CAR_Public/110126.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, January 26, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 18

                             Headlines

1100 LLC: Accused of Violations of the Chicago RLTO
AT&T SERVICES: DSL Modem Rebate Settlement Hearing on Apr. 8
BEACON MUTUAL: Suit Over Dividends Granted Class-Action Status
BEAR STEARNS: Judge Allows Investor Class Action to Proceed
BLUE CROSS: City of Pontiac Files Class Action

CAPITAL FIN'L: Wants Arbitration Claims Merged as Class Action
CIBC: Ontario Court to Hear Overtime Class Action Appeal
CONSECO LIFE: Loses Class Action Over Policy Rate Hikes
CULLEN AGRICULTURAL: Enters Stipulation Resolving Triplecrown Suit
JAPAN: Hepatitis B Patients Accept Settlement in Vaccine Suit

JENNIE-O: Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of Overtime Suit
LAKE TANSI: Residents File Class Action Over Sewer System
MERCK & CO: May Face Class Action Over Fosamax Femur Fractures
MF GLOBAL: To Contribute $2.5 Million in IPO Lawsuit Settlement
MOBILE HOME MAKERS: FEMA Trailer Class Action Settled

PHIL&TEDS: Recalls 2,900 Jogging Strollers
PHILLIPS ELECTRONICS: May 2 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
PROGRESS ENERGY: Being Sold for Too Little, N.C. Suit Claims
RIDGELAND, SC: iTraffic to Install Cameras Despite Class Action
ROYAL BANK: Sued by Lighthouse Financial Over False Statements

TACO BELL: Faces Class Action for Misleading Advertising
VANGUARD HEALTH: "Maderazo" Suit in Texas Remains Stayed
WESTAFF INC: April 27 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set

* 5% of S&P 500 Involved in Securities Class Actions in 2010


                             *********

1100 LLC: Accused of Violations of the Chicago RLTO
---------------------------------------------------
Hailee Bloom, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. 1100, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 2011-CH-02509 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. January. 20, 2011), brings this complaint
pursuant to the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance,
Chicago Municipal Code, Chapter 5-12.

At all relevant times, Plaintiff Hailee Bloom was a tenant of
Apartment No. 911 located at 1100 N. Dearborn, Chicago, Illinois.
The Apartment building is approximately 21 stories, and contains
roughly 247 residential dwelling units.

Defendants 1100, L.L.C., and Berger Realty Group, L.L.C., are
identified in the Complaint as the "landlord" of plaintiff's
dwelling unit.

Ms. Bloom says that on May 14, 2009, she and defendant Berger
Realty entered into a written rental agreement for her dwelling
unit.  On or about May 11, 2010, she and defendant Berger Realty
entered into a written renewal rental agreement for her dwelling
unit.

Ms. Bloom relates that defendants failed to provide her with a
separate summary of the RLTO, describing the respective rights,
obligations, and remedies of landlords and tenants with respect to
security deposits, including the new interest rate as well as the
rate for each of the prior two years, at the time the rental
agreement was initially offered to her on May 14, 2009, and at the
time the renewal rental agreement was initially offered to her on
May 11, 2010, as required under Section 5-12-170 of the Chicago
RLTO.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron Krolik, Esq.
          AARON KROLIK LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          134 N. LaSale St., Suite 700
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 558-1978

               - and -

          Mark Silverman, Esq.
          MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD.
          225 W. Washington St., Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 775-1015


AT&T SERVICES: DSL Modem Rebate Settlement Hearing on Apr. 8
------------------------------------------------------------
If you purchased a DSL modem from AT&T with a mail-in rebate offer
between December 5, 2003, and December 20, 2010, you could be
entitled to benefits under a class action settlement.

A settlement in the class action lawsuit entitled Gewalt v. AT&T
Services, Inc., Case No. CGC-07-469792, may affect you if you were
a person or entity in California who purchased a digital
subscriber line ("DSL") modem from AT&T with a mail-in rebate
offer between December 5, 2003, and December 20, 2010, and were
not paid a rebate within twelve weeks of submitting your rebate
claim form.

The San Francisco Superior Court will hold a Final Approval
Hearing on April 8, 2011, at 1:30 p.m., to consider whether to
approve the class settlement, as well as the attorneys'' fees and
expenses, and an incentive award to the Class Representative.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, if it is determined
that you are entitled to a modem rebate and were not paid a
rebate, you shall receive a check equal to the cost paid for the
modem plus 10%.  If it is determined that you were paid a modem
rebate, but did not receive the rebate within twelve weeks of
submitting your rebate claim form, you shall receive a check equal
to 100% the cost paid for the modem.

In order to receive either benefit, you must submit a settlement
Claim Form.  The deadline to submit the Claim Form is March 22,
2011.  You can access a Claim Form and submit it online, by going
to http://www.attmodemrebatesettlement.com/

Visit the Web site for more details about the settlement and for
your options under the settlement or write to:

         ATT Modem Rebate Settlement
         c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
         P.O. Box 9705
         Dublin, OH 43017-5605

to request more information.


BEACON MUTUAL: Suit Over Dividends Granted Class-Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
NECN, citing The Providence Journal, reports a judge has granted
class-action status to plaintiffs suing the Beacon Mutual
Insurance Co. for inequitably distributing $101 million in
dividends among policy holders.

Judge Michael Silverstein said in his ruling that Beacon Mutual
"engaged in a systematic scheme to divert over $101 million to a
small percent of its policy holders."

The suit dates to 2002.

Beacon is the state's dominant workers' compensation issuer, with
about 11,000 policy holders.  There are six named plaintiffs in
the lawsuit.

A Beacon Mutual spokesman tells The Providence Journal that the
company will "continue to mount a vigorous defense" and says the
$101 million figure claimed by the plaintiff is baseless.


BEAR STEARNS: Judge Allows Investor Class Action to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daily Mail reports a class action case in the U.S. against fallen
investment bank Bear Stearns and its auditor, Deloitte & Touche,
has been given the green light by a judge.

Investors, led by the Michigan Retirement System, accuse former
Bear Stearns bosses of painting a wildly misleading picture of the
firm's finances ahead of its collapse in March 2008.

A spokesman for Deloitte said the firm 'intends to defend this
case vigorously'.

Rival auditor Ernst & Young is being sued in the US over its role
in the collapse of Lehman Brothers and is also facing probes by
the UK accountancy watchdog.

The parties to the Securities Action will meet and confer on a
discovery schedule, including a pretrial conference during the
week of March 21, 2011, to be approved by the Court.

The case is IN RE: BEAR STEARNS COMPANIES, INC. SECURITIES,
DERIVATIVE, AND ERISA LITIGATION, No. 08 MDL 1963 (S.D.N.Y.).
A copy of the January 19, 2011 opinion is available
at http://is.gd/fsRmYcfrom Leagle.com.


BLUE CROSS: City of Pontiac Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------
The Detroit News reports the city of Pontiac on Jan. 21 filed a
class-action lawsuit in Detroit federal court against Blue Cross
Blue Shield of Michigan, Ascension Health and 21 Michigan
hospitals, alleging the insurer's use of certain clauses drove up
its health care and hospital expenses.

The suit follows a federal civil suit filed by the U.S. Justice
Department and former Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox against
the Blues, alleging the Blues use of the contracts stifles
competition and drives up consumers' insurance costs.

On Jan. 20, the Justice Department and Attorney General's office
filed an answer opposing Blue Cross' December motion that asked a
judge to dismiss the suit.


CAPITAL FIN'L: Wants Arbitration Claims Merged as Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Kelly, writing for Investment News, reports a cash strapped
independent broker-dealer that sold $65.3 million in high-risk oil
and gas private placements is seeking to combine 36 separate
arbitration claims and lawsuits as part of a class action
settlement.

Two weeks ago, a federal judge in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas ordered that all arbitration claims and
lawsuits against Capital Financial Services Inc. be halted until
he can decide if they should all become part of a single class
action.

Other broker-dealers being sued in the same class action are
paying close attention to Capital Financial's pending settlement,
industry lawyers and executives said.

Combining all of the pending litigation, which involves the
broker-dealers' sales of Provident Royalties LLC private
placements, could save them millions of dollars in damages and
legal fees.

John Carlson, president of Capital Financial, said he does not
know of any other broker-dealer seeking the same type of
settlement but added that others will consider it.

"I know some broker-dealers have been listening in and monitoring"
the recent proceedings, he said.

Mark Roth, general counsel for National Holdings Corp., parent
company of National Securities Corp., one of the other broker
dealers being sued, said National Holdings would be interested in
a similar settlement, but added that the plaintiffs would have to
agree to it too.

Capital Financial and National Securities are among a handful of
broker-dealers named in the class action, Billitteri v. Securities
America Inc., et al.  Other defendants include Next Financial
Group Inc. and QA3 Financial Corp.

The lawsuit was filed in August 2009, a few weeks after the
Securities and Exchange Commission charged Provident Royalties
with fraud for allegedly running a Ponzi scheme.  Provident sold
$485 million in securities and developed a wide network of
independent broker-dealers to distribute the deals, with preferred
stock or partnership interests priced at $5,000.

According to court documents, Capital Financial is facing
36 separate legal cases from investors who bought almost
$11.9 million in Provident Royalties private placements.

TAPPED OUT

Capital Financial has few assets to pay the claims, according to
court filings.  Chief among them is $1.4 million of insurance and
$120,000 in excess net capital, totaling a pool of $1.52 million.

Back-of-the-envelope math shows that Capital Financial has
available about 12 cents per dollar for clients who have sued the
firm or are in line to sue the firm.

Arguments for and against combining the arbitrations and other
lawsuits against Capital Financial will be heard at a hearing in
April, Mr. Carlson said.

At least one individual investor who filed an arbitration
complaint against the firm with the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority Inc. has objected to the proposed settlement.

When asked if the proposed settlement would be favorable to the
firm, Mr. Carlson said: "Yes, but it's favorable to more than us."
Such a settlement would allow money to reach investors rather than
"just be eaten by attorneys," he said.

According to the Jan. 11 order that froze legal action against
Capital Financial, Judge W. Royal Furgeson wrote: "There is a
limited fund available that is insufficient to satisfy the claims
of investors who purchased Provident securities through Capital
Financial.

"The court preliminarily finds that this limited fund is comprised
of Capital Financial's remaining insurance assets and the amount
of net regulatory surplus capital that Finra has determined
Capital Financial can contribute to this settlement," Mr. Furgeson
noted.

The reasoning for the settlement is simple, people familiar with
the matter said.  Plaintiffs who filed the first claims heard
against the firm would receive full awards, while others would get
nothing.

"Our job is to make sure our clients get their fair share of the
money," said Daniel C. Girard, managing partner of Girard Gibbs
LLP and the lead attorney in the Provident class action.

"All claimants should be treated equally and fairly," he added.

He declined to comment on whether he is negotiating a settlement
with other broker-dealers involved in the matter.

Provident sold shares from September 2006 to January 2009,
promising annualized rates of return ranging between 14% and 18%,
according to the lawsuit.  Investors' principal was supposed to be
fully redeemed within two to four years.

Investors paid broker-dealers a 1% "due-diligence fee" when they
sold the deals, along with commissions of 5.5% to 8%, according to
the lawsuit.


CIBC: Ontario Court to Hear Overtime Class Action Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Drew Hasselback, writing for Financial Post, reports lawyers for
CIBC tellers have won the right to appeal the Ontario court ruling
that had dismissed their $600-million class action overtime
lawsuit.

The Ontario Court of Appeal on Jan. 21 said that it would hear the
matter.  As is customary, the court gave no reasons why it has
agreed to hear the appeal.  The appeal hearing is expected to take
place later this year.  The court's handwritten endorsement
states:

"Leave to appeal is granted.  The costs of the leave motion
reserved to the panel hearing the appeal."

Lead plaintiff Dara Fresco applied to have the case certified, but
Ontario Superior Court Justice Joan Lax rejected the application
in 2009.  The judge found that the overtime issues in dispute were
too specific for each plaintiff.  Class actions require a common
set of facts to apply to all plaintiffs.  The judge ruled at
para. 70:

"Ultimately, the central flaw in the plaintiff's case is that
instances of unpaid overtime occur on an individual basis.  This
lack of commonality cannot be overcome by certifying an issue that
asks whether the defendant had a duty to prevent a series of
individual wrongs, without any basis for the existence of this
duty and where the duty does not relate to any pleaded cause of
action."

The plaintiffs last year took the matter to Ontario's Divisional
Court, which upheld Judge Lax's ruling, but in a split 2-1
decision.

Lawyers representing the plaintiffs include Louis Sokolov and
Steven Barrett of Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP and David O'Connor
of Roy Elliott O'Connor LLP.

After the certification ruling in 2009, CIBC said that it expected
the case to be appealed, and added that it has a process to
resolve employees' concerns about overtime, which includes
escalating complaints to senior management.


CONSECO LIFE: Loses Class Action Over Policy Rate Hikes
-------------------------------------------------------
Darla Mercado, writing for Investment News, reports a federal
court judge in California has ruled against Conseco Life Insurance
Co. in a class action, barring it from hitting some 50,000
policyholders with sky-high rate increases on life insurance
policies.

The ruling, delivered on Jan. 19 in U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, centers on a block of Valulife and
Valuterm universal life insurance policies that were sold in the
late 1980s and into the 1990s.  The decision could have serious
repercussions for other carriers considering raising premiums on
older policies, according to the plaintiffs' attorney.

The origin of the case dates back to 2002, according to the
ruling.  That's when the Indiana Department of Insurance raised
concerns about the carrier's insolvency and asset adequacy.  That
year, Conseco had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after
problems arose from its earlier acquisition of Green Tree
Financial Corp., a mobile home financer.

To avoid having to post reserves, the insurer searched for a way
to find some $173 million of reduced future liabilities, according
to the decision.

Conseco picked out two blocks of UL policies with lower-than-
expected lapse rates and computed a pricing formula that would cut
future losses from those UL blocks, according to court documents.

This formula called for a sharp increase in the cost of insurance
when the policies reached their 21st year of being in force --
which would have been 2010 or 2011 for the customers who've had
their policies the longest, according to the ruling.

The rate hike would have tripled the cost of insurance for those
customers, causing the policies to run out of cash value,
according to the plaintiffs' attorney, Andrew S. Friedman of
Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC.

Conseco had told the court last year that it would not put the
rate hike in place.  Judge A. Howard Matz, however, found that
even the formulation of the proposed increases violated the terms
of the policies.  The judge noted that the policies require the
insurer to determine its cost of insurance rates based on future
mortality experience -- which does not include lapse and interest
factors.

Mr. Friedman cautioned that poor pricing may tempt other insurers
to raise premiums on older UL policies, but he said he has not
heard of any other carrier attempting to raise premiums the way
Conseco did.

"There may be a broader impact on older policies that might be out
there to the extent that companies are raising rates," he said.

"The subtext here is that the policies were designed to be
profitable in the early years and unprofitable later,"
Mr. Friedman added.  "These rate increases wouldn't have hit until
year 21.  These are people who have paid dutifully for 20 years
and have the rug pulled out from under them."

Conseco Life plans to fight the decision.

"We were disappointed in the ruling and we intend to appeal," said
Tony Zehnder, a spokesman for CNO Financial Group, Conseco Life's
parent.


CULLEN AGRICULTURAL: Enters Stipulation Resolving Triplecrown Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cullen Agricultural Holding Corp. and other defendants of a
lawsuit filed by stockholders of Triplecrown Acquisition Corp.
have entered into a stipulation to resolve issues between them,
according to Cullen Agricultural's Jan. 20, 2011 Form 8-K filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

On December 9, 2009, a second amended class action complaint,
styled Goodman v. Watson, et al., was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against certain of the directors
of the Company, as well as certain of the former directors of
Triplecrown Acquisition Corp., the entity with which the Company
completed its business combination in October 2009.  The putative
class is made up of holders of Triplecrown's common stock as of
September 30, 2009, the record date for the stockholders' meeting
held to approve the Company's merger with Triplecrown.  The
complaint alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties and their duty of disclosure in connection with the
business combination.  The plaintiff was seeking, as alternative
remedies, damages in the amount of approximately $9.74 per share,
to have Triplecrown's trust account restored and distributed pro
rata to members of the putative class, a quasi-appraisal remedy
for members of the putative class, and an opportunity for members
of the putative class to exercise conversion rights in connection
with the business combination.

On January 18, 2011, the Company and the defendants entered into a
stipulation of settlement with the plaintiff.  Pursuant to the
Stipulation, the class action will be resolved, and all claims
will be dropped, in exchange for an aggregate payment to the class
of up to $1.4 million, of which $550,000 will be paid by the
Company and the balance will be paid by the Company's insurance
carrier.

The Stipulation is subject to review and approval by the Court of
Chancery, and is subject to potential objections by permissible
claimants.  If the Stipulation is approved, members of the
putative class will be sent additional information relating to
their rights in relation to the settlement and instructions on how
to participate in such settlement.


JAPAN: Hepatitis B Patients Accept Settlement in Vaccine Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Today reports Japanese Hepatitis B patients who sued the
government after they supposedly caught the disease during a
vaccination exercise have agreed to accept a settlement, which
will cost the state up to JPY3.2 trillion ($49.7 billion).

The plaintiffs agreed to the plan on condition that the government
issue an apology and offer them compensation, the Kyodo News
agency reported on Jan. 23.

At least 440,000 people nationwide are believed to have been
infected by the repeated use of needles during group vaccinations
decades ago.  About 630 people have filed damages suits in 10
district courts across Japan.

The Sapporo District Court proposed earlier this month that the
government pay JPY12.5 million to JPY36 million in damages to the
patients based on their condition, on top of JPY500,000 each in
compensation.

"It was a tough decision but we decided to accept the proposal to
swiftly end this issue," the plaintiffs said in a statement, the
agency reported.

The government is also considering to pass a law to offer
compensation to include those not involved in the lawsuits.

It remains unclear where the government will find the funding to
pay off the compensation claims over the next 30 years.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano told reporters that the
government had "no plans yet" on how to cover the compensation
package, the agency reported.

The vaccination exercises have been rolled out for schoolchildren
since 1948 and needles are believed to have been used for repeated
inoculations until the '80s, the agency said.

In a landmark case in 2006, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of
five people who had sued the state after they had contracted
Hepatitis B through mass vaccinations.


JENNIE-O: Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of Overtime Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Phelps, writing for Star Tribune, reports turkey giant
Jennie-O is not required to pay its workers for the time it takes
to put on and take off their production-line uniforms, a practice
known in the trade as "donning and doffing," under a ruling last
week by the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

The appeals court decision upholds a similar finding in Hennepin
County District Court that the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act
does not apply to the workers if they are paid overtime at 40
hours per week, not 48 hours as set by state law.

"A claim for unpaid overtime compensation under [the state law]
fails as a matter of law if the amount of compensation received by
a plaintiff for a workweek exceeds the amount required to be paid
under the act for that workweek," Judge Gordon Shumaker wrote for
the appeals court.

The ruling potentially ends a six-year dispute in a case that was
closely watched by other Minnesota businesses.

"This would have been a big deal if it had gone the other way,"
said Joe Schmitt, an employment attorney with Nilan Johnson and
co-author of a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Jennie-O for
the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce.  "That could have created
significant issues for Minnesota employers.  It could have
affected other things, such as when do you turn your [work]
computer on."

Tom Pursell, the Lindquist & Vennum attorney who represents the
13,000 past and current Jennie-O workers covered by the lawsuit,
said the plaintiffs were "very disappointed" with the outcome.

"We're still studying it.  Our next avenue would be to petition
the Minnesota Supreme Court to review the decision. We think this
case is important enough that they should take it. But we haven't
made that decision yet," M. Pursell said.

A similar suit against Gold'n Plump Poultry resulted in a
$1.2 million out-of-court settlement two years ago between the St.
Cloud-based company and 3,000 employees.


LAKE TANSI: Residents File Class Action Over Sewer System
---------------------------------------------------------
WBIR reports dozens of Lake Tansi area residents met on Jan. 22 at
the Music Barn in Lake Tansi to review a letter to Governor Haslam
asking for a review of all state laws regarding small district
utility companies, and to talk about a class action lawsuit filed
on their behalf.

The lawsuit, filed January 11, 2011, alleges a conflict of
interest in how more than $100,000 was transferred from the Lake
Tansi Area Property Owners Association to the Tansi Sewer Utility
District in Tennessee.

"It's against the POA for the way they financed TSUD, but we're
all out to shut down TSUD," said Dana "Davey" Crockett.

Mr. Crockett lives in Knox County, but owns a 24-unit apartment
complex in the Lake Tansi area of Cumberland County.  He is not a
member of the POA.

The group that met on Jan. 21 is also sending a letter to Governor
Haslam, asking him for help in their fight against TSUD.

"We need him to look a laws and regulations that operate these
little utility districts because there's no control over these
utility districts," said Mr. Crockett.

Herb Pallatt is President of the TSUD Board.  He is also a POA
member.  He said he is not worried about the lawsuit because TSUD
is not named as a defendant even though the group filed the
lawsuit as a first step toward eventually getting rid of TSUD.

"There has never been and there was never intended to be any
corruption involved.  This was a community betterment program,"
said Mr. Pallatt.

All of this comes less than a year after TSUD was formally
established, and nearly a decade after talks of setting up a local
sewer system started.

Residents, like Mr. Crockett, are upset because they are being
required to pay set up fees for the sewer system, even if they
don't sign up for service.

"My availability fee for just the pipe being within 500 feet of me
is $36,000. We don't have $36,000," said Mr. Crockett.

Availability fees are $1,500 for residential properties, and
$3,000 for commercial properties.  Mr. Crockett's rentals are
classified as residential.

Jane Cunningham owns the Music Barn, a commercial property.  When
her property comes up for service in a few years, she's looking at
a $3,000 fee.

"I'm a widow on a fixed income.  I'm afraid I won't be able to
afford it," said Ms. Cunningham.

Mr. Pallatt said the sewer system is being built in phases.  The
first two phases are already built, with a third phase in the
works.  The last phase is scheduled to be built in 2017.

Mr. Pallatt also said the TSUD board is reviewing their current
rates.  He said initial costs have come in at less than what they
estimated.  He said the board could decide to lower rates for new
customers, and offer credits to existing customers to refund the
difference.


MERCK & CO: May Face Class Action Over Fosamax Femur Fractures
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patients who have developed a femur fracture while taking Fosamax
may be able to participate in a lawsuit to recover financial
compensation.  Fosamax, as well as other bisphosphonates, has been
associated with rare femur fractures and users who have fractured
their femur bone may have legal recourse as a result of this
Fosamax side effect.  If you or a loved one has suffered from a
Fosamax femur fracture, visit
http://www.classaction.org/fosamax.htmltoday and complete the
free case evaluation form, which can help determine if you are
owed financial compensation for your Fosamax fracture.

Fosamax is a type of bisphosphonate drug prescribed to women with
symptoms of osteoporosis, or risk factors for developing the
disease.  Fosamax was designed to build bone density and prevent
fractures; however, long-term treatment with the drug may have an
adverse affect on the femur bones.  Fosamax can reportedly harden
the outer layer of bone cells, and hinder those cells from being
replenished through normal bone remodeling.  As a result, small
fractures may accumulate and cause a spontaneous femur fracture,
occurring either in the bone just below the hip joint or the long
part of the thigh bone, without any real trauma.

In addition to femur fractures, Fosamax has also been associated
with osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), a rare disorder also known as
jaw death or dead jaw, in patients taking oral bisphosphonates for
osteoporosis.  In January 2009, The Journal of American Dental
Association published a study detailing the risk of Fosamax
osteonecrosis.  Until this study of 208 dental patients was
published, ONJ was considered rare and limited to those receiving
large doses of bisphosphonates to treat cancer which had spread to
the bone.

Cases of Fosamax osteonecrosis have been primarily associated with
active dental disease or recent dental work, including tooth
extraction.  Common symptoms of Fosamax jaw problems which may
develop following a dental procedure can include the following:
gum infections; loose teeth; jaw pain; exposed bone; jaw numbness;
and jaw and/or gum swelling.  Fosamax dead jaw may require
treatment with surgery or lengthy anti-biotic courses. Left
untreated, it may cause bone tissue death and an irreversible
joint collapse within the jaw.

Patients who have developed dead jaw or femur fractures after
taking Fosamax may be able to recover the cost of medical bills
associated with treatment, as well as compensation for pain and
suffering.  To find out if you are entitled to financial
compensation for your Fosamax fracture or osteonecrosis of the
jaw, visit Class Action.org today and complete the free case
evaluation form.  The attorneys working with Class Action.org are
providing this online legal consultation at no cost and are
dedicated to protecting the rights of patients who have suffered
from Fosamax jaw problems or bone fractures.

Class Action.org is dedicated to protecting consumers and
investors in class actions and complex litigation throughout the
United States.  Class Action.org keeps consumers informed about
product alerts, recalls, and emerging litigation and helps them
take action against the manufacturers of defective products,
drugs, and medical devices.  Information about consumer fraud
issues and environmental hazards is also available on the site.
Visit http://www.classaction.orgtoday for a no cost, no
obligation case evaluation and information about your consumer
rights.


MF GLOBAL: To Contribute $2.5 Million in IPO Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
MF Global Holdings Ltd. and other defendants have reached a
preliminary agreement with lead plaintiffs to settle a securities
class action lawsuit, which was brought on behalf of purchasers of
Company's common stock between the date of the Company's July 2007
initial public offering and February 28, 2008, according to the
Company's Jan. 20, 2011 Form 8-K filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The lawsuit was filed in response to an unauthorized trading
incident involving an MF Global employee on February 26, 2008, and
the Company has previously disclosed details of the suit in its
public filings.  The preliminary agreement is subject to various
customary conditions, including preliminary approval by the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
notice to class members, class member opt-out thresholds, a final
hearing, and final approval by the District Court.

Without admitting liability, the defendants have agreed to a $90
million settlement with the plaintiffs, of which Company will
contribute $2.5 million.

MF Global Holdings Ltd. -- http://www.mfglobal.com/-- is a
leading broker-dealer in cash and derivatives, providing seamless
execution, clearing, and settlement services in exchange-traded
and over-the-counter markets.  A leader by volume on multiple
exchanges, the firm delivers insight and access across a broad
range of products.  MF Global helps its diverse client base meet
their unique trading and hedging needs through customized
solutions, market expertise, and value-added research.


MOBILE HOME MAKERS: FEMA Trailer Class Action Settled
-----------------------------------------------------
Alejandro de los Rios, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports
that a settlement has been reached between plaintiffs and the
mobile home manufacturers named in a federal class action suit in
relation to the Federal Emergency Management Agency trailers that
allegedly exposed users to harmful fumes when they lived in them
following Hurricane Katrina.

Four motions of voluntary dismissal have been filed by Reserve
attorneys Daniel Becnel Jr. and Matthew Moreland as of noon on
Jan. 21 in the U.S. Federal Court of the Eastern District of
Louisiana.

On Jan. 18, a court filing by the plaintiffs stated that both
parties were "very close" to agreeing on a final settlement.
Victims of Katrina were issued trailers made by the manufacturers
named in the suit.  Plaintiffs claimed injuries related to high
levels of formaldehyde in the trailers.

The settlement does not apply to suits involving FEMA travel
trailers, which also allegedly caused harm to residents.

FEMA trailer suits have been consolidated into a multidistrict
litigation presided over by U.S. District Judge Kurt Engelhardt.

Federal MDL 07-md-01873


PHIL&TEDS: Recalls 2,900 Jogging Strollers
------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
phil&teds USA Inc., of Fort Collins, CO., announced a voluntary
recall of about 22,000 jogging strollers in the United States and
7,200 in Canada.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

When folding and unfolding the stroller, a consumer's finger can
become caught in the hinge mechanism, posing amputation and
laceration hazards.

Phil&teds has received three reports of incidents resulting in
injuries to the adult users including a finger tip amputation and
two reports of lacerations.

This recall involves sport v2 and classic v1 model single-seat
jogging strollers.  The three-wheel strollers have a metal frame,
cloth seat and a canopy.  The sport v2 model stroller was sold in
red, orange, green, black, charcoal, navy and in graffiti print.
Sport v2 serial numbers included in the recall are 0308/0001 to
0510/0840.  The classic v1 model strollers were only sold in red.
Serial numbers for the classic v1 are 0308/0001 to 0510/0906.  The
first four digits of the serial number is a month/year date code
and the last four digits are for the individual stroller.  Serial
numbers are printed on the inside of the folding hinge.  The
phil&teds logo is located on the crotch piece of the harness on
both models.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11106.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
specialty juvenile stores nationwide from May 2008 through July
2010 for between $350 and $450.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled strollers and
contact phil&ted USA to arrange for the shipping of a free hinge-
cover kit and repair instructions.  For additional information,
contact phil&teds USA at (877) 432-1642 between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00
p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit the company's
Web site at http://www.philandteds.com/support/


PHILLIPS ELECTRONICS: May 2 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit
involving certain Avent and Philips Avent branded plastic baby
bottles and sippy cups that were sold in the United States.  The
lawsuit claims that Phillips Electronics North America Corporation
and other companies violated the law by making, marketing and
selling plastic baby bottles and sippy cups without adequately
disclosing to consumers that the bottles and cups contained the
chemical Bisphenol-A (BPA) and without disclosing the potential
health risks associated with BPA exposure.  Philips denies any
wrongdoing and contends that it adequately disclosed the presence
of minute traces of BPA in the products.  The proposed settlement
will provide refunds and/or vouchers to certain "Settlement Class
Members" who submit "Claim Forms."  If you are a Settlement Class
Member, you must submit a Claim Form to get a check or voucher.
Claim Forms can be obtained at
http://www.PhilipsBPASettlement.com/or by calling 1-866-730-1621.
A federal court authorized this notice.  Before any money is paid,
the Court will have a hearing to decide whether to approve the
proposed settlement.

Am I a Class Member?  You are a Settlement Class Member if you
purchased or acquired (including by gift) certain Avent or Philips
Avent branded baby bottles and sippy cups made with polycarbonate
plastic that contained BPA including the Airflex Natural Feeding
Bottles (4 oz, 9 oz, or 11 oz), Avent Natural Feeding Bottle or
Feeding Bottle (4 oz, 9oz or 11 oz), and Avent Magic Cup (7 oz
or 9 oz).

What Does the Proposed Settlement Provide? Philips agreed to
provide refunds and/or vouchers for Settlement Class Members.
Philips also agreed not to sell baby bottles and sippy cups
containing BPA in the United States for a period of four years,
subject to certain exceptions, which are also explained on the
website.  Visit the settlement website at
http://www.PhilipsBPASettlement.com/to read more about the
factors that determine the amount of the refunds and/or vouchers

What Are My Options? To qualify for a refund or voucher, you must
mail, fax or email a Claim Form to the Claims Administrator by
July 16, 2011.  In order to participate, you will be required to
provide certain information.  If you don't wish to be in the
proposed settlement, you may exclude yourself from the Settlement
Class by notifying the Claims Administrator by April 11, 2011.  Or
you may stay in and object to the proposed settlement by April 11,
2011.  Visit http://www.PhilipsBPASettlement.com/or call 1-866-
730-1621 for more details about the proposed settlement, your
rights, and how to file a Claim Form.

Do I have a Lawyer in this Case?  The Court assigned the following
attorneys to represent you and the other Settlement Class Members:

          Edith Kallas, Esq.
          Whatley Drake & Kallas LLC
          1540 Broadway, 37th Floor
          New York, NY 10036

               - and -

          Thomas V. Bender, Esq.
          Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan, PC
          2500 City Center Square
          1100 Main Street
          P.O. Box 26188
          Kansas City, MO 64196

Together the lawyers are called "Co-Lead Counsel."  You will not
be charged for these lawyers.  If you want to be represented by
your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense.

You are also represented by the "Plaintiffs," whom the Court
assigned to serve as "Class Representatives" for you and the other
Class Members.

The Court will hold a hearing at 1:00 p.m. on May 2, 2011 at the
United States District Court, located at 900 East Fourth Street in
Kansas City, Missouri to consider whether to approve the proposed
settlement, and whether to grant Co-Lead Counsel's request for
$2.5 million in attorneys' fees and expenses and to pay $1,000 in
"incentive payments" to the Settlement Class Representatives, to
which Philips does not object.  You do not have to attend the
hearing.

For more information, go to: http://www.PhilipsBPASettlement.com
OR call 1-866-730-1621

CLAIM FORMS MUST BE POSTMARKED OR SUBMITTED BY JULY 16, 2011.


PROGRESS ENERGY: Being Sold for Too Little, N.C. Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Progress Energy is selling
itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Duke Energy, in a
$26 billion stock deal that would create the largest utility
company in the United States, shareholders claim in Wake County
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Pipefitters Local Union #537 Trust
Funds v. Johnson, et al., Case No. 11CV000739 (N.C. Super. Ct.,
Wake Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/01/21/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary W. Jackson, Esq.
          Sam McGee, Esq.
          JACKSON & MCGEE, LLP
          225 E. Worthington Avenue, Suite 200
          Charlotte, NC 28203
          Telephone: (704) 377-6680

               - and -

          Christine S. Azar, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          One Commerce Center
          1201 N. Orange St., Suite 801
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 573-2530

               - and -

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          Michael W. Stocker, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700


RIDGELAND, SC: iTraffic to Install Cameras Despite Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal class-action lawsuit and a statewide debate over the
legality of speed cameras in South Carolina hasn't slowed
iTraffic's plans to install more of its devices along busy
roadways nationwide.

Seven months after iTraffic struck a deal with the town of
Ridgeland to install automated cameras to help enforce speeding
laws on the stretch of Interstate 95 that runs through the town,
Greeneville, Tenn., has hired the company to install the same
system along one if its busier thoroughfares, the U.S. Highway 11E
Bypass.

Attempts last week to reach Greeneville Mayor W.T. Daniels and
Police Chief Terry Cannon were unsuccessful.

iTraffic president Bill Danzell said terms of the deal with
Greeneville are still being determined, but the arrangement fits
the company's business plan.

"Our market is national . . . but we started local," Mr. Danzell
wrote in e-mail.  We are now in discussions with municipalities in
multiple states.  Tennessee is one of those states."

A report in the Greeneville Sun indicates the arrangement will be
similar to the five-year deal iTraffic struck with Ridgeland, in
which the company agreed to cover all overhead costs of installing
and operating the system, including hiring two police officers and
one administrator, according to town officials.

In return, Ridgeland agreed to split the ticket revenue with
iTraffic to help recoup startup costs.

Mr. Cannon told the Greeneville newspaper he is convinced the
camera system will reduce speeding and fatal crashes on the town's
busy roads.

PLANS TO EXPAND

iTraffic officials hope Ridgeland and Greeneville will be the
first of many customers.

Mr. Danzell said he has approached municipalities in Georgia,
Alabama, Tennessee, Ohio, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey
and New York about using the company's camera system.

All of those states allow speed cameras or do not have laws
expressly prohibiting their use, according to the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety.

Mr. Danzell declined to name the municipalities he has contacted.

"We are in a highly competitive industry," Mr. Danzell wrote.
"Any mention (in the press of) municipalities . . . that we are
talking to will be highly problematic on a marketing front."

About two days before getting the green light from Greeneville,
Mr. Danzell appeared before officials in Newport, Tenn., a city
about 25 miles southeast of Greeneville that sits along Interstate
40.

According to a YouTube video posted by the city, Mr. Danzell made
a 15-minute sales pitch to its city council.  He touted the
public- and officer-safety benefits of deploying the company's
"traffic calming system" and proposed the same program that
Ridgeland officials agreed to in May.

Newport officials have yet to act on iTraffic's proposal,
according to city records.

Mr. Danzell also contacted Hardeeville, Jersey City, N.J., and
East Providence, R.I., according to records and municipal
officials.

Hardeville City Manager Ted Felder said it is unclear when city
officials will take up iTraffic's proposal.

NOT DETERRED BY CONTROVERSY

Since being deployed by Ridgeland in August, iTraffic's cameras
have drawn the ire of state lawmakers and are at the center of a
federal class-action lawsuit.

ITraffic and Ridgeland have been accused by drivers and some state
lawmakers of intentionally skirting a state law passed in June
that outlawed citations "based solely on photographic evidence."

Town officials counter that the law applies only to unmanned
cameras.  In Ridgeland, a police officer operates and monitors
radar and camera equipment inside an RV parked along the
interstate.

State Sen. Larry Grooms, R-Bonneau, called the camera system a
"cancer" and introduced a bill last week that would outlaw the
cameras statewide.  It also would require Ridgeland to reimburse
ticketed drivers and pay a $500 fine to the state for each
citation issued by the system.

The bill was referred to the Senate Transportation Committee,
according to state records.

Mr. Grooms' bill was filed about three weeks after a prominent
Columbia attorney challenged various aspects of the town's camera
system in a federal class-action lawsuit.

Attorney Pete Strom is suing iTraffic, the Ridgeland Police
Department and town officials on behalf of two Florida drivers, a
South Carolina motorist and "several thousand drivers" who have
been mailed speeding tickets generated by the camera system.

Mr. Strom's lawsuit takes aim at the town's practice of using
"unauthorized mail service" to deliver tickets to offending
drivers, many of whom live outside Ridgeland's jurisdiction. Such
tickets constitute illegal arrests, the lawsuit claims.

Attorneys for Ridgeland and iTraffic have yet to respond to
Strom's filing, according to federal court records.

Ridgeland Mayor Gary Hodges declined comment Thursday on Grooms'
bill or the lawsuit.

ITraffic is unfazed by the recent controversy.

Mr. Danzell said he is not worried about the lawsuit or pending
legislation hurting the company's bottom line or damaging its
reputation "on a national level."

"For South Carolina, (the controversy) caused the municipalities
and the state to delay their decisions to move forward (with the
cameras)," Mr. Danzell wrote.


ROYAL BANK: Sued by Lighthouse Financial Over False Statements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in a class action filed in
federal court in Manhattan, Lighthouse Financial Group seeks
enormous damages from the Royal Bank of Scotland, for alleged
false and misleading statements before the real estate crash,
which cost the RBS more than $41 billion.


TACO BELL: Faces Class Action for Misleading Advertising
--------------------------------------------------------
Birmingham Business Journal reports Beasley Allen Crow Methvin
Portis & Miles PC filed a consumer rights class action lawsuit
against Taco Bell, which is a division of Yum! Brands Inc., over
the fast food chain's advertisements about its seasoned ground
beef.

The firm's class action suit alleges the fast food giant's
advertisements mislead consumers by claiming that it serves
"seasoned ground beef" or "seasoned beef" in its menu items.

The lawsuit claims a substantial amount of Taco Bell's "seasoned
beef" contains substances other than beef, meaning it doesn't meet
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's requirements to be called
"beef."

Rob Poetsch, a spokesman for Taco Bell, issued the following
statement regarding the lawsuit:

"Taco Bell prides itself on serving high quality Mexican-inspired
food with great value.  We're happy that the millions of customers
we serve every week agree.  We deny our advertising is misleading
in any way and we intend to vigorously defend the suit."

The lawsuit seeks to require Taco Bell to "properly advertise and
label food items, and to engage in a corrective advertising
campaign to educate the public about the true content of its food
products," according to a release from Beasley Allen.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court Central District
of California Southern Division.


VANGUARD HEALTH: "Maderazo" Suit in Texas Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------
The matter Maderazo, et al., v. VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P.
d/b/a Baptist Health Systems, et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-00535,
remains stayed pending a ruling by the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, on the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, according to a
Jan. 20, 2011 Form 8-K submitted by Vanguard Health Systems, Inc.
to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

On June 20, 2006, a federal antitrust class action suit was filed
in San Antonio, Texas against the Company's Baptist Health System
subsidiary in San Antonio, Texas and two other large hospital
systems in San Antonio.  In the complaint, plaintiffs allege that
the three hospital system defendants conspired with each other and
with other unidentified San Antonio area hospitals to depress the
compensation levels of registered nurses employed at the
conspiring hospitals within the San Antonio area by engaging in
certain activities that violated the federal antitrust laws.  The
complaint alleges two separate claims.  The first count asserts
that the defendant hospitals violated Section 1 of the federal
Sherman Act, which prohibits agreements that unreasonably restrain
competition, by conspiring to depress nurses' compensation.  The
second count alleges that the defendant hospital systems also
violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by participating in wage,
salary and benefits surveys for the purpose, and having the
effect, of depressing registered nurses' compensation or limiting
competition for nurses based on their compensation.  The class on
whose behalf the plaintiffs filed the complaint is alleged to
comprise all registered nurses employed by the defendant hospitals
since June 20, 2002.  The suit seeks unspecified damages, trebling
of this damage amount pursuant to federal law, interest, costs and
attorneys fees.  From 2006 through April 2008 the Company and the
plaintiffs worked on producing documents to each other relating
to, and supplying legal briefs to the court in respect of, the
issue of whether the court will certify a class in this suit.  In
April 2008 the case was stayed by the judge pending his ruling on
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The Company believes
that the allegations contained within this putative class action
suit are without merit, and have vigorously worked to defeat class
certification.  If a class is certified, the Company will continue
to defend vigorously against the litigation.

On the same date in 2006 that this suit was filed against the
Company in federal district court in San Antonio, the same
attorneys filed three other substantially similar putative class
action lawsuits in federal district courts in Chicago, Illinois,
Albany, New York and Memphis, Tennessee against some of the
hospitals in those cities (none of such hospitals being owned by
the Company). The attorneys representing the plaintiffs in all
four of these cases said in June 2006 that they may file similar
complaints in other jurisdictions and in December 2006 they
brought a substantially similar class action lawsuit against eight
hospitals or hospital systems in the Detroit, Michigan
metropolitan area, one of which systems is The Detroit Medical
Center, which the Company acquired on January 1, 2011. Since
representatives of the Service Employees International Union
joined plaintiffs' attorneys in announcing the filing of all four
complaints on June 20, 2006, and as has been reported in the
media, the Company believes that SEIU's involvement in these
actions appears to be part of a corporate campaign to attempt to
organize nurses in these cities, including San Antonio. The nurses
in the Company's hospitals in San Antonio are currently not
members of any union. Of the four other similar cases filed in
2006, only the Chicago case has been concluded, following the
court's denial of plaintiffs' motion to certify a class. In the
suit in Detroit, the plaintiffs have filed a motion for class
certification and DMC has filed a motion for summary judgment and
both motions are currently pending before the trial judge. The
other two suits have progressed at somewhat different paces and
remain pending. To date, in all five suits, the plaintiffs have
yet to persuade any court to certify a class of registered nurses
as alleged in their complaints. The Company believes that the
allegations in the Detroit suit are also without merit and the
Company intends to continue to defend against this suit as well as
its similar suit in San Antonio.

Vanguard Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.vanguardhealth.com/--
owns and operates 17 acute care hospitals and complementary
facilities and services in Chicago, Illinois; Phoenix, Arizona;
San Antonio, Texas; and Massachusetts. Vanguard's strategy is to
develop locally branded, comprehensive healthcare delivery
networks in urban markets.  Vanguard will pursue acquisitions
where there are opportunities to partner with leading delivery
systems in new urban markets or to increase its presence in
existing markets.  Upon acquiring a facility or network of
facilities, Vanguard implements strategic and operational
improvement initiatives including expanding services,
strengthening relationships with physicians and managed care
organizations, recruiting new physicians and upgrading information
systems and other capital equipment.  These strategies improve
quality and network coverage in a cost effective and accessible
manner for the communities Vanguard serves.


WESTAFF INC: April 27 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on January 21 disclosed that the Superior
Court of the State of California County of Contra Costa has
approved the following announcement of a proposed class action
settlement that would benefit owners of common stock of Westaff,
Inc. (Nasdaq:WSTF):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND HEARING
THEREON

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO OWNED THE COMMON STOCK OF WESTAFF, INC. AND 1)
WERE ENTITLED TO VOTE AT A SPECIAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS OF
WESTAFF, INC. ON MARCH 17, 2009 ON THE MERGER BY AND AMONG
WESTAFF, INC., KOOSHAREM CORPORATION, AND SELECT MERGER SUB INC.,
A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF KOOSHAREM, (THE "MERGER"), OR 2)
WHOSE WESTAFF STOCK WAS CONVERTED INTO THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE $1.25
PER SHARE IN CASH AS A RESULT OF THE MERGER, AND WHO WERE NOT
AFFILIATED WITH DEFENDANTS AT THE TIME OF THE MERGER (ALL SUCH
PERSONS ARE "CLASS MEMBERS").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Superior
Court for the State of California, County of Contra Costa, that a
hearing will be held on April 27, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. before the
Honorable Barry P. Goode, Superior Court Judge of the Superior
Court for the State of California, County of Contra Costa, 725
Court Street, Dept. 17, Room 301, Martinez, CA 94553 (the
"Settlement Hearing") for the purpose of determining: (1) whether
the proposed Settlement consisting of the sum of $1,642,500, plus
interest, should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the
settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable and adequate; (3) whether
the application for an award of attorneys' fees of one-third of
the Settlement Amount and reimbursement of expenses of not more
than $90,000 should be approved; and (4) whether the Litigation
should be dismissed with prejudice.

If you owned Westaff, Inc. common stock as of the close of trading
on February 20, 2009 or exchanged your shares for the right to
receive $1.25 in cash in the Merger, your rights may be affected
by the Settlement of this action.  If you have not received a
detailed Notice of Pendency and Settlement of Class Action and a
copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by
writing to:

          Westaff Securities Litigation
          Claims Administrator
          c/o Strategic Claims Services
          P.O. Box 230
          600 North Jackson Street, Suite 3
          Media, PA 19063

or by going to the Web site, http://www.rosenlegal.com/

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release no later than April 8, 2011, establishing that you are
entitled to recovery.  You will be bound by any judgment rendered
in the Litigation whether or not you make a claim.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or the
Request for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses
must be mailed or delivered such that it is received by each of
the following no later than April 13, 2011:

          Judge Barry P. Goode, Department 17
          Superior Court of the State of California
          County of Contra Costa
          725 Court Street
          Martinez, CA 94553

               - and -

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          333 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Lead Plaintiff's Counsel in the Litigation

               - and -

          Erik J. Olson, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          755 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Counsel for Defendants

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Named Plaintiff's counsel:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          333 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

DATED: DECEMBER 22, 2010

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE FOR THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

CONTACT: Strategic Claims Services
         (610) 565-9202
         Fax: (610) 565-7985
         600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 3
         Media, PA 19063


* 5% of S&P 500 Involved in Securities Class Actions in 2010
------------------------------------------------------------
Barry B. Burr, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that
just over 5% of S&P 500 companies were defendants in federal
securities class actions filed in 2010, but those companies named
as defendants accounted for 11.4% of the S&P 500's market
capitalization, according to a Jan. 20 report from Stanford Law
School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse and Cornerstone
Research.

The 5.4% in 2010 is more than the 4.8% S&P 500 companies,
accounting for 8.6% of the index's market cap, that were
defendants in 2009 but a drop from an annual average of 6.5%,
accounting for 11.8% of the market cap, between 2000 and 2009,
according to the report, "Securities Class Action Filings: 2010
Year in Review."

In terms of cumulative litigation exposure, at the end of 2010,
all S&P 500 companies as of year-end 1999 had a 49.9% chance of
being subject to at least one federal securities class action in
the following 11 years, the report said.  That percentage dropped
to 47.3% at the end of 2009 for the 10 years starting in 2000.

Among all companies publicly traded in U.S. markets, federal court
securities class-action filings in 2010 totaled 176, up 4.7% from
2009 but 9.7% below the annual average of 195 filings between 1997
and 2009, the report said.

Filings totaled 104 in the second half of last year, rising from
72 in the first six months of 2010.

Filings related to the credit crisis fell in the full year 2010 to
13, a 76.4% decrease from 2009 and an 87% decrease from 2008.

"As the wave of credit-crisis filings subsided, filings in the
financial sector decreased, as financial companies were defendants
in 24.4% of 2010 filings compared with 47% in 2009," the 39-page
report said.

Among financial companies in S&P 500 last year, 10.3% were named
defendants in a federal securities class action, down from 13.1%
in 2009 and down from a 10-year historical average through 2009 of
11.8%.  Those companies subjected to filings in 2010 accounted for
31.8% of the index's financial sector market cap, down from 38.3%
in 2009. (The market capitalization is based on the final day of
trading in the previous year).

The health-care sector had the largest concentration of filings
among S&P 500 companies in 2010, at 15.4%, up from 3.7% in 2009.
Those companies subjected to filings in 2010 accounted for 33.7%
of the sector's market cap, up from only 1.7% in 2009.

In 2010, there were no filings against S&P 500 companies in the
consumer staples, industrial, telecommunication services and
utilities sectors.

For 2010, a total of $474 billion of defendant firms' market value
was lost from the trading day with the highest market
capitalization during the class-action period to the trading day
immediately following the end of the class-action period, the
report shows.  That's down from $550 billion in 2009.

By another measure, the report shows a total $72 billion loss in
the defendant firms' market value from the trading day immediately
preceding the end of the class-action period and the trading day
immediately following it.  That's down from $84 billion in 2009.

The broader range measure of a decline in market capitalization
generally includes factors unrelated to the allegations in the
securities litigation, such as industry and market dynamics, while
the one-day measure tends to focus the market-capitalization loss
on the class-action allegations, generally revealed to the
investor public, often in the form of earnings restatements or
missed earnings forecast, on what becomes the last day of the
class period, said John Gould, senior vice president of
Cornerstone Research, Boston, in an interview.


                             *********

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  * * *