CAR_Public/090825.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, August 25, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 167
  
                           Headlines

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: 9th Cir. Denies Rehearing in Norvir Case
AMERICAN INT'L: Faces Lawsuit Over Motorist Insurance Policies
CALCOT LTD: Calif. Court Certifes Class in RICO Violations Suit
CALIFORNIA: Disabled Seniors Sue to Block State Budget Cuts
CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Law Firm Announces Lead Plaintiff Cut-Off

CITY OF ALEXANDRIA: Faces Ratepayers' Litigation in Louisiana
CITY OF ORLANDO: Faces Fla. Suit Over Red Light Camera Program
HOTELS.COM: Hearing Set to Settle Discovery Issues in Tax Suit
IOVATE HEALTH: Faces W.Va. Suit for Marketing Unsafe Hydroxycut
LENNAR CORP: Subsidiaries Faces Nev. Suit Over Chinese Drywall

MINNEHAHA COUNTY: Lawyers Seek Approval for Strip-Search Deal
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Ex-Players File Suit for Use of Identities
POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Oct. 19 Hearing Set for $3.15M Agreement
REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Firm Announces Lead Plaintiff Deadline
STAPLES INC: Inks $790,000 Settlement in Mass. Overtime Lawsuit

SYNGENTA CROP: Faces Ill. Litigation Over Atrazine Contamination
ULTA SALON: Nov. 16 Hearing Set for $3.75M Securities Settlement

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
PROSHARES TRUST: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
PROSHARES TRUST: Shalov Stone Announces Securities Suit Filing
PROSHARES TRUST: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
STIEFEL LABORATORIES: Ruden McClosky Files Securities Fraud Suit

                           *********

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: 9th Cir. Denies Rehearing in Norvir Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal appeals court rejected a bid for an en banc rehearing
of its decision in Doe v. Abbott Laboratories, No. 08-80150 (9th
Cir.), to limit a settlement to $10 million in a class-action
case, alleging that Abbott Laboratories illegally jacked up the
prices of its market-dominating HIV drug Norvir, sticking to its
finding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim in light of
recent case law, Law360 reports.

On Aug. 19, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit unanimously denied the plaintiffs' petition for
rehearing, according to Law360.

The case in the court below is Doe v. Abbot Baloratories, Case
No. 04-cv-01551 (N.D. Calif.).


AMERICAN INT'L: Faces Lawsuit Over Motorist Insurance Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
American International South Insurance Co. faces a purported
class-action suit, alleging it issued worthless underinsured
motorist insurance policies, Kelly Holleran at The Madison
County Record reports.

The suit was filed on Aug. 17, 2009, in St. Clair County
Circuit Court by Lesley Schaeperkoetter, is docketed as Case
No. 09-L-430.  The plaintiff claims the company routinely offers
underinsured motorist coverage equal to the state statutory
minimum of uninsured motorist coverage.

The suit states, "Defendant then collects a separate premium for
the illusory underinsured motorist coverage.  The premium, in
fact, provides no coverage in return, because it is entirely
duplicative of the mandatory uninsured motorist coverage,"
reports Ms. Holleran.

Ms. Schaeperkoetter claims she purchased both underinsured and
uninsured motorist coverage from the company on Feb. 13, 2007,
for $15 each.  Both the underinsured and uninsured limited
coverage provided $20,000 per person and $40,000 per accident,
according to the complaint.

"Defendant had an obligation to inform Plaintiff and the Class
of its worthless coverage, yet throughout the class period,
Defendant affirmatively concealed its scheme of charging
premiums for illusory underinsured motorist coverage," the
complaint says.

In the two-count suit, Ms. Schaeperkoetter is asking the court
to certify the equitable rescission for lack of consideration
count and the statutory fraud count.  She is also asking the
court to certify the putative class and to grant a right of
rescission as to the underinsured motorist coverage, according
to the Record.

Ms. Schaeperkoetter is seeking damages, plus reimbursement of
allowable costs, attorneys' fees and other relief the court
deems just, Ms. Holleran relates.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bradley M. Lakin, Esq.
          Robert W. Schmieder, II, Esq.
          Robert J. Evola, Esq.
          LakinChapman, LLC
          300 Evans Ave.
          P.O. Box 229
          Wood River, IL 62095
          Phone: 618-208-4240 or 866-839-2021 or 618-254-1127
          Web site: http://www.lakinchapman.com/


CALCOT LTD: Calif. Court Certifes Class in RICO Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal district court in California granted class-action
status to a lawsuit against Calcot, Ltd., a cotton marketing
cooperative, Steven Mayer at The Bakersfield Californian
reports.

The recent ruling allows participation in the class-action case
to all former members of Calcot, who were active between 1983
and May 2009.  The court also denied Calcot's motion to dismiss
the lawsuit, reports Mr. Mayer.

The lawsuit was originally filed on January 2007 in the Superior
Court of California, County of Kern, on behalf of several
hundred growers from Bakersfield to Merced (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 5, 2007).

It claims that the Bakersfield-based cotton cooperative bilked
its own growers out of millions of dollars to secretly finance a
speculative commercial real estate deal in Fresno.  It
specifically claims that Calcot members unknowingly paid roughly
$23 million in interest payments on the cooperative's Palm
Bluffs project over the last two decades.

Andrews Farms, and Greg Palla Farming Co., filed the suit
against Calcot, and its accountants, Eadie & Payne LLP (Class
Action Reporter, March 1, 2007).

On March 23, 2007, the case was removed to federal court where
it is captioned Andrews Farms, et al. v. Calcot Ltd., et al.,
Case No. 07-00464 (E.D. Calif.).

The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duty; constructive fraud &
deceit based upon fiduciary relationship; accounting fraud &
deceit -- intentional misrepresentation of material fact;
negligent misrepresentation; violations of Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

In its Aug. 5 ruling, the court said Calcot's bylaws "do not
authorize the financing of real estate development of Calcot-
owned property," according to the Californian.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ralph B. Wegis, Esq.
          The Law Offices of Ralph B. Wegis, P.C.
          1930 Truxtun Avenue
          Bakersfield, CA 93301
          Phone: 661-635-2100
          Fax: 661-635-2107
          E-mail: rwegis@ralphwegis.com

The defendants are represented by:

          Raymond L. Carlson, Esq.
          Griswold, LaSalle, Cobb, Dowd & Gin, L.L.P.
          111 E. Seventh Street
          Hanford, CA 93230
          Phone: (559) 584-6656 x121
          Fax: (559) 582-3106
          E-mail: carlson@griswoldlasalle.com

               - and -

          Jerry D. Casheros, Esq.
          McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth LLP
          5 River Park Place East
          Fresno, CA 93720
          Phone: (559) 433-1300 x2330
          Fax: (559) 433-2300
          E-mail: jerry.casheros@mccormickbarstow.com


CALIFORNIA: Disabled Seniors Sue to Block State Budget Cuts
-----------------------------------------------------------
     On August 18, 2009, several elderly plaintiffs with
disabilities filed a class-action lawsuit, Brantley, et al. v.
Maxwell-Jolly, Director of California Department of Health Care
Services, to stop devastating cuts in Adult Day Health Care
(ADHC) services.  ADHC provides daytime health and nursing care,
therapies and other services to low-income seniors and people
with disabilities.  The cuts, if implemented, would place as
many as 8,000 recipients at immediate risk of
institutionalization, hospitalization, injury or death.  Among
those affected is Plaintiff Lillie Brantley, who is typical of
other people who receive ADHC services.  Mrs. Brantley's grand-
niece, Chauncey McLorin, says she would have to put her aunt in
a nursing home if her ADHC services are cut to only three days a
week.  "My Aunt Lillie has Alzheimer's disease.  She lives with
me and cannot be left alone because she is not safe.  I work
full-time and can't afford to quit my job to care for her.  I
love her very much but I would be forced to place her in a
nursing home if she can't go to ADHC five days a week and that
would be devastating for our family."

     The lawsuit was filed in federal court in the Northern
District of California by Disability Rights California, AARP
Foundation Litigation, and the National Senior Citizens Law
Center, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) and federal Medicaid law.  "Without adequate ADHC
services, many older people with disabilities who could
otherwise remain at home or in the community will be forced into
nursing homes," says Barbara Jones, attorney with AARP
Foundation Litigation.

     The lawsuit challenges the legality of two aspects of the
cuts which are contained in ABx4 5, one of a number of bills
enacted in response to California's budget crisis.  First, on
August 27, the maximum number of days Medi-Cal will fund ADHC
services for all participants will be reduced from five to three
per week regardless of the seriousness of the participant's
health problems.  Second, if the State allows the maximum number
of days to return to five per week, new restrictive eligibility
criteria will be triggered, which will make untold thousands of
current participants permanently ineligible for any ADHC
services.

     "Ironically, these cuts will not only cause irreparable
harm to the thousands of people and ADHC programs affected by
the cuts, but they will also result in increased costs to the
State and counties in hospitalization, nursing facility
placements, Adult Protective Services, and emergency services,"
says Elizabeth Zirker, Esq., an attorney with Disability Rights
California.  Gilda Garcia, a Plaintiff in the case, expressed
her fears, "I live alone and even though I can do a lot of
things for myself, my diabetes is so unstable that I still end
up in the hospital sometimes.  The nurses at ADHC check me every
day, five days a week.  On the weekends, I just pray not to have
problems.  If I lose ADHC, I know I will end up in the hospital
a lot more.

     Plaintiffs will be seeking a Temporary Restraining Order to
prevent the cuts from five to three days per week from taking
effect on August 27.  In addition, Plaintiffs are asking the
Court to declare that the new eligibility requirements, although
not yet operational, violate the law.  Plaintiffs are requesting
that all affected participants be individually assessed to
determine what, if any, replacement services they may be
entitled to through Medi-Cal and that anyone who would be forced
into an institution by the cuts retain their full services.

     "The State cannot shirk its obligation to provide medically
necessary services to each and every Medi-Cal participant.  If
the State chooses to reduce ADHC services across the board, it
still must, according to federal law, provide the skilled
nursing and therapy services people receive in the centers to
the people who need them," says Anna Rich, attorney with
National Senior Citizens Law Center.

     The 36,000 Californians who participate in ADHC average 78
years old and take six or more medications a day, for which
nearly 2/3 require supervision or assistance.  More than 2/3
also face at least three serious medical challenges including
cardiovascular disease (39%), dementia (13%), and diabetes
(10%).  The overwhelming majority (92%) are entirely dependent
on Medi-Cal funding for their care.  

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?42e1

For more details, contact:

          Elizabeth Zirker
          Disability Rights California
          Phone: (510) 267 - 1200

               - and -

          Barbara Jones  
          AARP Foundation Litigation
          Phone: (626) 585-2628

               - and -

          Anna Rich
          National Senior Citizens Law Center
          Phone: (510) 663-1055


CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Law Firm Announces Lead Plaintiff Cut-Off
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP announces that all persons or
entities who purchased the securities of Caraco Pharmaceutical
Laboratories, Ltd. between May 29, 2008, and June 25, 2009,
inclusive have only 25 days until the September 15, 2009
deadline to move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff in the
securities fraud class action lawsuit.

     The case filed by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Wilkof v.
Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd., et al., No. 09-12830
(E.D. Mich.), has been assigned to the Honorable Robert H.
Cleland.

     Caraco is engaged primarily in the business of developing,
manufacturing, marketing and distributing generic and private-
label pharmaceuticals to the nation's largest wholesalers,
distributors, warehousing and non-warehousing chain drugstores
and managed care providers.  The Complaint charges Caraco and
certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and S.E.C. Rule 10b-5, and further alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants failed to disclose, among other things,
that the Company failed to meet the United States Food and Drug
Administration's (FDA) current Good Manufacturing Practice
requirements and had failed to remedy repeat violations of FDA
regulations previously observed and documented by the FDA, which
significantly jeopardized the Company's ability to gain FDA
approval of pending new drug applications.

     The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
(PSLRA) requires the Court to appoint a "Lead Plaintiff" in this
case.  Any person or group who purchased Caraco securities
during the Class Period and suffered a loss may ask the Court to
be appointed as Lead Plaintiff, but must file a motion no later
than September 15, 2009.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 201-9150
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com


CITY OF ALEXANDRIA: Faces Ratepayers' Litigation in Louisiana
-------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Alexandria, La., faces a purported class-action
lawsuit, claiming that the city has defrauded ratepayers since
1997, Bret H. McCormick at Alexandria Town Talk reports.

The suit, Franklin, et al. v. Alexandria, Case No. 07-01011
(W.D. La.), was filed on June 12, 2007, by eight Alexandria
citizens -- Armested Franklin, Diane Tatum, Julius C. Sweazie,
Estella Deal, Henry D. Ceasor, Linda R. Strong, Curley Holden,
and Geraldette Johnson -- according to Mr. McCormick.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Larry English, Esq.
          English & Associate
          415 Texas St., Ste. 320
          Shreveport, LA 71101
          Phone: 318-222-1900
          Fax: 318-226-1660
          E-mail: englishlaw2008@gmail.com

               - and -

          Sam L. Jenkins, Jr., Esq.
          2419 Kings Highway
          Shreveport, LA 71103
          Phone: 318-636-4266
          Fax: 318-636-4271
          E-mail: sljenkin@bellsouth.net

               - and -

          W. James Singleton, Esq.
          Singleton Law Firm
          4050 Linwood Ave
          Shreveport, LA 71108
          Phone: 318-631-5200
          Fax: 318-636-7759
          E-mail: wjsingleton@singletonlaw.com

The defendants are represented by:

          Claude F. Reynaud, Jr., Esq.
          Breazeale Sachse & Wilson
          P.O. Box 3197
          Baton Rouge, LA 70821
          Phone: 225-387-4000
          Fax: 255-387-5397
          E-mail: cfr@bswllp.com


CITY OF ORLANDO: Faces Fla. Suit Over Red Light Camera Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Orlando, Fla., faces a purported class-action suit,
challenging its STOPS photo enforcement program, WESH.COM
reports.

Nabeel Ansari, who has run red lights three times, all of those
times captured by cameras, filed the suit.  He is disputing $500
in fines, saying the city is violating his constitutional
rights, according to WESH.COM.

The city attorney, Mayanne Downs, Esq., said she has fully
researched any challenges to the red-light-running ordinance,
and sees no problem defending it in court.

According to Ms. Downs, "We're very comfortable that there is no
unfairness in the issue of whether or not in fact the car went
through the intersection improperly."  She adds, "I would say
it's that someone smells a pot of money with a class action."

The lawsuit not only names the city of Orlando, but also the
maker and marketer of the traffic devices, American Traffic
Solutions, reports WESH.COM.


HOTELS.COM: Hearing Set to Settle Discovery Issues in Tax Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge is set to consider during a hearing this week,
an earlier decision to limit the City of Rome's access to the
financial records of online travel companies, John Bailey at The
Rome News Tribune reports.

The lawsuit filed by the City of Rome and several other nearby
Georgia cities, alleges that sites such as Hotels.com,
Orbitz.com, and Travelocity.com, are keeping back some of the
local taxes they collect when they reserve rooms in Rome and
several other areas in Georgia.  The defendants contend they are
liable for tax only on the discounted price they pay local
innkeepers, not the full price they charge their online
customers, according to the News Tribune.

Earlier this month, both parties asked the Honorable Harold L.
Murphy to resolve the issues of discovery -- the process in
which parties can compel the production of evidence or other
documents prior to trial.  Currently the discovery is limited to
the issue of class certification, where the court determines if
the plaintiffs' grievances meet a number of standards to be
considered a class-action lawsuit, Mr. Bailey writes.  In cases
such as this, the discovery can be split into two phases, one to
determine class status and the other to determine the merit and
damages of the case.  

The plaintiffs are requesting that a previous order be modified
and discovery not be split, according to court documents.  The
City entered as an exhibit an order from another federal case in
Baltimore in which the same online travel companies agreed to
not split the discovery in an almost identical case.

The defendants are requesting that the court maintain its
current order until it issues a ruling on class certification,
according to the motion, Mr. Bailey relates.


IOVATE HEALTH: Faces W.Va. Suit for Marketing Unsafe Hydroxycut
---------------------------------------------------------------
Iovate Health Sciences, Iovate Health Sciences USA, Inc., Iovate
Health Sciences Group, Inc., Iovate Health Sciences Research,
Inc., Iovate Health Sciences Formulations, Ltd., Muscletech,
Inc.; Muscletech and Muscletech Research and Development, Inc.,
face a purported class-action suit over the weight loss
supplement, Hydroxycut, Lawrence Smith at The West Virginia
Record reports.

Rhonda M. Hawkins is suing the defendants for marketing an
unsafe weight loss supplement.  In addition to unspecified
damages and interest, she is seeking class-action certification
of her lawsuit, Mr. Smith reports.

The case was filed in Kanawha County Circuit Court, and is
docked as Case No. 09-C-1455.


LENNAR CORP: Subsidiaries Faces Nev. Suit Over Chinese Drywall
--------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidiaries of Miami-based homebuilder Lennar Corp., and
drywall manufacturer Georgia-Pacific Corp. of Atlanta, face a
purported class-action suit alleging that imported Chinese
drywall is causing health problems for occupants of homes in two
Las Vegas neighborhoods, Steve Green at The Las Vegas Sun
reports.

The homes named in the lawsuit are on Matisse Avenue and Villa
de Medici Street, near Jones and Grand Teton; and on Gloucester
Gate Street near Hollywood and Desert Inn.

The suit was filed in Clark County District Court in Las Vegas
by the law firm Fuller Jenkins on behalf of owners of four
homes.  It is seeking class-action status for all Nevadans
suffering health problems because of imported Chinese drywall,
according to Mr. Green.

The case specifically named as defendants, Georgia-Pacific
Gypsum LLC, Georgia-Pacific, LLC, and Lennar subsidiaries,
Lennar Nevada, Inc., Greystone Nevada, LLC, and U.S. Home Corp.

According to attorneys, the plaintiffs are suffering health
problems because of Chinese-made drywall in their homes.  They
say that the Chinese drywall, also known as sheetrock and
wallboard, emits toxic vapors and chemicals that cause corrosion
in electrical wiring, heating and air conditioning systems,
refrigerators, plumbing components, faucets, lighting fixtures
and household appliances such as microwaves.

The attorneys also say that the Chinese drywall is dangerous
because it was made with fly ash -- waste material from
scrubbers on coal-fired power plants.  They say the drywall
emits sulfur compounds including sulfur dioxide and hydrogen
sulfide and the results for humans include allergic reactions,
coughing, sinus and throat infections, nose bleeds, eye
irritation, respiratory problems and other health issues.

The suit states that homeowners face substantial costs to remove
and replace the affected drywall and home components allegedly
damaged by the alleged drywall fumes, writes Mr. Green.

The plaintiffs assert claims of product liability, breach of
warranties, and negligence.  They are seeking unspecified
damages including damages for medical costs and monitoring

The suit accuses defendants of failing to supply drywall without
defects, failing to inspect their building materials to ensure
they were safe, failing to warn homeowners and home occupants of
potential dangers, failing to recall dangerous products and of
concealing information about the alleged dangers posed by the
drywall, Mr. Green relates.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Fuller Jenkins
          2300 W. Sahara Avenue, Ste. 822
          Las Vegas, NV 89102
          Telephone: (702) 450-8710
          Web site: http://www.fullerjenkins.com/


MINNEHAHA COUNTY: Lawyers Seek Approval for Strip-Search Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys handling a class-action lawsuit over strip-searches at
Minnehaha County's juvenile detention center in Sioux Falls,
S.D., have filed a proposed settlement document, The Associated
Press reports.

They are asking a judge for his approval and a final hearing.
According to the document, the county will contribute $450,000
to a settlement fund, and after attorney fees and other costs
are deducted, $182,500 will be divided equally among the
juveniles.

Records suggest that just over 5,000 kids were searched an
estimated 8,700 times between 1997 and 2003, according to the AP
report.

Only those who certify in a claim form that they were searched
while fully nude will qualify to receive up to $1,000 per
search.

Some of the strip-searched juveniles were charged with minor
infractions such as liquor violations and truancy, reports the
AP.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Ex-Players File Suit for Use of Identities
-------------------------------------------------------------
Several retired players of the National Football League filed a
purported class-action lawsuit alleging that the NFL used their
names and images for profit without their permission, Nomaan
Merchant at The Associated Press reports.

The lawsuit, Dryer, et al. v. National Football League, Case No.
09-02182 (D. Minn.), was filed on Aug. 20, 2009 by John
Frederick Dryer, James Lawrence Marshall, Joseph Michael Senser,
Elvin Lamont Bethea, Dante Anthony Pastorini, and Edward Alvin
White.  The complaint accuses the NFL of exploiting retired
players' identities in films, highlight reels and memorabilia to
market the league's "glory days" without compensating the
players, Mr. Merchant related.

How much former players are owed is unclear, Bob Stein, a lawyer
for the players said.  But the lawsuit suggests the amount
exceeds $5 million, according to Mr. Merchant.

For more information about the retured football players'
lawsuit, visit http://retiredfootballplayerslawsuit.com/

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert A. Stein, Esq.
          Bob Stein LLC
          2305 Byrnes Rd.
          Minnetonka, MN 55305
          Phone: 952-829-1000
          Fax: 952-829-1040
          E-mail: rastein66@aol.com

               - and -

          Charles S. Zimmerman, Esq.
          Zimmerman Reed, PLLP
          651 Nicollet Mall, Ste. 501
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-4123
          Phone: 612-341-0400
          Fax: 612-341-0844
          E-mail: charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com


POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Oct. 19 Hearing Set for $3.15M Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez will convene a fairness
hearing on Oct. 19, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., to review the proposed
$3,150,000 settlement in Crafton v. Powerwave Technologies,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-0065 (C.D. Calif.).

Several purported shareholder class-action complaints were filed
in January, February and March 2007, against Powerwave, its
president and chief executive officer, its executive chairman of
the board of directors and its chief financial officer, in:

       -- Jerry Crafton v. Powerwave Technologies, Inc., et.
          al.,

       -- Kenneth Kwan v. Powerwave Technologies, Inc., et.
          al.,

       -- Achille Tedesco v. Powerwave Technologies, Inc., et.
          al., and

       -- Farokh Etemadieh v. Powerwave Technologies, Inc. et.
          al.

These lawsuits were brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.  The complaints purport to state claims on behalf of
all persons who purchased Powerwave securities between May 2,
2005, and Oct. 9, 2006.  The essence of the allegations is that
the defendants made misleading statements or omissions
concerning the company's projected and actual sales revenues,
the integration of certain acquisitions and the sufficiency of
the company's internal controls.

In June 2007, the four cases were consolidated into one, and a
lead plaintiff was appointed.  In October 2007, the lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting the same causes
of action.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sue Lee, Esq.
          The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, New York 10006
          Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602
          E-mail: slee@brualdilawfirm.com
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com/

               - and -

          Mark D. Smilow, Esq.
          Weiss & Lurie
          The French Building
          551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600
          New York City 10176
          Phone: (888) 593-4771 or (212) 682-3025
          Web site: http://weisslurie.com/


REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Firm Announces Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
     Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP reminds current and former
shareholders of Repros Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: RPRX) who
suffered losses from investment in Repros securities during the
period between July 1, 2009, and August 3, 2009, inclusive, that
Friday, October 6, 2009, is the deadline for Repros investors to
move for appointment as lead plaintiff in the pending securities
class action.

      In August, the law firm filed a class action complaint, in
the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, against Repros
Therapeutics, and certain of its officers and directors, on
behalf of shareholders who  purchased Repros common stock
between July 1, 2009, and August 3, 2009 (Class Action Reporter,
Aug. 22, 2009).

     The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
issuing materially false and misleading press releases
regarding the success of clinical trials for its drug Proellex.  
On August 3, 2009, Repros revealed that it was suspending
Proellex clinical trials based in a clinically significant
increase in liver enzymes among participants.  On that day,
Repros stock closed at $1.31, a 48% drop from a close of $2.53
the trading day before.  This was a 73% drop from the close of
$4.96 on July 1, 2009.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian Brooks, Esq.
          Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
          275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801
          New York, NY 10016
          Fax: (212) 682-1892
          Phone: 212-682-1818 or 800-497-8076
          E-mail: newcase@murrayfrank.com
          Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com/


STAPLES INC: Inks $790,000 Settlement in Mass. Overtime Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Staples, Inc., settled, for $790,000, a class-action lawsuit
filed by a former employee who claimed she was shortchanged on
overtime pay, Greg Turner at The Boston Herald reports.

The suit, McCandless v. Staples, Inc., Case No. 07-11850 (D.
Mass.), was filed on Oct. 1, 2007, by Kirsten McCandless,
alleging violations of Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Massachusetts Wage Act.  The complaint did not specify the
amount of money she wanted from Staples (Class Action Reporter,
Oct. 15, 2007).

However, the lawsuit is seeking class action status so "all
others similarly situated" may be compensated for overtime
wages.

Philip Gordon, Esq., a Boston attorney who represents Ms.
McCandless told The MetroWest Daily News, "We're seeking unpaid
overtime for a group of employees who worked more than 40 hours
a week and weren't properly paid."  He claims Staples has
"misclassified" the workers as being exempt from overtime.

"The class period covers a three-year period of time, so it
would be anyone who worked in that position over the past three
years," Mr. Gordon explains.  

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Philip J. Gordon, Esq.
          Kristen M. Hurley, Esq.
          Gordon Law Group
          585 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Phone: 617-536-1800
          Fax: 617-536-1802
          E-mail: pgordon@gordonllp.com
                  khurley@gordonllp.com

               - and -

          Ariel D. Cudkowicz, Esq.
          Seyfarth Shaw
          World Trade Center East, Suite 300
          Two Seaport Lane
          Boston, MA 02210
          Phone: 617-946-4884
          Fax: 617-946-4801
          E-mail: acudkowicz@seyfarth.com


SYNGENTA CROP: Faces Ill. Litigation Over Atrazine Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., and Growmark, Inc., face a
purported class-action lawsuit filed by water districts
throughout Illinois over atrazine contamination in water
supplies, Clare Howard at The Peoria Journal Star reports.

Stephen Tillery, Esq., filed the class-action suit this month in
the Third Judicial Circuit Court in Madison County on behalf of
a rural sanitary district near Edwardsville and other water
districts throughout the state.

Citing recent research, the plaintiffs contend that atrazine in
drinking water is unsafe at any level, even measurements well
below U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidelines, writes
Ms. Howard.

Mr. Tillery said the U.S. EPA conducted more than 40 private
meetings with the leading manufacturer of atrazine to devise a
testing protocol that manipulatively distorts atrazine levels in
water.

Illinois American Water Co. reports atrazine levels of 0.5 parts
per billion in Peoria tap water, a level recent research has
linked with low-birth weights, but a level well below the 3
parts per billion considered safe by the EPA.

Atrazine, an herbicide often used on corn fields, is linked with
breast and prostate cancers and reproductive and neurological
problems, according to Ms. Howard.


ULTA SALON: Nov. 16 Hearing Set for $3.75M Securities Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Robert W. Gettleman will convene a fairness
hearing on Nov. 16, 2009, at 10:00 a.m., to consider the
proposed $3,750,000 settlement in In Re Ulta Salon, Cosmetics &
Fragrance, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-7083 (N.D.
Ill.).

In December 2007 and January 2008, three putative securities
class-action complaints were filed against the company and
certain of its current and then-current executive officers. Each
suit alleges that the prospectus and registration statement
filed pursuant to the company's initial public offering
contained materially false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose material facts.  Each suit claims violations of
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933,
and the two later filed suits added claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well
as the associated Rule 10b-5.

On March 18, 2008, the suits were consolidated and plaintiffs in
the action, Mirsky v. Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. et
al., Case No. 07-07083, were appointed lead plaintiffs.  

The lead plaintiffs filed their amended complaint in May 2008,
alleging no new violations of the securities laws not asserted
in the prior complaints.  It adds no new defendants and drops
one of the then-current officers as a defendant.

Valley Forge Administrative Services, Inc., has set up a
specialized Web site at http://www.ultaclaims.com/to provide  
claimants with information about the litigation and claims
process.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lori Ann Fanning, Esq.
          Miller Law LLC
          115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-332-3400
          Fax: 312-676-2676
          E-mail: LFanning@MillerLawLLC.com

               - and -

          Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
          Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
          190 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1705
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-357-0370
          Fax: 312-357-0369
          E-mail: cgilden@cmht.com

               - and -

          Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
          Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
          The Wanamaker Building
          100 Penn Square East, Suite 450
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Phone: 215-561-3600
          E-mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com

The defendants are represented by:

          Sean M. Berkowitz, Esq.
          Latham & Watkins LLP
          233 South Wacker Drive
          5800 Sears Tower
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: 312-876-7700
          Fax: 312-993-9767
          E-mail: sean.berkowitz@lw.com


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, representing investors
of Align Technology, Inc. (Nasdaq: ALGN), filed a class action
lawsuit in United States District Court on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased the common
stock of Align between January 30, 2007 and October 24, 2007.  
The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.

     The Complaint charges the Company and its chief executive
officer with violations of federal securities laws.  Align
Technology, Inc. designs, manufactures and markets the
Invisalign system for treating the misalignment of teeth.

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period the
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded and failed to disclose
or indicate that the Company had shifted the focus of its sales
force to clearing backlog, causing a significant decrease in the
number of new case starts.  Consequently, defendants' misleading
statements and omission of materially adverse information
rendered their Class Period statements concerning the Company's
business, operations and financial prospects materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

     On October 24, 2007, Align held a conference call with
analysts to discuss the Company's third quarter 2007 financial
results announced that same day.  During the conference call,
the Company shocked the market when it acknowledged, among other
things, that in an effort to clear prior backlog "we did not
focus enough effort on filling the pipeline for new case
starts," and the Company had to refocus its field and channel
marketing teams to generate new case growth.

     As a result of this news, shares of Align declined more
than 33%, or $9.63 per share, to close the next day, October 25,
2007, at $19.07 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 13, 2009.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
          Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888) 638-4847
          E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/


PROSHARES TRUST: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on August
5, 2009 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares in the ProShares UltraShort Real
Estate fund (NYSE: SRS), an exchange-traded fund offered by
ProShares Trust, pursuant or traceable to ProShares' false and
misleading Registration Statement, Prospectuses, and Statements
of Additional Information issued in connection with the SRS
Fund's shares.  The Class is seeking to pursue remedies under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

     The complaint names ProShares; ProShare Advisors LLC, SEI
Investments Distribution Co., Michael L. Sapir, Louis M.
Mayberg, Russell S. Reynolds, III, Michael Wachs, and Simon D.
Collier, as defendants.  ProShares sells its Ultra and
UltraShort ETFs as "simple" directional plays.  As marketed by
ProShares, Ultra ETFs are designed to go up when markets go up;
UltraShort ETFs are designed to go up when markets go down.  The
SRS Fund is one of ProShares' UltraShort ETFs.  The SRS Fund
seeks investment results that correspond to twice the inverse (-
200%) daily performance of the Dow Jones U.S. Real Estate Index
(DJREI), which measures the performance of the real estate
sector of the U.S. equity market.  Accordingly, the SRS Fund is
supposed to deliver double the inverse return of the DJREI,
which fell approximately 39.2 percent from January 2, 2008
through December 17, 2008, ostensibly creating a profit for
investors who anticipated a decline in the U.S. real estate
market.  In other words, the SRS Fund should have appreciated by
78.4 percent during this period.  However, the SRS Fund actually
fell approximately 48.2 percent during this period -- the
antithesis of a directional play.

     The complaint alleges the Defendants violated the
Securities Act by failing to disclose that the SRS Fund is
altogether defective as a directional investment play.
Defendants failed to disclose the following risks in the
Registration Statement:

       -- inverse correlation between the SRS Fund and the DJREI
          over time would only happen in the rarest of
          circumstances, and inadvertently if at all;

       -- the extent to which performance of the SRS Fund would
          inevitably diverge from the performance of the DJREI
          -- i.e., the probability, if not certainty, of
          spectacular tracking error;

       -- the severe consequences of high market volatility on
          the SRS Fund's investment objective and performance;

       -- the severe consequences of inherent path dependency in
          periods of high market volatility on the SRS Fund's
          performance;

       -- the role the SRS Fund plays in increasing market
          volatility, particularly in the last hour of trading;

       -- the consequences of the SRS Fund's daily hedge
          adjustment always going in the same direction as the
          movement of the underlying index, notwithstanding that
          it is an inverse leveraged ETF;

       -- the SRS Fund causes dislocations in the stock market;

       -- the SRS Fund offers a seemingly straightforward way to
          obtain desired exposure, but such exposure is not
          attainable through the SRS Fund.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 5, 2009.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stefanie J. Sundel, Esq.
          Labaton Sucharow LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Phone: 800-321-0476 or (212) 907-0700
          E-mail: ssundel@labaton.com
          Web site: http://www.labaton.com/


PROSHARES TRUST: Shalov Stone Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired shares in the UltraShort Financials
Proshares fund (NYSE: SKF) (PCX: SKF), an exchange-traded fund
offered by ProShares Trust, pursuant or traceable to ProShares'
Registration Statement, Prospectuses, and Statements of
Additional Information issued in connection with the SKF Fund's
shares.  The lawsuit is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

     The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by misrepresenting and failing to
disclose material adverse facts.  According to the complaint,
the defendants failed to disclose exceptional risks associated
with the SKF Fund.  Investors who purchased shares of SKF Fund
may have suffered losses that may be compensable under the law.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Amanda C. Scuder, Esq.
          Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP
          485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000
          New York, New York 10018
          Phone: (212) 239-4340
          Fax: (212) 239-4310
          E-mail: ascuder@lawssb.com
          Web site: http://www.lawssb.com/


PROSHARES TRUST: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the shares of UltraShort Real Estate
ProShares fund (NYSE: SRS) an exchange-traded fund offered by
ProShares Trust, pursuant or traceable to ProShares' false and
misleading Registration Statement, Prospectuses, and Statements
of Additional Information issued in connection with the SRS
Fund's shares against ProShares, trustees and the Treasurer of
ProShares, the SRS Fund's investment advisor, and its president,
and the SRS Fund's principal underwriter, alleging fraud
pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C.
Sections 77k and 77o].

     The case name is styled, "McBride v. ProShares Trust, et
al."

     ProShares consists of a series of ETFs, including the SRS
Fund. ETFs, regulated by the SEC under the Investment Company
Act of 1940, are low-cost funds that track a particular stock
index and trade like stock.  Non-traditional, or so-called
"leveraged" and/or "inverse" ETFs, such as the SRS Fund, have
exploded in popularity over the last few years, offering
investors alternate vehicles to take bullish, bearish, and
leveraged positions on popular stock indices.  Available in a
number of different forms, non-traditional ETFs have attracted
increasingly significant investor assets.

     ProShares is the fifth largest provider of ETFs in the
United States, and manages approximately 99 percent of the
country's short and leveraged ETFs.  ProShares designs each of
its ETFs to correspond to the performance of a daily benchmark-
such as the price performance, the inverse of the price
performance, or a multiple of the inverse of the price
performance-of an index or security. The SRS Fund, in
particular, seeks investment results that correspond to twice
the inverse (-200%) daily performance of the Dow Jones U.S. Real
Estate Index (DJREI), which measures the performance of the real
estate sector of the U.S. equity market.  The SRS Fund is
mandated to take positions in securities and/or financial
instruments that, in combination, should have similar daily
return characteristics as -200% of the daily return of the
DJREI.

     The Complaint alleges that ProShares states that the SRS
Fund seeks to replicate double the inverse return of the daily
returns of the DJREI, noting that it "does not seek to achieve
its stated investment objective over a period of time greater
than one day."  Of course, this statement does not warn
investors that holding the SRS Fund for more than a day will
most certainly lead to enormous losses.  In fact, ProShares
could not make that statement and remain in business with
respect to the SRS Fund.  As ProShares knows, investors do not
view ETFs as day trading investment vehicles and did not day-
trade the SRS Fund.  Moreover, it is virtually economically
impossible for all SRS Fund purchasers to sell out of their
positions at the end of one day.

     The Complaint also alleges that the SRS Fund is not a
simple investment vehicle, did not go up when its benchmark
index went down, and investors in the SRS Fund have been shocked
to learn that their supposedly safe hedge has caused them
substantial losses.  This action further alleges that Defendants
failed to disclose, among other things, the following risks in
the Registration Statement:

       -- the inverse correlation between the SRS Fund and the
          DJREI over time would only happen in the rarest of
          circumstances, and inadvertently if at all;

       -- the extent to which performance of the SRS Fund would
          inevitably diverge from the performance of the DJREI -
          i.e. the probability, if not certainty, of spectacular
          tracking error;

       -- the severe consequences of high market volatility on
          the SRS Fund's investment objective and performance;

       -- the severe consequences of inherent path dependency in
          periods of high market volatility on the SRS Fund's
          performance;

       -- the role the SRS Fund plays in increasing market
          volatility, particularly in the last hour of trading;

       -- the consequences of the SRS Fund's daily hedge
          adjustment always going in the same direction as the
          movement of the underlying index, notwithstanding that
          it is an inverse leveraged ETF;

       -- that the SRS Fund causes dislocations in the stock
          market; and

       -- that the SRS Fund offers a seemingly straightforward
          way to obtain desired exposure, but such exposure is
          not attainable through the SRS Fund.

     In ignorance of the false and misleading nature of the
statements described in the complaint, and the deceptive and
manipulative devices and contrivances employed by said
defendants, plaintiff and the other members of the Class relied,
to their detriment, on the integrity of the market price of the
SRS Trust shares.  Had plaintiff and the other members of the
Class known the truth, they would not have purchased said
shares, or would not have purchased them at the inflated prices
that were paid.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 5, 2009.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
          Russell S. Miness, Esq.
          Derek Behnke, Esq.
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, New York 10016
          Phone: 800-575-0735
          E-mail: classmember@whafh.com
          Web site: http://www.whafh.com/


STIEFEL LABORATORIES: Ruden McClosky Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A., announces
that an action styled James A. Bacon, Karl F. Popp, and Marion
Burk v. Stiefel Laboratories, Inc., Charles W. Stiefel, Brent D.
Stiefel, Todd Stiefel, Lodewijk de Vink, Committee Member #1,
Committee Member #2, Committee Member #3, Matt S. Pattullo,
Terence N. Bogush, CPA, and Bogush & Grady, LLP, Case No. 09-
21871 (S.D. Fla.) has been filed on behalf of a proposed class.

     The proposed class is defined as: all vested participants
in the Stiefel Laboratories, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan
who sold their shares or directed that the shares in their
account in the Plan be sold to the Company on or before March
31, 2009.  The Complaint also includes at least one sub-class of
class plaintiffs defined as: all vested participants in the
Company's Plan who sold their shares or directed that the shares
in their account in the Plan be sold to the Company from
November 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009.  The proposed class or
sub-class does not include any of the Defendants.

     The Complaint asserts several claims against some or all of
the Defendants, in seven counts.  In addition to counts
asserting claims under the federal Employee Retirement Income
Securities Act, and counts asserting state law claims for
violation of the Florida Securities Act, for accountant
malpractice, and for breach of fiduciary duty, Count IV of the
Complaint asserts claims for damages and attorneys' fees against
Stiefel Laboratories, Inc., and Charles W. Stiefel, for
violations of federal securities laws under 15 U.S.C. Sections
78j and 78t of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (Sections
19(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5), with regard to shares of
Company Stock in the Plan.

     The Complaint in this action alleges that uniform
misrepresentations and omissions were made to all class members,
that concealed the actual fair value of the Plan stock held by
the Plan as of the time of the misrepresentations and omissions.  
These misrepresentations and omissions were made to all class
members in written correspondence sent by Charles Stiefel and
other Company personnel.

     The claims asserted in this Action, including the federal
securities law violation claims, are based upon the Company's
undervaluing of the Company Stock by using an unqualified and
negligent appraiser for more than 20 years, by means of which
the Company has regularly bought its stock from terminated,
retired or otherwise separated vested Plan participants for less
than fair value.

     In addition, the Complaint alleges that the sub-class of
plaintiffs who sold Company stock from November 1, 2008 through
March 31, 2009 is additionally damaged because the Company
failed to disclose, and actively concealed and denied, that it
was negotiating for the imminent sale of the Company at a much
greater value per share than the price under which the Company
was inducing and encouraging vested Plan participants to sell or
direct the sale of their stock interest back to the Company,
through one or more of the following: termination; the offering
of a "first time ever" opportunity to request "diversification"
of all or a portion of the Company Stock in an Employee Plan
participant's account at the most recent stock price; or through
enabling Employee Plan participants to submit a request, on or
before certain "key dates," to obtain a distribution and "put"
of Company Stock from their account.

     The Complaint asserts that as a result, Defendants were
able to reduce the outstanding number of shares of Company Stock
by approximately 4,355 shares, thus increasing the value to the
remaining shareholders and entities' stock value by
approximately $226 million, and damaging the Plaintiffs and
members of the proposed class.

The plaintiffs are represented by:     

          Norman Segall, Esq.
          Beth-Ann Krimsky, Esq.
          Jennifer Walker, Esq.
          Ruden, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A.
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-789-2700 or 954-764-6660
          Fax: (305) 789-2727
          E-mail: norman.segall@ruden.com
                  beth-ann.krimsky@ruden.com
                  jennifer.walker@ruden.com
          Web site: http://www.ruden.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, 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  * * *