CAR_Public/101020.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, October 20, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 207

                             Headlines

ALBERTO-CULVER: D&Os Sued Over $3.7 Billion Sale to Unilever
AUDIOVOX CORP: Suits Over Cell Phone Radiation Remain Pending
AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Defends Second Amended Complaint in NY
BRIGGS & STRATTON: Recalls 500 Craftsman Riding Mowers
CCA INDUSTRIES: Court Gives Final Nod to "Wally" Suit Settlement

CHICAGO CARRIAGE: Sued for Retaining 5% of Fares Made on Credit
GATEWAY INC: Sued Over Defective LX6810 Desktop Computer
INDYMAC BANK: Accused of Breaching Option ARM Mortgage Contracts
LLOYDS TSB: To Face U.S. Class Action Over HBOS Takeover
PERIGEUM DEVELOPMENT: Recalls 500 Revl Carbon Bicycle Brakes

RYOBI TECHNOLOGIES: Recalls 445,000 HP 1802M Cordless Power Drills
UK: New FSA Redress Powers Could Spark Platform "Class Actions"
UNITED STATES: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Ruling Questioned
UNITED STATES: Nears Settlement in Native American Farmers' Suit
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Suit Over Lending Granted Class-Action Status

WILLMOTT FORESTS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit From Investors
YUM! BRANDS: Continues to Defend "Chhibber" in Orange County
YUM! BRANDS: Defends Wage and Hour Suits in California
YUM! BRANDS: Plaintiff's Appeal of Ruling in KFC Suit Ongoing
YUM! BRANDS: "Rosales" Suit in Orange County Remains Stayed

YUM! BRANDS: Awaits Class Certification Ruling in "Hines" Suit

* Securities Class Action Suits Decreasing, Advisen Report Says

                             *********

ALBERTO-CULVER: D&Os Sued Over $3.7 Billion Sale to Unilever
------------------------------------------------------------
Dolores Joyce, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Leornard H. Lavin, et al., Case No. 2010-CH-44626
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. October 13, 2010), seeks to enjoin the
proposed acquisition of the publicly owned shares of Alberto-
Culver Company common stock by Unilever N.V., Unilever PLC,
Conopco, Inc. and ACE Merger, Inc., for $37.50 per share in an all
cash transaction valued at approximately $3.7 billion.

Specifically, Ms. Joyce says certain of Alberto-Culver's officers
and directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
public shareholders when they failed to secure the best price
obtainable for the benefit of the Company's shareholders.  In
addition to the grossly inadequate consideration, Ms. Joyce states
the offer was also arrived at through a flawed sales process.

The individual defendants include:

     1) Leonard H. Lavin, founder, Chairman Emeritus and director
     2) Carol Lavin Bernick, Executive Chairman and director
     3) V. James Marino, President, CEO and director
     4) King W. Harris, director
     5) Robert H. Rock, director
     6) Thomas A. Dattilo, director
     7) Sam J. Susser, director
     8) James R. Edgar, director
     9) James G. Brocksmith, Jr., director
    10) George L. Fotiades, director

The suit alleges that Alberto-Culver's Board of Directors had
substantial leverage to negotiate a significant premium in an all-
cash sale of the Company, but elected to negotiate solely with
Unilever to sell the Company without even contacting any other
potential buyers.

The Complaint states that the individual defendants further
breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to certain deal
protection devices designed to make the proposed transaction a
virtual fait d'accompli and deter the emergence of any competing
bidders, including: i) a termination fee of $125 million; ii) a
strict "no shop" provision that prevents Alberto-Culver from
communicating with or providing Company information to competing
bidders; and iii) a matching rights provision.

In addition, it is anticipated that the Company's key executives,
including President and CEO V. James Marino, will secure lucrative
continued employment with the surviving company, according to the
Complaint.

Moreover, concurrently with the execution of the Merger Agreement,
certain of the individual defendants including Leonard H. Lavin
and Carol Lavin Bernick who collectively own over 13% of the
Company's stock, entered into a Stockholder Agreement that
irrevocably binds them to vote in favor of the proposed
transaction.

The suit also asserts claims against Unilever and Alberto-Culver
for knowingly aiding and abetting the individual defendants'
breach of their fiduciary duties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark D. Belongia, Esq.
          Harry O. Channon, Esq.
          BELONGA, SHAPIRO & FRANKLIN, LLP
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 300
          Telephone: (312) 662-1030

               - and -

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          David H. Leventhal, Esq.
          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330

               - and -

          James S. Notis, Esq.
          Charles A. Germershausen
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          560 Sylvan Avenue
          Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 07632
          Telephone: (201) 567-7377


AUDIOVOX CORP: Suits Over Cell Phone Radiation Remain Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Certain consolidated class actions transferred to a Multi-District
Litigation Panel of the U.S. District Court of the District of
Maryland against Audiovox Corp. and other suppliers, manufacturers
and distributors of hand-held wireless telephones are still
pending.

The suits generally allege damages relating to exposure to radio
frequency radiation from hand-held wireless telephones.

No additional information was disclosed in the company's
Oct. 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2010.

Audiovox Corp. -- http://www.audiovox.com/-- is an international
distributor and value added service provider in the accessory,
mobile and consumer electronics industries.


AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Defends Second Amended Complaint in NY
------------------------------------------------------------
Authentidate Holding Corp. continues to defend a second amended
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, according to the company's Oct. 13, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2010.

Between June and August 2005, six purported shareholder class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the company and certain of
its current and former directors and former officers.  Plaintiffs
in those actions alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The securities law claims
were based on the allegations that the company failed to disclose
that its August 2002 agreement with the USPS contained certain
performance metrics, and that the USPS could cancel the agreement
if it did not meet these metrics; that it did not disclose
complete and accurate information as to its performance under, and
efforts to renegotiate, the USPS agreement; and that when it did
disclose that the USPS might cancel the agreement, the market
price of its stock declined.

On Oct. 5, 2005 the Court consolidated the class actions under the
caption In re Authentidate Holding Corp. Securities Litigation.,
C.A. No. 05 Civ. 5323 (LTS), and appointed the Illinois State
Board of Investment as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.  The plaintiff filed an amended
consolidated complaint on January 3, 2006, which asserted the same
claims as the prior complaints and also alleged that Authentidate
violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting that it
possessed certain patentable technology.

On July 14, 2006, the Court dismissed the amended complaint in its
entirety; certain claims were dismissed with prejudice and
plaintiff was given leave to replead those claims which were not
dismissed with prejudice.

In August 2006, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which
did not assert any claims relating to the company's patents or
under the Securities Act of 1933, but which otherwise was
substantially similar to the prior complaint.  The second amended
complaint sought unspecified monetary damages. The company moved
to dismiss the second amended complaint on November 13, 2006.

On March 26, 2009, the S.D.N.Y. dismissed, with prejudice, the
second amended complaint. The lead plaintiff filed an appeal and a
hearing in the case was held before the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit on Feb. 3, 2010.

On March 16, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit issued an order affirming in part and vacating and
remanding in part the March 2009 decision of the S.D.N.Y. which
had granted the company's motion to dismiss these claims with
prejudice.

Authentidate Holding Corp. -- http://www.authentidate.com/-- is a
worldwide provider of secure Health Information Exchange and
workflow management services.  The Company's software and web-
based services enable healthcare organizations and other
enterprises to increase revenues, improve productivity and reduce
costs by eliminating paper and manual work steps from clinical,
administrative and other processes and enhancing compliance with
regulatory requirements.  The web-based services are delivered as
Software as a Service (Saas) to customers.  These solutions
incorporate rules-based electronic forms, intelligent routing,
transaction management, electronic signatures, identity
credentialing, content authentication and automated audit trails.
Both web and fax based communications are integrated into
automated and trusted workflow solutions.  The company has offices
in the United States and Germany.  In the United States,
Authentidate offers its patent pending content authentication
technology in the form of the United States Postal Service(R)
Electronic Postmark(R) (EPM).


BRIGGS & STRATTON: Recalls 500 Craftsman Riding Mowers
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC, of Milwaukee, Wis.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 500 Craftsman riding mowers.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

These riding mowers came to consumers with the side discharge
chute not fully secured to the mower. Bolts can be forcefully
discharged from mower if not properly tightened, posing an injury
hazard to consumers.

The firm received one report of a bolt that discharged forcefully,
breaking a window.

This recall involves Craftman riding mower with model number
107.28034 and serial numbers listed below.  The rear engine
mounted riding mower is black.  The model and serial numbers can
be found on the data tag on the back of the riding mower.

           Serial numbers included in this recall
           --------------------------------------

                  2014033403 through 2014034552
                  2014082112 through 2014082861
                  2014149995 through 2014151266
                  2014346290 through 2014346803

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

    http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11704.html

The recalled products were manufactured in USA and sold through
Sears stores nationwide between February 2010 and May 2010 for
about $1,400.

Consumers should immediately stop using these recalled riding
mowers and contact Sears for a free inspection and repair.  Sears
is sending consumers letters with information on scheduling an
inspection and repair.  For additional information, contact Sears
at (800) 859-7026 between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.sears.com/


CCA INDUSTRIES: Court Gives Final Nod to "Wally" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, Central Civil West, on Sept. 28, 2010, entered a Final
Order and Judgment in the case Denise Wally and Lauren Fleischer,
et al. vs. CCA Industries, Inc.  The Final Order reconfirms the
Preliminary Approval order dated June 9, 2010, which, subject to
the Court's final approval, provided for the deposit of $2,500,000
into a common fund to be dispersed as per provisions approved by
the Court in the final Order of Settlement, according to the
company's Oct 13, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

The suit was originally filed on Sept. 29, 2009, alleging false
and misleading advertisement of the company's dietary supplement.
The action was brought seeking monetary and equitable remedies.

CCA Industries, Inc., manufactures and distributes health and
beauty aid products.  CCA has several wholly-owned subsidiaries,
CCA Cosmetics, Inc., CCA Labs, Inc., and Berdell, Inc, all of
which are currently inactive.  CCA has two active wholly-owned
subsidiaries, CCA Online Industries, Inc., and CCA IND., S.A. DE
C.V., a Variable Capital Corporation organized pursuant to the
laws of Mexico.


CHICAGO CARRIAGE: Sued for Retaining 5% of Fares Made on Credit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Durueke, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Chicago Carriage Cab Co. and Royal 3 CCC Chicago Tax
Association, Inc., Case No. 2010-CH-44770 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook
Cty. October 14, 2010), accuses the taxicab operators of turning
over to their taxicab drivers only 95% or less of amounts shown on
receipts for payments made by passengers on credit, which includes
payments through credit cards, debit cards, prepaid cards, and
company charge cards.  Mr. Durueke says that despite demands made
to the defendants to turn over 100% of the fares or gratuities
made by credit to their taxicab drivers, defendants have refused.
Mr. Durueke states that no agreement exists authorizing defendants
to take any part of the money paid by credit to the taxicab
drivers as either fares or gratuities, and that their only
obligation is to pay the agreed rental amounts specified in the
lease when they rent the taxicabs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert A. Holstein, Esq.
          HOLSTEIN LAW OFFICES, LLC
          19 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 906-8000

               - and -

          Clayton P. Voegtle, Esq.
          14047 W. Petronella Dr., Suite 202A
          Libertyville, IL 60048
          Telephone: (847) 918-9840


GATEWAY INC: Sued Over Defective LX6810 Desktop Computer
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims the
Gateway LX6810 desktop computer overheats and crashes under normal
conditions, in Los Angeles Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Kelly, et al. v. Gateway, Inc., et al.
Case No. 10-cv-01563 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/15/Gateway.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel E. Park, Esq.
          Shahram A. Shayesteh, Esq.
          Edward Kang, Esq.
          Lisa M. Lawrence, Esq.
          Alice Wang, Esq.
          LURIE & PARK
          16501 Ventura Blvd., Suite 620
          Encino, CA 91423
          Telephone: (818) 949-6000


INDYMAC BANK: Accused of Breaching Option ARM Mortgage Contracts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims that
IndyMac Bank and its successor, One West Bank Group, breached
"Option ARM" mortgage contracts, and made principal balances
increase,by applying payments to escrow accounts before principal
and interest.

By violating the explicit terms of its contracts, the banks made
the mortgage loans negatively amortize, increasing the principal
balance, the class claims.  They seek an injunction and damages
for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of
business and professional codes and consumer laws.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard Kellner, Esq.
          KABATECK BROWN KELLNER, LLP
          Engine Company No. 28 Building
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: 213-217-5000

It's the second class action against IndyMac and One West last
week in L.A. Superior Court.


LLOYDS TSB: To Face U.S. Class Action Over HBOS Takeover
--------------------------------------------------------
Jane Bradley, writing for The Scotsman, reports shareholders
fighting for compensation for the takeover of HBOS by Lloyds TSB
have appointed lawyers in the United States to launch a class
action against the bank through the American courts.

A court case is expected to be lodged by early next year, through
which US shareholders will attempt to claw back the money they
believe they lost as a result of the bank's alleged failure to
fully describe financial problems experienced by HBOS ahead of the
merger which created Lloyds Banking Group.

Led by campaign group Lloyds Action Now, shareholders claim they
were denied the proper information they needed to vote on the
matter and will argue the bank did not allow them an opportunity
to sell their shares before the vote.

The group has already begun legal action in the UK, through the
civil courts, where it is currently awaiting a decision from the
bank as to whether it will agree to a pre-court settlement known
as mediation.  If mediation does not take place, the case will
proceed to court.

It is expected the US case will be opened in Kentucky where there
are a large number of Lloyds shareholders, although Kentucky
lawyer Robert Sparks, who has been appointed to handle the case
alongside Harry Rankin, said it seemed "destined" to be heard in
New York, where "judges are highly qualified in securities
litigation".

LAN has also sent a delegation to the offices of Mary Shapiro,
chair of the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), and New York
Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, to brief them on the case.

London-based barrister Johan du Toit, leader of the delegation,
said: "While this is a civil case there could be implications for
the directors of Lloyds who did not make a proper disclosure of
the facts."

Claimants say Lloyds directors and the Treasury deliberately
failed to disclose the extent of the GBP25.4 billion emergency
funding to HBOS in order to keep it afloat until the merger could
be approved.

This, they claim, was a breach of SEC regulations in the US and
the Financial Services and Securities Act in the UK.


PERIGEUM DEVELOPMENT: Recalls 500 Revl Carbon Bicycle Brakes
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Perigeum Development Inc., dba The Hive, of Petaluma, Calif.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 500 Revl carbon bicycle
brakes.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.

The cable clamping area of the bicycle brakes can crack over time,
causing the brakes to fail.  This could pose a fall or crash
hazard to the cyclist.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

The recall involves black Revl carbon road bicycle brakes with
date codes 41B, 44B, 45B, 53B, 13C and 16C printed on the
underside of the carbon brake arms.  "Revl" is printed on the
brake.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11010.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold through
Bicycle specialty stores nationwide from September 2009 through
August 2010 for about $390 per set.

Consumers should stop using their bicycles with these recalled
brakes and contact The Hive for replacement parts and instruction
to repair their brakes or contact their retailer to perform the
repair free of charge.  For additional information, contact The
Hive at (800) 801-9936 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Pacific
Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.bythehive.com/recall/


RYOBI TECHNOLOGIES: Recalls 445,000 HP 1802M Cordless Power Drills
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Ryobi Technologies Inc., of Anderson, S.C., announced a voluntary
recall of about 445,000 Ryobi Model HP 1802M Cordless Power
Drills.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.

The switch on the cordless drill can overheat, posing a fire and
burn hazard to consumers.

Ryobi has received 47 reports of the drills overheating, smoking,
melting or catching fire, including 12 reports of property damage
to homes or vehicles.  Two of the incidents involved minor burns
from touching an overheated switch.

This recall involves the Ryobi Model HP 1802M cordless drill is
powered by an 18 volt rechargeable NiCad battery.  The drills are
blue and black in color with "Ryobi" appearing in red and white on
the left side.  The model number can be found on a white label on
the right side of the drill.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11009.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Home Depot from January 2001 to July 2003 for about $100.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled drill, remove
the rechargeable battery and contact Ryobi to receive a free
replacement drill.  For additional information, contact Ryobi
Customer Service at (800) 597-9624 between 10:00 a.m. and 7:00
p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.ryobitools.com/


UK: New FSA Redress Powers Could Spark Platform "Class Actions"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Will Roberts, writing for IFAonline, reports new FSA consumer
redress powers could have "catastrophic" implications for advisers
who have not conducted proper platforms due diligence, warns
Capita Financial Software.

New FSA powers, which came into force this week, require
businesses to set up collective redress schemes where the
regulator sees evidence of widespread failings.

But Capita Financial Software business development director
William Watling says this raises the specter of class action
lawsuits being issued by clients against their advisers' choice of
platform.

"If a client proved they had been detrimentally impacted by an
adviser's choice of platform -- for example, they could have got
certain funds or wrappers cheaper elsewhere -- that could
potentially mean any client on the same platform impacted in the
same way has a right to collective redress," he says.

"I am concerned by this and think it is an important question to
be raised.  If you have hundreds of clients filing class actions,
this could be catastrophic."

Mr. Watling says the regulator's new powers could also have a
significant impact on advisers using just one platform.

"If there is one market where IFAs do things in one way, it is the
wrap and platform space," he says.

The FSA recently indicated advisers can still label themselves as
independent despite using just a single platform as long as their
clients are all of a similar kind.

AT8 director Mark Thelwell says the FSA's new redress powers --
part of April's Financial Services Act 2010 -- could potentially
have significant ramifications but are only likely to be used in
extreme cases.

"There would have to be widespread evidence of people failing to
apply principles in the client interest for these powers to be
invoked, requiring some high hurdles for the FSA to go through,"
he says.

"They certainly have the armory to hand but they would likely only
use it in extreme circumstances."

But he adds the new powers will ramp up the pressure on advisers
to conduct rigorous due diligence.

"These powers will still be a threat in the background so advisers
need to make sure they go through the proper processes and, if
this hasn't been done recently, then this needs to be revisited."

He also suggests advisers will find it difficult to use just one
platform without falling foul of the FSA's rigid guidelines.

"In reality, when you listen to all of the FSA criteria it is
difficult to come up with a client segmentation strategy so
narrowly defined as to allow all clients to sit on one platform."


UNITED STATES: "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Ruling Questioned
--------------------------------------------------------
David S. Cloud and David Savage, writing for The Los Angeles
Times, report that legal scholars on Wednesday questioned whether
a federal judge in Riverside, California, can prohibit the entire
armed services from forcing out openly gay service members, and
the Obama administration scrambled to decide how to respond to the
sweeping ruling.

The Justice Department is expected to appeal Judge Virginia
Phillips' order overturning "don't ask, don't tell" and halting
all Defense Department proceedings aimed at discharging gay and
lesbian personnel.  Last month, government lawyers cited several
legal opinions in a brief that warned the judge against issuing an
order that went beyond the handful of plaintiffs who had sued in
her court.

President Obama supports allowing gays to serve, as does Defense
Secretary Robert M. Gates.  But they have commissioned a study on
how troops feel and on how to integrate gays and lesbians into the
military.

Mr. Gates told reporters traveling with him to Brussels on
Wednesday that Congress should decide the question, the Associated
Press reported -- and only after the Pentagon task force completed
its study, scheduled for Dec. 1.

"I feel strongly this is an action that needs to be taken by the
Congress and that it is an action that requires careful
preparation, and a lot of training," Mr. Gates said. "It has
enormous consequences for our troops."

If the administration appeals, most legal experts expect the U.S.
9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco or the Supreme Court
to lift Phillips' order while legal proceedings continue.

Vikram Amar, a UC Davis law professor, agreed that the judge's
authority extended only to the plaintiffs, not to the entire
nation.  "The 'don't ask, don't tell' case was not certified as a
class action," Mr. Amar said.  Most federal appellate courts have
said that a judge cannot issue a ruling that goes well beyond the
parties who sued.

Others disagreed.

USC law professor David Cruz said Judge Phillips' ruling in favor
of the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group, determined that
the policy was unconstitutional on its face.  In such a suit,
plaintiffs do not argue that the measure is unfair to them, but
that it is unconstitutional for all.

Once a judge declares the entire policy unconstitutional, "she has
the authority to issue a ruling binding all the defendants," Mr.
Cruz said, which in this instance is the U.S. military.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters Wednesday, "The
president believes that ['don't ask, don't tell'] should end. We
have to figure out an orderly way for it to end."

Mr. Gibbs referred to the Justice Department questions on whether
the administration would appeal. The department had no comment. At
a public appearance in the Rose Garden, President Obama ignored a
question shouted by a reporter about whether he would allow the
judge's ruling to stand.

President Obama said in January that he would work with Congress
on repealing the law, but a Senate test vote failed last month. It
remains unclear whether Democrats will bring up the measure in a
lame-duck session scheduled after next month's election.

Even lawyers who favor repeal acknowledged that the ruling might
not stand for long. The litigation on the law's constitutionality
could go on for years, said Aaron Tax, legal director for
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, an organization that
represents gay and lesbian military personnel.

"We're thrilled by her ruling, but we recognize that it was very
broad," Mr. Tax said. "It's likely to be quickly taken up by the
9th Circuit Court of Appeals and it may well be reversed."

On Tuesday, Judge Phillips ordered the Defense Department "to
immediately suspend and discontinue any investigation, or
discharge, separation or other proceeding that may have been
commenced" under the 17-year-old policy, which originally was
intended as a reform.  "Don't ask, don't tell" allows gay service
members to serve as long as they do not disclose their sexual
orientation.

More than 13,000 people have been removed from the military under
"don't ask, don't tell," and investigations of service members
believed to be gay or lesbian have continued.

Pentagon officials said Wednesday they had not received any
guidance on whether to continue with pending cases, although its
lawyers were studying the issue.

One senior military official said that he had heard opposing views
from two military lawyers -- one arguing that Judge Phillips'
ruling applied only in the Central District of California and
another contending that the opinion overturned the policy for the
entire armed forces unless a higher court ruling supersedes it.

Because of that uncertainty, Mr. Tax said his organization was
still advising service members not to disclose that they are gays
or lesbians.

Although the Pentagon tracks and signs off on decisions to
discharge service members under the policy, the process is
decentralized, beginning at the unit level, with an investigation
and a recommendation to a unit's commanding officer.

The need for legal guidance was clear Wednesday when Maj. Gen.
John Campbell, a senior U.S. commander in Afghanistan, said most
soldiers there were unaware of Judge Phillips' ruling.

"Over here, probably none of them even know a judge said that," he
said in a video news conference with Pentagon reporters. He added
that soldiers "follow the law," and "if the law is changed they
will abide by the law."

The Pentagon task force charged with examining the issue is "well
along" in formulating recommendations, and the ruling is not
expected to affect its work, another senior military officer said.

The task force found deep resistance to the idea of repealing the
policy in some elements of the armed services, especially within
the combat units, an officer familiar with the findings said. But
the surveys also have found segments of the military that were not
overly worried about allowing gays and lesbians to serve, the
officer said.


UNITED STATES: Nears Settlement in Native American Farmers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella, writing for The National Law Journal, reports the
Justice Department is nearing a comprehensive class settlement
with a class of Native American farmers who filed a discrimination
suit against the federal government in 1999.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs and DOJ attorneys met for a status
conference this week in Washington federal district court.  A lead
plaintiffs' attorney, Joseph Sellers of Washington's Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll, said a settlement is close.

Neither side in the dispute discussed the terms of the proposed
settlement in court and Mr. Sellers declined to provide specifics
about the deal-in-progress after the hearing.  He said the
settlement, which could impact tens of thousands of farmers, would
not require congressional authorization.  The suit against the
U.S. Department of Agriculture was filed in 1999 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.

An economic expert for the plaintiffs said in court records filed
in December 2009 that loan shortfalls meant Native American
farmers were operating with $2.25 billion less in credit between
1981 and 2007.  The expert calculated the economic loss involved
in these loans to between $608 and $776 million in that same
period.

In court papers filed in the case in July, the lawyers for the
opposing sides -- including Jenner & Block partner Paul Smith and
Anurag Varma of Patton Boggs for the plaintiffs -- said the
parties have been "negotiating intensively" over numerous meeting
and phone calls.

The attorneys said in the joint status report that "given the
complexity of this nationwide class action involving both
injunctive and monetary claims, the process has moved more slowly
than we had hoped."

Mr. Sellers said Wednesday that Assistant Attorney General Tony
West of the Civil Division has actively participated in the
negotiations.

Civil Division lawyer Joshua Gardner, who works in the Federal
Programs Branch, said in court that DOJ has expedited review of
the settlement, which is awaiting approval by Acting Deputy
Attorney General Gary Grindler.

"We're all trying to move the ball forward," Gardner said. He said
there is a "mutual interest" in approving the settlement.

Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia set a follow-up hearing for October 19.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Suit Over Lending Granted Class-Action Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Gullo, writing for Bloomberg News, reports investors suing
Washington Mutual Inc., the former owner of the biggest U.S. bank
to fail, won certification as a class-action case of their suit
alleging shoddy lending practices.

Shareholders who lost money on stock purchased from October 2005
to July 2008 can proceed with claims under a single lawsuit, U.S.
District Judge Marsha Pechman in Seattle ruled Tuesday, according
to court documents.  The judge appointed the New York-based law
firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann to lead the plaintiffs'
case.

The lawsuit consolidates more than 20 cases filed against
Washington Mutual that claim the bank secretly lowered lending
standards, artificially inflated home-price appraisals and failed
to disclose its deteriorating financial condition when the loans
began to fail.

John Wolfe, an attorney representing Washington Mutual defendants,
didn't immediately return a voice-mail message seeking comment.

The named plaintiffs in the case include Ontario Teachers' Pension
Plan Board, the largest single-profession pension plan in Canada,
and four other pension groups, according to court documents.

They seek to represent tens of thousands of shareholders who lost
money on three types of preferred stock purchased between October
2005 and July 2008 and certain securities offered by the bank in
2006 and 2007.

The shareholders argued the case should be granted class-action
status because their claims are typical of what other investors
experienced and are based on common legal issues.

WaMu filed for bankruptcy Sept. 26, 2008, the day after its
banking unit was taken over by regulators and sold to JPMorgan
Chase for $1.9 billion.  Before it failed, Washington Mutual Bank
had more than 2,200 branches and $188 billion in deposits.

Judge Pechman ruled Sept. 28 that a separate federal shareholder
lawsuit in Seattle claiming the bank misled purchasers of $10.8
billion in mortgage-backed securities could proceed.


WILLMOTT FORESTS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit From Investors
-----------------------------------------------------------
Leonie Wood, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
investors who sank millions of dollars into tree plantation
schemes run by the failed Willmott Forests group are considering
filing a class action alleging the company misled and deceived
them for years about its financial position.

The proposed action, which is still some way from being filed, is
being managed by Macpherson+Kelley lawyers, the firm responsible
for class actions against Great Southern and Timbercorp in the
Victorian Supreme Court.

Ron Willemson, the principal of Macpherson+Kelley, said growers
would seek damages from the responsible entity and directors.

The class action would encompass Willmott grower/investors who
either paid cash or borrowed from the company or from its agent,
the Commonwealth Bank, and bought tree plantation lots from early
2008.

Willmott sank into receivership in September when Commonwealth
Bank and St George Bank, which are owed $122 million, appointed
Bryan Webster and Mark Korda of KordaMentha to take control.

Willmott's board appointed a sole practitioner, Tom Fernandez of
Melbourne's eastern suburbs.  That appointment has been challenged
by the banks, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission
and a faction of grower/investors.

The Federal Court judge Ray Finkelstein told Mr. Fernandez's
counsel this week that he too was concerned Mr. Fernandez did not
have the capacity and resources to deal with what would be a
complex administration.

The banks want PPB appointed in place of Mr. Fernandez; the judge
has floated the idea that the administrator's role could be
offered by tender.  Justice Finkelstein has reserved his decision.

Macpherson+Kelley's Mr. Willemson said the proposed class action
would be funded not by a litigation funder but by the
grower/investors on a proportionate basis.

"We will say there was sufficient deterioration in 2008 that
required some sort of disclosure about the risk to be made to
investors before they decided to invest in Willmott plantations,"
he said.

"Investors were thinking Willmott was this solid company which had
been around for 30 years with a track record of good success, and
the message was: there was not much risk associated with this
other than the usual agriculture risk."

Mr. Willemson said Willmott's annual report indicated the company
had used some "adventurous" accounting policies, including the
booking of future-year revenues which, he claimed, bolstered
profit.

Willmott's accounts indicate it received $97 million of growers'
funds for investment schemes in the year to June 2008, $67 million
in 2009 and $20 million in 2010.


YUM! BRANDS: Continues to Defend "Chhibber" in Orange County
------------------------------------------------------------
Taco Bell Corp. continues to defend a consolidated suit captioned
Rajeev Chhibber vs. Taco Bell Corp., according to YUM! Brands,
Inc.'s Oct. 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 4, 2010.

Taco Bell is a concept owned and operated by YUM! Brands.

On Aug. 4, 2006, a putative class action lawsuit against Taco Bell
was filed in Orange County Superior Court.

On Aug. 7, 2006, another putative class action lawsuit styled
Marina Puchalski v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in San Diego County
Superior Court.

Both lawsuits were filed by a Taco Bell Restaurant General Manager
purporting to represent all current and former RGMs who worked at
corporate-owned restaurants in California since August 2002.  The
lawsuits allege violations of California's wage and hour laws
involving unpaid overtime and meal period violations and seek
unspecified amounts in damages and penalties.  The cases were
consolidated in San Diego County as of Sept. 7, 2006.

Based on plaintiffs' revised class definition in their class
certification motion, Taco Bell removed the case to federal court
in San Diego on Aug. 29, 2008.

On March 17, 2009, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to remand.
On Jan. 29, 2010, the court granted the plaintiffs' class
certification motion with respect to the unpaid overtime claims of
RGMs and Market Training Managers but denied class certification
on the meal period claims.

The parties participated in mediation on May 26, 2010, without
reaching resolution.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100 countries
and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut,
Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company develops,
operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food items.
In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates units or
they are operated by independent franchisees or licensees under
the terms of franchise or license agreements.  In addition, the
company owns non-controlling interests in Unconsolidated
Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.


YUM! BRANDS: Defends Wage and Hour Suits in California
------------------------------------------------------
Taco Bell Corp. continues to defend the matter In Re Taco Bell
Wage and Hour Actions pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California, according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s
Oct. 12, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 4, 2010.

Taco Bell is a concept owned and operated by YUM! Brands.

On Sept. 10, 2007, a putative class action against Taco Bell
Corp., the company and other related entities styled Sandrika
Medlock v. Taco Bell Corp., was filed in U.S. District Court,
Eastern District, Fresno, California.  The case was filed on
behalf of all hourly employees who have worked at corporate-owned
restaurants in California since September 2003 and alleges
numerous violations of California labor laws including unpaid
overtime, failure to pay wages on termination, denial of meal and
rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses
and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200.

The company was dismissed from the case without prejudice on
Jan. 10, 2008.

On April 11, 2008, Lisa Hardiman filed a Private Attorneys General
Act complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Fresno against Taco Bell Corp., the company and other
related entities.  This lawsuit, styled Lisa Hardiman vs. Taco
Bell Corp., et al., was filed on behalf of Hardiman individually
and all other aggrieved employees pursuant to PAGA.  The complaint
seeks penalties for alleged violations of California's Labor Code.
On June 25, 2008, Hardiman filed an amended complaint adding class
action allegations on behalf of hourly employees in California
very similar to the Medlock case, including allegations of unpaid
overtime, missed meal and rest periods, improper wage statements,
non-payment of wages upon termination, unreimbursed business
expenses and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200.

On June 16, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit against Taco
Bell Corp. and the company, styled Miriam Leyva vs. Taco Bell
Corp., et al., was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court.  The case
was filed on behalf of Leyva and purportedly all other California
hourly employees and alleges failure to pay overtime, failure to
provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay wages upon
discharge, failure to provide itemized wage statements, unfair
business practices and wrongful termination and discrimination.
The company was dismissed from the case without prejudice on Aug.
20, 2008.

On Nov. 5, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit against Taco Bell
Corp. and the company styled Loraine Naranjo vs. Taco Bell Corp.,
et al., was filed in Orange County Superior Court.  The case was
filed on behalf of Naranjo and purportedly all other California
employees and alleges failure to pay overtime, failure to
reimburse for business related expenses, improper wage statements,
failure to pay accrued vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage
and unfair business practices.  The company filed a motion to
dismiss on Dec. 15, 2008, which was denied on Jan. 20, 2009.

On March 26, 2009, Taco Bell was served with a putative class
action lawsuit filed in Orange County Superior Court against Taco
Bell and the company styled Endang Widjaja vs. Taco Bell Corp., et
al.  The case was filed on behalf of Widjaja, a former California
hourly assistant manager, and purportedly all other individuals
employed in Taco Bell's California restaurants as managers and
alleges failure to reimburse for business related expenses,
failure to provide rest periods, unfair business practices and
conversion.  Taco Bell removed the case to federal district court
and filed a notice of related case.  On June 18, 2009 the case was
transferred to the Eastern District of California.

On May 19, 2009 the court granted Taco Bell's motion to
consolidate the Medlock, Hardiman, Leyva and Naranjo matters, and
the consolidated case is styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour
Actions.  On July 22, 2009, Taco Bell filed a motion to dismiss,
stay or consolidate the Widjaja case with the In Re Taco Bell Wage
and Hour Actions, and Taco Bell's motion to consolidate was
granted on Oct. 19, 2009.

The In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint on June 29, 2009, and on March 30, 2010 the
court approved the parties' stipulation to dismiss YUM from the
action.

The parties participated in mediation on Aug. 5, 2010 without
reaching resolution.  Motions regarding class certification are
scheduled to be filed by Dec. 30, 2010 and the hearing on any
class certification motion has been scheduled for May 9, 2011.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100 countries
and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut,
Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company develops,
operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food items.
In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates units or
they are operated by independent franchisees or licensees under
the terms of franchise or license agreements.  In addition, the
company owns non-controlling interests in Unconsolidated
Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.


YUM! BRANDS: Plaintiff's Appeal of Ruling in KFC Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff's appeal on a ruling that his suit against KFC U.S.
Properties, Inc., would not go forward as a class action is
ongoing.

On Oct. 14, 2008, a putative class action, styled Kenny Archila v.
KFC U.S. Properties, Inc., was filed in California state court on
behalf of all California hourly employees alleging various
California Labor Code violations, including rest and meal break
violations, overtime violations, wage statement violations and
waiting time penalties.  KFC removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 7, 2009.

On July 7, 2009, the Judge ruled that the case would not go
forward as a class action.  Plaintiff also sought recovery of
civil penalties under the California Private Attorney General Act
as a representative of other "aggrieved employees."  On Aug. 3,
2009, the Court ruled that the plaintiff could not assert such
claims and the case had to proceed as a single plaintiff action.

On the eve of the Aug. 18, 2009 trial, the plaintiff stipulated to
a dismissal of his individual claims with prejudice but reserved
his right to appeal the Court's rulings regarding class and PAGA
claims.  KFC reserved its right to make any and all challenges to
the appeal.

On or about Sept. 16, 2009, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.

Plaintiff filed his opening appellate brief on March 31, 2010, KFC
filed its opposition brief on May 28, 2010 and plaintiff filed his
reply brief on June 25, 2010.

No updates were reported in YUM! Brands, Inc.'s Oct. 12, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 4, 2010.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100 countries
and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut,
Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company develops,
operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food items.
In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates units or
they are operated by independent franchisees or licensees under
the terms of franchise or license agreements.  In addition, the
company owns non-controlling interests in Unconsolidated
Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.


YUM! BRANDS: "Rosales" Suit in Orange County Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action against Taco Bell Corp. styled Marisela
Rosales v. Taco Bell Corp. and filed in the Orange County Superior
Court, remains stayed.

The suit was filed on Sept. 28, 2009.

The plaintiff, a former Taco Bell crew member, alleges that Taco
Bell failed to timely pay her final wages upon termination, and
seeks restitution and late payment penalties on behalf of herself
and similarly situated employees.  This case, according to the
company, appears to be duplicative of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and
Hour Actions case.

Taco Bell removed the case to federal court on Nov. 5, 2009, and
subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, stay or transfer the case
to the same district court as the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour
Actions case.

The parties stipulated to remand of the case to Orange County
Superior Court on March 18, 2010.  Taco Bell's answer or other
responsive pleading was due by April 19, 2010.

The state court granted Taco Bell's motion to stay the Rosales
case on May 28, 2010, but required Taco Bell to give notice to
Rosales' counsel of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions
mediation.

No updates were reported in YUM! Brands, Inc.'s Oct. 12, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 4, 2010.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100 countries
and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut,
Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company develops,
operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food items.
In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates units or
they are operated by independent franchisees or licensees under
the terms of franchise or license agreements.  In addition, the
company owns non-controlling interests in Unconsolidated
Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.


YUM! BRANDS: Awaits Class Certification Ruling in "Hines" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter Domonique Hines v. KFC U.S. Properties,
Inc., continue to await the ruling on the plaintiff's motion for
class certification, according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s Oct. 12,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 4, 2010.

On Oct. 2, 2009, a putative class action was filed in California
state court on behalf of all California hourly employees alleging
various California Labor Code violations, including rest and meal
break violations, overtime violations, wage statement violations
and waiting time penalties.  Plaintiff is a current non-managerial
KFC restaurant employee represented by the same counsel that filed
the suit Kenny Archila v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc.

KFC filed an answer on Oct. 28, 2009, in which it denied
plaintiff's claims and allegations.  KFC removed the action to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on
Oct. 29, 2009.  KFC filed a motion to transfer the action to the
Central District of California due to the overlapping nature of
the claims in this action and the Archila action.  Plaintiff filed
a motion to remand the action to state court.  The District Court
denied both motions.

Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on May 20, 2010
and KFC filed a brief in opposition.  A hearing on plaintiff's
motion was held on Aug. 13, 2010, and the parties are awaiting a
ruling.  No trial date has been set.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100 countries
and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut,
Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company develops,
operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food items.
In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates units or
they are operated by independent franchisees or licensees under
the terms of franchise or license agreements.  In addition, the
company owns non-controlling interests in Unconsolidated
Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees.


* Securities Class Action Suits Decreasing, Advisen Report Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
New securities lawsuits sparked by the credit crisis have all but
disappeared, but the pace of securities lawsuit filings in the
third quarter continued at elevated credit crisis-like levels,
according to a new report from Advisen Ltd, sponsored by ACE.
With 284 suits filed in the third quarter, 2010 is on target to
surpass the 2008 total of 928 suits filed and will likely draw
near to the unprecedented 1,105 new filings in 2009.

"With the worst of the credit crisis behind us, 2010 was expected
to be a comparatively quiet year for securities litigation," said
John W. Molka III, the author of the report.  "The year began
quietly enough, with 206 suits filed in the first quarter, but the
volume of new filings in the second and third quarters has been
more typical of the activity we saw in 2008 and 2009."

The elevated level of new filings in the second quarter was
largely attributable to suits arising from the Deepwater Horizon
oil spill.  The third quarter, however, had no one event that
sparked a large number of suits.  Financial services companies and
their directors and officers were most frequently named in suits,
as was the case throughout the credit crisis, but companies in the
information technology and healthcare sectors were close behind.

Suits alleging breach of fiduciary duty accounted for over one-
third of new filings.  These suits, which often are filed in state
courts, typically are brought by shareholders of an acquired
company claiming that directors and officers sold the company too
cheaply.  Securities fraud suits, a category defined by Advisen to
be comprised principally of suits brought by regulatory and law
enforcement agencies, represented 29 percent of the total, while
securities class action suits accounted for 20 percent of new
filings.  Securities class action filings have been decreasing as
a percentage of total security lawsuit filings since 2004, but
still represent most of the largest settlements: five of the seven
largest settlements during the quarter were of securities class
action suits.

"The credit crisis may have abated, but securities lawyers aren't
taking a break," said Dave Bradford, Advisen's Executive Vice
President.  "They are filing fewer securities class action suits,
but more suits alleging breach of fiduciary duty.  The pace of
mergers and acquisitions should pick up as the economy improves,
which probably will lead to even more breach of fiduciary duty
suits in the coming year."

The report, "Securities Litigation Remains Escalated," sponsored
by ACE, can be downloaded for no charge at the Advisen Corner
Store:

     http://corner.advisen.com/reports_topical_Q3_2010_ACE_blurb.html

                          About Advisen

Advisen's data, analytics and news offerings are game-changers for
100,000 commercial P&C professionals.  For Underwriters,
Reinsurers, Brokers and Risk Managers, the resources of Advisen
provide productivity and insight into underwriting, marketing,
broking and purchasing commercial insurance.  Configurable
applications allow Advisen to customize each solution and/or craft
special offline delivery, too.

                             *********

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  * * *