CAR_Public/100927.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, September 27, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 190

                             Headlines

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Recalls Similac(R) Over Beetle Contamination
ADVANCE AMERICA: Inks Agreement to Settle "Kucan" Suit
AHMADINEJAD: Larry Klayman to Amend Complaint to Add Charges
APPLIED MINERALS: Plaintiff's Counsel Evaluating All Claims
BIG 5: December 10 Hearing Set for "Weyl" Settlement Approval

BIOVAIL CORP: Valeant Inks MOU to Settle Shareholders Litigation
C.R. BARD: Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Lawsuit
CARDTRONICS INC: Reaches Agreement to Modify Settlement Pact
COMMUNITY BANK: 3rd Circuit Overturns Class Suit Settlement Again
DIRECT DISH: Charged With Refusing to Honor Money Back Guarantee

DUOYUAN PRINTING: Faces Class Suit in New York Over 2009 IPO
HARRAH'S ENT: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Denial of Fees Still Pending
HARRAH'S ENT: Sees Liability in Hilton Suit at $80 Million
JEFFERSON PARISH: Flood Victims' Case Obtains Class Action Status
JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Accused in N.J. of Misleading Investors

KOSS CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Class Action Suit
ORACLE CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal on Dismissed Suit vs. CEO Pending
SEATTLE MORTGAGE: Faces Class Suit in Calif. Over Illegal Fees
SIX FLAGS: Wage-Related Suit Enjoined Under Reorganization Plan
STUDENT LOAN: Faces Class Suit in Delaware Over Citibank Buyout

SYNGENTA CROP: Parties Continue to Duel Over Discovery Issues
TOYOTA AUTO: TMCC Cases Not Material to TAR 2010 Noteholders
VALHI INC: Unit Continues to Defend Suit Over Lead-Based Paint
VALEANT PHARMA: Inks MOU to Settle Consolidated Suit Over Merger
ZYNEX INC: Plea to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending

                             *********

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Recalls Similac(R) Over Beetle Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott Laboratories is initiating a proactive, voluntary recall of
certain Similac-brand, powder infant formulas in the U.S., Puerto
Rico, Guam and some countries in the Caribbean.

Abbott is recalling these products following an internal quality
review, which detected the remote possibility of the presence of a
small common beetle in the product produced in one production area
in a single manufacturing facility.  The United States Food and
Drug Administration has determined that while the formula
containing these beetles poses no immediate health risk, there is
a possibility that infants who consume formula containing the
beetles or their larvae, could experience symptoms of
gastrointestinal discomfort and refusal to eat as a result of
small insect parts irritating the GI tract.  If these symptoms
persist for more than a few days, a physician should be consulted.

The recall of these powder infant formulas includes:

    * Certain Similac powder product lines offered in plastic
      containers.

    * Certain Similac powder product lines offered in sizes such
      as 8-ounce, 12.4-ounce and 12.9-ounce cans.

To immediately find out if the product in your possession is
included in this recall, parents and caregivers should visit
http://www.similac.com/recalland type in their lot number to
determine if their product is affected, or call (800) 986-8850.

No Abbott liquid infant formulas are impacted. Products not
involved in the recall include all Abbott Nutrition liquid ready-
to-feed and concentrated infant formulas and all powder and liquid
specialty formulas, such as Similac Expert Care(TM) Alimentum(R),
Elecare(R), Similac Expert Care(TM) Neosure(R), Similac(R) Human
Milk Fortifier, and metabolic formulas for inherited disorders.

About the Recall

    * The company is implementing a plan to address this matter in
      the affected manufacturing facility, which is expected to be
      completed shortly. No other facilities or products are
      involved in this recall.

    * Abbott has consulted with the U.S. FDA regarding this
      recall.

Information for Parents and Caregivers

    * Products with affected lot numbers should be returned to
      Abbott at no cost to the consumer.

    * Parents and caregivers can go to
      http://www.similac.com/recallor call Abbott's consumer
      hotline, (800) 986-8850, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

    * Both the Web site and the consumer hotline have specific
      details on how to complete the return process.

Holger Liepmann, executive vice president, Abbott Nutrition said:
"Abbott understands that parents expect to feed their children
only the highest quality product. We are taking this action so
that parents know that the infant formula products they provide
unquestionably meet the highest quality standards for which they
are known. We regret any inconvenience this situation poses to
parents and consumers."

Abbott Park, Illinois-based Abbott Laboratories (NYSE: ABT) is a
global, broad-based health care company devoted to the discovery,
development, manufacture and marketing of pharmaceuticals and
medical products, including nutritionals, devices and diagnostics.
The company employs nearly 90,000 people and markets its products
in more than 130 countries.


ADVANCE AMERICA: Inks Agreement to Settle "Kucan" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc., has entered into a
settlement agreement to resolve the matter Kucan et al. v. Advance
America, Cash Advance Centers of North Carolina, Inc. et al.,
according to the company's Sept. 20, 2010, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On July 27, 2004, John Kucan, Welsie Torrence, and Terry Coates,
each of whom was a customer of Republic Bank & Trust Company, the
lending bank for whom the company previously marketed, processed,
and serviced cash advances in North Carolina, filed a putative
class action lawsuit in the General Court of Justice for the
Superior Court Division for New Hanover County, North Carolina
against the company and Mr. William M. Webster IV, Chairman of the
company's Board of Directors and the company's former Chief
Executive Officer, alleging, among other things, that the
relationship between the company's North Carolina subsidiary and
Republic constituted an alleged "rent a charter" relationship and
therefore Republic was not the "true lender" of the cash advances
it offered.

The lawsuit also claims that the cash advances were made,
administered, and collected in violation of numerous North
Carolina consumer protection laws.

The lawsuit seeks an injunction barring the subsidiary from
continuing to do business in North Carolina, the return of the
principal amount of the cash advances made to the plaintiff class
since August 2001, along with three times the interest or fees
associated with those advances, which could, under certain
circumstances, total approximately $220 million, plus attorneys'
fees and other unspecified costs.

The company sought to enforce the arbitration provisions in the
customer agreements.  The trial court granted class certification
and ruled that the arbitration clause is unenforceable.  The
company has appealed this ruling.

On Sept. 17, 2010, the company, along with its North Carolina
subsidiary and co-defendant William M. Webster IV, and the class
representatives in the class action lawsuit entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement for the purpose of
resolving all claims made by the customers of third-party banks
for whom the company's North Carolina subsidiary marketed,
processed and serviced cash advance, deferred deposit check casing
disbursements, and other loan transactions on or after March 1,
2003.

The Settlement Agreement is subject to court approval and certain
other conditions before it becomes final.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement and subject to
court approval, the parties to the litigation have, without
admitting fact, fault, or liability, agreed to these terms and
conditions:

     1. The company will establish a settlement pool of
        $18.75 million for: (i) payment of all attorney fees,
        class action administration fees, and other fees and
        expenses related to the litigation; and (ii) payments to
        settle all claims by the North Carolina Class Members;
        and

     2. The company and all other defendants will be released
        from any and all claims associated with the class action
        lawsuit.

The company expects to take a charge against earnings for this
settlement of between approximately $16.25 million to $18.75
million (depending on the amount of insurance proceeds), which
charge will be reflected in the third quarter of 2010.  The $18.75
million settlement pool will be funded in three payments: (i) $7.5
million will be paid upon preliminary court approval, which is
expected to occur before Sept. 30, 2010; (ii) $8.0 million will be
paid on March 1, 2011; and (iii) $3.25 million will be paid on the
first business day after Jan. 1, 2012.

Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. --
http://www.advanceamerica.net/-- provides cash advance services,
with approximately 2,600 centers and 71 limited licensees in 32
states, the United Kingdom, and Canada.  The company offers
convenient, less-costly credit options to consumers whose needs
are not met by traditional financial institutions.  The company is
a founding member of the Community Financial Services Association
of America, whose mission is to promote laws that provide
substantive consumer protections and to encourage responsible
industry practices.


AHMADINEJAD: Larry Klayman to Amend Complaint to Add Charges
------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch
public interest "watchdog" law firms, and the person many such as
"Red Country" have called an inspiration for the Tea Party
rebellion, disclosed he is amending his class action complaint
against Iranian "President" Ahmadinejad.

Filed one year ago in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, the suit names Ahmadinejad, the Islamic Republic of
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Revolutionary
Guard, and the government as a whole.  This suit, filed on behalf
of Akbar Mohammadi, the original founder of the modern Iranian
freedom movement, and a fatal victim of the regime (he was
murdered in Evan Prison), and his family, will now be expanded to
include charges that A-mad and his Islamic extremist cohorts have
placed a bounty on the head of each U.S. serviceman murdered by
the Taliban and other terrorist groups. Recent documented reports
reveal that indeed these atrocities are occurring.

After the complaint is amended with charges of paying for murders
of American military servicemen, Mr. Klayman will then personally
seek service upon A-mad as was successfully done previously. Mr.
Klayman served "A-mad" at his hotel during last year's UN General
Assembly meeting with the original complaint.

Klayman issued this statement before he held a press conference on
Thursday: "President Obama and his administration, and even some
establishment Republicans, have advocated appeasement of the
Islamic regime, resulting in certain acceleration of death and
destruction for the Persian people, and the creation of a severe
nuclear threat to the world. This policy of appeasement has not
worked, and we have recently learned that a bounty for slaughter
has been put on the heads of American servicemen by the so-called
Islamic Republic of Iran. Now that the Iranian tragedy is so
clearly and directly touching Americans, 'We the People' must
stand up for human rights in defense not only of those brave
Persians who are fighting for freedom, but also of U.S. servicemen
and women who are being targeted for butchery, as bounty, by an
evil, barbaric Islamic tyranny. This ruthless Islamist regime's
program for terrorism and mass murder knows no bounds, and now
touches us all -- and I for one will not sit back and let it run
rampant!"


APPLIED MINERALS: Plaintiff's Counsel Evaluating All Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
The counsel of the plaintiff, as part of a forbearance agreement,
is currently evaluating all claims in a class action against
Applied Minerals Inc., according to the company's Aug. 16, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

The company and certain of its former officers were defendants in
a class action In Re Atlas Mining Company Securities Litigation,
whose settlement has been approved by the court.  As an
accommodation to facilitate the settlement of the Class Action,
these persons -- Forbearing Shareholders -- entered into a
Forbearance Agreement whereby they agreed not to submit claims for
damages relating to shares that they own or control and that would
otherwise eligible to participate in the settlement: David Taft;
The IBS Turnaround (QP) Fund (A Limited Partnership), the IBS
Turnaround Fund (A Limited Partnership), The IBS Opportunity Fund
(BVI), Ltd. (the prior three hereafter collectively "IBS"); Andre
Zeitoun (the Company's CEO), Chris Carney (the Company's Interim
CFO), and Eric Basroon (an employee of Material Advisors LLC).

The Forbearance Agreement provided that:

Prior to the time that the Forbearing Shareholders entered into
the Forbearance Agreement, certain members of the Board of
Directors, without taking formal action as a Board, acknowledged
that the Forbearing Shareholders were accommodating the company in
a manner not required and should be compensated "as if" they had
submitted claims as class members in the Settlement and this
acknowledgement was communicated to the Forbearing Shareholders.

The Board subsequently appointed a committee of disinterested
directors to determine whether compensation should be paid, the
amount of any such compensation, and whether to pay compensation
in cash or Common Stock.  The committee consists of John Levy,
Morris Weiss, and Evan Stone.

On March 29, 2010, the committee adopted resolutions designed to
treat the Forbearing Shareholders as if they had participated in
the settlement.

To achieve this goal, damages of each Forbearing Shareholder were
computed using the formula for determining damages in the Class
Action.  Damages per share are lesser of $0.84 or the difference
between the purchase price and $0.80. The damages for each
Forbearing Shareholders are approximately as follows:  Taft - $0;
IBS - $3,564,657; Zeitoun - $479,411; Carney - $231,735; and
Basroon - $89,250.  The aggregate damages for all of the
Forbearing Shareholders are approximately $4,365,053.

The amount payable as compensation to the Forbearing Shareholders
in the aggregate will be an amount equal to the Net Settlement
Fund in the Class Action (approximately $800,000) multiplied by
the fraction in which the numerator is the aggregate damages of
the Forbearing Shareholders and the denominator is the sum of (i)
the aggregate damages of the Forbearing Shareholders and (ii) the
dollar amount of claims actually submitted by shareholders against
the Net Settlement Fund in the Class Action (this amount is
different form the total damages of all shareholders other than
the Forbearing Shareholders).

The deadline for submitting claims in the Class Action was May 6,
2010.  The plaintiff's counsel is currently evaluating all claims.
The amount payable to the Forbearing Shareholders varies depending
on the dollar amount of claims actually submitted in the Class
Action, the higher the dollar amount of claims submitted in the
Class Action, the lower the amount payable to the Forbearing
Shareholders.  By way of example, if no claims at all were
submitted by shareholders in the Class Action, the amount payable
to all of the Forbearing Shareholders would be $800,000; if
$3,000,000 in claims are submitted in the Class Action, the amount
payable to the Forbearing Shareholders would be $474,136.

The committee of disinterested directors has determined that
compensation to the Forbearing Shareholders will be paid in Common
Stock of the company.  The shares will be valued at the market
price of the company's Common Stock as of the closing price on the
first date on which the distribution agent in the Class Action
sends or delivers distributions from the Net Settlement Fund to
shareholders who have submitted claims.

If the Forbearing Shareholders had not entered into the
Forbearance Agreement, they believe that the company may not have
been able to settle the Class Action on the favorable terms that
it did.  The damages suffered by the Forbearing Shareholders,
based on an estimate of total damages provided by counsel to the
plaintiffs in the Class Action, represented a majority of the
total damages of the class.  The plaintiff's counsel required a
representation by the Company that any damages paid by the Company
to the Forbearing Shareholders not exceed amounts granted to the
class.  The Forbearing Agreement had the effect of making the
entire Net Settlement Fund available to other shareholders.  The
Forbearing Shareholders believe that if they did not enter into
the Forbearance Agreement, plaintiffs would have insisted on a
significantly higher settlement amount and this in all likelihood
would have forced the Company to raise additional capital by
selling stock at, what they believed to be, unfavorable terms at
the time.

Applied Minerals Inc., formerly the Atlas Mining Company, is the
producer of halloysite clay from their wholly owned Dragon Mine
Property in Utah.  Halloysite is aluminosilicate clay that forms
naturally occurring nanotubes. In addition to serving the
traditional halloysite markets for use in technical ceramics and
catalytic applications, the company has targeted niche
applications that they feel will benefit from the tubular
morphology of their Halloysite.  These include: carriers of active
ingredients in paints, coatings and building materials,
agricultural applications and high performance fillers in plastic
composites.


BIG 5: December 10 Hearing Set for "Weyl" Settlement Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for the County of San Diego set a
Dec. 10, 2010, hearing to consider final approval of the
settlement in the matter Shane Weyl v. Big 5 Corp., et al.,
according to Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation's Aug. 6, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended July 4, 2010.

On Aug. 6, 2009, the company was served with a complaint filed in
the California Superior Court for the County of San Diego,
entitled Shane Weyl v. Big 5 Corp., et al., Case No. 37-2009-
00093109-CU-OE-CTL, alleging violations of the California Labor
Code and the California Business and Professions Code.

The complaint was brought as a purported class action on behalf of
the company's hourly employees in California for the four years
prior to the filing of the complaint.  The plaintiff alleges,
among other things, that the company failed to provide hourly
employees with meal and rest periods and failed to pay wages
within required time periods during employment and upon
termination of employment.

The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the class members, an award of
one hour of pay (wages) for each workday that a meal or rest
period was not provided; restitution of unpaid wages; actual,
consequential and incidental losses and damages; pre-judgment
interest; statutory penalties including an additional thirty days'
wages for each hourly employee in California whose employment
terminated in the four years preceding the filing of the
complaint; civil penalties; an award of attorneys' fees and costs;
and injunctive and declaratory relief.

On Dec. 14, 2009, the parties engaged in mediation and agreed to
settle the lawsuit.  On Feb. 4, 2010, the parties filed a joint
settlement and a motion to preliminarily approve the settlement
with the court.

On July 16, 2010, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and scheduled a hearing for Dec. 10, 2010, to consider
final approval of the settlement.

Under the terms of the settlement, the company agreed to pay up to
a maximum amount of $2.0 million, which includes payments to class
members who submit valid and timely claim forms, plaintiff's
attorneys' fees and expenses, an enhancement payment to the class
representative, claims administrator fees and payment to the
California Labor and Workforce Development Agency.

Under the settlement, in the event that fewer than all class
members submit valid and timely claims, the total amount required
to be paid by the Company will be reduced, subject to a minimum
payment amount calculated in the manner provided in the settlement
agreement.  The company's anticipated total payments pursuant to
this settlement were reflected in a legal settlement accrual
recorded in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2009.

Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation -
http://www.big5sportinggoods.com/-- is a leading sporting goods
retailer in the western United States, operating 388 stores in 12
states under the "Big 5 Sporting Goods" name.  Big 5 provides a
full-line product offering in a traditional sporting goods store
format that averages 11,000 square feet.  Big 5's product mix
includes athletic shoes, apparel and accessories, as well as a
broad selection of outdoor and athletic equipment for team sports,
fitness, camping, hunting, fishing, tennis, golf, snowboarding and
in-line skating.


BIOVAIL CORP: Valeant Inks MOU to Settle Shareholders Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International has entered into a
memorandum of understanding to settle the consolidated suit In re
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Shareholders Litigation in
connection with Valeant's planned merger with Biovail Corp.,
according to Biovail's Sept. 20, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On June 20, 2010, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Biovail, Biovail Americas Corp. and Beach Merger
Corp. (Merger Sub).  Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub
will merge with and into Valeant with Valeant continuing as the
surviving corporation. On the date of the closing of the merger,
Biovail will change its name to Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc.

On July 16, 2010, a stockholder of the company filed a purported
class action complaint in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware captioned Porto v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International,
et al., Case No. 5644, on behalf of himself and all other
stockholders of the company against the company, the company's
directors, Biovail, BAC and Merger Sub.

On July 21, 2010, a stockholder of the company filed a purported
class action complaint in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware captioned Marion v. Pearson, et al., Case No. 5658, on
behalf of himself and all other stockholders of the company
against the company and its directors.

On July 22, 2010, a stockholder of the company filed a purported
class action complaint in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware captioned Soukup v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, et al., Case No. 5664, on behalf of himself and all
other stockholders of the company against the company, the
company's directors, Biovail, BAC and Merger Sub.

The complaints variously allege that the individual defendants,
aided and abetted by the Company, Biovail, BAC and Merger Sub,
breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, candor, good
faith and independence to stockholders in connection with the
proposed merger of the company with Biovail.  Among other things,
the complaints allege that the merger agreement fixes a price per
share that is inadequate and unfair, and effectively caps the
value of the company's stock and precludes competitive bidding
through measures such as a termination fee, a requirement that any
prior or ongoing discussions with other potential suitors be
discontinued, non-solicitation and notification covenants, and
granting Biovail the right to match any unsolicited proposal.

The complaints also allege that the individual defendants are
using the proposed merger to aggrandize their own financial
position at the expense of the Company's stockholders and have
ignored purported conflicts of interests.

On July 27, 2010, the plaintiffs in the Porto and Marion actions
filed amended complaints that include the additional allegations
that the defendants failed to disclose adequate information to
ensure an informed stockholder vote and disclosed materially
misleading information.  The complaints and amended complaints
seek various forms of relief, including rescissory damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief, including enjoining or
rescinding the merger to the extent already implemented and
requiring the defendants to effect a transaction which is in the
best interests of the company's stockholders.

On Aug. 2, 2010, the Court of Chancery granted an order
consolidating the three action complaints into a case captioned In
re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Shareholders Litigation,
Consol. C.A. No. 5644.  On Aug. 3, 2010, the Court of Chancery
entered an order which, among other things, conditionally
certified the Delaware Action as a class action.

On Sept. 17, 2010, the parties to the Delaware Action executed a
memorandum of understanding containing the terms for the parties'
agreement in principle to resolve the Delaware Action.  The
settlement contemplated by the MOU will be submitted to the
Delaware court for approval.  As part of the settlement, the
defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing and deny that the
disclosures in the joint proxy/statement prospectus were
inadequate but have agreed to provide supplemental disclosures.
The settlement will not affect the timing of the Merger or the
amount of consideration to be paid in the Merger.

Under the terms of the MOU, Valeant and Biovail are making the
following disclosures:

     -- As previously disclosed on pages 88-90 of the joint
        proxy statement/prospectus, Valeant's management
        prepared and provided to Biovail, as well as to Morgan
        Stanley & Co. Incorporated, Goldman, Sachs & Co. and
        Jefferies & Company, Inc. in connection with their
        respective evaluation of the fairness of the merger
        consideration, non-public, internal financial forecasts
        regarding Valeant's projected future operations for the
        2010 through 2014 fiscal years.  In those forecasts,
        stock based compensation expense was treated as a cash
        expense for purposes of determining EBIT.

     -- Furthermore, as previously disclosed on page 87 of the
        joint proxy statement/prospectus, Jefferies & Company,
        Inc. used Valeant's management's projected EBIT in
        determining unlevered free cash flow for purposes of its
        discounted cash flow analysis conducted in connection
        with its opinion described on pages 81-88 of the joint
        proxy statement/prospectus.

Biovail Corporation -- http://www.biovail.com/-- is a specialty
pharmaceutical company engaged in the formulation, clinical
testing, registration, manufacture, and commercialization of
pharmaceutical products.  The company is focused on the
development and commercialization of medicines that address unmet
medical needs in niche specialty central nervous system (CNS)
markets.


C.R. BARD: Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the
decision dismissing the class action lawsuit entitled St. Francis
Medical Center, et al. v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al., according to
the company's Aug. 19, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On Feb. 21, 2007, Southeast Missouri Hospital filed a putative
class action complaint on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated against the company and another manufacturer,
Tyco International, Inc., which was subsequently dismissed from
the action.

The complaint was later amended to add St. Francis Medical Center
as an additional named plaintiff.

The action was re-named as St. Francis Medical Center, et al. v.
C. R. Bard, Inc., et al., (Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-00031, in the
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Southeastern
District) when the court denied Southeast's motion to serve as a
class representative and dismissed Southeast from the lawsuit.

In September 2008, the court granted St. Francis's motion for
class certification and determined the measurement period for any
potential damages.  St. Francis alleges that the company conspired
to exclude competitors from the urological catheter
market and that the company sought to maintain market share by
engaging in conduct in violation of state and federal antitrust
laws.  St. Francis seeks injunctive relief and has presented an
expert report that calculates damages of up to approximately $320
million, a figure that the company believes is unsupported by the
facts.

The company's expert report establishes that, even assuming a
determination adverse to the company, the plaintiffs suffered no
damages.

In September 2009, the District Court granted Bard's summary
judgment motion and dismissed with prejudice all counts in this
action.  St. Francis appealed the court's decision to the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court
dismissing the class action lawsuit.

St. Francis Medical Center can request that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit re-hear its appeal and/or request a
review of the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

C. R. Bard, Inc. -- http://www.crbard.com/-- headquartered in
Murray Hill, NJ, is a leading multinational developer,
manufacturer and marketer of innovative, life-enhancing medical
technologies in the fields of vascular, urology, oncology and
surgical specialty products.


CARDTRONICS INC: Reaches Agreement to Modify Settlement Pact
------------------------------------------------------------
Cardtronics, Inc., has reached an agreement to modify the
settlement agreement previously approved by the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, according to the
company's Aug. 6, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In June 2004, the company acquired from E*Trade Access, Inc. a
portfolio of several thousand ATMs.

In connection with that acquisition, the company assumed E*Trade's
position in a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts wherein the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the
National Federation of the Blind had sued E*Trade alleging that
E*Trade had the obligation to make its ATMs accessible to blind
patrons via voice guidance.

In June 2007, the company, the Commonwealth, and the NFB entered
into a class action settlement agreement regarding this matter.
The Court approved the Settlement Agreement in Dec. 2007.

In 2009, the Company requested a modification to the Settlement
Agreement so as to permit it to complete the upgrading or
replacement of approximately 2,200 non-voice-guided ATMs by June
30, 2010, with respect to that portion of the non-voice-guided
ATMs located in the Commonwealth, and by Dec. 31, 2010, with
respect to that portion of the non-voice-guided ATMs located in
other states.

The Commonwealth, the NFB, and the company have reached an
agreement on a proposed modification to the Settlement Agreement
and have submitted a joint motion to the Court requesting its
approval.  The material terms of the proposed modification include
that the company must: (i) ensure all company-owned ATMs in the
state of Massachusetts are voice-guided no later than June 30,
2010, which the Company has accomplished; (ii) ensure all of its
company-owned ATMs located anywhere but in 7-Eleven locations are
voice-guided by December 31, 2010; (iii) ensure all of its ATMs
located in 7-Eleven locations are voice-guided by March 31, 2011;
(iv) affix Braille signage on all Company-owned ATMs; (v)
distribute Braille signage to non-Company-owned voice-guided ATMs
in its portfolio that have not previously been provided such
signage by the Company;  (vi) keep the Company's internet-based
ATM Locator updated as to the location of the Company's voice-
guided ATMs; and (vii) ensure that all voice-guided ATMs in its
portfolio have tactilely discernable controls, a headphone jack,
and a voice script that enables the consumer to complete an ATM
transaction.

Currently, the company expects the proposed modification to the
Settlement Agreement to be approved by both the class of
plaintiffs identified in the lawsuit and the Court within the next
120 days.

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Cardtronics, Inc. --
http://www.cardtronics.com/-- is the world's largest non-bank
owner of ATMs.  Cardtronics operates over 33,400 ATMs across its
portfolio, with ATMs in every major market in the United States
and Puerto Rico, over 2,600 ATMs throughout the United Kingdom,
and over 2,600 ATMs throughout Mexico.  Major merchant clients
include 7-Eleven(R), Chevron(R), Costco(R), CVS(R)/pharmacy,
ExxonMobil(R), Rite Aid(R), Safeway(R), Sunoco(R), Target(R), and
Walgreens(R).


COMMUNITY BANK: 3rd Circuit Overturns Class Suit Settlement Again
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon P. Duffy, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that for the second time, a federal appeals court has overturned
an eight-figure settlement in a class action predatory lending
suit on the grounds that the trial judge failed to follow the
rigorous and precise steps involved in certifying a settlement
class.

In its 100-page opinion in In re Community Bank of Northern
Virginia, a unanimous, three-judge panel of the Third U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals overturned a $47.6 million settlement on the
grounds that the trial judge applied the wrong legal standard in
ruling on class certification.

The ruling is a stunning second setback for both the plaintiffs
and the defendants whose prior settlement of $33 million was
overturned by the Third Circuit in 2005. It's a coup for a
coalition of objectors, represented by lawyers from Alabama, North
Carolina, Missouri, Maryland and Georgia, who have now succeeded
twice in blocking settlements of claims they say are worth more
than $3 billion.

But the objectors didn't get all they asked for. The appellate
court refused to remove U.S. District Judge Gary Lancaster from
handling the case, and sternly chided the lawyers for the
objectors for demanding a new judge when there were no grounds for
doing so.

Third Circuit Judge Thomas L. Ambro concluded that the accusations
lodged about Judge Lancaster's handling of the case "exceeded the
bounds of professional conduct by making unwarranted, unnecessary
and, quite frankly, silly attacks on the district court."

The appellate court also never addressed some of the objectors'
harshest allegations of unfairness in the settlement.

Nonetheless, Judge Ambro found that Judge Lancaster's approval of
the $47.6 million settlement must be set aside and the case must
be remanded for further hearings on the issue of whether the class
representatives are adequate to represent the entire class.

Judge Ambro was joined by Judge Anthony J. Scirica and visiting
U.S. District Judge John E. Jones of the Middle District of
Pennsylvania.

According to court papers, the suits stemmed from an alleged
predatory lending scheme of the Shumway/Bapst Organization, a
residential mortgage loan business involved in facilitating the
making of high-interest, mortgage-backed loans to debt-laden
homeowners.

The suits said that because Shumway is not a depository lender --
and thus subject to fee caps and interest ceilings under various
state laws -- it allegedly formed relationships with Community
Bank of Northern Virginia and Guarantee National Bank of
Tallahassee in order to circumvent those restrictions.

That structure, the suits alleged, permitted Shumway to conceal
the origin of the loans, creating the appearance that fees were
paid solely to a depository institution when "in reality . . . the
overwhelming majority of fees and other charges associated with
the loans were funneled to Shumway."

The suits also alleged that Residential Funding Corp. was a co-
conspirator in the scheme, deriving a substantial portion of its
business by purchasing "jumbo" and high "loan-to-value" loans from
CBNV and GNBT in the secondary market.

The named plaintiffs asserted that RFC acted with knowledge that
the banks were mere "straw parties" used to funnel origination and
title services fees to Shumway.

The litigation has been under way since 2002, but two major
settlements have now been derailed by the efforts of objectors who
have faulted Judge Lancaster's handling of the case.

In Community Bank I, the Third Circuit, in an opinion authored by
Judge Dolores K. Sloviter, vacated the certification of the class
and approval of the settlement, after concluding that Judge
Lancaster had erred in several ways, including failing to make an
independent inquiry as to whether the Rule 23 class action
requirements were satisfied; improperly enjoining counsel for the
objectors from communicating with absent class members; and
denying the objectors' motion to intervene without "reasoning or
discussion."

Judge Sloviter concluded that three of the four Rule 23(a)
requirements -- numerosity, typicality, and commonality -- were
met, as well as the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and superiority
prongs, but expressed serious concerns as to whether the adequacy
requirement of Rule 23(a) could be met.

Specifically, Judge Sloviter questioned whether the named
plaintiffs were proper heads of the class in light of their
failure to pursue claims under the Truth in Lending Act on the
grounds that most of the class would be time-barred from pursuing
such claims.

Now the Third Circuit has ruled that Judge Lancaster erred in his
handling of the Third Circuit's 2005 remand of the case.

"We conclude that the District Court -- by approaching the
adequacy-of-representation questions on remand as though it were
ruling on a motion to amend pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15(c) or a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) -
- applied the wrong legal standard in ruling on class
certification under Rule 23," Judge Ambro wrote.

"We thus reluctantly vacate again the court's certification
decision and its approval of the class settlement," Judge Ambro
wrote.

Judge Ambro found that Judge Lancaster had abused his discretion
when he determined that the named plaintiffs and class counsel
were adequate representatives for the class and instructed that,
on remand, Judge Lancaster must consider the class must be divided
into subclasses to separate those plaintiffs who have timely TILA
claims from those whose TILA claims suffer from possible statute-
of-limitations problems.


DIRECT DISH: Charged With Refusing to Honor Money Back Guarantee
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Edwards, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Dish Direct, Inc., a/k/a Maximizer Health Products,
Inc., Case No. 10-cv-0429 (N.D. Calif. September 20, 2010),
accuses Dish Direct of falsely marketing its ExtenZe nutritional
supplement as enhancing sexual health and refusing to honor its
money back guarantee by continuing to bill consumers' accounts
despite cancellation of their orders, in breach of its contracts
with its customers, and in violation of  the California Business &
Professions Code and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          One William Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Eric Freed, Esq.
          FREED & WEISS LLC
          111 West Washington Street, Suite 1311
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 220-0000
          E-mail: eric@freedweiss.com


DUOYUAN PRINTING: Faces Class Suit in New York Over 2009 IPO
------------------------------------------------------------
Notice is hereby given that Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased the securities of Duoyuan
Printing, Inc., pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's
November 6, 2009 initial public offering and purchasers of the
Company's securities during the period from November 6, 2009
through and including September 13, 2010.

A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP. Please contact us by phone to discuss this
action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at (310) 201-9150 or
Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by e-mail at
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our Web site at
http://www.glancylaw.com/

The Complaint charges Duoyuan Printing and certain of the
Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities
laws.  Duoyuan Printing is a Beijing, China-based manufacturer of
commercial offset printing presses. The Complaint alleges that
throughout the Class Period defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements concerning Duoyuan Printing's business,
operations and financial prospects. Specifically, defendants
issued false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the authenticity of certain of the Company's
expenses related to advertising and tradeshow costs could not be
verified; (2) the Company had improper relationships with certain
vendors and distributors; (3) as a result, the Company's financial
results were misstated during the Class Period; (4) the Company
lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5), as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On September 13, 2010, Duoyuan Printing disclosed that the Company
dismissed its independent registered public accounting firm,
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd., and was reorganizing its top
management in connection with the Company's "desire to resolve
open issues and file our 10-K on a timely basis." In addition, the
Company's chief executive officer, chief financial officer, and
four members of the Company's board of directors resigned after
the dismissal of Deloitte. As a result of Sept. 21, Duoyuan
Printing securities declined $3.60 per share, or more than 54%, to
close on September 13, 2010, at $2.99 per share.


HARRAH'S ENT: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Denial of Fees Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the denial of their request for
attorneys' fees remains pending in the Third Circuit U.S. Courts
of Appeals, according to the company's Aug. 16, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On January 9, 2009, S. Blake Murchison and Willis Shaw filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware, Civil Action No. 09-00020-SLR, against
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. and its board of directors, and
Harrah's Operating Company, Inc.

The lawsuit was amended on March 4, 2009, alleging that the bond
exchange offer which closed on Dec. 24, 2008 wrongfully impaired
the rights of bondholders.

The amended complaint alleges, among others, breach of the bond
indentures, violation of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939,
equitable rescission, and liability claims against the members of
the board.  The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, class
certification of the lawsuit, declaratory relief that the alleged
violations occurred, unspecified damages to the class, and
attorneys' fees.

On April 30, 2009 the defendants stipulated to the plaintiffs'
request to dismiss the lawsuit, without prejudice, which the court
entered on June 18, 2009.

Plaintiffs requested the court to award it attorneys' fees.  On
March 31, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs' request for fees and
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Third Circuit U.S.
Courts of Appeals.

Las Vegas, Nevada-based Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. --
http://www.harrahs.com/-- operates nearly 40 casinos across the
United States, primarily under the Harrah's(R), Caesars(R) and
Horseshoe(R) brand names; Harrah's also owns the London Clubs
International family of casinos and the World Series of Poker(R).
Private equity firms Apollo Global Management and TPG Capital LP
acquired Harrah's for $31 billion.


HARRAH'S ENT: Sees Liability in Hilton Suit at $80 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., estimates that the probable damages
will be at least $80 million resulting from its potential
liability in a suit involving Hilton Hotels Corporation, according
to the company's Aug. 16, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

In December 1998, Hilton spun-off its gaming operations as Park
Place Entertainment Corporation.  In connection with the spin-off,
Hilton and Park Place entered into various agreements, including
an Employee Benefits and Other Employment Allocation Agreement
dated Dec. 31, 1998, whereby Park Place assumed or retained, as
applicable, certain liabilities and excess assets, if any, related
to the Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan based on the accrued benefits
of Hilton employees and Park Place employees.  Park Place changed
its name to Caesars Entertainment, Inc. and the company acquired
Caesars in June 2005.

In 1999 and 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia certified two nationwide classes in the lawsuit against
Hilton and others alleging that the Hilton Plan's benefit formula
was backloaded in violation of ERISA, and that Hilton and the
other defendants failed to properly calculate Hilton Plan
participants' service for vesting purposes.  In May 2009, the
Court issued a decision granting summary judgment to the
plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs and the defendants are engaged in a Court-mandated
mediation effort to attempt to determine an appropriate remedy.

The company has been advised by counsel for the defendants that
the plaintiffs have estimated that the damages are in the range of
$180 million to $250 million.  Counsel for the defendants has
further advised that approximately $50 million of the damages
relates to questions regarding the proper size of the class and
the amount, if any, of damages to any additional class members due
to issues with Hilton's record keeping.

The company received a letter from Hilton dated Oct. 7, 2009
notifying the company for the first time of this lawsuit and
alleging that the company has potential liability for the above
described claims under the terms of the Allocation Agreement.
Based on the terms of the Allocation Agreement, the company
believes its maximum potential exposure is approximately 30% to
33% of the amount ultimately awarded as damages.

The company is not a party to the proceedings between the
plaintiffs and the defendants and has not participated in the
defense of the litigation or in any discussions between the
plaintiffs and the defendants about potential remedies or damages.

Further, the company says it does not have access to information
sufficient to enable the company to make an independent judgment
about the possible range of loss in connection with this matter.
Based on conversations between a representative of the company and
a representative of the defendants, the company believes it is
probable that damages will be at least $80 million and,
accordingly, the company recorded a charge of $25 million in the
second quarter 2010 in relation to this matter.

The company believes that it may have various defenses if a claim
under the Allocation Agreement is asserted against the company,
including defenses as to the amount of damages.

Las Vegas, Nevada-based Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. --
http://www.harrahs.com/-- operates nearly 40 casinos across the
United States, primarily under the Harrah's(R), Caesars(R) and
Horseshoe(R) brand names; Harrah's also owns the London Clubs
International family of casinos and the World Series of Poker(R).
Private equity firms Apollo Global Management and TPG Capital LP
acquired Harrah's for $31 billion.


JEFFERSON PARISH: Flood Victims' Case Obtains Class Action Status
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Rainey, writing for The Times-Picayune, reports residents
and property owners suing Jefferson Parish, former Parish
President Aaron Broussard and his administration over widespread
flooding in the wake of Hurricane Katrina scored a victory
Wednesday when they were granted class-action status in the 24th
Judicial District Court in Gretna.

Substitute Judge John Peytavin's ruling is the latest action in a
nearly five-year grind through the court system that reached the
Louisiana Supreme Court.

"I'm very happy," said plaintiff and attorney Darlene Jacobs. "We
worked very hard, and we're happy the citizens of Jefferson Parish
are finally going to get their day in court."

Following the plaintiff attorneys' suggestion, Judge Peytavin
divided the thousands of potential plaintiffs into two
subcategories: one for properties in the parish on each side of
the Mississippi River. The exceptions are properties in Old
Jefferson and Old Metairie that languished in water let loose by a
breach in the 17th Street Canal. The lawsuits blame the flood
damage on a decision within Broussard's administration to evacuate
220 pump operators to Washington Parish as the major storm
approached the Gulf Coast.

Judge Peytavin ruled Wednesday that enough property owners had
claimed damage to make it impractical to try them individually. He
also ruled that the claims were similar enough that a few could
represent the rest in court as typical examples. However, he chose
to exclude communities around Hoey's Basin because that flooding
did not necessarily come from the evacuation of pump operators.

Since it was filed in October 2005, the case has endured numerous
revisions to reach this point, the closest yet to a possible jury
trial.

The state Supreme Court appointed Judge Peytavin, a retired judge
from Lutcher, in 2006 to hear it after all 16 judges in the 24th
District recused themselves.

Mr. Broussard testified in November 2007 that he did not deliver
the order to evacuate the pump operators and told the court that
he was ignorant of a "doomsday plan" that called for such a
decision. In July 2008, the state high court declined to hear the
case, effectively sending it back to Judge Peytavin.  Judge
Peytavin later ruled that Broussard couldn't be sued for
negligence, but left open the possibility that he could be found
liable if plaintiffs can show he acted with "willful misconduct"
during the emergency.

In March 2009, a state appeals court ruled that Jefferson Parish
and its drainage district could not be held responsible for
decisions made as danger loomed. However that same ruling also
found that the government could be liable for any mistakes written
into the disaster policy that the administration followed.


JOHNSON AND JOHNSON: Accused in N.J. of Misleading Investors
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Johnson and Johnson didn't
tell shareholders that a number of its facilities failed to
maintain "good manufacturing practices" that led to eight separate
recalls of its products, a class of investors claims in New Jersey
Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Monk v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case
No. 10-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 2970 in Case No. 33-av-00001 on
Sept. 21, 2010 (D. N.J.), is available at http://is.gd/fo3bA

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Rd.
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: 973-994-1700

               - and -

          Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
          Erik D. Peterson, Esq.
          Stacey Kaplan, Esq.
          BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          580 California St., Suite 1750
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415-400-3000

               - and -

          D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
          David M. Promisloff, Esq.
          BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Rd.
          Randor, PA 19087
          Telephone: 610-667-7706


KOSS CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Koss Corp. continues to defend a class action complaint in
Wisconsin for allegedly violating securities law, according to the
company's Sept. 20, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2010.

On Jan. 15, 2010, a class action complaint was filed in federal
court in Wisconsin against the Company, Michael Koss and Sujata
Sachdeva.  The suit alleges violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-
5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act relating to the
unauthorized transactions and requests an award of compensatory
damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

The complaint is styled David A Puskala v. Koss Corporation, et
al., Case No. 2:2010cv00041, filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Koss Corporation -- http://www.koss.com/-- is engaged in the
design, manufacture and sale of stereo headphones and related
accessory products.  The company's products are sold through audio
specialty stores, the Internet, direct mail catalogs, regional
department store chains, discount department stores, military
exchanges, prisons and national retailers under the Koss name and
dual label.  The company also sells products to distributors for
resale to school systems and directly to other manufactures for
inclusion with their own products.


ORACLE CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal on Dismissed Suit vs. CEO Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of a suit against
Oracle Corporation's Chief Executive Officer remains pending,
according to the company's Sept. 20, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Aug. 31, 2010.

Stockholder class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California against the company and
its Chief Executive Officer on and after March 9, 2001.  Between
March 2002 and March 2003, the court dismissed plaintiffs'
consolidated complaint, first amended complaint and a revised
second amended complaint.

The last dismissal was with prejudice.

On Sept. 1, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the dismissal order and remanded the case for further
proceedings.

The revised second amended complaint named the company's Chief
Executive Officer, its then Chief Financial Officer (who currently
is Chairman of the company's Board of Directors) and a former
Executive Vice President as defendants.

This complaint was brought on behalf of purchasers of the
company's stock during the period from Dec. 14, 2000 through March
1, 2001.

Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and misleading
statements about the company's actual and expected financial
performance and the performance of certain of the company's
applications products, while certain individual defendants were
selling Oracle stock in violation of federal securities laws.
Plaintiffs further alleged that certain individual defendants sold
Oracle stock while in possession of material non-public
information.

Plaintiffs also allege that the defendants engaged in accounting
violations.

On July 26, 2007, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment,
and plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment against
all defendants and a motion for summary judgment against the
company's Chief Executive Officer.

On Aug. 7, 2007, plaintiffs filed amended versions of these
motions.

On Oct. 5, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a default
judgment against defendants or various other sanctions because of
defendants' alleged destruction of evidence.  A hearing on all
these motions was held on Dec. 20, 2007.

On April 7, 2008, the case was reassigned to a new judge.  On June
27, 2008, the court ordered supplemental briefing on plaintiffs'
sanctions motion.

On Sept. 2, 2008, the court issued an order denying plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment against all defendants.  The
order also denied in part and granted in part plaintiffs' motion
for sanctions.

The court denied plaintiffs' request that judgment be entered in
plaintiffs' favor due to the alleged destruction of evidence, and
the court found that no sanctions were appropriate for several
categories of evidence.

The court found that sanctions in the form of adverse inferences
were appropriate for two categories of evidence: e-mails from the
company's Chief Executive Officer's account, and materials that
had been created in connection with a book regarding Oracle's
Chief Executive Officer.

The court then denied defendants' motion for summary judgment and
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against the company's
Chief Executive Officer and directed the parties to revise and re-
file these motions to clearly specify the precise contours of the
adverse inferences that should be drawn, and to take these
inferences into account with regard to the propriety of summary
judgment.  The court also directed the parties to address certain
legal issues in the briefing.

On Oct. 13, 2008, the parties participated in a court-ordered
mediation, which did not result in a settlement.  On Oct. 20,
2008, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and
plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment against the
company's Chief Executive Officer.

The parties also filed several motions challenging the
admissibility of the testimony of various expert witnesses.
Opposition briefs were filed on Nov. 17, 2008, and reply briefs
were filed on Dec. 12, 2008.  A hearing on all these motions was
held on Feb. 13, 2009.

On June 16, 2009, the court issued an order granting defendants'
motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment against the company's Chief Executive Officer,
and it entered a judgment dismissing the entire case with
prejudice.

On July 14, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

Plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief on Nov. 30, 2009.

Defendants filed their opposition brief on Feb. 4, 2010, and
plaintiffs filed their reply on March 15, 2010.

The court heard oral argument on July 13, 2010.

The court has not yet ruled on this appeal.  Plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and
equitable and injunctive relief.

Oracle Corporation -- http://www.oracle.com/-- is an enterprise
software company.  The company develops, manufactures, markets,
distributes and services database and middleware software,
applications software and hardware systems, consisting primarily
of computer server and storage products.  It operates in three
segments: software, hardware systems and services.  Its software
business is consisted of two operating segments: new software
licenses and software license updates and product support.  Its
hardware systems business consists of two operating segments:
hardware systems products and hardware systems support. Its
services business is consisted of three operating segments:
consulting, On Demand and education.  In January 2010, the company
acquired Sun Microsystems, Inc. and Silver Creek Systems, Inc.


SEATTLE MORTGAGE: Faces Class Suit in Calif. Over Illegal Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Gilblom, writing for the Puget Sound Business Journal in
Seattle, Wash., reports the Seattle Mortgage Co., a unit of
Seattle Bank, has been hit with a lawsuit in California that
claims illegal activities in its lending practices involving
senior citizens.

The lawsuit, intended to be a class action, claims the mortgage
company was illegally paying fees to its mortgage brokers and
overcharging borrowers on the cost of loan origination. Though no
exact dollar figure has been sought in reimbursement costs and
damages, claims would likely total about $56 million, the lead
attorney for the plaintiff said.

"The bank cannot pay any portion of the origination fee to the
broker when there's a financial interest between the bank and
mortgage broker," said Nance Becker, the attorney representing
lead plaintiff Mary Labrador.

She added: "We alleged that Seattle Mortgage's practices violated
this regulation."

The California-based suit, which has been filed in U.S. District
Court in San Francisco and can be found here, estimates a total of
7,800 senior citizens in California have been affected.

Seattle Mortgage Co. has not returned calls requesting comment
from the Puget Sound Business Journal.

The suit specifically targets the practice of "reverse mortgage
lending." The name comes from the terms of the mortgage. Instead
of paying down the mortgage every month, borrowers regularly
receive payments from the bank drawn from the equity in their
home, and are charged upon death or sale of the house the full
value of the mortgage and any other costs incurred.

The loan, known also as home equity conversion mortgage, is
available only to those older than 62 years. And it is heavily
regulated by the department of Housing and Urban Development.

"I believe the intent of the regulation is that we want mortgage
brokers to give people financial advice based on what's in their
financial best interest and place them in loan products best
suited for their needs," said Ms. Becker, "not to be influenced by
the fees they receive from the banks."

However, the practice in question has never been ruled on in
court, according to Ms. Becker. If the ruling is favorable to the
plaintiffs, it could mean that "common" lender-broker
relationships are in fact, in violation of HUD rules, and subject
to legal action.

Further, the suit is focused in California. Other states could
discover the same practice exists there as well.

"It could affect other institutions," said Ms. Becker. "The
regulation applies nationally."

Currently, the plaintiffs are waiting to hear if a motion to
support class action certification will be approved by Judge
Samuel Conti. If the case goes to trial, it will likely be a year
or more before it is concluded.

Seattle Bank two weeks ago removed CEO Ellen Sas and a replacement
hasn't been named.


SIX FLAGS: Wage-Related Suit Enjoined Under Reorganization Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, in its Aug. 16, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010, discloses that a purported class
action has been enjoined pursuant to the company's Chapter 11
Reorganization Plan.

In 2005, certain plaintiffs filed a complaint on behalf of a
purported class of current and former employees against the
company in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County
alleging unpaid wages and related penalties and violations of law
governing employee meal and rest breaks related to the company's
current and formerly owned parks in California between November
2001 and Dec. 18, 2007.

While the company denied any violation of law or other wrongdoing,
it settled the case in 2007 and deposited into escrow $9,225,000
to be applied to the initial settlement fund, which was recorded
in other expense.  In April 2009, the company paid approximately
$255,000 (which was recorded in other expense as of Dec. 31, 2008)
into the settlement fund based on the company meeting certain
performance criteria in 2008.

This litigation has been stayed since the company's June 13, 2009,
Chapter 11 protection filing.  As of the Effective Date of the
Chapter 11 Reorganization Plan, any further action against the
company with respect to this litigation is enjoined pursuant to
the Plan.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware confirmed
the company's plan of reorganization on June 30, 2010.

Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, a publicly-traded corporation
headquartered in Dallas, Texas, is the largest regional theme park
operator in the world with 19 parks across the United States,
Mexico and Canada.


STUDENT LOAN: Faces Class Suit in Delaware Over Citibank Buyout
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, disclosed Wednesday that
a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the Court of Chancery
in the State of Delaware on behalf of all shareholders of Student
Loan Corporation.

The complaint alleges that Student Loan's board of directors have
agreed to sell Student Loan to a group that includes Student
Loan's majority owner, Citibank, N.A., on terms that allegedly are
unfair to the Company's shareholders.

According to the complaint, Student Loan is 80% owned by CBNA. In
the Buyout, CBNA will acquire approximately $8.7 billion of
Student Loan's assets, SLM Corporation will acquire $28 billion of
assets, and Discover Financial Services will acquire $4 billion of
assets and become the owner of Student Loan's private student loan
business.

The complaint alleges that the underpriced Buyout is being foisted
on Student Loan's public shareholders because CBNA is in desperate
need to raise cash and divest non-core banking assets in the short
term. According to the complaint, through the Buyout, CBNA and its
corporate parent, Citigroup Inc., will unload nearly $40 billion
in student loans from its books and take in $1.8 billion in cash.
The complaint also alleges that CBNA/Citigroup's self-interested
needs to satisfy orders from regulators to downsize, raise cash
and focus on its core consumer banking business has harmed Student
Loan public shareholders, as the Buyout provides public
shareholders with just $30 cash per share, representing a
significant discount to the Company's book value, even though most
of the Company's student loans are guaranteed by the U.S.
government.

The complaint further alleges that under the terms of the Buyout,
CBNA has agreed to sell Student Loan for substantially less than
it is worth in order to serve its own self-interests, to the harm
of the Company's public shareholders, while cherry-picking its own
purchase of Student Loan assets that it can sell to private
investors.

If you are a current owner of shares of The Student Loan
Corporation you may obtain additional information about this
lawsuit by contacting:

     Charles J. Piven, Esq.
     BROWER PIVEN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
     1925 Old Valley Road
     Stevenson, MD 21153
     Telephone: 410/415-6701
     E-mail: piven@browerpiven.com

Attorneys at Brower Piven have combined experience litigating
securities and class action cases of over 50 years. If you choose
to retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your
choice. You need take no action at this time to be a member of the
class.


SYNGENTA CROP: Parties Continue to Duel Over Discovery Issues
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison County Record, reports
attorneys continue to duel over discovery issues in one of a
series of proposed class action cases brought against the makers
of atrazine.

Lead plaintiff Holiday Shores Sanitary District, represented by
Stephen Tillery, Esq., of St. Louis, and defendant Syngenta Crop
Protection Inc. on Friday argued motions to compel parts of
discovery in the six year-old case.

Kurtis Reeg and others represent Syngenta.

In its motion, the plaintiff claims that Syngenta refuses to
produce documents and a complete privilege log.

For its part, Syngenta claims that the plaintiff won't answer its
interrogatories, including those related to what human health
effects the plaintiff claims Syngenta's atrazine-containing
products cause.

Holiday Shores proposes to lead six class action suits over
alleged water contamination caused by atrazine.

Atrazine is an herbicide commonly used on farm fields.

The plaintiff, along with several other Illinois municipality
plaintiffs, claim they and others suffer water contamination after
atrazine runs off fields into their drinking water supplies.

They claim atrazine-contaminated water causes human health
effects, although none of the suits specify what those are.

While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has ruled that
atrazine is safe in drinking water up to three parts per billion,
the plaintiffs claims lower levels still impact human health.
Although the suits were all filed in 2004, the discovery process
only began moving forward last year.

Syngenta had tried to have the Madison County suit against it
dismissed or stayed pending the outcome of a nearly identical case
filed against it earlier this year in federal court in East St.
Louis.

That suit, filed by the same team of attorneys representing
Holiday Shores in the six Madison County suits, alleges virtually
identical claims.

The case includes a proposed class of Illinois, Missouri, Kansas
and other states' water providers.

Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder, who currently
oversees the Syngenta suit, denied motions to dismiss and to stay
earlier this month.

In its renewed motion to compel, Holiday Shores argues that while
it has tried to resolve discovery disputes with Syngenta, the
production it seeks from the company has not resulted.

It claims the first privilege log the company provided did not
comply with Illinois law.

The company claimed privilege, according to the motion, for a list
of 706 documents and that the descriptions given of the documents
did not meet the law's standard.

The plaintiffs contend many of the 706 documents are not
privileged.

The motion takes issue with more than 300 documents in the
privilege log that are classified as attorney-client
communications.

The plaintiff claims more than 70 of the documents were authored
or received by a government agency and that two documents where
privilege are claimed were written by plaintiff's counsel and sent
to the Third Judicial Circuit Court of Illinois in Madison County.

"Syngenta has waived its attorney-client privilege as to each of
these documents because it failed to meet the threshold burden of
proving that the statements remained confidential," the motion
reads.

The plaintiff's motion also points to an overbroad use of
consulting and other privileges.

"Syngenta asserts a privilege that is not recognized under
Illinois law," the motion argues. "Further, even though the
privilege log was to coordinate with the documents that were being
produced, Syngenta has withheld untold numbers of documents for
privileges not asserted on the privilege log. Syngenta has
flaunted Illinois law concerning privileges."

The motion asks that an order be entered forcing the company to
provide a privilege log that complies with Illinois law within
seven days. It also wants an order requiring the defendant to pay
plaintiff's reasonable expenses and for sanctions.

In Syngenta's motion, the company contends that it served the
plaintiff with interrogatories beginning in June 2009.

After being assured by Mr. Tillery that the discovery issues would
be addressed, the company claims the plaintiff objected to the
discovery questions.

The court eventually entered an order in October 2009 overruling a
number of the objections.

Syngenta claims that Holiday Shores has refused to withdraw its
objections to the interrogatory related to the health effects of
drinking water containing atrazine less than the EPA limit.

The company claims it has been denied an answer, saying in the
motion that the plaintiff's response "has remained unchanged since
its initial objections and responses."

"To date, [Syngenta] has yet to receive a full, complete answer,"
the motion reads.

The motion asks the judge to order the plaintiff to provide full
and complete answers to the company's interrogatories.

Both motions to compel were filed Sept. 20.

The plaintiff's motion to compel was originally filed in August.

The Syngenta case is the last of the atrazine suits still pending
in Crowder's courtroom. The other suits moved, along with the rest
of her civil docket to Circuit Judge Daniel Stack.

The Holiday Shores suits are Madison case numbers 04-L-708 to 04-
L-713.

The Syngenta suit is case number 04-L-710.


TOYOTA AUTO: TMCC Cases Not Material to TAR 2010 Noteholders
------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation discloses that the cases it is
facing is not material to holders of any notes of Toyota Auto
Receivables 2010-A Owner Trust and Toyota Auto Receivables 2010-B
Owner Trust, according to Toyota Auto Receivables 2010-A Owner
Trust and Toyota Auto Receivables 2010-B Owner Trust's Sept. 17,
2010, Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the monthly distribution period from Aug. 1, 2010
to Aug. 31, 2010.

TMCC and certain affiliates were named as defendants in the
consolidated multidistrict litigation, In Re: Toyota Motor Corp.
Unintended Acceleration, Marketing, Sales Practices and Products
Liability Litigation (U.S. District Court, Central District of
California) seeking damages and injunctive relief as a result of
alleged sudden unintended acceleration and/or braking defects in
certain Toyota and Lexus vehicles.  A parallel action was filed
against TMCC and certain affiliates on March 12, 2010 by the
Orange County District Attorney.

On Aug. 2, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
that does not name TMCC as a defendant.  TMCC remains a defendant
in the action filed by the Orange County District Attorney.

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

On July 22, 2010, the same plaintiff in the federal bondholder
action refiled the case in California state court on behalf of
purchasers of TMCC bonds traded on foreign exchanges (Harel Pia
Mutual Fund v. Toyota Motor Corp., et al., Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles).  The complaint alleges
violations of California securities laws, fraud, breach of
fiduciary duty and other state law claims.

TMCC says that the cases will not be material to holders of any
notes of Toyota Auto Receivables 2010-A Owner Trust and Toyota
Auto Receivables 2010-B Owner Trust.


VALHI INC: Unit Continues to Defend Suit Over Lead-Based Paint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Valhi, Inc.'s subsidiary, NL Industries, Inc., continues to defend
lawsuits relating to the manufacture of lead pigments for use in
paint and lead-based paint,

NL Industries, Inc.'s former operations included the manufacture
of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-based paint.  NL, other
former manufacturers of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-
based paint, and the Lead Industries Association, which
discontinued business operations in 2002, have been named as
defendants in various legal proceedings seeking damages for
personal injury, property damage and governmental expenditures
allegedly caused by the use of lead-based paints.

Certain of these actions have been filed by or on behalf of
states, counties, cities or their public housing authorities and
school districts, and certain others have been asserted as class
actions.  These lawsuits seek recovery under a variety of
theories, including public and private nuisance, negligent product
design, negligent failure to warn, strict liability, breach of
warranty, conspiracy/concert of action, aiding and abetting,
enterprise liability, market share or risk contribution liability,
intentional tort, fraud and misrepresentation, violations of state
consumer protection statutes, supplier negligence and similar
claims.

The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on the
defendants responsibility for lead paint abatement and health
concerns associated with the use of lead-based paints, including
damages for personal injury, contribution and/or indemnification
for medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and costs for
educational programs.   To the extent the plaintiffs seek
compensatory or punitive damages in these actions, such damages
are generally unspecified.

In some cases, the damages are unspecified pursuant to the
requirements of applicable state law.  A number of cases are
inactive or have been dismissed or withdrawn.  Most of the
remaining cases are in various pre-trial stages.  Some are on
appeal following dismissal or summary judgment rulings in favor of
either the defendants or the plaintiffs.  In addition, various
other cases are pending (in which we are not a defendant) seeking
recovery for injury allegedly caused by lead pigment and lead-
based paint.

Valhi, Inc. is engaged in the titanium dioxide pigments, component
products -- security products, furniture components and high
performance marine components -- and waste management industries.


VALEANT PHARMA: Inks MOU to Settle Consolidated Suit Over Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International has entered into a
memorandum of understanding to settle the consolidated suit In re
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Shareholders Litigation
pending in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware,
according to the company's Sept. 20, 2010, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On June 20, 2010, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Biovail Corp., Biovail Americas Corp. and Beach
Merger Corp.  Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will
merge with and into Valeant with Valeant continuing as the
surviving corporation. On the date of the closing of the merger,
Biovail will change its name to Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc.

On July 16, 2010, a stockholder of the company filed a purported
class action complaint in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware captioned Porto v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International,
et al., Case No. 5644, on behalf of himself and all other
stockholders of the company against the company, the company's
directors, Biovail, BAC and Merger Sub.

On July 21, 2010, a stockholder of the company filed a purported
class action complaint in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware captioned Marion v. Pearson, et al., Case No. 5658, on
behalf of himself and all other stockholders of the company
against the company and its directors.

On July 22, 2010, a stockholder of the company filed a purported
class action complaint in the Court of Chancery for the State of
Delaware captioned Soukup v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, et al., Case No. 5664, on behalf of himself and all
other stockholders of the company against the company, the
company's directors, Biovail, BAC and Merger Sub.

The complaints variously allege that the individual defendants,
aided and abetted by the Company, Biovail, BAC and Merger Sub,
breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, candor, good
faith and independence to stockholders in connection with the
proposed merger of the company with Biovail.  Among other things,
the complaints allege that the merger agreement fixes a price per
share that is inadequate and unfair, and effectively caps the
value of the company's stock and precludes competitive bidding
through measures such as a termination fee, a requirement that any
prior or ongoing discussions with other potential suitors be
discontinued, non-solicitation and notification covenants, and
granting Biovail the right to match any unsolicited proposal.

The complaints also allege that the individual defendants are
using the proposed merger to aggrandize their own financial
position at the expense of the Company's stockholders and have
ignored purported conflicts of interests.

On July 27, 2010, the plaintiffs in the Porto and Marion actions
filed amended complaints that include the additional allegations
that the defendants failed to disclose adequate information to
ensure an informed stockholder vote and disclosed materially
misleading information.  The complaints and amended complaints
seek various forms of relief, including rescissory damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief, including enjoining or
rescinding the merger to the extent already implemented and
requiring the defendants to effect a transaction which is in the
best interests of the company's stockholders.

On Aug. 2, 2010, the Court of Chancery granted an order
consolidating the three action complaints into a case captioned In
re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Shareholders Litigation,
Consol. C.A. No. 5644.  On Aug. 3, 2010, the Court of Chancery
entered an order which, among other things, conditionally
certified the Delaware Action as a class action.

On Sept. 17, 2010, the parties to the Delaware Action executed a
memorandum of understanding containing the terms for the parties'
agreement in principle to resolve the Delaware Action.  The
settlement contemplated by the MOU will be submitted to the
Delaware court for approval.  As part of the settlement, the
defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing and deny that the
disclosures in the joint proxy/statement prospectus were
inadequate but have agreed to provide supplemental disclosures.
The settlement will not affect the timing of the Merger or the
amount of consideration to be paid in the Merger.

Under the terms of the MOU, Valeant and Biovail are making the
following disclosures:

     -- As previously disclosed on pages 88-90 of the joint
        proxy statement/prospectus, Valeant's management
        prepared and provided to Biovail, as well as to Morgan
        Stanley & Co. Incorporated, Goldman, Sachs & Co. and
        Jefferies & Company, Inc. in connection with their
        respective evaluation of the fairness of the merger
        consideration, non-public, internal financial forecasts
        regarding Valeant's projected future operations for the
        2010 through 2014 fiscal years.  In those forecasts,
        stock based compensation expense was treated as a cash
        expense for purposes of determining EBIT.

     -- Furthermore, as previously disclosed on page 87 of the
        joint proxy statement/prospectus, Jefferies & Company,
        Inc. used Valeant's management's projected EBIT in
        determining unlevered free cash flow for purposes of its
        discounted cash flow analysis conducted in connection
        with its opinion described on pages 81-88 of the joint
        proxy statement/prospectus.

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International -- http://www.valeant.com/-
- is a multinational specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops and markets a broad range of pharmaceutical products
primarily in the areas of neurology and dermatology.


ZYNEX INC: Plea to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zynex, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class
action lawsuit remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado, according to the company's Aug. 16, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

A lawsuit was filed against the company, its President and Chief
Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer on April 6,
2009, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
(Marjorie and David Mishkin v. Zynex, Inc. et al.).

On April 9 and April 10, 2009, two other lawsuits were filed in
the same court against the same defendants.

These lawsuits alleged substantially the same matters and have
been consolidated. On April 19, 2010, plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Class Action Complaint (Civil Action No. 09-cv-00780-
REB-KLM).

The consolidated lawsuit refers to the April 1, 2009 announcement
of the company that it would restate its unaudited interim
financial statements for the first three quarters of 2008. The
lawsuit purports to be a class action on behalf of purchasers of
the company's securities between May 21, 2008 and March 31, 2009.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated Section 10 and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by making intentionally or recklessly untrue statements of
material fact and/or failing to disclose material facts regarding
the financial results and operating conditions for the first three
quarters of 2008 and other misleading statements.

The plaintiffs ask for a determination of class action status,
unspecified damages and costs of the legal action.

On May 17, 2010, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss.  The
plaintiffs filed an Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
and on July 5, 2010, the company filed a Reply in Support of
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.  The company is awaiting a ruling
on the Motion to Dismiss from the Court.

Zynex, Inc. -- http://www.zynexmed.com/-- engineers,
manufactures, markets, and sells its own design of electrotherapy
medical devices in two distinct markets: standard digital
electrotherapy products for pain relief and pain management; and
the NeuroMove(TM) for stroke and spinal cord injury
rehabilitation.  Zynex's product lines are fully developed, FDA-
cleared, commercially sold, and have been developed to uphold the
company's mission of improving the quality of life for patients
suffering from impaired mobility due to stroke, spinal cord
injury, or debilitating and chronic pain.


                             *********

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, Rousel Elaine Fernandez,
Joy A. Agravante, Ronald Sy, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline
Abangan and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2010.  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  * * *