/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110106.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, January 6, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 4 Headlines ALABAMA: Suit Over PACT Plan Gets Class Action Status BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Connecticut Suit Over Foreclosures BBG COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over "Unconscionable" Pay Phone Fees CONAGRA FOODS: Continues to Defend Class Suit Over Diacetyl Info CONVERGYS CORP: Faces Class Action for Failing to Pay Overtime JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued for Reducing Home Equity Credit Lines JULIANA GONZALES: Sued for Failing to Issue Receipts LIBERTY TAX: Faces Class Action for Falsifying Documents MADISON SQUARE: Settles Overtime Class Action for $1.3 Million NESTLE WATERS: Accused in Calif. Suit of Racial Discrimination NETFLIX INC: Judge Certifies Class in DVD Rental Antitrust Suit UNITED STATES: Retired VA Nurses File Class Action Over Benefits WALGREEN CO: No Appeals Filed on Dismissal of Amended Complaint ZURICH INSURERS: Class Action Settlement Distribution Begins ********* ALABAMA: Suit Over PACT Plan Gets Class Action Status ----------------------------------------------------- Phillip Rawls, writing for The Associated Press, reports a judge's ruling means all 42,000 participants remaining in Alabama's prepaid college tuition plan will be affected by the outcome of a lawsuit seeking to make sure tuition is paid under the financially precarious program. Circuit Judge Johnny Hardwick ruled the suit will become class- action litigation covering all participants because they face similar legal issues with the Prepaid Affordable College Tuition plan. A lawyer representing some of the parents who filed the suit said all PACT participants will get a court resolution defining their rights and the obligations of the state. "Their fortunes rise or fall with this lawsuit," attorney Doyle Fuller of Montgomery said Monday. The attorney for the PACT board, George Beck of Montgomery, said granting class-action status doesn't mean the judge is going to rule for or against one side. That will only be determined after more court proceedings, he said. The litigation seeks four years of tuition and mandatory fees for the participants who will be headed to college, and it contends the board has not been paying some fees that are truly mandatory for all students. The Legislature created PACT in 1989, with the goal of parents paying in a fixed amount of money and their child getting four years of tuition and mandatory fees at an Alabama university. The PACT board, headed by the state treasurer, invested the money and used the earnings to pay college costs. The program ran into financial trouble in 2009 after tuition rose faster than expected and the steep financial downturn caused the board's investments to lose about half their value. In 2010, the Legislature agreed to shore up the program by appropriating $548 million over 13 years. That was supposed to fully fund the program, but tuition kept rising faster than anticipated at the most popular schools, the University of Alabama System and Auburn University. In the fall, the program's financial consultant estimated it would need another $269 million if tuition costs continue on their current pace. "I agree with it," Mr. Fuller said. The parents sued the program last year before the Legislature allocated the $548 million. The PACT board tried to get the suit dismissed after the appropriation, but Hardwick refused. Instead, he granted the parents' request to make it a class-action suit. Mr. Beck said the judge has also agreed to consider a counterclaim filed by the PACT board. Among other things, it asks him to rule on what happens if money runs short, including whether the board can dissolve the program and how it should distribute the remaining funds, Mr. Beck said. When granting class-action status last month, the judge divided the 42,000 participants into two groups based on whether they joined the PACT plan before or after the Legislature revised the PACT law in May 2001. That's when the Legislature took out part of the PACT law that said the parents' payment allowed their child to go to college "without further tuition costs or mandatory fees." The judge could make separate determinations for each group. BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Connecticut Suit Over Foreclosures --------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Ellis Real Estate Letter reports Bank of America's refusal to participate in foreclosure prevention programs even though it accepted $25 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program has plaintiffs in St. Louis, Connecticut, claiming that the beleaguered lender broke faith with the U.S. Treasury and let borrowers in foreclosure down. The lawsuit, which was filed on Dec. 27, is similar to earlier suits brought against BofA by the attorneys general of Arizona and Nevada. Plaintiffs in the suits claim that "by accepting TARP money, [BofA] agreed to participate in at least one TARP-authorized program to minimize foreclosures" and agreed via contract with the U.S. Treasury to comply with HAMP (Home Affordable Modification Program) regulations to "perform loan modifications and other foreclosure prevention services." The plaintiffs allege that the bank has done neither. The suit claims that because BofA does not actually service most of the loans it holds, the financial incentives against modification prevented servicers from dedicating serious time or good-faith effort to loan modifications and foreclosure prevention. "Bank of America has serially strung out, delayed and otherwise hindered the modification processes it contractually undertook to facilitate when it accepted billions of dollars from the United States," the complaint alleges. Participants in the suit are seeking both injunction and damages. Bank of America reported a complete payback of TARP money on December 9, 2009. It has consistently reported the lowest completion rates on loan modifications of any lender and has repeatedly "streamlined" the time frame and modification process in an effort to maintain a good public image and good rapport with consumers. However, the lender has complained on record -- along with others -- that the processes required by HAMP place too much strain on lenders, requiring them to "collect too much paperwork" and not placing enough responsibility for timely submission and accuracy on borrowers themselves. BBG COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over "Unconscionable" Pay Phone Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Moran, writing for The San Diego Union-Tribune, reports that a San Diego-based telecommunications company is facing potential class-action lawsuits over fees charged when consumers use credit or debit cards to make calls on pay telephones at airports, train stations and other locations around the world. The most recent lawsuit filed in November in federal court in San Diego alleges the company, BBG Communications, charges "unconscionable fees" for making calls using a credit card and does not disclose how high those fees are to consumers. The fees range from $10 per minute or in some cases as much as $25, said Alan Mansfield, a San Diego lawyer who filed the lawsuit along with John Mattes, an investigative journalist and lawyer. An employee who answered the phone at BBG on Dec. 29 said no company official was available last week to respond to the lawsuit's allegations. Elizabeth Berman, one of the lawyers representing the company, declined to comment when reached at her office in Los Angeles. The suit Mr. Mansfield filed was on behalf of two Northern California men who said they made phone calls from a BBG pay phone in Germany using their credit cards. One man incurred a charge of $54.33 for what the suit says was a one-minute call. The second man made two calls totaling seven minutes and was charged $150 by the company. Mr. Mansfield's suit is the second one filed against BBG in San Diego federal court this year, both alleging the company overcharges consumers and does not disclose upfront how high the charges would be for using a credit card. The suits are based on slightly different legal grounds but both seek class- action status, which a judge would have to grant. That class could include tens of thousands of consumers, Mr. Mansfield said. He said BBG provides service to some 350,000 phones in airports, rail stations and cruise ship terminals around the world, and racks up an estimated 300 million minutes of calls per month. The iconic red telephone public phones in London are operated by BBG. The company is on Gailes Boulevard, just south of Brown Field and Otay Mesa Road. It was founded in 1996 and provides telecommunications services in North America, South America, Europe, Japan, Israel and the Caribbean, according to a company profile by Bloomberg news service. The company is controlled by the Galicot family, according to the suit, and the Bloomberg listing identified Gregory Galicot as the president. The Galicots are a prominent Tijuana family whose patriarch, 72-year-old Jose Galicot, spearheaded the Tijuana Innovadora, a two-week conference in October aimed at boosting Tijuana's image and attracting investment. Mr. Mansfield said that in the past the company has defended the fees it charges by saying many calls require an operator, and the company also uses satellite technology to route calls, pushing up the costs. But Mr. Mansfield said his clients never spoke to an operator when making their calls and that the pay phones are hard- wired and don't rely on a satellite. The lawsuit said that the public phones BBG operates typically advertise a low rate, about $1 or less per minute, for calls made with coins. But rates and fees for calls made with credit cards or debit cards are not advertised or explained, according to the suit. When customers complain about the fees when they appear on their credit cards, BBG offers only a partial refund of 30% to 40%, Mr. Mansfield said. The company has been the subject of ongoing complaints to the San Diego Better Business Bureau, which rates local businesses and gives BBG its lowest mark of "F." The Better Business Bureau received 526 complaints in the past three years about consumers being charged high rates for calls by BBG and not being informed of them, according to the bureau's report on the business. Some of the complaints from consumers said they were charged the fees even though their calls did not go through or were never connected, the report said. The lawsuit seeks refunds for members of the proposed class, which would include anyone who had made a call on a BBG phone with a credit or debit card and incurred a charge from November 2006 to now. It also seeks to force the company to disclose in advance what the potential fees are for making such calls. CONAGRA FOODS: Continues to Defend Class Suit Over Diacetyl Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- In a January 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended November 28, 2010, ConAgra Foods, Inc., disclosed that it is a party to several lawsuits concerning the use of diacetyl, a butter flavoring ingredient that was added to its microwave popcorn until late 2007. The cases are primarily consumer personal injury suits claiming respiratory illness allegedly due to exposures to vapors from microwaving popcorn. Another case involved a putative class action contending that the company's packaging information with respect to diacetyl is false and misleading. Through the second quarter of fiscal 2011, ConAgra has received a favorable verdict, summary judgment ruling, and two dismissals in connection with these suits, and the class action motion in the packaging suit was denied. The verdict and the favorable summary judgment ruling have been appealed. ConAgra does not believe these cases possess merit and continue to vigorously defend them. No further details were disclosed in ConAgra's recent Form 10-Q. CONVERGYS CORP: Faces Class Action for Failing to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Massey, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reports several customer service agents have filed a class action against their employer for failing to pay overtime to thousands of its telephone-dedicated customer service employees. Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Wendy Shofner, Sharon Cole, Linda Coppedge, Lisa Carniello and Christina Daily filed suit against Convergys Corp. and Convergys Customer Management Group Inc. on Dec. 17 in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. The lawsuit argues that the defendants are violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime to thousands of telephone-dedicated employees who perform work for the company both before and after their assigned work shifts. The employees state that Convergys has thousands of these telephone-dedicated employees who work in more than 60 customer contact centers/call centers, which the suit states is the backbone of the service the defendants provide to their clients. According to the court documents, the defendants' policy is to pay its contact center agents only for the time that they are logged into their phone systems and available for answering calls. "The systematic failure to pay for unrecorded and routine work activities adds up to thousands of dollars per year in unpaid wages and overtime wages for each of these employees," the lawsuit states. Claiming violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the employees are asking the Court for an award of unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, court costs, attorney's fees and interest. The plaintiffs are represented by J. Derek Braziel and Meredith Mathews of Lee & Braziel in Dallas, Richard J. Burch of Bruckner Burch in Houston and Darren K. Coleman of Boon, Shaver, Echols & Coleman in Longview. A jury trial is requested. Case No. 2:10-cv-00568 JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued for Reducing Home Equity Credit Lines ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that to limit its exposure to the housing price collapse, JPMorgan Chase Bank reduced or froze home equity credit lines without assessing the properties, a class action claims in Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Crystal v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al., Case No. 10-cv-06023 (S.D.N.Y.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/30/JPMorganChase.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Miriam Zakarin, Esq. TREUHAFT & ZAKARIN LLP 1011 Avenue of the Americas, 4th Floor New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 725-6418 JULIANA GONZALES: Sued for Failing to Issue Receipts ---------------------------------------------------- Tina Jacobs, individually and on behalf of other tenants and former tenants similarly situated v. Juliana Gonzales, et al., Case No. 2010-CH-55235 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. December 30, 2010), brings claims against the defendants for various violations of the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance. Specifically, Ms. Jacobs accuses defendant owner Gonzales and her agent, John Maynard, of failing to tender a proper receipt for the plaintiffs' security deposits as mandated by Section 5-12-080(b) of the RLTO; commingling the plaintiffs' security deposits with their own assets and failing to place the security deposits in a federally insured interest bearing account in a financial institution located in the State of Illinois as mandated by Section 5-12-080(a) of the RTLO; failing to return plaintiffs' security deposits within 45 days of vacating and failing to deliver an itemized statement of damages within 30 days for any alleged deductions as mandated by Section 5-12-080(d) of the RLTO; and failing to provide a summary of the RLTO with the plaintiffs' lease as mandated by Section 512-170 of the RLTO. Plaintiff Tina Jacobs formerly resided in Apartment Unit 1f, at 4747 N. Magnolia, in Chicago, a development consisting of eight residential dwelling units, that she leased from the defendants and for which she tendered on March 1, 2006, the amount of $650 as payment of her security deposit. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Miller, Esq. WOERTHWEIN & MILLER 225 W. Washington, 22nd Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 654-0001 LIBERTY TAX: Faces Class Action for Falsifying Documents -------------------------------------------------------- Lauren Talarico, writing for WLTX, reports a widely used tax filing company is being sued for allegedly falsifying documents and ripping-off the Internal Revenue Service, as well as their clients along the way. The claims are being made against Liberty Tax Service. Attorney Todd Ellis is among three lawyers representing local plaintiffs in a suit against the company. "This is a national class action," says Mr. Ellis. "Where we believe this is across Liberty Tax Service, across their entire system. Liberty Tax had a plan or a scheme to bring consumers into their stores. They have a systematic plan to increase their profits by putting [filing] false, fraudulent or inappropriate forms. Therefore, the consumer would often get back inappropriate, but larger returns." The complaint states that Liberty Tax knowingly got their clients more money that they were owed in hopes of getting what many call the best type of advertisement there is: word of mouth. Mr. Ellis says, "Liberty Tax would then benefit because customers would go on to tell others that their returns were larger. Thus, getting others to come into the store." The complaint states that the company got their clients extra money by claiming things like unreimbursed business expenses, or charitable donations, without the clients knowledge. "Many tax service customers often don't receive copies of their tax returns until after they're audited." There are eight Midlands plaintiffs involved in this class action suit. Couples Kenneth and Myra Martin, David and Catherine Goodwine, and Terry and Amanda Allen, all of Richland County. There is also a couple from Newberry County, Jeffrey and Tawanna Reid. Mr. Ellis believes more people nationwide may have similar experiences. "The class could represent hundreds of thousands of consumers because Liberty Tax Service provides 3,800 stores across the United States, and 70 in South Carolina." Mr. Ellis says the clients only discovered that improper paperwork was filed after they were audited by the IRS. The IRS made the plaintiffs pay back the overpaid money, plus added penalties and fees. A spokesperson for Liberty Tax offered the following statement regarding the lawsuit. Martha O'Gorman said, "We don't believe this case has any merit. It is our policy not to comment on any details of pending litigation." MADISON SQUARE: Settles Overtime Class Action for $1.3 Million -------------------------------------------------------------- More than 300 employees will receive $1.3 million from Madison Square Garden in a settlement agreement filed on January 3, 2011 in federal court. The settlement will bring to an end a class action lawsuit brought in federal court in Manhattan in 2009 by four security officers claiming that since 2003 Madison Square Garden willfully failed to pay its security officers time and a half for all the overtime they worked. The settlement will bring money to 305 current and former Garden employees based on their undercompensated overtime work. "It is a shame, particularly in these recessionary times, that hard-working breadwinners have to sue their employers to get paid wages that federal and New York State law guarantees them," said Robert A. Meister of Pedowitz & Meister LLP, the plaintiffs' New York City attorneys. The settlement is subject to approval by Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the federal district court in Manhattan, where the lawsuit, Castagna et al., v. Madison Square Garden, L.P., is pending. NESTLE WATERS: Accused in Calif. Suit of Racial Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that black sales reps accuse Nestle Waters dba Arrowhead Waters of racial discrimination, in a class action in Alameda County Court. A copy of the Complaint in Childs, et al. v. Nestle Waters North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 10553619 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/30/EmployNestle.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Hoffman, Esq. Alec Segarich, Esq. HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1550 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 362-1111 NETFLIX INC: Judge Certifies Class in DVD Rental Antitrust Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge granted class certification to Netflix subscribers who accuse the online DVD rental service of monopolizing the market by conspiring with Wal-Mart Stores and Walmart.com. Consumers say Netflix was able to overcharge for subscription fees because it convinced the superstore to withdraw from the DVD rental market, leaving only Blockbuster as a competitor. The class will involve millions of members around the country, arguing the same points, according to the federal ruling in Oakland, Calif. "All purchased the same product from the same company, through the same channel of distribution, and all paid supra-competitive prices to Netflix as a result of the alleged conspiracy," U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton wrote. Netflix argued that the class's claims may be barred by the four- year statute of limitations, since some have speculated that the alleged conspiratorial conduct began as early as 2004. The Netflix subscribers had claimed in their complaint that the Wal-Mart meetings started in 2005 -- within the statute's window. Judge Hamilton found that the start of the conspiracy does not alter the fact that Netflix, Wal-Mart and Walmart.com announced their allegedly illegal market allocation agreement on May 19, 2005. "That is the trigger date for plaintiffs' alleged injury -- and thus, for the running of the statute of limitations," the ruling states. The subscribers submitted expert testimony from Dr. John C. Beyer, an economist, to bolster their claims that Netflix would have had to compete more in pricing if Wal-Mart had not left the market. Netflix and Wal-Mart argued that their witness, Dr. Janusz Ordover, examined variables that Dr. Beyer ignored, including Netflix's subscriber growth from three million since May 2005 to 14 million today and uncertainty over how Wal-Mart would have performed in the marketplace. Judge Hamilton agreed that the defendants raised valid, even "troubling," objections to Dr. Beyer's testimony, but they did not prove that the case will require individualized evidence. "Contrary to defendants' contentions, Dr. Beyer's reports and the analyses contained therein are supported by actual documentary evidence and data thus far produced in the action, and provide an adequate basis from which plaintiffs propose to demonstrate with proof common to the class that Wal-Mart's exit from the online DVD rental market harmed class members," Judge Hamilton wrote. Judge Hamilton had heard arguments over whether the class had standing in September 2009. A copy of the Order Granting Motion for Class Certification in In re: Online DVD Rental Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 09-cv-02029 (N.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/30/dvd.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented byL Robert G. Abrams, Esq. Peter Barile, Esq. Thomas Isaacson, Esq. Paul Alexander, Esq. HOWREY LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004-2402 Telephone: (202) 383-6935 E-mail: AbramsR@howrey.com BarileP@howrey.com IsaacsonT@howrey.com AlexanderP@howrey.com - and - Guido Saveri, Esq. Lisa Saveri, Esq. SAVERI & SAVERI, INC. 706 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1730 Telephone: (888) 787-8681 - and - Eugene Spector, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com - and - Sarah Schalman-Bergen, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3053 E-mail: sschalman-bergen@bm.net Defendant Netflix Inc. is represented by: Jonathan M. Jacobson, Esq. Sarah Walsh, Esq. David Reichenberg, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 999-5800 E-mail: jjacobson@wsgr.com dreichenberg@wsgr.com Defendants Walmart.com and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. are represented by: Stephen Morrissey, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 E-mail: smorrissey@susmangodfrey.com UNITED STATES: Retired VA Nurses File Class Action Over Benefits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Bowling, writing for Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, reports five retired, part-time government nurses claim in a class-action federal lawsuit that the Office of Personnel Management refuses to properly calculate benefits for former Veterans Affairs nurses unless they hire lawyers. Sylvia Wigton, 79, of Butler and Gail G. Hudson, 73, of West Grove, Chester County, filed the lawsuit along with Audrey L. Gorgonzola, 75, of Boise, Idaho, Kathryn Daane, 75, of Sturgis, S.D., and Dolores Vassalluzzo, 69, of Oceanside, Calif. The VA started offering an incentive in the 1950s that gave part- time nurses credit for full-time work on their pensions, the lawsuit says. The agency needed the incentive to get enough skilled nurses willing to work part-time hours on irregular schedules so that veterans hospitals around the country could maintain full nursing staffs, the lawsuit says. When the nurses retired, however, the Office of Personnel Management refused to give them full-time credit for the years they worked part-time, the lawsuit says. A federal administrative law judge in 2008 upheld a claim by 160 retired VA nurses and the agency recalculated those retirees' benefits as well as another 215 who hired lawyers to press their claims, but it has made no attempt to identify and recalculate the benefits for other retired VA nurses and has ignored claims some retirees filed on their own behalf without a lawyer, the lawsuit says. The lawsuit seeks a court order requiring the agency to identify and recalculate the benefits for each retired VA nurse that was promised the incentive. WALGREEN CO: No Appeals Filed on Dismissal of Amended Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- No appeals were filed regarding the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois' dismissal of a complaint against Walgreen Co., according to the Company's Jan. 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2010. On April 16, 2008, the Plumbers and Steamfitters Local No. 7 Pension Fund filed a putative class action suit against the company and its former and current chief executive officers. The plaintiffs amended the complaint on Oct. 16, 2008, which upon the company's motion the District Court dismissed on Sept. 24, 2009. Subsequently, the plaintiffs moved for the District Court to reconsider the dismissal and to allow plaintiffs leave to further amend the complaint. The District Court granted plaintiffs' motion on Nov. 11, 2009. The second amended complaint was then filed on behalf of purchasers of company common stock during the period between June 25, 2007 and Oct. 1, 2007. As in the first amended complaint, the second amended complaint charges the Company and its former and current chief executive officers with violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, claiming that the company misled investors by failing to disclose (i) declining rates of growth in generic drug sales and (ii) increasing selling, general and administrative expenses in the fourth quarter of 2007, which allegedly had a negative impact on earnings. On Feb. 1, 2010, the company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On Sept. 29, 2010, the District Court dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs did not appeal the District Court's dismissal. Walgreen Co. -- http://www.walgreens.com/-- is engaged in retail drugstore business. As of Aug. 31, 2009, the company operated 7,496 locations in 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam. During the fiscal year ended Aug. 30, 2009 (fiscal 2009), the company opened or acquired 691 locations. Total locations do not include 337 convenient care clinics operated by Take Care Health Systems, Inc. within the company's drugstores. The company's drugstores are engaged in the retail sale of prescription and non-prescription drugs and general merchandise. General merchandise includes, among other things, household items, personal care, convenience foods, beauty care, photofinishing, candy, and seasonal items. Walgreens offers customers the choice to have prescriptions filled at the drugstore counter, as well as through the mail, by telephone and through the Internet. In January 2010, the company announced that it has completed the acquisition of the assets of 12 Eaton Apothecary pharmacies. ZURICH INSURERS: Class Action Settlement Distribution Begins ------------------------------------------------------------ According to information posted on the Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation Web site, distribution has began under a class action settlement involving persons who purchased or renewed commercial insurance or reinsurance from any of the Zurich Insurers or engaged the services of any of the Broker Defendants in connection with one or more purchase(s) or renewal(s) of commercial insurance or reinsurance from any other insurance company during the period from August 26, 1994 through September 1, 2005, inclusive. According to the Web site: DISTRIBUTION IS OCCURRING. CHECKS BEGAN MAILING ON DECEMBER 27, 2010 AND WILL BE COMPLETED ON DECEMBER 31, 2010. IF YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A DISTRIBUTION UNDER THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, PLAN OF ALLOCATION AND ORDER GRANTING CLASS COUNSEL'S MOTION FOR DISTRIBUTION OF NET CASH SETTLEMENT AMOUNT, YOU SHOULD BE RECEIVING A CHECK. The Settlement Administrator is: Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation c/o Complete Claim Solutions, LLC P.O. Box 24721 West Palm Beach, FL 33416 Toll Free: 1-866-722-3544 International: 001-612-359-7999 On the Net: http://www.insurancebrokerageantitrustlitigation.com/ ********* 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. Leah Felisilda, Neil U. Lim, Rousel Elaine Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Ronald Sy, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2011. 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 * * *