October
2006.

The complaint alleged that the defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933
by making misleading statements to the public and omitting
certain material facts with respect to the acquisition of the
CAM business in a prospectus for a secondary stock offering and
in other public statements in order to artificially inflate the
price of Legg Mason common stock.

The complaint sought certification of a class of shareholders
who purchased Legg Mason common stock between Feb. 1, 2006 and
Oct. 10, 2006 or who purchased stock in a secondary public
offering around March 9, 2006 and seeks unspecified damages.

On March 17, 2008, the complaint was dismissed with prejudice.
However, the plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal of the
claims under the Securities Act.

The dismissal of the claims under the Exchange Act on behalf of
the proposed class of purchasers of stock between Feb. 1, 2006
and Oct. 10, 2006 was not appealed, and is now final, according
to the company's May 29, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2009.

Legg Mason, Inc. -- http://www.leggmason.com-- is a global
asset management company.  Acting through its subsidiaries, the
company provides investment management and related services to
institutional and individual clients, Company-sponsored mutual
funds and retail separately managed account programs.  The
company offers these products and services directly and through
various financial intermediaries.  The company operates its
business as two divisions: Americas and International.


LEGG MASON: Unit Faces Suits Over Asset Management Activities
-------------------------------------------------------------
The asset management business Legg Mason, Inc. acquired from
Citigroup remains a defendant in a number of legal actions,
including class action litigation, arising from pre-closing
asset management activities, some of which seek substantial
damages.

Under the terms of the transaction agreement with Citigroup,
Citigroup has agreed to indemnify the company for certain legal
matters, including all currently known pre-closing legal
matters, of the former CAM business.

According to the company's May 29, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2009, while the ultimate resolution of any pre-
closing matters threatened or pending from the company's prior
brokerage and capital markets businesses or the former CAM
business can not be determined at this time, based on current
information and after consultation with legal counsel,
management believes that any accrual or range of reasonably
possible losses as of March 31, 2009 is not material.

Legg Mason, Inc. -- http://www.leggmason.com-- is a global
asset management company.  Acting through its subsidiaries, the
company provides investment management and related services to
institutional and individual clients, Company-sponsored mutual
funds and retail separately managed account programs.  The
company offers these products and services directly and through
various financial intermediaries.  The company operates its
business as two divisions: Americas and International.


LIFE PARTNERS: Breach of Contract Suit Remains Pending in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class-action suit, "Earl Parchia, et al. v. Life
Partners, Inc., Cause No. 2006-2258-4," which was filed against
Life Partners, Inc., remains pending in the 170th District Court
of McLennan County, Texas.

Although the suit purports to represent a class of persons
similarly situated, the court has not certified it as a class
action.

The complaint, filed on June 9, 2006, alleges breach of contract
in connection with advising purchasers of premiums, which come
due on policies in which the escrow for premiums has been
exhausted.  The suit also alleges that the company breached the
its contract with purchasers by selecting life insurance
policies insuring the lives of individuals who were not actually
terminally ill.

Although the company has filed a partial motion for summary
judgment and discovery has been authorized, there has been no
significant action in the case matter since Feb. 29, 2008.

The company reported no development in the matter in its May 29,
2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 28, 2009.

Life Partners Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.lphi.com/-- is
engaged in facilitating viatical and life settlement transfers.
Life Partners is the parent company of Life Partners, Inc.  LPI
conducts business under the registered service mark Life
Partners.  The company's revenues are principally derived from
fees for facilitating the purchase of viatical and life
settlement contracts.  A viatical  settlement is the sale of a
life insurance policy by a terminally ill person to another
party.  By selling the policy, the insured receives an immediate
cash payment to use as he or she wishes.  The purchaser takes an
ownership interest in the policy at a discount to its face value
and receives the death benefit under the policy when the viator
dies.


MATCH.COM L.L.P.: Faces Consumer Fraud Litigation in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Match.com L.L.P. faces a purported class-action lawsuit that
accuses online dating services company of defrauding customers
of millions of dollars in monthly fees because "the majority of
Match members are canceled subscribers or never subscribed at
all," The Courthouse News Service reports.

The suit was filed on June 9, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California by Sean McGinn under the
caption, "McGinn et al v. Match.com L.L.P., Case No. 1:2009-cv-
05328."

According to the suit, Match.com charges $39.99 a month to
display members' profiles and facilitate communication between
members.  Once a "member" cancels, it is no longer possible to
communicate with him or her through Match, The Courthouse News
Service reported.

But Mr. McGinn, who is represented by Norah Hart with Treuhaft &
Zakarin, claims Match.com "lumps together profiles of current
subscribers and canceled members and displays them as if they
are the same."  He thus claims that Match.com "misleads paying
subscribers by charging them for the ability to write emails to
members who can't reply to their emails or even read them,"
according to The Courthouse News Service report

The suit claims that Match.com has the ability to tell
subscribers that canceled members or nonsubscribers cannot read
or respond to message, but does not do so, reports The
Courthouse News Service.

The Courthouse News Service report reported that as a result of
such actions, the lawsuit claims that Match.com members "have
been defrauded of millions in aggregated fees," and that they
are defrauded each time they try to reach a supposed member who
is not actually reachable.

The plaintiff is demanding an injunction and punitive damages
for fraud, deceptive trade, breach of faith and negligent
misrepresentation, The Courthouse News Service reports.

For more details, contact:

          Norah Hart, Esq. (norah.hart@gmail.com)
          Treuhaft & Zakarin LLP
          1011 Avenue of the Americas, 4th Floor
          New York, NY 10018
          Phone: (917)-539-6312
          Fax: (267)-295-7862


PETSMART INC: Appeals to Approval of U.S. Settlement Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals with respect to the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey's approval of the settlement of a consolidated
class-action suit entitled, "In re: Pet Food Product Liability
Litigation" are pending, according to PetSmart, Inc.'s May 29,
2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

The company is party to several lawsuits arising from the pet
food recalls announced by several manufacturers beginning in
March 2007.

The named plaintiffs sued the major pet food manufacturers and
retailers claiming that their pets suffered injury and/or death
as a result of consuming allegedly contaminated pet food and pet
snack products.

The lawsuits include:

   -- Bruski v. Nutro Products, et al., USDC, N.D. IL (filed
      3/23/07);

   -- Rozman v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, MN (filed 4/9/07);

   -- Ford v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, S.D. CA (filed 4/23/07);

   -- Wahl, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al., USDC, C.D.
      CA (filed 4/10/07);

   -- Demith v. Nestle, et al., USDC, N.D. IL (filed 4/23/07);

   -- Thompkins v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, CO (filed 4/11/07);

   -- McBain v. Menu Foods, et al., Judicial Centre of Regina,
      Canada (filed 7/11/07);

   -- Dayman v. Hills Pet Nutrition Inc., et al., Ontario
      Superior Court of Justice (filed 8/8/07);

   -- Esau v. Menu Foods, et al., Supreme Court of Newfoundland
      and Labrador (filed 9/5/07);

   -- Ewasew v. Menu Foods, et al., Supreme Court of British
      Colombia (filed 3/23/07);

   -- Silva v. Menu Foods, et al., Canada Province of Manitoba
      (filed 3/30/07); and

   -- Powell v. Menu Foods, et al., Ontario Superior Court of
      Justice (filed 3/28/07).

By order dated June 28, 2007, the Bruski, Rozman, Ford, Wahl,
Demith and Thompkins cases were transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with other
pet food class actions under the federal rules for multi-
district litigation (In re: Pet Food Product Liability
Litigation, Civil No. 07-2867).  The Canadian cases were not
consolidated.

On May 21, 2008, the parties to the U.S. lawsuits comprising the
In re: Pet Food Product Liability Litigation and the Canadian
cases jointly submitted a comprehensive settlement arrangement
for court approval.  Preliminary court approval was received
from the U.S. District Court on May 3, 2008, and from all of the
Canadian courts as of July 8, 2008.  On Oct. 14, 2008, the U.S.
court approved the settlement, and the Canadian courts gave
final approval on Nov. 3, 2008.

Two different groups of objectors filed notices of appeal with
respect to the U.S. District Court's approval of the U.S.
settlement.  There have been no appeals filed in Canada.

PetSmart, Inc. -- http://www.petsmart.com/-- is a specialty
provider of products, services and solutions for pets in North
America.  The Company has identified a group of pet owners that
the Company calls pet parents, who are committed to their pets
and consider their pets family members.


PETSMART INC: "Langton" Suit for Unpaid Wages Pending in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class-action entitled, "Langton v. PetSmart" is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, according to the company's May 29, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2009.

On Jan. 12, 2009, a former groomer filed a lawsuit on behalf of
herself and a putative class of current and former groomers in
California State Court entitled, "Langton v. PetSmart."

The plaintiff alleges that she and other non-exempt groomers did
not receive payment for all hours worked, did not receive meal
and rest breaks, did not receive all wages due upon termination,
did not receive accurate wage statements as required by law, and
were not provided with necessary tools and equipment.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, penalties under the
California Labor Code, restitution, attorney's fees and costs,
and prejudgment interest.

On Feb. 17, 2009, the company removed the action to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

PetSmart, Inc. -- http://www.petsmart.com/-- is a specialty
provider of products, services and solutions for pets in North
America.  The Company has identified a group of pet owners that
the Company calls pet parents, who are committed to their pets
and consider their pets family members.


PETSMART INC: Settlement of Suits by Calif. Employees Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
The settlements of two putative class-action lawsuits against
PetSmart, Inc. have been given final approval, according to the
company's May 29, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

In October 2006, two lawsuits were filed against the company in
California State Court on behalf of putative classes of current
and former California employees.

The first suit, "Sorenson v. PetSmart," was filed on Oct. 3,
2006.  The plaintiff, a former dog groomer, alleged that she and
other non-exempt employees failed to receive their meal and rest
breaks as required by law.

The second suit, "Enabnit v. PetSmart," was filed on Oct. 12,
2006, and alleged meal and rest period violations and that
employee paychecks were not compliant with the California Labor
Code.  The plaintiffs sought compensatory damages, penalties
under the California Labor Code, restitution, attorney's fees,
costs and prejudgment interest.

In November 2006, the company removed both actions to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California.

The parties reached an agreement in principle to settle both of
these matters.

Final approval of the Sorenson settlement was granted by the
court on Feb. 19, 2009, and final approval of the settlement in
the Enabnit case was granted on April 22, 2009.

PetSmart, Inc. -- http://www.petsmart.com/-- is a specialty
provider of products, services and solutions for pets in North
America.  The Company has identified a group of pet owners that
the Company calls pet parents, who are committed to their pets
and consider their pets family members.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: "Schultz" Lawsuit for ERISA Breach Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit, "Schultz v. The Prudential
Insurance Company of America" is pending, according to
Prudential Financial, Inc.'s Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated June 1, 2009.

In April 2009, the purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Plaintiff, a participant in a defined benefit plan governed by
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), alleges
that pursuant to the terms of the group disability insurance
policy funding her plan benefits, Prudential Insurance may not
lawfully offset family social security disability benefits
against Prudential contract benefits because social security
benefits that members of her family received on account of her
disability were not "loss of time" disability payments.

The complaint alleges violations of ERISA, breach of contract
and unfair claims practices.

Plaintiff seeks recovery of the amount her disability benefits
were reduced by the challenged offset, and additional monetary,
declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of a putative class
of similarly situated disability claimants who are covered under
other plans or policies governed by ERISA and on behalf of a
putative class of similarly situated disability claimants who
are participants in plans that are exempt from ERISA.

Prudential Financial, Inc. -- http://www.prudential.com/-- is a
financial services company. The Company has operations in United
States, Asia, Europe and Latin America.  Through its
subsidiaries and affiliates, it offers an array of financial
products and services, including life insurance, annuities,
retirement-related services, mutual funds, investment
management, and real estate services.  The businesses of
Prudential Financial are separated into the Financial Services
Businesses and the Closed Block Business.


SEARS HOLDINGS: Moldowan Suit Settlement Pending Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Final court approval of the settlement of the class-action suit
styled, "Moldowan, et al. v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, et
al.," is pending.

The company is a defendant in several lawsuits containing class-
action allegations in which the plaintiffs are current and
former hourly and salaried associates who allege various wage
and hour violations and unlawful termination practices.

The complaints generally seek unspecified monetary damages,
injunctive relief, or both.

Further, certain of these proceedings are in jurisdictions with
reputations for aggressive application of laws and procedures
against corporate defendants.

One of these class-action lawsuits is "Moldowan, et al. v.
Sears, Roebuck and Company, et al.," a lawsuit filed on Aug. 12,
2004 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Sonoma in which plaintiffs allege that Sears failed to pay them
for all hours worked and otherwise failed to pay them correctly
for work performed in accordance with California law.
Plaintiffs seek monetary damages in an unspecified amount,
together with attorneys' fees, interest, statutory penalties and
punitive damages.  The parties have settled the matter and the
Court has preliminarily approved the settlement.  In agreeing to
the settlement, defendants did not admit any wrongdoing and
denied committing any violation of law.  Defendants agreed to
the settlement solely to eliminate the uncertainties, burden and
expense of further protracted litigation, according to the
company's May 29, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 2, 2009.

Sears Holdings Corporation -- http://www.searsholdings.com/--
is the parent company of Kmart Holding Corporation and Sears,
Roebuck and Co.  The company is a broadline retailer with 2,297
full-line and 1,233 specialty retail stores in the United States
operating through Kmart and Sears and 388 full-line and
specialty retail stores in Canada operating through Sears Canada
Inc., a 73%-owned subsidiary.  During the fiscal year ended Jan.
31, 2009 (fiscal 2008), Sears Holdings Corporation operated
three business segments: Kmart, Sears Domestic and Sears Canada.


SEARS HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss N.Y. Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dismiss the purported class-action lawsuit,
entitled, "In re: Sears Holdings Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:06-cv-04053-JES," remains pending.

In May and July 2006, two putative class action complaints --
each naming as defendants Sears Holdings Corp. and Edward S.
Lampert -- were filed before U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, purportedly on behalf of a class
of persons that sold shares of Kmart Holding Corp. stock on or
after May 6, 2003, through June 4, 2004.

Sears, Roebuck and Co. merged with Kmart which resulted in the
2004 formation of Sears Holdings.

The plaintiffs in each case allege that Kmart's Plan of
Reorganization and Disclosure Statement filed on Jan. 24, 2003,
which was amended on Feb. 25, 2003, misrepresented Kmart's
assets, particularly its real estate holdings, as evidenced by
the prices at which Kmart subsequently sold certain of its
stores in June 2004 to Home Depot and Sears.

The plaintiffs seek damages for alleged misrepresentations.

On Dec. 19, 2006, the Court consolidated the two suits and a
consolidated complaint was later filed.

On April 15, 2008, the Court denied without prejudice
defendants' motion to dismiss.  After taking some additional
discovery, defendants filed another motion to dismiss which
remains pending before the Court.  On March 17, 2009, the Court
heard arguments on the pending motion.  The parties await a
ruling, according to the company's May 29, 2009 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended May 2, 2009.

The suit is "In re: Sears Holdings Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:06-cv-04053-JES," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge John
E. Sprizzo, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. (nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com)
          Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue
          10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-983-9330
          Fax: 212-983-9331

          Mark Casser Gardy, Esq. (mgardy@gardylaw.com)
          Gardy & Notis, LLP
          440 Sylvan Avenue
          Suite 110
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Phone: 201-567-7377
          Fax: 201-567-7337

               - and -

          Geoffrey Coyle Jarvis, Esq. (gjarvis@gelaw.com)
          Grant & Eisenhofer, PA
          Chase Manhattan Centre
          1201 North Market Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: 302-622-7040
          Fax: 302-622-7100

Representing the defendants is:

          David B. Anders, Esq. (dbanders@wlrk.com)
          Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
          51 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: 212-403-1000
          Fax: 212-403-2000


SUN-TIMES MEDIA: Ill. Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
approved a $37.5-million settlement between Sun-Times Media
Group, Inc. and shareholders who brought a class-action lawsuit
against the publishing company for securities fraud allegedly
committed during Conrad Black's regime, Lorene Yue of Crain's
Chicago Business reports.

The settlement dismisses claims that Mr. Black and other members
of management misled investors about their compensation.  It
applies to shareholders who bought stock between Aug. 13, 1999,
and March 31, 2003, according to the Crain's Chicago Business
report.

Previously, it was reported that the settlement of the
securities class-action lawsuits filed against Sun-Times Media
Group, Inc., formerly Hollinger Inc., is pending court approval
(Class Action Reporter, May 5, 2009).

In 2004, certain stockholders of the company initiated
securities class-action claims asserted against it, a number of
its former directors and officers, certain affiliated companies,
and its auditor, KPMG LLP, in a consolidated class-action case
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
entitled, "In re Hollinger International Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 04C-0834," and in similar actions that have been
initiated in Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec, Canada.

Those actions assert, among other things, that from 1999 to 2003
the defendants breached U.S. federal, state, and/or Canadian law
by allegedly making misleading disclosures and omissions
regarding certain "non-competition" payments and the payment of
allegedly excessive management fees.

On July 31, 2007, the company entered into agreements to settle
these suits and litigation over its directors and officers
insurance coverage.  The company's settlement of the securities
class action lawsuits will be funded entirely by $30.0 million
in proceeds from its insurance policies.  The settlement
includes no admission of liability by the company or any of the
settling defendants and the company continues to deny any such
liability or damages.

In addition, the company's insurers have deposited $24.5 million
in insurance proceeds into an escrow account in return for a
release from any other claims for the July 1, 2002 to July 1,
2003 policy period.  If the securities class action settlement
is approved, there will then be a court proceeding to determine
how the $24.5 million in the insurance escrow account should be
distributed.  The insurance settlement agreement is conditioned
upon approval of the class-action settlement.  The parties are
in the process of seeking these approvals in the appropriate
courts in the United States and Canada, according to the
company's April 14, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for fiscal year ended Dec.
31, 2008.

Sun-Times Media Group, Inc. -- http://www.thesuntimesgroup.com/
-- publishes, prints and distributes newspapers in the greater
Chicago, Illinois metropolitan area and operates various related
Internet Websites.  The company's revenue for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2007, included the Chicago Sun-Times, Post-Tribune,
SouthtownStar and other newspapers in the Chicago metropolitan
area and associated Websites.  In March 2009, the company filed
for bankruptcy protection at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in
Delaware.


TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: N.Y. Court Approves "Zwickel" Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. announced on June 11, 2009
that the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York has preliminarily approved a settlement of all
claims in the purported securities class action captioned,
"Loretta Zwickel v. Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., et al.,
Case No. 04-CV-05969."  The settlement is subject to notice to
the purported shareholder class and final approval by the court
at a hearing scheduled to take place in September 2009.

Previously, parties in the purported securities class-action
suit captioned "Zwickel v. Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.
et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-05969-RMB," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, have
reached an agreement in principle to settle all claims asserted
against all defendants (Class Action Reporter, April 30, 2008).

On Aug. 2, 2004, a purported securities class-action complaint
was filed against the company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made statements during
the period Feb. 20, 2003, through July 29, 2004, in press
releases, the company's 2003 Annual Report and during conference
calls with analysts which were materially false and misleading
and which artificially inflated the price of the company's
ordinary shares.

The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Nine additional
purported securities class action complaints were subsequently
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, all containing similar allegations.

The actions have been consolidated and lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel have been appointed.  No consolidated amended complaint
has been filed in the case (Class Action Reporter, March 28,
2007).

The settlement is subject to the execution of definitive
documentation, notice to the purported shareholder class and
final approval of the settlement by the court at a hearing to be
scheduled in the near future.

The complaint is "Zwickel v. Taro Pharmaceutical Industries,
Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-05969-RMB," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
Judge Richard M. Berman.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Eric James Belfi, Esq. (ebelfi@labaton.com)
          Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212) 907-0790
          Fax: (212) 883-7579

          Steven G. Schulman, Esq. (sschulman@milbergweiss.com)
          Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (NYC)
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Phone: 212-946-9356
          Fax: 212-273-4406

          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          Scott & Scott
          11 Bala Avenue
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: (610) 668-1955

               - and -

          Jules Brody, Esq.
          Stull Stull & Brody
          6 East 45th Street, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212)-687-7230
          Fax: (212)-490-2022
          e-mail: ssbny@aol.com


U.S. POSTAL: Faces Lawsuit in Texas Alleging FLSA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Postal Service is facing a purported class-action suit
alleging violations of Fair Labor Standards Act, Lynn LaRowe of
The Texarkana Gazette reports.

The suit was filed on June 10, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas by Doyle Hickson, Rafael
Campos, Michelle Ferguson, Burnis Hall, Carol Meadows, Jamie
Mendez and Gerardo Trevino, under the caption, "Hickson et al
vs. United States Postal Service, Case No. 5:2009-cv-00083."

It accuses USPS supervisors and higher-ups, particularly in the
Southwest, of implementing a policy that violates the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act by cheating non-exempt, hourly, city
postal carriers of overtime pay, according to The Texarkana
Gazette report.

For more details, contact:

          Matthew John Morrison, Esq. (matt@thetriallawyers.com)
          Harrison, Davis, Steakley, PC
          5 Ritchie Road
          Waco, TX 76712
          Phone: 254/776-5500


WELLS REAL: Certification Bid in Securities Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The motion for class certification in the matter, "In Re Wells
Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., Securities Litigation Case
No. 1:07-cv-00862-CAP," is still pending before the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., is now known as
Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc.

On March 12, 2007, a stockholder filed a purported class action
and derivative complaint, "Washtenaw County Employees Retirement
System v. Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., et al.,"
with the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
against, among others, Piedmont REIT; Leo F. Wells, III and
Wells Capital, the General Partners; Wells Management, the
company's property manager; certain affiliates of WREF; the
directors of Piedmont REIT; and certain individuals who formerly
served as officers or directors of Piedmont REIT prior to the
closing of the internalization transaction on April 16, 2007.

The complaint attempts to assert class action claims on behalf
of those persons who received and were entitled to vote on the
proxy statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on Feb. 26, 2007.

The complaint alleges, among other things:

      -- that the consideration to be paid as part of the
         Internalization is excessive;

      -- violations of Section 14(A), including Rule 14a-9
         thereunder, and Section 20(A) of the Securities
         Exchange Act of 1934, based upon allegations that the
         proxy statement contains false and misleading
         statements or omits to state material facts;

      -- that the board of directors and the current and
         previous advisors breached their fiduciary duties to
         the class and to Wells REIT; and

      -- that the proposed Internalization will unjustly enrich
         certain directors and officers of Wells REIT.

The complaint seeks, among other things:

      -- certification of the class action;

      -- a judgment declaring the proxy statement false and
         misleading;

      -- unspecified monetary damages;

      -- to nullify any stockholder approvals obtained during
         the proxy process;

      -- to nullify the merger proposal and the merger
         agreement;

      -- restitution for disgorgement of profits, benefits and
         other compensation for wrongful conduct and fiduciary
         breaches;

      -- the nomination and election of new independent
         directors, and the retention of a new financial advisor
         to assess the advisability of Wells REIT's strategic
         alternatives; and

      -- the payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and experts'
         fees.

On April 9, 2007, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for an
order enjoining the Internalization transaction.  On April 17,
the court granted the defendants' motion to transfer venue to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
and the case was docketed in the Northern District of Georgia on
April 24.  In June 2007, the court granted a motion to designate
the class lead plaintiff and class co-lead counsel.

The plaintiff then filed an amended complaint, which contains
the same counts as the original complaint, with amended factual
allegations based primarily on events occurring subsequent to
the original complaint and the addition of a Wells REIT officer
as an individual defendant.

On July 9, 2007, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for
expedited discovery related to an anticipated motion for a
preliminary injunction.

On Aug. 13, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  On March 31, 2008, the Court granted in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  The
Court dismissed five of the seven counts of the amended
complaint in their entirety.  The Court dismissed the remaining
two counts with the exception of allegations regarding the
failure to disclose in the Piedmont REIT proxy statement details
of certain expressions of interest in acquiring Piedmont REIT.

On April 21, 2008, the plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint, which alleges violations of the federal proxy rules
based upon allegations that the proxy statement to obtain
approval for the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction
omitted details of certain expressions of interest in acquiring
Piedmont REIT.  The second amended complaint seeks, among other
things, unspecified monetary damages, to nullify and rescind the
internalization transaction, and to cancel and rescind any stock
issued to the defendants as consideration for the
internalization transaction.  On May 12, 2008, the defendants
answered and raised defenses to the second amended complaint.

On June 23, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.  The defendants responded to the plaintiff's
motion for class certification on Jan. 16, 2009.  The plaintiff
filed its reply in support of its motions for class
certification on Feb. 19, 2009.

The motion for class certification is currently pending before
the court.  The parties are presently engaged in discovery.

On April 13, 2009, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend the
second amended complaint to add additional defendants.  The
defendants responded to the plaintiff's motion for leave to
amend on April 30, 2009.  The plaintiff filed its reply in
support of its motion for leave to amend on May 18, 2009.  The
motion for leave to amend is currently pending before the court.

Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, and Wells Management intend to defend
this action, according to Wells Mid-Horizon Value-Added Fund I,
LLC's May 29, 2009 Amendment No. 1 to Form 10 filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The suit is "In Re Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc.,
Securities Litigation Case No. 1:07-cv-00862-CAP," filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq. (nick@chimicles.com)
         Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP
         361 West Lancaster Avenue
         One Haverford Centre
         Haverford, PA 19041-0100
         Phone: 215-642-8500

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael J. Cates, Esq. (mcates@kslaw.com)
         King & Spalding, LLP
         1180 Peachtree Street, NE
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
         Phone: 404-572-4600


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

KENEXA CORP: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Kenexa Corp. (Nasdaq: KNXA)
between May 8, 2007 and November 7, 2007, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

     The complaint charges Kenexa and certain of its officers
with violations of the Exchange Act.

     Kenexa, through its subsidiaries, provides software,
services, and proprietary content that enable organizations to
recruit and retain employees.

     The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's true financial condition, business and prospects.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose the following adverse facts, among others:

       -- that sales cycles for the Company's Employment Process
          Outsourcing ("EPO") and assessments lines of business
          were lengthening, causing sales to be pushed out and
          revenue growth to slow;

       -- that the Company was experiencing problems with its
          international sales and would need to revamp that
          sales force;

       -- that the Company was experiencing problems with a
          significant EPO client such that the client was
          requesting to be released from its contract with the
          Company; and

       -- based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable
          basis for their positive statements about the Company,
          its earnings, operations and prospects.

     On November 7, 2007, Kenexa issued a press release
announcing its financial results for the third quarter of 2007,
the period ended September 30, 2007.  Following the earnings
release, defendants held a conference call to discuss the
Company's earnings and operations.  In response to the earnings
announcement and the statements made during the conference call,
the price of Kenexa stock dropped from $27.84 per share to
$16.61 per share, or 40%, on extremely heavy trading volume.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Kenexa common stock during the Class Period.  The
plaintiff is represented by Coughlin Stoia, which has expertise
in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience
in actions involving financial fraud.

For more details, contact:

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/kenexa


RAYMOND JAMES: Gard Nortis Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Gardy & Notis, LLP filed a securities fraud
class action lawsuit on behalf of all investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Raymond James Financial, Inc. common stock
between April 22, 2008 and April 14, 2009.  The lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, and charges defendants Raymond James
Financial, Thomas A. James (CEO) and Jeffrey P. Julien (CFO)
with issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.

     The lawsuit alleges that defendants repeatedly touted its
supposedly conservative management practices and avoidance of
risky assets associated with subprime residential mortgages.

     Defendants, however, failed to disclose that Raymond James
Financial understated the credit risks of its wholly owned
subsidiary's commercial and residential loan portfolios, and
failed to set aside adequate reserves for the losses that
Raymond James Financial knew, or recklessly disregarded, were
forthcoming.  On April 14, 2009, Raymond James Financial shocked
investors when it announced that results for the second fiscal
quarter ended March 31, 2009, would be well below the consensus
analysts' estimates.  Raymond James Financial also announced
that both its commercial and residential portfolios would
require higher loss reserves, with the loan loss provision
tripling from the previous quarter.  In response to such an
unexpected sharp increase in loan loss provisions, Raymond James
Financial common stock dropped $2.57 per share, or 13.48%, to
close at $16.49 per share on April 15, 2009.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Aug. 10, 2009.

For more information, contact:

          Charles Germershausen, Esq.
          (cgermershausen@gardylaw.com)
          Gardy & Notis, LLP
          Phone: 201-567-7377
          Fax: 201-567-7337
          Web site: http://www.gardylaw.com/


                            *********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter.  Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********

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.  Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Stephanie T. Umacob, Gracele D.
Canilao, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2009.  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  * * *