CAR_Public/110214.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, February 14, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 31

                             Headlines

AEGEAN MARINE: Robbins Geller Files Class action in New York
AMERICAN HONDA: Sued Over Honda Civic Braking System Defect
AMERICAN TACK: Recalls 261,000 LED Night Lights
APARTMENTS DOWNTOWN: Class Action to Benefit Students
ASPEN TECH: Continues to Defend "380544 Canada" Class Action

ATLAS ENERGY: Enters Into MOU to Settle Merger-Related Class Suits
AVX CORP: Still Defends Environmental Contamination Lawsuit
BEAZER HOMES: Obtains Final Approval of ERISA Suit Settlement
BEAZER HOMES: Still Awaits Court Okay of N.C. Suit Settlement
BEAZER HOMES: Still Defends "Drywall" Suit in Florida

BEAZER HOMES: Dismissed From "RESPA" Lawsuit in California
BECTON DICKINSON: Plea for Appellate Review of Settlement Pending
BERNARD MADOFF: JPMorgan Wants "Backdoor Class Action" Moved
BOTTOMLINE TECHNOLOGIES: Awaits Outcome of Settlement Order Appeal
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Still Defending California Class Suit

CANADA: May Face Class Action Over Security Perimeter Agreement
CAPSTONE TURBINE: Appeals Still Pending in IPO Suit Settlement
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Sued for Violation of ICAA Section 8b
CITIGROUP INC: Kentucky Homeowners Drop Foreclosure Class Action
COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Maurice Blackburn Files Class Action

COVENTRY HEALTH: Signs Definitive Settlement Doc on Louisiana Suit
DIONEX CORP: Defends Class Suit Related to Thermo Fisher Merger
DOWNER EDI: Faces Class Action Over Waratah Train Project
E.I. DUPONT: Defends 4 More Drinking Water Suits in 3 States
E.I. DUPONT: Continues to Defend PI Claims in West Virginia Suit

EMCORE CORP: Still Awaits Ruling on IBEW's Motion for Lead Counsel
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Md.
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Finally Settles "Huneault" and "Fischer" Suits
HARBOR CAPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
HEFFLER RADETICH: Sued for Paying Bogus Settlement Fund Claims

HOOVER INC: Recalls 142,000 Hoover(R) WindTunnel Canister Vacuums
IKEA ISRAEL: Communities Mull Class Action Over Feb. 5 Fire
INSURANCE COUNCIL: Queensland Flood Victims Mull Class Action
JOHN THOMAS FINANCIAL: Sued for Violation of New York Labor Law
KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: Awaits Outcome of Appeal of Settlement Order

LASERCARD CORP: Weiss & Lurie Files Class Action in California
MATRIX SERVICE: Final Settlement Payments Expected This Month
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Expects Decision in "Siracusano" Suit by June
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Continues to Defend "Shapiro" Suit in Arizona
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Defends "Schneider" Suit Over Wonder Merger

MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Seeks Final OK of Zicam Economic Injury Suits
META FINANCIAL: Still Defends Suits Over Certificates of Deposit
META FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Two Stockholder Suits in Iowa
MIKI HOUSE: Recalls 10 Windbreaker Jackets
NATIONAL CREDIT: Sued Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices

NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Eagan Avenatti Files Class Action
NAVISITE INC: Being Sold for Too Little, Mass. Suit Claims
NETWORK ENGINES: Awaits Outcome of Appeals on IPO Suit Settlement
NOVA SCOTIA HOME: Two Former Residents File Class Action
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Appeals on Settlement in IPO Suit Remain Pending

PANTRY INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Kansas
PANTRY INC: Still Defends "Amason" Suit in Alabama
PENN VIRGINIA: Enters Into MOU With PVG Merger Class Plaintiffs
SACRAMENTO, CA: Sued Over Illegal Reduction of Medical Coverage
SOLERA HOLDINGS: Still Defends "Total Loss Estimation" Lawsuit

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Motion to Dismiss "Leonelli" Suit Pending
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Motion to Dismiss "Church" Suit Pending
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Defends Consolidated Lawsuit in Florida
STERIS CORP: Records $19.8MM Pre-Tax Charge on Suit Settlement
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Accused of Defrauding Seven Falls Investors

TACO BELL: Turns Class Action Into Facebook Marketing Campaign
TELENAV INC: Court Appoints David Smith as Lead Plaintiff
TERREMARK WORLDWIDE: Defends Four Lawsuits Related to Verizon Deal
TOWERS WATSON: Still Defends "Watson Wyatt" Merger-Related Suit
WARNER MUSIC: Digital Music Download Lawsuit Back in Trial Court

WORLEY CATASTROPHE: Sued Over Non-Payment of Overtime Wages

* HF211 Bill Aims to Curtail Consumer Fraud Class Actions



                             *********

AEGEAN MARINE: Robbins Geller Files Class action in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Feb. 9 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Aegean Marine Petroleum Network Inc. common stock between
January 4, 2010 and February 3, 2011, inclusive, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from February 9, 2011.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H.
Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this Class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/aegeanmarine/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Aegean Marine and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Exchange Act.  Aegean Marine
operates as a marine fuel logistics company that physically
supplies and markets refined marine fuel and lubricants to ships
in port and at sea.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's true financial condition, business and prospects.
Specifically, the complaint alleges: (a) that the Company was
experiencing declining demand for its products and services,
especially in the Singapore and Rotterdam ports; (b) that the
Company was reducing its prices in competitive markets, which had
a significant impact on its profit margins; (c) that the Company's
acquisition of Verbeke Bunkering N.V. was not performing according
to internal expectations; and (d) that, as a result of the
foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive
statements about the Company and its prospects.

On August 11, 2010, Aegean Marine announced its financial results
for the second quarter of 2010, the period ended June 30, 2010.
For the quarter, the Company reported net income of $12.0 million,
and total revenues of $1,336.6 million.  In reaction to the
Company's second quarter financial results, the price of Aegean
Marine stock fell $3.40 per share, or 18%, to close at $15.65 per
share, on heavy trading volume.

On November 10, 2010, Aegean Marine announced its financial
results for the third quarter of 2010, the period ended
September 30, 2010. For the quarter, the Company reported net
income of $4.6 million, and total revenues of $1,340.0 million.
In reaction to this announcement, the price of Aegean Marine stock
fell $5.68 per share, or 36%, to close at $10.28 per share, on
heavy trading volume.

Then, on February 3, 2011, the Company announced its preliminary
financial results for the fourth quarter of 2010.  For the
quarter, the Company expected to report a net loss of between
$12.0 million and $13.0 million.  In reaction to the continuous
decrease in demand for the Company's products and services, the
price of Aegean Marine stock fell $2.22 per share, or 20%, to
close at $8.68 per share, on heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Aegean Marine common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff
is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in
prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller, a 180-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San
Francisco, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia
and Atlanta, -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com/-- is active in major
litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout the
United States and has taken a leading role in many important
actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and
companies, as well as victims of human rights violations.

Contact:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
          Telephone: 800-449-4900
          E-mail: djr@rgrdlaw.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Sued Over Honda Civic Braking System Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
the front brake pads in 2008-2010 Honda Civics wear out
prematurely, and that Honda refuses to repair the braking system
defect under warranty.

A copy of the Complaint in Dunner v. American Honda Motor Co.,
Inc., Case No. 11-cv-01181 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/09/Honda.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert L. Starr, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR
          23277 Ventura Boulevard
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364-1002
          Telephone: (818) 225-9040
          E-mail: starresq@hotmail.com

               - and -

          Payam Shahian, Esq.
          STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES, APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 277-1040
          E-mail: pshahian@slpattorney.com

               - and -

          Dara Tabesh, ESq.
          201 Spear Street, Suite 1100
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 595-9205
          E-mail: dtabesh@hotmail.com


AMERICAN TACK: Recalls 261,000 LED Night Lights
-----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
American Tack & Hardware Co. Inc., of Saddle River, N.J.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 261,000 LED Night Lights.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

An electrical short circuit in the night light can cause it to
overheat and smolder or melt, which can burn consumers or result
in fire.

AmerTac has received 18 reports of the night lights smoking,
burning, melting and/or charring, including three reports of minor
property damage and one of a minor burn injury.

Three night light models are being recalled: model numbers 71193,
71194 and 327879. Only those with KML molded on the back are being
recalled.  All three models have KML, ETL, the AmerTac (TM) logo
and the model number molded on the back of the night lights'
plastic housing.  Model number 71193 is a square shaped, white
plastic unit with a flat translucent square window on the front
and a button for changing the screen color.  Model 71194 and
327879 resemble a computer mouse with white plastic housing and
inset translucent windows on the front and sides.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11123.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
hardware stores, lighting showrooms and home centers nationwide
from March 2009 through January 2011 for about $7.

Consumers should stop using the recalled night lights immediately
and unplug them from the wall.  Contact the firm for instructions
on receiving a full refund.

For additional information, contact AmerTac at (800) 420-7511
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday through
Friday, or visit AmerTac's Web site at http://www.amertac.comor
http://www.recall-center.com/


APARTMENTS DOWNTOWN: Class Action to Benefit Students
-----------------------------------------------------
The Daily Iowan reports that one of the largest property-
management companies in Iowa City is under legal attack.

You may know it as Apartments Downtown Iowa City or its separate
management office, Apartments Near Campus.  In past years it has
been Associated University Realty Inc., AUR Downtown Apartments,
DTA Iowa City Inc., and, most recently, Apartments Downtown Inc.
as of September 2003.

Whichever name you prefer, it has produced a lot of angry tenants.

One such tenant, Michael Conroy, filed a lawsuit against the
company on Dec. 22, 2010.  Mr. Conroy claims Apartments Downtown
knowingly takes advantages of students who are unaware of their
rights and the hidden agreements in their contracts.

"Basically, it's a big bully," Mr. Conroy's attorney, Christopher
Warnock, told the Editorial Board.

It is important for students who feel victimized by the company to
follow in Mr. Conroy's footsteps and join the burgeoning class-
action lawsuit, regardless of how tough the battle may appear.
Students are frequently discouraged from pursuing legal action
because of unfamiliarity with the system, but taking disputes to
the courts empowers citizens to defend their property and rights.

Mr. Warnock and fellow attorney Christine Boyer have been working
on Mr. Conroy's case, petitioning to make it a class-action
lawsuit, something Mr. Warnock strongly recommends when many
people are affected by the same thing.

In this case, Apartments Downtown has allegedly violated several
sections of the Iowa Code by creating leases that abrogate
tenants' rights.  The company allegedly withholds tenants'
security deposits, holds them responsible for damages regardless
of cause, and charges hidden cleaning fees, among other
complaints.

"People are just getting ripped off blatantly," Mr. Warnock said.
"The more we investigate, the worse stuff I find out."

Regardless of the veracity of the lawsuit, petitioning for the
class-action case gives students a chance to really make a change
-- even if, as Mr. Warnock says, class-action lawsuits are
uncommon in Johnson County.

While it may be an unusual way to go in landlord/tenant
situations, housing lawsuits are by no means rare.  Greg Bal, the
supervising attorney at University of Iowa Student Legal Services,
said he has seen 268 students from July through September of this
past year.  Ninety-two of those cases involved landlord/tenant
issues.

"This problem has been recognized for a long time," he said.

Furthermore, Mr. Bal thinks the class action lawsuit is the right
way to go, because he believes it will make it cheaper for the
students in the long run.  He said that a lot of students think
there is nothing they can do in situations such as these and
stresses that Student Legal Services is there to assist students
in finding their legal sea legs.

"We can help them learn about their rights," Mr. Bal told the
Editorial Board.

Mr. Warnock couldn't agree more.  He believes that such lawsuits
haven't come about sooner because students believe that there is
nothing they can do.

"When it comes down to it, they feel like they're alone,"
Mr. Warnock said.  "We don't want to put [landlords] out of
business, but we want them to follow the law.  That's it."

While he is unsure how long this case could take, he believes he
has a good case legally.  Apartments Downtown has never been
challenged on such a broad scale, he said.

The plaintiffs' claims have yet to be legally corroborated, and
the fate of the case is amorphous, but students who participate in
a lawsuit against a perceived abusive entity gain far more than a
legitimate channel to air their grievances: They get experience
with the legal system, which, like it or not, is how American
business is held accountable.  This case is a commendable instance
of students using legal services to defend themselves against
alleged injustice, and it should serve as an inspiration for
others struggling with exploitation.


ASPEN TECH: Continues to Defend "380544 Canada" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Aspen Technology, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit filed by 380544 Canada, Inc., in New York,
according to the Company's Feb. 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2010.

In March 2006, the Company settled class action litigation,
including related derivative claims, arising out of its originally
filed consolidated financial statements for fiscal 2000 through
2004, the accounting for which the Company restated in March 2005.
Certain members of the class (representing 1,457,969 shares of
common stock, or less than 1% of the shares putatively purchased
during the class action period) opted out of the settlement and
had the right to bring their own state or federal law claims
against the Company, referred to as "opt-out" claims. Opt-out
claims were filed on behalf of the holders of approximately 1.1
million of such shares. All but one of these actions were settled
and/or dismissed.

380544 Canada, Inc., et al. v. Aspen Technology, Inc., was filed
on February 15, 2007 in the federal district court for the
Southern District of New York and docketed as Civ. A. No. 1:07-cv-
01204-JFK in that court. The claims in this action include claims
against the Company and one or more of its former officers
alleging securities and common law fraud, breach of contract,
deceptive practices and/or rescissory damages liability, based on
the restated results of one or more fiscal periods included in its
restated consolidated financial statements referenced in the class
action. This action was brought by persons who purchased 566,665
shares of the Company's common stock in a private placement.
Certain motions to dismiss filed by other defendants were resolved
on May 5, 2009.  The claims in the 380544 Canada action are for
damages totaling at least $4.0 million, not including claims for
attorneys' fees. The Company plans to defend the 380544 Canada
action vigorously.


ATLAS ENERGY: Enters Into MOU to Settle Merger-Related Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Energy, Inc., disclosed in a Feb. 7, 2011, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it has
entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle a class
action lawsuit, which is challenging its merger agreement with
Chevron Corporation, pending in Delaware.

On November 9, 2010, Atlas Energy, Inc., and Chevron Corporation
announced that they had entered into a definitive merger
agreement, whereby Chevron would acquire Atlas in a transaction
valued at that time at $4.3 billion, or $43.34 per Atlas share.
The $43.34 per share merger price represented a premium of
approximately 50% over the closing price of Atlas shares on
September 13, 2010 (when Chevron submitted its initial merger
proposal to Atlas) and a 37% premium over the closing price of
Atlas shares on November 8, 2010 (which is the last trading day
before the deal was announced).

Between November 15, 2010 and November 19, 2010, two shareholders
of Atlas -- Jeanna Weber and Abraham Katsman -- filed verified
putative class action complaints in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware challenging the Proposed Transaction. Those
lawsuits initially were styled Weber v. Atlas Energy Inc., et al.
and Katsman v. Atlas Energy Inc., et al.  Four other virtually
identical lawsuits were filed in the Pennsylvania Court of Common
Pleas of Allegheny County and in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania.  On December 10, 2010,
the Pennsylvania State Action was stayed in deference to the
Delaware Action.

On December 28, 2010, Plaintiffs filed an Amended and Verified
Class Action Complaint.  The Amended Complaint alleged that the
Atlas directors breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly
agreeing to an inadequate merger price and conducting an unfair
process in connection with the Proposed Transaction. Plaintiffs
also alleged that Chevron (and its merger subsidiary) aided and
abetted those purported breaches of duty. Additionally, the
Amended Complaint alleged numerous disclosure claims with respect
to Atlas's preliminary proxy statement.

On February 3, 2011, Atlas Energy, Chevron, Merger Sub and the
other defendants in the Delaware Action entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding with the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action. The
Settlement Understanding outlines the terms of the parties'
agreement in principle to settle, dismiss and release all claims
which were or could have been asserted in the Delaware Action, and
is subject to approval by the Court. The Settlement Understanding
contemplates, among other things, that Atlas Energy or its
successor(s) will:

   * after the consummation of the Merger and after the order
     approving the settlement becomes final, pay to each holder of
     record of issued and outstanding shares of Atlas Energy
     common stock as of immediately prior to the effective time of
     the Merger (other than shares owned by Chevron, Merger Sub or
     any other direct or indirect wholly owned subsidiary of
     Chevron) a cash payment of $0.10 for each such share,
     excluding certain stockholders who are directors of Atlas
     Energy and their immediate family members and affiliates. The
     Settlement Understanding further provides that the $0.10
     payment will not be reduced due to the payment of any fees or
     expenses to plaintiffs' counsel and that the payment of any
     such fees and expenses shall be the responsibility of Atlas
     Energy or its successor(s);

   * provide prompt notification to counsel for the plaintiffs,
     subject to the terms of the Stipulation and Order Governing
     the Production and Exchange of Confidential Information
     entered in the Delaware Action, of any competing bids to
     acquire Atlas Energy received from third parties prior to the
     meeting of Atlas Energy stockholders to consider and vote
     upon the adoption of the Merger Agreement scheduled for
     February 16, 2011; and

   * agree to promptly file, as part of a Current Report on
     Form 8-K, the Settlement Understanding and the exhibits
     thereto, including certain paragraphs excerpted from
     plaintiffs' brief in support of their preliminary injunction
     motion regarding the supply-side market risk premium and, as
     derived therefrom, the related weighted average cost of
     capital, discount rate and fairness range, as set forth by
     the plaintiffs in their brief.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum of Understanding is available
for free at: http://is.gd/9gEpSK


AVX CORP: Still Defends Environmental Contamination Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
AVX Corporation is still defending itself in a class action
lawsuit in South Carolina arising from alleged migration of
certain pollutants to areas adjacent to the company's property,
according to the Company's Feb. 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2010.

In September 2007, the company received notice from Horry Land
Company, the owner of property adjacent to the company's Myrtle
Beach, South Carolina factory, that Horry Land Company's property
value had been negatively impacted by alleged migration of certain
pollutants from the company's property and demanding $5,400 in
compensatory damages, exclusive of costs that have not been
determined.  The company investigated the allegations and
determined that the demanded payment was not justified and that
issues of liability, among other issues, exist under environmental
laws.  As a result, in October 2007, the company filed a
declaratory judgment action in United States District Court for
the District of South Carolina under the CERCLA and the Federal
Declaratory Judgment Act, seeking a declaration that the company
is not liable for the property damages claimed by Horry Land
Company and for a determination and allocation of past and future
environmental response costs.  Horry Land Company has asserted its
claims in this suit and it is now proceeding.  In addition, two
other suits have been filed against the company relating to the
same contamination.  One suit was filed in the South Carolina
State Court on November 27, 2007 by certain individuals seeking
certification as a class action which has not yet been determined.
The other suit is a commercial suit filed on January 16, 2008 in
South Carolina State Court by John H. Nance and JDS Development of
Myrtle Beach, Inc.  Both of these suits are pending in South
Carolina state court.  AVX has also sought to join the United
States Air Force as a potentially responsible party.  The company
intends to defend vigorously the claims that have been asserted in
the three related lawsuits.  At this early stage of the
litigation, there has not been a determination as to responsible
parties or the amount, if any, of damages.  With respect to the
related environmental assessment, the Company is in the process of
a feasibility study to evaluate possible remedies and at this
stage have not been able to determine what measures may have to be
undertaken or the likely costs of any such measures.  Accordingly,
the potential impact of either the lawsuits or the remediation on
the Company's financial position, results of operations, and cash
flows cannot be determined at this time.

The Company has reserved approximately $18,645,000 at December 31,
2010, related to environmental matters.


BEAZER HOMES: Obtains Final Approval of ERISA Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes USA, Inc., was dismissed from a class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
after it obtained final court approval of its settlement,
according to the Company's Feb. 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2010.

On April 30, 2007, a putative class action complaint was filed on
behalf of a purported class consisting of present and former
participants and beneficiaries of the Beazer Homes USA, Inc.
401(k) Plan against the Company and certain employees and
directors of the Company. The complaint alleges breach of
fiduciary duties, including those set forth in the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), as a result of the
investment of retirement monies held by the 401(k) Plan in common
stock of Beazer Homes at a time when participants were allegedly
not provided timely, accurate and complete information concerning
Beazer Homes. Four additional lawsuits were filed subsequently
making similar allegations and the court consolidated these five
lawsuits. The parties reached a settlement which was largely
funded by insurance proceeds. Under the terms of the settlement,
the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice and there was a release
of all claims. The court approved the settlement and entered a
final order of dismissal on November 15, 2010.


BEAZER HOMES: Still Awaits Court Okay of N.C. Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes USA, Inc., is still awaiting court approval of a
settlement resolving a lawsuit filed by certain residents of North
Carolina alleging, among other things, violation of Real Estate
Settlement Practices Act, according to the Company's Feb. 8, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2010.

A putative class action was filed on April 8, 2008, in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina,
Salisbury Division, against Beazer Homes, U.S.A., Inc., Beazer
Homes Corp. and Beazer Mortgage Corporation.  The Complaint
alleges that Beazer violated the Real Estate Settlement Practices
Act (RESPA) and North Carolina Gen. Stat. Section 75-1.1 by (1)
improperly requiring homebuyers to use Beazer-owned mortgage and
settlement services as part of a down payment assistance program,
and (2) illegally increasing the cost of homes and settlement
services sold by Beazer Homes Corp.  The purported class consists
of all residents of North Carolina who purchased a home from
Beazer, using mortgage financing provided by and through Beazer
that included seller-funded down payment assistance, between
January 1, 2000 and October 11, 2007.  The parties have reached an
agreement to settle the lawsuit, which will be partially funded by
insurance proceeds and is subject to court approval.  Under the
terms of the settlement, the action will be dismissed with
prejudice, and the Company and all other defendants will not admit
any liability.  The Company said it has accrued a liability for
such matter which is not material to the Company's financial
position or results of operations and is included in the total
litigation accrual.


BEAZER HOMES: Still Defends "Drywall" Suit in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes USA, Inc., is still defending itself in lawsuits
alleging defective drywall pending in Florida, according to the
Company's Feb. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2010.

On June 3, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed by
the owners of one of the Company's homes in its Magnolia Lakes'
community in Ft. Myers, Florida.  The complaint names the Company
and certain distributors and suppliers of drywall and was filed in
the Circuit Court for Lee County, Florida on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and other similarly situated owners of homes in
Magnolia Lakes or alternatively in the State of Florida.  The
plaintiffs allege that the Company built their homes with
defective drywall, manufactured in China, that contains sulfur
compounds that allegedly corrode certain metals and that are
allegedly capable of harming the health of individuals.
Plaintiffs allege physical and economic damages and seek legal and
equitable relief, medical monitoring and attorney's fees.  This
case has been transferred to the Eastern District of Louisiana
pursuant to an order from the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation.  In addition, the Company has been named
in other complaints filed in the multidistrict litigation and
continues to pursue recovery against responsible subcontractors
and drywall suppliers.  The Company believes that the claims
asserted in these actions are governed by its home warranty or are
without merit.  Accordingly, the Company intends to vigorously
defend against this litigation.  Furthermore, the Company has
offered to repair all Beazer homes affected by defective Chinese
drywall pursuant to a repair protocol that has been adopted by the
multidistrict litigation court, including those homes involved in
litigation.  To date, the vast majority of affected Beazer
homeowners have accepted the Company's offer to repair.  The
Company also continues to pursue recovery against responsible
subcontractors, drywall suppliers and drywall manufacturers for
its repair costs.


BEAZER HOMES: Dismissed From "RESPA" Lawsuit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes USA, Inc., was dismissed from a lawsuit filed by
homeowners alleging Real Estate Settlement Practices Act
violations, according to the Company's Feb. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2010.

Beazer Homes and several subsidiaries were named as defendants in
a putative class action lawsuit originally filed on March 12,
2008, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Placer.  The purported class is defined as all persons who
purchased a home from the defendants or their affiliates, with the
assistance of a federally related mortgage loan, from March 25,
1999, to the present where Security Title Insurance Company
received any money as a reinsurer of the transaction.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants violated RESPA and asserts
claims under a number of state statutes alleging that defendants
engaged in a uniform and systematic practice of giving and/or
accepting fees and kickbacks to affiliated businesses including
affiliated and/or recommended title insurance companies.  The
complaint also alleges a number of common law claims.  Plaintiffs
seek an unspecified amount of damages under RESPA, unspecified
statutory, compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive and
declaratory relief, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.
Defendants removed the action to federal court and plaintiffs
filed a Second Amended Complaint which substituted new named-
plaintiffs.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint, which the federal court granted in part.  The
federal court dismissed the sole federal claim, declined to rule
on the state law claims, and remanded the case to the Superior
Court of Placer County.  The Company filed a supplemental motion
to dismiss/demurrer regarding the remaining state law claims in
the Second Amended Complaint and the state court sustained
defendants' demurrer but granted the plaintiffs leave to amend
their claims. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a Third Amended
Complaint which defendants removed to federal court based on the
presence of a federal question and pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act and thereafter moved to dismiss.  The parties have
resolved this litigation. Pursuant to the settlement agreement,
plaintiffs dismissed with prejudice all claims of the of the named
plaintiffs and each side was responsible for its cost and fees.
Except for its own defense costs, the Company made no payment.
The case has now been dismissed with prejudice.


BECTON DICKINSON: Plea for Appellate Review of Settlement Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Co. continues to defend itself against
antitrust class action lawsuits as certain plaintiffs seek
appellate review of their settlement, according to the Company's
Feb. 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2010.

The company is named as a defendant in these purported class
action suits brought on behalf of direct purchasers of the
company's products, such as distributors, alleging that the
company violated federal antitrust laws, resulting in the charging
of higher prices for the company's products to the plaintiff and
other purported class members:

     (1) Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company, Inc., et al. vs.
         Becton Dickinson and Company (filed in the U.S.
         District Court, Newark, New Jersey, on March 25, 2005);

     (2) SAJ Distributors, Inc. et al. vs. Becton Dickinson &
         Co. (filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District
         of Pennsylvania on Sept. 6, 2005);

     (3) Dik Drug Company, et al. vs. Becton, Dickinson and
         Company (filed in the U.S. District Court, Newark, New
         Jersey, Sept. 12, 2005);

     (4) American Sales Company, Inc. et al. vs. Becton,
         Dickinson & Co. (filed in the U.S. District Court,
         Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 3, 2005); and

     (5) Park Surgical Co. Inc. et al. vs. Becton, Dickinson
         and Company (filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern
         District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 26, 2005).

The actions have been consolidated under the caption In re
Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation.

The Company is also named as a defendant in these purported class
action suits brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
products, such as hospitals, alleging that the Company violated
federal and state antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of
higher prices for the Company's products to the plaintiffs and
other purported class members:

     (1) Jabo's Pharmacy, Inc., et al. vs. Becton Dickinson and
         Company (filed in the U.S. District Court, Greenville,
         Tennessee, on June 7, 2005);

     (2) Drug Mart Tallman, Inc., et al. vs. Becton Dickinson and
         Company (filed in the U.S. District Court, Newark, New
         Jersey, on January 17, 2006);

     (3) Medstar vs. Becton Dickinson (filed in the U.S. District
         Court, Newark, New Jersey, on May 18, 2006); and

     (4) The Hebrew Home for the Aged at Riverdale vs. Becton
         Dickinson and Company (filed in the U.S. District Court,
         Southern District of New York, on March 28, 2007).

The plaintiffs in each of these antitrust class action lawsuits
seek monetary damages.  All of the antitrust class action lawsuits
have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a Multi-District
Litigation in Federal court in New Jersey.  On April 27, 2009, the
Company entered into a settlement agreement with the Distributor
Plaintiffs in these actions.  The settlement agreement provided
for, among other things, the payment by the Company of $45 million
in exchange for a release by all potential class members of the
direct purchaser claims under federal antitrust laws related to
the products and acts enumerated in the complaint, and a dismissal
of the case with prejudice, insofar as it relates to direct
purchaser claims.  The release would not cover potential class
members that affirmatively opt out of the settlement.  On
September 30, 2010, the court issued an order denying a motion to
approve the settlement agreement, ruling that the Hospital
Plaintiffs, and not the Distributor Plaintiffs, are the direct
purchasers entitled to pursue damages under the federal antitrust
laws for certain sales of BD products.  The settlement agreement
currently remains in effect, subject to certain termination
provisions, and the Distributor Plaintiffs are seeking appellate
review of the court's order.


BERNARD MADOFF: JPMorgan Wants "Backdoor Class Action" Moved
------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Bray, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports J.P.
Morgan Chase wants a U.S. district court, rather than a bankruptcy
judge, to hear a $6.4 billion lawsuit by the trustee seeking to
recover assets for victims of Bernard Madoff's fraud.

Irving Picard, the Madoff trustee, claims J.P. Morgan ignored or
dismissed warning signs about Mr. Madoff, while collecting
hundreds of millions of dollars in fees.  He's seeking the return
of nearly $1 billion in fees and profits, as well as $5.4 billion
in damages.

In a court filing late on Feb. 8, J.P. Morgan's lawyers said the
trustee's lawsuit goes well beyond the normal purview of a
bankruptcy court and raises "novel and unsettled" questions of
law, including federal securities and banking laws.  They called
the litigation an "enormous backdoor class action" and said the
bank has the right to have the case potentially heard by a jury.

"The trustee has proclaimed that he is pursuing non-bankruptcy
claims on behalf of thousands of Madoff's customers to recover
losses that they suffered as a result of Madoff's scheme," said
John F. Savarese, of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, which is
representing the bank.  "In substance, the trustee is trying to
pursue an enormous backdoor class action to recoup damages
incurred by individuals and entities other than the firm to which
he is the appointed successor."

A central theory of the trustee's case is that J.P. Morgan failed
to comply with federal banking laws, including the Bank Secrecy
Act, the Patriot Act and other related regulations, the bank's
lawyers said.  Namely, Mr. Picard is alleging the bank failed to
comply with requirements that banks "closely observe" their
customers' transactions and conduct extensive investigations of
customers in order to detect potential money laundering, J.P.
Morgan's lawyers said.

In his lawsuit, Mr. Picard, of Baker & Hostetler, claims that J.P.
Morgan bankers discussed the possibility that Madoff was operating
a Ponzi scheme and called his returns "too good to be true."  The
bank reported its suspicions to U.K. authorities in late October
2008, about two months before the fraud came to light, according
to the lawsuit.

J.P. Morgan has called the lawsuit "meritless" and said the bank
"did not know about or in any way became a party to the fraud
orchestrated by Bernard Madoff."


BOTTOMLINE TECHNOLOGIES: Awaits Outcome of Settlement Order Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottomline Technologies, Inc., is still awaiting a ruling on
appeals from an order approving a settlement of a consolidated
securities class action against it, according to the Company's
Feb. 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On August 10, 2001, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York: Paul Cyrek v. Bottomline Technologies, Inc.;
Daniel M. McGurl; Robert A. Eberle; FleetBoston Robertson
Stephens, Inc.; Deutsche Banc Alex Brown Inc.; CIBC World Markets;
and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. A consolidated amended class action
complaint, In re Bottomline Technologies Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, was filed on April 20, 2002.

On November 13, 2001, a class action complaint was filed against
Optio in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York: Kevin Dewey v. Optio Software, Inc.; Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.; Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.;
FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.; Deutsche Bank Securities,
Inc.; Dain Rauscher Inc.; U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc.; C.
Wayne Cape; and F. Barron Hughes. A consolidated amended class
action complaint, In re Optio Software, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, was filed on April 22, 2002.

The amended complaints filed in both the actions against the
Company and Optio assert claims under Sections 11, 12(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  The
amended complaints assert, among other things, that the
descriptions in the Company's and Optio's prospectuses for the
Company's initial public offerings were materially false and
misleading in describing the compensation to be earned by the
underwriters of the offerings, and in not describing certain
alleged arrangements among underwriters and initial purchasers of
the common stock from the underwriters.  The amended complaints
seek damages, costs, attorneys' fees, experts' fees and other
expenses.

In July 2002, the Company and Optio joined in an omnibus motion to
dismiss, which challenged the legal sufficiency of plaintiffs'
claims. The motion was filed on behalf of hundreds of issuer and
individual defendants named in similar lawsuits. On February 19,
2003, the court issued an order denying the motion to dismiss as
to Bottomline and denying in part the motion to dismiss as to
Optio. In addition, in October 2002, Daniel M. McGurl, Robert A.
Eberle, C. Wayne Cape and F. Barron Hughes were dismissed from
this case without prejudice. Both Bottomline and Optio authorized
the negotiation of a settlement of the pending claims, and the
parties negotiated a settlement, which was subject to approval by
the court. On August 31, 2005, the court issued an order
preliminarily approving the settlement.  On December 5, 2006, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned
the District Court's certification of the class of plaintiffs who
are pursuing the claims that would be settled in the settlement
against the underwriter defendants. Plaintiffs filed a Petition
for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc with the Second Circuit on
January 5, 2007 in response to the Second Circuit's decision. On
April 6, 2007, plaintiffs' Petition for Rehearing of the Second
Circuit's decision was denied. On June 25, 2007, the District
Court signed an order terminating the settlement. On September 27,
2007, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in certain
designated "focus cases" in the District Court. That motion was
withdrawn. Neither Bottomline nor Optio's cases are part of the
designated focus case group. On November 13, 2007, the issuer
defendants in the designated focus cases filed a motion to dismiss
the second consolidated amended class action complaints that were
filed in those cases. On March 26, 2008, the District Court issued
an Opinion and Order denying, in large part, the motions to
dismiss the amended complaints in these focus cases. On April 2,
2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of a
new proposed settlement between plaintiffs, the underwriter
defendants, the issuer defendants and the insurers for the issuer
defendants. On June 10, 2009, the Court issued an opinion
preliminarily approving the proposed settlement, and scheduling a
settlement fairness hearing for September 10, 2009. On August 25,
2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of the
proposed settlement, approval of the plan of distribution of the
settlement fund, and certification of the settlement classes. The
settlement fairness hearing was held on September 10, 2009. On
October 5, 2009, the Court issued an opinion granting plaintiffs'
motion for final approval of the settlement, approval of the plan
of distribution of the settlement fund, and certification of the
settlement classes. An order and final judgment was entered on
November 25, 2009. Various notices of appeal of the Court's order
have been filed.  On October 7, 2010, all but two parties who had
filed a notice of appeal filed a stipulation with the court
withdrawing their appeals with prejudice, and the two remaining
objectors filed briefs in support of their appeals. On December 8,
2010, the plaintiffs moved to dismiss with prejudice the appeal
filed by one of the two objectors based on alleged violations of
the Second Circuit's rules, including failure to serve, falsifying
proofs of service, and failure to include citations to the record.
The motion was fully briefed as of December 30, 2010, but the
Second Circuit has not yet ruled on the motion.

The Company, and its subsidiary Optio, intend to vigorously defend
themselves in these actions.  The Company does not currently
believe that the outcome of these proceedings will have a material
adverse impact on its financial condition, results of operations
or cash flows.


BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Still Defending California Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Brinker International, Inc., continues to defend itself from a
class action lawsuit filed in California, according to the
company's February 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 29,
2010.

Certain current and former hourly restaurant team members filed a
lawsuit against the Company in California Superior Court alleging
violations of California labor laws with respect to meal and rest
breaks.  The lawsuit seeks penalties and attorney's fees and was
certified as a class action in July 2006.  On July 22, 2008, the
California Court of Appeal decertified the class action on all
claims with prejudice.  On October 22, 2008, the California
Supreme Court granted a writ to review the decision of the Court
of Appeal.  The Company intends to vigorously defend its position.
It is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of loss, if any.


CANADA: May Face Class Action Over Security Perimeter Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Gingras, writing for The Canadian, reports that a group of
Canadians currently identifying themselves as the "Group of 12"
claims that they are contemplating class action litigation against
the Security Perimeter Agreement in Quebec Civil Courts.

The "Group of 12" is made up of lawyers, intellectuals and self-
described activists, and is without a formal leader.  Instead this
group is operating in what could be described as a cooperative
fashion.

The grounds for their prospective "class action" legal claim
against the Harper government, and what they also describe as
their "accomplices" in Parliament, is that the Security Perimeter
(i) violates the Constitution Act, 1867; (ii) the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms (iii) constitutes treason, and a breach of
the fiduciary obligation of the Harper government to defend the
best interests of Canadians, (iv) and parliamentary law that is
also related to Canadian constitutional customs and conventions.

The Constitution Act, 1867 established the Confederation of
Canada, and de facto, Canada's sovereignty from the United States,
which was disregarded by Harper's treaty with Obama that will
result in no effective border between Canada and the United
States.

Along with 'no border', the Agreement effectively cancels out
'parliamentary supremacy' with a return to colonial status for
Canada under U.S. laws and security arrangements.

According to the "Group of 12", the Agreement also constitutes a
breach of 'freedom of conscience' and legal rights of Canadians
guaranteed by the Charter to the extent to which the Agreement
will now require Canadians to be subjected to the "Big Brother"
jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The "Group of 12" also argues that the Harper government also had
a legal obligation for to subject the full wording of the
Agreement to parliamentary hearings and full public scrutiny under
Canada's customs and conventions; and that the Harper government
is also in breach of his Oath to Her Majesty the Queen of Canada
to defend the sovereignty of Canada, and inherent constitutional
obligations.

The "Group of 12" says that Canadians should by no means rely on
them as "their savior" -- "all Canadians must participate in the
saving of our country."  The "Group of 12" encourages other
Canadians to contemplate their own legal rights and access to
courts and says that a nation is only as strong as the willingness
to the people themselves to defend their own community from alien
control or foreign conquest.


CAPSTONE TURBINE: Appeals Still Pending in IPO Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Capstone Turbine Corporation continues to defend itself against
appeals from an opinion granting final approval of a settlement of
a purported stockholder class action lawsuit in New York,
according to the Company's February 7, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2010.

In December 2001, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, two of its then
officers, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering. The suit purports to be a class action filed on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from
June 28, 2000 to December 6, 2000. An amended complaint was filed
on April 19, 2002. The plaintiffs allege that the prospectuses for
the Company's June 28, 2000 initial public offering and
November 16, 2000, secondary offering were false and misleading in
violation of the applicable securities laws because the
prospectuses failed to disclose the underwriter defendants'
alleged agreement to allocate stock in these offerings to certain
investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions
and agreements to make additional purchases of stock in the
aftermarket at pre-determined prices. Similar complaints have been
filed against hundreds of other issuers that have had initial
public offerings since 1998; the complaints have been consolidated
into an action captioned In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, No. 21 MC 92. On October 9, 2002, the plaintiffs
dismissed, without prejudice, the claims against the named
officers and directors in the action against the Company, pursuant
to the terms of Reservation of Rights and Tolling Agreements
entered into with the plaintiffs. Subsequent addenda to the
Tolling Agreements extended the tolling period through August 27,
2010. The District Court directed that the litigation proceed
within a number of "focus cases" and on October 13, 2004, the
District Court certified the focus cases as class actions. The
Company's case is not one of these focus cases. The underwriter
defendants appealed that ruling, and on December 5, 2006, the
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the District
Court's class certification decision. On August 14, 2007, the
plaintiffs filed their second consolidated amended complaints
against the six focus cases and on September 27, 2007, again moved
for class certification. On November 12, 2007, certain of the
defendants in the focus cases moved to dismiss the second
consolidated amended class action complaints. On March 26, 2008,
the District Court denied the motions to dismiss except as to
Section 11 claims raised by those plaintiffs who sold their
securities for a price in excess of the initial offering price and
those who purchased outside the previously certified class period.
The motion for class certification was withdrawn without prejudice
on October 10, 2008.

On April 2, 2009, a stipulation and agreement of settlement
between the plaintiffs, issuer defendants and underwriter
defendants was submitted 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. On August 26, 2010, based on the expiration of the
tolling period stated in the Tolling Agreements, the plaintiffs
filed a Notice of Termination of Tolling Agreement and
Recommencement of Litigation against the named officers and
directors. The plaintiffs stated to the Court that they do not
intend to take any further action against the named officers and
directors at this time.

Appeals of the opinion granting final approval have been filed.
Because of the inherent uncertainties of litigation and because
the settlement remains subject to appeal, the ultimate outcome of
the matter is uncertain. Management believes that the outcome of
this litigation will not have a material adverse impact on its
consolidated financial position and results of operations.


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Sued for Violation of ICAA Section 8b
--------------------------------------------------------
Carole Grant-Hall and Paul J. Asiama, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, and
Kevin M. Kelly, P.C., Case No. 2011-CH-04594 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook
Cty. February 7, 2011), allege violations of the Illinois
Collection Agency Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act by
Cavalry, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by both
defendants.

Defendant Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, is engaged in the
business of a collection agency.  It is a licensee under the
Illinois Collection Agency Act, 225 ILCS 425/1 et seq.

Defendant Kevin M. Kelly, P.C.'s practice consists of the
collection of alleged consumer debts.  The plaintiffs believes
that the law firm represents Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, in
about half the lawsuits Cavalry files in Illinois.

The plaintiffs say that the exclusive means whereby a collection
agency can file a lawsuit in Illinois in its own name on a debt
that it does not beneficially own is pursuant to Section 8b of the
Collection Agency Act, 225 ILCS 425/8b, which provides that an
assignment to a collection agency for collection "with title
passing to the collection agency to enable collection of the
account in the agency's name as assignee for the creditor" must,
among other things, be "manifested by a written agreement,
separate from and in addition to any document intended for the
purpose of listing a debt with a collection agency."

The plaintiffs aver that none of the lawsuits filed by defendants
was based on an assignment in the form specified in ICAA Section
8b, and therefore the filing thereof constitutes an illegal
practice of law.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200


CITIGROUP INC: Kentucky Homeowners Drop Foreclosure Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Amon, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Kentucky
homeowners dropped a possible class-action suit in which Citigroup
Inc. and Ally Financial Inc. units were accused of conspiring with
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. to falsely foreclose
on loans.

Heather Boone McKeever, the Lexington, Kentucky, lawyer who sued
on behalf of the homeowners, said yesterday by e-mail that she
dropped the case Feb. 3 because as a solo practitioner she
wouldn't be able to clear the "necessary hurdles" for maintaining
a federal class action and she couldn't interest a larger law
firm. She said she continues to advise the plaintiffs in their
individual state-court cases.

"My plan is to try to keep the cases in state court by filing
class-action counterclaims against the individual creditors and
MERS in each family's action," she said.

The lawsuit, filed as a civil-racketeering case on behalf of all
Kentucky homeowners facing foreclosure, also named as a defendant
Reston, Virginia-based MERS, the company that handles mortgage
transfers among member banks.

MERS and banks have been accused in at least two other federal
suits of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, a law originally passed to pursue organized
crime. A Florida case was thrown out Jan. 31 by a judge in Miami.
Another is in Brooklyn, New York.

The Kentucky homeowners filed their complaint Sept. 28 in
Louisville. They claimed that through MERS the banks are
foreclosing on homes even when they don't hold titles to the
properties. The suit was dismissed without prejudice, meaning that
the homeowners can refile it.

The case is Foster v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems
Inc., 10-cv-611, U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky
(Louisville).


COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Maurice Blackburn Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Darin Tyson-Chan, writing for InvestorDaily, reports that a class
action has been taken out against Commonwealth Financial Planning.

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers has initiated a class action against
Commonwealth Financial Planning Limited, the wholly owned advisory
arm of Commonwealth Bank of Australia.

The action has been filed on behalf of individuals who received
inappropriate investment advice from Don Nguyen, a former
authorized representative of CFPL.

Maurice Blackburn alleged CFPL engaged in misleading or deceptive
conduct in relation to these clients and Mr. Nguyen breached
various provisions of the Corporations Act.  Elizabeth Saunders,
who was a former client of Mr. Nguyen's and sought retirement
advice from him in 2007, is the lead applicant in the case.

"Commonwealth Financial Planning Limited has not denied that Don
Nguyen had failed his clients.  They have accepted that he did
cause losses," Maurice Blackburn managing principal Ben Slade
said.

"The gripe we have is twofold.  One is their resolution process is
conducted completely by them and there is no independent
assistance for the victims of that conduct.  And secondly there is
this body out there contacting people who we call a claims farmer,
and we are concerned that without court supervision for this
resolution people will be in severe difficulty and [may] find
themselves worse off than before they met Mr. Nguyen."

Separately, The Investor Daily's Mr. Tyson-Chan reports that the
class action against CFPL has been driven by two main factors.

Flaws in the compensation process for victims of poor investment
advice received from Mr. Nguyen coupled with an unsolicited offer
of assistance in the matter from a separate party were the
motivating factors behind the class action Maurice Blackburn has
brought against the Commonwealth Bank-owned dealer group.

"We are concerned that the compensation regime set up by
Commonwealth Financial Planning Limited and supervised by ASIC is
not working and it's not to the extent it should and that those
people who have suffered loss at the hands of Commonwealth
Financial Planning should be compensated and should be compensated
sensibly and we're afraid that's not happening," Mr. Slade said.

"We're also very concerned there's an organization who is preying
on the victims of this wrongful conduct by directly contacting
them and offering to help them have their issue resolved and we
think it's important to move quickly to ensure that the Federal
Court has supervision of the resolution of these claims."

The third party in question, Financial Resolutions Australia, has
been sending out unsolicited letters to individuals who it says
"fit a profile of persons that have used a financial planner and
has suffered a financial loss as a result of their financial
advice" in the correspondence.

In regard to the compensation process CFPL is working through with
ASIC, Slade said there was not enough objectivity and
understanding of the financial planning process involved.

"It's not good enough for Commonwealth Financial Planning Limited
to make their own assessment of what the position of the people
should have been, to make their own assessment of what their
losses are, and to claim they're getting some level of independent
supervision through an accounting firm which only checks numbers,"
he said.

Retired public servant and former Mr. Nguyen client Elizabeth
Saunders is the lead applicant in the class action.

Maurice Blackburn to date remains unsure of how many parties will
be included in the group members of the action.  In time these
people will be notified of the proceedings by CFPL under order of
the court and given the choice to join the action or opt out of
it.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Signs Definitive Settlement Doc on Louisiana Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In a Feb. 8, 2011, Form 8-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, Coventry Health Care, Inc., disclosed that it has
executed a definitive settlement agreement with plaintiffs of a
class action lawsuit pending in Louisiana.

On July 2, 2010, the Company announced that it would incur a non-
recurring pre-tax charge to earnings in the second quarter of 2010
in the amount of $278 million, or $1.18 EPS, related to a class
action lawsuit filed by providers in Louisiana.  The Company
believes that disclosing adjusted earnings, which exclude the
impact of this litigation, provides a more meaningful measure of
its operating results for comparison to future periods and
previously announced guidance.  As previously reported on
December 6, 2010, the Company entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with plaintiffs counsel and the provider class
setting forth the settlement terms to reduce the amount payable to
$150.5 million.

On February 2, 2011, the parties executed a definitive settlement
agreement, acceptable to the Company, which incorporated the terms
and conditions set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding.
Given various contingencies such as court approvals and class
acceptance of settlement provisions which must be satisfied before
the settlement becomes final, no reduction has been made to the
previously recorded amount.

The Class Action Reporter previously reported that on December 6,
2010, First Health Group Corp., a subsidiary of the Company,
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with attorneys
representing the plaintiffs and the class setting forth the
settlement terms of the class action lawsuit filed in Louisiana
state court against FHGC and certain payors.  The Memorandum of
Understanding provides that subject to the execution of a
settlement agreement acceptable to FHGC and final non-appealable
approval of such settlement by the Louisiana state court, FHGC
will pay $150.5 million to resolve claims for which Coventry in
July 2010 announced a pre-tax charge of $278 million.  In
addition, Coventry will assign to the class certain rights it has
to the proceeds of FHGC's insurance policies relating to the
claims asserted by the class.  Pursuant to the Memorandum of
Understanding, the parties have also agreed to request that the
appropriate courts stay all related proceedings and consideration
of any pending appellate writ applications and to stay the effect
of any outstanding judgments until the settlement agreement is
prepared, executed and receives final court approval.  The lawsuit
alleged that FHGC violated Louisiana's Any Willing Provider Act,
which requires a payor accessing a preferred provider network
contract to give a one-time notice 30 days before that payor uses
the discount rate in the preferred provider network contract to
pay the provider for services rendered to a member insured under
that payor's health benefit plan.  After the Louisiana state court
class action had been filed, FHGC and certain payors who access
FHGC's provider contracts, filed suit in federal  district court
against the same four provider plaintiffs who filed the state
court class action, seeking a declaratory judgment that FHGC's
contracts are valid and enforceable; that its contracts are not
subject to the Act because the Act does not apply to medical
services rendered to injured workers; and that FHGC is exempt from
the notice requirements of the Act.  The federal district court
granted judgment in favor of FHGC.  Despite the federal court's
judgment and subsequent order enjoining them from pursuing any
claim under the Act against FHGC, the plaintiffs continued to
pursue their state court class action against FHGC and filed a
motion for partial summary judgment seeking damages of $2,000 for
each provider visit where the provider was not given a benefit
identification card at the time the service was performed.  The
state trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion and entered
judgment against FHGC for $262 million.  FHGC's appeal of the
partial summary judgment order to the state's intermediate
appellate court was denied.  FHGC has filed an application for a
writ of appeal with the Louisiana Supreme Court with respect to
the partial summary judgment order.  The decision to grant or deny
the application for a writ of appeal is at the discretion of the
Louisiana Supreme Court.  The application is still pending before
the Louisiana Supreme Court.  As a result of the Louisiana
appellate court's decision on July 1, 2010 to affirm the state
trial court's summary judgment order, Coventry recorded a $278
million pre-tax charge to earnings during the second quarter of
2010.  This amount represents the $262 million judgment amount
plus post judgment interest.  Coventry has accrued for legal fees
expected to be incurred related to this case as well as post
judgment interest subsequent to the second quarter charge and will
continue to accrue post judgment interest until a final non-
appealable court approval of the settlement has been obtained.  In
exchange for the settlement payment by FHGC, class members will
release FHGC and all of its affiliates and clients for any claims
relating in any way to re-pricing, payment for, or reimbursement
of a workers' compensation bill, including but not limited to
claims under the Act. Plaintiffs have also agreed to a notice
procedure that FHGC may follow in the future to comply with the
Act. As noted, the Memorandum of Understanding is contingent upon
the execution of a definitive settlement agreement acceptable to
FHGC.  Under Louisiana law, once the parties have executed such a
settlement agreement, they must apply to the court for approval of
the settlement following a court-supervised process of notice to
the class and an opportunity for the class to be heard about the
fairness of the settlement or exclude themselves from the
settlement.


DIONEX CORP: Defends Class Suit Related to Thermo Fisher Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dionex Corporation is defending itself from a class action lawsuit
filed by parties against the Company's acquisition by another
company, according to the Company's Feb. 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.

On December 12, 2010, Dionex, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., and
Weston D Merger Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of Thermo Fisher,
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which
Merger Sub will, subject to the satisfaction or waiver of the
conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, merge with and into
Dionex and Dionex will survive the merger and continue as a wholly
owned subsidiary of Thermo Fisher.  Pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement and subject to the conditions thereof, at the
effective time of the Merger, each share of common stock of Dionex
issued and outstanding immediately prior to the Effective Time
will be converted into the right to receive $118.50 in cash,
without interest.

On December 14, 2010, Dr. Alan Weisberg filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara, purportedly on behalf of the stockholders
of Dionex, against Dionex, its directors and Thermo Fisher,
alleging, among other things, that Dionex's directors, aided and
abetted by Dionex and Thermo Fisher, breached their fiduciary
duties owed to Dionex stockholders in connection with the proposed
acquisition of Dionex by Thermo Fisher and Purchaser.  The
complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the defendants from
completing the acquisition as currently contemplated.  Dionex
intends to take all appropriate actions to defend the lawsuit.


DOWNER EDI: Faces Class Action Over Waratah Train Project
---------------------------------------------------------
Adele Fergusson, writing for BusinessDay, reports embattled
engineering and contracting group Downer EDI has been whacked with
a proposed shareholder class action over allegations it misled the
market over its controversial Waratah train project.

Litigation funder IMF will bankroll the class action, speculated
to be as much as $100 million, alleging the company failed to keep
the market fully informed between February 2010 and June 1, when
it made a shock $190 million writedown related to its Waratah rail
project in NSW, forcing it to miss its profit targets.

BusinessDay revealed in August that IMF was considering bringing a
class action against Downer over lack of transparency in the
months leading up to the June 1 write-downs.

The news may become the latest setback for the company's shares
ahead of an expected rights issue.  In early trading, the stock
was down as much as 5 cents, or 1.3%, to $3.96.  A year ago, the
shares were as high as $8.62.

IMF alleges that during the period the company engaged in
misleading and deceptive conduct, and allegedly breached its
continuous disclosure obligations, which saw the share price fall
more than 27% in one day, wiping out $1.1 billion in market value.

IMF said in a note to the ASX that shareholders who purchased
shares in Downer during the period between February 25 and May 31,
2010 may be eligible to participate in the claim, which IMF will
fund subject to specific factors set out in the funding document,
including a level of participation acceptable by IMF.

In a note, CBA Institutional Equities analyst Ben Brownette wrote:
"This is clearly a blow to the company and as we understand has
the potential to be widened in relation to the second provision,
which appears to be similar circumstances."

In May 2007 IMF bankrolled legal action against Downer alleging
the group's profit forecast for 2006 was misleading.

"We understand this (action) was a $100 million claim -- but are
unsure of what Downer paid as a settlement (IMF announced at the
time it received $6.8 million.  Given IMF's commission normally
range between 20 per cent and 45 per cent, the settlement was
probably only in the order of $15-35 million)," Mr. Brownette
said.

Rights issue

The news of a class action comes ahead of the release of Downer's
half-early results, scheduled for February 28, which is expected
to include a renounceable rights issue -- inviting all investors
to participate -- which analysts estimate will exceed $200
million.

It follows a shock announcement two weeks ago of a $250 million
provision against the Waratah project, bringing the total loss on
the project to $440 million.

Downer won the $3.6 billion contract in November 2006 as part of a
so-called Reliance Rail consortium, of which Downer is the major
equity holder with a 49% stake, and for almost four years told the
market through various presentations that all targets relating to
the Waratah project were being met.

At its interim profit result last February Downer re-stated that
there was no material change to full year earnings guidance and
stated: "The core rail business continues to perform well" and
"the front end manufacturing phase of the NSW Waratah Project
increases funds employed".  The shares traded at the time at
$7.90.

Then on May 25, 2010, it put out a statement in response to market
speculation that Reliance Rail -- the consortium responsible for
the Waratah project -- had funding arrangements that were on a
non-recourse basis to Downer and the other Reliance Rail
shareholders (AMP, ABN Amro and Babcock and Brown).  The shares
were trading then at $6.45. They closed yesterday at $4.01.

A week later Downer announced that following an assessment of the
Waratah train project and review of asset carrying values, it has
raised a $190 provision on the $1.9 billion Waratah rolling stock
manufacture project and a $70 million pre-tax asset impairment
charge.

Profit downgrades, delays, credibility issues and a revolving door
for chief executives, directors and senior executives, have been a
recurring theme of the group, leaving shareholders out of pocket
and seeking compensation.


E.I. DUPONT: Defends 4 More Drinking Water Suits in 3 States
------------------------------------------------------------
E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company is defending itself from four
more water contamination lawsuits in three states, according to
its Feb. 8, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

At December 31, 2010, there were four additional actions pending
brought by or on behalf of water district customers in New Jersey,
Ohio and West Virginia.  The cases generally claim PFOA
contamination of drinking water and seek a variety of relief
including compensatory and punitive damages, testing, treatment,
remediation and monitoring.  In addition, the two New Jersey class
actions and the Ohio action, brought by the Little Hocking Water
Association, claim "imminent and substantial endangerment to
health and or the environment" under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act.  In December 2010, the company reached an agreement
in principle to settle the two New Jersey class actions subject to
court approval.  Approval was denied and the parties are
considering revised settlement terms for potential resubmission to
the court.  If a revised settlement is not reached and approved,
litigation will resume.  Discovery has just begun in the Ohio
class action.  In the West Virginia class action, the court
entered judgment for DuPont in the first quarter 2010.
Plaintiffs' appeal of the matter was heard by the Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals in late January 2011.

DuPont denies the claims alleged in these civil drinking water
actions and is defending itself vigorously.


E.I. DUPONT: Continues to Defend PI Claims in West Virginia Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company continues to defend itself from
personal injury claims remaining in a class action lawsuit in West
Virginia, according to its Feb. 8, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2010.

DuPont uses PFOA (collectively, perfluorooctanoic acids and its
salts, including the ammonium salt), as a processing aid to
manufacture fluoropolymer resins and dispersions at various sites
around the world including its Washington Works plant in West
Virginia.

In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v DuPont, was
filed in West Virginia state court against DuPont and the Lubeck
Public Service District.  The complaint alleged that residents
living near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may
suffer, deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA in
drinking water.  The relief sought included damages for medical
monitoring, diminution of property values and punitive damages
plus injunctive relief to stop releases of PFOA.  DuPont and
attorneys for the class reached a settlement agreement in 2004 and
as a result, the company established accruals of $108 million in
2004.  The settlement binds a class of approximately 80,000
residents. As defined by the court, the class includes those
individuals who have consumed, for at least one year, water
containing 0.05 parts per billion (ppb) or greater of PFOA from
any of six designated public water sources or from sole source
private wells.

In July 2005, the company paid the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and
expenses of $23 million and made a payment of $70 million, which
class counsel has designated to fund a community health project.
The company is also funding a series of health studies by an
independent science panel of experts in the communities exposed to
PFOA to evaluate available scientific evidence on whether any
probable link exists between exposure to PFOA and human disease.
The company expects the independent science panel to complete
these health studies between 2009 and year-end 2011 at a total
estimated cost of $32 million.  In addition, the company is
providing state-of-the art water treatment systems designed to
reduce the level of PFOA in water to six area water districts,
including the Little Hocking Water Association (LHWA), until the
science panel determines that PFOA does not cause disease or until
applicable water standards can be met without such treatment.  All
of the water treatment systems are operating.

The settlement resulted in the dismissal of all claims asserted in
the lawsuit except for personal injury claims.  If the independent
science panel concludes that no probable link exists between
exposure to PFOA and any diseases, then the settlement would also
resolve personal injury claims.  If it concludes that a probable
link does exist between exposure to PFOA and any diseases, then
DuPont would also fund up to $235 million for a medical monitoring
program to pay for such medical testing.  In this event,
plaintiffs would retain their right to pursue personal injury
claims.  All other claims in the lawsuit would remain dismissed by
the settlement.  DuPont believes that it is remote that the panel
will find a probable link.  Therefore, at December 31, 2010, the
company has not established any accruals related to medical
monitoring or personal injury claims.  However, there can be no
assurance as to what the independent science panel will conclude.


EMCORE CORP: Still Awaits Ruling on IBEW's Motion for Lead Counsel
------------------------------------------------------------------
EMCORE Corp. is still awaiting a ruling on a renewed motion filed
by the lead plaintiff of a consolidated class action against the
Company, for approval of its selection of counsel, according to
the Company's Feb. 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2010.

On December 23, 2008, Plaintiffs Maurice Prissert and Claude
Prissert filed a purported stockholder class action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 allegedly on behalf of a class
of Company shareholders against the Company and certain of its
present and former directors and officers in the United States
District Court for the District of New Mexico captioned, Maurice
Prissert and Claude Prissert v. EMCORE Corporation, Adam Gushard,
Hong Q. Hou, Reuben F. Richards, Jr., David Danzilio and Thomas
Werthan, Case No. 1:08cv1190 (D.N.M.).  The Complaint alleges that
the Company and the Individual Defendants violated certain
provisions of the federal securities laws, including Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of the
Company's disclosure regarding its customer Green and Gold Energy
and the associated backlog of GGE orders with the Company's
Photovoltaics business segment.  The Complaint in the Prissert
Class Action seeks, among other things, an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages and other costs and expenses associated with
the maintenance of the action.  On or about February 12, 2009, a
second purported stockholder class action (Mueller v. EMCORE
Corporation et al., Case No. 1:09cv 133 (D.N.M.) was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Mexico
against the same defendants named in the Prissert Class Action,
based on substantially the same facts and circumstances,
containing substantially the same allegations and seeking
substantially the same relief.

Plaintiffs in both class actions have moved to consolidate the
matters into a single action.  On September 25, 2009, the court
issued an order consolidating both the Prissert and Mueller
actions into one consolidated proceeding, but denied plaintiffs
motions for appointment of a lead plaintiff or lead plaintiff's
counsel.  On July 15, 2010, the court appointed IBEW Local Union
No. 58 Annuity Fund to serve as lead plaintiff, but denied,
without prejudice, IBEW's motion to appoint lead counsel.  On
August 24, 2010, IBEW filed a renewed motion for appointment as
lead plaintiff and for approval of its selection of counsel.  That
motion remains pending.


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Md.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Resources, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated class
action lawsuit in Maryland.

Between 2003 and 2006, following industry-wide market timing and
late trading investigations by U.S. and Canadian regulators, and
U.S. state government offices, Franklin and certain related
parties were named in civil lawsuits in the U.S. and one of
Franklin's adviser subsidiaries was named in civil lawsuits in
Canada.

In the U.S., the lawsuits were filed against Franklin and certain
of its adviser and distributor affiliates, individual Franklin
officers and directors, a former Franklin employee, and trustees
of certain Franklin Templeton Investments mutual funds.  In 2004,
the lawsuits were consolidated for coordinated proceedings with
similar lawsuits against numerous other mutual fund complexes in a
multi-district litigation titled "In re Mutual Funds Investment
Litigation," pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland, Case No. 04-md-15862.  Plaintiffs filed consolidated
amended complaints in the MDL on September 29, 2004. The three
consolidated lawsuits involving the Company include a class action
(Sharkey IRO/IRA v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No.
04-cv-01310), a derivative action on behalf of the Funds (McAlvey
v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-cv-01274), and a
derivative action on behalf of Franklin (Hertz v. Burns, et al.,
Case No. 04-cv-01624) and seek, among other forms of relief, one
or more of the following: unspecified monetary damages; punitive
damages; removal of Fund trustees, directors, advisers,
administrators, and distributors; rescission of management
contracts and distribution plans under Rule 12b-1 promulgated
under the Investment Company Act of 1940; and attorneys' fees and
costs.

On February 25, 2005, the Company-related defendants filed motions
to dismiss the consolidated amended class action and Fund
derivative action complaints. On June 26, 2008, the court issued
its order granting in part and denying in part the Company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint.
In its order, the court dismissed certain claims, while allowing
others under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and under Sections 36(b) and 48(a) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 to remain, and dismissed all class action
claims against the named Funds. Pursuant to stipulation, the court
also dismissed all claims against certain individual defendants,
including the independent trustees to the named Funds, and a
former Franklin executive. On September 4, 2009, the court entered
as its order the parties' stipulation to dismiss without prejudice
the remaining Fund trustee defendants named in the consolidated
amended class action complaint. On January 12, 2010, lead
plaintiff in the consolidated class action filed a second
consolidated amended class action complaint.  The Company-related
defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment in the
consolidated class action on March 24, 2010, and lead plaintiff
filed its opposition and cross-motion for partial summary judgment
on June 4, 2010. All briefing on the motions was completed in late
August 2010. The Company-related defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated fund derivative action remains under submission with
the court, and, pursuant to stipulation, that action is stayed
pending resolution of the cross-motions for partial summary
judgment in the consolidated class action. In addition, pursuant
to stipulation, the derivative action brought on behalf of
Franklin has been stayed since 2004.

Management strongly believes that the claims made in each of the
unresolved lawsuits are without merit and the Company intends to
defend against them vigorously. The Company cannot predict with
certainty, however, the eventual outcome of those lawsuits, nor
whether they will have a material negative impact on the Company.

No updates were reported in the Company's Feb. 8, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2010.


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Finally Settles "Huneault" and "Fischer" Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Resources, Inc., has obtained court approval of its
settlement of two class action lawsuits pending in Canada,
according to the Company's Feb. 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2010.

Between 2003 and 2006, following industry-wide market timing and
late trading investigations by U.S. and Canadian regulators, and
U.S. state government offices, Franklin and certain related
parties were named in civil lawsuits in the U.S. and one of
Franklin's adviser subsidiaries was named in civil lawsuits in
Canada.

In Canada, Franklin Templeton Investments Corp., a Franklin
subsidiary and the manager of Franklin Templeton Investments'
Canadian mutual funds, is named (along with several other non-
Franklin affiliated manager defendants) in two market timing
lawsuits that are styled as class actions (Huneault v. AGF Funds,
Inc., et al., Case No. 500-06-000256-046, filed in the Superior
Court for the Province of Quebec, District of Montreal on
October 25, 2004, and Fischer v. IG Investment Management Ltd., et
al., Case No. 06-CV-307599CP, filed in the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice on March 9, 2006). The lawsuits seek, among other forms
of relief, one or more of the following: unspecified monetary
damages, punitive damages, an order barring any increase in
management fees for a period of two years following judgment, and
attorneys' fees and costs. Oral argument on petitioners' motion
for authorization to institute a class action in the Huneault
lawsuit concluded on May 5, 2009, and the court then took the
matter under submission. Separately, on January 12, 2010, the
court in the Fischer lawsuit denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, and plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of that
ruling on February 22, 2010. On July 20, 2010, Franklin Templeton
Investments Corp. and the plaintiffs reached an agreement-in-
principle to resolve both the Huneault and Fischer actions for a
total proposed payment of approximately $5.0 million, subject to
certain conditions including certification of a class in each
lawsuit on consent for settlement purposes and court approval of
the settlement.  Both courts certified the respective classes in
September 2010 and approved the settlements on December 17, 2010.


HARBOR CAPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Fax Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Dinan, writing for SeacoastOnline.com, reports that a
Newington company broke federal law by faxing more than 10,000
unsolicited advertisements to thousands of Americans and should
pay the reluctant recipients a combined $5 million, according to a
civil suit filed in the U.S. District Court of New Hampshire.

Filed by Concord attorney Michael Sheehan on behalf of thousands
of possible plaintiffs, the class action suit alleges Harbor
Capital Corp. of 121 Shattuck Way broke the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by faxing ads promoting its commercial
financial services.

The Act was passed by Congress in 1991 with an underlying belief
that unsolicited and faxed advertisements shifted advertising
costs to recipients while tying up their fax machines.

"Supersize your next purchase" reads one of HCC's advertisements
allegedly faxed to Menachem Raitport of Brooklyn, New York,
against his wishes and at his expense.  That fax is included with
the lawsuit alleging Raitport and other recipients of HCC's faxed
ads were harmed by HCC which either misunderstood the law or
relied on representation from others about the law.

In violation of federal law, the unsolicited faxes did not include
an opt-out notice on the first pages and a phone number for opting
out, according to the suit.  The faxes were reportedly sent over a
four year period, were unsolicited by the recipients and did not
include the required notice, Mr. Shaheen alleges.

The suit claims the ads were faxed to "at a minimum, thousands" of
people who can be identified through HCC's fax and marketing
records.  According to court records, Sheehan estimates the value
of the lawsuit to be in excess of $5 million, exclusive of
interest and costs.

HCC is being represented by attorney Bill Christie from the
Concord law firm of Shaheen and Gordon.  He could not immediately
be reached for comment Wednesday.

Mr. Christie is also representing HCC in Rockingham County
Superior Court where he's filed a separate but related suit
against HCC's insurance provider for allegedly refusing to cover
any damages that may arise from the federal class action suit.
The Superior Court suit was filed Feb. 4 and claims HCC's insurer,
NGM Insurance of Jacksonville, Florida, is required to pay any
"advertising injuries" incurred by HCC if a judge rules against
the Newington company.

The case is scheduled for a two-week trial beginning April 17,
2012, in front of Chief Justice Steven McAuliffe.


HEFFLER RADETICH: Sued for Paying Bogus Settlement Fund Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class
action claims that an accounting firm hired as claims
administrator for a $490 million class action over the merger of
Bank of America and NationsBank paid an employee millions of
dollars in false claims.  Lead plaintiff David Oetting, a
representative of the NationsBank class in the original lawsuit,
sued Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP.

Mr. Oetting says the settlement from the original class action
netted $490 million and that Heffler, a certified public
accounting firm, was hired as claims administrator.  From the $490
million settlement fund, the NationsBank class was awarded $332.2
million and the NationsBank class $156.8 million, according to the
complaint.

However, "Heffler's employee Christian Penta defrauded three
separate class actions, including the Action, of tens of millions
of dollars," the complaint states.

Mr. Penta was a senior accountant for Heffler, according to the
complaint.

"The amount Heffler paid from the NationsBank settlement fund on
the false claims submitted by Penta and his co-conspirators
totaled somewhere over $5.0 million."

Mr. Penta and five others were charged on Sept. 11, 2008 with mail
fraud and wire fraud for filing false claims in the NationsBank
settlement as well as other class action settlements, the
complaint states.  Mr. Penta pleaded guilty to the charges.

The class includes all class members from the NationsBank
settlement.  It seeks damages for breach of fiduciary duty and
accountant malpractice.

A copy of the Complaint in Oetting v. Heffler, Radetich & Saitta,
LLP, Case No. 11-cv-00253 (E.D. Mo.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/09/CPAs.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Frank H. Tomlinson, Esq.
          15 North 21st Street, Suite 302
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 326-6626
          E-mail: htomlinson@bellsouth.net


HOOVER INC: Recalls 142,000 Hoover(R) WindTunnel Canister Vacuums
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Hoover Inc., of Glenwillow, Ohio, announced a voluntary recall of
about 142,000 Hoover(R) WindTunnel Canister Vacuums.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The power cord between the power nozzle and the wand connector can
short-circuit posing fire and shock hazards to consumers.  This
condition can occur even if the vacuum has been turned off but
left plugged in.

Hoover has received 69 reports of overheating or electrical
malfunction, including one report of fire and smoke damage, and
two reports of carpet damage.  There has been one report of a
minor injury.

This recall involves the Hoover WindTunnel Bagless Canister Vacuum
model S3755.  The vacuum is silver and black in color, and comes
with a power nozzle.  The model number can be found on a label on
the bottom of the canister.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

        http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11124.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
mass merchandisers, department stores and independent vacuum
retailers nationwide and online from March 2003 to December 2008
for between $250 and $280.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled vacuum
cleaners and contact Hoover for a free repair.  For additional
information, contact Hoover toll-free at (888) 564-2066 between
8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.hoover.com/windtunnelcanisterrecall/


IKEA ISRAEL: Communities Mull Class Action Over Feb. 5 Fire
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michal Magalit, writing for Globes, reports that residents of Even
Yehuda and other communities near the burned down IKEA Israel
store at Poleg Junction in Netanya are preparing a class-action
lawsuit against the retailer for alleged smoke damage from the
Feb. 5 fire.

40 residents from Even Yehuda have joined the lawsuit.  Residents
from Tel Yitzhak, Beit Yehoshua, Kfar Netter, and Kadima are also
planning to join.

The plaintiff's representative, Att. Anat Hillel, said, "Soot from
the fire spread mainly to Even Yehuda because of the wind, and new
homes there were affected by the soot."  She obtained complaints
from residents that soot from fire streaked their homes' exterior
walls and garden walls, stores were blackened, and there is
concern about damage to vegetation and lawns.  The residents also
are worried about possible toxins from burned materials, and that
their children or pets might have come into contact with these
toxins. Paint on decks, roofs, pergolas, and balconies was also
damaged.

The plaintiffs have not yet established an amount of damages
sought.  Ms. Hillel said, "Additional damage may be discovered
later by an expert opinion on the subject."

Isralom Properties Ltd. and British-Israel Investments Ltd. (TASE:
BRTS) own IKEA Israel's properties in equal shares.

IKEA said in response, "We will respond when we see the lawsuit."
Isralom said in response, "When we receive the lawsuit, we will
study it and respond accordingly."


INSURANCE COUNCIL: Queensland Flood Victims Mull Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Sykes and Scott Lamond, writing for ABC Brisbane, report that
tempers ran high in Ipswich on Feb. 8 as the first of six
community information meetings about flood recovery got underway.

The first of six Insurance Council of Australia community
information meetings to assist people affected by the recent
Queensland floods was met with threats of protest and class action
by almost two hundred angry and frustrated locals.

Representatives from the Insurance Council, the Financial
Ombudsman Service and Queensland Legal Aid gathered to provide
both a forum for policy holders to raise insurance issues directly
with the industry and for the Insurance Council to provide a brief
on the recovery process.

But as many residents expressed at the meeting, they're falling
through the cracks in the system.

Margaret Jensen's home in Tivoli was completely inundated, and
she's been left homeless.

"Fed up.  People were fed up with a system where they weren't
fitting in.

"There was no response from the numerous insurance companies, and
I do believe some sort of collective arrangement such as a class
action is required so that all of us can be heard, and throughout
not only Queensland but the rest of Australia.

Ms. Jensen says residents want answers from insurance companies,
"how you define your insurance policy?" and more importantly she
says "let you know what your policy covers."

"It needs a class action for insurance companies to be accountable
and be held responsible for what they're taking dollars for," she
says.

Loretta Kreet from Legal Aid Queensland suggests all residents
lodge a claim with their insurance company regardless of advice
they may receive about being ineligible.

"There is a whole process you can go through to challenge a claim,
but you must lodge the claim first.

Ms. Kreet says the next step is getting legal advice.

The Financial Ombudsman Service representative Graham Warner
understands that people are very angry.

"I was hoping out of the meeting we'd be able to give them a
direction that they can travel in relation to their claims.

"No doesn't necessarily mean no straight off."

Mr. Warner says all involved agencies must come to an agreement on
how people define what caused losses and damage in this event.

The forum is for anyone having trouble getting flood insurance
claims paid, and will continue this week.

Wednesday, February 9: 7-9 p.m., Goodna State School

RSVP for Goodna

Thursday, February 10: 7-9 p.m., Karalee State School

RSVP for Karalee

Tuesday, February 15: 7-9 p.m., Oxley Bowling Club

RSVP for Oxley

Wednesday, February 16: 7-9 p.m., Yeronga Services Club
(Function Room 1)

RSVP for Yeronga

Thursday, February 17: 7-9 p.m., Uniting Church Hall, Cnr Station
and Musgrave Roads, INDOOROOPILLY

RSVP for Indooroopilly

For more information on your rights:

The Ombudsman Service Natural Disaster Hotline is 1800 337 444.

Legal Aid Queensland 1300 65 11 88.


JOHN THOMAS FINANCIAL: Sued for Violation of New York Labor Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tareq Abed, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
John Thomas Financial, Inc., et al., Case No. 650341/2011 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., New York Cty. February 8, 2011), seeks declaratory
relief and monetary damages for defendants' willful violation of
12 NYCRR Section 142-2.2, and New York Labor Law Sections
191(1)(c), 193, and 198-b.  NYCRR is the acronym for the New York
Codes, Rules and Regulations.

Mr. Abed, who worked for defendants as a stock broker from
August 2009 until October 2010, accuses the New York City-based
independent broker dealer and its owner and president, defendant
Anastasios Belesis, of failing to properly compensate class
members for all hours worked and making improper deductions from
their paychecks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Kadushin, Esq.
          Charles Joseph, Esq.
          Michael D. Palmer, Esq.
          D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
          JOSEPH, HERZFELD, HESTER & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
          233 Broadway, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10279
          Telephone: (212) 688-5640


KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: Awaits Outcome of Appeal of Settlement Order
-------------------------------------------------------------
Keynote Systems, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on appeals of a court
order approving a settlement of a class action lawsuit related to
its initial public offering, according to the Company's Feb. 7,
2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2010.

In August 2001, the Company and certain of its current and former
officers were named as defendants in two securities class-action
lawsuits based on alleged errors and omissions concerning
underwriting terms in the prospectus for the Company's initial
public offering.  A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws was filed on or about
April 19, 2002, and alleged claims against the Company, certain of
its officers, and underwriters of the Company's September 24, 1999
initial public offering, under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  The
lawsuit alleged that the defendants participated in a scheme to
inflate the price of the Company's stock in its initial public
offering and in the aftermarket through a series of misstatements
and omissions associated with the offering.  The lawsuit is one of
several hundred similar cases pending in the Southern District of
New York that have been consolidated by the court.

The Company was a party to a global settlement with the plaintiffs
that would have disposed of all claims against it with no
admission of wrongdoing by the Company or any of its present or
former officers or directors.  The settlement agreement had been
preliminarily approved by the Court.  However, while the
settlement was awaiting final approval by the District Court, in
December 2006 the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's
determination that six focus cases could be certified as class
actions. In April 2007, the Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs'
petition for rehearing, but acknowledged that the District Court
might certify a more limited class.  At a June 26, 2007 status
conference, the Court approved a stipulation withdrawing the
proposed settlement.  On August 14, 2007, plaintiffs filed amended
complaints in the focus cases, and a motion for class
certification in the focus cases on September 27, 2007.  On
November 13, 2007, defendants in the focus cases filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaints for failure to state a claim, which
the District Court denied on March 2008.  Plaintiffs, the issuer
defendants, the underwriter defendants, and the insurance carriers
for the defendants, have engaged in mediation and settlement
negotiations.  The parties reached a settlement agreement, which
was submitted to the District Court for preliminary approval on
April 2, 2009.  As part of this settlement, the Company's
insurance carrier has agreed to assume the Company's entire
payment obligation under the terms of the settlement.  On June 10,
2009, the District Court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement.  After a September 10, 2009 hearing, the
District Court gave final approval to the settlement on October 5,
2009.  Several objectors have filed notices of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the
District Court's October 5, 2009 order approving the settlement.
Although the District Court has granted final approval of the
settlement, there can be no guarantee that it will not be reversed
on appeal.  The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses
to these claims.  If the settlement is not implemented and the
litigation continues against the Company, the Company would
continue to defend against this action vigorously.


LASERCARD CORP: Weiss & Lurie Files Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Lurie, a national class action and shareholder rights law
firm, has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of all shareholders of LaserCard Corporation.

On December 20, 2010, LaserCard announced that it had entered into
a definitive merger agreement to be acquired by ASSA ABLOY, Inc.
for $6.25 per share.  The complaint filed in the lawsuit, Miller
v. DeVincenzi, et al., alleges that defendants violated the
federal securities laws by omitting material information from
LaserCard's December 22, 2010 Schedule 14D-9, and that LaserCard's
directors violated their fiduciary duties by failing to obtain the
best possible price for the Company.

If you wish to wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this litigation,
you must move the Court no later than 60 days from February 8,
2011.  However, in order to do so, you must meet certain legal
requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as lead plaintiffs.  Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by your decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Weiss & Lurie,
or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this
action.  Any member of the class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent
class member.

Contacts:

          Julia J. Sun, Esq.
          WEISS & LURIE
          1500 Broadway, Suite 1600
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: 212/682-3025

               - or -

          Leigh A. Parker, Esq.
          WEISS & LURIE
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard, 23rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: 310/208-2800
          E-mail: infony@weisslurie.com
          Web site: http://www.weisslurie.com/


MATRIX SERVICE: Final Settlement Payments Expected This Month
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matrix Service Company obtained final approval of class suit
settlement filed against the Company in California and final
payments of $4.1 million are expected to be made this month,
according to the Company's Feb. 7, 2011 Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On December 8, 2008 a class action lawsuit was filed in the
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County alleging that the
Company's subsidiary, Matrix Service Inc., and any subsidiary or
affiliated company within the State of California had a consistent
policy of failing to pay overtime wages in violation of California
state wage and hour laws.  Specifically, the lawsuit alleged that
the Company was requiring employees to work more than 8 hours per
day and failing to compensate at a rate of time and one-half,
failing to pay double time for all hours worked in excess of
twelve in one day, and not paying all wages due at termination.
The class sought all unpaid overtime compensation, waiting time
penalties, injunctive and equitable relief and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.  The class included approximately 1,500
current and former employees.

On September 1, 2009 a second class action lawsuit was filed in
the Superior Court of California, Alameda County also alleging
that MSI and Matrix Service Company failed to comply with
California state wage and hour laws. The September 2009 Action
included similar allegations to the December 2008 Action but also
alleged that the Company did not provide second meal periods and
third rest periods for employees who worked more than 10 hours in
a day, complete and accurate itemized wage statements,
compensation for all compensable travel time, and did not take
bonus payments into account when calculating the regular wage
rate, leading to incorrect overtime rates. The class sought all
allowable compensation, penalties for rest and meal periods not
provided, restitution and restoration of sums owed, statutory
penalties, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees
and costs. The plaintiffs then amended the September 2009 Action
to assert damages under the Private Attorney General's Act. The
September 2009 Action increased the class to approximately 2,300
current and former employees.

The cases were coordinated in Alameda County. At the plaintiff's
request, mediation was held on September 7, 2010. In mediation,
the parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding awarding the
plaintiffs $4.0 million. The award was in addition to amounts
previously paid to the class members of $1.9 million. The
September Settlement was subject to court approval and resolved
all class member claims included in the December 2008 Action and
the September 2009 Action. The award was designated to pay the
class member claims, an enhancement award to the three named
plaintiffs, the cost of administration, and the class members'
attorneys' fees and costs. As a result of these actions and the
related settlement, the Company recorded a cumulative charge of
$6.1 million, of which $5.1 million was recorded in fiscal 2010
and $1.0 million was recorded in fiscal 2009. The fiscal 2010
charge included an estimate of the cost that will be incurred by
the Company for payroll taxes that will be paid in conjunction
with the September Settlement.

On January 20, 2011 the Company received final court approval of
the September Settlement. Final payments of $4.1 million, which
include $4.0 million deposited with the claim administrator in
December 2010 and $0.1 million for applicable payroll taxes, are
expected to be made in February 2011.


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Expects Decision in "Siracusano" Suit by June
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., discloses that a decision by the United
States Supreme Court regarding its review of a dismissal of a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit styled Siracusano, et
al., vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., is expected by June
2011, according to the Company's Feb. 7, 2011, Form 10-Q  filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended December 31, 2010.

Two class action lawsuits were filed in April and May 2004 against
the Company, its previous President and Chief Executive Officer,
Carl J. Johnson, and William J. Hemelt, its President and Chief
Executive Officer, alleging violations of federal securities laws.
On January 18, 2005, the cases were consolidated and the court
appointed James v. Siracusano as lead plaintiff. The amended
complaint also includes the Company's Vice President of Research
and Development, Timothy L. Clarot, as a defendant and was filed
March 4, 2005. The consolidated case is Siracusano, et al. vs.
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., in the United States District
Court, District of Arizona, Case No. CV04-0886 PHX DKD. Among
other things, the lawsuit alleges that between October 2003 and
February 2004, the Company made materially false and misleading
statements regardingthe Company'sZicam Cold Remedy products,
including failing to adequately disclose to the public the details
of allegations that the Company's products caused damage to the
sense of smell and of certain product liability lawsuits pending
at that time. The Company filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit
and, on March 8, 2006, the Company received an Order dated
December 15, 2005 granting the motion to dismiss the case, without
prejudice. On April 3, 2006, the plaintiff appealed the Order to
the United States District Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit and on
October 28, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court reversed the decision of
the United States District Court, District of Arizona. On June 14,
2010, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari review
and heard oral arguments on January 10, 2011. A decision is
expected by June 2011.


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Continues to Defend "Shapiro" Suit in Arizona
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit styled Shapiro et al. vs. Matrixx
Initiatives, Inc., et al. in Arizona, according to the Company's
Feb. 7, 2011, Form 10-Q  filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2010.

A putative class action was filed on July 17, 2009 against the
Company; William J. Hemelt, the Company's President and Chief
Executive Officer; Samuel C. Cowley, the Company's Executive Vice
President of Business Development, General Counsel and Secretary;
Timothy L. Clarot, the Company's Vice President of Research &
Development; and Carl J. Johnson, a former President and Chief
Executive Officer, alleging violations of federal securities laws.
Shapiro et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et al., in the United
States District Court, District of Arizona, Case No. 2:09-cv-
01479-ECV.  The lawsuit alleges that the Company and the named
officers failed to disclose to the FDA and to the public
information about adverse events regarding the Zicam Cold Remedy
nasal gel products and that the Company and such officers made
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's compliance
with FDA regulations.  The Company believes plaintiff's
allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the
lawsuit.


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Defends "Schneider" Suit Over Wonder Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., is defending itself from a class action
complaint filed by one of its stockholders in Arizona over its
proposed merger with Wonder Holdings, Inc., according to the
Company's Feb. 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2010.

On December 14, 2010, the Company entered into a definitive merger
agreement with Wonder Holdings Acquisition Corp. and Wonder
Holdings, Inc., both of which are affiliates of and controlled by
H.I.G. Capital, LLC. Under the terms of the merger agreement, the
affiliates of H.I.G. Capital, LLC, commenced a tender offer to
purchase for cash all of the outstanding shares of Matrixx common
stock, including the associated preferred stock purchase rights,
at a price of $8.00 per share. The tender offer commenced on
December 22, 2010, and was set to expire on February 4, 2011,
unless extended in accordance with the terms of the Merger
Agreement and the applicable rules and regulations of the SEC. As
announced on Schedule 14D-9 Amendment No. 7, filed with the SEC on
February 2, 2011, Purchaser increased the price to $8.75 per share
in cash, without interest and less any applicable withholding
taxes, and extended the expiration of the offer to purchase for
cash all of the outstanding shares of Matrixx until 11:59 p.m.,
New York City time, on February 14, 2011. If the tender offer is
successfully completed, the parties will complete a second-step
merger in which any remaining shares of the Company will be
converted into the right to receive the same price per share paid
in the tender offer.

On January 7, 2011, Floyd Schneider, a purported stockholder of
the Company, filed a complaint on behalf of himself and as a
putative class action on behalf of the Company's public
stockholders against all of the Company's current directors, the
Company, Wonder Holdings Acquisition Corp. and Wonder Holdings,
Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona for the County
of Maricopa.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the tender offer and proposed merger by failing to
engage in an honest and fair sale process and by providing
materially inadequate disclosure and material disclosure omissions
regarding the tender offer and the merger and that the Company,
Wonder Holdings Acquisition Corp. and Wonder Holdings, Inc. have
aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duties.  The complaint
seeks, among other things, a declaration that the action brought
by the complaint is a class action and that plaintiff be certified
as the class representative, an order enjoining the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement, rescissory damages in the
event the transaction is consummated prior to the entry of a final
judgment, an accounting of all damages caused by the defendants
and all profits and special benefits obtained, and an award to the
plaintiff of all costs, including attorneys' and experts' fees and
expenses.  The Company believes that the Schneider Complaint is
without merit and intends to contest the case vigorously.


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Seeks Final OK of Zicam Economic Injury Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., is awaiting final court approval of its
settlement of economic injury class action lawsuits related to its
Zicam Cold Remedy nasal gel products, according to the Company's
Feb. 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2010.

Since 2003, a number of lawsuits have been filed against the
Company alleging that its Zicam Cold Remedy nasal gel products
have caused the permanent loss or diminishment of the sense of
smell or smell and taste.  The lawsuits principally fall into two
categories of product liability claims: (i) those alleging that
the Company's Zicam Cold Remedy nasal gel products caused the
permanent loss or diminishment of the sense of smell or smell and
taste (i.e., personal injury claims) and (ii) those seeking
compensation for the purchase price of the Zicam Cold Remedy nasal
gel products or various forms of equitable relief based on
allegations that the Company misrepresented the safety and/or
efficacy of such products to consumers (i.e., economic injury
claims).  All of the economic injury lawsuits have been filed as
class actions but none of the classes has been certified to date.

In August 2009, the Company filed a motion to consolidate and
transfer all of the personal injury and economic injury matters,
including any purported class actions, pending against the Company
in federal court to the District of Arizona, pursuant to MDL
procedures. On October 9, 2009, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation established MDL No. 2096, In Re: Zicam
Cold Remedy Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, and
centralized the economic injury and personal injury actions that
involve common questions of fact before a federal court in the
District of Arizona. With one exception, the Panel transferred all
of the economic injury cases at issue in the original MDL request.
The Panel also began the MDL transfer process for the remaining
economic injury and personal injury matters pending against the
Company in federal courts across the country. The plaintiffs in
these remaining cases will have the opportunity to object to the
MDL transfer of their specific case. The Panel determined that the
case of Hohman et. al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et. al.
(filed June 18, 2009, Northern District of Illinois) did not
involve sufficient common questions of fact to allow for
consolidation and transfer to the MDL at that time. The Company
expects any federal economic injury and personal injury matters
filed in the future to be transferred and consolidated pursuant to
the MDL transfer process, subject to the plaintiffs' opportunity
to object.

Subsequent to Sept. 30, 2010, two personal injury class action
lawsuits and one economic injury class action lawsuit have been
dismissed.

            Economic Injury Claims -- Settlement Status

On August 19, 2010, the Company and plaintiffs' attorneys
representing all of the various nationwide and statewide economic
injury plaintiffs signed a Memorandum of Understanding setting
forth their agreement in principle to settle those 18 lawsuits. On
August 26, 2010, the MDL Judge issued an order objecting to the
procedural mechanism the parties proposed for effectuating the
settlement; the order did not consider the merits of the proposed
settlement. On October 1, 2010, the Company and lead plaintiffs'
attorneys representing all of the economic injury plaintiffs
executed a revised Memorandum of Understanding setting forth a
different procedure for seeking approval of the settlement. The
revised Memorandum of Understanding sets forth a procedure for
approval of the settlement of injunctive relief claims relating to
the safety of the Zicam Cold Remedy nasal gel spray and swabs
before the MDL Court and approval of the settlement of claims
relating to the efficacy of the Zicam Cold Remedy nasal gel spray
and swabs as well as other current products in the Northern
District of Illinois, the jurisdiction in which the only economic
injury lawsuit not made subject to the MDL procedures is pending.
On October 19, 2010, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement to resolve the injunctive relief claims relating to
safety of the Zicam Cold Remedy nasal gel spray and swabs. On the
same day, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify an injunctive
relief settlement class based on the terms of the settlement
agreement before the MDL Court. On November 2, 2010, the MDL Court
requested that the parties submit additional briefing explaining
various aspects of the settlement.

As part of the settlement of the safety claims set forth in the
settlement agreement, which remains subject to court approval, the
Company agreed that, if its Zicam Cold Remedy nasal gel spray
and/or swab products are re-introduced into the market, the
packaging will include any language regarding adverse effects
required by the FDA. Under the settlement agreement, the Company
will be required to pay plaintiffs' attorneys fees and has agreed
to not object to an attorney's fee application not to exceed
$150,000, which fee award is subject to court approval.

As part of the settlement of the efficacy claims as set forth in
the MOU, the Company has agreed to add certain clarifications to
its packaging regarding the use and status of several current
products. In addition, the Company has a tentative agreement to
(i) pay the plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs for the
litigation in an aggregate amount not to exceed $1.75 million;
(ii) pay incentive awards to the named plaintiffs in an aggregate
amount not to exceed a total of $35,000 and (iii) be responsible
for the costs of providing notice of the settlement to class
members.

On January 13, 2011, the MDL Court preliminarily approved the
settlement subject to certain modifications that included a full
release of all damage claims arising out of the safety of the
products. The MDL Court also directed the parties to give class
notice. The parties are preparing an amended settlement agreement
to reflect these modifications. A hearing date for final approval
of the settlement agreement has not been scheduled. As of
December 31, 2010, the Company has reserved $2.2 million to
resolve these matters.

The Company cannot predict with certainty whether definitive
agreements finally settling all of the economic injury claims will
ultimately be approved by the courts. Nothing in the revised MOU
or settlement agreement constitutes an admission of any
wrongdoing, liability, or violation of law by the Company. Rather,
the Company agreed to settle the economic injury claims to reduce
its high litigation defense costs and to avoid the inherent risks
associated with litigation.

          Personal Injury Claims -- Settlement Agreement

On December 13, 2010, the Company entered into an agreement to
settle all other claims made by the plaintiffs and claimants who
allege personal injury claims (approximately 995 plaintiffs and
approximately 949 claimants) against the Company, including
plaintiffs who are subject to the multidistrict litigation and the
consolidated proceedings pending in state courts in California and
Arizona. The Company will pay no more than $15.5 million to fund
awards to be made under the settlement program. The foregoing
funds will cover all costs, attorneys' fees and other expenses
associated with administration of the program by plaintiffs'
counsel. The Settlement Agreement acknowledges that the settlement
is not an admission or concession on the Company's part of any
liability to the plaintiffs or claimants.

The $15.5 million settlement program amount will be funded by the
Company in three installments. The Company paid the first
installment of $11.5 million into an escrow account on
December 29, 2010 following the Company's receipt of a verified
list of plaintiffs and claimants. The Company will pay the second
installment of $2 million no later than 8 months after its payment
of the initial installment. The Company will pay the third
installment of $2 million, less amounts based on plaintiffs and
claimants who elect not to participate in the settlement program,
no later than 20 months after its payment of the initial
installment.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Company retained the
right and option to void and cancel the Settlement Agreement in
its entirety, at its sole discretion, if prior to the close of
business on January 20, 2011 (the "Settlement Expiration Date"),
plaintiffs' counsel failed to enroll and achieve participation in
the settlement program by (a) at least 97% of all plaintiffs and
claimants who used a Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Gel dispensed with a
single hole actuator pump and (b) at least 94% of all plaintiffs
and claimants who used other Zicam products. In response to the
request of plaintiffs' counsel for additional time to secure the
required level of participation, the Company agreed to extend the
Settlement Expiration Date to January 31, 2011. The Company has
determined that, as of the Settlement Expiration Date, Plaintiffs'
counsel met the required levels of participation, meaning that the
Settlement Agreement is in effect. Approximately 5% of the
eligible plaintiffs and claimants have not confirmed their
participation in the settlement program. The Company is uncertain
regarding their intentions.

It is possible that new product liability lawsuits may be filed
against the Company. The Company intends to continue to vigorously
defend itself in any remaining cases and in any new cases that may
arise.


META FINANCIAL: Still Defends Suits Over Certificates of Deposit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Meta Financial Group, Inc., is still defending itself against a
class action lawsuit involving the sale of certificates of
deposits, according to the Company's Feb. 7, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended December 31, 2010.

Lawsuits against MetaBank involving the sale of purported MetaBank
certificates of deposit continue to be addressed.  In all, nine
cases have been filed to date, and of those nine, three have been
dismissed, and four have been settled for payments that the
Company deemed reasonable under the circumstances, including the
costs of litigation.  Of the two remaining cases, one is a class
action case.  On May 5, 2010, in that class action, Guardian Angel
Credit Union v. MetaBank et al., Case No. 08-cv-261-PB (USDC,
District of NH), the court granted the plaintiff's motion to
certify the class.  Additionally, a lawsuit relating to this
matter has been filed by Airline Pilots Assoc Federal Credit Union
in the Iowa District court for Polk County, Case number CL-118792.
The underlying matter was first disclosed in the Company's
quarterly report for the period ended December 31, 2007, which
stated that an employee of the Bank had sold fraudulent CDs for
her own benefit.  The unauthorized and illegal actions of the
employee have since prompted a number of demands and lawsuits
seeking recovery on the fraudulent CDs to be filed against the
Bank, which have been disclosed in subsequent filings.  The
employee was prosecuted, convicted and, on June 2, 2010, sentenced
to more than seven years in federal prison and ordered to pay more
than $4 million in restitution.  Notwithstanding the nature of her
crimes, which were unknown by the Bank and its management,
plaintiffs in the two remaining cases seek to impose liability on
the Bank under a number of legal theories with respect to the
remaining $3.6 million of fraudulent CDs that were issued by the
former employee.  The Bank and its insurer, which has assumed
defense of the action and which is advancing defense costs subject
to a reservation of rights, continue to vigorously contest
liability in the remaining actions.


META FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Two Stockholder Suits in Iowa
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Meta Financial Group, Inc., continues to defend itself from two
separate federal securities class action lawsuits in Iowa,
according to the Company's Feb. 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31,
2010.

The Company has been informed that two former stockholders,
Thirumalesh Bhat and Alaa M. Elgaouni, have separately filed
purported class action lawsuits against the Company and certain of
its officers alleging violations of certain federal securities
laws.  The cases -- Thirumalesh Bhat v. Meta Financial Group,
Inc., J. Tyler Haahr, David W. Leedom, Bradley C. Hanson and Troy
Moore; Case No. 5:10-cv-04099-DEO, and Alaa M. Elgaouni v. Meta
Financial Group, Inc., J. Tyler Haahr, David W. Leedom; Case No.
C10-4108MWB -- were filed on October 22, 2010 and November 5, 2010
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Iowa purportedly on behalf of those who purchased the Company's
stock between May 14, 2009 and October 15, 2010.  The complaints
allege that the named officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 in connection
with certain allegedly false and misleading public statements made
during this period by the Company and its officers.  The
complaints do not specify an amount of damages sought.  The
Company denies the allegations in the complaints and intends to
vigorously pursue its defense.


MIKI HOUSE: Recalls 10 Windbreaker Jackets
------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
MIKI HOUSE USA, Inc. of New York, announced a voluntary recall of
about 10 Windbreaker Jackets.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The jackets contain drawstrings which pose strangulation and
entrapment hazards to young children.  In February 1996, CPSC
issued guidelines, which were incorporated into an industry
voluntary standard in 1997, to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist drawstrings
in upper garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves children's windbreaker jackets with
drawstrings in the hoods.  The jackets were sold in red, blue, and
multi-colored (purple, blue, yellow, green, light blue) in sizes
12 months to 4T.  The style number is 11-3706-730 and is located
both on the price ticket and care instructions.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11722.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Bloomingdale's Department Store in New York from August 2010 to
November 2010 for about $80.00

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the
jackets to eliminate the hazard. Consumers may contact the firm to
receive a full refund.  For additional information, please contact
MIKI HOUSE USA, Inc. at (877) 747-7653 between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00
p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or e-mail the firm at
info@mikihouse-usa.com


NATIONAL CREDIT: Sued Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
National Credit Solutions, which bought the accounts receivable
from bankrupt Hollywood Video, placed more than 500,000 unverified
debt delinquency notices in customers' credit files, to "strong-
arm" them into paying collection fees and disputed debts.

A copy of the Complaint in Safier v. National Credit Solutions,
LLC, Case No. 11-cv-00121 (D. N.M.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/09/Credit.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew L. Garcia, Esq.
          BACH & GARCIA, LLC
          300 Central SW, Suite 2000
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 899-1030


NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Eagan Avenatti Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eagan Avenatti, LLP, a law firm specializing in consumer rights,
filed a class action lawsuit earlier on Feb. 8 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division (Case No. 3:11-cv-00248-M), alleging breach of contract,
fraud and deceptive sales practices by Jerry Jones, the National
Football League, the Dallas Cowboys Football Club and related
defendants in connection with Super Bowl XLV held on Feb. 6 in
Arlington, Texas.

The complaint, which seeks compensatory damages of over $5
Million, claims that the unlawful acts of Jones, the NFL and the
Cowboys resulted in approximately 400 fans who purchased tickets
and traveled to the game being denied a seat, despite having spent
thousands of dollars in tickets and travel expenses to attend the
Super Bowl.  The complaint also alleges that Jones and the Cowboys
deceived Cowboys season ticket holders known as the "Founders"
into paying $1,200 a seat for Super Bowl tickets that turned out
to be temporary seats with obstructed views.

The "Founders," who collectively account for over $100 Million in
personal seat licenses sold to help fund construction of the
stadium, each paid at least $100,000 per seat for their seat
license, which the Cowboys and Jones promised would entitle them
to the "best sightlines in the stadium" and the right to purchase
a ticket to the Feb. 6 Super Bowl at face value.  Instead, they
arrived at the stadium to discover that they had been assigned to
sit in obstructed view, temporary metal seats, which had only
recently been installed in an effort to meet Mr. Jones' goal of
breaking NFL Super Bowl attendance records.

"You don't have to own the Cowboys or run the NFL to know that you
cannot lawfully treat people like this," stated lead attorney
Michael Avenatti.  "At an absolute minimum, Jones, the Cowboys and
the NFL need to accept full responsibility and reimburse fans one
hundred percent for their expenses and damages.  Anything short of
that is a slap in the face to the fans of the NFL and the
Cowboys."

For more information about the lawsuit, please visit
http://www.ticketlawsuit.com/or contact Judy Regnier at
jregnier@eoalaw.com

                   About Eagan Avenatti, LLP

Michael J. Avenatti, Esq. is a founding partner of Eagan Avenatti,
LLP, a firm of trial attorneys that specialize in litigating a
variety of high profile legal disputes in courts throughout the
United States.  Avenatti and EOA are consistently ranked among the
best attorneys in America.  Most recently, the firm won a $40
million jury verdict after a five week trial in New Jersey. The
firm is based in Los Angeles, California.

Please direct all media inquiries to:

          Suzy Quinn
          Director of Media Relations
          EAGAN AVENATTI, LLP
          Telephone: 949-706-7000
          Cell: 310-465-9893
          Email: squinn@eoalaw.com


NAVISITE INC: Being Sold for Too Little, Mass. Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Navisite shareholders say the
company is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to
Time Warner Cable, for $5.50 a share or $230 million, in a federal
class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Tansey v. Navisite, Inc., et al., Case
No. 11-cv-10214 (D. Mass.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/09/TimeWarner.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Terence K. Ankner, Esq.
          PARTRIDGE, ANKNER & HORSTMANN, LLP
          The Berkeley Building
          200 Berkeley Street, 16th Floor
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 859-9999

               - and -

          Marc M. Umeda, Esq.
          Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
          Arshan Amiri, Esq.
          Justin D. Rieger, Esq.
          ROBBINS UMEDA LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990


NETWORK ENGINES: Awaits Outcome of Appeals on IPO Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Network Engines, Inc., is still awaiting a ruling on appeals filed
regarding a settlement of a class action lawsuit relating to its
initial public offering, according to the Company's Feb. 7, 2011,
Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended December 31, 2010.

A putative class action lawsuit was filed on December 3, 2001 in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company and several underwriters of the Company's
July 2000 initial public offering, alleging that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing and selling securities
pursuant to the Company's IPO without disclosing to investors that
the underwriter defendants had solicited and received excessive
and undisclosed commissions from certain investors.  The suit
seeks damages and certification of a plaintiff class consisting of
all persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock
between July 13, 2000 and December 6, 2000.  On October 5, 2009,
the Court issued an opinion granting plaintiffs' motion for final
approval of a proposed settlement, approval of the plan of
distribution of the settlement fund, and certification of the
settlement classes.  An Order and Final Judgment was entered on
December 30, 2009. Various notices of appeal of the District
Court's October 5, 2009 order were filed.  On October 7, 2010, all
but two parties who had filed a notice of appeal filed a
stipulation with the District Court withdrawing their appeals with
prejudice, and the two remaining objectors filed briefs in support
of their appeals.

On December 8, 2010, plaintiffs moved to dismiss with prejudice
the appeal filed by one of the two appellants based on alleged
violations of the Second Circuit's rules, including failure to
serve, falsifying proofs of service, and failure to include
citations to the record.  The motion was fully briefed as of
December 30, 2010, but the Second Circuit has not yet ruled on the
motion.  The filing of plaintiffs' motion tolled the deadline for
appellees to file answering briefs on both appeals.  The Company
is unable to predict the outcome of this suit and as a result, no
amounts have been accrued as of December 31, 2010.


NOVA SCOTIA HOME: Two Former Residents File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
TheChronicleHerald.ca reports that two former residents of the
Nova Scotia Home for Colored Children have filed a proposed class
action against the Westphal residential facility.

Aubrey Pelley and Deanna Smith allege in court documents that they
suffered years of physical, sexual and mental abuse at the hands
of staff at the home, which is primarily for orphans or wards of
the province.

Ms. Pelley, now of Toronto, came to the home in 1948 at age 10 and
remained there until 1954.  Ms. Smith was nine when she came to
the home in 1976.  She left in 1979 and now lives in Alberta.

Neither Ms. Pelley nor Ms. Smith could be reached for comment.
But their claims echo dozens of others since allegations against
the home first surfaced about a decade ago.

In their statement of claim, Ms. Pelley and Ms. Smith said the
home "created an atmosphere of indifference, tolerance and
encouragement of excessive mental, physical and sexual abuse such
that the repugnant practices pervaded the (home) and the
relationships between the residents of the (home) . . . as well as
between the agents, employees (and) servants."

This systemic abuse inflicted on the black residents of the home
led to feelings of low self-worth and compounded the
marginalization they already felt as minorities, said their
statement of claim.

"The plaintiffs and class members were taught to have little faith
in systems of authority.  This led to an inability to address, as
adults, the systemic abuses inflicted on them as young residents."

The pair are acting as representative plaintiffs and have proposed
to bring a class action against the home and the province on
behalf of other Canadian residents who were also wards of the
province and placed in the facility.

Officials at the home have been served with a notice of intended
action.

Lawyer Ray Wagner represents the plaintiffs and about 55 other
people in separate court actions against the home.

In a news release on Feb. 8, he stated that "the proposed class
action . . . will expedite claims as only one trial will be
necessary on the alleged systemic abuses that pervaded the home."

"If certified as a class proceeding, common issues will address
the liability of the (home) and the province once and for all."

None of the allegations have been proven in court.


OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Appeals on Settlement in IPO Suit Remain Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York's order approving a settlement in the
securities class action filed against Openwave Systems, Inc.,
remain pending, according to the Company's Feb. 8, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended December 31, 2010.

On November 5, 2001, a securities fraud class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  In re Openwave Systems Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9744 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.),
related to In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21
MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.).  It is brought purportedly on behalf of
all persons who purchased shares of the Company's common stock
from June 11, 1999 through December 6, 2000.  The defendants are
the Company and five of its present or former officers, and
several investment banking firms that served as underwriters of
the Company's initial public offering and secondary public
offering.  Three of the individual defendants were dismissed
without prejudice, subject to a tolling of the statute of
limitations.  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 statements 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.  The amended complaint
also alleges that false analyst reports were issued by Credit
Suisse First Boston, Hambrecht & Quist, Robertson Stephens, and
Piper Jaffray.  No specific damages are claimed.  Similar
allegations were made in over 300 other lawsuits challenging
public offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000, and the cases were
consolidated for pretrial purposes.

On April 2, 2009, the parties in all the lawsuits submitted a
settlement for the Court's approval.  Under the settlement, the
Openwave Defendants would not be required to make any cash
payment.  On October 6, 2009, the Court approved the settlement,
under which the Openwave Defendants are not required to contribute
any cash.  Subsequently, the Court entered a judgment on the
settlement.  Several notices of appeal have been filed by putative
class members, challenging the settlement and the judgment.  The
Company believes a loss is not probable or reasonably estimable.
Therefore no amount has been accrued as of December 31, 2010.


PANTRY INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Kansas
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Pantry, Inc., continues to defend itself against class action
lawsuits over motor fuel delivery in Kansas.

Since the beginning of fiscal 2007, over 45 class action lawsuits
have been filed in federal courts across the country against
numerous companies in the petroleum industry.  Major petroleum
companies and significant retailers in the industry have been
named as defendants in these lawsuits.  The company has been named
as a defendant in seven cases:

     -- one in Florida (Cozza, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA,
        Inc. et al., S.D. Fla., No. 9:07-cv-80156-DMM, filed on
        Feb. 16, 2007;

     -- one in Delaware (Becker, et al. v. Marathon Petroleum
        Company LLC, et al., D. Del., No. 1:07-cv-00136, filed
        on March 7, 2007;

     -- one in North Carolina (Neese, et al. v. Abercrombie Oil
        Company, Inc., et al., E.D.N.C., No. 5:07-cv-00091-FL,
        filed on March 7, 2007);

     -- one in Alabama (Snable, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA,
        Inc., et al., N.D. Ala., No. 7:07-cv-00535-LSC, filed on
        March 26, 2007;

     -- one in Georgia (Rutherford, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA,
        Inc., et al., No. 4:07-cv-00113-HLM, filed on June 5,
        2007;

     -- one in Tennessee (Shields, et al. v. RaceTrac Petroleum,
        Inc., et al., No. 1:07-cv-00169, filed on
        July 13, 2007); and

     -- one in South Carolina (Korleski v. BP Corporation North
        America, Inc., et al., D.S.C., No 6:07-cv-03218-MDL,
        filed on Sept. 24, 2007.

Pursuant to an Order entered by the Joint Panel on Multi-District
Litigation, all of the cases, including the seven in which the
company is named, have been transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Kansas and consolidated for all pre-trial
proceedings.  The plaintiffs in the lawsuits generally allege that
they are retail purchasers who received less motor fuel than the
defendants agreed to deliver because the defendants measured the
amount of motor fuel they delivered in non-temperature adjusted
gallons which, at higher temperatures, contain less energy.  These
cases seek, among other relief, an order requiring the defendants
to install temperature adjusting equipment on their retail motor
fuel dispensing devices.  In certain of the cases, including some
of the cases in which the company is named, plaintiffs also have
alleged that because defendants pay fuel taxes based on
temperature adjusted 60 degree gallons, but allegedly collect
taxes from consumers on non-temperature adjusted gallons,
defendants receive a greater amount of tax from consumers than
they paid on the same gallon of fuel.  The plaintiffs in these
cases seek, among other relief, recovery of excess taxes paid and
punitive damages.  Both types of cases seek compensatory damages,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs, and prejudgment
interest.  The defendants filed motions to dismiss all cases for
failure to state a claim, which were denied by the court on
February 21, 2008.  A number of the defendants, including the
Company, subsequently moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on the
grounds that plaintiffs' claims constitute non-justiciable
"political questions."  The Court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss on political question grounds on December 3, 2009.
Defendants filed a request to appeal that decision to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in June 2010.  That
request was denied on  August 31, 2010.  In May 2010, the Court
granted class certification to Kansas fuel purchasers seeking
implementation of automated temperature controls and certain
disclosures, but deferred ruling on any class for damages.
Defendants sought permission to appeal that decision to the Tenth
Circuit in June, and that request was denied on August 31, 2010.
In May 2010, the Court granted class certification to Kansas fuel
purchasers seeking implementation of automated temperature
controls and/or certain disclosures, but deferred ruling on any
class for damages.  Defendants sought permission to appeal that
decision to the Tenth Circuit in June, and that request was denied
on August 31, 2010.

The Company continues to believe that there are substantial
factual and legal defenses to the theories alleged in these
lawsuits, and intend to vigorously defend against the claims.  At
this stage of proceedings, the Company says it cannot estimate its
ultimate exposure to loss or liability, if any, related to these
lawsuits.

No updates were reported in the Company's Feb. 8, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 30, 2010.


PANTRY INC: Still Defends "Amason" Suit in Alabama
--------------------------------------------------
The Pantry, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act pending in Alabama.

On Oct. 19, 2009, Patrick Amason, on behalf of himself and a
putative class of similarly situated individuals, filed suit
against The Pantry in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama, Western Division (Patrick Amason v. Kangaroo
Express and The Pantry, Inc. No. CV-09-P-2117-W).  The plaintiff
seeks class action status and alleges that The Pantry included
more information than is permitted on electronically printed
credit and debit card receipts in willful violation of the Fair
and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, codified at 15 U.S.C.
Section 1681c(g).  The plaintiff seeks an award of statutory
damages for each alleged willful violation of the statute, as well
as attorneys' fees, costs, punitive damages and a permanent
injunction against the alleged unlawful practice.

The company believes that there are substantial factual and legal
defenses to class certification and to the theories alleged in the
lawsuit, and intend to vigorously defend against the claims.  As
the case is at a very early stage, the company cannot at this time
estimate its ultimate exposure to loss or liability, if any,
related to this lawsuit.

No updates were reported in the company's Feb. 8, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 30, 2010.


PENN VIRGINIA: Enters Into MOU With PVG Merger Class Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
On February 1, 2011, Penn Virginia Resource Partners, L.P. entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding together with Penn Virginia
Resource GP LLC, PVR Radnor LLC, Penn Virginia GP Holdings, L.P.,
PVG GP LLC, the individual directors of Holdings GP, and
plaintiffs Kevin Epoch, Sanjay Israni and Anita Scheifele,
purported Holdings unitholders, according to the Partnership's
Feb. 8, 2011 Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The MOU concerns the settlement of certain litigation relating to
the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated September 21, 2010, by and
between the Partnership, the Partnership GP, Holdings, Holdings GP
and PVR Radnor LLC.

As previously disclosed in the joint proxy statement/prospectus of
the Partnership and Holdings filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 23, 2010, Plaintiffs, as purported
Holdings unitholders, filed various putative class action
complaints against the Partnership, the Partnership GP, Holdings,
Holdings GP, and certain of Holdings GP's directors and officers.
On October 1, 2010, a putative class action complaint was filed by
a purported Holdings unitholder against Holdings, the Partnership
and certain of Holdings GP's directors in the Court of Common
Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania under the caption Epoch v.
Penn Virginia GP Holdings, L.P., et al.  The complaint alleges,
among other things, that certain of the Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to Holdings' public unitholders in connection
with the merger by, among other things, accepting insufficient
consideration and engaging in a flawed process and that certain of
the Defendants aided and abetted those breaches.  The complaint
sought an order certifying a class consisting of all Holdings
public unitholders, enjoining the consummation of the merger,
rescinding the merger, directing the board of directors of
Holdings GP to obtain a transaction that is in the best interests
of the Holdings unitholders and an award of attorneys' fees and
costs.

On November 15, 2010, the purported plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. The amended complaint alleges that certain of the
purported Defendants breached their duties to Holdings'
unitholders pursuant to Holdings' amended and restated partnership
agreement in connection with the merger by, among other things,
engaging in a flawed process and failing to provide material
information and/or providing materially misleading information to
Holdings unitholders in connection with their vote on the merger
and that certain of the Defendants aided and abetted those
breaches.  The amended complaint also alleges that certain of the
purported Defendants breached the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing that arises from Holdings' amended and restated
partnership agreement.  Among other things, the amended complaint
seeks an order certifying a class consisting of all Holdings
public unitholders, enjoining the consummation of the merger
preliminarily and permanently, rescinding the merger, awarding
damages and awarding attorneys' fees and costs.

On October 6, 2010, a putative class action complaint was filed by
a purported Holdings unitholder against Holdings, Holdings GP, the
Partnership, the Partnership GP, PVR Radnor LLC and certain of
Holdings GP's officers and directors in the Court of Common Pleas
of Delaware County, Pennsylvania under the caption Scheifele v.
Shea, et al. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that certain
of the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Holdings'
public unitholders in connection with the merger by, among other
things, means of an unfair process and an unfair price and that
certain of the Defendants aided and abetted those breaches.  Among
other things, the complaint seeks an order certifying a class
consisting of all Holdings public unitholders, enjoining the
merger preliminarily or permanently, rescinding the merger,
awarding damages and awarding attorneys' fees and costs.

On February 1, 2011, the parties to the Epoch and Scheifele
actions described above entered into the MOU to settle the
litigation in its entirety.  The MOU provides that the parties
will seek dismissal with prejudice of the litigation and a release
of the Defendants from all present and future claims asserted in
the litigation in exchange for a supplemental disclosure to the
Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus.  The supplemental disclosure is
set forth in a joint proxy statement/prospectus supplement filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2011.

In addition, in connection with the proposed settlement, the
parties contemplate that Plaintiffs' counsel will petition the
court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by
the Defendants.  The MOU is subject to a number of conditions,
including, without limitation, completion of certain discovery by
the plaintiffs, the drafting and execution of a formal Stipulation
of Settlement, the consummation of the merger and court approval
of the proposed settlement.  There is no assurance that these
conditions will be satisfied.


SACRAMENTO, CA: Sued Over Illegal Reduction of Medical Coverage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Sacramento County Retired
Employees Association claims Sacramento County illegally reduced
their medical and dental coverage, in a federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Sacramento County Retired Employees
Association, et al. v. The County of Sacramento, Case No.
11-at-00166 (E.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/09/HealthCover.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark E. Merin, Esq.
          W. Gordon Kaupp, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN
          2001 P Street, Suite 100
          Sacramento, CA 95811
          Telephone: (916) 443-6911
          E-mail: mark@markmerin.com
                  gordon@markmerin.com


SOLERA HOLDINGS: Still Defends "Total Loss Estimation" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Solera Holdings, Inc., is still defending itself from a putative
class-action lawsuit in connection with total loss estimation,
according to the Company's Feb. 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2010.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company colluded with its insurance
company customers to depress the repair time estimates generated
by its repair estimating software.  In addition, the Company is
currently one of the defendants in a putative class action lawsuit
alleging that it has colluded with its insurance company customers
to cause the estimates of vehicle fair market value generated by
its total loss estimation software to be unfairly low.
Furthermore, the Company is also subject to assertions by its
customers and strategic partners that it has not complied with the
terms of its agreements with them or that the agreements are not
enforceable against them, some of which are the subject of pending
litigation and any of which could in the future lead to
arbitration or litigation.  While the Company does not expect the
outcome of any such pending or threatened litigation to have a
material adverse effect on its financial position, litigation is
unpredictable and excessive verdicts, both in the form of monetary
damages and injunction, could occur.  In the future, the Company
could incur judgments or enter into settlements of claims that
could harm its financial position and results of operations.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Motion to Dismiss "Leonelli" Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co.'s motion to dismiss a purported class
action lawsuit in connection with its planned acquisition of
AirTran Holdings, Inc., remains pending, according to the
Company's Feb. 8, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On September 28, 2010, Frederick Leonelli filed a purported class
action lawsuit on behalf of himself and similarly situated AirTran
stockholders in the First Judicial District Court of the State of
Nevada for Carson City against AirTran, Robert L. Fornaro,
AirTran's Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Arne G.
Haak, AirTran's Senior Vice President of Finance, Treasurer and
Chief Financial Officer, each member of the AirTran board of
directors, the Company, and Guadalupe Holdings Corp.  The Leonelli
complaint generally alleges that the consideration to be received
by AirTran's stockholders in the merger is unfair and inadequate
and that the AirTran officers and directors named as defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by approving the merger agreement
through an unfair and flawed process and by approving certain deal
protection mechanisms contained in the merger agreement.  The
Leonelli complaint further alleges that AirTran, the Company, and
Merger Sub aided and abetted the individual AirTran defendants in
the breach of their fiduciary duties to AirTran's stockholders.
The Leonelli complaint seeks injunctive relief: (i) enjoining the
defendants from consummating the merger unless AirTran adopts and
implements a procedure or process to obtain the highest possible
price for AirTran's stockholders and discloses all material
information to AirTran's stockholders, (ii) directing the
individual AirTran defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties
to obtain a transaction that is in the best interests of AirTran's
stockholders, (iii) rescinding, to the extent already implemented,
the merger agreement, including the deal protection devices that
may preclude premium competing bids for AirTran, (iv) awarding
plaintiff's costs and disbursements of the action, including
reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees, and (v) granting such
other and further equitable relief as the court may deem just and
proper.  On the same day, Frank Frohman filed a second purported
AirTran shareholder class action lawsuit in the same court and
against the same defendants (other than Mr. Haak) as the Leonelli
complaint.  The allegations in the Frohman complaint, as well as
the relief requested, are generally the same as those set forth in
the Leonelli complaint.  The Frohman complaint was consolidated
into the Leonelli complaint on December 9, 2010.

On December 14, 2010, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
asserting the same claims and requesting the same relief against
the same defendants.  The Leonelli consolidated complaint also
included new allegations, as part of its breach of fiduciary duty
claim, that the individual AirTran defendants caused the Company
to file a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the SEC on
November 19, 2010 which omitted or misrepresented material
information regarding the merger.  AirTran and the individual
AirTran defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Leonelli
consolidated complaint on January 7, 2011, which was joined by the
Company and Merger Sub on the same day.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Motion to Dismiss "Church" Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit filed by Douglas Church in connection with its
planned acquisition of AirTran Holdings, Inc., according to the
company's Feb. 7, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On October 8, 2010, Douglas Church filed another purported AirTran
shareholder class action lawsuit in the Eighth Judicial District
Court of the State of Nevada for Clark County against AirTran,
Robert L. Fornaro, AirTran's Chairman, President and Chief
Executive Officer, each member of the AirTran board of directors,
the Company, and Guadalupe Holdings Corp. as Merger Sub.  The
complaint generally alleges that the consideration to be received
by AirTran's stockholders in the merger is unfair and inadequate
and that the AirTran officers and directors named as defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by approving the merger agreement
through an unfair and flawed process and by approving certain deal
protection mechanisms contained in the merger agreement. The
complaint further alleges that AirTran, the Company, and Merger
Sub aided and abetted the individual AirTran defendants in the
breach of their fiduciary duties to AirTran's stockholders. The
complaint seeks injunctive relief: (i) enjoining the defendants
from consummating the merger unless AirTran adopts and implements
a procedure or process to obtain the highest possible price for
AirTran's stockholders and discloses all material information to
AirTran's stockholders, (ii) directing the individual AirTran
defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a
transaction that is in the best interests of AirTran's
stockholders, (iii) rescinding, to the extent already implemented,
the merger agreement, including the deal protection devices that
may preclude premium competing bids for AirTran, (iv) awarding
plaintiff's costs and disbursements of the action, including
reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees, and (v) granting such
other and further equitable relief as the court may deem just and
proper.  The Church complaint additionally alleged, as part of its
breach of fiduciary duty claim, that the individual AirTran
defendants received greater benefits under the merger agreement
than other AirTran stockholders.

Mr. Church voluntarily dismissed his lawsuit on November 30, 2010,
but on December 2, 2010, he re-filed a new lawsuit against the
same defendants in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada.  The Church federal complaint makes the same
claims and seeks the same relief as his original lawsuit, but
includes new claims for alleged violations of Sections 14 and 20
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for allegedly providing
misleading and incomplete information in the Form S-4 Registration
Statement filed with the SEC on November 19, 2010.  Specifically,
the Church federal complaint alleges that the disclosures
contained in the Form S-4 Registration Statement omit or
misrepresent material information regarding the process of
approving the merger agreement, the merger consideration, and the
intrinsic value of AirTran.

AirTran and the individual AirTran defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Church federal complaint on December 22, 2010.

On January 18, 2011, William Nesbit filed another purported
AirTran shareholder class action lawsuit again in the United
States District Court for the District of Nevada against the same
defendants. The allegations and claims set forth in the Nesbit
lawsuit, as well as the relief requested, were generally the same
as those set forth in the Church federal complaint.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Defends Consolidated Lawsuit in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. continues to defend itself against a
consolidated lawsuit in Florida, according to the Company's
Feb. 8, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On Sept. 26, 2010, Southwest, AirTran, and Guadalupe Holdings
Corp. -- Merger Sub -- entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, providing for the acquisition of AirTran by Southwest.

Four purported AirTran shareholder class action lawsuits have been
filed in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and
for Orange County, Florida.  Harry Hoffner filed a purported class
action lawsuit on September 30, 2010, against AirTran, Robert L.
Fornaro, AirTran's Chairman, President and Chief Executive
Officer, each member of the AirTran board of directors, and the
Company.  This was followed by lawsuits filed by Robert Debardelan
on October 8, 2010, Thomas A. Rosenberger on October 12, 2010, and
Robert Loretitsch on October 15, 2010 against the same defendants
plus Merger Sub.  The complaints generally allege that the
consideration to be received by AirTran's stockholders in the
merger is unfair and inadequate and that the AirTran officers and
directors named as defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
approving the merger agreement through an unfair and flawed
process and by approving certain deal protection mechanisms
contained in the merger agreement. The complaints further allege
that AirTran, the Company, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the
individual AirTran defendants in the breach of their fiduciary
duties to AirTran's stockholders. The complaints seek injunctive
relief: (i) enjoining the defendants from consummating the merger
unless AirTran adopts and implements a procedure or process to
obtain the highest possible price for AirTran's stockholders and
discloses all material information to AirTran's stockholders,
(ii) directing the individual AirTran defendants to exercise their
fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction that is in the best
interests of AirTran's stockholders, (iii) rescinding, to the
extent already implemented, the merger agreement, including the
deal protection devices that may preclude premium competing bids
for AirTran, (iv) awarding plaintiff's costs and disbursements of
the action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees, and
(v) granting such other and further equitable relief as the court
may deem just and proper.

On November 15, 2010, these actions were consolidated into one
action styled In re AirTran Shareholder Litigation.  On
December 2, 2010, the consolidated Florida action was stayed in
its entirety pending resolution of the earlier filed Leonelli
complaint.


STERIS CORP: Records $19.8MM Pre-Tax Charge on Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
During the third quarter of fiscal 2011, Steris Corporation
recorded a pre-tax operating expense charge of $19.8 million
($13.1 million or $0.22 per diluted share after tax) for the
settlement of a SYSTEM 1(R) class action litigation, according to
the Company's Feb. 8, 2011 Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

This settlement is subject to, among other things, certification
of the class and approval of the settlement by the court.

On February 5, 2010, a complaint was filed by a Customer who
claims to have purchased two SYSTEM 1 devices from STERIS,
Physicians of Winter Haven LLC d/b/a Day Surgery Center v. Steris
Corp., Case No. 1:1-cv-00264-CAB (N.D. Ohio). The complaint
alleges statutory violations, breaches of various warranties,
negligence, failure to warn, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff
seeks class certification, damages, and other legal and equitable
relief including, without limitation, attorneys' fees and an order
requiring STERIS to replace, recall or adequately repair the
product and/or to take appropriate regulatory action.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Accused of Defrauding Seven Falls Investors
--------------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that a class action
claims a bank and a developer defrauded buyers who invested more
than $50 million in a private mountain subdivision that was never
built.  Investors say the National Bank of South Carolina and
developer Keith Vinson rerouted the money pledged for the Seven
Falls golf club community to boost the value of the bank stock and
for personal trips for bank executives.

Several families and an investment LLC sued Synovus Financial
Corp. dba National Bank of South Carolina and Keith Vinson, whose
20 defendant LLCs and two defendant corporations were created to
develop Seven Falls, according to the complaint.

According to the 28-page complaint in Muscogee County Court,
Synovus and Mr. Vinson used aggressive marketing campaigns from
2006 to 2008 to attract investors to Seven Falls, a community and
golf club to be built in Henderson County, N.C.

The 1,600-acre subdivision undeveloped land "was represented to
include hard surface roads, electric service, and telephone lines
to each lot; an Arnold Palmer signature 18 hole golf course," and
many other amenities, according to the complaint.

But the plaintiffs say that Synovus and Mr. Vinson did not build
any roads, nor did they install electric service or other
utilities or build the golf course or other amenities they had
advertised.

"Millions of dollars has [sic] been wasted or misappropriated,"
and "the Seven Falls Development is at a virtual standstill,"
according to the complaint.

"Plaintiffs cannot even drive a vehicle to their property, much
less apply for construction permits to build a home."

And, the class claims, the value of the lots at Seven Falls is
grossly below the value advertised.

The class claims that the bank and Mr. Vinson's companies
developed an elaborate marketing plan, which succeeded in
attracting more than $50 million in residential lot sales.

In May 2007, the bank and Mr. Vinson hosted an event at the
Biltmore Estate in Buncombe County, N.C., for the initial lot
owners.  The event featured free food, beverages and
entertainment, "which included live music, ice carvings, and an
appearance by golf legend Arnold Palmer, who flew into the party
by helicopter," according to the complaint.

After this reassuring extravaganza, the bank and Mr. Vinson
continued to promote Seven Falls as an investor's and homeowner's
paradise, the plaintiffs say.  In June 2007, they hosted the Grand
Opening of Seven Falls, followed by a private concert for Seven
Falls lot owners, featuring The Blues Brothers.

The Grand Opening of the Arnold Palmer Golf Academy at Seven Falls
in June 2008 promoted sales of exclusive villas in the Seven Falls
subdivision.  That event featured an appearance by Arnold Palmer
followed by a private concert featuring Kenny G.

Mr. Palmer is not a party to this complaint.

Mr. Vinson also produced a series of DVDs for the lot owners.
"These DVDs conveyed the message that no expense would be spared
in the development of Seven Falls," the class claims, adding,
"these extravagant marketing tactics were used by NBSC and the
developer to persuade consumers into believing Seven Falls was
fully funded by NBSC and financially stable."

While aggressively advertising Seven Falls, Mr. Vinson promoted
NBSC as the preferred lender for the development, the class
claims.  It claims that the bank loaned the developer more than
$90 million and shared ownership of bank accounts with Vinson's
companies.

The class claims the defendants created "a misperception of the
value of the lots at Seven Falls by falsely representing to
plaintiffs that the purchase price of a lot at Seven Falls was
significantly below market value and that plaintiffs would have
instant equity in their lots upon closing."

They claim the bank solicited and accepted grossly inflated
appraisals, which valued the lots as though the development of the
subdivision were complete.

They claim that to induce investors to buy lots, NBSC used
aggressive lending practices and failed to comply with its own
regulations.

The bank offered lending packages that required no down payment
for a lot or a golf membership; sometimes promised to cover 100%
of the interest on the lot for the first two years and offered
cash to buyers at closing, according to the complaint.

"Bank officials employed by NBSC were encouraged by NBSC to issue
loans to purchasers of lots at Seven Falls" the complaint states.
"Some of these employees were rewarded for such efforts by
receiving all expenses paid trips to the Caribbean."  After the
sale of each lot, NBSC funded a "deposit account" to cover
interest payments for two years in the name of each investor; the
bank reported the interest payments as income to increase the
price of Synovus stock, according to the complaint.

In October 2008, NBSC applied for government benefits under the
Troubled Asset Relief Program, the class claims.  To qualify for
TARP funds, NBSC canceled $63 million of the funds pledged to
Seven Falls and prematurely declared a loss on the development --
all while NBSC and the developer were seeking new buyers for the
Seven Falls lots, according to the complaint.

The class claims NBSC received $960 million from the federal
government, none of which was applied toward the Seven Falls
development.

Despite its promises, rather than investing in Seven Falls, the
"developer has used plaintiffs' money for his own personal gain
and for the entertainment of NBSC executives," the complaint
states.

The class claims that in February 2008 the developer took NSBC
officers on a ski trip to Beaver Creek, Colo., on a private
Gulfstream jet.  The developer then flew the bank officers to
Phoenix to watch Super Bowl XLII, and paid for their rooms,
according to the complaint.

"Developer purchased this Gulfstream jet approximately 26 days
after NBSC transferred Developer twenty million dollars intended
for the development of Seven Falls", the class claims.

The plaintiffs claims NBSC failed to oversee the construction
project at Seven Falls or to monitor its progress before approving
new draws requested by the developer.  The bank officers approved
every construction draw because they wanted to continue to enjoy
the benefits provided by the developer, according to the
complaint.

To top it off, the class claims, NBSC initiated legal action
against several investors, including some of the plaintiffs.  The
class claims the bank foreclosed on lots at Seven Falls, and
reported negative information about the plaintiffs to credit
reporting agencies.

The class seeks an injunction to stay foreclosure proceedings and
to prevent NBSC from reporting negative information to credit
agencies.  They also seek punitive damages for fraudulent
misrepresentation, conspiracy, negligent misrepresentation, breach
of contract, deceptive trade, slander of credit, breach of
fiduciary duty, and other charges.

A copy of the Complaint in Shanahan, et al. v. Synovus Financial
Corp. d/b/a National Bank of South Carolina, et al., Case No.
11CV29-94 (Ga. Super. Ct., Muscogee Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/09/GaBank.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          T. Ryan Langley, Esq.
          HODGE & LANGLEY LAW FIRM, P.A.
          P.O. Box 2765
          Spartanburg, SC 29304


TACO BELL: Turns Class Action Into Facebook Marketing Campaign
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Heine, writing for ClickZ, reports Taco Bell has
turned a class action lawsuit about the beef in its food into a
Facebook marketing campaign.  The restaurant chain is giving away
10 million free beef tacos to Facebook "likers" who download and
print a coupon.

The company pitched the offer to its 5.4 million Facebook "likes"
on Feb. 8, and has since picked up around 100,000 additional
"likes." Taco Bell is employing a like-gating strategy that's
being increasingly leveraged by marketers.  If 10 million coupons
are downloaded, the brand will announce the offer has reached its
limit capacity with a message on its Facebook wall.  Consumers
have until Feb. 15 to use the coupons.

The Irvine, CA-based firm is running Facebook.com ads to drive
more "likes" and coupon downloads.  The ad features an image of
the brand's hot sauce packet emblazoned with the Facebook-oriented
language, "Thumbs up to you, Friend!" Below it appears the copy:
"Thanks so much for your support! What's not to 'Like' about a
free taco?"

The development is part of a larger PR campaign that attempts to
refute an Alabama class action lawsuit that claims Taco Bell's
seasoned beef is only 35% actual beef.

Taco Bell CEO Greg Creed commented on the Facebook campaign in a
prepared statement: "Throughout the beef class action lawsuit, the
response and enthusiasm from our Facebook community has been
overwhelmingly positive.  We found it only fitting to reward these
5.4 million fans and a friend with a free taco.  It's our way of
saying thanks for their loyalty and support."


TELENAV INC: Court Appoints David Smith as Lead Plaintiff
---------------------------------------------------------
Telenav, Inc., continues to defend itself from a class action
lawsuit filed by David Smith, one of its stockholders, in
California, according to the Company's Feb. 8, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On September 2, 2010, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
was filed by David Smith in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:10-CV-03942-SC)
against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and
certain of the Company's underwriters for its May 13, 2010 initial
public offering.  The complaint purports to be brought on behalf
of all persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock
pursuant to its May 13, 2010 initial public offering, traceable to
the Company's Form S-1/A Registration Statement and Prospectus
filed with the SEC on May 13, 2010.  The complaint alleges that
the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and certain of
its underwriters for the initial public offering violated the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, by
issuing the Registration Statement and Prospectus, which the
plaintiff alleges contained material misstatements and omissions
in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose in its May 13, 2010 Registration Statement and Prospectus
that it would soon be renegotiating the Company's current contract
with Sprint, the Company's largest customer, which would result in
its revenue being reduced.  The complaint seeks class
certification, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs,
rescission or a rescissory measure of damages, equitable and/or
injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court may deem
proper.  David Smith and his attorneys have filed a motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff and lead counsel, which the Company
has not opposed.

On February 3, 2011, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff and selection of Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd as lead counsel.  The parties will meet and confer
regarding a proposed briefing schedule.  The Company denies the
plaintiff's allegations and believe that its defenses to this
action have merit.  The Company intends to vigorously defend
against this action and file a motion to dismiss the complaint.
Due to the preliminary status of the lawsuit and uncertainties
related to litigation, the Company is unable to evaluate the
likelihood of either a favorable or unfavorable outcome.  The
Company cannot currently estimate a range of any possible losses
it may experience in connection with this case.  Accordingly, the
Company is unable at this time to estimate the effects of this
lawsuit on its financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.


TERREMARK WORLDWIDE: Defends Four Lawsuits Related to Verizon Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Terremark Worldwide, Inc., is defending itself from four class
action lawsuits filed by shareholders who are against a merger
agreement the Company entered into with Verizon Communications,
Inc., according to the Company's Feb. 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On January 27, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Verizon Communications, Inc., and its
wholly-owned subsidiary Verizon Holdings Inc.  If the company
terminates the Merger Agreement in certain circumstances related
to the Company's execution of a definitive agreement in respect of
a superior proposal, the Company must pay Verizon a termination
fee equal to $52.5 million, unless the Company terminates the
Merger Agreement on or prior to February 26, 2011, in which case
the termination fee payable would be $37.5 million.

Four putative class action lawsuits have been filed in connection
with the Offer and the Merger: (i) Norbert Schaefer v. Terremark
Worldwide, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 11-03279-CA-32), filed on
January 31, 2011, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial
Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida; (ii) Eileen
Stackewicz v. Terremark Worldwide, Inc., et al. (Case No. 11-
03106-CA-40), filed on February 1, 2011, in the Circuit Court of
the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County,
Florida; (iii) Michael Jiannaras v. Terremark Worldwide, Inc., et
al. (Case No. 11-03471-CA-40), filed on February 2, 2011, in the
Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-
Dade County, Florida; and (iv) Thom Hogan v. Terremark Worldwide,
Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:11-cv-2036), filed on February 2, 2011 in
the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida,
Miami Division.

All four suits name the Company, the members of the board of
directors, Parent and Purchaser as defendants.  All four lawsuits
are brought by purported holders of the Company's common stock,
both individually and on behalf of a putative class of the
Company's stockholders, alleging that the Company's board of
directors breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the
Offer and the Merger by purportedly failing to maximize
stockholder value, and that the Company, Parent, and Purchaser
aided and abetted the alleged breaches.  All four lawsuits seek
equitable relief, including, among other things, to enjoin
consummation of the Offer and the Merger, rescission of the Merger
Agreement and an award of all costs, including reasonable
attorneys' fees.  The Hogan complaint additionally seeks
compensatory and/or recissory damages.  The Company believes that
these lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
against them; however, there can be no assurance that the Company
will be successful in its defense.  Due to the preliminary nature
of all four suits, the Company is unable at this time to estimate
their outcome.


TOWERS WATSON: Still Defends "Watson Wyatt" Merger-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Towers Watson & Co. is still defending itself from a consolidated
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania related to a merger agreement, according to the
Company's Feb. 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On Jan. 1, 2010, pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, as
amended by Amendment No. 1, Watson Wyatt Worldwide, Inc., and
Towers, Perrin, Forster & Crosby, Inc., combined their businesses
through two simultaneous mergers and became wholly-owned
subsidiaries of Jupiter Saturn Holding Company, which subsequently
changed its name to Towers Watson & Co.  Since the consummation of
the Merger, Towers Perrin changed its name to Towers Watson
Pennsylvania Inc.; and Watson Wyatt changed its name to Towers
Watson Delaware Holdings Inc.

On December 9, 2009, Watson Wyatt was informed by Towers Perrin of
a settlement demand from the plaintiffs in a putative class action
lawsuit filed by certain former shareholders of Towers Perrin.
Although the complaint in the Dugan Action does not contain a
quantification of the damages sought, plaintiffs' settlement
demand, which was orally communicated to Towers Perrin on December
8, 2009 and in writing on December 9, 2009, sought a payment of
$800 million to settle the action on behalf of the proposed class.
Plaintiffs requested that Towers Perrin communicate the settlement
demand to Watson Wyatt.

The Dugan Action previously was reported in Amendment No. 3 to the
Registration Statement on Form S-4/A (File No. 333-161705) filed
on November 9, 2009 by the Jupiter Saturn Holding Company.  As
reported in the Registration Statement, the complaint was filed on
November 5, 2009 against Towers Perrin, members of its board of
directors, and certain members of senior management in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Plaintiffs in this action are former members of Towers Perrin's
senior management, who left Towers Perrin at various times between
1995 and 2000. The Dugan plaintiffs seek to represent a class of
former Towers Perrin shareholders who separated from service on or
after January 1, 1971, and who also meet certain other specified
criteria.

On December 17, 2009, four other former Towers Perrin
shareholders, all of whom voluntarily left Towers Perrin in May or
June 2005 and all of whom are excluded from the proposed class in
the Dugan Action, commenced a separate legal proceeding in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania alleging the same claims in substantially the same
form as those alleged in the Dugan Action.  These plaintiffs are
proceeding in their individual capacities and do not seek to
represent a proposed class.

On January 15, 2010, another former Towers Perrin shareholder who
separated from service with Towers Perrin in March 2005 when
Towers Perrin and EDS launched a joint venture that led to the
creation of a corporate entity known as ExcellerateHRO, commenced
a separate legal proceeding in the United States District Court of
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania also alleging the same claims
in substantially the same form as those alleged in the Dugan
Action. Towers Perrin contributed its Towers Perrin Administrative
Solutions business to eHRO and formerly was a minority shareholder
(15%) of eHRO.  Pao seeks to represent a class of former Towers
Perrin shareholders who separated from service in connection with
Towers Perrin's contribution to eHRO of its TPAS business and who
are excluded from the proposed class in the Dugan Action.  Towers
Watson is also named as a defendant in the Pao Action.

Pursuant to the Towers Perrin Bylaws in effect at the time of
their separations, the Towers Perrin shares held by each of these
plaintiffs were redeemed by Towers Perrin at book value at the
time these individuals separated from employment.  The complaints
allege variously that there either was a promise that Towers
Perrin would remain privately owned in perpetuity (Dugan Action)
or that in the event of a change to public ownership plaintiffs
would receive compensation (Allen and Pao Actions).  Plaintiffs
allege that by agreeing to sell their shares back to Towers Perrin
at book value upon retirement, they and other members of the
putative classes relied upon these alleged promises, which they
claim were breached as a result of the consummation of the Merger
between Watson Wyatt and Towers Perrin.  The complaints assert
claims for breach of contract, breach of express trust, breach of
fiduciary duty, promissory estoppel, quasi-contract/unjust
enrichment, and constructive trust, and seek equitable relief
including an accounting, disgorgement, rescission and/or
restitution, and the imposition of a constructive trust.  On
January 20, 2010, the court consolidated the three actions for all
purposes.

On February 22, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaints in their entireties.  By order dated September 30,
2010, the court granted the motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claim
for a constructive trust and denied the motion with respect to all
other claims alleged. Pursuant to the court's September 30 order,
defendants also filed answers to plaintiffs' complaints on
October 22, 2010.  The parties are currently engaged in fact
discovery.

Towers Watson continues to believe the claims in these lawsuits
are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.
However, the cost of defending against the claims could be
substantial and the outcome of these legal proceedings is
inherently uncertain and could be unfavorable to Towers Watson.


WARNER MUSIC: Digital Music Download Lawsuit Back in Trial Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Music Group Corp. continues to defend itself from a
consolidated class action lawsuit related to downloadable digital
music prices after the Supreme Court rejected a petition for
certiorari filed by the defendants, according to the Company's
Feb. 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On December 20, 2005 and February 3, 2006, the Attorney General of
the State of New York served the Company with requests for
information in connection with an industry-wide investigation as
to whether the practices of industry participants concerning the
pricing of digital music downloads violate Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, New York State General Business Law Sections 340 et
seq., New York Executive Law Section 63(12), and related statutes.
On February 28, 2006, the Antitrust Division of the U.S.
Department of Justice served the Company with a request for
information in the form of a Civil Investigative Demand as to
whether its activities relating to the pricing of digitally
downloaded music violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Both
investigations have now been closed.  Subsequent to the
announcements of the above governmental investigations, more than
thirty putative class action lawsuits concerning the pricing of
digital music downloads were filed and were later consolidated for
pre-trial proceedings in the Southern District of New York.  The
consolidated amended complaint, filed on April 13, 2007, alleges
conspiracy among record companies to delay the release of their
content for digital distribution, inflate their pricing of CDs and
fix prices for digital downloads.  The complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory, statutory and treble damages.  All defendants,
including the Company, filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint on July 30, 2007.  On October 9, 2008, the
District Court issued an order dismissing the case as to all
defendants, including the Company.  On November 20, 2008,
plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal from the order of the District
Court to the Circuit Court for the Second Circuit.  Oral argument
took place before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on
September 21, 2009.  On January 12, 2010, the Second Circuit
vacated the judgment of the District Court and remanded the case
for further proceedings.  On January 27, 2010, all defendants,
including the Company, filed a petition for rehearing en banc with
the Second Circuit.  On March 26, 2010, the Second Circuit denied
the petition for rehearing en banc.  On August 20, 2010, all
defendants including the Company, filed a petition for Certiorari
before the Supreme Court.  The petition was rejected on
January 10, 2011.  The case will now return to the trial court.

The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits vigorously,
but is unable to predict the outcome of these suits.  Any
litigation the Company may become involved in as a result of the
inquiries of the Attorney General and Department of Justice,
regardless of the merits of the claim, could be costly and divert
the time and resources of management.


WORLEY CATASTROPHE: Sued Over Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that a class
of more than 1,000 oil spill claims adjusters say they worked more
than 40 hours a week without overtime pay for BP and Worley
Catastrophe Response.  Lead plaintiff John Altier sued on behalf
of an estimated class of 1,300, who were hired to research and pay
claims to victims of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster.

Mr. Altier says that he and the class "were paid at a daily rate
of pay.  Plaintiff, and all other similarly situated claims
adjusters were specifically paid the daily rate of pay for a
12-hour day.  Based on that rate of pay, the plaintiff's hourly
wage was $68.75 per hour."

He says that he and the class "worked significantly more than 40
hours in most workweeks."  He adds that they were not supervisors
nor administrators, were not paid "on a salary basis," and were
not exempt from overtime rules under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

However, he says, "defendants never paid plaintiff, or any other
similarly situated claims adjusters any overtime, at time-and-a-
half their regular rate of pay."

He adds that they knowingly and intentionally failed to pay
plaintiff, and all other similarly situated claims adjusters'
overtime."

Mr. Altier says he complained on several occasions to management
about not being paid for the overtime he worked," but "despite
repeated requests by plaintiff to be for the overtime hours
management refused to pay him."

He says they fired him on Sept. 25.

In a second class action, Mr. Altier sued Worley Catastrophe
Response, but not BP, demanding more than $50 million.  In this
complaint, Mr. Altier claims Worley "misappropriated tens of
millions of dollars" from the class by "systematically and
fraudulently breaching contracts."

This complaint alleges the Worley promised the claims adjusters
65% of the profits per day, but shorted them by 17%.

The second class action says that "by express written agreement,
plaintiff and all others were to have received 65% of the amount
defendant received related to daily services being provided by
each adjuster.  Defendant failed to and refused to pay the proper
percentage of the $1,200 - $1,300 per day it was receiving,
instead only paying out $550 per day, or just 48%."

The complaint continues: "Defendant intentionally and fraudulently
breach[ed] said contracts by knowingly failing to properly pay
unto plaintiffs the proper percentage under the contract, instead
paying plaintiff and others similarly situated only $550 per day."

Mr. Altier claims the class has "suffered damages of between $230
and $295 for each day they performed services under said contract,
and the defendant was unjustly enriched, being between $53,000,000
and $69,030,000."

A copy of the Complaint in Altier v. Worley Catastrophe Response
LLC, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00241 (E.D. La.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/09/BPAdjust.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.P. Hughes, Jr., Esq.
          HUGHES BROWN, PLLC
          1300 Access Road, Suite 100
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662) 234-6080


* HF211 Bill Aims to Curtail Consumer Fraud Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Lee Ann Schutz, writing for Session Daily, reports that, the
premise behind HF211, sponsored by Rep. Doug Wardlow (R-Eagan), is
that "our litigious culture, combined with zealous attorneys, has
put businesses at a disadvantage."

He told the House Civil Law Committee that his bill is not only
about tort reform and reining in class action lawsuits, but "it's
about jobs and economic development."

Many times these cases are without merit, but he said that
businesses are left in limbo when a class action suit is filed,
waiting to know if the courts are even going to take up the case.

"Businesses choose to settle rather than face unknown risks of a
trial and perhaps crippling financial loses," he said.

The bill, approved and sent to the House Judiciary Policy and
Finance Committee, would require a consumer to show real out-of-
pocket damages, and that actions were deceptive, false or
misleading in violation of certain consumer fraud, deceptive trade
practice or false advertising laws.

It would also make appealable a court order regarding the future
of a class action lawsuit.  While an appeal is pending, all
previous court actions on the suit would be halted.

Ten states have enacted this type of legislation.  "Minnesota
should not be left behind and become a haven for lawsuits.  This
protects Minnesota's business climate," Mr. Wardlow said.

While the bill is supported by many state business groups, there
may be unintended consequences for the consumer, said Prentiss
Cox, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School.

"If you do this, class actions will be severely curtailed and it
will be almost impossible to bring a class action under the
statutory fraud laws," he said.  As an example, he pointed to the
recent mortgage fraud.  Had there been an out-of-pocket damage
rule, cases against these companies wouldn't have gone forward
because the kind of harm would have been difficult to quantify.

Its companion, SF149, sponsored by Sen. Julianne Ortman
(R-Chanhassen), awaits action by the Senate Judiciary and Public
Safety Committee.


                             *********

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  * * *