CAR_Public/110124.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, January 24, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 16

                             Headlines

AIR CARRIERS: Paradiso to Participate in Lufthansa Settlement
AIRTRAN HOLDINGS: Being Sold for Too Little, Nev. Suit Claims
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Improper Foreclosures
BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Seeks New Trial for Investor Class Action
CAL STATE UNIV.: Tuition Fee Class Action Certified

DEAN FOODS: Farmers Oppose Proposed Class Action Settlement
DIRECTV: Accused of Making Unauthorized Cellular Phone Calls
ECO-STORY: Recalls 42,000 LED Lamps
FACEBOOK INC: Seeks Dismissal of Two Privacy Class Action Suits
HIGHLANDS COUNTY: Dismissal of Ex-Inmate's Class Action Affirmed

INDIA: May Face Class Action Over Delhi Games Debt
J.CREW GROUP: Agrees to Settlement of Delaware Class Action Suit
NORBOURG: Parties to Settle Class Action for $55 Million
NUTRACEA: Settles Accounting Irregularities Probe With SEC
TEKELEC: Holzer Probes Alleged Breaches of Fiduciary Duties

UNITED STATES: $60.8MM Legal Fees Sought in Farmers' Class Suit
VACLESS SYSTEMS: Recalls 1,600 Pool Safety Vacuum Release System
VODAFONE GROUP: 20,000 Customers Expected to Join Class Action
WESTFIELD INSURANCE: May Face New UM/UIM Coverage Class Action



                             *********

AIR CARRIERS: Paradiso to Participate in Lufthansa Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Halstead, writing for The Marin Independent Journal,
reports a now defunct Sausalito-based importer of women's
clothing, Paradiso Inc., helped launch a class action lawsuit
against 19 airlines for price fixing cargo shipments that so far
has resulted in settlements with eight airlines totaling about
$275 million.

The suit alleges that the air carriers engaged in a global
conspiracy to fix surcharges for fuel costs and security that were
imposed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the
beginning of the war in Iraq in 2003.

Paradiso's name figured prominently in a Bloomberg story on
Jan. 14 reporting on the latest settlement, with Qantas Airways
Ltd. for $26.5 million.

But Natalia Castillo, who owned Paradiso when the litigation was
filed in 2006, registered surprise when asked about the suit on
Jan. 17.

"Oh, yes, that was me.  I totally forgot about that," said
Ms. Castillo, who has started a new women's clothing business,
Escapada Living, in Isle of Palms, South Carolina.

Ms. Castillo said lawyers prosecuting the case hadn't notified her
of the settlements.  Attorneys litigating the case said courts are
still reviewing the settlements for fairness.

One of those lawyers, Philadelphia attorney Brent Landau, said,
"There were actually dozens of separate complaints that were filed
as early as February 2006.  All of those cases were consolidated
and transferred to the same court in Brooklyn."

The suit alleges that the conspiracy was facilitated by the Air
Transport Association, which detailed on its Web site
opportunities for collusion outside of formal trade conferences,
and other airline trade groups.  The suit states that on Feb. 13,
2006, antitrust investigators from four continents -- including
the European Commission, the U.S. Department of Justice and the
U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation -- raided or initiated
investigations of the 19 air carriers.

Following a $85 million settlement with Deutsche Lufthansa AG, the
court ruled that plaintiffs such as Paradiso, who dealt with the
airlines indirectly, through freight forwarders, lack legal
standing, said Mr. Landau, who represents the freight forwarders.
That means that Ms. Castillo and others who paid higher shipping
costs due to the alleged price fixing will not share in the
subsequent settlements totaling $190 million, Mr. Landau said.

San Francisco lawyer Craig Corbitt, who represents Paradiso and
the other indirect purchasers, said, "We think that ruling is
incorrect, and we have appealed it to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit in New York.  But there has been no
decision on that."

Mr. Corbitt said Paradiso will participate in the Lufthansa
settlement along with "many thousands of companies."

Mr. Landau said freight forwarders will get the bulk of the
Lufthansa settlement, 82%, while Paradiso and other companies who
dealt with airlines indirectly, will get just 18%.

If Mr. Corbitt's appeal is successful, the indirect plaintiffs
will have to negotiate their own new agreements with the airlines
that have already settled, Mr. Landau said.


AIRTRAN HOLDINGS: Being Sold for Too Little, Nev. Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that AirTran Holdings is selling
itself too cheaply to Southwest Airlines, in a cash and stock deal
for $1.4 billion, shareholders claim in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Nesbit v. Fornaro, et al., Case No.
11-cv-00092 (D. Nev.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/01/19/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John P. Aldrich, Esq.
          Matthew D. Spring, Esq.
          ALDRICH LAW FIRM, LTD
          1601 S. Rainbow Blvd. Suite 160
          Las Vegas, NV 89146
          Telephone: (702) 853-5490
          E-mail: jaldrich@johnaldrichlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
          Peter D. Bull, Esq.
          BULL & LIFSHITZ, LLP
          18 East 41st Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 213-6222
          E-mail: jml@nyclasslaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Improper Foreclosures
--------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa O'Neal and Marco Delgado, through the law firm of Forizs &
Dogali, P.A., have filed a statewide class action against Bank of
America alleging improper action during mortgage foreclosures.

This case is different from other similar lawsuits because it
focuses on Bank of America's current ownership of the foreclosed
property.  The Plaintiff group includes only borrowers who were
improperly foreclosed out of homes which are now, after
foreclosure sales, owned by Bank of America.  The complaint seeks
to restore the borrowers' rights in their homes, and establish
that Bank of America's claim of ownership can be invalidated.  The
number of Florida homes which Bank of America now owns after
improper foreclosures is unknown, but the Plaintiffs estimate the
number in the thousands.

The Plaintiffs allege the improper foreclosure practices by which
Bank of America obtained ownership of the properties includes
false and forged affidavits, certificates of service, and other
documents.  They also allege that the documents systematically
contained inaccurate facts, or were signed by persons who lacked
required knowledge, or were forged.  The Plaintiffs propose that
all prior foreclosure sales which were based upon such documents
are subject to being invalidated by the borrowers.

In addition to seeking a declaration regarding the invalidity of
prior foreclosure sales through which Bank of America took
ownership of their homes, Ms. O'Neal and Mr. Delgado allege that
Bank of America violated Florida's racketeering laws, and that
Bank of America's use of the court system to deprive them of their
homes was in violation of their civil rights, and that Bank of
America's conduct violated the federal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.  The Plaintiffs' damages are alleged to exceed $5
million.

The class action has been filed in the United States District
Court, Middle District of Florida, in Tampa, Florida.   The law
firms of Forizs and Dogali, P.A. and Redding & Associates, P.A.
represent Ms. O'Neal and Mr. Delgado in this class action.  For
any questions, please contact attorney Lee Atkinson at
(813) 289-0700.


BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: Seeks New Trial for Investor Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bandell, writing for South Florida Business Journal, reports
attorneys for a group of BankAtlantic Bancorp shareholders who won
a class action lawsuit against the Fort Lauderdale-based bank
holding company in November are asking that the ruling stand.

On Jan. 18, they filed a motion in Miami federal court, opposing
BankAtlantic's demand for a new trial.

The company, along with Chairman and CEO Alan Levan and CFO
Valerie Toalson, filed motions in December to set the verdict
aside and hold a new trial.

In November, a jury ruled that the bank and its executives were
liable for damages of $2.41 a share because of misleading
statements that impacted its stock price from April 2007 through
October 2007.  The verdict complicated BankAtlantic's efforts to
raise capital.

The bank's attorneys argued that Judge Ursula Ungaro should have
accepted its version of the verdict form, which asked the jury to
rule on each of the assumptions made by plaintiffs' expert witness
Candace Preston about damages to shareholders.  BankAtlantic said
the falsity of any of those assumptions would mean that no damages
occurred.

The class action attorneys, led by Labaton Sucharow in New York
and Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check in Radnor, Pa., argued
that Judge Ungaro chose the correct verdict form and has no reason
to set a new trial.

"There is no controlling precedent requiring a new trial because
the jury did not independently find by way of a special
interrogatory that each and every one of Preston's assumptions
were substantiated by the evidence," the class action attorneys
wrote in their motion.  "It is implicit in the jury verdict
awarding damages based on Preston's testimony that the jurors
found that the factual assumptions she relied on were proven."

BankAtlantic said the verdict of $2.41 a share in damages should
be disregarded because it did not match the $2.93 in damages that
the plaintiffs asked for.

The class action attorneys responded in their motion: "The $2.41-
per-share award suggests that the jury discounted the capped
$2.93-per-share by 52 cents as that part of the stock price
decline they believe was not attributable to the fraud."

The bank argued that the court committed a prejudicial error in
instructing the jury that Mr. Levan gave false statements when
talking to analysts on July 25, 2007.

Mr. Levan was asked about $135 million in land loans, and whether
there were other construction portfolios "that you feel there
might be some risk down the road as well," according to the
motion.

Mr. Levan's response included the statement that "there are no
asset classes that we are concerned about in the portfolio as an
asset class," the motion notes.

The class action attorneys argued that Judge Ungaro ruled on the
falsity of Mr. Levan's statements in comprehensive fashion before
the trial, and the evidence presented to the jury established that
Mr. Levan was aware his statements were false.

During the trial, Mr. Levan told the jury that those statements
were absolutely true.

The bank's motion said the court committed prejudicial error in
allowing introduction of eight e-mails by Perry Alexander, "which
were laced with profanity, slang, gossip and every other
indication of unreliability imaginable."

The class action attorneys' motion states that Alexander
participated in meetings in which major loan decisions were made,
and saw much of the same loan deterioration as the bank's
executives.  Therefore, his e-mails were relevant.


CAL STATE UNIV.: Tuition Fee Class Action Certified
---------------------------------------------------
Nanette Asimov, writing for San Francisco Chronicle, reports a
longshot legal complaint by five students who accused California
State University trustees of illegally raising tuition in 2009 is
now an official class-action lawsuit on behalf of 200,000 students
demanding their money back.

At stake is $40 million in refunds for students at a time when CSU
is facing at least a $500 million cut in state funding that could
bring on layoffs, course reductions and even higher tuition.

The lawsuit claims CSU illegally raised tuition for fall 2009
because students had already paid that semester's bill.

That question has yet to be decided.  But on Jan. 5, a San
Francisco Superior Court judge ruled that students at 19 of the
23 CSU campuses who were billed after paying their tuition could
join the lawsuit, as could students in graduate level business
programs.

Judge John Munter excluded from the suit thousands of students
whose tuition was covered by state grants, or who were not billed
until after the increases had been approved -- including students
at Cal State East Bay.

In his decision, the judge cited a similar case in which the
California Court of Appeal ruled that the University of California
had to refund last-minute fees imposed in 2003.  In that case,
Judge Munter said, the court ruled that a contract arises when a
student accepts a university's offer of admission.

In the current case, CSU trustees voted on May 13, 2009, to raise
the fall tuition by 10%.  They told students -- including those
who had already paid for fall -- to pay by July 9.  Then, on
July 21, the trustees raised the fall tuition by another 20%.

Samantha Adame was entering her senior year at San Francisco State
University when she was doubled billed.  She and four other
students sued for breach of contract.

"I think it's great," Ms. Adame said on Jan. 18 of the class-
action status.

CSU trustees say they may have to lay off more instructors and
turn away more students if forced to cut their budget by another
$40 million.

The CSU trustees will discuss the case in closed session in Long
Beach on Jan. 18.


DEAN FOODS: Farmers Oppose Proposed Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., on Jan. 19 disclosed that dairy
farmers who say attorneys representing them are not looking out
for their best interests have filed opposition to the proposed
settlement submitted in the class action antitrust lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court in Burlington, Vt.  Acting on behalf of its
dairy farmer owners, Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., together with
Dairy Marketing Services, LLC, also has filed objections to this
settlement.

DFA and DMS' filing on January 18 joins at least 24 dairy farmers
-- representing diverse cooperative members and independent
producers -- who submitted their own affidavits challenging the
fairness of the settlement.

"We objected on behalf of our members because the attorneys for
the entire class of dairy farmer plaintiffs have favored one
segment of the class while it penalizes another segment," said
Brad Keating, chief operating officer for DFA's Northeast Area.
"As the milk marketing entity representing many of the members of
this class, we have a responsibility to ensure their interests are
fully considered."

In its filing, DFA and DMS cite concerns that the settlement
creates both winners and losers in the class of dairy farmers
represented by a single law firm by taking market access from one
group of dairy farmers at the expense of another within the same
class.  The filing also describes how, if the settlement is
approved, dairy farmers stand to incur financial damages by
receiving a lower pay price for their milk.

A provision in Dean Foods' proposed settlement would allow the
dairy processor to determine, in its sole discretion, the
competitive market price at which it will purchase up to 60
million pounds of milk per month from non-DFA and non-DMS sources
for a period of 30 months.

DFA's filing recognizes the business rationale for Dean Foods to
manage its ingredient costs.  However, if approved, this
settlement is likely to create a downward ripple effect on current
pricing for milk purchases from DFA, DMS and other milk suppliers
in the Northeast.  In turn, other customers will make demands for
price equality.

The result is price erosion for all dairy farmers.

"This provision seems to undercut the very reasons why we at
St. Albans decided to join DMS in the first place -- to work
together with other co-ops to make sure that we were able to serve
an increasingly consolidating marketplace, and to do so in a way
that will protect prices and premiums for dairy farmers," said
Ralph McNall, president of the board for St. Albans Cooperative
Creamery and a dairy farmer who independently filed opposition to
the settlement.

An additional component of the proposed settlement calls for a
payment of $30 million in damages (less $10 million in attorney
fees) to be paid to dairy farmers who produced raw Grade A milk in
Federal Order 1 and pooled raw Grade A milk in Federal Order 1
from January 1, 2002, through December 9, 2010.

"This $30 million settlement has been touted as a real win for
dairy farmers," said Greg Wickham, DMS general manager.  "We
believe the per-farmer award has been highly exaggerated, but more
importantly, we believe the benefit of a small one-time cash
payment is far over-shadowed by the long-term negative impact on
farmers' wallets."

After the money is divided among the approximately 13,000 dairy
farmers who pooled milk in Order 1 (based on the most current
Market Administrator's Annual Statistical Bulletin, as of 2009),
the average farmer stands to receive approximately $1,500.

If the market is disrupted such that there is even a meager
reduction in milk price, the impact to farmers' milk checks would
be swift and substantial, Mr. Wickham said.  For example, a 5-
cent-per-hundredweight reduction in pay price would cost a farmer
milking 300 cows as much as $3,400 in lost revenues in a single
year.

"The proposed settlement that these class representatives and
their lawyers have negotiated takes sales away from dairy farmers,
turns those sales over to someone else, threatens to help undercut
our organization, and pits dairy farmer against dairy farmer with
the end result that prices are bound to fall," Mr. McNall said.

Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., is a national dairy marketing
cooperative that serves and is owned by nearly 17,000 members on
more than 9,500 farms in 48 states.  Global Dairy Products Group,
a division of DFA, is one of the country's most diversified
manufacturers of dairy products, food components and ingredients,
and is a leader in formulating and packaging shelf-stable dairy
products.  For more information, call 1-888-DFA-MILK (332-6455) or
visit http://www.dfamilk.com/

Dairy Marketing Services is a milk marketing joint venture between
Dairylea Cooperative Inc., Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. and St.
Albans Cooperative Creamery.  Annually, DMS markets approximately
16 billion pounds of raw milk produced from more than 8,000
Northeastern U.S. farms.  DMS continually works to increase
efficiency on milk assembly, hauling and administration.


DIRECTV: Accused of Making Unauthorized Cellular Phone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Katrina Anderson, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. The CBE Group, Inc., The CBE Group SW., Inc. and
DIRECTV, Case No. 11-cv-00245 (N.D. Calif. January 18, 2011),
accuses DIRECTV, a national broadcast service company, The CBE
Group, Inc., and The CBE SW, Inc., of negligently and willfully
placing calls to her cellular telephone without her prior express
consent and not for emergency purposes, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Complaint says that CBE Group, Inc., and The CBE Group SW,
Inc., operate as accounts receivable management companies.  The
Complaints says the CBE Defendants CBE Defendants also operate
under the fictitious names Account Receivable Management,
Inc., ARM, Inc. ,and Credit Bureau Enterprises.  Plaintiff says
she is one of the victims of defendants' repeated prohibited
calls, and she claims that she does not even owe any debt to
DIRECTV, as the calls are intended for a completely different
individual.  Plaintiff relates she was never a customer of DIRECTV
and had no prior business relationship of any sort with DIRECTV.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles T. Mathews, Esq.
          Patrick Chung, Esq.
          THE MATHEWS LAW GROUP
          2596 Mission Street, Suite 204
          San Marino, CA 91108
          Telephone: (626) 683-8291


ECO-STORY: Recalls 42,000 LED Lamps
-----------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Eco-Story, of Portland, Maine, announced a voluntary recall of
about 42,000 LED Lamps.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

When used without a Class II transformer, the lamp can overheat,
posing a fire hazard.

The company has received two reports of overheated lamps.  No
injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the LED 12-volt lamps with UL number E316865.
The UL number is found on a label located at the base of each
lamp.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11716.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
commercial locations, primarily restaurants, from December 2007
through August, 2010 for about between $19 and $45.  The lamps
were not sold directly to consumers.


FACEBOOK INC: Seeks Dismissal of Two Privacy Class Action Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Miller, writing for The Record, reports lawyers for Facebook
have moved to dismiss two class action suits that claim the
company violated members' privacy.

One suit, originally filed on Nov. 22 in the Northern District of
California, alleges that Facebook used members' photos to
advertise its "Friend Finder" service without their consent.  It
asks for damages of $750 for each time the advertisement appears,
totaling no less than $100 million.

The other suit originally filed Oct. 11 in the Northern District
claims that Facebook shared users' sensitive personally
identifiable information, including their real names, with
advertising partners, violating its own privacy policy.

In its motions to dismiss, however, Facebook's lawyers from Cooley
in San Francisco argue also that the plaintiffs lack standing and
that their complaints do not allege actual injury.

"In fact, other than alleging that Plaintiffs 'clicked on at least
one third-party advertisement displayed on Facebook.com' during an
undefined 'relevant period,' plaintiffs make no allegations at all
containing facts specific to themselves or their Facebook
accounts," one motion said.

Facebook is represented by Cooley partners Matthew Brown and
Michael Rhodes.


HIGHLANDS COUNTY: Dismissal of Ex-Inmate's Class Action Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Dickerson, writing for Highlands Today, reports former
Highlands County inmate Timothy Tacy filed a civil rights
complaint against Sheriff Susan Benton alleging prisoners were
denied their constitutional rights by restricting the type of mail
they received while in jail.

On Jan. 14, the Eleventh Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals
affirmed the district court's dismissal of his case after Mr. Tacy
appealed.

Mike Durham, general counsel for the Highlands County Sheriff's
Office, said Mr. Tacy's class action complaint deals with post
cards and it's an issue being discussed across Florida.

The question is if it's a violation of an inmate's privacy rights
to require incoming mail to be on post cards and open for review.

"And that's being litigated," Mr. Durham said.  "We don't know
where it'll end up."

Mr. Durham added that sealed legal mail is also reviewed.

Grievances and lawsuits

Since the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) was
instituted in 1996, Mr. Durham said there has been a significant
drop in the number of lawsuits inmates file against those who
house them.

The PLRA instructs a prisoner to first try and resolve any
complaint through the prison's grievance procedure.

This usually requires giving a written description of the
grievance.

If a lawsuit is filed in federal court without the complaint going
through the prison's grievance process, it will most certainly be
dismissed, according to the PLRA.

Maj. David Paeplow, detention bureau commander for the HCSO, said
there were 224 grievances received in 2010 after the new criteria
were put in place.

There were 102 grievances filed in 2009, but Mr. Paeplow said a
better comparison couldn't be made until the end of this year.

Mr. Durham said grievances can be anything from insufficient
medical treatment to the quality of the food.

"Certain items are not grievable issues," Mr. Paeplow said.

Those pertain to procedure and aren't open for debate.
Mr. Paeplow used the example that if a prisoner wanted four meals
a day instead of the set three, that wouldn't be considered a
grievance.

"If they claim that we're not providing what we're supposed to be
providing . . . they can grieve that," Mr. Paeplow said.

Mr. Durham said if a grievance turns into a federal lawsuit, the
court looks to see if the jail is in compliance before they
proceed.  If the facility is, then the suit is dismissed.

Highlands County Clerk of Courts Bob Germaine couldn't recall any
grievances in 2010 that turned into lawsuits.

Three strikes

Mr. Durham said that if prisoners file three separate lawsuits and
each is deemed frivolous or dismissed, they can't file them
anymore pro se, or on their behalf.

Under the PLRA, the only exception to the three strikes rule is if
a prisoner is at risk of suffering physical injury.

In his appeal, Mr. Tacy argued that his class action complaint was
not frivolous and shouldn't be dismissed.

The appeals court cited case law stating that Mr. Tacy could not
seek relief on behalf of his fellow inmates and ruled the district
court acted properly in their dismissal.

Mr. Durham said Mr. Tacy had also complained about an inmate's
limited phone access.

Ironically, any income derived from those phones went straight
toward inmate welfare, according to Durham.  These funds provide
things like education and games.

"It's a couple hundred grand a year," Mr. Durham said.  "It's
quite big.


INDIA: May Face Class Action Over Delhi Games Debt
--------------------------------------------------
Nick Tabakoff, writing for Herald Sun, reports sports bodies and
major events groups say they are owed more than $3 million for
work at last year's Delhi Commonwealth Games.

The Government-financed Australian Commonwealth Games Association
said the Indian government still owed it "a six-figure sum" due
two months ago.

Sydney Olympics maestro Ric Birch last week commissioned Slater &
Gordon to launch a class action against Delhi organizers for
unpaid bills.

Games association chief executive Perry Crosswhite said his body
was one of "30 or 40" similar Games bodies around the world owed
money by Delhi organizers.  "We're owed a travel subsidy payment
in the six figures that was due in November," he said.

Mr. Birch's lawsuit is shaping as the first salvo in a possible $3
million-plus class action involving at least four of Australia's
biggest major event names, including Mr. Birch's Spectak
Productions, and world-renowned fireworks group Howard & Sons.

Most companies hit were key players in the opening and closing
ceremonies.

All still have substantial parts of their $1 million-plus
contracts unpaid.

Howard & Sons boss Andrew Howard said having the company's unique
pyrotechnics firing equipment tied up in Delhi had cost it up to
$600,000, as well as $300,000 in unpaid bills.  Mr. Birch said he
was owed $350,000 on his Games contract.  Global major event sound
company Norwest Production said it was owed $1 million, including
$160,000 a week for the past six weeks for equipment still in
Delhi.

Another Australian firm that provided Games media services is owed
$600,000.

Mr. Birch was creative director for the Delhi ceremonies, Howard &
Sons provided all fireworks, and Norwest provided sound.

Mr. Birch said that other English, German and Italian companies
involved with the Games ceremonies were also owed money.

India's ability to host international events has again been called
into question, with at least five venues for next month's cricket
World Cup still far from complete.  There were similar woes ahead
of the Commonwealth Games.

There are also several inquiries into alleged corruption over the
Games.


J.CREW GROUP: Agrees to Settlement of Delaware Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
J.Crew Group, Inc., has entered into an agreement with plaintiffs
of a class action lawsuit in Delaware who are against a merger
agreement between the Company and a group of companies, according
J.Crew's January 18, 2011 Form 8-K filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On January 16, 2011, J.Crew Group, Inc., entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding with the parties in In re J.Crew Group, Inc.
Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 6043 providing for the
settlement of the claims against the Company and the other
defendants in the Consolidated Delaware Action, which was brought
in connection with the previously announced Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated as of November 23, 2010, among the Company, Chinos
Holdings, Inc., (Parent) and Chinos Acquisition Corporation
(Merger Sub), both beneficially owned by affiliates of TPG
Capital, L.P., and Leonard Green & Partners, L.P.  The Memorandum
of Understanding was agreed to by the parties pending the prompt
negotiation and execution of a more formal settlement agreement
based on the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding that has
been submitted to the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.
The settlement agreement will be subject to the approval of the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding, the Company, Parent
and Merger Sub agreed to amend the Merger Agreement to implement
certain terms of the Memorandum of Understanding.  The Amendment
provides for g: (i) the extension of the "go shop" period by 31
days through February 15, 2011; (ii) the reduction of the
termination fee payable by the Company in certain circumstances to
$20 million, plus up to $5 million for reimbursement of expenses;
(iii) if the Company receives a third party acquisition proposal
pursuant to which the stockholders of the Company would be
entitled to receive consideration having a value of $45.50 or more
per share that the board of directors of the Company (acting
through the special committee) determines is a superior proposal,
Parent's right to match the third party acquisition proposal is
eliminated; (iv) if the Company receives a third party acquisition
proposal that would entitle the stockholders of the Company to
receive consideration having a value of between $44.00 and $45.49
per share that the board of directors of the Company (acting
through the special committee) determines is a superior proposal
and the third party fails to acquire the Company because of a
subsequent superior proposal, the third party is entitled to
reimbursement of its reasonable and documented expenses up to $3
million; (v) Parent does not have the contractual right to receive
information regarding the results of the "go shop" period until
the expiration of the extension of the "go shop" period on
February 15, 2011; and (vi) the closing of any transaction with
Parent and Merger Sub is conditioned on a majority of the
Company's unaffiliated stockholders voting in favor of the
transaction. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Parent is
not required to consummate the merger until after completion of a
marketing period for the financing it is using to fund a portion
of the merger consideration. Pursuant to the Amendment, the
marketing period has been reduced from 20 business days to 16
business days, provided that the marketing period will not begin
until 7 business days following the date on which the Company
provides certain required information to Parent.

In addition, the Memorandum of Understanding that the parties to
the Consolidated Delaware Action agreed to contemplates these
terms:

  (i) When and if the proposed transaction closes, the
            Company (or its insurers) will make a one-time
            settlement payment of $10 million to the Company's
            stockholders (other than the defendants in the
            Consolidated Delaware Action and their affiliates).
            The $10 million settlement payment will be distributed
            pro rata to each member of the class. Neither the
            Company nor its insurers will deduct legal fees from
            this payment. The definition of the class will be
            determined at a later date in the court proceedings.

  (ii) In the event that (a) a third party other than Parent
            and Merger Sub acquires the Company, (b) such third
            party offers Mr. Millard S. Drexler, Chairman and
            Chief Executive Officer of the Company employment on
            the same or better terms and conditions to Mr. Drexler
            (including with respect to equity grants) than the
            terms and conditions contemplated in connection with
            the merger, and (c) Mr. Drexler elects not to enter
            into an employment relationship with such third party,
            Mr. Drexler agreed that for the two-year period
            following the termination of his employment with the
            Company, he shall not compete with the Company (other
            than as a holder of a passive investment not in excess
            of 5% of the outstanding shares of any publicly traded
            company).

  (iii) The special committee agreed to consider in good faith
            comments made by the plaintiffs in the Consolidated
            Delaware Action on the form confidentiality agreement
            provided to potential bidders during the go shop
            process, any changes to which would also be made to
            the existing confidentiality agreement among the
            Company, TPG and Leonard Green. Among other things,
            the special committee agreed to limit any standstill
            agreement in such confidentiality agreements to six
            months.

  (iv) The Company represented and confirmed that any third
            parties that sign the confidentiality agreement will
            have access to the same information that TPG and
            Leonard Green received, except that the Company's
            competitors may receive a more limited set of
            information.

  (v) The Company agreed to amend the proxy statement to
            address certain disclosure requests made by the
            plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware Action, which
            specific requests will be considered by the Company in
            good faith.

(vi) The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware Action
            agreed to provide the defendants and their affiliates
            a full and appropriate release of all claims that were
            asserted or that could have been asserted in the
            Consolidated Delaware Action, the specific wording of
            which would be negotiated in good faith.

The Memorandum of Understanding and the Amended Merger Agreement
were approved by the Company's board of directors (other than Mr.
Drexler and Mr. James Coulter who recused themselves), acting upon
the unanimous recommendation of the special committee composed of
independent directors of the board of directors.

The defendants have denied and continue to deny any wrongdoing or
liability with respect to all claims, events, and transactions
complained of in Consolidated Delaware Action or that they have
engaged in any wrongdoing. The defendants have entered into the
settlement to eliminate the uncertainty, burden, risk, expense and
distraction of further litigation.

The Company also disclosed that it has established a record date
and a meeting date for a special meeting of its stockholders to
consider and vote upon a proposal to adopt the Amended Merger
Agreement. Stockholders of record at the close of business on
Friday, January 21, 2011, will be entitled to notice of the
special meeting and to vote at the special meeting. The special
meeting is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, March 1, 2011.
In addition, the Company has received notice from the Federal
Trade Commission granting early termination of the mandatory
waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements
Act. Accordingly, the condition to closing in the Merger Agreement
with respect to the expiration of the applicable waiting periods
under the HSR Act has been satisfied.

J.Crew Group, Inc. -- http://www.jcrew.com/-- is a nationally
recognized multi-channel retailer of women's, men's and children's
apparel, shoes and accessories. As of January 18, 2011, the
Company operates 249 retail stores (including 220 J.Crew retail
stores, 9 crewcuts and 20 Madewell stores), the J. Crew catalog
business, jcrew.com, madewell.com and 85 factory outlet stores.


NORBOURG: Parties to Settle Class Action for $55 Million
--------------------------------------------------------
The parties to the Norbourg class action on Jan. 19 disclosed that
an agreement in principle has been reached and will be presented
to the Superior Court of Quebec for approval once all details of
the agreement have been finalized by the parties.  Under the
agreement, the parties agreed, without any admission of liability,
to settle the suit for a total amount of $55 million.

The $55 million, in addition to the compensation already paid by
the Fonds d'indemnisation des services financiers, administered by
the Autorite des marches financiers, the funds recovered by the
bankruptcy trustees and the liquidator in the Norbourg matter and
the funds returned by Revenu Quebec, will ensure the recovery and
distribution, to all intents and purposes, of all funds stolen
from the Norbourg victims.

The amount will be covered by Beaulieu Deschambault S.E.N.C.R.L.
(including Deschambault St-Jean S.E.N.C.R.L.) and Remi
Deschambault, the AMF, The Northern Trust Company, Canada,
Concentra Trust and KPMG LLP.

This agreement was entered into following a case settlement
conference presided by Quebec Superior Court Judge Francois
Rolland just prior to the start of the class action hearing.
Should the court ratify the agreement, all proceedings involving
investors in the Norbourg matter will effectively come to an end.

The parties have agreed to settle the suit in the interest of the
victims and in order to avoid lengthy and costly legal
proceedings.

Given that this agreement is subject to approval by the Superior
Court, detailed information with respect to the determination and
distribution of funds will be communicated to investors once the
agreement is ratified by the court.


NUTRACEA: Settles Accounting Irregularities Probe With SEC
----------------------------------------------------------
NutraCea (NTRZ.pk), disclosed in a January 18, 2011, Form 8-K that
the Company has reached a settlement with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission regarding an investigation into alleged
accounting irregularities, which resulted in class action
lawsuits.

NutraCea has settled the case without admitting or denying the
charges. No financial or regulatory penalties were assessed
against the Company.

In the fall of 2008, the Audit Committee of NutraCea's Board of
Directors initiated an investigation into accounting
irregularities surfaced by the Company's internal staff.  Later
that year, NutraCea's Audit Committee referred the matter to the
SEC and an informal investigation was initiated.  In February
2009, the SEC's informal investigation was converted into a formal
investigation, resulting in the filing of shareholder and
derivative lawsuits that were eventually granted class action
status.

In March 2009, the Board accepted former CEO Brad Edson's
resignation and appointed Jim Lintzenich' as Interim CEO.  W. John
Short joined the company in July 2009 and was appointed Chairman
and CEO in the fourth quarter.  On November 10, 2009 NutraCea
filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code.
The Company exited Chapter 11 on November 30, 2010.

Commenting on the settlement with the SEC, Mr. Short said, "We are
pleased to have resolved this matter.  It has been a time
consuming and expensive process.  During the course of the SEC
investigation, our management and Board of Directors have
cooperated fully with the SEC.  At the same time, we took a number
of initiatives to strengthen our Company as we worked toward
emergence from Chapter 11 including:

   * The engagement of special counsel during the SEC
     investigation to assist in developing and implementing best
     practices in corporate governance, compliance and internal
     control policies and procedures.

   * In April 2010, John Quinn, a highly experienced professional
     with over 30 years of public accounting experience, joined
     NutraCea's Board as head of the Audit Committee.

   * In June 2010, Dale Belt, a dual registered CPA with broad
     experience in financial management and restructuring, joined
     the Company as Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting
     Officer."

Mr. Short continued, "Overall, we have made dramatic improvements
in our internal processes and controls while significantly
strengthening our staff.  None of the management or accounting
staff investigated by the SEC remain with the company.

"While there is still much to be done, our recent emergence from
Chapter 11 and this settlement with the SEC, will allow us to
redirect significant management and financial resources toward
building a profitable and sustainable business for our
shareholders and other constituencies."

NutraCea -- http://www.NutraCea.com/-- produces and markets
stabilized rice bran (SRB), rice bran oil (RBO) and their
derivative products. NutraCea holds many patents for stabilized
rice bran (SRB) production technology and proprietary products
derived from SRB. NutraCea's proprietary technology enables the
creation of food and nutrition products to be unlocked from rice
bran, normally a waste by-product of standard rice processing.
NutraCea also produces consumer rice bran health supplements which
can be found at http://www.nutraceaonline.com.


TEKELEC: Holzer Probes Alleged Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
-----------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel on Jan. 19 disclosed that it is
investigating potential breaches of fiduciary duties by certain
officers and directors of Tekelec.  On January 6, 2011, an
investor filed a class action lawsuit in the Eastern District of
North Carolina alleging that Tekelec violated the federal
securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements to the
public between February 11, 2010 and August 5, 2010.  The lawsuit
alleges, among other things, that Tekelec misled investors
regarding demand for its products.  Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC's
investigation seeks to determine if the allegations contained in
the class action complaint give rise to separate claims for
breaches of fiduciary duties.

If you have continuously held shares since at least February 11,
2010, and plan to continue to hold at least some shares of
Tekelec, and would like to discuss your legal rights, you may
contact:

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
          E-mail: mfistel@holzerlaw.com
                  mdees@holzerlaw.com
          Telephone: (888) 508-6832 (toll-free)

Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC -- http://www.holzerlaw.com/-- is an
Atlanta, Georgia law firm that dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation.


UNITED STATES: $60.8MM Legal Fees Sought in Farmers' Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article at The Blog of Legal Times posted by
Mike Scarcella, the plaintiffs' lawyers in Washington who
negotiated a $760 million settlement for a class of Native-
American farmers and ranchers are asking for $60.8 million in
legal fees and expenses, court records show.

The settlement in Keepseagle v. Vilsack, announced last year in
October, sets out a range of fees between 4% and 8%.  The
settlement creates a cash fund of $680 million for eligible class
members and sets out $80 million for debt relief.  The suit, filed
in 1999, alleged the U.S. Department of Agriculture discriminated
against Native Americans in the government's farm loan program.

The plaintiffs' attorneys, including lead counsel Joseph Sellers
of Washington's Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, said the class
lawyers have invested nearly 42,000 hours in the case, amounting
to about $16.2 million in fees, based on hourly rates, and $1.6
million in expenses.  The plaintiffs' lawyers predict future fees
and expenses will reach $8.65 million.

"This settlement was not achieved easily or quickly, but rather is
the fruit of eleven years of hard-fought litigation including a
vigorous contest on class [certification]," lawyers for lead
plaintiff Marilyn Keepseagle said in court papers filed Jan. 14 in
Washington's federal trial court.

The plaintiffs' lawyers -- who also include Paul Smith of Jenner &
Block, Anurag Varma of Patton Boggs and David Frantz of Conlon,
Frantz & Phelan -- called the fee request "amply justified" based
on, among other things, the complexity of the case and the risk
that the lawyers would never receive compensation.  The attorneys
noted that fee percentage is less than half the percentage that is
typically awarded in Washington federal district court.

Mr. Sellers said in court papers that Cohen Milstein's hourly
rates for attorneys who worked on the case range between $295 and
$785.

Mr. Smith, chairman of Jenner's appellate and Supreme Court
practice, said the Jenner lawyers who worked on the case bill
between $400 and $800 an hour for commercial clients.  He said
Jenner lawyers and staff spent more than 9,000 hours on the case
between the fall of 2007, when the firm got involved, and
November 2010.

Mr. Sellers and the plaintiffs' lawyers tout the benefits of the
settlement in arguing that the class attorneys should receive an
award at the high end of the 8% cap on fees.  Ms. Keepseagle's
lawyers said the settlement requires the USDA to implement "new
and unprecedented" initiatives that should dramatically improve
the delivery of farm loan services to Native Americans."

The USDA plans to offer financial, business and marketing
instruction to Native Americans at regional venues.  Also, the
agriculture department plans to collect and report data that
compare loans awarded and sought by Native Americans to allow for
monitoring of any disparities.

The government has agreed to pay up to $20 million to cover class
member notification and for administering the claims process.


VACLESS SYSTEMS: Recalls 1,600 Pool Safety Vacuum Release System
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Vacless Systems Inc., of Sylmar, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,600 Pool Safety Vacuum Release System.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

Improper plastic material found inside the recalled product has
been attributed to vacuum release failures which create an
entrapment hazard to swimmers and bathers.

Vacless Systems Inc. has received no reports of incidents or
injuries.

The recalled product is a black plastic device that screws into
the drain hole of a swimming pool or spa circulation pump. As part
of the circulation systems, the device is designed to release the
vacuum in a drain line whenever a submerged drain cover of a
swimming pool or spa is completely covered.  The recalled product
has model number SVRS10ADJ and only involves the following serial
numbers found on the weather-proof label attached to the top of
every unit:

                 061040994 through 061041353
                 071040437 through 071040536
                 071040570 through 071040574
                 071040627 through 071041125
                 081040001 through 081040667

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11101.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States and
sold through independent distributors or retailers for
professional pool and spa products between July 2010 and September
2010 between $480 and $719.

Consumers should immediately stop using their pool or spa.
Distributors and dealers are directly notifying consumers of the
recall and the Vacless SVRS repair program.  Pool owners/operators
who have not been directly notified should immediately contact
Vacless Systems Inc. to implement the Vacless SVRS repair and
testing procedure and to receive a replacement unit for
installation.  The instructions for the repair are also available
at http://www.vacless.com/  For additional information, contact
Vacless Systems Inc. directly at (818) 899-1755 between 8:00 a.m.
and 4:00 p.m., Pacific Time Monday through Friday, e-mail the firm
at support@vacless.com or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.vacless.com/


VODAFONE GROUP: 20,000 Customers Expected to Join Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Tindal, writing for ZDNet, reports the number of people
signing up to the Vodafone class action lawsuit lead by law firm
Piper Alderman is still climbing and is slated to reach 20,000
this week.

As of Jan. 19, the firm said that around 19,400 people had
registered interest in the lawsuit, which is taking Vodafone to
task for the quality of its 3G services.

"At the current rate of registrations, we would expect to reach
20,000 within the next week or so," Piper Alderman partner
Sasha Ivantsoff said.

Despite the large number of registrations, the firm is still
willing to keep taking people on, with claimants able to join the
class action lawsuit at any time up to the filing of proceedings
in court.

The firm had been carrying out a survey to gather information from
registrants and to decide if it would include Vodafone's recent
security breach, which resulted in the sacking of Vodafone staff,
in the case.  That survey is ongoing, according to Mr. Ivantsoff.


WESTFIELD INSURANCE: May Face New UM/UIM Coverage Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie K. Jones, writing for Insurance Journal reports, an Ohio
insurance company in late 2010 successfully challenged a class
action lawsuit involving uninsured motorist/underinsured motorist
(UM/UIM) coverage in a case that played prominently in a campaign
to change the way jury awards in class actions are distributed.

The complaint in Beck v. Westfield Insurance Co. stems from a
three-year period in the mid-1990s in which Ohio's UM/UIM laws
were changed due to a state Supreme Court decision in a landmark
case, Martin v. Midwestern Insurance Co.

Previous to September 1994, automobile insurance companies in Ohio
could charge a separate premium for UM/UIM for each vehicle owned
by an insured.  The Court in Martin v. Midwestern put a stop to
that practice, finding that coverage followed the insured, not the
vehicle.   That decision held until 1997, when the state
legislature passed a new law allowing the charging of additional
premiums for UM/UIM coverage on secondary vehicles.

In 1994, Jeffrey Beck had an auto policy with Westfield that
included an "other-owned vehicle" exclusion, said Josh Gayl, an
attorney with Fox Rothschild LLP, who assisted in representing
Westfield.  Under that exclusion, a policyholder with multiple
vehicles who was only paying one premium for UM/UIM coverage
wouldn't get "UM/UIM coverage if you were injured or your family
member was injured while driving in that secondary vehicle," Mr.
Gayl said.

While the Court in Martin v. Midwestern determined that insureds
did not have to pay multiple premiums for UM/UIM coverage for
multiple vehicles, it did not prevent "the insurance company from
charging a premium for what opposing counsel has termed 'guest
coverage,'" Mr. Gayl said.  For instance, he said, if you were
driving your secondary car and your golfing buddy was riding with
you, that friend would not be covered in case of an accident
unless you had paid a premium on that second vehicle.

"It would have been a bad decision on the insurance company's part
to remove the premium entirely for a secondary for that very
reason," Mr. Gayl said.  It would have removed the guest coverage,
which likely would have resulted in "a flood of lawsuits coming in
for Westfield and for other insurance companies."

But Westfield and other insurance companies were sued anyway.
Those suits claimed the insurers wrongly continued to charge
customers for the UM/UIM coverage on secondary vehicles by
classifying it as guest coverage.

"During that three years they weren't allowed to charge the extra
premium for these cars and tell insurance customers they were
paying the extra premium for the UM coverage because they already
had it.  Many insurance companies did what they were supposed to
and they stopped it," said Patrick Perotti, an attorney with Ohio-
based Dworken & Bernstein Co. LPA.

Mr. Perotti, who represented Mr. Beck, said some insurers
continued to charge the extra premium on secondary vehicles
without telling the insureds it was for guest coverage, not UM/UIM
coverage.  That's where the fraud comes in; the fraud being that
the insurance company said it was charging a premium for one type
of coverage when it was really charging for a different type of
coverage, he said.

While Beck v. Westfield ended with a dismissal, Mr. Perotti has
won some $52 million in judgments in cases against other Ohio auto
insurers over similar issues.  The difference in Beck v.
Westfield, he said, is that he picked the wrong defendant.  It
turned out that Mr. Beck had cancelled his policy with Westfield
early in 1995 without having gotten a renewal that had the changes
resulting from the Martin v. Midwestern decision, a fact
Mr. Perotti said only came out during discovery.  Mr. Perotti said
he has appealed but, more importantly, he will file a new lawsuit
against Westfield with a new plaintiff representing the class.

Statute of Limitations

Dismissal in Beck v. Westfield is based on the fact that the
Court's 1994 ruling did not apply to Beck's policy.  But Mr. Gayl
said even if it had, that really wouldn't have made a difference
for a number of reasons.

Chief among them, Mr. Gayl said, is the statute of limitations.
"The Ohio statute of limitation for claims based on fraud is four
years," he said.  "If the action that was fraudulent took place in
1994, the cause of action for fraud would need to be filed in
1998. . . . The Ohio Legislature overturned this Martin v.
Midwestern decision in 1997. . . . Best case scenario for a
plaintiff was if the person had a policy that was effective in
1997 he or she could have brought a claim as late as 2001. . . .
Here, the claim was brought in 2009."

So, even if Mr. Beck's policy had contained changes the court
decision required, the statute of limitation for a fraud claim in
this case had long passed by 2009 when Mr. Beck's lawsuit was
filed, Mr. Gayl said.

While Mr. Perotti has been successful in the past in bringing suit
against insurance companies over similar issues, Ms. Gayl said the
outcome in this "case is a big, big deal not only for Westfield,
but for other insurance companies that are facing the same kind of
class action for plaintiff's counsel. . . . This is the first time
a court has said, wait a minute, there's a statute of limitations
here.  You can't wait 15 years and then tell Joe Smith 'hey, if
you were represented by this insurance company you might have a
claim.'  So it sort of puts an end to this kind of class action as
untimely."

Cy Pres

Mr. Gayl said another issue at play with Beck v. Westfield is
Mr. Perotti's interest in changing the nature of settlements in
class action cases.

In most states, if an insurance company offers $50 million in a
settlement, but only $10 million of that is claimed by class
members -- because, for instance, all the claimants can't be found
-- the remaining $40 million would go back to the company being
sued, Mr. Gayl said.

Plaintiff's counsel is trying to change that system using the
legal doctrine of cy pres, Mr. Gayl said.  Under the cy pres
doctrine, in the settlements of estates and trusts, etc. any
amount remaining after beneficiaries have been paid is given to
charity.  Similarly, if cy pres is applied to settlements in class
action lawsuits, any money remaining in the settlement after
claimants have been paid would go to charities.  While charities
would benefit from such a system, so would plaintiff attorneys,
Mr. Gayl said.  Currently, plaintiff attorneys are only paid on a
percentage of the total amount of a settlement passed on to class
members.  If only $10 million of a $50 million settlement is paid
out, the attorney would get a percentage of $10 million.  If,
however, the remaining $40 million was given to charities, the
plaintiff attorney would be paid a percentage of that $40 million,
as well.

The issue of using the cy pres doctrine in settlements was widely
debated before the November election, Mr. Gayl said.  "Plaintiff's
counsel made [Beck v. Westfield] as an example in support of
cy pres legislation," he said.

While stalled in the past legislative session, Mr. Perotti said
the legislation had bipartisan support.  "The sponsors of that law
are both Republicans and Democrats.  And the sponsors have
indicated that they are going to reintroduce it," he said.

Mr. Perotti said House Bill 427 and Senate Bill 157 were more
about truth in settlements -- paying out what you said you would
pay out -- rather than money for charities.  He said Westfield
opposed the legislation "because it had this case pending and it
doesn't want to pay all the money it owes."  The legislation also
was opposed by the Chamber of Commerce, he said, because
corporations believe that if they stall long enough not all
claimants will be found and the amount they have to pay in a
settlement will be reduced.

Mr. Perotti's firm, Dworken & Bernstein, has distributed to
charities more than $20 million over the past four years,
according to a company announcement.  The money came from
settlements in cases tried by the firm.

Mr. Gayl said he believes cy pres legislation, if reintroduced,
won't have much of a chance because following the November
election Republicans control the Ohio legislature.  Ohio
Republicans generally support the insurers' and manufacturers'
positions on the issue, he said.


                             *********

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  * * *