CAR_Public/090915.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, September 15, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 182
  
                            Headlines

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Continues Litigating Claims in Labor Suit
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: "Ross" Suit Certification Ruling on Appeal
AOL: Settles E-Mail Footer Litigation for Legal Fees & Donation
AT&T: Lawsuit Says Carrier Improperly Profits from Phone Thefts
CASEY'S GENERAL: Discovery in Motor Fuel Practices Suit Ongoing

CASEY'S GENERAL: Oct. 9 Final Approval Trial Set for Settlement
CHICO'S FAS: Defends Suit by Massey Haefner in San Diego, Calif.
COOK COUNTY: 7th Cir. Vacates Certification of Detainee Class
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Discovery Stayed; Awaiting Ruling on Dismissal
JO-ANN STORES: Defending "Blair" Wage and Hour Suit in Calif.

KITEC PLUMBING: Seven More Nevada Homebuilders Agree to Settle
LIFE SCIENCES: Faces Consolidated Amended Complaint Over Merger
LITTON LOAN: Report Hints More Loan Servicing Litigation Coming
MACY'S INC: Stipulation to Dismiss "Decristofaro" Suit Pending
MACY'S INC: Ohio Litigation Over 401(k) Plan Remains Ongoing

MDL NO. 1663: 3rd Circuit Upholds Insurance Antitrust Settlements
NOVELL INC: Sept. 2009 Final Approval Hearing Set for Settlement
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Employee Class Sues for Denial of Overtime Pay
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: "Maulano" Securities Suit Junked in July
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: EA Buyout Offer Suit Deal Approved in June

TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Appeal to Nixed GTA Lawsuit Deal Pending
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Settlement of N.Y. Securities Suit Pending
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Faces Remaining Claims in "St. Clair" Suit
TARGET CORP: Plaintiff Seeks to Add 3 States to "AirBorne" Class
TOYOTA MOTOR: Charged with Withholding Rollover Info in E.D. Tex.

WELLS FARGO: Sued in N.D. Calif. for Improper HELOC Suspensions
WM. WRIGLEY: Orbit White Gum's Teeth Whitening Claims Questioned
      
                            *********

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Continues Litigating Claims in Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., are
continuing to litigate the remaining claims in a class-action
lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles, according to the company's
Sept. 8, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 1, 2009.

The suit was filed by Lisa Hashimoto on June 23, 2006.  She,
along with several other plaintiffs, alleged on behalf of a
putative class of California store managers employed in
Hollister and Abercrombie stores that they were entitled to
receive overtime pay as "non-exempt" employees under California
wage and hour laws.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief, equitable relief, unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid benefits, penalties, interest and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The defendants filed an answer to the complaint on Aug. 21,
2006.  The parties engaged in discovery.

On Dec. 10, 2007, the defendants reached an agreement in
principle with the plaintiffs' counsel to settle certain claims
in the action.

The agreement resulted in a written Stipulation and Settlement
Agreement, effective as of Feb. 7, 2008, settling all claims of
Hollister and Abercrombie store managers who served in the
stores from June 23, 2002, to April 30, 2004.

On June 23, 2008, the Superior Court approved that proposed
partial settlement.  The partial settlement does not affect
claims which are alleged to have arisen in the period commencing
on April 30, 2004, but continued to oppose the plaintiffs'
remaining claims.

On Jan. 29, 2009, the Court certified a class consisting of all
store managers who served at Hollister and abercrombie stores in
California from May 1, 2004, through the future date upon which
the action concludes.   

Abercrombie & Fitch Co. -- http://www.abercrombie.com/-- is a
specialty retailer that operates stores selling casual apparel,
such as knit shirts, graphic t-shirts, jeans, woven shirts,
shorts, as well as personal care and other accessories for men,
women and kids under the Abercrombie & Fitch, Abercrombie,
Hollister and RUEHL brands.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: "Ross" Suit Certification Ruling on Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, on Aug. 24,
2009, granted the defendants leave to appeal the class
certification order in the consolidated securities fraud suit,
Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et al., Case No. 05-cv-00819
(S.D. Ohio.) (Sargus, J.).

The suit was filed on behalf of a purported class of all persons
who purchased or acquired shares of Class A Common Stock of the
company between June 2, 2005, and Aug. 16, 2005.

The first suit, "Robert Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et
al.," was filed on Sept. 2, 2005.  The suit also named as
defendants the company's officers.

In September and October of 2005, five other purported class-
action suits were filed against the company and other defendants
with the same court.

All six cases seek to allege claims under the federal securities
laws as a result of a decline in the price of the company's
Class A Common Stock in the summer of 2005.

On Nov. 1, 2005, a motion to consolidate all these purported
class-actions into the first case was filed by some of the
plaintiffs.  The company joined in that motion.

On March 22, 2006, the motions to consolidate were granted, and
these actions were consolidated for purposes of motion practice,
discovery and pretrial proceedings.

A consolidated amended securities class action complaint was
filed on Aug. 14, 2006.  On Oct. 13, 2006, all the defendants
moved to dismiss that complaint.

On Aug. 9, 2007, the Court denied the motions to dismiss.  On
Sept. 14, 2007, the defendants filed answers denying the
material allegations of the Complaint and asserting affirmative
defenses.

On Oct. 26, 2007, the plaintiffs moved to certify their
purported class.  After briefings and argument, the motion was
submitted on March 24, 2009, and granted on May 21, 2009.

On June 5, 2009, defendants petitioned The Sixth Circuit for
permission to appeal the class certification order, according to
the company's Sept. 8, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 1,
2009.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Keith W. Schneider, Esq.
         Maguire & Schneider
         250 Civic Center Drive, Suite 200
         Columbus, OH 43215
         Phone: 614-224-1222
         Fax: 614-224-1236
         E-mail: kwschneider@maguire-schneider.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Philip Albert Brown, Esq.
         Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease
         52 East Gay Street
         Columbus, OH 43216-1008
         Phone: 614-464-6400
         Fax: 614-464-6400
         E-mail: pabrown@vssp.com

              - and -

         Roger Philip Sugarman, Esq.
         Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter
         65 E State Street, Suite 1800
         Columbus, OH 43215-4294
         Phone: 614-462-5400
         Fax: 614-462-5422
         E-mail: rsugarman@keglerbrown.com

              - and -

         Michael Roy Szolosi, Sr., Esq.
         McNamara and McNamara
         88 East Broad Street, Suite 1250
         Columbus, OH 43215
         Phone: 614-228-6131
         E-mail: mrs@mcnamaralaw.us


AOL: Settles E-Mail Footer Litigation for Legal Fees & Donation
---------------------------------------------------------------
           OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION
                      AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

If You Are Currently an AOL Member Your Rights May Be Affected by
a Proposed Class Action Settlement.

    * The Proposed Settlement is on behalf of all current AOL
      Members.  It resolves claims regarding advertising or
      promotional "footers" that may have been appended to the
      bottom of your e-mails by AOL.

    * The Proposed Settlement provides that all current AOL
      Members will immediately be provided notice of the footers
      and their ability to discontinue the footers via AOL
      Keyword: Footer and http://footer.aol.com/,and that, if  
      AOL continues to append footers to its Members' e-mails,
      such notice will be provided both to all new customers upon
      their registration of an AOL account and to all current AOL
      Members on a regular, periodic basis (every six months for
      two years)

    * The Proposed Settlement provides that AOL shall make
      donations to several different charities totaling $103,000.

    * If you do nothing and this Proposed Settlement is approved
      by the Court you will be part of the Settlement Class and
      bound by the terms of the Settlement.

    * The Court still has to decide whether to approve the
      Proposed Settlement. Settlement Class Members will receive
       the benefits of the Settlement after the Court approves
       the Settlement.

PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE DIRECTLY TO THE COURT.

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED WHETHER OR NOT YOU ACT.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.

YOUR RIGHTS AND CHOICES:

You may:

   A. Do Nothing (see Question Nos. 7 and 15)

      - or -

   B. Exclude Yourself (see Question Nos. 11 - 13).  
      Notices must be filed by November 20, 2009.

      - or -

   C. Object to the Settlement (see Question Nos. 14)
      Objections must be Filed and Received by December 7, 2009.

      - or -

   D. Appear in the Lawsuit (see Question No. 14)
      Pleadings mist be Filed and Received by December 7, 2009

1. WHO SHOULD READ THIS NOTICE?

If you are presently an AOL customer you should read this notice.
Your legal rights are affected by the proposed Settlement of a
class action lawsuit, Fairchild et al v. AOL, Case No. CV09-03568
CAS (PLAx), which is pending in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California.  This Notice explains:

    -- What this Lawsuit is about;
    -- Who is included in the Settlement;
    -- How the Settlement will benefit you;
    -- How to get the benefits of the Settlement; and
    -- What your legal rights are.

If you have any questions regarding this Notice, please send an
e-mail to footerlitigation@corp.aol.com, which will be shared
with Settlement Class Counsel. If you send an e-mail, please be
sure to include the name of the lawsuit (Fairchild v. AOL) in the
Subject Line. However, please read the entire Notice before
writing.  A copy of this Notice is also available online at
http://legal.web.aol.com/Footersettlement.pdf

PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE DIRECTLY TO THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S
OFFICE.

2. WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT?

This Lawsuit was brought by Plaintiffs Dawn Fairchild, Robert
Nachshin, Brian Geers and Larry Gerrard against Defendant AOL
LLC. Plaintiffs allege that (1) the failure to inform them that
AOL would insert e-mail footers in their sent e-mails and (2) the
insertion of such footers, violate the law.

AOL denies Plaintiffs' allegations and maintains that it acted in
accordance with all laws and regulations.

3. WHO REPRESENTS ME IN THIS CASE?

The Court has appointed the following attorneys in the Fairchild
Action to act as Settlement Class Counsel:

          Glenn Nunes, Esq.
          The Nunes Law Group
          101 California St. Suite 2450
          San Francisco, CA
          Telephone (415) 946-8894

               - and -
          
          Christopher J. Hamner, Esq.
          Hamner Law Offices
          15760 Ventura Blvd Ste 860
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone (818) 386-0444

               - and -
          
          Brian Kabateck, Esq.
          Richard Kellner, Esq.
          Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone (213) 217-5000

4. WHY IS THERE A SETTLEMENT?

The Court has not decided who is right or wrong in this lawsuit.
Instead, the Settlement Class Representatives and AOL agreed to a
Settlement, which was preliminarily approved by the Court on
August 25, 2009.  As a result of the Settlement, all parties
avoid the costs of further litigation and risks of a trial and
Settlement Class members may obtain the benefits of the
Settlement.

The Settlement Class Representatives believe that the case has
merit and that the evidence supports their claims. The Settlement
Class representatives determined that the proposed settlement is
fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the
Settlement Class.  The Settlement will permit Plaintiffs and the
Settlement Class Members to receive full and complete disclosure
of AOL's practice of appending e-mail footers and the ability
simply and easily to discontinue these footers, without the time,
risk and expense of litigation. AOL has also agreed to contribute
significant sums to 7 charities as part of this settlement.

AOL does not believe that Plaintiffs' claims have factual or
legal merit.  However, AOL desires to avoid unnecessary
litigation costs while also ensuring that it has taken adequate
steps to ensure that consumers are fully aware of the footers and
their ability to discontinue them.

In an effort to resolve this matter, the parties engaged The Hon.
Dickran Tevrezian, (Ret.) U.S. District Judge for the Central
District of California, to mediate a resolution. The parties were
thereby able to negotiate a settlement.

5. HOW DO I KNOW IF I AM PART OF THE SETTLEMENT?

If you are a current AOL member and are not an employee of AOL,
their counsel, or an immediate family member of an employee or
their counsel you are in the class and are part of this
settlement.

6. WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE AND HOW WILL I RECEIVE
   THE BENEFITS?

The Settlement provides that all current AOL Members will be
provided e-mail notice of the footers and their ability to
discontinue the footers via AOL Keyword: Footer and
http://footer.aol.com/,and that, if AOL continues to append  
footers to its Members' e-mails, such notice will be provided
both to all new customers upon their registration of an AOL
account and to all current AOL Members on a regular, periodic
basis (every six months for two years).

7. HOW CAN I GET THE BENEFITS OF THE SETTLEMENT?

To obtain the benefits of this Settlement all you need to do is
not opt-out of this Settlement.

8. WHEN WILL I GET THE BENEFITS OF THIS SETTLEMENT?

If the Court approves the Settlement, AOL will send you the
notice explaining how to discontinue the footers within 30 days
of approval.

9. AM I GIVING ANYTHING UP IN EXCHANGE FOR THE BENEFITS OF
   THE SETTLEMENT?

Yes.  If the Court approves the Settlement, it will enter a
judgment dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice as to all
Settlement Class Members and releasing all claims they may have
against AOL regarding advertising or promotional "footers" that
may have been appended to the bottom of their e-mails by AOL. In
other words, by remaining in the Settlement Class, all of the
Court's Orders will apply to you and you will thereby release all
claims that you may have regarding advertising or promotional
"footers" that may have been appended to the bottom of your e-
mails by AOL, thereby barring you from bringing your own lawsuit
based on such claims.

10. IF I CURRENTLY USE AOL, WILL THIS SETTLEMENT CANCEL OR
    INTERRUPT MY SUBSCRIPTION?

No.  Neither the settlement nor this lawsuit affects your ongoing
online service.  If you have any questions about your existing
subscription, please contact AOL Member Services.

11. CAN I GET OUT OF THE SETTLEMENT AND THE SETTLEMENT CLASS?

Yes.  You may request to be excluded from the Settlement and the
Settlement Class. If you exclude yourself, you will not receive
any of the benefits of the Settlement.  You will still have the
right to bring your own lawsuit.  The deadline to exclude
yourself is November 20, 2009.

12. HOW DO I EXCLUDE MYSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT?

To exclude yourself, you must, no later than November 20, 2009,
send an e-mail to settlementoptout@corp.aol.com requesting
exclusion from the Settlement.

Your e-mail should include all of the following:

     -- Your name, address and telephone number;

     -- A statement that you wish to be excluded from the lawsuit
        and the Settlement.

13. IF I EXCLUDE MYSELF, CAN I OBTAIN THE BENEFITS OF, OR
    COMMENT ON, THE SETTLEMENT?

No.  If you exclude yourself, you are no longer part of the Class
or the Settlement.  You will not receive any benefits from the
Settlement and the Court will not consider your comments in
support of or in opposition to the Settlement.

14. CAN I TELL THE COURT IF I SUPPORT OR OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT
    OR THAT I WANT TO APPEAR AT THE FINAL SETTLEMENT APPROVAL
    HEARING?

Yes.  So long as you do not exclude yourself, you can tell the
Court that you support or object to the Settlement or some part
of it.

To comment in support of, or in opposition to, the Settlement,
you must file a letter with the Clerk of the Court, United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Western
Division, 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 on or
before December 7, 2009, and mail a copy to: AOL E-mail Footer
Litigation Settlement, P.O. Box 65771, Sterling, VA 20165-8806.
Your letter must be received no later than December 7, 2009.

Your letter should include all of the following:

      * Your name, address and telephone number;

      * The name and number of the lawsuit: Fairchild v. AOL,
        Case No. CV 09-03568 CAS (PLAx);

      * A statement of the reasons why you believe the Settlement
        is or is not fair, reasonable, or adequate; and

      * A statement regarding whether you (or your lawyer) wish
        to speak at the Settlement Fairness Hearing.  If you
        object, you may, but are not required to, appear at the
        Final Approval Hearing, either in person or through an
        attorney retained and paid by you.  

The Fairness Hearing will take place on December 28, 2009, at
10:00 AM. The Court is located at 312 North Spring Street, Los
Angeles, CA 90012, Courtroom 5.  If you or your attorney intend
to appear at the Final Approval Hearing, you or your attorney
must file a written Notice of Intention to Appear, together with
any supporting legal memoranda and evidence, with the Clerk of
the Court no later than December 7, 2009, and mail a copy to: AOL
E-mail Footer Litigation Settlement, P.O. Box 65771, Sterling, VA
20165-8806. The Notice of Intention to Appear must be received no
later than December 7, 2009.  If you do not appear at the
hearing, you waive the right to appeal.

15. WHAT HAPPENS IF I DO NOTHING AT ALL?

If you do nothing, you will receive any and all benefits under
the Settlement, and you will be subject to the Release (described
in Question No. 9).

16. IF I WANT TO KEEP THE E-MAIL FOOTERS WILL I BE ABLE TO?

Yes.  This Settlement only gives you as the Member the option to
discontinue these footers.

17. WHO PAYS THE LAWYERS AND HOW MUCH WILL THEY BE PAID?

If the Court approves the Settlement, the lawyers for the
Settlement Class will apply to the Court for an award of the fees
and costs that they have incurred over the course of this
lawsuit.  AOL has agreed to pay up to $250,000 in fees and costs,
in addition to the $103,000 in charitable donations, and the
costs of administering the Settlement, including the notice
process. AOL's payment of attorneys' fees and litigation costs
will not reduce any amounts paid or credited to the Charities.

18. WHEN AND WHERE WILL THE COURT DECIDE WHETHER TO
    APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT?

A Fairness Hearing will be held at 10:00 AM on December 28, 2009.
The Court is located at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA
90012, Courtroom 5. At the Fairness Hearing, the Court will
consider whether the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate to Settlement Class Members. As part of making this
determination, the Court will consider the views of Settlement
Class Members both in favor of and opposed to the Settlement. The
Court will further consider Settlement Class Counsel's request
for attorneys' fees and litigation costs. After the hearing, the
Court will decide whether to approve the Settlement and
attorneys' fees and costs.

19. HOW DO I GET MORE INFORMATION?

This Notice only provides a summary of the Settlement. The full
terms of the Settlement are set forth in the Settlement
Agreement. You can read the Settlement Agreement and the other
documents in this lawsuit during regular business hours, at the
Clerk of the Court, United States District Court for the Central
District of California, Western Division, 312 North Spring
Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 (fees may apply for copies of these
documents).

PLEASE DO NOT CALL THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK.

THIS NOTICE IS NOT AN EXPRESSION BY THE COURT AS TO THE FAIRNESS
OR ADEQUACY OF THE SETTLEMENT.

Dated: August 25, 2009          By Order of the Court
                                THE HONORABLE CHRISTINA A SNYDER


AT&T: Lawsuit Says Carrier Improperly Profits from Phone Thefts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Dalzell Walsh at Courthouse News Service reports that AT&T
refuses to disable or track down stolen cell phones and allows
the thieves to re-register them in a new name, according to a
class action lawsuit filed in Federal Court.

The class claims AT&T aids and abets the conversion of stolen
phones, profits again by making victims buy replacements, and
profits again when the thieves pay fees for service after
reregistering the phones.

Named plaintiff Kyra Powell says she told AT&T that her cell
phone was stolen in Atlanta, but it refused to track down or
disable the phone.

Ms. Powell seeks class damages of more than $5 million, alleging
conversion, trespass and unjust enrichment.

A copy of the complaint in Powell v. AT&T Inc., Case No.
09-cv-1800 (N.D. Ala.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/11/StolenGizmos.pdf
     
Ms. Powell is represented by:

          D. Frank Davis, Esq.
          John E. Norris, Esq.
          Wesley W. Barnett, Esq.
          DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP
          The Bradshaw House
          2154 Highland Avenue
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: 205-930-9900

The lawsuit was filed last Tuesday, two days after The New York
Times reported that major U.S. electronic companies, including
Apple, Amazon and Sirius XM Radio, refuse to disable stolen
electronic devices in the United States, though doing so is an
easy process in Canada and the European Union.  The companies
make most of their money not from the devices, but from monthly
service fees or, in the case of Amazon's Kindle reading machine,
from online book purchases.


CASEY'S GENERAL: Discovery in Motor Fuel Practices Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated Motor Fuel Temperature
Sales Practices Litigation against Casey's General Stores, Inc.,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas in Kansas
City.

The company is named as a defendant in four lawsuits ("hot fuel"
cases) brought in the federal courts in Kansas and Missouri
against a variety of gasoline retailers.  

The complaints generally allege that the company, along with
numerous other retailers, has misrepresented gasoline volumes
dispensed at its pumps by failing to compensate for expansion
that occurs when fuel is sold at temperatures above 60-degrees
Fahrenheit.  

Fuel is measured at 60-degrees Fahrenheit in wholesale purchase
transactions and computation of motor fuel taxes in Kansas and
Missouri.  

The complaints all seek certification as class actions on behalf
of gasoline consumers within those two states, and one of the
complaints also seeks certification for a class consisting of
gasoline consumers in all states.  

The actions generally seek recovery for alleged violations of
state consumer protection or unfair merchandising practices
statutes, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, civil conspiracy, and violation of the duty of good
faith and fair dealing; several seek injunctive relief and
punitive damages.

These actions are among a total of 45 similar lawsuits now
pending in 28 jurisdictions, including 25 states, Guam, the
District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands, against a wide
range of defendants that produce, refine, distribute, and/or
market gasoline products in the United States.  

On June 18, 2007, the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ordered that all of the pending hot fuel cases
(officially, the "Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices
Litigation") be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas in Kansas City, Kansas, for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings, including rulings on discovery
matters, various pretrial motions, and class certification.  
Discovery efforts by both sides are being pursued, according to
the company's Sept. 8, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2009.

Casey's General Stores, Inc. -- http://www.caseys.com/--  
operates convenience stores under the name Casey's General Store
in nine Midwest states, primarily Iowa, Missouri and Illinois.


CASEY'S GENERAL: Oct. 9 Final Approval Trial Set for Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 9, 2009 final approval hearing has been set for the
settlement of two purported collective and class actions filed
against Casey's General Stores, Inc., in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.

In April 2009, the company and five individual directors or
officers entered into settlement agreements with plaintiffs in  
the two suits, which are:

   -- Kristina Jones, et al. v. Casey's General Stores, Inc.,
      Robert J. Myers, Ronald M. Lamb, Terry W. Handley, Robert
      C. Ford, and Julia L. Jackowski, individually; and

   -- Connie Wineland, et al. v. Casey's General Stores, Inc.,
      Robert J. Myers, Ronald M. Lamb, Terry W. Handley, Robert
      C. Ford, and Julia L. Jackowski.

The two actions were brought by plaintiffs seeking to represent
approximately 7,800 current and former assistant managers (Jones
action) and approximately 76,000 current and former non-
management-level store employees (Wineland action).

The plaintiffs generally sought back wages, liquidated damages,
penalties, attorneys fees and costs, and equitable relief
pursuant to various federal and state wage and hour laws and
related common law causes of action.

Under the settlement agreements, the company has agreed to pay
all putative plaintiffs and their counsel in both actions a total
of $11.7 million (inclusive of plaintiffs' attorneys fees and
costs); the company's directors and officers insurance carrier
has agreed to pay $3.0 million of that amount on behalf of all
defendants.  The company also has agreed to pay up to $400,000 in
related settlement administration expenses.  In exchange, the
company will be released from the state law claims of all
putative plaintiffs who do not opt-out of the settlement for any
covered claims arising since May 7, 2005, in the Jones action and
since Jan. 10, 2006 in the Wineland action.  In addition, any
plaintiffs who previously opted in to the putative collective
actions will be releasing FLSA claims arising since Nov. 1, 2004,
in the Jones action and since April 15, 2005, in the Wineland
action.  Pursuant to the settlement agreements, the company
expressly denies any and all liability to the plaintiffs.

The settlement agreements have been filed with the Court as
attachments to the parties' joint motions for approval of the
settlements, and a hearing on the joint motions was held on May
18, 2009.  Following the hearing, the Court entered Orders
granting preliminary approval of the settlement, approving the
Notices of Class Action and Claim Forms to be distributed to
class members, according to the company's Sept. 8, 2009, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 31, 2009.

Casey's General Stores, Inc. -- http://www.caseys.com/--  
operates convenience stores under the name Casey's General Store
in nine Midwest states, primarily Iowa, Missouri and Illinois.


CHICO'S FAS: Defends Suit by Massey Haefner in San Diego, Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. remains named as defendant in a putative class
action in the Superior Court for the State of California, County
of San Diego.

The suit is Michele L. Massey Haefner v. Chico's FAS, Inc.

The Complaint, filed in June 2008, alleges that the company, in
violation of California law, requested or required customers to
provide personal identification information in conjunction with
credit card transactions.

The company filed an answer denying the material allegations of
the Complaint.

The parties have exchanged class certification briefs and the
Court has scheduled a hearing on class certification in
September, according to the company's Sept. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 31, 2009.

Chico's FAS, Inc. -- http://www.chicosfas.com-- is a specialty  
retailer of private branded, casual-to-dressy clothing,
intimates, complementary accessories, and other non-clothing gift
items under the Chico's, White House |Black Market and Soma
Intimates brand names.  The Chico's brand sells designed, private
branded clothing focusing on women 35 and over with a moderate to
high income level.


COOK COUNTY: 7th Cir. Vacates Certification of Detainee Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that former
detainees of Cook County Jail lost their ability to proceed with
a class action challenging the jail's process of releasing them.
The 7th Circuit found the claims too individual to litigate
collectively.

Lead plaintiff Robert Harper was held in Cook County Jail after
being arrested in September 2005.  As he was being processed
through the system, his wife posted a $15,000 cash bond.  He
claimed that he and other detainees should have been released
immediately following their bond payments.

The district court granted his motion to certify a class action
against Cook County's sheriff, but ordered him to submit a new
class definition within two weeks, because the first was too
broad.  Mr. Harper had defined the class as "[a]ll persons
processed into the Cook County Jail on and after May 2, 2005,
while that person, or someone acting on his (or her) behalf,
sought to post cash bond."

The detentions, Harper said, caused "unreasonable deprivation of
liberty."

Mr. Harper described being placed into "an overcrowded and
unsanitary animal cage."  Among other things, he said the
processing involved "the non-consensual insertion of a swab into
[his] penis [to test for STDs], the nonconsensual taking of
blood, and a strip search which was conducted in a manner
calculated to embarrass and humiliate."

"Harper's actual complaint makes it seem that he is seeking to
challenge the specific intake procedures utilized by the Sheriff
such as the strip search and STD test," Judge Bauer wrote for the
three-judge appellate panel.  "But [Mr.] Harper assured us
multiple times at oral argument that this case is not about
searching and swabbing."  The Chicago-based court found nothing
unconstitutional about the jail's procedures, unless the process
takes too long.

But the time between a bond being posted and the release of a
detainee depends on a number of factors, which are ultimately
"individual issues," the court said.

It vacated class certification and sent the case back to the
district court.

A copy of the Seventh Circuit's Opinion in Harper v. Cook County,
No. 08-3413 (7th Cir.), is available at http://is.gd/3f9oz


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Discovery Stayed; Awaiting Ruling on Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda McGlasson at BankInfoSecurity.com reports that preliminary
legal hearings have begun in the class action suit against
Heartland Payment Systems, the U.S.-based payments processor that
was breached in 2008.

More than 30 financial institutions from 22 states have joined
the lawsuit against Heartland, which is the largest data breach
on record, with a reported 130 million credit and debit cards
stolen.

One of the lawyers representing the financial institutions,
Richard Coffman, Esq., of Beaumont, TX, describes the case
management conference in late August as a "very good one" for the
banks.  A preliminary case management hearing was held on August
24 in Houston's Southern District Court of Texas, before Judge
Lee H. Rosenthal, who set the dates for future hearings in the
case,

There are two class action suits -- one on the consumer side and
the second on behalf of the financial institutions affected by
the massive breach.  

On June 10, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
directed that the suits would be transferred and consolidated in
Houston, Tex., in In re: Heartland Payment Systems, Inc.,
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 2046; Master
Docket No. 09-md-2046 (S.D. Tex.) (Rosenthal, J.).

A separate set of securities cases, all filed in New Jersey, will
be consolidated and brought to one court later this fall. The MDL
panel will decide on those cases in October, Coffman notes.
"Heartland is trying to get them consolidated and heard in
Houston as well," he says.

Judge Rosenthal's decisions on August 24 dealt with leadership of
the class action suits.  On the financial institutions' suits,
three lawyers were named co-lead counsel:

     -- Mike Cadell, Esq., of Houston, Tex.,

     -- Joe Sauder, Esq., of Haverford, Pa., and

     -- Richard Coffman, Esq.

Mr. Coffman said that the biggest battle during the August 24
hearing was discovery; specifically, what Heartland will be
required to produce now and what will be deferred until next
spring after Heartland's anticipated motion to dismiss is argued.  
Heartland already has filed a motion with the Court asking that
all discovery be stayed until after the Court rules on the motion
to dismiss.  Mr. Coffman anticipated that the Court will rule on
Heartland's motion to stay discovery shortly.

Currently the financial institutions are required to file their
amended consolidated complaint by September 23.  Thereafter,
Heartland must file its motion to dismiss by October 23.  
Briefing on the motion will be completed by mid-December.  Mr.
Coffman anticipates that it will be argued in early January with
a ruling to follow shortly thereafter.  Until the Court issues
the ruling, Mr. Coffman expects no real action to take place in
the litigation.

The Heartland data breach is believed to be the largest data
breach on record, compromising as many as 130 million credit
cards and debit cards.  Mr. Coffman estimates that the number of
financial institutions impacted by the data breach is much higher
than the 670 reported on BankInfoSecurity's list at
http://www.bankinfosecurity.com/articles.php?art_id=1200 Mr.  
Coffman believes the list probably reflects only about 20 percent
of the institutions that have replaced compromised credit cards
and debit cards and absorbed their customers' unauthorized
charges.


JO-ANN STORES: Defending "Blair" Wage and Hour Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jo-Ann Stores, Inc., continues to defend a purported wage and
hour class-action suit, Patti Blair et al. v. Jo-Ann Stores, Inc.
et al., Case No. BC394795 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles) (filed
July 21, 2008), according to the company's Sept. 8, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Aug. 1, 2009.

In the complaint, as amended, six former company employees,
individually and on behalf of the purported class members,
allege that certain current and former California store team
leaders employed by the company since July 21, 2004, were
classified improperly as exempt employees (and thus not paid for
overtime work), and that current and former hourly employees
employed by the company's California stores since July 21, 2004,
missed rest and meal breaks for which they were not properly
compensated and at times worked off the clock without
compensation.

The amended complaint alleges other violations of California law
arising from the alleged wage and hour violations.  The amended
complaint seeks substantial monetary damages, injunctive relief
and attorney's fees.

On May 19, 2009 the court certified this matter to proceed as a
class action.

Jo-Ann Stores, Inc. -- http://www.joann.com/-- is a specialty
retailer of fabrics and crafts, serving customers in their
pursuit of apparel and craft sewing, crafting, home decorating
and other creative endeavors.  The company's retail stores
(operating as Jo-Ann Fabric and Craft stores and Jo-Ann stores)
and Website (www.Joann.com) feature a variety of merchandise
used in sewing, crafting and home decorating projects, including
fabrics, notions, crafts, frames, paper crafting material,
artificial floral, home accents, finished seasonal and home
decor merchandise.  As of Jan. 31, 2009, the company operated
764 stores in 47 states (554 small-format stores and 210 large-
format stores).


KITEC PLUMBING: Seven More Nevada Homebuilders Agree to Settle
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff pope at the Las Vegas Sun reports that additional
settlements were approved last week by the Honorable Timothy C.
Williams of the Clark County District Court in Nevada in a class-
action suit over faulty Kitec plumbing fixtures manufactured by
Canada-based IPEX, Inc. that were installed in homes.

Deals reached with six builders and two plumbers that installed
Kitec plumbing fixtures during the housing boom were fair to
homeowners, said Judge Williams.

The settlement funds will be added to those reached previously in
the lawsuit and will allow affected homeowners to have a complete
repiping of their homes at no cost to them.

According to court records, Kitec fixtures corrode from a process
called dezincification in which water removes zinc from brass
fittings and turns it into silt that collects in the pipes. Over
time, the accumulated zinc causes blockages that can potentially
rupture water lines.

Kitec-maker IPEX agreed to pay $90 million but that settlement
has been appealed by Sharp Plumbing to the state Supreme Court.

Last week's settlements include:

     -- Classic Plumbing: $5,245,000 for 2,688 homes constructed
        by seven builders

     -- Desert Wind Homes: $194,400

     -- DR Horton: $1,309,900 for about 368 houses

     -- H&H Homes: $126,000 for 35 houses

     -- KB Homes (second settlement): $5,747,796 for 2,383 houses

     -- Pulte and PNII: $3,437,500 for 550 houses

     -- Wexford Homes: $625,000 for 72 houses

Additionally, Lakewood Plumbing contributed $108,000 to Desert
Wind Homes for a combined total of $302,400.

Previous settlements were reported in the Class Action Reporter
on Aug. 13, 2009.  

A trial for remaining defendants is scheduled for Sept. 30.


LIFE SCIENCES: Faces Consolidated Amended Complaint Over Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Consolidated Amended Class Action and Derivative Complaint was
filed on Aug. 29, 2009, with respect to the proposed merger of
Life Sciences Research, Inc. with and into Lion Merger Corp.

The Consolidated Complaint was filed with respect to the proposed
merger of the company with and into Lion Merger, an entity
controlled by Andrew Baker, the Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer of the company, contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated July 8, 2009, by and among the company, Lion
Holdings, Inc. and Merger Sub.  

The complaint combines and supplements the two previously
disclosed existing actions brought with respect to the Merger:
Berger v. Life Sciences Research, et al., which was originally
filed on March 9, 2009, and was amended on July 13, 2009, and
Oakland v. Life Sciences Research, Inc., et al., which was filed
on Aug. 10, 2009.  

The consolidation of the two actions is subject to court
approval.  

The Consolidated Complaint was filed in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Chancery Division, Somerset County (Civil Action No. SOM-
C-12006-09) and names as defendants the company, Mr. Baker and
the other members of the company's Board of Directors.  

The Consolidated Complaint, which makes both direct and
derivative claims, alleges, among other things, that the
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
Merger by agreeing to sell the company for an unfair price
pursuant to an unfair process and by filing and circulating a
proxy statement with materially misleading disclosures and
omissions, that Mr. Baker controls the company and its directors,
that the directors were motivated to accept Mr. Baker's offer
because of concerns that a public dispute with Mr. Baker would
draw unwanted attention from animal rights activists, that
certain terms of the merger agreement unfairly benefit Mr. Baker
at the expense of the other stockholders, including the absence
of appraisal rights and provisions providing for accelerated
vesting of restricted stock, restrictions on the solicitation of
negotiations with respect to third party proposals and
termination fees, and that the company, Mr. Baker and the
company's other directors each aided and abetted the other
defendants' breach of their fiduciary duties.  

The complaint seeks injunctive and other unspecified relief,
according to the company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated Sept. 8, 2009.

Life Sciences Research Inc. -- http://www.lsrinc.net/-- is a
global contract research organization, offering worldwide pre-
clinical and non-clinical testing services for biological safety
evaluation research to pharmaceutical and biotechnology, as well
as agrochemical and industrial chemical companies.  LSR serves
the regulatory and commercial requirements to perform safety
evaluations on new pharmaceutical compounds and chemical
compounds contained within the products that humans use, eat and
are otherwise exposed to.  In addition, LSR tests the effect of
such compounds on the environment and also performs work on
assessing the safety and efficacy of veterinary products.


LITTON LOAN: Report Hints More Loan Servicing Litigation Coming
---------------------------------------------------------------
Darrell Delamaide at DS News reports that Litton Loan Servicing
is still having customer problems even after settling a class
action lawsuit in April alleging it charged bogus late fees after
posting payments that were made on time too late.

The Class Action Reporter reported about the settled lawsuit,
Prasad, et al. v. Litton Loan Servicing, Index No. 23237-08 (N.Y.
Sup. Cr., Queens Cty.), on October 3, 2008.  

Mr. Delamaide reports that ConsumerAffairs.com says that
complaints about the Goldman Sachs subsidiary "continue to roll
in," not only about late account postings, but also about getting
a run-around when seeking loan adjustments.

Litton blamed its past history of late postings on glitches in
its automated servicing platform. The settlement covered all
homeowners whose mortgages were transferred or sold to Litton
between October 2002 and February 2009 and who were charged
erroneous late fees within 60 days of the transfer.

According to testimony from a former Litton employee during the
litigation, Litton was overwhelmed by the amount of business it
was taking on and became careless. For example, the witness said,
when a payment couldn't be matched to an account, it was placed
in a catch-all "payment clearing account," where it sat for
months or even years.

In the meantime, the account of the consumer who sent in the
payment went into default, collecting late fees and sometimes
ending up in foreclosure.  When a missing payment was located,
according to this testimony, it was to be applied as of the day
it was discovered, rather than the date it was received, leading
to further erroneous late fees.

Other recent complaints are from homeowners who were promised
loan modifications, ConsumerAffairs.com reports, only to be told
after months of waiting that they did not qualify. Customers say
Litton dragged the process out by claiming they hadn't received
necessary paperwork or that the evaluation was taking longer than
expected.  The delay brought some customers close to foreclosure.
While complaints of erroneous late fees that could have been
covered in the original litigation cannot be the subject of new
actions against Litton, subsequent instances could lead to
individual lawsuits or another class action.

If Litton's practices with regard to loan modification are at
variance with their disclosures, the company could run afoul of
the Truth in Lending Act and other federal legislation, Mr.
Delamaide says.


MACY'S INC: Stipulation to Dismiss "Decristofaro" Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A stipulation for the dismissal with prejudice of Edward
Decristofaro's purported class-action lawsuit was filed on July
20, 2009, according to Macy's, Inc.'s Sept. 8, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Aug. 1, 2009.

On Aug. 30, 2005, the Company completed the acquisition of May.

On Jan. 11, 2006, Mr. Decristofaro, an alleged former stockholder
of The May Department Stores Company (May), filed a purported
class-action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of St. Louis, Missouri
on behalf of all former May stockholders against May and the
former members of the board of directors of May.

The complaint generally alleges that the directors of May
breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, good faith
and candor to May stockholders in connection with the Merger.

The plaintiffs seek rescission of the Merger or an unspecified
amount of rescissory damages and costs including attorneys' fees
and experts' fees.

In July 2007, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss
the case.

On Nov. 14, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification, which the court denied on June 30, 2009.

Macy's, Inc. -- http://www.macysinc.com/-- formerly Federated
Department Stores, Inc., is a retail company operating retail
stores that sell a range of merchandise, including men's,
women's and children's apparel and accessories, cosmetics, home
furnishings and other consumer goods.  As of Feb. 2, 2008, the
Company operated 853 stores in 45 states, the District of
Columbia, Guam and Puerto Rico under the names, Macy's and
Bloomingdale's.  The Company, through its divisions, conducts
electronic commerce and direct-to-customer mail catalog
businesses under the names macys.com, bloomingdales.com and
Bloomingdale's By Mail.  In addition, Macy's, Inc. offers an
online bridal registry to customers.


MACY'S INC: Ohio Litigation Over 401(k) Plan Remains Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Macy's, Inc. is still facing a purported class-action suit filed
by Ebrahim Shanehchian, an alleged participant in the company's
Profit Sharing 401(k) Investment Plan, according to its Sept. 8,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 1, 2009.

On Oct. 3, 2007, Mr. Shanehchian filed a purported class-action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio on behalf of persons who participated in the 401(k) Plan
and The May Department Stores Company Profit Sharing Plan
between Feb. 27, 2005 and the present.

The complaint charges the Company, as well as certain current
and former members of its board of directors and certain current
and former members of management, with breach of fiduciary
duties owed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) to participants in the 401(k) Plan and the May Plan,
alleging that the defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operations and
prospects in relation to the integration of the acquired May
operations, resulting in supposed "artificial inflation" of the
Company's stock price between Aug. 30, 2005 and May 15, 2007.

The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages and costs.

Macy's, Inc. -- http://www.macysinc.com/-- formerly Federated
Department Stores, Inc., is a retail company operating retail
stores that sell a range of merchandise, including men's,
women's and children's apparel and accessories, cosmetics, home
furnishings and other consumer goods.  As of Feb. 2, 2008, the
Company operated 853 stores in 45 states, the District of
Columbia, Guam and Puerto Rico under the names, Macy's and
Bloomingdale's.  The Company, through its divisions, conducts
electronic commerce and direct-to-customer mail catalog
businesses under the names macys.com, bloomingdales.com and
Bloomingdale's By Mail.  In addition, Macy's, Inc. offers an
online bridal registry to customers.


MDL NO. 1663: 3rd Circuit Upholds Insurance Antitrust Settlements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Youderian at Courthouse News Service reports that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld two multimillion-
dollar settlements in consolidated class actions accusing some of
the nation's largest insurance brokers of soliciting rigged bids
from insurers and receiving kickbacks for steering customers to
those companies.

The multidistrict litigation, In re: Insurance Brokerage
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1663; Master File No. 04-cv-05184
(D. N.J.) (Brown, J.), stemmed from a 2004 lawsuit that former
New York Attorney General Eliot filed against broker Marsh &
McLennan.

The suit spurred a multi-state investigation of alleged bid
rigging and steering activities in the industry.
Several class actions were consolidated and transferred to a
federal judge in New Jersey.

Some of the defendants agreed to settle the claims, including one
group of insurers, who settled for $121 million, and a group of
brokers who settled for $28 million.

The district court approved both settlements and awarded $29.5
million in attorney fees for the larger settlement.

Members of the class objected to several aspects of the
settlements, including the attorney fee award.

But the Philadelphia-based appeals court found the lower court's
reasoning sound, saying the class certification requirements had
been met, and both settlements were "fair."

The Third Circuit also upheld the attorney fee award, calling it
a "reasonable fee."

A copy of the Third Circuit's Opinion is available at:

     http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/071759p.pdf


NOVELL INC: Sept. 2009 Final Approval Hearing Set for Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing for the settlement of a consolidated
amended class action complaint against SilverStream, which
Novell, Inc. acquired in July 2002, has been set for September
2009.

SilverStream and several of its former officers and directors, as
well as the underwriters who handled SilverStream's two public
offerings, were named as defendants in several class action
complaints that were filed on behalf of certain former
stockholders of SilverStream who purchased shares of SilverStream
common stock between Aug. 16, 1999, and Dec. 6, 2000.

These complaints are closely related to several hundred other
complaints that the same plaintiffs have brought against other
issuers and underwriters.
These complaints all allege violations of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.

In particular, they allege, among other things, that there was
undisclosed compensation received by the underwriters of the
public offerings of all of the issuers, including SilverStream.

A Consolidated Amended Complaint with respect to all of these
complaints was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern
District of New York, on April 19, 2002.  

Various parties participated in settlement discussions and
reached a proposed settlement agreement.  This agreement received
preliminary approval from the Court in June 2009.  Notice of the
proposed settlement agreement has been delivered to the
plaintiff's class, according to its Sept. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 31, 2009.

Novell, Inc. -- http://www.novell.com/-- through its  
infrastructure software and ecosystem of business partnerships,
integrate mixed information technology (IT) environments,
allowing people and technology to work as one.  The company has
four segments: Open Platform Solutions, Identity and Security
Management, Systems and Resource Management, and Workgroup.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Employee Class Sues for Denial of Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
On behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated
plaintiffs, Anthony A. Falcone has filed a lawsuit against Royal
Caribbean Cruises Ltd., alleging that the cruise line did not pay
overtime owed to workers.  

The case is Falcone v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., Case No.
09-cv-22699 (S.D. Fla.) (Monroe, J.).  Mr. Falcone is represented
by:

          Jeffrey Mitchell Goodz, Esq.
          11900 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 288
          North Miami, FL 33181
          Telephone: 305-416-5000
          Fax: 305-416-5005
          E-mail: jgoodz@rgpattorneys.com


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: "Maulano" Securities Suit Junked in July
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class-action lawsuit against Take-Two Interactive
Software, Inc. over offers by Electronic Arts, Inc., to acquire
all of the company's shares was voluntarily dismissed by
stipulated order on July 16, 2009.

On April 11, 2008, Michael Maulano, an alleged stockholder,
filed a purported class action in New York state court, New York
County, against the company and certain of its directors.

The allegations are essentially the same as those in the case
filed by Patrick Solomon, with an additional complaint about the
"poison pill" adopted by the company's Board in March 2008.

Because the action was duplicative, the plaintiff agreed to stay
all proceedings in the case in favor of the Solomon case.

The resolution of Patrick Solomon's purported class action
complaint resulted in the resolution of this matter, which was
voluntarily dismissed by stipulated order on July 16, 2009,
without the payment of any costs or expenses, according to the
company's Sept. 3, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2009.

New York-based Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. --
http://www.take2games.com/-- is a global publisher, developer
and distributor of interactive entertainment software, hardware
and accessories.  The company operates in two segments:
publishing and distribution.  The publishing segment consists of
Rockstar Games, 2K Games, 2K Sports and 2K Play publishing
labels.  The company develops, markets and publishes software
titles for gaming and entertainment hardware platforms,
including Sony's PLAYSTATION3 and PlayStation2 computer
entertainment systems; Sony's PSP (PlayStationPortable) system;
Microsoft's Xbox 360 and Xbox video game and entertainment
systems; Nintendo's Wii, GameCube, DS and Game Boy Advance, and
for the personal computers and Games for Windows.  The company's
distribution segment, which includes its Jack of All Games
subsidiary, distributes its products, as well as software,
hardware and accessories produced by others to retail outlets in
North America.


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: EA Buyout Offer Suit Deal Approved in June
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, on June 18, 2009,
approved an agreement to settle a shareholder lawsuit against
Take-Two Interactive Software Inc. related to a failed buyout
offer from videogame company Electronic Arts, Inc.

On March 7, 2008, Patrick Solomon, a stockholder of the company,
filed a purported class-action complaint with the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against the company and
certain of its officers and directors.

The plaintiff contends that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by, among other things, allegedly refusing to
explore premium offers by Electronic Arts, Inc., to acquire all
of the company's shares, enacting a bylaw amendment allegedly
designed to entrench the current board by preventing
stockholders from nominating and electing alternative directors,
agreeing to an amendment to a management agreement with
ZelnickMedia and issuing a proxy statement for the 2008 Annual
Meeting that allegedly contains misleading and incomplete
information.

The complaint seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief,
rescissory and other equitable relief and damages.

The plaintiff immediately moved for preliminary injunctive
relief, and the parties engaged in expedited discovery
proceedings.  However, several of the claims have been addressed
by the company's voluntary actions in issuing a supplemental
proxy statement, rescinding the notice by-law amendment,
granting additional time for any present or former stockholders
to nominate directors or propose business, and extending the
annual meeting date.

After the company took such measures, the plaintiff agreed to
withdraw his motion for preliminary injunctive relief, and the
annual meeting went forward without difficulty (and without any
stockholders nominating directors or proposing business).

On Dec. 19, 2008, the plaintiff filed a supplement to his
complaint.  The supplement repeats his prior allegations and
also alleges the stockholder vote on the amendment of the
company's Incentive Stock Plan and the amendment to the
management agreement with ZelnickMedia and the grant of stock
thereunder was invalid.

On Feb. 17, 2009, the company filed its motion to dismiss all
claims in both pleadings.

On March 4, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion to file a second
supplement to his complaint.  The second supplement contains
additional allegations of breaches of fiduciary duties by the
directors, and misleading and incomplete disclosure with respect
to the proxy statement for the 2009 annual meeting of
stockholders.  The second supplement also sought to enjoin the
vote on the 2009 Stock Incentive Plan at the 2009 annual meeting
of stockholders and a declaration that such Plan is invalid and
void.

On April 3, 2009, the company entered into a settlement in
principle of the plaintiff's complaint and both supplements,
subject to approval by the Delaware Court.  The settlement
provides, among other things, for additional disclosure which is
contained in a supplement to the company's proxy statement.  The
settlement does not provide for a payment of monetary damages to
the plaintiff or the purported class.  The company has opposed
an application by the plaintiff's counsel for fees and expenses
and expects that any award of fees or expenses will be covered
by its existing insurance policies.

The Court approved the settlement on June 18, 2009.  The
settlement provided, among other things, for additional
disclosure which was contained in a supplement to the Company's
proxy statement.  The settlement did not provide for a payment of
monetary damages to the plaintiff or the purported class.  The
application by the plaintiff's counsel for fees and expenses was
granted by the Court and was covered by the company's existing
insurance policies, according to its Sept. 3, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 31, 2009.

New York-based Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. --
http://www.take2games.com/-- is a global publisher, developer
and distributor of interactive entertainment software, hardware
and accessories.  The company operates in two segments:
publishing and distribution.  The publishing segment consists of
Rockstar Games, 2K Games, 2K Sports and 2K Play publishing
labels.  The company develops, markets and publishes software
titles for gaming and entertainment hardware platforms,
including Sony's PLAYSTATION3 and PlayStation2 computer
entertainment systems; Sony's PSP (PlayStationPortable) system;
Microsoft's Xbox 360 and Xbox video game and entertainment
systems; Nintendo's Wii, GameCube, DS and Game Boy Advance, and
for the personal computers and Games for Windows.  The company's
distribution segment, which includes its Jack of All Games
subsidiary, distributes its products, as well as software,
hardware and accessories produced by others to retail outlets in
North America.


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Appeal to Nixed GTA Lawsuit Deal Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' interlocutory appeal from an opinion refusing to
certify the proposed settlement class in the lawsuit captioned
"In Re: Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation, Case
No. 1:06-md-01739-SWK," is pending, according to Take-Two
Interactive Software, Inc.'s Sept. 3, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 31, 2009.

                       Case Background

In July 2005, the defendants -- Take-Two Interactive Software,
Inc., and its subsidiary, Rockstar Games -- were subjects of
four purported class action suits.  Two of the four complaints
were filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, one was filed before the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the other
was filed before the Circuit Court in St. Clair County, Illinois
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 11, 2008).

The plaintiffs, alleged purchasers of the defendants' Grand
Theft Auto: San Andreas First Edition game manufactured before
July 20, 2005, assert that the company engaged in consumer
deception, false advertising and breached an implied warranty of
merchantability and were unjustly enriched as a result of the
company's alleged failure to disclose that Grand Theft Auto: San
Andreas contained "hidden" content, which resulted in the game
receiving a Mature 17+ (M) rating from the Entertainment
Software Rating Board rather than an Adults Only 18+ rating.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation later transferred
all the cases to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, which consolidated them under the caption,
"In re Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation (No. II),
06-MD-1739 (SWK)(MHD)."

                            Settlement

In the last half of 2007, the defendants reached a settlement in
the matter.

Under the terms of the settlement, class members will be able to
claim benefits if they swear that they:

     (a) bought a copy of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
         before July 20, 2005;

     (b) were offended and upset by the ability of consumers to
         modify and alter the game's content using the third-
         party Hot Coffee modification;

     (c) would not have bought the game had they known that
         consumers could modify and alter the game's content
         using the third-party Hot Coffee modification; and

     (d) would have returned the game, upon learning the game
         could be modified and altered, if they thought this
         possible.

Settlement class members who attest to these facts may apply for
benefits that range from an exchange of the game disk for an
edited copy of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas to a cash payment
of up to $35 for consumers who submit detailed proofs of
purchase.

The actual value of all cash payments under the settlement will
depend on the number of class members that apply for benefits.
Take-Two has committed to spend at least $1.025 million on
settlement benefits, and the settlement generally caps the
defendants' out-of-pocket costs at no more than $2.75 million,
in addition to the costs of providing notice to class members
and paying a fee to plaintiffs' counsel.

In November 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted preliminary approval to the
settlement of the foregoing consumer class actions and set a
date for a hearing on final approval in May 2008.

On July 31, 2008, the Court issued an opinion refusing to
certify the proposed settlement class.  The Court held that,
under controlling case law issued after the parties negotiated
the settlement, the plaintiffs could no longer meet their burden
of showing that the case could proceed on the proposed class
basis, regardless of whether the purpose of certification was
for litigation or settlement.

Had that settlement been approved, the company would have been
required to spend at least $1,025,000 on settlement benefits, a
majority of which would have taken the form of a contribution to
charity.

The plaintiffs subsequently applied for, and on April 15, 2009,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted,
permission to file an interlocutory appeal.  

A copy of the settlement notice is available at:

              http://gtasettlement.com/

The suit is "In Re: Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer
Litigation, Case No. 1:06-md-01739-SWK," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Shirley Wohl Kram, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          Locks Law Firm PLLC
          110 East 55th St.
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 888-8LL-FNYC

Representing the company is:

          Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq.
          Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
          919 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-909-6000


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Settlement of N.Y. Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement of a consolidated class action against
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. relating to Grand Theft Auto:
San Andreas and option backdating is pending with the Southern
District of New York Court.

In February and March 2006, four purported class-action
complaints were filed against the company and certain of its
then current and former officers and directors in the Southern
District of New York Court.

The actions were consolidated, and in April 2007, the lead
plaintiff filed a consolidated second amended complaint which
contained allegations related to purported "hidden content"
contained in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and the backdating of
stock options, including the investigation thereof conducted by
the Special Litigation Committee of the Board of Directors and
the restatement of our financial statements relating thereto.

This complaint was filed against the company, its former Chief
Executive Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, its
former Chairman of the Board, its Rockstar Games subsidiary, and
one officer and one former officer of its Rockstar Games
subsidiary.

The lead plaintiff sought unspecified compensatory damages and
costs including attorneys' fees and expenses.

In April 2008, the Court dismissed, with leave to amend, all
claims as to all defendants relating to Grand Theft Auto: San
Andreas and certain claims as to the company's former CEO, CFO
and certain director defendants relating to the backdating of
stock options.

In September 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a third amended
consolidated complaint seeking to reinstate these claims, which
the company opposed.

On Aug. 31, 2009, the company entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the lead plaintiffs to comprehensively settle
all claims asserted by them against Take-Two, its Rockstar Games
subsidiary and all of the current and former officers and
directors named in the actions.  The proposed settlement is
subject to the completion of final documentation and preliminary
and final approval by the SDNY Court.  Neither the company, its
subsidiary nor any of the individuals admit any wrongdoing as
part of the proposed settlement agreement, according to its Sept.
3, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2009.

New York-based Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. --
http://www.take2games.com/-- is a global publisher, developer
and distributor of interactive entertainment software, hardware
and accessories.  The company operates in two segments:
publishing and distribution.  The publishing segment consists of
Rockstar Games, 2K Games, 2K Sports and 2K Play publishing
labels.  The company develops, markets and publishes software
titles for gaming and entertainment hardware platforms,
including Sony's PLAYSTATION3 and PlayStation2 computer
entertainment systems; Sony's PSP (PlayStationPortable) system;
Microsoft's Xbox 360 and Xbox video game and entertainment
systems; Nintendo's Wii, GameCube, DS and Game Boy Advance, and
for the personal computers and Games for Windows.  The company's
distribution segment, which includes its Jack of All Games
subsidiary, distributes its products, as well as software,
hardware and accessories produced by others to retail outlets in
North America.


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Faces Remaining Claims in "St. Clair" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The remaining claims in the purported class and derivative action
complaint filed by St. Clair Shores General Employees Retirement
System are pending before the Southern District of New York
Court, according to Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.'s Sept.
3, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2009.

In January 2006, the St. Clair Shores General Employees
Retirement System filed the complaint in the SDNY Court against
the company, as nominal defendant, and certain of its directors
and certain former officers and directors.

The plaintiff asserts that certain defendants breached their
fiduciary duty by selling their stock while in possession of
certain material non-public information and that the company
violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9
thereunder by failing to disclose material facts in its 2003,
2004 and 2005 proxy statements in which the company solicited
approval to increase share availability under its 2002 Stock
Option Plan.

The plaintiff seeks the return of all profits from the alleged
insider trading conducted by the individual defendants who sold
the company's stock, unspecified compensatory damages with
interest and its costs in the action.

In March 2007, the Special Litigation Committee moved to dismiss
the complaint based on, among other things, the Committee's
conclusion that "future pursuit of this action is not in the best
interests of Take-Two or its shareholders."

In August 2007, the plaintiff filed an Amended Derivative and
Class Action Complaint alleging, among other things, that
defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
issuance of proxy statements from 2001 through 2005.

In September 2007, the Special Litigation Committee moved to
dismiss the Amended Complaint or to consolidate certain of its
claims with the securities class action.

In July 2008, the Court dismissed all claims against the company
and all claims against all defendants that arose out of the
plaintiff's derivative claims.  The Court expressly did not
determine whether these claims would entitle the putative class
to monetary damages, but invited briefs from the individual
defendants on this point.

In October 2008, these individuals moved to dismiss the remaining
claims against them.  Briefing was concluded as of Jan. 16, 2009.

New York-based Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. --
http://www.take2games.com/-- is a global publisher, developer
and distributor of interactive entertainment software, hardware
and accessories.  The company operates in two segments:
publishing and distribution.  The publishing segment consists of
Rockstar Games, 2K Games, 2K Sports and 2K Play publishing
labels.  The company develops, markets and publishes software
titles for gaming and entertainment hardware platforms,
including Sony's PLAYSTATION3 and PlayStation2 computer
entertainment systems; Sony's PSP (PlayStationPortable) system;
Microsoft's Xbox 360 and Xbox video game and entertainment
systems; Nintendo's Wii, GameCube, DS and Game Boy Advance, and
for the personal computers and Games for Windows.  The company's
distribution segment, which includes its Jack of All Games
subsidiary, distributes its products, as well as software,
hardware and accessories produced by others to retail outlets in
North America.


TARGET CORP: Plaintiff Seeks to Add 3 States to "AirBorne" Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood at The St. Clair Record reports that the plaintiff
in a class action over a generic form of "AirBorne" has filed to
amend his class action suit to include three more states.

Brian Buehlhorn's suit is nearly identical to other suits over
generics of the cold medicine, including one filed against CVS
Pharmacies and K-Mart.

According to his motion to amend the complaint, Mr. Buehlhorn is
seeking to add California, Minnesota and Florida to the class.
The original complaint was limited to violations of Illinois'
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and unjust
enrichment claims.

The new complaint would sue Minnesota-based Target for violations
of the four states' consumer protection acts and unjust
enrichment under their common laws.

Mr. Buehlhorn and the plaintiffs in the similar lawsuits against
CVS and K-Mart are represented by:

          Paul M. Weiss, Esq.
          George K. Lang, Esq.
          Freed & Weiss, LLC
          111 West Washington Street, Suite 1331
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312-220-0000

               - and -

          Richard J. Burke, Esq.
          Richard J. Burke LLC
          1010 Market St., Suite 660
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: 314-880-7000

               - and -

          Kevin T. Hoerner, Esq.
          Brian T. Kreisler, Esq.
          Becker, Paulson, Hoerner & Thompson in
          5111 West Main Street
          Belleville, IL 62226
          Telephone: 618-235-0020

The lawyers claim that the federal Class Action Fairness Act does
not apply to the case as the suit does not seek damages exceeding
$75,000 per class member and that the damages do not meet the $5
million threshold set by law.

In the Buehlhorn and CVS suits, Robert Bassett and others
represent the defendants.

The Class Action Reporter reported about the filing of Buehlhorn
v. Target, Case No. 08-L-667 (Ill. Cir. Ct., St. Clair Cty.)
(Young, J.), on June 17, 2009.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Charged with Withholding Rollover Info in E.D. Tex.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Choate at Courthouse News Service reports that dozens of
plaintiffs say Toyota withheld evidence in liability cases that
involved deaths and injuries. They claim a Toyota house counsel
documented the campaign "to conceal, withhold, and destroy
evidence and information, and obstruct justice" in an internal
memo, for which he was harassed and driven from the company.

The federal lawsuit claims Toyota's intimidation of its former
in-house counsel, Dimitrios Biller, Esq., was part of a
calculated conspiracy to prevent disclosure of damaging evidence
that Toyota has been concealing for years.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' Original Complaint in Cole, et al. v.
Toyota Motor Corporation, et al., Case No. 09-cv-_____ (E.D.
Tex.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/11/Toyota.pdf
     
The plaintiffs say Toyota concealed the evidence not only from
them, but from the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration and the American public.

The complaint centers on rollover accidents and documents that
discussed "an internal standard for head protection in
rollovers." The complaint states that Toyota developed data from
its own tests of roof strength in rollovers, and that "This data
was relevant in numerous roll over and roof crush cases spanning
a period of over 20 years."

But, they say, Toyota "never produced this data in any product
liability litigation. In fact, [Toyota] did not even inform [Mr.]
Biller or [Toyota's] outside counsel of this internal standard
and test.  [Toyota] destroyed this data in late 2005 or early
2006."

Mr. Biller was the National Managing Counsel in charge of
Toyota's National Rollover Program, according to the complaint.
In that job, he "became aware of Defendant's conspiracy to
conceal, withhold, and destroy evidence and information, and
obstruct justice," the complaint states.
     
In April 2007, Mr. Biller prepared an internal memo for his
supervisor, Eric Taira, Esq., assistant general counsel for
Toyota Motor Sales.  The memo described Toyota's Product
Liability Group as "dysfunctional," and claimed that Taira was
"allowing and causing Toyota Motor Company to violate laws,
obstruct justice and commit criminal and fraudulent acts during
the discovery processes in cases filed against Toyota and around
the United States," according to the complaint.

When it became clear that Mr. Biller would not stop asking Toyota
to release the evidence, the company harassed and intimidated him
and forced his resignation, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs want their cases re-evaluated in the light of Mr.
Biller's memo, including their requests for damages for personal
injuries and wrongful deaths.

The plaintiffs are represented:

          E. Todd Tracy, Esq.
          The TRACY firm
          5473 Blair Road, Suite 200
          Dallas, TX 75231
          Telephone: (214) 324-9000
          E-mail: ttracy@vehiclesafetyfirm.com


WELLS FARGO: Sued in N.D. Calif. for Improper HELOC Suspensions
---------------------------------------------------------------
A new class action filed today on behalf of a single mother
challenges Wells Fargo Bank's (NYSE: WFC) mass suspension of
HELOC accounts and credit limit reductions.

According to the lawsuit, which comes on the heels of another
class action filed recently in Illinois, claims Wells Fargo
fraudulently froze millions of dollars in home loans by falsely
claiming that its customers' finances had materially changed.

The suit further alleges that Wells Fargo suspended accounts
based on disputed "derogatory" items on its borrower's credit
reports in violation of the Truth in Lending Act.

The suit is filed on behalf of Marika Hamilton, of Fort Wayne,
Ind., who claims that Wells Fargo pulled her credit report only
to turn around and suspend her HELOC account due to a supposed
"derogatory credit" item.

In reality, Ms. Hamilton, who owns and runs her own small
business, enjoys a stellar credit history. To make matters worse,
the lone derogatory item Wells Fargo used to support its
suspension of her account -- a $25 late charge that she
vigorously disputed -- was actually caused by Wells Fargo in the
first place.

The Complaint then alleges that Wells Fargo customer service
representatives informed Ms. Hamilton that the harder she
challenged Wells Fargo's actions, the harder Wells Fargo would
push back.  When Ms. Hamilton asked what to do with her money if
her HELOC was not safe, bank personnel responded she "should
carry cash."

"Marika Hamilton is a model borrower.  She owns her own small
business in Fort Wayne, makes all her payments on time, and - in
these tough times - she works tirelessly as a single mom to
provide for her two daughters," said attorney Jay Edelson, Esq.,
at KamberEdelson LLC, one of the lawyers representing Ms.
Hamilton, and who has previously filed class action lawsuits
against Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, WAMU and Citibank over their
HELOC account suspension and reduction practices.

"Wells Fargo caused a late charge to be put on Ms. Hamilton's
credit report that never should have been there to begin with.  
It then used that item to justify suspending her entire credit
line," Edelson continued. "Adding insult to injury, the bank then
threatened her and her business if she dared to stand up for
herself.  This is what Wells Fargo has done with the $25 billion
in bailout money.  Illegality aside, it's flatly appalling."

Ms. Hamilton is represented by:

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Steven L. Lezell, Esq.
          Evan Meyers, Esq.
          KamberEdelson, LLC
          350 North LaSalle, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: 312-589-6370
          E-mail: jedelson@kamberedelson.com
                  slezell@kamberedelson.com
                  emeyers@kamberedelson.com

               - and -

          Alan Himmelfarb, Esq.
          KamberEdelson, LLC
          2757 Leonis Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90058
          Telephone: 323-585-8696
          E-mail: ahimmelfarb@kamberedelson.com

Jay Edelson, Esq. -- http://www.kamberedelson.com/Edelson.html--  
has a reputation for bringing, and winning, high profile class
action lawsuits.  Just last year, Edelson settled a nationwide
case involving lead paint contamination with Thomas the Tank
Engine & Friends Wooden Railway children's toys that was valued
at over $30 million.  Edelson's firm also was lead counsel in the
lawsuits coming out of the 2008 contaminated pet food recall,
which resulted in a settlement of over $24 million.  Edelson
testified before the U.S. Senate in connection with that case.

A copy of the Complaint in Hamilton v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
Case No. 09-cv-04152 (N.D. Calif.) (Spero, J.), is available at:

http://www.prnewschannel.com/pdf/Marika_Hamilton_v_Wells_Fargo_Complaint.pdf


WM. WRIGLEY: Orbit White Gum's Teeth Whitening Claims Questioned
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Wrigley Co. falsely
advertises that its Orbit White gum is "proven to whiten teeth,"
according to a class action in Los Angeles Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Jurun v. Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co., et al.,
Case No. 09-cv-06547 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/10/CCAWrigleys.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Wayne S. Kreger, Esq.
          Jason J. Rudolph, Esq.
          MILSTEIN, ADELMAN & KREGER LLP
          2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: 310-396-9600

                            *********

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.  Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda 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  * * *