CAR_Public/110209.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, February 9, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 28

                             Headlines

ALUMINUM TECHNOLOGY: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary OK
ANSWERS CORP: D&Os Sued Over Sale of Company to AFCV Holdings
ARVINMERITOR INC: Continues to Defend "Auto Filters" Class Suit
AT&T MOBILITY: Sued for Providing Non-Functional Data Service
AXA ROSENBERG: Sued for Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Negligence

COAST TO COAST: Former Employee to Pursue Overtime Class Action
COINSTAR INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action in Washington
COINSTAR INC: Low Earnings Prompt Robbins Umeda's Investigation
COMMONWEALTH GAMES: May Face Class Action From Unpaid Firms
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Faces Suits Over Hip Implants Outside US

DUMONT PUBLIC SCHOOL: Watchdog to Join Special Ed Class Suit
EAST OHIO GAS: Faces Two Class Actions Over Gas Explosions
EMULEX CORPORATION: Two Appeals Still Pending in Securities Suit
EXTREME NETWORKS: Awaits Outcome of Appeal of NY Settlement Order
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Securities Litigation

HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend ERISA Suit in Columbia
HARVARD PROTECTION: Overtime Class Action Allowed to Proceed
LEGAL RECOVERY: Charged With Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
LIFE PARTNERS: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in Texas
MF GLOBAL: Reaches Agreement to Settle Lawsuit for $2.5 Million
MF GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Moore-Related Suit in New York

NEWS CORPORATION: Awaits Final Court OK of "Brown" Suit Settlement
PANERA LLC: Sued Over Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
POWER BALANCE: Casserly Lead Plaintiff in Wristbands Suit
SHAW CABLESYSTEMS: Faces Class Action Over Disclosure Violation
SOUTH AFRICA: Faces Class Action Over Temporary Permit Backlog

STATE FARM: Sued Over "Paid When Incurred" Insurance Policy
UNITED LIFE: Class Action Settlement Hearing Canceled
UNITIL CORPORATION: Still Defends Massachusetts Class Action


* European Commission Reopens Consultation on Class Actions
* OpenMind Solutions Files Copyright Infringement Class Action



                             *********

ALUMINUM TECHNOLOGY: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milstein, Adelman LLP disclosed that on January 28, 2011, the
Honorable Mark Johnson, Judge of the California Superior Court for
Riverside County entered an Order in litigation against Aluminum
Technology, Inc., preliminarily approving a proposed class action
settlement.

The litigation involves ATI windows.  Plaintiffs allege that there
are defects in ATI windows and sliding doors that cause them to
leak and breach implied warranties.  ATI denies plaintiffs
allegations.   If you are a Class Member, you have the following
three choices: 1) participate in the settlement; 2) do not
participate in the settlement; or 3) object to the settlement.
Please be advised if class members do not submit a timely request
for exclusion, they will not be allowed to exclude themselves from
the Class, and they will be bound by the judgment in this case.

To participate in the settlement, class members must mail a
completed Claim Form, postmarked not later than May 5, 2011, to
the Settlement Administrator.  Class members may obtain a Claims
Packet by calling 1-888-749-8176 or by visiting the settlement Web
site at http://www.ATIWindowSettlement.com/ The Claims Packet
provides detailed information about how to make a claim.  If class
members do not want to participate in the settlement, they must
mail a properly completed Request for Exclusion postmarked on or
before March 7, 2011.  Details on how to properly request
exclusion may be found on the detailed notice available at
http://www.ATIWindowSettlement.com/or by calling the Settlement
Administrator at 1-888-749-8176.  If class members wish to Object
to the Settlement, they have the right to be heard in person, in
writing or through an attorney in support of or in opposition to
the settlement.  Details on how to be heard in person, in writing
or through an attorney, may be found in the detailed notice
available at http://www.ATIWindowSettlement.com/or by calling the
Settlement Administrator at 1-888-749-8176.

If class members have further questions or need further
information, they may contact (1) the Settlement Administrator at
1-888-749-8176; (2) Class Counsel Paul Stevens at (310) 396-9600
or at pstevens@milsteinadelman.com  or (3) visit the settlement
Web site at http://www.ATIWindowSettlement.com/ PLEASE DO NOT
CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE FOR INFORMATION.


ANSWERS CORP: D&Os Sued Over Sale of Company to AFCV Holdings
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Mathason, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Robert S. Rosenschein, et al., Case No. 650311/2011 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., New York Cty. February 4, 2011), accuses Answers Corporation,
certain of the Company's officers and directors, and AFCV Holdings
and Summit Partners of violating applicable law by directly
breaching or aiding breaches of fiduciary duties of loyalty and
due care owed to Company's public shareholders in connection with
the agreement to sell the Company to Summit via an unfair process.

Under the terms of the proposed transaction, Summit Partners,
through its portfolio company AFCV Holdings, will acquire all of
Answers.com's outstanding shares of common stock for approximately
$127 million after which Answers.com will merge into a Summit
controlled entity.  The proposed transaction has been approved by
Answers.com's board of directors.  Each Answers.com shareholder is
to receive $10.50 per share in cash for each Answers.com share.

Answers.com is a leading Q&A site.  Answers.com includes
WikiAnswers(R), a community-generated social knowledge Q&A
platform, leveraging wiki-based technologies, and
ReferenceAnswers(TM).

Defendant Robert S. Rosenschein is the Chairman of Answers.com's
board of directors and is the founder of the Company.  Since May
2001, Mr. Rosenschein has served as the Chief Executive Officer.

Defendant Summit is an asset management company that invests in
rapidly growing companies.  The Company is located at 222 Berkeley
Street, 18th Floor, in Boston, Massachusetts.

As alleged in the Complaint, the individual defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize shareholder value
and by failing to disclose material information to the Company's
shareholders sufficient for them to make an informed decision as
to whether to support the proposed transaction.

According to Mr. Mathason, the Offer Price represents a mere 18%
premium over the market close on the day prior to the announcement
of the proposed transaction.

In addition, Mr. Matheson states that the individual defendants
have agreed to terms in the Merger Agreement that favor Summit and
deter alternative bids.  These were not disclosed in the
Complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert I. Harwood, Esq.
          Matthew M. Houston, Esq.
          HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
          488 Madison A venue
          New York, NY 10466
          Telephone: (212) 935-7400

               - and -

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 12
          Bensalem, P A 19020
          Telephone: (215) 638-4847

               - and -

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150


ARVINMERITOR INC: Continues to Defend "Auto Filters" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor, Inc., continues to defend itself against class
action lawsuits filed by purchasers of auto filters, according to
the company's Feb. 3, 2011 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 2,
2011

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed
suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
alleging that twelve filter manufacturers, including a prior
subsidiary of the company, engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices,
rig bids and allocate U.S. customers for aftermarket automotive
filters.  This suit is a purported class action on behalf of
direct purchasers of filters from the defendants.  Several
parallel purported class actions, including on behalf of indirect
purchasers of filters, have been filed by other plaintiffs in a
variety of jurisdictions in the United States and Canada.  The
cases have been consolidated into a multi-district litigation
proceeding in Federal court for the Northern District of Illinois.
On April 16, 2009, the Attorney General of the State of Florida
filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois based on these same allegations.  On May 25,
2010, the Office of the Attorney General for the State of
Washington informed the company that it also was investigating the
allegations raised in these suits.  On August 9, 2010, the County
of Suffolk, New York, filed a complaint in the Eastern District of
New York based on the same allegations.  The case has been
transferred to the multi-district litigation proceeding in
Illinois.  The company intends to vigorously defend the claims
raised in all of these actions.  The company is unable to estimate
a range of exposure, if any, at this time.

ArvinMeritor, Inc. -- http://www.arvinmeritor.com/-- supplies
integrated systems, modules and components to the motor vehicle
industry.  The Company celebrated its centennial anniversary in
2009.  The company serves commercial truck, trailer and specialty
original equipment manufacturers and certain aftermarkets, and
light vehicle manufacturers.


AT&T MOBILITY: Sued for Providing Non-Functional Data Service
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fredrick M. Blau, et al., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. AT&T Mobility and AT&T Inc., Case No.
11-cv-00541 (N.D. Calif. February 4, 2011), allege causes of
action for breach of contract, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, unfair business practices under Civil Code Sec.
17500, unfair and deceptive acts under the Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, fraud by intentional misrepresentation, and fraud by
concealment against the defendants.

Defendants provide wireless voice and data services to over 95
million subscribers across America.  This makes them the largest
wireless telecommunication provider in the United States.

Plaintiffs relate that they have directly experienced significant
problems with AT&T Wireless Services including slow or non-
functional data service, innumerable dropped calls, and periods
where they were unable to make or receive calls.  This was mainly
due to increase demands on AT&T's network due in part to the
Apple's "iPhone" using even more bandwidth than AT&T had
projected.

According to the Complaint, despite having full knowledge of the
deficiencies in their network infrastructure, AT&T has refused to
address the significant problems with their service and continues
to promote their service as superior "even as the problems get
worse and customer satisfaction levels decline."

In addition, the plaintiffs state, instead of correcting their
service issues, AT&T, among other things, has instituted policies
that penalize customers for seeking service elsewhere.  Under
these policies, defendants have also refused to provide any
compensation to Plaintiffs for the poor services they provided and
continue to provide.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lenza H. McElrath III, Esq.
          3637 18th Street, Suite 2
          San Francisco, CA 94110
          Tel: 216.920.1997
          Email: lenza@lenzalaw.com


AXA ROSENBERG: Sued for Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Negligence
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Government of Guam Retirement Fund, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. AXA Rosenberg Group LLC, et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-00536 (N.D. Calif. February 4, 2011), is a class
action for breach of fiduciary duty, gross negligence, and an
accounting.  For many years, AXA Rosenberg has served as an
institutional money manager to a large number of public and
private retirement funds, charitable organizations, government
entities, and other institutional investors.  In that capacity,
AXA Rosenberg used computer algorithms to identify large numbers
of stocks that may be underpriced.  At its height, AXA Rosenberg
managed over $70 billion of assets.

The Complaint alleges that in early 2007, while attempting to make
upgrades to AXA Rosenberg's quantitative investment model, a
computer programmer improperly coded the model causing it to
understate common risks in the firm's stock selection process.
This "coding error" laid undetected for over two years, and
affected many of AXA Rosenberg's investment strategies for nearly
three years.

AXA Rosenberg discovered the error no later than June 2009.  Yet
several of the AXA Rosenberg's high ranking executives --
including its founder and Chairman, and a fellow member of the
Board -- covered up the error.

The Government of Guam Retirement Fund, a defined benefit pension
plan with over $1.6 billion in net assets held in trust for
pension benefits, says that AXA Rosenberg breached its
professional and fiduciary duties both in allowing the error to
occur, and in failing to implement adequate controls, policies,
and procedures to detect, correct, and properly report flaws in
the firm's investment process.

While Plaintiff and the Class were damaged by their fiduciary's
extreme lack of care and oversight, the Fund says AXA Rosenberg
improperly benefited by reaping investment management fees and
other benefits from Plaintiff and the Class.

According to the Complaint, on February 3, 2011, the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it had both
charged and settled an administrative proceeding asserting
multiple securities law violations against the defendants arising
out of the coding error.  The SEC found that defendants "breached
their fiduciary duty to clients" and "willfully violated" several
provisions of the federal securities laws.  Under the terms of the
SEC Settlement, AXA Rosenberg agreed to pay a $25 million fine and
distribute an aggregate of approximately $217 million to clients
affected by the coding error.

The Fund says that this $217 million figure -- which was
determined by a consulting firm retained by defendants -- is
wholly insufficient to compensate investors for the full amount of
their damages.  Plaintiff says it is entitled to be compensated
for the full amount of their damages suffered as a result of
defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty and extreme want of care,
and to be returned all fees improperly received or retained by
Defendants in connection with their wrongful conduct.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blair A. Nicholas, Esq.
          David Kaplan, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          12481 Highland Bluff Drive, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 793-0070


COAST TO COAST: Former Employee to Pursue Overtime Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
glassBYTES reports that Raymond Nelson Mejia, a former installer
for Coast to Coast Auto Glass who filed suit against the company
in November has amended his original complaint to include "others
similarly situated" and is attempting to pursue a collective/class
action suit against the company.  Mr. Mejia alleges that the
company regularly requires installers to work more than 40 hours
per week, but refuses to pay overtime, "often paying on a 'per-
piece' basis with no additional premiums for overtime worked."

In the amended complaint, filed in a New York federal court,
Mr. Mejia makes a "claim for relief as a collective action" under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) "on behalf of all non-exempt
individuals employed by the defendant on or after the date three
years before the filing of the . . . complaint."

"The FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are similarly situated, in that
they have substantially similar job duties, have been subject to a
common pay practices and decisions on the part of the defendant,"
writes Mr. Mejia's counsel, Penn Dodson of the law firm of
Goldberg and Dohan LLP.

Mr. Mejia proposes that his Second Claim for Relief as a Class
Action, filed under the New York Labor Law (NLL), apply to "all
non-exempt individuals employed by the defendant on or after the
date six years before the filing."

The amended complaint suggests that there "are easily more than
fifty (50) individuals in the proposed NYLL class," and claims
that a class action suit would be beneficial to all of them.

"In wage and hour litigation involving low-wage workers in
particular, the individual class members more often than not lack
the financial, language, time and other resources to vigorously
prosecute a lawsuit against a defendant having a superior
bargaining position," writes Mr. Dodson.  "A class action will
allow those similarly situated to prosecute their common claims
together and minimize the need for duplicative efforts expended on
their behalf."

In addition to Mr. Mejia's overtime claims, he also charges Coast
to Coast with "record-keeping failures," stating that the company
"failed to make, keep and preserve accurate records regarding the
wages, hours and other conditions of employment."

He further alleges that the company violates the NLLL by
"[failing] to provide [him] and others similarly situated at least
thirty minutes for the noon day meal" on days in which shifts of
more than six hours extending over the 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
meal timeframe are worked.

Likewise, Mr. Mejia claims that when Coast to Coast installers
work a shift that starts before 11 a.m. and continues past 7:00
p.m., they should be provided "an additional meal period of at
least 20 minutes between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m."

Mr. Mejia is seeking certification as a collective action and
class action suit; unpaid wages and overtime allegedly due for
himself and others similarly situated; liquidated damages in the
amount of the claimed "unpaid FLSA wages;" appropriate interest;
and court costs and attorneys' fees.

No other plaintiffs have been named in the complaint.

This is the second suit filed against Coast to Coast related to
such claims; the first was filed in October by a former Florida
sales representative, Ulysses Mejia, and was resolved outside of
court in late November.  During an interview in late-November,
Dodson advised glassBYTEs.com(TM)/AGRR(TM) magazine that she was
unaware of whether Raymond Nelson Mejia and Ulysses Mejia are
related.

At press time, Mr. Dodson had not responded to requests for
comment to the latest update in the case.


COINSTAR INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action in Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington on behalf of all purchasers of Coinstar, Inc. common
stock between October 28, 2010, and January 13, 2011, inclusive.
A copy of the complaint filed in this action can be viewed on the
firms Web site at http://www.faruqilaw.com/

Coinstar and certain of its officers and directors are charged
with issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Specifically, the
complaint alleges that, defendants failed to disclose that: (1)
the Company was suffering a decline in sales resulting from
customers' purchasing fewer DVDs per purchase, disrupting the
Company's operating plan; (2) poor inventory management and
controls resulted in the Company removing material amounts of old
inventory early in the fourth quarter of 2010, immediately and
adversely impacting revenues and gross margins for that quarter;
(3) lower sales of more expensive "Blu-ray" DVDs and poor title
selection was resulting in lower sales; and (4) the Company was
being adversely impacted by the 28-day delay that the movie
studios had imposed on Coinstar, hampering the Company's ability
to meet the financial guidance defendants disseminated to the
investing public.

On January 13, 2011, defendants issued disappointing preliminary
results for the fourth quarter of 2010.  Instead of revenues over
$415 million, revenues were $391 million.  EPS, too, suffered by
comparison, instead of $0.79-$0.85 per share, defendants disclosed
likely EPS of $0.65-$0.69 per share.  On this news, on January 14,
2011, trading in Coinstar common stock opened at $43.03 per share,
down 24% from the January 13, 2011 close of $56.95.  On
January 14, 2011, Coinstar closed at $41.50, a 27% decline over
the previous day's close.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and all
other individual and institutional investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Coinstar common stock between October 28, 2010,
through January 13, 2011, excluding defendants and their
affiliates.  Plaintiffs are represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a
law firm with extensive experience in prosecuting class actions
and actions involving corporate fraud.

If you wish to obtain information concerning joining this action
you can do so under the "Join Lawsuit" section of our website at:
http://www.faruqilaw.com/

If you purchased Coinstar common stock during the Class Period,
you may, not later than March 25, 2011, move the court to serve as
lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose.  In order to serve
as lead plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal
requirements.  If you wish to discuss this action, or have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact:

          Anthony Vozzolo, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (877) 247-4292
                     (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com


COINSTAR INC: Low Earnings Prompt Robbins Umeda's Investigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Self-Service reports Coinstar's low fourth-quarter earnings have
prompted the Law Office of Robbins Umeda LLP to investigate the
company that owns redbox for possible "violations of the law by
certain officers and directors."

The investigation concerns whether Coinstar's officers and
directors caused the company to issue false and misleading
statements regarding the company's revenue and earnings guidance
for 2010 and 2011, according to a press release from Robbins
Umeda, which represents shareholders in derivative, direct and
class action lawsuits.

"Specifically, the investigation concerns whether these
fiduciaries misled investors about the growth and profitability of
its RedBox DVD kiosk business, despite changes in the DVD industry
which required vendors to wait 28 days before obtaining movie
titles from the movie studios," it stated.

In October, Coinstar directors issued positive revenue and
earnings guidance for the fourth quarter of 2010, including
consolidated revenue projections of $415-$440 million and per
share earnings between $0.79 and $0.85 per share.

The firm stated in the release that as a result of these
projections, the company's value increased almost 25% over the
prior day's closing.  However, Coinstar announced on Jan. 13,
2011, earnings for the fourth quarter and full year of 2010, in
which investors learned that the company would earn as little as
$0.65 per share for the quarter on revenues of $391 million, well
below analysts' expectations and previous guidance sponsored and
endorsed by the company.  Upon this news, Coinstar's value dropped
more than 30%.

Marci Maule, Coinstar's director of Public Relations, said the
company will not comment on investigations.  However, in
Coinstar's Jan. 13 announcement, Chief Executive Officer Paul
Davis said several factors contributed to the shortfall.

He said an unexpectedly high share of customers rented DVDs from
one kiosk and returned them to another, creating an imbalance of
supply.  At the same time, 2010 was the first holiday season when
a slate of movies had been delayed for rental by 28 days.
Mr. Davis said Coinstar anticipated demand would be higher for
those movies than it really was.

"We have already taken a number of decisive steps to better align
content purchases with our consumers' behavior, including offering
more day and date titles and better allocating Blu-ray titles to
high demand areas," Mr. Davis said in the statement.

He also said redbox revenue grew 38 percent year over year in the
fourth quarter and that consumers rented more than 144 million
movies during the quarter.

"Our unit economics for single and dual kiosks remain strong, and
we believe in the future prospects for DVD kiosk rentals," he
said. "Additionally, we are pleased with the continued strong
performance of our coin business, especially its year-over-year 10
percent growth in same store sales during the fourth quarter, and
remain focused on driving profitable growth across the
organization."


COMMONWEALTH GAMES: May Face Class Action From Unpaid Firms
-----------------------------------------------------------
Commonwealth Games organizers could face an expensive and
embarrassing class action over their refusal to pay the
international companies who put on the Delhi Games.

Games organizers still owe nearly $4 million to international
firms who helped stage the Games, but organizing committee
chairman Jarnail Singh earlier announced organizers would not pay
because of "non-performance of contracts".

Several of the companies out of pocket are Australian-owned or
have Australian links, and have indicated they will pursue Games
bosses for payment in full.

The Australian manager for Infostrada, Steve Dettre, said his
company was still owed more than $600,000, and Delhi's refusal to
pay more than four months after the Games was hurting his
business.

"I think it's unbelievable that you can do all the work, and they
just say 'we're not going to pay'," he told The Age.

"Well, we're not going to write it off as a bad experience, we're
going to pursue however we can.  There are companies all over the
world who haven't been paid.  We will talk to them and see what we
can do as a group, either legally or through representations to
the government."

Infostrada ran all of the sports information in Delhi, including a
Games media service, covering events and athletes' press
conferences.  Its performance has been backed at the highest
levels of the Games hierarchy.

Commonwealth Games Federation chief executive Michael Hooper wrote
in a letter from London that: "the Infostrada team provided a high
standard news service that was up-to-date, timely and accurate
throughout the Games.  Your team's dedication, attention to detail
and professionalism gave us all great confidence.  We look forward
to working with you and your team at future editions of the
Games."

And an internal Delhi Games report, submitted to the organizing
committee and obtained by The Age, says Infostrada "more than
fulfilled their obligations" under their contract.  The company
even saved the organizing committee from the embarrassment of not
having a working Web service by setting one up on short notice for
the Games community and media to use, the report said.

Mr. Dettre said Infostrada had received no communication from
Games organizers about their alleged contractual failures "and
when we try to get in contact, all the phones have been
disconnected".

"There is damage to our reputation to consider too.  We've been
doing this for more than 12 years, we've done more than 40
international events, and this is the first time we have ever been
accused of non-performance."


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Faces Suits Over Hip Implants Outside US
------------------------------------------------------------
The Rottenstein Law Group has learned that hip replacement
lawsuits against DePuy Orthopaedics have been filed in several
countries outside the United States.  The worldwide recall of the
ASR XL Acetabular System and the ASR Hip Resurfacing System has
affected 93,000 patients in many countries.  Although DePuy, a
division of Johnson & Johnson, is a US-based company, citizens of
other countries should investigate their legal rights when it
comes to filing a hip replacement lawsuit.  Personal injury laws
vary greatly from country to country, so details should be
obtained from qualified legal counsel in the patient's country of
origin.  They will be able to give a definitive answer as to
whether patients are entitled to reimbursement for injury and
damages from the implantation of one of the recalled DePuy hip
replacement devices.

As of this writing, hip replacement lawsuits have been filed in
Ireland, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada, as well as the
United States.  Citizens of some of these countries may be
permitted to join lawsuits already filed in the U.S., and other
countries have filed class action lawsuits with individual
lawsuits likely to follow.  It is anticipated that there will be
many more international claimants joining existing litigation or
filing their own hip replacement lawsuits in the weeks and months
to come; as many as 10,000 people in the United Kingdom are
expected to file.  It has not yet been determined exactly how many
of the 93,000 people affected by the DePuy hip recall will
participate in litigation, but based on recent information about
the amount Johnson & Johnson has set aside for settling claims,
they appear to be planning for a great many claims to be filed.
Regardless of which countries their surgeries took place in,
claimants should seek advice from qualified legal counsel to
determine their legal rights.  The Rottenstein Law Group has set
up a Web site to answer questions related to the DePuy hip recall,
providing valuable information about filing a claim and how much
compensation can be expected from doing so.

The Rottenstein Law Group is a New York-based law firm that
represents clients in mass tort actions.  The firm was founded by
Rochelle Rottenstein, a lawyer with over two decades of experience
in compassionate representation of clients in consumer product
injury, mass tort, and class action law suits.  For more
information, please visit their Web site, or call (888) 9-ROT-LAW.


DUMONT PUBLIC SCHOOL: Watchdog to Join Special Ed Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Hayes, writing for The Record, reports a statewide
disability rights advocacy group wants to join a class-action suit
against the Dumont public school district over its policy to place
all special education kindergartners at one school.

Disability Rights New Jersey, a Trenton-based federally funded
advocacy agency, filed a motion in U.S. District Court in Newark
on Wednesday seeking permission to join a class-action suit
alleging that the district discriminates against and segregates
special education kindergarten students.  The suit accuses the
district of violating state and federal laws.

"These students when they get into first grade get to go into a
regular, mainstreamed class, but they don't get that chance in
kindergarten," said Joe Young, the advocacy agency's executive
director.

Superintendent Emanuele Triggiano said he could not comment on
pending litigation but added that the district's attorney is
reviewing the matter.

When the suit was first filed, Ms. Triggiano said the district
works to best address student needs and tries to place children in
their neighborhood schools when possible.

The original suit, filed in September 2009, had one plaintiff --
Alex Tallerico, who was 5 years old at the time and entering
kindergarten.  His mother, Joy Tallerico, filed the suit because
her son was going to be bused to a special education inclusion
class at Grant School rather than going to Selzer School with
other children from his neighborhood.

Ms. Tallerico's lawyer, John Rue of White & Case LLP, said Dumont
is trying to have her case dismissed, arguing that she did not
follow proper administrative procedures before taking legal
action.  Mr. Rue filed a response arguing against that claim and
the matter is before U.S. District Judge Faith Hochberg and
Magistrate Judge Patty Schwartz, in Newark.

If DRNJ is permitted to intervene on behalf of all special
education kindergarten students and future special education
kindergarten students in Dumont, the class-action suit would
remain in place even if the district gets Ms. Tallerico's claim
dismissed, Mr. Rue said.

"I think DRNJ coming into the case is a game changer," he said.

Dumont offers one inclusion class, which integrates special
education and general education students and a self-contained
class for special education students, both housed at Grant School.

DRNJ and Ms. Tallerico contend that special education students who
are able to learn alongside their general education peers should
be able to attend any of the district's four neighborhood
elementary schools instead of being sent to Grant because they
have learning disabilities.

"This case is all about giving individual consideration to the
child," Mr. Rue said.  "Obviously some kids can't be educated in
their neighborhood school; there's no question of that.  But the
question is, can the school district unilaterally decide that a
kid has to go to a school outside their neighborhood school
regardless of the kid's needs?"


EAST OHIO GAS: Faces Two Class Actions Over Gas Explosions
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that two class actions blame The
East Ohio Gas Co., dba Dominion East Ohio, for "numerous
explosions," eight house fires and an apartment fire in Fairport
Harbor on Jan. 24, due to negligently maintained natural gas
lines.  The town of 1,500 was evacuated.

A copy of the Complaint in Bonczek v. East Ohio Gas Company d/b/a
Dominion East Ohio, Case No. 11CV000261 (Ohio C.P. Ct., Lake Cty.)
(Collins, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/04/GasFire.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
          Robert J. DiCello, Esq.
          THE DICELLO FIRM
          7556 Mentor Ave.
          Mentor, OH 44060
          Telephone: 440-953-8888
          E-mail: madicello@dicellolaw.com
                  rjdicello@dicellolaw.com


EMULEX CORPORATION: Two Appeals Still Pending in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emulex Corporation continues to defend itself against appeals from
a court opinion granting final approval of a settlement of a
securities class action, according to the Company's Feb. 3, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended December 26, 2010.

On November 15, 2001, prior to the Company's acquisition of Vixel
Corporation, a securities class action was filed in the United
States District Court in the Southern District of New York as Case
No. 01 CIV. 10053 (SAS), Master File No. 21 MC92 (SAS) against
Vixel and two of its officers and directors (one of which is James
M. McCluney, the Company's current Chief Executive Officer) and
certain underwriters who participated in the Vixel initial public
offering in late 1999. The amended complaint alleged violations
under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Section 11 of the
Securities Act and sought unspecified damages on behalf of persons
who purchased Vixel stock during the period October 1, 1999
through December 6, 2000. On April 2, 2009, the parties signed a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the 2009 Settlement) to
the District Court for preliminary approval. The District Court
granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval and
preliminarily certified the settlement classes on June 10, 2009.
The settlement "fairness" hearing was held on September 10, 2009.
On October 6, 2009, the District Court entered an opinion granting
final approval to the settlement and directing that the Clerk of
the District Court close these actions. The 2009 Settlement
provides for a settlement amount of $586 million, and Emulex has
no obligation to pay any part of that amount. Notices of appeal of
the opinion granting final approval were originally filed by six
groups of appellants, four of whom have settled with the
plaintiffs.


EXTREME NETWORKS: Awaits Outcome of Appeal of NY Settlement Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Extreme Networks, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on an appeal of a
court order approving a settlement of a class action lawsuit in
New York, according to the Company's Feb. 3, 2011 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended December 26, 2010.

Beginning on July 6, 2001, purported securities fraud class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The cases were consolidated and
the litigation is now captioned as In re Extreme Networks, Inc.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-6143
(SAS) (S.D.N.Y.), related to In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.).  The operative
amended complaint names the Company as defendants; six of the
Company's present and former officers and/or directors, including
its former CEO and current Chairman of the Board; and several
investment banking firms that served as underwriters of its
initial public offering and October 1999 secondary offering.  The
complaint alleges liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the
registration statement for the offerings did not disclose that:
(1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers to
purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for excess
commissions paid to the underwriters; and (2) the underwriters had
arranged for certain customers to purchase additional shares in
the aftermarket at predetermined prices. Similar allegations were
made in other lawsuits challenging over 300 other initial public
offerings and follow-on offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000.  The
cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes.  The parties to the
lawsuits have reached a settlement, which was approved by the
Court on October 6, 2009.  Extreme Networks is not required to
make any cash payments in the settlement.  The Court subsequently
entered a final judgment of dismissal.  Certain objectors have
appealed the judgment.  If the appeal is successful, the Company
intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously, but, due to the inherent
uncertainties of litigation, it cannot predict the ultimate
outcome of the matter at this time.


HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend Securities Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
On October 1, 2007, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by
Cheolan Kim against Harman International Industries, Inc., and
certain of the Company's officers in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia seeking compensatory damages
and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's
common stock between April 26, 2007 and September 24, 2007. The
original complaint alleged claims for violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleged that the defendants omitted to disclose
material adverse facts about Harman's financial condition and
business prospects. The complaint contended that had these facts
not been concealed at the time the merger agreement with KKR and
GSCP was entered into, there would not have been a merger
agreement, or it would have been at a much lower price, and the
price of the Company's common stock therefore would not have been
artificially inflated during the Class Period. The Kim Plaintiff
alleged that, following the reports that the proposed merger was
not going to be completed, the price of the Company's common stock
declined, causing the plaintiff class significant losses.

On November 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees' Pension
Plan filed a purported class action lawsuit against Harman and
certain of the Company's officers in the Court seeking
compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's common stock between April 26, 2007 and
September 24, 2007. The allegations in the Boca Raton complaint
are essentially identical to the allegations in the original Kim
complaint, and like the original Kim complaint, the Boca Raton
complaint alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On January 16, 2008, the Kim Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint, which extended the Class Period through
January 11, 2008, contended that, in addition to the violations
alleged in the original complaint, Harman also violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by "knowingly failing to disclose "significant
problems" relating to its PND sales forecasts, production,
pricing, and inventory" prior to January 14, 2008. The amended
complaint claimed that when "Defendants revealed for the first
time on January 14, 2008 that shifts in PND sales would adversely
impact earnings per share by more than $1.00 per share in fiscal
2008," that led to a further decline in the Company's share value
and additional losses to the plaintiff class.

On February 15, 2008, the Court ordered the consolidation of the
Kim action with the Boca Raton action, the administrative closing
of the Boca Raton action, and designated the short caption of the
consolidated action as In re Harman International Industries, Inc.
Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (RWR). That
same day, the Court appointed Arkansas Public Retirement System as
lead plaintiff and approved the law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld
and Toll, P.L.L.C. to serve as lead counsel.

On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman
International Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re Harman
International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation.

On May 2, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action
complaint. The Consolidated Complaint, which extends the Class
Period through February 5, 2008, contends that Harman and certain
of the Company's officers and directors violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
by issuing false and misleading disclosures regarding the
Company's financial condition in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year
2008. In particular, the Consolidated Complaint alleges that
defendants knowingly or recklessly failed to disclose material
adverse facts about MyGIG radios, PNDs and the Company's capital
expenditures. The Consolidated Complaint alleges that when
Harman's true financial condition became known to the market, the
price of the Company's common stock declined significantly,
causing losses to the plaintiff class.

On July 3, 2008, defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint in its entirety. Lead Plaintiff opposed the defendants'
motion to dismiss on September 2, 2008, and defendants filed a
reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on October 2,
2008. The motion is now fully briefed.

No updates were reported in the Company's Feb. 3, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2010.


HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Continues to Defend ERISA Suit in Columbia
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Russell filed a complaint on December 7, 2007 in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia and an
amended purported putative class action complaint on June 2, 2008
against Harman International Industries, Inc., and certain of the
Company's officers and directors alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and seeking, on
behalf of all participants in and beneficiaries of the Harman
International Industries, Incorporated Retirement Savings Plan,
compensatory damages for losses to the Plan as well as injunctive
relief, imposition of a constructive trust, restitution, and other
monetary relief -- Patrick Russell v. Harman International
Industries, Incorporated, et al.  The amended complaint alleges
that from April 26, 2007 to the present, defendants failed to
prudently and loyally manage the Plan's assets, thereby breaching
their fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA by causing the Plan
to invest in the Company's common stock notwithstanding that the
stock allegedly was "no longer a prudent investment for the
Participants' retirement savings." The amended complaint further
claims that, during the Class Period, defendants failed to monitor
the Plan fiduciaries, failed to provide the Plan fiduciaries with,
and to disclose to Plan participants, adverse facts regarding
Harman and the Company's businesses and prospects. The Russell
Plaintiff also contends that defendants breached their duties to
avoid conflicts of interest and to serve the interests of
participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan with undivided
loyalty. As a result of these alleged fiduciary breaches, the
amended complaint asserts that the Plan has "suffered substantial
losses, resulting in the depletion of millions of dollars of the
retirement savings and anticipated retirement income of the Plan's
Participants."

On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman
International Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re Harman
International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on
August 5, 2008. The Russell Plaintiff opposed the defendants'
motion to dismiss on September 19, 2008, and defendants filed a
reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on October 20,
2008. The motion is now fully briefed.

No updates were reported in the Company's Feb. 3, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2010.


HARVARD PROTECTION: Overtime Class Action Allowed to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Harvard Protection Services, which supplies security guards and
fire safety directors to businesses throughout New York City, is
facing allegations of refusing to pay its employees proper
overtime pay when they exceed 40 hours per week.  Vito Gambino,
who has worked for Harvard Protection Services since 2007, has
filed a class action against the company with Garden City-based
law firm Valli Kane & Vagnini, LLP.  A Federal Judge has found
that because there is evidence showing that Harvard Protection
changed its employees' hourly rates for any hours over forty to
two-thirds of their original rate, it created a loophole in which
it could still pay the required time-and-a-half without exceeding
the normal hourly rate.  The Court has now ordered that hundreds
of employees potentially harmed by this loophole be notified and
allowed to participate in the lawsuit.

In addition, employees are required to travel to different sites
in New York City throughout the day, and Harvard Protection
Services refused to compensate for travel time, even though it had
been established that this travel time was not part of the commute
but rather one of the job's duties.  When Mr. Gambino complained,
he was required to travel during his lunch break.

Established in 2005, Valli Kane & Vagnini, LLP aims to combine the
intimacy of a boutique law firm with the experience and positive
results one would expect of a large firm.  Catering to victims of
job discrimination and labor violations, VKV's areas of practice
include but are not limited to: class actions; wrongful
termination; sexual harassment; race, gender or age
discrimination; and wage and hour laws.  With over 40 years of
combined experience, VKV's lawyers are considered strong advocates
of civil rights and proponents of respectful, safe and law-abiding
work environments.


LEGAL RECOVERY: Charged With Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abad, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Legal Recovery Law Offices, et al., Case No.
11-cv-00531 (N.D. Calif. February 3, 2011), asserts claims against
the defendants for their violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Mr. Abad, a consumer as defined at 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692a(3),
relates that on January 4, 2011, Legal Recovery, a "debt
collector" under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692a(6), sent him an initial
notice to collect a consumer debt allegedly owed to Capital One
Bank, which notice states that the "total due" is in the amount of
$3,724.44, without stating that the amount of the debt might vary
from day to day because of interest, late charges or other
charges, and without notifying him of his right to obtain an
exact, up-to-date amount of the debt allegedly due.

Mr. Abad alleges that defendants should have known that its
actions violated the FDCPA.

As a result of the FDCPA violations, Mr. Abad says that defendants
are liable to him and members of the proposed class for actual
damages, statutory damages and attorney's fees and costs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Irving L. Berg, Esq.
          THE BERG LAW GROUP
          145 Town Center, PMB 493
          Corte Madera, CA 94925
          Telephone: (415) 924-0742
          E-mail: irvberg@comcast.net


LIFE PARTNERS: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased the securities of Life Partners Holdings, Inc. between
May 29, 2007 and January 20, 2011, inclusive.

A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP.  Please contact us by phone to discuss this
action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at (310) 201-9150 or
Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our Web site at
http://www.glancylaw.com/

Life Partners, through its subsidiary, Life Partners, Inc.,
operates in the secondary market for life insurance generally
known as "life settlements."  Life settlement transactions involve
the sale of an existing life insurance policy to another party --
the policyholder receives an immediate cash payment; the purchaser
takes an ownership interest in the policy and receives an
ownership interest in the policy's death benefit when the insured
dies.

The Complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that, among other things: (1)
the Company routinely used life expectancy data that produced
inaccurately short life expectancy reports, which were
subsequently used to sell life settlement policies to investors;
(2) the Company concealed the historical rate at which individuals
insured by life settlement policies sold by Life Partners had
lived past the life expectancy rates previously provided to
investors, such that the Company's investors were unable to assess
the accuracy or reliability of such data; (3) by underestimating
life expectancy data to investors, the Company was able to charge
substantially larger fees when brokering life settlement policies;
(4) as a result, the Company's financial statements were false and
misleading at all relevant times; and (5), as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's statements about its financial
performance and future business prospects were lacking in any
reasonable basis when made.

On December 21, 2010, The Wall Street Journal published an article
questioning the Company's life-expectancy estimates and business
practices, noting that Life Partners "made large fees from its
life-insurance transactions while often significantly
underestimating the life expectancies of people whose policies its
customers invest in."  On January 20, 2011, the newspaper
published an article disclosing that the Securities and Exchange
Commission was investigating Life Partners' business practices
related to how it estimated life expectancies of insured
individuals whose life insurance-policy rights the Company was
selling.  Later that same day, the Company confirmed the SEC was
investigating the business of its operating subsidiary, Life
Partners, Inc.

As a result of this news, shares of Life Partners declined by
$2.58 per share, more than 17%, to close on January 20, 2011, at
$12.46 per share, on unusually high volume, and further declined
another $0.64 per share, to close on January 21, 2010, at $11.82
per share, also on unusually high trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and
is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm with
significant experience in prosecuting class actions, and
substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may move the
Court, no later than April 4, 2011, to serve as lead plaintiff;
however, you must meet certain legal requirements.  If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Toll Free: (888) 773-9224
          E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com/


MF GLOBAL: Reaches Agreement to Settle Lawsuit for $2.5 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
MF Global Holdings Ltd. disclosed in a Form 8-K filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 3, 2011, that it
has reached a preliminary agreement to settle class action
litigation brought on behalf of purchasers of the MF Global common
stock between July 2007 and February 2008.  MF Global will
contribute $2.5 million to the overall settlement of $90 million.
MF Global joins this settlement without admitting liability and in
the interest of avoiding unnecessary litigation expense.  The
preliminary settlement is subject to court review and final
approval.

The Company, Man Group, certain of its current and former officers
and directors, and certain underwriters for the IPO have been
named as defendants in five actions filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. These
actions, which purport to be brought as class actions on behalf of
purchasers of MF Global stock between the date of the IPO and
February 28, 2008, seek to hold defendants liable under Sections
11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 for alleged
misrepresentations and omissions related to the Company's risk
management and monitoring practices and procedures. The five
purported shareholder class actions have been consolidated for all
purposes into a single action. The Company made a motion to
dismiss which had been granted, with plaintiff having a right to
replead and/or appeal the dismissal. Plaintiffs made a motion to
replead by filing an amended complaint, which was denied.
Plaintiffs appealed. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated
the decision and remanded the case for further consideration. The
parties engaged in mediation and have agreed to a preliminary
settlement, which 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. The settlement provides for a
total payment of $90 million to plaintiffs, $2.5 million of which
is to be paid and has been accrued by the Company.

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.


MF GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Moore-Related Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
MF Global Holdings Ltd.'s subsidiary, MF Global, Inc., continues
to defend itself against a consolidated lawsuit filed against
entities related to Moore Capital Management in New York,
according to the Company's Feb. 3, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2011.

On August 4, 2010, MFGI was added as a defendant to a consolidated
class action complaint filed against Moore Capital Management and
related entities in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York which alleged claims of manipulation
and aiding and abetting manipulation in violation of the
Commodities Exchange Act.  Specifically, the complaint alleged
that, between October 25, 2007 and June 6, 2008, Moore Capital
directed MFGI, as its executing broker, to enter "large" market on
close orders (at or near the time of the close) for platinum and
palladium futures contracts, which allegedly caused artificially
inflated prices. On August 10, 2010, MFGI was added as a defendant
to a related class action complaint filed against the Moore-
related entities on behalf of a class of plaintiffs who traded the
physical platinum and palladium commodities in the relevant time
frame, which alleges price fixing under the Sherman Act and
violations of the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.  On September 30, 2010 plaintiffs filed an
amended consolidated class action complaint that includes all of
the allegations and claims on behalf of subclasses of traders of
futures contracts of platinum and palladium and physical platinum
and palladium.  Plaintiffs' claimed damages have not been
quantified.  This matter is in its earliest stages and no
provision for losses has been recorded in connection with this
claim.


NEWS CORPORATION: Awaits Final Court OK of "Brown" Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
News Corporation is awaiting final court approval of a settlement
it entered into with plaintiffs of a class action lawsuit in
California, according to its Feb. 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2010.

On August 26, 2005 and August 30, 2005, two purported class action
lawsuits captioned, respectively, Ron Sheppard v. Richard
Rosenblatt et. al., and John Friedmann v. Intermix Media, Inc. et
al., were filed in the California Superior Court, County of Los
Angeles. Both lawsuits named as defendants all of the then
incumbent members of the board of directors of Intermix Media,
Inc., including Mr. Rosenblatt, Intermix's former Chief Executive
Officer, and certain entities affiliated with VantagePoint Venture
Partners, a former major Intermix stockholder. The complaints
alleged that, in pursuing the transaction whereby Intermix was to
be acquired by Fox Interactive Media, a subsidiary of the Company,
and approving the related merger agreement, the director
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Intermix
stockholders by, among other things, engaging in self-dealing and
failing to obtain the highest price reasonably available for
Intermix and its stockholders. The complaints further alleged that
the merger agreement resulted from a flawed process and that the
defendants tailored the terms of the merger to advance their own
interests. The FIM Transaction was consummated on September 30,
2005. The Friedmann and Sheppard lawsuits were subsequently
consolidated and, on January 17, 2006, a consolidated amended
complaint was filed -- the Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation.
The plaintiffs in the consolidated action sought various forms of
declaratory relief, damages, disgorgement and fees and costs. On
March 20, 2006, the court ordered that substantially identical
claims asserted in a separate state action filed by Brad
Greenspan, captioned Greenspan v. Intermix Media, Inc., et al., be
severed and related to the Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation.
The defendants filed demurrers seeking dismissal of all claims in
the Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation and the severed
Greenspan claims. On October 6, 2006, the court sustained the
demurrers without leave to amend. On December 13, 2006, the court
dismissed the complaints and entered judgment for the defendants.
Greenspan and plaintiffs in the Intermix Media Shareholder
Litigation filed notices of appeal. The Court of Appeal heard
arguments on the fully briefed appeal on October 23, 2008. On
November 11, 2008, the Court of Appeal issued an unpublished
opinion affirming the lower court's dismissal on all counts. On
December 19, 2008, stockholder appellants filed a Petition for
Review with the California Supreme Court. The California Supreme
Court denied review on February 18, 2009 and the judgment is now
final.

In November 2005, plaintiff in a derivative action captioned
LeBoyer v. Greenspan et al. pending against various former
Intermix directors and officers in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California filed a First Amended
Class and Derivative Complaint. The original derivative action was
filed in May 2003 and arose out of Intermix's restatement of
quarterly financial results for its fiscal year ended March 31,
2003. A substantially similar derivative action filed in Los
Angeles Superior Court was dismissed based on the inability of the
plaintiffs to plead adequately demand futility. The Amended
Complaint added various allegations and purported class claims
arising out of the FIM Transaction that are substantially similar
to those asserted in the Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation.
The Amended Complaint also added as defendants the individuals and
entities named in the Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation that
were not already defendants in the matter. On October 16, 2006,
the court dismissed the fourth through seventh claims for relief,
which related to the 2003 restatement, finding that the plaintiff
is precluded from relitigating demand futility. At the same time,
the court asked for further briefing regarding plaintiffs'
standing to assert derivative claims based on the FIM Transaction,
including for alleged violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange
Act, the effect of the state judge's dismissal of the claims in
the Greenspan case and the Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation
on the remaining direct class action claims alleging breaches of
fiduciary duty and other common law claims leading up to the FIM
Transaction. The parties filed the requested additional briefing
in which the defendants requested that the court stay the direct
LeBoyer claims pending the resolution of any appeal in the
Greenspan case and the Intermix Media Shareholder Litigation. By
order dated May 22, 2007, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the derivative claims arising out of the FIM Transaction,
and denied the defendants' request to stay the two remaining
direct claims. As explained in more detail in the next paragraph,
the court subsequently consolidated this case with the Brown v.
Brewer action also pending before the court. On July 11, 2007,
plaintiffs filed the consolidated first amended complaint under
the Brown case title.

On June 14, 2006, a purported class action lawsuit, captioned Jim
Brown v. Brett C. Brewer, et al., was filed against certain former
Intermix directors and officers in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiff
asserted claims for alleged violations of Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9, as well as control person
liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The plaintiff
alleged that certain defendants disseminated false and misleading
definitive proxy statements on two occasions: one on December 30,
2003 in connection with the stockholder vote on January 29, 2004
on the election of directors and ratification of financing
transactions with certain entities of VantagePoint; and another on
August 25, 2005 in connection with the stockholder vote on the FIM
Transaction. The complaint named as defendants certain
VantagePoint related entities, the former general counsel and the
members of the Intermix Board who were incumbent on the dates of
the respective proxy statements. Intermix was not named as a
defendant, but has certain indemnity obligations to the former
officer and director defendants in connection with these claims
and allegations. On August 25, 2006, plaintiff amended his
complaint to add certain investment banks as defendants.  Intermix
has certain indemnity obligations to the Investment Banks as well.
Plaintiff amended his complaint again on September 27, 2006, which
defendants moved to dismiss.  On February 9, 2007, the case was
transferred to Judge George H. King, the judge assigned to the
LeBoyer action, on the grounds that it raises substantially
related questions of law and fact as LeBoyer, and would entail
substantial duplication of labor if heard by different judges.  On
June 11, 2007, Judge King ordered the Brown case be consolidated
with the LeBoyer action, ordered plaintiffs' counsel to file a
consolidated first amended complaint, and further ordered the
parties to file a joint brief on defendants' contemplated motion
to dismiss the consolidated first amended complaint. On July 11,
2007, plaintiffs filed the consolidated first amended complaint,
which defendants moved to dismiss. By order dated January 17,
2008, Judge King granted defendants' motion to dismiss the 2003
proxy claims (concerning VantagePoint transactions) and the 2005
proxy claims (concerning the FIM Transaction), as well as a claim
against the VantagePoint entities alleging unjust enrichment. The
court found it unnecessary to rule on dismissal of the remaining
claims, which are related to the 2005 FIM Transaction, because the
dismissal disposed of those claims. On February 8, 2008,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated second amended complaint, which
defendants moved to dismiss on February 28, 2008. By order dated
July 15, 2008, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss. The 2003 claims and the claims
against the Investment Banks were dismissed with prejudice. The
Section 14(a), Section 20(a) and the breach of fiduciary duty
claims related to the FIM Transaction remain against the officer
and director defendants and the VantagePoint defendants. On
November 14, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification to which defendants filed their opposition on
January 14, 2009. On June 22, 2009, the court granted plaintiff's
motion for class certification, certifying a class of all holders
of Intermix common stock from July 18, 2005 through consummation
of the FIM Transaction, who were allegedly harmed by defendants'
improper conduct as set forth in the complaint. The parties have
completed fact and expert discovery. On June 17, 2010, the court
granted in part and denied in part defendants' summary judgment
motion filed on October 19, 2009.  Specifically, the court denied
plaintiff's motion for summary adjudication of a factual issue and
denied defendants' motion to exclude plaintiff's damages expert,
which was filed on November 30, 2009. In the court's June 17
order, the court found that plaintiff could not proceed on any
fiduciary duty claim based upon alleged violations of the duty of
care, but found material issues of fact prohibiting summary
judgment on alleged violations of fiduciary duty of loyalty.  On
plaintiff's Section 14(a) claim, the court found material issues
of fact that prohibited summary judgment on the entire claim, but
granted defendants' motion as to certain purported omissions,
finding the allegedly omitted information immaterial. Further, the
court granted defendants' motion as to two damage theories for the
Section 14(a) claim, finding benefit of the bargain damages not
viable and lost opportunity damages too speculative, and
permitting plaintiff to proceed only based upon a theory of out-
of-pocket damages.  No trial date was set.  On October 21, 2010,
the parties agreed to a settlement of the action, which is subject
to approval by the court.  A formal stipulation of settlement was
submitted to the court for its approval on December 28, 2010.
Accordingly, the Company has recognized the terms of this
settlement, which was not material to the Company, in its results
of operations.


PANERA LLC: Sued Over Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Panera cheats workers of
overtime pay, according to a class action in Riverside County
Court.  So does FedEx Office and Print Services, according to a
federal class action in San Diego.

A copy of the Complaint in Brizuela v. Panera, LLC, Case No.
1100886 (Calif. Super. Ct., Riverside Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/04/Panera.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Miriam L. Schimmel, Esq.
          David Cheng, Esq.
          Joshua Carlon, Esq.
          INITIATIVE LEGAL GROUP APC
          1800 Century Park East, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-5637
          E-mail: mschimmel@initiativelegal.com
                  dcheng@initiativelegal.com
                  jcarlon@initiativelegal.com


POWER BALANCE: Casserly Lead Plaintiff in Wristbands Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Heather Yakin, writing for Times Herald-Record, reports an Orange
County man is the lead plaintiff in a federal class-action lawsuit
against the makers of Power Balance wristbands.

The suit also names celebrity endorsers Shaquille O'Neal and Lamar
Odom.

Power Balance has sold about 3 million of its products since 2007,
at $29.95 for wristbands or $79.95 for sterling-silver necklaces.

The suit, filed on behalf of Brian Casserly of Greenwood Lake, is
one of 10 since Jan. 1, coming on the heels of regulatory action
in Australia against the company's Aussie branch.

In December, the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission said
this about Power Balance Australia's claims that the wristbands
improve strength, agility and flexibility: "Power Balance has
admitted that there is no credible scientific basis for the claims
and therefore no reasonable grounds for making representations
about the benefits of the product," and that it engaged in
"misleading and deceptive conduct" under Aussie law.  Power
Balance Australia posted a corrective advertisement on its
Web site saying the same thing.

Power Balance says its wristbands and necklaces each contain two
holograms on Mylar "treated with energy waves at specific
frequencies," and that the product will "optimize the body's
natural energy flow."

Mylar is the trade name for a specific metal-coated polyester film
made by DuPont.

Mylar is used, among other things, for emergency blankets and
packaging materials.  Hologram designs on Mylar stickers are
popular for trophy inserts.

"Our allegation is its biologically impossible for two holograms
to affect your strength or performance," summarized one of
Casserly's lawyers, D. Greg Blankinship of Meiselman, Denlea,
Packman, Carton & Eberz in White Plains.

Mr. Blankinship said the courts will consolidate all the suits
into one class action and decide which law firm and plaintiff will
be the lead.  Most of the suits, like Mr. Casserly's, were filed
in California, where Power Balance is based.

Power Balance spokesman Adam Selwyn of Dig Communications said the
company's only comment is posted on the company Web site.

"Power Balance has made no claims that our product does not
perform," reads a statement by Power Balance President Keith Kato.
"Our products are based on the idea of optimizing the body's
natural energy flow, similar to concepts behind many holistic and
Eastern philosophies."

The site provides testimonials and vague descriptions, but no
studies or evidence of how the product might achieve this.


SHAW CABLESYSTEMS: Faces Class Action Over Disclosure Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed in the Federal Court of Canada
against Calgary-based Shaw Cablesystems G.P. alleges an illegal
practice with respect to the disclosure of interest charges on
overdue accounts.

The suit was filed January 31, 2011, by the law firm of Poyner
Baxter LLP of North Vancouver, alleging a violation of the federal
Interest Act. Such a suit is typically brought in the name of one
or more individuals as "representative of a class," and, if
successful, would apply to all charges imposed by Shaw on overdue
accounts during the past six years pursuant to the Statute of
Limitations.

"Shaw's practice of charging an interest penalty on overdue
accounts is neither uncommon nor illegal, nor is the rate of two
per cent," said lawyer Jim Poyner.  "However, the Interest Act
specifically requires that the annualized rate be fully disclosed
to consumers which, in this case, is two percent compounded
monthly, effectively 26.8 per cent per annum.  If not disclosed,
the law is very clear: the maximum rate that can be charged is
five per cent per annum."

Most firms comply with the law by clearly stating all penalties on
their statements.  Others provide direct links to specific
information on their Web sites.  "No such information or direction
exists on the Shaw statements.  If one mines down deeply enough on
the Shaw Web site, the information can be found, but those who can
find it deserve a prize," Mr. Poyner said.

Shaw provides cable services in multiple locations throughout
Canada, principally from Thunder Bay and Sault St. Marie west, and
dominantly in British Columbia and Alberta.

The Statement of Claim filed in the Federal Court cites "egregious
conduct" and seeks a refund, interest and costs on behalf of all
Shaw customers who paid overdue penalties during the past six
years.

The complete text of the Statement of Claim can be found at
http://www.poynerbaxter.com/

For further information, contact:

          POYNER BAXTER
          Suite 408-145 Chadwick Court North
          Vancouver, B.C. V7M 3K1
          Telephone: (604) 988-6321
          E-mail: classaction@poynerbaxter.com
          Web site: http://www.poynerbaxter.com/


SOUTH AFRICA: Faces Class Action Over Temporary Permit Backlog
--------------------------------------------------------------
News24 reports that an immigration law firm is taking Home Affairs
Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma to court over her department's
delays in processing hundreds of temporary residence applications.

The Cape Town firm, Eisenberg and Associates, three of its
clients, and immigration consultancy Visa One launched what they
called "urgent class action proceedings" in the Western Cape High
Court on Feb. 4.

The firm said in a statement on Feb. 6 that the department's
decision to centralize the adjudication of applications in
Pretoria had created an "untenable situation".

"It appears . . . that sheer incompetence and lack of capacity is
such a widespread problem in the (department) that it can rightly
be said to be in a state of crisis," said Eisenberg.

Also cited as respondents were the department's director general
and other senior national and provincial officials.

"In the application it is alleged that a steadily worsening
bureaucratic backlog of temporary residence permit applications is
threatening livelihoods and businesses, professional reputations
[and] family dynamics," the firm said.

The delays were also costing South Africa direct foreign
investment and the opportunity for visits by world-class
academics.

Eisenberg said that of the 383 clients on whose behalf it had
applied for temporary permits in the past year, 270 applications
remained unresolved, including a number that appeared to have
simply vanished.

British businessman Colin Slessor, who invested R4.6m in a game
farm in Montagu and his tourism business, had been waiting for a
business permit since April 2010.

He had had no feedback from the department and was considering
abandoning the investment.

Brian Ganson, professor of conflict resolution at the Fletcher
School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in the United
States, had applied in June last year for an exceptional skills
permit.

He had been offered a teaching post at the Africa Centre for
Dispute Settlement at the University of Stellenbosch Business
School.

The department claimed his application was favorably adjudicated,
but to date it had been unable to explain the whereabouts of his
work permit.

Of Visa One's 200 temporary residence applications filed in the
past year, 149 had yet to either be approved or rejected by the
department.

Of the two firms' combined 583 temporary residence permit
applications in the past year, 425 were still outstanding.

"This is a staggering statistic.  It means that about two out of
every three applications filed with the (department) will either
be delayed in their adjudication, or will simply disappear,"
Eisenberg said.

"And these are not minor delays.  Approximately 50% of all
undetermined applications have been pending with the (department)
for more than three months."

It said the department had 10 court days to file papers opposing
the application, which sought an order under the Promotion of
Administrative Justice Act to compel the department to decide all
outstanding applications within a reasonable period.

Ms. Dlamini-Zuma's spokesperson was not immediately available for
comment.


STATE FARM: Sued Over "Paid When Incurred" Insurance Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action accuses State
Farm of cheating homeowners of millions of dollars through a
"contrived scheme of withholding insurance proceeds on a 'Paid
When Incurred' (PWI) basis."

A copy of the Complaint in Sun, et al. v. State Farm Fire and
Casualty Company, Case No. 110104763 (Pa. C.P. Cty, Philadelphia
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/04/Insure.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph A. Zenstein, Esq.
          ZENSTEIN GALLANT & PARLOW LAW OFFICES
          One Penn Center, Suite 1270
          1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215-568-2900
          E-mail: jzenstein@zgplaw.com


UNITED LIFE: Class Action Settlement Hearing Canceled
-----------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports a
hearing on the $160,000 settlement of a 2001 class action against
United Life Insurance Company has been canceled.

Madison County Circuit Judge David Hylla had been set to hear
final arguments on the settlement between the insurance company
and a class led by lead plaintiff Christopher Booher on Feb. 4 at
9:30 a.m.

However, the class attorney, Robert Schmieder II and his defense
counter part, James Garrison, already made many of their pleas for
final approval of the settlement last month.

Judge Hylla asked Mr. Schmieder II to present added documentation
of the $64,000 in fees that he and the rest of the class attorneys
would take home before he would enter a ruling.

Mr. Schmieder II earlier filed those documents.

The $160,000 settlement will go to an Illinois class of car buyers
who bought credit insurance through United Life.

Mr. Booher and the class contend that had they known about
commissions United Life paid to the car dealerships selling the
insurance they would have been able to negotiate better rates.

Class members will receive about $19.50 each.

Mr. Booher gets a class representative award of $2,500.

His attorneys, if Judge Hylla approves the settlement, get
$64,000.

United Life does not admit any fault under the agreement.

The case was originally certified as a national class action by
then Madison County Circuit Judge Phillip Kardis.

The suit was one of a number filed by the then legal partnership
of the Lakin Law Firm and the firm of Freed & Weiss.

The partnership fell apart in 2007.

The Wood River Lakin firm is now known as LakinChapman LLC.

Mr. Booher is a high school class mate of LakinChapman managing
partner Bradley Lakin.

He has led at least one other Madison County class action.

In 2006, then-Madison County Circuit Judge Don Weber trimmed the
suit to an Illinois-only class.

Mr. Schmieder II acknowledged that the case had weakened over
time.

He told Judge Hylla at a January fairness hearing that the
settlement, which resulted from mediation last year, was "an
extraordinary result" for class members.

Mr. Garrison told Judge Hylla, when asked about the lack of any
admission of fault at the same hearing, that his client was
confident it could have won the case had it gone to a jury.

The case is Madison case number 01-L-1824.


UNITIL CORPORATION: Still Defends Massachusetts Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Fitchburg, an operating utility of Unitil Corporation, is still
defending itself from a class action complaint in Massachusetts,
according to Unitil's Feb. 3, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

A putative class action complaint was filed against Fitchburg on
January 7, 2009 in Worcester Superior Court in Worcester,
Massachusetts, captioned Bellerman v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric
Light Company.  On April 1, 2009, an Amended Complaint was filed
in Worcester Superior Court and served on Fitchburg. The Amended
Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages including the
cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional
and physical pain and suffering and property damages allegedly
incurred by customers in connection with the loss of electric
service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service territory in
December, 2008.  The Amended Complaint includes M.G.L. ch. 93A
claims for purported unfair and deceptive trade practices related
to the December 2008 Ice Storm.  On September 4, 2009, the
Superior Court issued its order on the Company's Motion to Dismiss
the Complaint, granting it in part and denying it in part. The
Company anticipates that the court will decide whether the lawsuit
is appropriate for class action treatment in the fall of 2011.
The Company continues to believe the suit is without merit and
will defend itself vigorously.


* European Commission Reopens Consultation on Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Foo Yun Chee, writing for Reuters, reports that the European
Commission reopened on Feb. 4 a consultation on a controversial
plan to help consumers and businesses take legal action and get
compensation for harm suffered from illegal business practices.

Interested parties have until the end of April to present their
views.

European Union countries allow victims of anticompetitive
practices to launch class action lawsuits.  However, national
frameworks are marked by different levels of effectiveness and
scope.  Class action suits are rare in Europe.

EU Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia's predecessor,
Neelie Kroes, attempted to set out rules two years ago but backed
down after criticism from companies and lawmakers worried about
U.S.-style lawsuits.

Proponents of an EU-wide approach said this could boost consumer
confidence in the single market.


* OpenMind Solutions Files Copyright Infringement Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Hymes, writing for AVN, reports John Steele, the Chicago-based
family attorney turned "pirate slayer," is trying a new gambit in
his campaign to make suing lots of anonymous people at the same
time for copyright infringement an affordable and achievable
proposition for adult content producers.

Mr. Steele filed a class action lawsuit Feb. 5 on behalf of
OpenMind Solutions, a Web site development company based in Lake
Forest, Calif., and parent entity for the BlazingBucks affiliate
program.  Ars Technica has dubbed the new strategy a "reverse
class action" lawsuit, which sounds more like an Olympic routine
than a legal contortion intended to address the "personal
jurisdiction" issue that has seen recent mass-defendant John Does
lawsuits thrown out by federal judges.

"Imagine yourself as a lawyer who would like nothing better than
to sue a few thousand people for some of the raunchiest
pornography ever inflicted upon the world," wrote Ars Technica's
Nate Anderson.  "You face a problem: when you sue individuals in
federal court, where copyright suits are brought, you have to file
suit in whichever District Court the defendant resides in.  Who
has the time and money to bring cases all over the country?

"Then a brilliant thought strikes," he continued.  "There's one
kind of case in which people from all over the U.S. can be charged
in a single District Court.  It's called a 'class action,' and
it's generally used when a large group of people sue a company.
But flip it around -- one company sues a large group of people --
and you may have solved the 'personal jurisdiction' issue at a
single stroke!"

The 10-page complaint defines the class as "All persons, except
those with whom settlement has been reached, engaged in copyright
infringement activity via BitTorrent file sharing protocol during
relevant time period (October 2010, until the date the Court
enters an order certifying a defendant class) against Plaintiff's
copyrighted works associated with the torrent files enumerated in
Exhibit A."  An alternative sub-class, defined similarly but
limited to "all persons residing in Illinois," also is included.

The complaint also names 1-2,925 Does, but reads, "Plaintiff does
not know the exact number of members of the Class because
Defendants are operating under the cover of anonymous IP addresses
and infringement activity is ongoing.  Due to the nature of the
underlying technology, however, Plaintiff believes that the Class
members number at least in the thousands and are sufficiently
numerous and geographically dispersed throughout the United States
so that joinder of Class members is impractical."

Mr. Steele is seeking an order from the court certifying the
action as a class action pursuant to the federal laws of
procedure, actual and statutory damages to be ascertained at
trial, attorneys' fees and other relief.


                             *********

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  * * *