CAR_Public/110201.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, February 1, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 22

                             Headlines

8X8 INC: Pays $625,000 to Settle California Wage & Hour Suit
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Records $4.5MM Settlement of Leiszler Lawsuit
AMERICAN MOVING: March 1 Hearing Set for Class Action Settlement
APPLE INC: Sued for Breach of Warranty Against iPhone4 Defects
BELL POTTER: Seeks Dismissal of Progen Class Action

CENTURY 21: Sued in N.Y. Over Off-the-Clock Security Checks
COUNTRYWIDE FIN'L: Faces 3 New Suits for Misleading Investors
COX COMMS: Sued Over False Advertising on Internet Service
CVS CAREMARK: Sued in La. for Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
DEL MONTE FOODS: Still Defending 5 Merger-Related Suits in Calif.

DEL MONTE FOODS: Parties Agree to Dismiss "Unjust Enrichment"
DEL MONTE FOODS: Defends "Littlefield" Suit in Massachusetts
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Defends TCPA Violation Lawsuit in Calif.
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Defends Six Suits Over Payment Protection Plan
ESTES EXPRESS: Diversity Class Action Remanded to State Court

J CREW: To Settle Class Action Over Proposed TPG Takeover
JACKSON HEWITT: Judge Chambers to Decide on Class Action
LIVE NATION: Ticketmaster Settlement to be Filed Feb. 28, 2011
MEDFORD DAM OWNERS: Retired Judge to Distribute Settlement Funds
POPULAR INC: Agrees to Settle Five Securities Class Actions

PROVIDENCE COMMUNITY: Accused in Tenn. of Extorting Probationers
QUALCOMM INC: Remains a Defendant in Suits Over Sale of Phones
RECONTRUST CO: May Face Class Action in Nevada Over Foreclosures
REMCO HYDRAULICS: 9th Cir. Revives Willits Pollution Class Suit
SMURFIT-STONE: Goldfarb Branham Investigating RockTenn Buyout

SYNGENTA CROP: Discovery Schedule Set for Atrazine Class Action
TACO BELL: Class Action Over Beef Bogus, CEO Greg Creed Says
TONGXIN INT'L: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action



                             *********

8X8 INC: Pays $625,000 to Settle California Wage & Hour Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
8X8, Inc.'s net income results for the third quarter of fiscal
2011 ended December 31, 2010, included a one-time $625,000 charge
accrued during the quarter due to the settlement of a class action
wage and hour lawsuit, according to the company's Jan. 26, 2011
Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  The
one-time charge had a $0.01 per share impact on the Company's
earnings per share.

The Class Action Reporter previously reported that 8x8, Inc., said
in a May 27, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission that it has filed on May 26, 2010, its answer
to the first amended complaint filed by filed by three former
employees in Santa Clara County Superior Court.

The lawsuit, originally filed on January 27, 2010, is a putative
class action seeking damages and various penalties under the
California Labor Code for alleged unpaid overtime, meal breaks,
rest breaks and alleged late wage payments and unreimbursed
business expenses.  The Plaintiffs' filed a First Amended
Complaint on April 29, 2010, and the company filed its Answer to
the First Amended Complaint on May 26, 2010.

8x8 said it has factual and legal defenses  to the claims and are
presenting a vigorous defense.  The Plaintiffs have not made a
specific monetary demand and 8x8 said it cannot estimate potential
liability in this case at this early stage of litigation.

Based in Santa Clara, Calif., 8X8 Inc. offers software, services,
and equipment that enable voice and video communication over
Internet Protocol networks.  Through its Packet8 software suite
and related services, it allows subscribers to make phone calls
and perform other broadband networking functions using VoIP
technology.


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Records $4.5MM Settlement of Leiszler Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc., disclosed in a Jan. 26, 2011 Form 8-K
filed with the Securities and Exchange C9mmission that it has
recorded pre-tax litigation settlement costs of $1.2 million and
$3.3 million in the third and fourth quarter related to the
settlement of the class action lawsuit brought by Dr. Christopher
J. Leiszler against the Company concerning its proficiency
requirements.

In May 2010, Christopher J. Leiszler, a general practice dentist,
filed a Complaint against the Company alleging that Align
implemented unfair requirements for the prescription of Invisalign
through the Company's annual proficiency requirements.  Dr.
Leiszler's Invisalign provider status was changed in January
2010 for failing to meet the Company's proficiency requirements.
Dr. Leiszler sued Align on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, seeking a refund of the price paid to Align
for Invisalign training.

On December 3, the plaintiffs' counsel filed an unopposed motion
seeking preliminary approval of the settlement.

Align Technology (Nasdaq:ALGN) designs, manufactures and markets
Invisalign, a proprietary method for treating malocclusion, or the
misalignment of teeth.


AMERICAN MOVING: March 1 Hearing Set for Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Land Line reports purchasers of interstate household goods moving
services may soon receive $40 million settlement as part of a
class action antitrust lawsuit.

Plaintiffs alleged that fuel surcharges on certain interstate
shipments of household goods had been inflated.  The defendants,
American Moving & Storage Association Inc., Atlas Van Lines Inc.,
United Van Lines LLC, Mayflower Transit LLC and Wheaton Van Lines
Inc, have denied the claims but agreed to make $40 million
available to pay approved claims, attorneys' fees, expenses and
other costs.

A hearing to decide on approval of the settlement is scheduled for
March 1, 2011, at the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina, Charleston Division.

Class members are defined as those who purchased interstate
household goods moving services and directly paid a fuel surcharge
between March 19, 2003, and Dec. 31, 2007.

Claims or a request for exclusion from the class may be filed
online or through the mail.  More information is available here.
Deadline for filing a claim or requesting exclusion is Feb. 3,
2011.


APPLE INC: Sued for Breach of Warranty Against iPhone4 Defects
--------------------------------------------------------------
Betsalel Williamson, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-00377 (N.D. Calif.
January 25, 2011), brings claims on behalf of all individuals who
purchased an Apple iPhone 4 in the United States, for breach of
express warranty, breach of implied warranty (that the device is
merchantable, fit for its ordinary purpose, and free of defects),
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, violation of The
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, violation of the Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code Section 17500 et seq., and violation of the Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code Section 17200 et seq.

The Apple iPhone 4 is the fourth generation of Apple's iPhone line
of smartphones, in the United States.

Mr. Williamson says Apple concealed from Plaintiff and Class
members that normal use of iPhone 4, including use as advertised,
results in the breaking of the glass panels on the device,
rendering the device inoperable.

Mr. Williamson, a resident of Pennsylvania, says he purchased a
defective iPhone 4 on October 26, 2010, for $319.93.  Barely two
days after purchasing the iPhone 4, Mr. Williamson relates that
the back glass panel cracked during normal and expected use of the
product.

Mr. Williamson states that Apple is, and was, aware of the defects
in the iPhone 4, yet charged consumers $199 for the repair of the
defective devices.  Neither has Apple offered to refund the
purchase price of the device to its dissatisfied customers.

According to Mr. Williamson, Apple's refusal to cure this problem
breaches its one year warranty, which "warrants this Apple-branded
hardware product against defects in materials and workmanship
under normal use for a period of one (1) year from the date of
retail purchase by the original end-user purchaser.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eight Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Email: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Elaine Byszewski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          700 South Flower Street, Suite 2940
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 330-7150
          E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Peter E. Borkon, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          E-mail: peter@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
          Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
          Melissa Shapiro, Esq.
          SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
          706 Sansome Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 217-6810
          E-mail: rick@saveri.com
                  cadio@saveri.com
                  melissa@saveri.com

                   Apple Also Faces LeBuhn Suit

Slash Lane, writing for AppleInsider, reports a California man
became so angry after his daughter dropped his iPhone 4 and
cracked its glass enclosure that he filed a class-action lawsuit
against Apple alleging that its most recent handset design is
defective.

In the complaint filed last week, Los Angeles resident Donald
LeBuhn claims that Apple has known for months that its industrial
design of the iPhone 4 is defective but has failed to warn
customers that normal use of the device can lead to a broken
phone.

More specifically, Mr. LeBuhn said that he paid over $250 in
September for a new iPhone 4 only to have it rendered essentially
useless after his daughter dropped it from a height of roughly
three feet while attempting to send a text message.

In the suit, he claims to have owned an iPhone 3GS that fell from
a similar height but did not break.  As such, he's calling bologna
on the Cupertino-based company's marketing claims that the iPhone
4 glass as "20 times stiffer and 30 times harder than plastic,"
and is "ultradurable" having been made from the same material as
the "glass used in helicopters and high-speed trains."

"Months after selling millions of iPhone 4s, Apple has failed to
warn and continues to sell this product with no warning to
customers that the glass housing is defective," Mr. LeBuhn's
attorneys wrote in the complaint.

The suit comes a little over three months after third-party
warranty provider SquareTrade issued a report stating that in its
first four months on market, the iPhone 4 was seeing a reported
accident rate that was 68% higher than the iPhone 3GS, primarily
the result of broken screens.

A followup report from the same firm a month later claimed that
while the iPhone 4 outperformed all other leading smartphones when
it came to reported malfunctions, it also appeared to be more
accident-prone.  As such, SquareTrade projected the handset would
have the highest accidental damage rate after 12 months of all
smartphones at roughly 13.8%, possibly due to its two sides of
glass.

With his lawsuit this month, Mr. LeBuhn has asked the court to
mandate that Apple refund the purchase price of the iPhone 4 to
all similarly situated class members, to reimburse customers for
any repair fees they've paid, and to further compensate customers
for their "overpayment" in purchasing a defective product.


BELL POTTER: Seeks Dismissal of Progen Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Kate Kachor, writing for InvestorDaily, reports lawyers for Bell
Potter Securities will attempt to have a class action filed
against the group late last year dismissed, a court has heard.

Van Moulis, practice group leader at lawfirm Slater & Gordon said
on Jan. 27 that lawyers representing the financial services group
advised the New South Wales Federal Court they would lodge an
application requesting legal proceedings against the group not
continue in a class action form.

"That's a fairly typical maneuver by the defendant's lawyers,
Mr. Moulis said.  "They want to break the group up which means the
benefits of the class action structure, for example the synergies
of cost and structure then swing back to them.

"I expect that we will succeed in getting that application
dismissed and then there will be a short timetable to get the
matter ready for a hearing after that," Mr. Moulis said.

Bell Potter is expected to file its application to dismiss the
class action this week.

A Bell Potter spokesperson was unavailable for comment by
InvestorDaily's deadline.

Slater & Gordon filed its class action against Bell Potter in
December after attempts at an out-of-court settlement failed.

The action has been filed on behalf of more than 50 former clients
who lost $22 million due to an alleged stock sale.

As part of their claim, clients allege they lost the funds after
Bell Potter representatives encouraged them to buy shares in the
Brisbane-based biotech company Progen Pharmaceuticals (Progen) in
2007.

In April last year, Slater & Gordon mounted proceedings against
Bell Potter over claims it recommended clients buy Progen stock in
an offer the firm was partly underwriting.

The action is being supported by litigation funding firm,
Litigation Lending Services.

The matter will return to court on Feb. 15.


CENTURY 21: Sued in N.Y. Over Off-the-Clock Security Checks
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed in the District Court of the United
States for the Eastern District of New York, Case No. CV 11-0253,
on behalf of a class of current and former Century 21 Department
Store employees alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York State labor laws.  The lawsuit contends that
employees at Century 21 Department Stores are subjected to
off-the-clock security checks when leaving for a lunch break and
at the end of each shift which can take in excess of 15 minutes
per day.  It also accuses the New York based company of having
employees work off-the-clock without compensation and of failing
to pay overtime wages.

The suit was filed by Louis Ginsberg and Matthew Cohen of the Law
Offices of Louis Ginsberg, P.C. and alleges that after clocking
out, employees are required to wait for a security person to do a
search of their person and personal belongings.

Louis Ginsberg, Esq. has practiced employment law for his entire
23-year career.  Mr. Ginsberg's cases are often discussed in The
N.Y. Daily News, The New York Post and other newspaper and
internet media.  His law firm has won numerous cases that have had
profound impacts on the New York employment laws and have
established new precedents in the law.  Mr. Ginsberg has
represented CEOs, professional athletes, an Olympian, a
Congressman and television commentators.  He has litigated all
types of employment matters including wage and overtime pay
issues, as well as issues involving wrongful termination, sexual
harassment, employment discrimination, non-compete clauses, and
breaches of contract.  Put our comprehensive knowledge, our vast
experience and our record of successes to work for you.  For more
information see http://www.louisginsberglawoffices.com/


COUNTRYWIDE FIN'L: Faces 3 New Suits for Misleading Investors
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Bank of
America Corp's Countrywide mortgage unit was hit with at least
three new lawsuits accusing it of misleading investors about its
finances and lending practices, and may face more by other
investors who chose not to join a recent class-action settlement.

The Jan. 26 lawsuits by the states of Michigan and Oregon, and by
Fresno County in California, were filed five days after Bank of
America said it may incur an additional $6.1 billion of write-
downs and legal costs tied primarily to Countrywide, which it
bought in July 2008.

The lawsuits were among the first by the 33 investors that
according to court records chose not to join last year's
$624 million settlement to resolve similar class-action litigation
against Countrywide and former auditor KPMG LLP.

A hearing to approve a modified, final version of that accord is
set for February 25 in federal court in Los Angeles.

Shirley Norton, a Bank of America spokeswoman said in a statement:
"It is unfortunate that select investors chose to opt out of a
fair and equitable agreement to settle these issues.  We intend to
vigorously defend these claims."

Some investors choose to "opt out" of class-action settlements if
they believe they can obtain higher recoveries by suing on their
own.

Bank of America paid roughly $2.5 billion for Countrywide, which
had been the largest U.S. mortgage lender.

It faces billions of dollars of potential costs from credit
losses, and from litigation by investors who bought Countrywide
stock or securities backed by Countrywide mortgages, many of which
were risky subprime or adjustable-rate mortgages.

CALPERS, BLACKROCK, TIAA-CREF

The 33 investors that opted out of the $624 million settlement
include several large state pension funds and asset managers such
as the California Public Employees' Retirement System, BlackRock
Inc and TIAA-CREF.

"Our clients represent some of the largest institutional investors
in the country and in Countrywide securities, and are fully
committed to recovering the substantial damages caused by the
fraudulent conduct at Countrywide," said Blair Nicholas, a partner
at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP who represents 16
opt-out investors including CalPERS, BlackRock,

TIAA-CREF.

Bernstein Litowitz filed a separate lawsuit on Monday in New York
against Countrywide on behalf of TIAA-CREF, New York Life
Insurance Co and other investors who said they were victims of a
"massive fraud" when they bought mortgage-backed securities.

Bank of America is based in Charlotte, North Carolina.

ABANDONED FOR MARKET SHARE?


COX COMMS: Sued Over False Advertising on Internet Service
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Cox Communications promises,
but can't deliver, high-speed Internet in areas of Louisiana,
Georgia and Delaware, a class action claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Wade v. Cox Communications Louisiana,
LLC, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00045 (M.D. La.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/01/27/Cox.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John P. Wolff, III, Esq.
          Christopher K. Jones, Esq.
          Virginia J. McLin, Esq.
          KEOGH, COX & WILSON, LTD.
          701 Main Street
          Post Office Box 1151
          Baton Rouge, LA 70821
          Telephone: (225) 383-3796
          E-mail: jwolff@kcwlaw.com
                  cjones@kcwlaw.com
                  jmclin@kcwlaw.com


CVS CAREMARK: Sued in La. for Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that CVS Caremark pharmacies cheat
shift managers of overtime pay, a class action claims in Federal
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Creech v. Holidays CVS, L.L.C., et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-00046 (M.D. La.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/01/27/CVS.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason DeCuir, Esq.
          DECUIR, CLARK & ADAMS, L.L.P.
          732 North Boulevard
          Baton Rouge, LA 70802
          Telephone: (225) 346-8716
          E-mail: jason@decuirlaw.com


DEL MONTE FOODS: Still Defending 5 Merger-Related Suits in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Foods Company remains a defendant in five class action
lawsuits related to its merger agreement with funds affiliated
with Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P., Vestar Capital Partners
and Centerview Partners, according to the Company's Jan. 26, 2011
Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

On November 25, 2010, the Company announced that it had signed a
Merger Agreement under which an investor group led by funds
affiliated with the Sponsors will acquire all of the Company's
outstanding stock for $19.00 per share in cash.  The Company has
subsequently been named as a defendant in fifteen putative class
actions related to the Merger.

After a series of voluntary dismissals and consolidations of
certain of the fifteen putative class actions, the Company remain
a defendant in the following cases:

   * Libby Kaiman and all others similarly situated v. Del Monte,
     each member of the board of directors of the Company, the
     Sponsors, Holdings and Merger Sub, filed on December 1, 2010
     in Superior Court in San Francisco, California;

   * James Sinor and all others similarly situated v. the
     Directors, Del Monte, the Sponsors, Holdings, and Merger Sub,
     filed on December 1, 2010 in Superior Court in San Francisco,
     California;

   * Elisa J. Franklin and all others similarly situated v. the
     Directors, Del Monte, and the Sponsors, filed on December 10,
     2010 in Superior Court in San Francisco, California;

   * Sarah P. Heintz and all others similarly situated v. the
     Directors, Del Monte, Holdings and Merger Sub, filed on
     December 20, 2010 in the United States District Court,
     Northern District of California; and

   * Dallas Faulkner and all others similarly situated v. the
     Directors, Del Monte, and Merger Sub, filed on January 21,
     2011 in the United States District Court, Northern District
     of California.

In addition, the Company was a defendant in In re Del Monte Foods
Company Shareholders Litigation, which named as defendants the
Company, the Directors, the Sponsors, Holdings and Merger Sub,
consolidated on December 8, 2010 in Delaware Chancery Court,
however on January 10, 2011, lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint removing the Company as a defendant, but reiterating its
earlier allegations regarding the remaining defendants.

The named plaintiffs in these cases allege breach, and aiding and
abetting breach, of the Directors' fiduciary duties to the
Company's stockholders.  Specifically, the complaints allege that
the Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders
by agreeing to sell the Company at a price that is unfair and
inadequate and by agreeing to certain preclusive deal protection
devices in the Merger Agreement.  The complaints further allege
that the Sponsors and, in some instances, the Company, Holdings,
and/or Merger Sub, aided and abetted in the Directors' breaches of
their fiduciary duties. In addition, the Heintz and Faulkner
complaints, filed in federal court, allege violations of Section
14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and in the Faulkner
complaint only, violations of Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaints seek injunctive relief,
rescission of the Merger Agreement, and an accounting for all
damages suffered by class members and attorneys' fees.  The
Company intends to deny these allegations and to vigorously defend
itself.


DEL MONTE FOODS: Parties Agree to Dismiss "Unjust Enrichment"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Foods Company and the plaintiffs of a class action
lawsuit in Minnesota agreed to dismiss the "unjust enrichment"
portion of the complaint, according to the Company's Jan. 26, 2011
Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

On September 30, 2010, a class action complaint was served against
the Company, to be filed in Hennepin County, Minnesota, alleging
wage and hour violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The
complaint was served on behalf of five named plaintiffs and all
others similarly situated at a manufacturing facility in
Minnesota. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company
violated the FLSA and state wage and hour laws by failing to
compensate plaintiffs and other similarly situated workers unpaid
overtime. The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and statutory
damages.  Additionally, the plaintiffs are seeking class
certification.  On November 5, 2010, in connection with the
Company's removal of this case to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota, the complaint was filed along with the
Company's answer.  The Company also filed a motion for partial
dismissal on November 5, 2010.  On November 30, 2010, the parties
jointly stipulated that the causes of action in plaintiff's
complaint for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit would be
dismissed with prejudice, and further stipulated that the cause of
action under the Minnesota minimum wage law would be dismissed
without prejudice.  The Company denies the plaintiffs' allegations
and plan to vigorously defend itself.  The Company cannot at this
time reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the
potential liability.


DEL MONTE FOODS: Defends "Littlefield" Suit in Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Foods Company is defending itself against a class action
lawsuit accusing the Company of intentionally misleading consumers
by representing that its canned fruit products are safe and
healthy, according to the Company's Jan. 26, 2011 Form 8-K filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

On December 17, 2010, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company by Lydia Littlefield, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, alleging intentional misrepresentation,
fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty,
breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and unjust
enrichment.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company
engaged in false and misleading representation of certain of its
canned fruit products in representing that these products are safe
and healthy.  The plaintiffs seek certification of the class,
injunctive relief, damages in an unspecified amount and attorneys'
fees.  The Company intends to deny these allegations and
vigorously defend itself.


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Defends TCPA Violation Lawsuit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Discover Financial Services, Inc., is defending itself against a
class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act in California, according to the Company's Jan. 26,
2011, Form 10-K filed with the U.S Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2010.

On November 16, 2010, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company by a cardmember in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California (Michele Bennett et al. v.
Discover Card, a/k/a DFS Services LLC).  The plaintiff alleges
that the Company contacted her, and members of the putative class,
on their cellular telephones without their express consent in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  The TCPA
provides for statutory damages of $500 for each violation ($1,500
for willful violations).  Plaintiff seeks statutory damages for
alleged negligent and willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys'
fees, costs and injunctive relief.

The Company will seek to vigorously defend all claims asserted
against it.  The Company is not in a position at this time to
assess the likely outcome or its exposure, if any, with respect to
the matter.


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Defends Six Suits Over Payment Protection Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------
Discover Financial Services, Inc., is defending itself against six
lawsuits for allegedly enrolling plaintiffs in a costly card
payment protection plan, according to the Company's Jan. 26, 2011
Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2010.

As of January 15, 2011, there were six putative class action cases
pending in relation to the sale of the Company's payment
protection fee product.  The cases were filed (all in United
States District Courts) on July 8, 2010 in the Northern District
of California (Walker, et al. v. DFS, Inc. and Discover Bank;
subsequently transferred to the Northern District of Illinois);
July 16, 2010 in the Central District of California (Conroy v.
Discover Financial Services and Discover Bank); October 22, 2010
in the District of South Carolina (Alexander v. Discover Financial
Services, Inc.; DFS Services, LLC; Discover Bank; and Morgan
Stanley); November 5, 2010 in the Northern District of Illinois
(Callahan v. Discover Financial Services, Inc. and Discover Bank);
December 17, 2010 in the Western District of Tennessee (Sack v.
DFS Services, LLC; Discover Financial Services, Inc.; and Discover
Bank); and January 14, 2011 in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (Boyce v. DFS Services LLC; Discover Financial
Services Inc.; Discover Bank).  Each of these lawsuits challenges
the Company's marketing practices with respect to its payment
protection fee product to its cardmembers under various state laws
and the Truth in Lending Act.  The plaintiffs seek monetary
remedies including unspecified damages and restitution, attorneys'
fees and costs, and various forms of injunctive relief including
an order rescinding the payment protection fee product enrollments
of all class members.

The Company will seek to vigorously defend all claims asserted
against it.  The Company is not in a position at this time to
assess the likely outcomes or its exposure, if any, with respect
to these matters.


ESTES EXPRESS: Diversity Class Action Remanded to State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that Federal District
Courts are confined to the allegations in a complaint when
deciding whether to transfer a diversity class action to state
court under the local controversy exception, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled.

The federal appeals court on Tuesday joined two other circuits in
finding that District Courts cannot consider independent evidence
to decide if a class action can be remanded back to state court
under the Class Action Fairness Act after it has been first sent
to federal court.

Defendants may remove diversity class actions from state to
federal court under the act if the parties are "minimally diverse
and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million," according to
the ruling.  Under the local controversy exception, plaintiffs can
send the case back to state court if they can prove that at least
two-thirds of the proposed class members are citizens of the state
where the complaint was filed, that at least one of the defendants
is a citizen of the same state, and that the injuries alleged in
the complaint occurred in the state as well.

The 9th Circuit made the finding in connection to a proposed class
action filed in California by Bradford Coleman against Virginia-
based Estes Express Lines and its California subsidiary Estes West
fka G.I. Trucking.

Mr. Coleman's complaint did not distinguish between the
defendants' actions, alleging that both had failed to pay
overtime, refused to give employees meal and rest breaks, and had
broken several state employment laws.

After Estes successfully removed the case to federal court,
Coleman sought to have it remanded to state court as a local
controversy.  In opposing remand, Estes argued that its California
subsidiary had insufficient funds to pay a judgment should it lose
the case, as it was wholly controlled by its Virginia-based
parent.  To prove this, the company submitted a statement by its
director of human resources.

A federal judge sided with Mr. Coleman and sent the case back to
the state court, finding that it could not consider evidence
outside of the complaint in deciding whether the action satisfied
the local controversy criteria.

The three-judge panel in Pasadena agreed, noting that
jurisdictional hearings cannot turn into a trial on the merits.

"Such a determination necessarily implicates the merits of the
case," Judge William Fletcher wrote for the court.  "We see
nothing in CAFA [the Class Action Fairness Act] that indicates a
congressional intention to turn a jurisdictional determination
concerning the local defendant's 'alleged conduct' into a mini-
trial on the merits of the plaintiff's claims."

The panel added that "the complaint alleges that Estes West
employed the putative class members during the relevant period,
and that Estes West has violated California law in a number of
ways with respect to those employees."

"The complaint also alleges that Estes Express has violated the
same provisions of California law, but the allegations against
Estes Express in no way make the allegations against Estes West,
the actual employer, insignificant," the ruling states.

A copy of the Opinion in Coleman v. Estes Express Lines, Inc., et
al., No. 10-56852 (9th Cir.), is available at http://is.gd/oegIVX


J CREW: To Settle Class Action Over Proposed TPG Takeover
---------------------------------------------------------
Sakthi Prasad in Bangalore and Jessica Wohl, writing for Reuters,
report clothing retailer J Crew Group Inc (JCG.N) is set to settle
a shareholder lawsuit over its proposed takeover by private equity
firms TPG Capital and Leonard Green & Partners LP.

A $2.86 billion deal to acquire J Crew was announced on
November 23, with TPG Group and Leonard Green & Partners LP
agreeing to buy the company for $43.50 a share, a premium of about
15%.

Lawsuits have protested the proposed sale price and asserted that
J Crew Chairman and Chief Executive Millard Drexler potentially
breached his fiduciary duties to investors.

J Crew said that it and other defendants agreed to settle the
putative class action lawsuit pending in Delaware chancery court.
The agreement with the plaintiffs is subject to court approval.

J Crew received no rival takeover bids during its "go shop" period
and will remain with its original $2.86 billion buyout offer from
TPG Capital and Leonard Green & Partners LP, a source familiar
with the situation told Reuters on Sunday.

The "go shop" period to solicit competing offers, which expired on
January 15, was extended until February 15 as part of the
agreement.

The pact also includes a $10 million payment to plaintiffs,
payable if and when TPG Capital and Leonard Green buy J Crew.

The Federal Trade Commission granted early termination of the
mandatory Hart-Scott-Rodino waiting period, J Crew added.

Shareholders of record as of January 21 will be able to vote on
the merger at a meeting set to be held on March 1, J Crew said.

Shares of J Crew fell 0.9% to $43.43 in midday trading on the New
York Stock Exchange.

Bloomberg previously reported that J Crew was close to settling
the suit, citing two people with knowledge of the matter.


JACKSON HEWITT: Judge Chambers to Decide on Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports tax
preparer Jackson Hewitt couldn't convince the Supreme Court of
Appeals to review a decision defining it as a credit broker for
purposes of a class action.

On Jan. 13, the Justices denied a petition for rehearing of
questions they answered last November for U.S. District Judge
Robert Chambers of Huntington.

They returned the case to Judge Chambers on Jan. 24, "for
resolution in accordance with our existing principles of agency
law and the guidance provided in this opinion."

Now Judge Chambers can decide whether to certify a class action
against Jackson Hewitt.

Plaintiffs Christian Harper and Elizabeth Harper claim Jackson
Hewitt arranged for them to borrow against anticipated refunds at
interest rates from 56 to 83%.

They allege violation of state credit consumer law and breach of
fiduciary duty.

They seek statutory damages in more than 40,000 transactions, at
$200 each, for a total exceeding $8 million.

When they moved for class certification, Chambers asked the
Justices for help.

He asked if credit consumer applied when Jackson Hewitt arranged
loans.

He asked if the statute of limitations barred the claim.

He asked if Jackson Hewitt acted as agent of the Harpers.

Last November, the Justices told Judge Chambers to apply credit
consumer protection law.

They held that a tax preparer who receives compensation from a
borrower or a bank for helping the borrower obtain a refund
anticipation loan met the statutory definition of a credit
services organization.

They held that the statute of limitations didn't bar the claim.

They told Judge Chambers he didn't supply enough facts for them to
decide if Jackson Hewitt acted as agent of the Harpers.

They advised him to gather the facts before ruling on class
certification.

John Barrett, Brian Glasser, and Eric Snyder, of Bailey and
Glasser in Charleston, represent the Harpers.

Charles Woody, of Spilman, Thomas and Battle in Charleston,
represents Jackson Hewitt.


LIVE NATION: Ticketmaster Settlement to be Filed Feb. 28, 2011
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs of a class action lawsuit, which a subsidiary of Live
Nation Entertainment, Inc., is a defendant, are currently expected
to file a motion for preliminary settlement approval on or after
February 28, 2011, according to Live Nation's Jan. 26, 2011 Form
8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Ticketmaster is the defendant in a pending class action lawsuit
entitled "Curt Schlesinger and Peter Lo Re, on behalf of
themselves and the Class vs. Ticketmaster", originally filed in
2003, challenging Ticketmaster's description and amount of charges
to online customers for ticket delivery and for order processing
fees.  In December 2010, the parties entered into a binding term
sheet that provides for the settlement of the litigation and the
resolution of all claims set forth therein.  The settlement
remains subject to preliminary and final approval by the Court.
The plaintiffs are currently expected to file a motion for
preliminary settlement approval on or after February 28, 2011.

Ticketmaster and its parent, Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., have
not acknowledged any violations of law or liability in connection
with the matter, but have agreed to the settlement in order to
eliminate the uncertainties and expense of further protracted
litigation. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, among other
things, Ticketmaster will pay the fees of the claims administrator
as well as the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and certain costs that
are approved by the Court and subject to a set maximum, and class
members who meet certain conditions will be entitled to receive
from Ticketmaster a cash payment and/or discounts off one or more
future ticket purchases.  The individual and aggregate values of
each option are subject to set maximums.  Ticketmaster will also
make certain changes to disclosures on its website.

During the fourth quarter of 2010, the Company has recorded an
accrual for a total of $22.3 million, representing its best
estimate of probable costs associated with legal case settlements,
primarily related to the Ticketmaster case, based on the fees and
estimated redemption rates. Any difference between the Company's
estimated redemption rates and the actual redemption rates it
experiences will impact the final settlement costs incurred;
however, the Company does not expect any such difference to be
material.


MEDFORD DAM OWNERS: Retired Judge to Distribute Settlement Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Comegno, writing for Courier-Post, reports the chief
Superior Court judge in Burlington County appointed a retired
judge on Jan. 26 to distribute nearly $6 million among 210 owners
of homes and businesses damaged by major Rancocas Creek flooding
in five municipalities in 2004.

Superior Court Assignment Judge Ronald Bookbinder named retired
Assignment Judge John Sweeney as a special master in a class
action lawsuit brought by property owners against the owners of
dams that either failed or otherwise were compromised by
floodwaters.

The properties are in Medford, Medford Lakes, Marlton, Southampton
and Lumberton.

Up to 13 inches of rain fell on July 12 and 13, 2004, in some
areas along the south branch of the creek, which begins in the
Pinelands in Medford.  Not only did the creek overflow its banks
but many dam-created lakes that were part of the creek system were
emptied when dams broke or were damaged, flooding lakefront homes,
businesses in downtown Medford, the Medford police department and
even a fire department in Medford and Lumberton.

Judged Bookbinder signed an order on Jan. 26 appointing
Judge Sweeney at the request of the three attorneys representing
the property owners.  The $5.9 million is settlement money paid by
dams owners that included camps, homeowners associations and such
businesses as cranberry or blueberry farms.

"We are very excited about getting a mechanism in place so there
can be distribution to claimants as soon as possible though it may
take several more months," said lawyer Edward Petkevis.

Superior Court Judge Karen Suter had been handling the class-
action case but also has a separate court schedule.

Mr. Petkevis said she would not have the time to handle hearings
if any of the claimants disagrees with an individual settlement
amount.  Judge Bookbinder agreed.  Defense lawyers did not object.

Mr. Petkevis and his co-counsels for the private property owners
asked for a special master to be appointed because the
distribution of funds recovered in the class action lawsuit is a
"complex, time-consuming and difficult process."

Claimants had to produce photographs, receipts and contractor
estimates for repairs that Sweeney may review before awarding
amounts.  The judge also could call for court testimony.

However, the settlement total is not sufficient to satisfy the $25
million claims submitted by the private property owners.

YMCA Camp Ockanickon in Medford paid the most of any dam owner --
$2.15 million.  Major settlements were paid by insurance companies
of the dam owners.


POPULAR INC: Agrees to Settle Five Securities Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Popular, Inc., on Jan. 27 disclosed that the company and the other
named defendants have entered into two memoranda of understanding
in connection with the settlement of five putative securities
class actions filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rico Court of First
Instance, San Juan Part.  The five class actions were previously
consolidated into two separate actions: a securities class action
captioned Hoff v. Popular, Inc., et al. and an Employee Retirement
Income Security Act class action entitled In re Popular, Inc.
ERISA Litigation.

Under the terms of the first memorandum of understanding, which
related to the consolidated securities class action, subject to
certain customary conditions, including court approval of a final
settlement agreement, in consideration for the full settlement and
release of all defendants, the amount of $37.5 million will be
paid by or on behalf of the defendants (of which management
expects approximately $30 million will be covered by insurance).
The parties intend to file a stipulation of settlement and joint
motion for preliminary approval within 45 days of the execution of
the memorandum of understanding.

Under the terms of the second memorandum of understanding, which
related to the ERISA class action, subject to certain customary
conditions, including court approval of a final settlement
agreement, in consideration for the full settlement and release of
all defendants, the amount of $8.2 million will be paid by or on
behalf of the defendants (all of which management expects will be
covered by insurance).  The parties intend to file a joint request
to approve the settlement.

Popular does not expect to record any material gain or loss as a
result of the settlements.  Popular made no admission of liability
in connection with either settlement.

At this point, the settlement agreements are not final and are
subject to a number of future events, including approval of the
settlements by the relevant courts.  There can be no assurances
that the settlements will be finalized or as to the timing of the
payments described above.

Two separate derivative claims filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rico Court of
First Instance, San Juan Part making claims similar to those made
in the settled cases were not included in the settlements.  In
addition, the Corporation is aware that a suit asserting similar
claims on behalf of certain individual shareholders under the
federal securities laws was filed on January 18, 2011, but the
defendants have not yet been served.

Founded in 1893, Popular, Inc. is the leading banking institution
by both assets and deposits in Puerto Rico and ranks 35th by
assets among U.S. banks.  In the United States, Popular has
established a community-banking franchise providing a broad range
of financial services and products with branches in New York, New
Jersey, Illinois, Florida and California.


PROVIDENCE COMMUNITY: Accused in Tenn. of Extorting Probationers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Liz Potocsnak at Courthouse News Service reports that a class
action accuses a private probation company of bilking and
extorting probationers who must pay for its services.  The class
claims that Providence Community Corrections, which operates in 45
states, triples the probation term of its average "client" so it
can milk monthly supervision fees from them, charges far more in
fees than the courts or service providers do, and does it all
without an agency to regulate it, or to whom probationers can
complain.  And the class notes that there are "obvious and
inherent problems associated with judges owning an interest in
private probation companies."

Misty Dawn Bell sued Providence in Davidson County Chancery Court,
alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and
the Consumer Protection Act.  She seeks punitive damages for the
class.

Ms. Bell claims that Providence's unjustified supervision fees and
other costs have extended her probation for more than a year
because she could not afford the costs.  She says she is not the
only probationer affected by Providence's behavior.

"Ms. Bell alleges that the probation of persons initially placed
on probation for 11 months and 29 days routinely lasts in excess
of three (3) years as a result of the wrongful conduct of PCC
. . . the probation of one individual has lasted in excess of
eight (8) years," the complaint states.

Ms. Bell claims that Providence overcharges probationers, extorts
money from them, intimidates them into signing unfair contracts,
adulterates urine samples to make it look like they used drugs and
sexually harasses and sexually assaults them.

Armed sheriff's deputies act as Providence agents, adding to the
intimidation and harassment, Ms. Bell says, and "PCC and judges
incarcerate probationers based on their inability to pay."

Ms. Bell claims this system has been recognized as corrupt for
years.

"At least as far back as 2003, the existence of opportunities for
abuse of individuals by private probation companies has been
recognized in this state," according to the complaint.  "In a
meeting of the Select Oversight Committee on Corrections held in
December 2003, Judge Chris Craft, then Criminal Court Judge of
Division VIII of the Shelby County Courts, noted that the
Tennessee Legislature had passed a statute allowing private
probation companies in the state of Tennessee, and that prior
thereto, all probation had either been done by the state or by
local municipalities.  . . . Judge Craft noted that he was seeing
a lot of what he felt was corruption and a lot of injustice
resulting from the operation of private probation companies.
Judge Craft noted the lack of requirements regarding owners and
employees of private probation companies, in terms of their
criminal records; i.e., the fact that persons with convictions for
rape, forgery, embezzlement, drug convictions, armed robbery, etc.
are able to serve as monitors of persons placed on probation.
Judge Craft noted the conflict of interest, and opportunities for
abuse based on the for-profit status of the private probation
companies. Judge Craft noted . . . that some private probation
companies were 'charging fees that frankly aren't justified,' such
as charging $35 per month for a monthly drug screen when the drug
test costs them $15, and/or charging substantially more for a
retest without violating the person in the event of a failed drug
test.  Judge Craft also noted abuses such as charging individuals
excessive amounts for the privilege of not reporting.  Judge Craft
noted . . . that some of the private probation companies 'we
really suspect of doing things improperly with the probationers.'
Judge Craft anticipated, as stated on page 6 [of the committee
report], that 'We're going to find people that are paying
supervision fees that aren't reported.'  Judge Craft noted, as
stated on page 9, that the sole reason for the private process
companies existence being to generate money and probationers are
the sole source of revenue, provides greater likelihood of persons
bribing and/or extorting money from probationers.  Judge Craft
noted, as stated on page 10, the obvious and inherent problems
associated with judges owning an interest in private probation
companies."

Two years later, in another meeting of the Select Oversight
Committee on Corrections, "Judge Craft noted some companies were
charging as much as $300 for drug screens, that there was no
regulatory agency to which victims of the companies could report
violations, and that audits should and would be conducted on the
private probation companies.  Judge Craft further spoke of anger
of the judges as it related to their private probation companies,
stating, 'The judges will be angry with us -- they are protecting
their own . . . a legislator has already contacted us . . . and
wanting us to delay the process . . . we have received notes from
several (private probation) companies saying they don't have to be
regulated.  Judge Craft refers to defendants sent to the private
probation companies as 'money-making machines' for companies that
offer no services.  Judge Craft estimate that this designation
applied to 30,000 to 40,000 people.  Judge Craft also discussed
the opportunities for judicial misconduct in conjunction with
private probation companies while Jackson noted that 'for more
than seven years the SOCC had been in receipt of reliable
presentations of corruption within the system and we just sort of
accept it.'"

Suing for the class, Ms. Bell says, "Nothing, however, has been
done to address the abusive practices of PCC as detailed herein."

She claims, inter alia, that "PCC engages in intentional, willful,
and reckless conduct . . . in complete disregard of the applicable
law.

"PCC isolates those placed on probation, using intimidation and
threats to coerce signatures on contracts between the persons on
probation and PCC.  . . .

"PCC adulterates urine samples and/or otherwise causes or reports
positive drug tests regarding persons that have not used drugs.

"PCC extorts monies in excess of the fees authorized by applicable
law and/or contracts.  . . .

"(E)mployees and/or agents of PCC engage in sexual harassment and
sexual assault.

"PCC uses threats and intimidation to force probationers to drop
out of school, and/or take other actions as necessary to pay the
excess fees that are being demanded."

Ms. Bell claims Providence's violation began immediately: "PCC
demanded a supervision fee payment one week after Ms. Bell had
been placed on probation, of $51 even though the supervision fee
was $45 per month, and even though PCC was expressly prohibited
from requiring any supervision fees to be paid in advance."

Ms. Bell sums it up: "The intent and effect of PCC's wrongful
conduct is to misrepresent the actual amount owed by probationers,
to collect amounts in excess of amounts PCC is lawfully authorized
to collect, to extend the probation period of probationers for as
long as possible, during which time the probationer is required to
pay PCC $45 per month.  . . . PCC engages in virtually each of the
acts of injustice regarding which Judge Craft had voiced concerns
in 2003."

A copy of the Complaint in Bell v. Providence Community
Corrections, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-95-I (Tenn. Ch. Ct.,
Davidson Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/01/27/PrivateProbation.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Cyrus L. Booker, Esq.
          BOOKER LEGAL GROUP, P.C.
          1720 West End Avenue, Suite 404
          Nashville, TN 37203-2615
          Telephone: (615) 815-1634


QUALCOMM INC: Remains a Defendant in Suits Over Sale of Phones
--------------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM Incorporated remains a defendant, along with many other
manufacturers of wireless phones, wireless operators and industry-
related organizations, in purported class action lawsuits, and
individually filed actions pending in federal court in
Pennsylvania and Washington D.C. superior court, seeking monetary
damages arising out of its sale of cellular phones, according to
the Company's Jan. 26, 2011, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 26, 2010.

While there can be no assurance of favorable outcomes, the Company
believes the claims made by other parties in these matters are
without merit and will vigorously defend the actions.  The Company
has not recorded any accrual for contingent liabilities associated
with the legal proceedings based on the Company's belief that
liabilities, while possible, are not probable.  Further, any
possible range of loss cannot be reasonably estimated at this
time.  The Company is engaged in numerous other legal actions
arising in the ordinary course of its business and, while there
can be no assurance, believes that the ultimate outcome of these
actions will not have a material adverse effect on its operating
results, liquidity or financial position.

QUALCOMM Incorporated -- http://www.qualcomm.com/-- designs,
manufactures and markets digital wireless telecommunications
products and services based on its code division multiple access
(CDMA) technology and other technologies.  The company operates
through four segments: Qualcomm CDMA Technologies (QCT); Qualcomm
Technology Licensing (QTL); Qualcomm Wireless & Internet (QWI),
and Qualcomm Strategic Initiatives (QSI).


RECONTRUST CO: May Face Class Action in Nevada Over Foreclosures
----------------------------------------------------------------
John G. Edwards, writing for Las Vegas Review-Journal, reports a
day-care center operator in Pahrump who won a temporary order
stopping foreclosures by a Bank of America affiliate in Nevada has
retained an attorney who intends to pursue a class action lawsuit.

Suzanne North, operator of a home business called Carousel Family
Child Care, persuaded Nye County District Judge Robert Lane on
Jan. 20 to issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction against ReconTrust Co., a company affiliated with Bank
of America Corp., the biggest bank holding company in the United
States.

The judge ordered ReconTrust temporarily to stop all nonjudicial
foreclosures in Nevada.  Most foreclosures in Nevada are
nonjudicial, meaning they are handled outside of court.
ReconTrust had 7,500 nonjudicial foreclosure sales scheduled in
Nevada when Lane signed the order, ForeclosureRadar.com reported.

North's lawsuit contends that ReconTrust lacked a state or local
business license, but defense attorney Ariel Stern contends that
ReconTrust is a national bank and is not required to have a
business license.  Also, she argued in court papers that
ReconTrust was not appointed as a trustee for the mortgage loan
when foreclosure was started.

North prepared the lawsuit with a paralegal's help but filed it on
her own behalf.

Since then, she has retained Salt Lake City attorney John Barlow
as her attorney.  Mr. Barlow said he is pursuing the case as a
class action in which North would represent a group of similar
individuals.  A potential judgment could include compensation for
all members of the class.

Mr. Barlow represented a plaintiff in a similar lawsuit in Utah
against ReconTrust, but a federal judge ruled in favor of the
bank.  However, Mr. Barlow appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals, based on arguments that the case should have been
turned over to a Utah state District Court.

"I'm not opposed to foreclosure," Mr. Barlow said.  "I understand
that's a necessary element in our society.  If the (lender) is
going to do (a foreclosure), they need to do it correctly."

Meanwhile, ReconTrust and the holding company on Jan. 25 filed a
notice that they were removing the state lawsuit to federal court
in Las Vegas. Chief U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt set out
procedural requirements in the case.

Bank of America said in a statement that it "intends, as soon as
possible, to move to dissolve the injunction.  It is Bank of
America and its related affiliates' policy to handle foreclosures
in compliance with applicable laws, and we believe that the court
will recognize that fact."

Separately, Verise Campbell, deputy director of the state's
Foreclosure Mediation Program, on Jan. 25 ordered mediators to
suspend mediation cases involving ReconTrust until Jan. 31 "out of
an abundance of caution," program spokesman Michael Sommermeyer
said.

The suspension will give program officials time to confer with
attorneys about the implications of the court's restraining order,
he said.

Ian Hirsch, president of Fortress Credit Services and frequent
representative of homeowners in mortgage mediation, criticized the
state for the suspension.  He said the delay could cause some
home-owners to fail to qualify under the federal Home Affordable
Modification Program, because program benefits aren't available
to homeowners who failed to make full payments for more than
12 months.

"There's already a major backlog in the mediation program,"
Mr. Hirsch said.

Tisha Black Chernine, an attorney with Black & Lobello, disagreed.

"It's prudent to cease these things until such time as you
ascertain all the i's are dotted and t's crossed," she said.
"It's much harder to undo a foreclosure than to merely extend the
process."


REMCO HYDRAULICS: 9th Cir. Revives Willits Pollution Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Elias, writing for The Associated Press, reports an appeals
court revived a class-action lawsuit on Jan. 27 for 160 residents
of a Northern California town who claim an industrial plant's
pollution severely sickened them.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled a trial judge was
wrong to dismiss the case on grounds that the statute of
limitations had expired.

About 100 residents of Willits filed a lawsuit in 1999 claiming
chemical disposals from Remco Hydraulics Inc. brought exposure to
chromium and caused a wide-range of illnesses, from cancer to
mental disorders.

The lawsuit ultimately included more than 1,000 residents, many of
whom settled with the company, which closed the plant and filed
for bankruptcy in 1995.

The company's attorney, Collie James, didn't return a phone call
seeking comment.

Hundreds of other plaintiffs rejected the settlement, and U.S.
District Court Judge Susan Illston dismissed them all from the
case on various legal grounds.  Judge Illston also dismissed some
plaintiffs before the settlement was reached.

A total of 323 plaintiffs were removed after they failed to answer
questionnaires about what chemicals they might have been exposed
to and what injuries they were claiming.  Judge Illston dismissed
another 51 plaintiffs after ruling the opinion of an expert they
were relying on to prove their case was inadmissible.

Judge Illston dismissed still more on other legal grounds,
including the 160 residents who had their lawsuit reinstated on
Jan. 27.

Judge Illston had ruled that group joined the lawsuit too late
when they signed on after Aug. 24, 2000.  In California, once
plaintiffs know who caused their injuries they have one year to
file lawsuits.

Judge Illston said the clock started ticking for those 160
residents when the initial lawsuit was filed on Aug. 23, 1999.

A divided three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit disagreed with
Judge Illston's analysis and ruled the deadline to file was
sometime in 2001.

The decision to reinstate the 160 plaintiffs was written by
Judge N. Randy Smith and joined by Judge Proctor Hug.

The two-judge majority opinion was co-written by Judges Pamela Ann
Rymer and N. Randy Smith.  The pair said the 160 plaintiffs
weren't put on notice until the appearance the following year of
newspaper articles discussing the residents' claims and the movie
"Erin Brockovich," a private investigator who discovered chromium
poisoning sickening many residents of Hinckley, Calif.

"The hazards of chromium exposure gained nationwide attention
beginning in March 2000, with the release of the movie 'Erin
Brockovich,'" Judge Smith wrote.  "Brockovich became involved in
the Willits contamination soon after the movie was released, even
holding an information session in Willits on Aug. 4, 2000."

All three judges affirmed Judge Illston's dismissal of the other
plaintiffs.


SMURFIT-STONE: Goldfarb Branham Investigating RockTenn Buyout
-------------------------------------------------------------
Goldfarb Branham LLP is investigating whether the Board of
Directors of Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation, Inc. violated
shareholder protection laws in connection with the proposed buyout
by RockTenn for approximately $35.00 per share in a stock and cash
deal.  If you are a Smurfit-Stone shareholder -- or have knowledge
of this transaction -- contact:

          Hamilton Lindley, Esq.
          GOLDFARB BRANHAM LLP
          Telephone: 214-583-2233
          Toll Free: 877-583-2855
          E-mail: hlindley@goldfarbbranham.com
          Web site: http://www.goldfarbbranham.com/

"Smurfit-Stone shareholders will receive $17.50 in stock and the
remainder in RockTenn stock, for a total value of $35.00 per
share"

"Smurfit-Stone shareholders will receive $17.50 in stock and the
remainder in RockTenn stock, for a total value of $35.00 per
share," securities lawyer Hamilton Lindley said.  "Our potential
class action lawsuit seeks to ensure that the Board of Directors
maximizes value for Smurfit-Stone investors in this buyout."

Goldfarb Branham's lawyers have significant experience
representing individual and institutional investors in over 100
shareholder class action cases.


SYNGENTA CROP: Discovery Schedule Set for Atrazine Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
the parties in a proposed federal class action over water
contamination allegedly caused by the weed killer atrazine have
laid out discovery steps that will lead them to argue whether the
case should be certified.

United States Magistrate Judge Phillip Frazier of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois signed an
order Jan. 24 setting out a scheduling agreement between the
plaintiff, the city of Greenville, and defendants Syngenta Crop
Protection Inc. and its parent company, Syngenta AG.

Greenville's lead attorney, Stephen Tillery, also asked the court
on Jan. 18 to set a date for oral arguments on a pending Syngenta
AG's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Greenville proposes to lead a class of water providers in
Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Ohio and other states.

The plaintiffs claim that atrazine, a weed killer made by the
defendants, runs off farm fields into drinking water supplies that
the plaintiffs must remediate.

The suit is nearly identical to a number of atrazine class actions
filed in Madison County in 2004.

Syngenta is among the Madison County defendants being sued by a
proposed class of water providers led by Holiday Shores Sanitary
District.

Tillery, Christie Deaton and Christine Moody also represent the
Holiday Shores plaintiffs.

The Madison County case against Syngenta is set for hearing
Feb. 18 on matters related to non-party discovery that Holiday
Shores wants to conduct.

According to the Jan. 24 order, the defendants and plaintiffs are
to complete taking discovery depositions by Aug. 1.

Greenville must also disclose its list of expert witnesses by that
date.

The Syngenta defendants have until Sept. 1 to disclose their
experts.

The plaintiffs will then have until Oct. 1 to disclose rebuttal
experts.

Depositions related to class certification will be taken by both
sides through September and October.

The plaintiffs' motion for class certification and its supporting
documents are due Oct. 15.

The defense opposition is due a month later.

More disclosures and discovery will continue through the later
part of the year leading up to the culmination of all discovery
Feb. 10, 2012.

Dispositive motions are due later that month.

The suit's final pre-trial conference, according to the order, is
set for June 7, 2012.

A trial date is set for the case before District Court Judge J.
Phillip Gilbert June 18, 2012.

Kurtis Reeg represents Syngenta Crop Protection Inc. in both the
federal and state class actions.

Mark Suprenant, Michael Pope, and others represent Syngenta AG.

The federal case is case number 10-188-JPG.

The older Madison County class action that remains on-going is
Madison case number 04-L-710.


TACO BELL: Class Action Over Beef Bogus, CEO Greg Creed Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Popken, writing for The Consumerist, reports that last week a
class action lawsuit was filed against Taco Bell, alleging that
their beef is actually only 36% meat and the rest is "extenders"
and other non-meat substances.  Taco Bell's President and Chief
Concept Officer Greg Creed has released a new and more in-depth
statement that goes into detail about the percentage of
ingredients in the recipe, like how it contains 88% USDA-inspected
quality beef.

         UPDATED STATEMENT REGARDING CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
                        January 26, 2011

Taco Bell Corp. President and Chief Concept Officer Greg Creed
said, "The lawsuit is bogus and filled with completely inaccurate
facts.  Our beef is 100% USDA inspected, just like the quality
beef you would buy in a supermarket and prepare in your home.  It
then is slow-cooked and simmered with proprietary seasonings and
spices to provide Taco Bell's signature taste and texture.  Our
seasoned beef recipe contains 88% quality USDA-inspected beef and
12% seasonings, spices, water and other ingredients that provide
taste, texture and moisture.  The lawyers got their facts wrong.
We take this attack on our quality very seriously and plan to take
legal action against them for making false statements about our
products.  There is no basis in fact or reality for this suit and
we will vigorously defend the quality of our products from
frivolous and misleading claims such as this."

What is in Taco Bell's recipe for seasoned beef?

"We're cooking with a proprietary recipe to give our seasoned beef
flavor and texture, just like you would with any recipe you cook
at home.

For example, when you make chili, meatloaf or meatballs, you add
your own recipe of seasoning and spices to give the beef flavor
and texture, otherwise, it would taste just like unseasoned ground
beef. We do the same thing with our recipe for seasoned beef.

Our recipe for seasoned beef includes ingredients you'd find in
your home or in the supermarket aisle today:

    * 88% USDA-inspected quality beef

    * 3-5% water for moisture

    * 3-5% spices (including salt, chili pepper, onion powder,
tomato powder, sugar, garlic powder, cocoa powder and a
proprietary blend of Mexican spices and natural flavors).

    * 3-5% oats, starch, sugar, yeast, citric acid, and other
ingredients that contribute to the quality of our product.

Our seasoned beef contains no "extenders" to add volume, as
some might use.  For more information about our ingredients
go to http://www.tacobell.com/


TONGXIN INT'L: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of all investors who purchased Tongxin International Ltd.
securities during the period between May 15, 2009 and December 14,
2010, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results.  Specifically,
defendants improperly accounted for Tongxin's related-party
transactions.  As a result of defendants' false statements,
Tongxin's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period, reaching a high of $12.07 per share on October 20,
2009.

On June 30, 2010, Tongxin announced that it would delay filing its
Form 20-F for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2009.  On
October 12, 2010, Tongxin announced that NASDAQ would delist the
Company's stock due to its failure to timely file its Form 20-F
and acknowledged that a report issued by KPMG, the forensic
accountants hired by the Company's Audit Committee, concluded that
the documentary support for certain of its related-party
transactions was contradictory, insufficient and lacking in
substantive detail and accuracy, thus calling into question the
validity of the transactions.  On November 20, 2010, Tongxin
announced that the Company's CEO and CFO were being removed from
their positions with the Company and lowered its revenue guidance
for fiscal year 2010 from its prior outlook of $160 million to a
range of $110 million.  Then, on December 13, 2010, Tongxin
announced that it had filed a civil suit against its former CFO,
Jackie Chang, due to the wrongful transfer of Company funds by
Chang into an account for the benefit of her and the Company's
former CEO, Rudy Wilson.  On this news, Tongxin's stock declined
to close at $1.35 per share on December 14, 2010.

You may obtain a copy of the complaint and join the class action
at http://www.saxenawhite.com/

If you purchased LPS stock between May 15, 2009 and December 14,
2010, you may contact:

          Joseph E. White, Esq. III, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 394-3399
          E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com

               - or -

          Greg Stone, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 394-3399
          E-mail: gstone@saxenawhite.com

to discuss your rights and interests.

If you purchased Tongxin shares during the Class Period and wish
to apply to be the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your
behalf must be filed with the Court no later than March 4, 2011.
You may contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding
the appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class
action.  Please note that you may also retain counsel of your
choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class
member.

Saxena White P.A., which has offices in Boca Raton, Boston and
Montana, specializes in prosecuting securities fraud and complex
class actions on behalf of institutions and individuals.
Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous securities fraud
class actions nationwide, the firm has recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars on behalf of injured investors and is active
in major litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout
the United States.

                             *********

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  * * *