CAR_Public/110221.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, February 21, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 36

                             Headlines

APPLE INC: More Defendants Added in Privacy Class Action
ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: Defends "Overdraft Fees" Class Action Suit
ATICO INT'L: Recalls 92,000 Heater Fans & Radiant Heaters
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Sued Over Disposal of Toxic Substances
BALSAM HILL: Recalls 1,333 Pre-Lit Artificial Christmas Trees

BELL MOBILITY: Faces Class Action Over Early Termination Fees
BURLINGTON BASKET: Recalls 500,000 Bassinets
CITIMORTGAGE INC: Settles Lender Placed Insurance Class Action
E1 ASSET MGT: Sued for Unpaid Wages & Improper Wage Deductions
FXDIRECTDEALER LLC: Faces Second Racketeering Cass Action

HUDSON LAW: Judge Allows Debt Collection Class Action to Proceed
HURON CONSULTING: May 6 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
LEM PRODUCTS: Recalls 3,500 Food Dehydrators With Digital Timers
LIVING SOCIAL: Sued Over Expiration Date on Gift Certificates
LOS LUNAS CORRECTIONAL: Prisoners File Sexual Abuse Class Action

MANKIND CORP: April 1 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Signs Memorandum to Settle "Schneider" Suit
MEDQUIST INC: Goldfarb Investigates Management Led Buyout
NORBOURG: $55-Mil. Class Action Settlement Finalized
NYSE EURONEXT: Goldfarb Probes Deutsche Boerse Exchange Offer

PFIZER INC: Rezulin Class Action Settlement Benefits Children
PFIZER INC: Faces Class Action Over Depo-Provera Side Effects
QWEST CORP: Parent Continues to Defend Suit Over Retiree Benefits
RADIOSHACK CORP: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Compensation
ROVI CORP: Awaits Ruling on Appeal of "Burke" Suit Dismissal

ROVI CORP: Reaches Pact to Settle Suits Over Sonic Acquisition
RYLAND GROUP: Newport Homeowners Settle Class Action for $1.2MM
SMURFIT-STONE: Continues to Defend Antitrust Lawsuits in Illinois
SMURFIT-STONE: Defends Class Action Lawsuits Over Rock-Tenn Merger
SOUTH AFRICA: Faces Class Action From Private Security Companies

SWIMWAYS CORP: Recalls 5,200 Kristi G Go & Grow Chair
TARGET CORP: Accused of Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
TCF FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Suit Over Posting Practices
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits in Penn.
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Barr Unit Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits

UNITED STATES: Class Action Prompts Military Sexual Abuse Probe
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Military Sexual Abuse
UTAH: To Settle Medicaid Class Action for $5.5 Million
VERIZON WIRELESS: Sued Over Monthly "Get it Now" Download Fee
WALT DISNEY: Recalls 1,200 Children's Light-up Watches

WINDERMERE COURT: Former Tenants File Class Action Over Fire
YRC WORLDWIDE: TGN Urges Investors to Consider Recovery Options
YUM! BRANDS: Continues to Defend Cole Arbitration
YUM! BRANDS: May 23 Hearing Set for Class Certification Motion
YUM! BRANDS: Oral Argument in "Archila" Suit Heard Feb. 14

YUM! BRANDS: "Rosales" Suit in Orange County Remains Stayed
YUM! BRANDS: Awaits Class Certification Ruling in "Hines" Suit
YUM! BRANDS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Wage & Hour Suit
YUM! BRANDS: Continues to Defend Calif. Labor Violations Suit
YUM! BRANDS: Exemplar Trial to Begin June 6 in "Moeller" Suit

YUM! BRANDS: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Smith" Suit
YUM! BRANDS: Continues to Defend "Whittington" Suit in Colorado



                             *********

APPLE INC: More Defendants Added in Privacy Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action adds a
long list of defendants to previous class actions accusing Apple
of computer fraud and privacy invasion by sending data gleaned
from iPhones and iPads to third parties, including advertisers.
Defendants in the latest class action include Groupon, National
Public Radio and The New York Times.

The class claims that Apple, "in concert with application
developers and application developer's affiliates," arranged for
third parties to gain access to customers' browsing histories, and
other information, "derived in whole or part from the mobile
devices, which includes but is not limited to Unique Device
Identifiers."

Here are the defendants: Apple, Flurry, Medialets, Pinch Media,
Quattro Wireless, IAC/Interactivecorp, Groupon, NPR, New York
Times Co., Pandora Media, WebMD

Health Services Group, Yelp!, and Doe Corporations 1 to 100.

The class demands punitive damages and costs.

A copy of the Complaint in Rodimer, et al. v. Apple, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-00700 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/16/AppleAgain.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard Lockridge, Esq.
          Robert Shelquist, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: ralockridge@locklaw.com
                  rkshelquist@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph H. Malley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH H. MALLEY
          1045 North Zang Blvd.
          Dallas, TX 75208
          E-mail: malleylaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          William M. Audet, Esq.
          Michael McShane, Esq.
          Jonas P. Mann, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS LLP
          221 Main Street, Suite 1460
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com
                  mmcshane@audetlaw.com
                  jmann@audetlaw.com


ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP: Defends "Overdraft Fees" Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Banc-Corp continues to defend itself from a class
action lawsuit alleging unfair assessment and collection of
overdraft fees, according to the Company's February 15, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

A lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, on April 6,
2010. The lawsuit is styled as a class action lawsuit with the
certification of the class pending. The suit alleges that the
Corporation unfairly assesses and collects overdraft fees and
seeks restitution of the overdraft fees, compensatory,
consequential and punitive damages, and costs. On April 23, 2010,
a Multi District Judicial Panel issued a conditional transfer
order to consolidate this case into the overdraft fees Multi
District Litigation pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division. The Company
denies all claims and intends to vigorously defend itself.


ATICO INT'L: Recalls 92,000 Heater Fans & Radiant Heaters
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Atico International USA, Inc. of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., announced
a voluntary recall of about 92,000 TrueLiving Heater Fans and
Portable Quartz Radiant Heaters.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

These heaters have caught fire, posing a fire hazard to consumers.

Atico has received eight reports of the A14B1053 Heater Fan
overheating and 21 reports of the A14B0979 Quartz Heater
overheating.  Reports for the A14B1053 Heater Fan included one
report of damage to an electrical outlet and wall and one report
of flames coming out of the front of the unit.  Reports for the
A14B0979 Quartz Heater included damage to the heater's plug, one
report of flames coming from a control knob and one report of a
consumer receiving minor burns to the hand.  For both products,
reports included incidents of smoke and melting of the plastic
casing.

Both heaters can be identified by the following model and item
numbers and universal product codes (UPC):

                                   Model#    Item#        UPC

Heater Fans                       NSB-200B  A14B1053   40022749831
Portable Quartz Radiant Heaters   HD-700    A14B0979  400022750066

Model numbers are found on a silver colored sticker on the bottom
of the unit.  Additionally, both heaters are marked with
manufacturing dates between 6/1/2010 and 8/30/2010. The date code
appears as "DATE CODE: 0610"

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11130.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Dollar General Stores from September 2010 to December 2010. The
heater fans sold for about $15 and the quartz radiant heater sold
for about $42.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled heaters and
return them to any Dollar General Store for a full refund.  For
additional information, contact Atico International USA toll-free
at (866) 448-7856 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's website at
http://www.aticousa.com/


ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Sued Over Disposal of Toxic Substances
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Atlantic Richfield, successor to Anaconda, and BP America,
successor to ARCO, harmed public health by dumping tons of
pollution from their Empire Nevada Mine, west of Yerington.

A copy of the Complaint in Roeder, et al. v. Atlantic Richfield
Company, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00105 (D. Nev.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/16/MinePollute.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kent R. Robinson, Esq.
          Kristen Martini, Esq.
          ROBISON, BELAUSTEGUI, SHARP & LOW, P.C.
          Washington Street
          Reno, NV 89503
          Telephone: (775) 329-3151

               - and -

          Howard A. Janet, Esq.
          Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
          Kenneth M. Suggs, Esq.
          JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
          1829 Reisterstown Road, Suite 320
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (410) 653-3200

               - and -

          Allen Kanner, Esq.
          Elizabeth Petersen, Esq.
          David A. Pote, Esq.
          KANNER & WHITELEY, L.L.C.
          701 Camp Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 524-5777

               - and -

          Steven J. German, Esq.
          Joel M. Rubenstein, Esq.
          GERMAN RUBENSTEIN, LLP
          19 West 44th Street, Suite 1500
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 704-2020


BALSAM HILL: Recalls 1,333 Pre-Lit Artificial Christmas Trees
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Balsam Hill LLC, of Redwood City, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,333 pre-lit artificial Christmas trees.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

Christmas trees advertised before Dec. 21, 2010 as indoor/outdoor
were supplied with extension cords rated for indoor use only,
posing an electrical shock hazard if used outside.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves trees that are safe for indoor use only and
are supplied with extension cords with warning labels stating "For
indoor use only."  These models sold before Dec. 21, 2010, are
affected by this recall:

  Tree Name                Model Number    Height    Lighting Type
  ---------                -----------     ------     ------------
Adirondack Evergreen             502 1282      6'        Led Clear
Adirondack Evergreen             502 1283      6'        Led Multi
Adirondack Evergreen             502 1284      7.5'      Led Clear
Adirondack Evergreen             502 1285      7.5'      Led Multi
Adirondack Evergreen             502 1286      9'        Led Clear
Adirondack Evergreen             502 1287      9'        Led Multi
Potted Colorado Mountain Spruce  502 1332      7'        Clear
Rockefeller Pine - Giant Tree    502 1464      15'       Clear
Rockefeller Pine - Giant Tree    502 1465      15'       Led Clear
Rockefeller Pine - Giant Tree    502 1466      15'       Led Multi
Rockefeller Pine - Giant Tree    502 1469      20'       Clear
Rockefeller Pine - Giant Tree    502 1470      20'       Led Clear
Rockefeller Pine - Giant Tree    502 1474      25'       Clear
Rockefeller Pine - Giant Tree    502 1475      25'       Led Clear
Rockefeller Pine - Giant Tree    502 1476      25'       Led Multi

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11723.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
online from October 2007 to December 2010 for between $300 to
$10,999.

Consumers should immediately stop using this product outdoors. If
this product has been used exclusively indoors, consumers may
continue to use it indoors.  If consumers have used the tree
outdoors or wish to use the tree outdoors, they must contact
Balsam Hill to receive a free retrofit kit containing an outdoor
extension cord.

For additional information and a retrofit kit, contact the
Christmas Tree Recall Hotline at (877) 694-2752 between noon and
7:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or e-mail the firm
at safety@balsamhill.com.  Consumers may also visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.balsamhill.com/recalls/


BELL MOBILITY: Faces Class Action Over Early Termination Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Hardy, writing for MobileSyrup.com, reports that yet another
Class Action lawsuit against Bell Mobility has been brought
forward.  This time it's spearheaded by Quebec resident Denis
Gagnon who is representing all customers "who are domiciled or
were domiciled in Quebec, who have been charged early termination
January 1, 2007".  Basically stating that Bell should pay back
$200 with interest to all the customers who were wrongly
overcharged for paying early termination fees when they canceled
their Bell cellphone contract.  The suit is also looking for Bell
to "pay a lump sum of $2,000,000.00 as punitive damages".


BURLINGTON BASKET: Recalls 500,000 Bassinets
--------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Burlington Basket Company, of Burlington, Iowa, announced a
voluntary recall of about 500,000 Bassinets.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

If the cross-bracing rails are not fully locked into position, the
bassinets can collapse causing the infant to fall to the floor or
fall within the bassinet and suffer injuries.

CPSC and Burlington Basket Company have received 10 reports of
incidents in which the recalled bassinets collapsed when the
folding legs were not locked into place.  Two infants received
minor injuries as a result of these collapses, including a bruise
to the head and a bruised shoulder.

This recall involves all Burlington Basket bassinets manufactured
before June 2010.  Affected models have folding legs attached to
the basket with white plastic pins.  Units with non-folding legs
attached with metal pins are not included in this recall.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11129.html

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
through Walmart and other mass merchandisers, department stores
and juvenile product stores nationwide and online by various Web
retailers, including Amazon.com, from January 2003 through August
2010 for about $50.

Consumers should immediately stop using the bassinets and check
the cross-bracing support rails to make sure they are in the
locked position.  To properly lock the support rails into place,
the end tabs must be fully inserted into the holes on the leg
assembly and twisted one quarter turn into the locked position, as
shown in the photos below.  Consumers should contact Burlington
Basket Company for a free kit with detailed instructions on proper
assembly of the cross-bracing support rails and decals with
assembly instructions to place on the bassinet.  A video showing
proper assembly of the bassinets is available is available at
http://burlingtonbasket.org/BASSINETRECALL.aspx/
For additional information, contact Burlington Basket Company at
(800) 553-2300 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Central Time,
Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.burlingtonbasket.com/


CITIMORTGAGE INC: Settles Lender Placed Insurance Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against
CitiMortgage, Inc. in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Los Angeles alleging, among other things,
that CitiMortgage allowed the assessment of excessive premiums in
its lender placed insurance ("LPI") program on California
properties, purportedly in violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law, Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et
seq. (the "UCL"), according to the CitiMortgage Lender Placed
Insurance LPI class action settlement Web site and notice.

The proposed CitiMortgage Lender Placed Insurance LPI class action
lawsuit settlement reportedly provides for, among other things,
that Citi Mortgage has agreed to pay a total sum not to exceed
$2,000,000 for settlement class members making valid claims,
attorneys' fees, costs and an incentive award to Plaintiff.
CitiMortgage reportedly has agreed to permit each settlement class
member to make a claim for a payment of up to $95, which claim
must be postmarked by February 12, 2011.

CitiMortgage also has reportedly agreed that, with respect to
CitiMortgage's LPI program, the rate of commissions paid to an
affiliate shall be 12%, and a fee in the amount of $.038 for
tracking compliance with insurance obligations shall apply, from
the date of a judgment granting final approval of the settlement
and for two (2) years thereafter (the "New Rate Period").

For more information about the CitiMortgage Lender Placed
Insurance LPI class action lawsuit settlement, including
information about how to participate in, be excluded from (or opt
out of) or comment on or object to the CitiMortgage Lender Placed
Insurance LPI class action settlement, visit the CitiMortgage
class action settlement Web site at: bc386656.com


E1 ASSET MGT: Sued for Unpaid Wages & Improper Wage Deductions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Tirado, et al., on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. E1 Asset Management, Inc., et al., Case
No.650376/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. February 11, 2011),
seeks to recover unpaid wages and improper wage deductions from
the broker-dealer and its co-defendant owners, Ron Yehuda Itin and
Ashan R. Shaikh.

Mr. Tirado, who worked for defendants from approximately June 2005
until May 2009, says the defendants willfully violated 12 NYCRR
Sections 142-2.1, 142-2.2, 142-2.4, and 142-2.6, and New York
Labor Law Section 191(1)(c), 193, and 198-b.

Specifically, Mr. Tirado alleges that the defendants failed to pay
them overtime compensation and made deductions from class members'
wages and commissions for clearing and execution charges and for
administrative and operating costs.

The Plaintiffs are 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


FXDIRECTDEALER LLC: Faces Second Racketeering Cass Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Business Trial Group of Morgan & Morgan, P.A. has filed a
class action lawsuit against FXDirectDealer, LLC (FXDD) alleging
fraud and racketeering.  The lawsuit, filed on February 11 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Manhattan Division), is the second class action lawsuit filed by
the firm against Forex dealers in the past week, alleging fraud,
deceptive trade practices, and racketeering.  On February 8, The
Business Trial Group filed a similar case against FXCM.  IBTimes
reported about it.

Morgan & Morgan says that as in the FXCM case, the suit alleges
that FXDD has defrauded thousands of customers using deceptive and
unfair trade practices, including falsely portraying its Forex
trading platform as "transparent," when instead it is a "rigged
game," designed to systematically separate customers from their
money.

Lead Trial Counsel Tucker H. Byrd, of the Morgan & Morgan Business
Trial Group of Orlando, Florida, stated, "We are continuing to
bring legal action for redress of wrongs that we believe have
occurred to thousands of Forex customers for years by dealers who
have been entrusted with their customers' money.  Unfortunately,
many Forex dealers engage in questionable practices, and we intend
to pursue any and all of them until we have put an end to these
abuses."


HUDSON LAW: Judge Allows Debt Collection Class Action to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports
that a law firm that allegedly violated New Jersey state law by
engaging in the debt collection business can be sued under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a federal judge ruled on
Feb. 10 in a precedential opinion.

District Judge Freda Wolfson in Trenton allowed a putative class
action to proceed against Lauri Hudson and her firm, Hudson Law
Offices, P.C., in Turnersville, N.J., based on the lawyer's
purported violation of the state Professional Services Corporation
Act, which makes it illegal for professional corporations to
render services other than the ones for which they were
incorporated.

Plaintiff Marjorie Chulsky alleges the firm violated the PSCA by
purchasing her $1,195 MasterCard debt and suing her on it in
Monmouth County small claims court.  A bill of sale attached to
the complaint, filed last March, indicates the debt was bought
from Credit Solutions Corp. in San Diego in 2008.  When the PSCA
prohibition was pointed out, Ms. Hudson dropped the small claims
action with prejudice on May 11, 2010.

One day later, Ms. Chulsky filed the class action complaint in
Monmouth County Law Division.  Ms. Hudson removed the case,
Chulsky v. Hudson Law Offices, 10-cv-3058, to federal court.  The
complaint says that in the preceding year, Ms. Hudson filed more
than 100 other debt collection actions in New Jersey.

Taking Ms. Chulsky's allegations as true, as required on a motion
to dismiss, Judge Wolfson found Ms. Chulsky had sufficiently
alleged a violation of the PSCA and that Ms. Hudson was not
shielded by statutory language that allows professional
corporations to invest funds in real estate, stocks and other
assets.

Professionals are permitted to buy debt obligations under the law
as an investment but they cannot operate a debt collection
business, held Judge Wolfson.

If Hudson's debt collection activity is not allowed by law, then
it would be against public policy and "New Jersey courts would not
enforce an attempt to collect on a contract violative of the
PSCA," wrote Judge Wolfson.

That lack of enforceability supported Ms. Chulsky's contention
that Hudson violated the FDCPA, Judge Wolfson found.  In
particular, Ms. Chulsky claimed violation of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692e,
which bars use of "any false, deceptive, or misleading
representations or means in connection with the collection of any
debt," and Sec. 1692e(2)(A), which prohibits collectors from
misrepresenting the "legal status of any debt."

Ms. Chulsky did not, however, have a viable claim under a
different FDCPA provision, Sec. 1692f(1), which does not allow
collection of "any amount . . . unless such amount is expressly
authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law"
because there was no challenge to the amount of the debt."

In allowing the two FDCPA counts to go forward, Judge Wolfson
rejected a defense based on Sec. 1692e's exemption for "a formal
pleading made in connection with a legal action."  The exemption
is in subparagraph 11, which requires debt collectors to disclose
they are trying to collect a debt, and so applies only to
violations of that subsection, she said.

Judge Wolfson also held that violating a state law can provide the
basis for an FDCPA claim, citing Crossley v. Lieberman, 868 F.2d
566 (3d Cir. 1989), and Scioli v. Goldman & Warshaw, P.C., 651 F.
Supp. 2d 273 (D.N.J. 2009).

Ms. Hudson asked for dismissal of the claims asserted against her
individually because her actions were done in her professional
capacity as attorney for Hudson Law.  Judge Wolfson refused,
saying, "it is clear that attorneys may be held liable for
misleading statements made on behalf of their clients."

Judge Wolfson dismissed counts brought under New Jersey's Consumer
Fraud Act and Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act.
The CFA does not apply to debt collection activities because a
debtor is not a "consumer," a debt is not "merchandise" and a debt
transaction is not a "sale."  And though the underlying debt was
the result of a consumer contract, Ms. Chulsky's allegations did
not focus on the credit agreement but on the contents of the
complaint filed to collect the debt, so the TCCWNA claim was not
viable, Judge Wolfson said.

Ms. Chulsky's lawyer, Andrew Wolf, of Galex Wolf in North
Brunswick, says "law firms that want to engage in debt collection
should have separate debt collection companies."

He and another lawyer for Ms. Chulsky, New Brunswick solo
Christopher McGinn, say Judge Wolfson's dismissal of the CFA claim
appears contrary to Jefferson Loan Co., Inc. v. Session, 397 N.J.
Super. 520 (App. Div. 2008), which held that the assignee of a
retail installment sales contract for an automobile could face CFA
liability for its own unconscionable practices in repossessing the
car and suing to enforce the contact.  Mr. Wolf represented the
car buyer in that case, who counterclaimed against the assignee.

Ms. Hudson was out of the office on Feb. 14 and could not be
reached for comment.

Her lawyer, John Slimm, of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman &
Goggin in Cherry Hill, says the rulings on the CFA and TCCWNA are
of first impression in the district.  Dante Rohr, another lawyer
at the firm working on the case, says "a CFA claim can no longer
be thrown in with an FDCPA claim."  Both decline comment on the
FDCPA claims.


HURON CONSULTING: May 6 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC issued a statement regarding
the Huron Consulting Group class action litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS,
EASTERN DIVISION

JASON HUGHES, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC., et al.,
Defendants, Master File No. 09-CV-4734, Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS
ACTION; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
THE COMMON STOCK OF HURON CONSULTING GROUP INC. ("HURON") BETWEEN
APRIL 27, 2006 AND JULY 31, 2009, INCLUSIVE, AND WHO WERE DAMAGED
THEREBY.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.  YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED
BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois: (i) of the pendency
of the above- captioned action (the "Action") as a class action on
behalf of the persons and entities described above (the "Class"),
except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the
Class by definition; and (ii) that a settlement of the Action (the
"Settlement") for $27,000,000 in cash plus 474,547 shares of Huron
common stock (valued at approximately $11 million as of November
24, 2010) has been proposed by the parties.  A hearing will be
held on May 6, 2011, at 1:30 p.m., before the Honorable Elaine E.
Bucklo, at the Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse,
Courtroom 1441, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois
60604, to determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii)
whether the Released Claims against Defendants and the other
Released Persons should be dismissed with prejudice; (iii) whether
the terms and conditions of the issuance and distribution of
shares of Huron common stock as part of the Settlement
consideration pursuant to an exemption from registration
requirements under Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, are fair to all persons to whom the shares will be
distributed; (iv) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should
be approved as fair and reasonable; and (v) whether Lead Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
litigation expenses should be granted.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND THE SETTLEMENT, AND YOU MAY
BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND.  If you have not yet
received the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Class Action; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and
(III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation
Expenses (the "Notice") and Proof of Claim and Release form (the
"Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by
contacting the Claims Administrator: In re Huron Consulting Group,
Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., P.O.
Box 9687, Dublin, OH 43017-4987, 1-888-584-7632.

Copies of the Notice and Claim Form may also be downloaded from
the Web site maintained for the Settlement at
http://www.huronsecuritieslitigation.com/or Lead Counsel's
respective Web sites at: http://www.cohenmilstein.com/;
http://www.blbglaw.com/; and http://www.labaton.com/

If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to share
in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked no later than May 5, 2011.  If you are a
member of the Class and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you
will not share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund but
you will nevertheless be bound by any judgment entered by the
Court in the Action.  To exclude yourself from the Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later
than April 22, 2011, in accordance with the instructions set forth
in the Notice.  Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the
Plan of Allocation and/or the application for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses must be
filed with the Court and delivered to counsel for the parties as
set forth in the Notice such that they are received no later than
April 22, 2011, in accordance with the instructions set forth in
the Notice.  If you are a member of the Class and do not exclude
yourself from the Class, you will be bound by any judgment entered
by the Court in the Action.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT HURON, THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE
REGARDING THIS NOTICE.  Inquiries, other than requests for the
Notice and Claim Form, may be made to Lead Counsel:

          Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1705
          Chicago, IL 60603

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue N.W., West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005-3964

          Steven B. Singer, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP,
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019

          Jonathan M. Plasse, Esq.,
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005

By Order of the Court


LEM PRODUCTS: Recalls 3,500 Food Dehydrators With Digital Timers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
LEM Products, of Harrison, Ohio, announced a voluntary recall of
about 3,500 food dehydrators with digital timers.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The screws that secure the motor to the back panel can come loose,
causing the motor to fall on the heating element.  This poses a
fire hazard.

LEM Products has received five reports of motors falling on the
unit's heating element resulting in smoke or fire contained in the
unit.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves 5-tray and 10-tray LEM food dehydrators with
serial numbers 2010 0701, 2010 0702, 2010 07021, 2010 0901, 2010
0902, 2010 1001 or 2010 1101.  The dehydrators are gray and are
made of plastic.  The LEM logo is embossed on the top of the unit.
The serial number is located on the label on the back panel. The
last section of the UPC code found in the packaging reads "1009 1"
for the 5-tray unit and "1010 7" for the 10-tray unit.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11131.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
mass merchandisers and retailers nationwide and online at
http://www.lemproducts.com/from August 2010 through December 2010
for about $160.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled dehydrators
and contact LEM Products to receive a free repair kit.  For more
information, contact LEM Products toll-free at (877) 425-4509
between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday or visit the Web site at http://www.lemproducts.com/


LIVING SOCIAL: Sued Over Expiration Date on Gift Certificates
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Whittenberg, writing for KING 5 News, reports that a popular
service that offers online gift certificates has been hit with a
class-action lawsuit in Seattle.

Living Social is accused of violating the Washington Consumer
Protection Act, which makes it illegal to include expiration dates
on pre-paid gift certificates.  The Maryland-based company prints
an expiration date on the gift vouchers it gives to customers.

The suit was filed on Feb. 14 in U.S. District Court in Seattle.

"They're cheating the people that buy these things," says
Jay Carlson, an attorney representing the two women in the
lawsuit.  "Living Social is selling certificates in a way that
really reduces the opportunity to get the value of the
certificate."

The company says in its terms and conditions section that the
expiration date is exempt if it is prohibited under the law of the
state that the gift voucher is in.  But Mr. Carlson says customers
are not encouraged to read the fine print.

"They bury those details in the terms of use.  It's deceiving,"
Mr. Carlson said.

Many business owners say some customers don't receive the services
they are promised because they didn't redeem it before the printed
expiration date.

"In that case, we offer them a refund in the form of a gift card,"
said Inez Gray, owner of Habitude Salon and Spa in Ballard.

Despite that, Ms. Gray said she wouldn't use Living Social without
those expiration dates.

"It would be a deal breaker for me," she said.  "I don't want to
do half price facials and massages three years from now when I
don't need new business anymore."

Attorneys who filed the lawsuit are convinced there are tens of
thousands of customers out there that deserve a refund on services
they didn't receive

Living Social says it is currently reviewing the particulars of
this suit.

"We never received any communication from the plaintiffs that they
were in any way unhappy with their purchases.  We would have done
everything in our power to please them," a company spokesperson
wrote in an e-mail.


LOS LUNAS CORRECTIONAL: Prisoners File Sexual Abuse Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Jojola, writing for KOB Eyewitness News 4, and Taryn
Bianchin, writing for KOB.com, report that a class action lawsuit
filed on Feb. 16 accuses New Mexico prison officials of forcing
dozens of prisoners to sit naked in sexual positions while being
videotaped.

The lawsuit targets Warden Anthony Romero of the Los Lunas
Correctional Facility and a former director named Donald Dorsey.

The suit claims Romero and other correctional officers forced up
to 75 prisoners to strip down to their underwear at gunpoint and
sit "with their genitals touching the backs of the man in front of
them."

The lawsuit also says the "sexual abuse" occurred several times
and was videotaped.  According to the suit, the abuse lasted for
hours which allegedly caused one prisoner to urinate upon another.

The suit was filed in the Thirteenth Judicial District Court in
Valencia County on Feb. 16 by Albuquerque attorney Matthew Coyte.

"It happened on numerous occasions.  There are going to be lots
and lots of prisoners who are going to say that they were put in a
line and subjected to this sexual humiliation," Mr. Coyte said.

When asked why the claims should be believed considering abuse
claims are common within the prison system, Mr. Coyte cited the
number of plaintiffs.

"Well, because there was videotape evidence.  The warden
videotaped it.  There were various people who walked around who
saw the videotaping taking place and there are so many plaintiffs.
This is a class-action case.  It's not just one individual,"
Mr. Coyte said.

KOB Eyewitness News 4 reached out the New Mexico Department of
Corrections, hoping to get comment from Warden Romero.  A
department spokesperson said a comment wouldn't be available at
this time because of "pending litigation."


MANKIND CORP: April 1 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP disclosed that a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of MannKind Corporation, who purchased or otherwise
acquired MannKind securities between June 25, 2010 and January 19,
2011, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          David M. Promisloff, Esq.
          BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Toll Free: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706
          E-mail: info@btkmc.com

The Complaint charges MannKind and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
MannKind is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the
discovery, development and commercialization of therapeutic
products for patients with diseases such as diabetes and cancer.
The Company's diabetes pipeline includes AFREZZA which is an
inhaled insulin.   More specifically, the Complaint alleges that
the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them: (1) AFREZZA was far riskier than
defendants had led on; (2) even if AFREZZA was approved by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (the "FDA"), it would require
additional risk disclosures to patients; (3) the FDA's delay in
approving AFREZZA was not solely related to the inspection of the
European facility; (4) it was highly unlikely that the FDA would
approve AFREZZA in the near future; (5) AFREZZA's approval could
be inhibited by the FDA's concerns regarding its clinical utility;
(6) the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and (7)
defendants' statements about the Company's operations and
prospects were false and misleading at all relevant times.

Prior to the Class Period, AFREZZA's approval had been delayed by
the FDA. Defendants characterized the delay as a result of an FDA
mistake in not completing an inspection of a European facility
that made the insulin used in AFREZZA.  During the Class Period,
defendants repeatedly represented that AFREZZA's approval by the
FDA was imminent.  Defendants also told investors that AFREZZA was
an extremely valuable product for the treatment of adult patients
with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes for the control of hyperglycemia.
On January 18, 2011, defendants received a complete response
letter from the FDA regarding MannKind's New Drug Application for
AFREZZA, which revealed that the FDA had again deferred the
approval of AFREZZA.  The FDA also ordered two additional clinical
trials with the inhaler.  Defendants did not disclose this
information on January 18, 2011.  Instead, on January 19, 2011,
less than an hour before the market closed, defendants revealed
the contents of the FDA's complete response letter.  This
announcement followed a temporary halt in the trading of MannKind
stock. Upon the release of this news, shares of the Company's
stock fell approximately $2.94 per share, or 32.3%, to close on
January 20, 2011 at $6.17 per share, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and
is represented by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer &
Check which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal
courts throughout the country.  Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer &
Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and
has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and
individual investors from the United States and around the world.

For more information about Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check,
or for additional information about participating in this action,
please visit http://www.btkmc.com/

If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not
later than April 1, 2011 move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
of the class, if you so choose.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that 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.  Your ability to
share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision
whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  Any member of the
purported 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.


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Signs Memorandum to Settle "Schneider" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., entered into a memorandum of
understanding with plaintiffs to settle a class action
complaint in Arizona over its proposed merger with Wonder
Holdings, Inc., according to the Company's February 15, 2011, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Floyd Schneider filed a complaint on behalf of himself and as a
putative class action on behalf of the public stockholders of
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., against all members of the Company's
Board of 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 by Wonder to
purchase all of the outstanding common stock of the Company,
including the associated preferred share purchase rights, and the
related merger by failing to engage in an honest and fair sale
process and by providing materially inadequate disclosure and
material disclosure omissions regarding the Offer and the merger
and that the Company, Wonder Holdings Acquisition Corp. and Wonder
have aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duties.

In order to avoid the costs, disruption and distraction of further
litigation, and without admitting the validity of any allegations
made in the Schneider Action, on February 14, 2011, counsel for
each of the defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding
with plaintiff's counsel, which sets forth an agreement in
principle to settle the Schneider Action on the terms and
conditions set forth in the MOU. The MOU provides, among other
things, that the parties to the Schneider Action will use their
best efforts to agree upon, execute and present to the Superior
Court, within 30 days of the MOU, a formal stipulation of
settlement, which shall include, among other things, the following
provisions:

   (i) a conditional certification of the Schneider Action as a
       consolidated class action pursuant to Arizona law;

  (ii) a complete discharge, dismissal with prejudice, settlement
       and release of, and an injunction barring, all claims of
       any kind or nature whatsoever that have been, could have
       been, or in the future can or might be asserted against the
       defendants (including certain affiliates and
       representatives thereof) in the Schneider Action or in any
       other matter by or on behalf of any member of the Class,
       except the right of the plaintiff or any other member of
       the Class to enforce the terms of the Stipulation;

(iii) a release by the defendants of the plaintiff, members of
       the Class and plaintiff's counsel from all claims arising
       out of the institution, prosecution, settlement or
       resolution of the Schneider Action, except the right to
       enforce the terms of the Stipulation or the MOU;

  (iv) that the defendants have denied and continue to deny that
       any of them have committed or have threatened to commit or
       have aided or abetted the alleged commission of any
       violations of law or breaches of duty to the plaintiff, the
       Class or anyone else; and

   (v) an acknowledgement that plaintiff's counsel has a claim for
       attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses in connection
       with the Schneider Action and an agreement by the
       defendants not to oppose plaintiff's application for fees
       and expenses up to and not exceeding $150,000.

In addition, the MOU provides that all proceedings in the
Schneider Action, except for those relating to the Settlement,
shall be suspended pending the negotiation and execution of the
Stipulation. Except for the fees and expenses of plaintiff's
counsel, the defendants shall bear no other expenses, costs,
damages or fees alleged or incurred by the plaintiff, by any
member of the Class, or by any of their attorneys, experts or
other representatives.

The MOU shall be null and void and of no further force and effect,
unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, if (a) the Settlement
does not obtain final approval by the Superior Court; (ii)
plaintiff concludes, after obtaining certain confirmatory
discovery that the Company is obligated to provide pursuant to the
MOU, that the Settlement is not fair, adequate, and in the best
interests of the Class, or (iii) the Offer is not concluded for
any reason. The effective date of the Settlement shall be the date
on which the order of the Superior Court approving the Settlement
becomes final and no longer subject to further appeal or review.


MEDQUIST INC: Goldfarb Investigates Management Led Buyout
---------------------------------------------------------
Goldfarb Branham LLP is investigating whether the Board of
Directors of MedQuist, Inc. violated shareholder protection laws
in connection with the proposed exchange offer by CBay Systems
Holdings Limited.  If you are a MedQuist, Inc. shareholder -- or
have knowledge of this transaction -- you are encouraged to
contact attorney Hamilton Lindley at 877-583-2855 or
hlindley@goldfarbbranham.com

"CBay -- which already owns 69.5% of MedQuist -- has offered to
exchange one share of CBay for each share of MedQuist it does not
already own."

"CBay -- which already owns 69.5% of MedQuist -- has offered to
exchange one share of CBay for each share of MedQuist it does not
already own," securities lawyer Hamilton Lindley said.  "Our
potential class action lawsuit seeks to ensure that the MedQuist
Board of Directors maximizes value for investors in this
management led buyout by the company's controlling shareholder."

Goldfarb Branham's lawyers have significant experience
representing individual and institutional investors in over 100
shareholder class action cases.  A firm securities lawyer,
Hamilton Lindley, can be reached at hlindley@goldfarbbranham.com
or 877-583-2855 to discuss the impact of this buyout on MedQuist
shareholders.

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


NORBOURG: $55-Mil. Class Action Settlement Finalized
----------------------------------------------------
The parties involved in the various Norbourg suits announced that
they have signed the final agreement confirming the settlement and
payment of $55 million to the Norbourg victims.

On Thursday, February 17, 2011, the notice to members stating that
this out-of-court settlement will soon be submitted for approval
by the Superior Court will be published in La Presse, Le Soleil,
Le Journal de Montreal, Le Journal de Quebec and The Gazette.

All Norbourg and Evolution investors as of August 24, 2005, will
thus be notified that the settlement will be submitted to Superior
Court Judge Andre Prevost on March 14, 2011, to approve the
transaction concluded with the participating defendants and to
determine the amount in fees for their attorneys.  These investors
will also be notified that a petition on behalf of Real Ouimet in
respect of the motion to initiate a class action against the
Caisse de depot et placement du Qu‚bec will also be submitted to
the court.  Finally, the notice will also mention how this
settlement will impact the investors in the Perfolio class action.

This notice to the members will contain details regarding the
agreement, in particular the contact information for the lawyers
representing the investors, including a telephone number (1-885-
788-3003) and the Web site address --
http://www.roylarochelle.com/-- for the Pellemans class action,
or the Web site -- http://www.gbvavocats.com/-- for the Caisse
and Perfolio class actions, where interested parties may consult
the major documents and receive answers to their questions.

For more information, please contact:

Investors' legal counsel
Me Jacques Larochelle: 418-529-5881
Me Serge Letourneau: 418-692-6697 or Cell: 418-564-8142
Me Marc-Andre Gravel: 418-656-1313


NYSE EURONEXT: Goldfarb Probes Deutsche Boerse Exchange Offer
-------------------------------------------------------------
Goldfarb Branham LLP is investigating whether the Board of
Directors of NYSE Euronext Group violated shareholder protection
laws in connection with the exchange offer by Deutsche Boerse.  If
you are an NYSE shareholder -- or have knowledge of this
transaction -- you are encouraged to contact attorney Hamilton
Lindley at 877-583-2855 or hlindley@goldfarbbranham.com

"Under the terms of the agreement, Deutsche Boerse will have a 60%
majority stake in this iconic American institution," securities
lawyer Hamilton Lindley said.  "Shareholders of NYSE Euronext will
receive 0.47 shares for each share in the new company while
Deutsche Boerse shareholders will have their shares swapped on a
one-for-one basis.  Shares of NYSE Euronext fell 1.3% after it
agreed to be acquired by the German company.  Our potential class
action lawsuit seeks to ensure that the NYSE Euronext Board of
Directors maximizes value for investors in this exchange offer."

Goldfarb Branham's lawyers have significant experience
representing individual and institutional investors in over 100
shareholder class action cases.  A firm securities lawyer,
Hamilton Lindley, can be reached at hlindley@goldfarbbranham.com
or 877-583-2855 to discuss the impact of this buyout on NYSE
Euronext shareholders.

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


PFIZER INC: Rezulin Class Action Settlement Benefits Children
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bradenton.com reports that a grant from a $60 million settlement
in a class-action lawsuit filed by Korein Tillery led to a new
Illinois law that improves care for children with diabetes at
schools throughout the state.  The settlement in the suit against
Pfizer Inc. and a subsidiary over the safety of its now removed
anti-diabetes prescription drug Rezulin created a $20 million fund
to finance diabetes research.

The Chicago Daily Law Bulletin reported that part of a $5 million
grant from the settlement fund to the Illinois Institute of
Technology was used by the Chicago-Kent College of Law to finance
research and work with Illinois legislators and diabetes-care
advocates to develop, pass, and implement a law that makes it
easier for children with diabetes to get care at school.  For
students who provide their school with a care plan, school
employees can be trained to administer insulin or glucagon and
carry out other tasks associated with diabetes care. Those
employees do not have to be nurses or medical personnel.

Associate Clinical Professor of Law Edward M. Kraus and
Distinguished Professor Lori B. Andrews of Chicago-Kent led the
effort with several law students, according to the Chicago Daily
Law Bulletin.  The group researched legislation in other states
and worked with State Rep. Thomas H. Cross III, R-Oswego; Sen.
Heather Stearns, D-Chicago; and diabetes advocates including
Suzanne Elder and the American Diabetes Association to get the
Legislature to pass the law. Gov. Pat Quinn signed it and it went
into effect last Dec. 1.

Stephen M. Tillery and Aaron M. Zigler of Korein Tillery
prosecuted the class action against Pfizer and subsidiary Warner-
Lambert alleging that they had illegally advertised and priced
Rezulin as an anti-diabetes drug that was "safe as a placebo" when
in fact the drug had fatal side effects.  Mr. Tillery said
thousands of personal-injury cases and 50 class-action cases were
filed concerning the drug.  However, of the class-action suits,
only Korein Tillery's led to any recovery through the 2004
settlement.  The settlement was reported to be the largest
settlement or verdict in Illinois in 2004 and was cited on the
floor of the U.S. Senate as an example of how class-action suits
serve the public good.

For more information on the case and settlement, go to the Korein
Tillery Web site at http://is.gd/RONcl4

Korein Tillery -- http://www.koreintillery.com/-- is an AV-rated
class action law firm with offices in St. Louis and Chicago that
has recovered billions of dollars in verdicts and settlements in a
variety of cases across the country involving pension funds,
insurance, securities, antitrust, telecommunications,
pharmaceuticals, environmental contamination, tobacco, computer
technology, and consumer fraud.


PFIZER INC: Faces Class Action Over Depo-Provera Side Effects
-------------------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reports that Depo Provera lawsuits have
been filed, including a class action in Toronto, alleging Depo
shot side effects include Depo Provera bone loss and Depo Provera
osteoporosis.

Depo Provera is a contraceptive administered by Depo Provera
injection.  Since 2005, the FDA has warned of Depo Provera side
effects.

Depo-Provera Birth Control and Osteoporosis

Manufactured by Pfizer, Depo-Provera (medroxyprogesterone acetate
suspension for injection) is a powerful contraceptive or birth-
control medication that is administered by injection four times a
year, rather than the more common daily oral birth control pill.

Depo Provera injection, or 'depo shot', has remained popular among
women because of its higher pregnancy prevention rate and its
convenience.  According to Pfizer's Web site, Depo injection is
effective in ending pregnancies more than 99% of the time, and it
is marketed as a "hassle and worry free" birth control method,
saving women from daily pill popping.

Depo-Provera contains a powerful variant of the hormone
progestosterone which is released through a hypodermic shot every
few months.  This hormone has been shown to increase the loss of
bone density in women of all ages, including teen and young adult
women who are in critical stages of natural bone growth.  Concerns
that the drug causes massive and partially irreversible bone loss
in young women have led to a number of lawsuits in the U.S. and
three lawsuits in Canada.

Since its launch, many studies have been conducted on Depo-
Provera, its side effects and effectiveness.  A study published in
the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine documents bone
loss or Osteoporosis in women while they were taking Depo-Provera.
Other back-up studies claim that the bone loss may be reversible
in younger women while some studies say the bone loss is
permanent.

Osteoporosis and the loss of bone density typically affect women
later in life, making them susceptible to fractures throughout the
skeletal system, but men of all ages and young women are also
prone to osteoporosis.  Depo-Provera Contraceptive Injection may
cause women of all ages to lose calcium stored in bones and the
longer Depo-Provera is taken, the more calcium is likely to be
lost.

Depo Provera Side Effects

Depo-provera side effects can include:

    * Loss of BMD (bone mineral density) that could lead to the
onset of osteoporosis, low bone density, and other osteo-related
diseases

    * Menstrual irregularities such as bleeding and spotting

    * Amenorrhea or not having any periods. (After a year of Depo
Provera injections, 57% of women are not menstruating; after two
years of taking Depo shots, 68% of women are not menstruating.)

    * Spotty darkening of the skin, usually around or on the face,
which may be permanent

    * Weight gain due to increased appetite

    * Pregnancy-like symptoms include sore breasts, nausea,
fatigue, and abdominal discomfort.

Other Depo shot side effects include excessive weight gain, hair
loss, headaches, muscle stiffness, and severe joint pain.  The
long-term effects on bone density and women's bodies are still
unknown.

Depo-Provera Timeline

1990: Women's health activists in New Zealand raise concerns about
the potential loss of bone density in young women taking Depo
Provera.

1991: Canadian Coalition on Depo-Provera, a coalition of women's
health professional and advocacy groups, opposes the approval of
Depo in Canada.

1992: FDA approves Depo-Provera, which has already been used by
over 30 million women since 1969.

1995: Several women's health groups ask the FDA to put a
moratorium on Depo-Provera, and to institute standardized informed
consent forms.

2002: Pfizer promises results of post-marketing studies.

November 2004: Pfizer shows in post-marketing studies permanent
bone mineral density (BMD) loss.

(As a result of post-marketing studies, conducted separately with
adults and with adolescents, it appears that Pfizer knew of
clinical bone density test data regarding the use of Depo Provera
Contraceptive Injection and its associated effect on bone mineral
density (BMD) before issuing a black box warning.)

FDA issues an order whereby all Depo-Provera packaging and
promotional materials must contain a "black box" warning which
reads:

"Use of Depo-subQ Provera 104 or Depo Provera may cause you to
lose calcium stored in your bones.  The longer you use Depo
Provera, the more calcium you are likely to lose.  The calcium may
not return completely once you stop using Depo Provera.  Loss of
calcium may cause weak bones that could increase the risk that
your bones might break, especially after menopause.  It is not
known whether your risk of developing osteoporosis may be greater
if you are a teenager when you start to use Depo Provera.  You
should only use Depo Provera long term (more than 2 years) if
other methods of birth control are not right for you".

December 2005: A $700-million class-action lawsuit is filed
against Pfizer, the Depo-Provera maker, in Toronto.  The lawsuit
claims that long-term users of Depo Provera have been diagnosed
with serious bone density problems including but not limited to
osteoporosis, fractures, brittle teeth, spine injuries, and hip
injuries.

The Depo-Provera lawsuit also alleges that Pfizer failed to
forewarn doctors and patients of the serious bone density risks
associated with long-term use of the drug and had originally
promoted the injection as a safe contraceptive method for long-
term use.

Pfizer Canada said it plans to vigorously defend the Depo-Provera
class action lawsuit filed in Ontario Superior Court.

Late 2005: Pfizer reports a net income of $2.732 billion.  Depo
Provera has now been used worldwide for almost 25 years and in the
United States for 13 years.

2010: Pfizer settles several class action suits regarding Depo
Provera, and individual claims against the company are still an
option.

Pfizer, the manufacturer of Depo-Provera continues to actively
promote this birth control method to women of all ages, and is
very popular among younger women.  Despite the FDA warnings and
reports of bone loss, millions of doses are prescribed every year.
(Between 1994-2000, USAID sent over 40 million units of depo-
provera to birth control programs in the developing world, mostly
to Africa).

If you are currently taking Depo-Provera, you might want to
discuss a bone density test with your physician or health
professional.  If you have suffered any Depo Provera side effects,
you should contact your doctor and have him or her file an adverse
reaction report with the FDA.  Next, it is advisable that you seek
legal help -- sooner than later, and do not contact Pfizer.

Depo-Provera Osteoporosis Legal Help

If you are taking or have taken Depo-Provera birth control and
subsequently suffered a loss of bone density, been diagnosed with
Osteoporosis, or suffered a bone fracture, you may qualify for
damages or remedies that may be awarded in a possible class action
lawsuit.


QWEST CORP: Parent Continues to Defend Suit Over Retiree Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Communications International Inc., the ultimate parent
company of Qwest Corporation, continues to defend itself against a
lawsuit filed against it in relation to the reduction of certain
retiree benefits.

A putative class action filed on March 30, 2007, on behalf of
certain of QCII's retirees was brought against QCII, the Qwest
Group Life Insurance Plan and other related entities in federal
district court in Colorado in connection with QCII's decision to
reduce the life insurance benefit for these retirees to a $10,000
benefit. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that QCII and
other defendants were obligated to continue their life insurance
benefit at the levels in place before QCII decided to reduce them.
The plaintiffs seek restoration of the life insurance benefit to
previous levels and certain equitable relief. The district court
ruled in QCII's favor on the central issue of whether QCII
properly reserved its right to reduce the life insurance benefit
under applicable law and plan documents. The plaintiffs
subsequently amended their complaint to assert additional claims.
In 2009, the court dismissed or granted summary judgment to QCII
on all of the plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs have appealed the
court's decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.

No updates were reported in Qwest Corp.'s February 15, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Sued for Non-Payment of Overtime Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Santiago, et al., on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, v. RadioShack Corporation, Case No.
2011-CH-05309 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. February 10, 2011),
accuses the electronics and wireless telephone services company of
requiring its store managers to work more than 40 hours per week
without paying them overtime, in violation of the provisions of
Illinois and federal wage and hour laws, and the Fair Labor and
Standards Act.

Michael Santiago, a resident of Cook County, Illinois, worked as
an hourly non-exempt store manager for Defendants located in the
State of Illinois.   Mr. Santiago says RadioShack budgeted roughly
155 employee hours per small store, including the store managers'
time.  When store managers did not complete all the tasks required
by the defendant within the time alloted, RadioShack required them
to work "off-the-clock", according to Mr. Santiago.

Mr. Santiago further alleges that RadioShack terminated his
employment in retaliation for his filing of "good faith reports of
violations of the law, including violations which endangered the
personal safety of RadioShack employees."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam J. Betzen, Esq.
          BETZEN LAW OFFICE, LLC
          2863 W. Leland Ave., Suite 1
          Chicago, IL 60625
          Telephone: (312) 714-5984

               - and -

          James Zouras, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550


ROVI CORP: Awaits Ruling on Appeal of "Burke" Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
Rovi Corp. is still awaiting a ruling on an appeal regarding the
dismissal of a class action lawsuit against the Company's
subsidiary.

On August 11, 2009, John Burke filed a purported class action
lawsuit claiming that the Rovi Corp.'s former subsidiary, TV Guide
Magazine, breached agreements with its subscribers and violated
consumer protection laws with its practice of counting double
issues toward the number of issues in a subscription.  On
September 10, 2009, the Company filed an answer to the complaint
along with a petition to remove the case to federal court.  On
December 18, 2009, the case was dismissed with prejudice, and
plaintiff has filed an appeal of that dismissal.

No updates were reported in the Company's February 15, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.


ROVI CORP: Reaches Pact to Settle Suits Over Sonic Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rovi Corp. is defending itself from class action lawsuits seeking
to enjoin its proposed acquisition of Sonic Solutions and is
awaiting court approval of its agreement to settle the lawsuits,
according to the Company's February 15, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.

On January 3, 2011, a putative class action lawsuit entitled
Vassil Vassilev v. Sonic Solutions, et al., was filed in
California Superior Court for the County of Marin by an individual
purporting to be a shareholder of Sonic Solutions against Sonic
Solutions, the members of its board of directors, the Company and
Sparta Acquisition Sub, arising out of the proposed transaction
between Company and Sonic.  On January 10, 14 and 18, 2011, three
substantially similar putative class action lawsuits were filed in
the same court against the same defendants, entitled Matthew
Barnes v. Habinger [sic] et al., Mark Chropufka v. Sonic
Solutions, et al. and Diana Willis v. Sonic Solutions, et al.,
respectively. The Lawsuits allege that the members of Sonic's
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties of care and
loyalty by, inter alia, failing to maximize shareholder value and
by approving the merger transaction via an unfair process. The
Lawsuits allege that the Company and Sparta Acquisition Sub aided
and abetted the breach of fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs seek to
enjoin the acquisition of Sonic by the Company, rescission of the
transaction in the event it is consummated, imposition of a
constructive trust, and monetary damages, fees and costs in an
unspecified amount.

On January 21, 2011, plaintiff Mark Chropufka filed an amended
class action complaint, which all plaintiffs then designated as
the operative complaint, and which adds allegations of omissions
in the Schedule 14D-9 Recommendation Statement filed by Sonic on
January 14, 2011. On January 27, 2011, the parties to the Lawsuits
submitted a stipulation and proposed order consolidating all
lawsuits filed in connection with the proposed offer and mergers.
On January 25, 2011, another substantially similar putative class
action lawsuit was filed in the same court against the same
defendants, entitled Joann Thompson v. Sonic Solutions, et al. On
January 28, 2011, the parties to the consolidated action reached
an agreement in principle to settle. The proposed settlement,
which is subject to court approval following notice to the class
and a hearing, disposes of all causes of action asserted in the
consolidated action and in Thompson v. Sonic Solutions, et. al. on
behalf of all class members who do not elect to opt out of the
settlement. Class members who elect to opt out, if any, may
continue to pursue causes of action against the defendants.


RYLAND GROUP: Newport Homeowners Settle Class Action for $1.2MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eloisa Ruano Gonzalez, writing Orlando Sentinel, reports that the
first class-action lawsuit against a home builder in the area of a
former World War II-era bombing range in southeast Orlando has
been settled for $1.2 million.

Homeowners in Newport, a subdivision on and near the former
Pinecastle Jeep Range off Lee Vista Boulevard, settled their
three-year case against builder, The Ryland Group Inc.

"They're relieved to be at the end of this lengthy proceeding,"
said David J. George, one of the attorneys representing the
homeowners.

The Newport case was filed in April 2008 in state court, but the
builder asked for it to be moved to federal court a month later,
Mr. George said.

The $1.2 million settlement will be divided among 118 homes who
are part of the class.  (One homeowner died since the lawsuit was
filed.)  The amount homeowners will get depends on their home's
proximity to the bombing range, its purchase price and decline in
market value, Mr. George said.

They could receive "anywhere from under $1,000 on the low end to
$15,000 on the high end," Mr. George said.  Attorneys fees and
expenses totaling $410,000, will come out of the settlement
amount, he added.

The primary plaintiffs, Luis and Norma Virgilio, will receive an
additional $10,000 from the builder, he said.  The couple, who
bought their home in 2003, was among the earliest buyers of Ryland
homes in Newport, court documents show.

Mr. George's firm, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd of Boca Raton, won
a $7.2 billion class-action suit against Enron.  The firm is
representing eight other class-action lawsuits filed by homeowners
on or near the bombing range in state court and is one of two
firms representing these Newport homeowners.

In agreeing to the settlement, The Ryland Group did not admit to
liability or wrongdoing, said Robert Ciotti, an attorney for the
builder.  Ryland's attorneys argued that the 118 Newport homes in
the suit were not on the bombing range and that no ordnance has
been found in Newport.

Newport straddles the northwestern-most boundary of the former
bombing range, the suit says, and includes 65 Ryland-built homes
within or adjacent to the range.

But the homeowners' lawsuit argued that the builder "turned a
blind eye" and did not disclose that the homes had been built on
or near a former bombing range. They complained that their
property values plunged after live bombs and munitions debris were
found.

In 2007, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers started a clean-up and
unearthed more than 400 live bombs, rockets and grenades and tons
of munitions debris after a rancher found live bombs on vacant
land behind Odyssey Middle School.

The 12,483-acre Pinecastle range was used in the 1940s to train
bombardiers.  A half-century later, three developments -- Vista
Lakes, Crowntree Lakes and Tivoli Woods -- were built on or near
the northern edge of the former range.  Records showed that fill
dirt from the former range was used to build roads in the
subdivisions.

Last summer, the Corps announced they found no evidence of
hazardous chemicals left over from the munitions after inspecting
all of the properties that owners allowed them onto -- half of the
4,000 homes around the bombing range.

Hundreds of homeowners were involved in numerous class-action
lawsuits filed in state and federal courts in Orlando.  The
biggest entities sued included: developer Terrabrook Vista Lakes
LP; Miami-based home builder Lennar Home; and mortgage company K.
Hovnanian American Mortgage.

The cases haven't moved forward much, said Ron Cumello, a member
of a residents' panel created by the Corps.

"It's been really quiet," he said.

Mr. Cumello said it's too early to tell whether the Newport
settlement will have any effect on the community.  He said 200
foreclosures in area neighborhoods were filed during the housing-
market slump and the bombing range ordeal.  He's concerned about
what homeowners will do once their cases are resolved.

"Are they going to continue there [in their homes] or are they
going to leave the community?" he asked.

Newport homeowners aren't finished with their litigation.  They
had sued Terrabrook Vista LP, Terrabrook Vista GP, Newland
Communities LLC, and Westerra Management, which "developed and
actively marketed" the Vista Lakes community of more than 1,500
homes, according to court documents.

Judge Gregory A. Presnell, however, allowed claims to be dismissed
against those companies.  Mr. George said the homeowners will
appeal that ruling within the next month.

"It could take more than a year to pursue the appeal," he said.


SMURFIT-STONE: Continues to Defend Antitrust Lawsuits in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation continues to defend itself
from a consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit in Illinois,
according to the Company's February 15, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2010.

In September 2010, four putative class action complaints were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against the Company and several other paper
and packaging companies. The Complaints allege that the Company
and the Class Action Defendants engaged in anti-competitive
activities and violation of antitrust laws by reaching agreements
in restraint of trade that affected the manufacture, sale and
pricing of corrugated products. The Complaints seek an unspecified
amount of damages arising from the sale of corrugated products
from 2005 to the date the lawsuit was filed. A consolidated
complaint was filed on November 8, 2010 by the Complainants which
contains allegations that limit the Company's liability to conduct
that arose subsequent to the bankruptcy Effective Date. Given the
limited time period for potential liability, the Company believes
that the resolution of these matters will not have a material
adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.


SMURFIT-STONE: Defends Class Action Lawsuits Over Rock-Tenn Merger
------------------------------------------------------------------
Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation is defending itself from class
action lawsuits in Illinois and Delaware seeking to enjoin its
proposed merger with Rock-Tenn Company, according to the Company's
February 15, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On January 23, 2011, the Company and Rock-Tenn Company entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which the
Company will merge with and into a subsidiary of Rock-Tenn.

Four complaints on behalf of a putative class of the Company's
stockholders have been filed in the Circuit Court for Cook County,
Illinois challenging the Merger Agreement: (i) Gold v. Smurfit-
Stone Container Corp.; (ii) Roseman v. Smurfit-Stone Container
Corp.; (iii) Findley v. Smurfit-Stone Container Corp.; and (iv)
Czech v. Smurfit-Stone Container Corp. The Illinois Complaints
were filed against the Company, Rock-Tenn and its merger
subsidiary, and the individual members of the Company's Board of
Directors. The Illinois Complaints allege that the Company's
directors breached fiduciary duties in considering and entering
into the Merger Agreement, and that the Company, Rock-Tenn and its
merger subsidiary aided and abetted such breaches. The Illinois
Complaints seek equitable relief, including an injunction
prohibiting consummation of the Merger Agreement and imposition of
a constructive trust. On February 4, 2011, plaintiffs moved for
consolidation of the Illinois Complaints, and on February 10,
2011, all four complaints were consolidated under Gold v. Smurfit-
Stone Container Corp., et al.

On February 2, 2011, a putative class action complaint asserting
substantially similar claims was filed against the same Merger
Defendants in the Delaware Court of Chancery under the caption of
Marks v. Smurfit-Stone Container Corp. The Delaware Complaint also
seeks equitable relief, including an injunction prohibiting
consummation of the Merger Agreement and an accounting for alleged
damages. On February 7, 2011, the plaintiff served a request for
production of documents directed to all Merger Defendants. On
February 8, 2011, the plaintiff moved for expedited proceedings
and a preliminary injunction prohibiting consummation of the
Merger Agreement.

The Company believes that the Illinois Complaints and Delaware
Complaint are without merit and will vigorously defend against the
allegations.


SOUTH AFRICA: Faces Class Action From Private Security Companies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wyndham Hartley, writing for BusinessDay, reports that the
government is facing a class action suit from 31 private security
companies in a dispute over the alleged failure of the police to
issue the certificates guards need to use their licensed firearms
while protecting cash in transit and other property.

It is the second class action case lodged at the Cape High Court
this month.

Immigration practitioners and their clients also brought an urgent
class action against the Department of Home Affairs for its
alleged failure to adjudicate more than 400 applications for
temporary residence permits.

The security companies and more than 1400 private security guards
are taking on the minister of police over the issuing of
competency certificates to security personnel at the same time as
their firearm licenses are issued.

They have applied for it to be treated as urgent after police
arrested security guards at Fidelity Security Services recently.

They argue that even when a new firearm license is issued to a
security company, its guards may not use the weapon if they do not
have a competency certificate.  All the security officers in the
application have completed the competency course and applied for
the certificates, but have been waiting for them for months.

This means that, despite the security companies having legally
licensed weapons, they may not issue them to guards protecting
cash in transit or other property.

Although the application does not claim damages should guards lose
their jobs, or should the firms go out of business as a result of
certificates not being issued, subsequent claims for damages could
be sizeable.

It was suggested in court papers that police were deliberately
issuing licenses and holding back competency certificates to put
guards in conflict with the law.  The firearms registry is, by the
police's own admission, in a chaotic state.  Its former head, Brig
Jaco Bothma, was suspended last December on allegations of
corruption, of causing the backlog of over a million licenses and
of preferential treatment.

The security companies approached the high court late last year,
seeking to compel the Central Firearms Registry, the national
commissioner of police and the minister to issue the competency
certificates within 30 days.

They argued that the ability of the companies and their guards to
fulfill their contractual obligations was being constrained by
police inefficiency.

On Feb. 14, Fidelity Security Services and the rest of the
applicants asked for the matter to be dealt with urgently as
several of its officials had been arrested.

This was done apparently on an oral instruction and raised fear
that Fidelity and other companies were being targeted by police
because of the litigation.

The GM of Fidelity's armory, Sarel Yssel, said in an affidavit
before the court: "I have indicated above that the previous
litigation had led to some bad blood between Fidelity and certain
elements in the South African Police Service.

"It is clear from the aforementioned actions that the directive
from the police commissioner in KwaZulu-Natal is aimed at causing
harm to Fidelity.

"It is obvious that they are fully aware of what they have done,
namely the issuing of over 3000 licenses, while not issuing any
competency certificates.  It would appear that Fidelity is being
picked on due to previous litigation."

Mr. Yssel said the reason for the urgency was "the ability of
Fidelity to be able to perform its contractual duties has been
severely hampered".

The police said they were still studying the court papers and
considering whether to oppose or not.


SWIMWAYS CORP: Recalls 5,200 Kristi G Go & Grow Chair
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Kristi G Company, of Atlanta, and SwimWays Corp., of Virginia
Beach, Va., announced a voluntary recall of about 5,200 Kristi G
Go & Grow Chair.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The chair can tip over, posing a fall hazard.

SwimWays Corp. has received eight reports of the chairs tipping
over.  In two of the reports, children received scrapes on the
face and hands.

This recall involves a lightweight, polyester chair for children
three months and older, up to 75 pounds.  The chairs include a
detachable sun canopy, detachable tray, three-point harness, and a
polyester carry bag.  There are holes in the seat to allow for
standing.  The chairs differ in color scheme only as follows:
model 80325 is brown with blue polka dots, 80326 is brown with
green polka dots and 80327 is brown with pink polka dots.  The
model number is located on the box.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11132.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
online via national mass merchandisers and retailers from March
2010 to January 2011 for $34.99 to $89.99.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and
contact SwimWays Corp. to receive reimbursement of the purchase
price.  For more information, contact SwimWays Corp. at (888) 559-
4653 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.kelsyus.comor
http://www.swimways.com/


TARGET CORP: Accused of Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Tiana Denean Coleman, on behalf of herself v. Target Corporation
Case No. 11-cv-00665 (N.D. Calif. February 14, 2011), brings
claims for unlawful business practices in violation of the
California Bus. & Prof. Code, and violations of the California
Labor Code and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Specifically, Ms. Coleman charges Target, the second largest
discount retailer in the United States, behind Walmart, with non-
payment of overtime compensation and other benefits such as meal
and rest breaks required by law, and failure to reimburse them for
expenses incurred in the discharge of their duties, as a result of
their being classified as "exempt" by the defendant.

Ms. Coleman was employed by Target in California as an Executive
Team Leader of Guest Experience and as an Executive Team Leader of
Softlines from June 2009 to April 2010.  Ms. Coleman says persons
employed as Executive Team Leaders were "administrators" or
"executives" in name only, because they perform the same kind of
work performed by their subordinates while also carrying team
leadership functions, and should be properly classified as non-
exempt employees.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223


TCF FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Suit Over Posting Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
TCF Financial Corporation continues to defend itself from a
putative class action filed in August 2010.

In August 2010, TCF was named in a putative class action
challenging TCF's checking account posting practices as a breach
of contract and as a violation of state consumer fraud statutes.
The plaintiffs seek damages and other relief, including
restitution.  TCF's account agreement with the customer contains
an arbitration provision under which the named plaintiffs agreed
to arbitrate disputes such as this in an individual (as opposed to
class action) arbitration.  TCF is seeking to enforce the
arbitration agreement in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota, and the plaintiffs have sought to stay
arbitration pending a possible transfer of the case to multi-
district litigation in the Southern District of Florida, in which
numerous other putative class actions against financial
institutions asserting similar claims are pending.  TCF believes
its arbitration provision is valid and enforceable and that in any
event it has meritorious defenses to the claims brought by the
plaintiffs.  At this early stage of the litigation, it is not
possible for management of TCF to determine the probability of a
material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any
potential loss.

No updates were reported in the Company's February 15, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits in Penn.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, along with other
defendants, continues to defend itself from class action antitrust
lawsuits in Pennsylvania, according to the Company's February 15,
2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In April 2006, Teva and its subsidiary Barr Laboratories were
sued, along with Cephalon, Inc., Mylan Laboratories, Inc., Ranbaxy
Laboratories Ltd. and Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc., in a class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case alleges generally that
the settlement agreements entered into between the different
generic pharmaceutical companies and Cephalon, in their respective
patent infringement cases involving finished modafinil products --
the generic version of Provigil(R) -- were unlawful because the
settlement agreements resulted in the exclusion of generic
competition. The case seeks unspecified monetary damages,
attorneys' fees and costs. The case was brought by King Drug
Company of Florence, Inc., on behalf of itself and as a proposed
class action on behalf of any other person or entity that
purchased Provigil(R) directly from Cephalon from January 2006
until the alleged unlawful conduct ceases. Similar allegations
have been made in a number of additional complaints, including
those filed on behalf of proposed classes of direct and indirect
purchasers of the product, by an individual indirect purchaser of
the product, certain retail chain pharmacies that purchased the
product and by Apotex, Inc. The cases seek various forms of
injunctive and monetary relief, including treble damages and
attorneys' fees and costs. In February 2008, following an
investigation of these matters, the Federal Trade Commission sued
Cephalon, alleging that Cephalon violated Section 5 of the Federal
Trade Commission Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or
practices in the marketplace, by unlawfully maintaining a monopoly
in the sale of Provigil(R) and improperly excluding generic
competition. The FTC's complaint did not name Teva or Barr as a
defendant. In March 2010, the Court denied defendants' motions to
dismiss the federal antitrust claims and some of the related state
law claims. In November 2009, another class action lawsuit with
essentially the same allegations was initiated by an independent
pharmacy in Tennessee. In May 2010, another independent pharmacy
also filed suit in Ohio with the same allegations. Both of these
cases have been transferred to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

The Company believes that the agreements at issue are valid
settlements to patent lawsuits and cannot form the basis of an
antitrust claim.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Barr Unit Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited's subsidiary Barr
Laboratories continues to defend itself from class action
antitrust lawsuits in California, according to the Company's
February 15, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Barr has been named as a co-defendant with Bayer Corporation, The
Rugby Group, Inc. and others in approximately 38 class action
complaints filed in state and federal courts by direct and
indirect purchasers of ciprofloxacin from 1997 to the present. The
complaints allege that a 1997 Bayer-Barr patent litigation
settlement agreement was anti-competitive and violated federal
antitrust laws and/or state antitrust and consumer protection
laws. A prior investigation of this agreement by the Texas
Attorney General's office on behalf of a group of state attorneys
general was closed without further action in December 2001. In
March 2005, the court in the federal multi-district litigation
granted summary judgment in Barr's favor and dismissed all of the
federal actions before it. In November 2007, the Second Circuit
transferred the appeal involving the indirect purchaser plaintiffs
to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, while retaining
jurisdiction over the appeals of the direct purchaser plaintiffs.
In October 2008, the Federal Circuit affirmed the grant of summary
judgment in the defendants' favor on all claims by the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' petition for a panel
rehearing and rehearing en banc was denied in December 2008. The
plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari to the United States
Supreme Court, which was denied in June 2009. In April 2010, the
Second Circuit also affirmed the grant of summary judgment in the
defendants' favor on all claims by the direct purchaser
plaintiffs. In May 2010, plaintiffs filed their petition for a
rehearing en banc, which was denied in September 2010. Plaintiffs
have filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.

All but three of the state cases have been dismissed. Following an
earlier stay of the California case, the California court granted
defendants' summary judgment motions in August 2009, and directed
the entry of final judgment in September 2009. Plaintiffs have
appealed this decision. The Kansas action is stayed, and the
Florida action is in the very early stages, with no hearings or
schedule set to date.

The Company believes that the agreements at issue are valid
settlements to patent lawsuits and cannot form the basis of an
antitrust claim.


UNITED STATES: Class Action Prompts Military Sexual Abuse Probe
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Scher Zagier and Kimberly Hefling, writing for The Associated
Press, reports that the Army is aggressively investigating sexual
assault complaints, the commanding general at Fort Leonard Wood
said on Feb. 16 -- a day after more than a dozen U.S. veterans
filed a lawsuit accusing the Pentagon of failing to take their
complaints of sexual abuse by older soldiers seriously.

Seventeen current and former service members who say they were
raped or assaulted by fellow soldiers said they filed the federal
class-action lawsuit to force the Pentagon to change how it
handles such cases.  One of the plaintiffs was a former Army
sergeant who claimed that when she approached a chaplain at Fort
Leonard Wood to discuss stress related to running into a service
member who had allegedly raped her in the past, the chaplain told
her that "it must have been God's will for her to be raped" and
suggested she attend church more often.

Maj. Gen. David Quantock, the commanding general of the Missouri
Army post, did not specifically discuss the lawsuit, but told
reporters that reports of sexual assaults at Fort Leonard Wood had
declined from 57 incidents in 2009 to 28 in 2010.  A Fort Leonard
Wood spokesman declined to comment on the allegations against the
chaplain, who was not named in the suit.

"We have nothing whatsoever to hide," Maj. Gen. Quantock said.
"We are a culture intolerant of sexual assault and sexual abuse of
any kind."

Sgt. Rebekah Havrilla of West Columbia, S.C., alleges in the
lawsuit that during her career she was allegedly raped by an
individual in a canine unit in Afghanistan in 2006.  She reported
the incident under a military policy that allows a rape to be
reported without it triggering an investigation if the alleged
victim wants it to remain confidential.

Later, the lawsuit says she was at Fort Leonard Wood in 2009 for
four weeks of active duty training when she ran into the alleged
perpetrator, which caused her to go into shock.  That's what
caused her to reach out for assistance from the chaplain,
according to the lawsuit.

Although The Associated Press normally does not identify the
victims of sexual assault, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit have
publicly discussed the cases.  The suit names Defense Secretary
Robert Gates and his predecessor, Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Asked on Feb. 16 at a congressional hearing about the lawsuit,
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the military has zero
tolerance for sexual assault and has hired dozens more
investigators, prosecutors and others to assist in such cases.

The military now has a victim's advocate at every installation,
with the percent of these types of cases going to court martial
increasing from about 30% to 52%, Secretary Gates told lawmakers.

"So, we are making headway," he said.  "The fact is, we aren't
where we should be.  It is a matter of grave concern, and we will
keep working at it."

Speaking at the same hearing, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, said despite progress it is "unacceptable
that . . . we haven't gotten where we need to be on this."

"There still is enough anecdotal information coming out of both
Iraq, and particularly in Afghanistan, to certainly be of
concern," Adm. Mullen said.

Maj. Gen. Quantock, the Fort Leonard Wood commander, convened the
press conference Wednesday after the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
reported in late January that eight of the 19 pending courts-
martial at the installation involve sexual assaults by soldiers.
The general said he met with Sen. Claire McCaskill in Washington
on Feb. 14 to discuss the problem after she wrote a letter seeking
explanation.

"Mothers and fathers across our nation entrust their sons and
daughters to our military, bravely knowing that their child may
pay the ultimate sacrifice for their country when fighting a
dangerous enemy," Sen. McCaskill wrote.  "What they will not
tolerate, and what I will not allow, is when our soldiers feel
unsafe within their own military family."

With nearly 90,000 soldiers passing through Fort Leonard Wood
annually, the installation faces the same problems as society at
large, Maj. Gen. Quantock said.  He also decried the role of
alcohol in many of the cases -- and reiterated that soldiers
deserve to be held to a higher standard of conduct.

The Army post has 38 programs dealing with sexual assault
prevention as well as a special prosecutor who solely handles such
cases, Quantock said.

"Young kids make mistakes," he said.  "But they have to understand
that in the Army, those mistakes . . . will not be tolerated."


UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Military Sexual Abuse
------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Robinson, writing for Examiner.com, reports that a federal
class action lawsuit was filed on Feb. 15 against Secretary of
Defense Robert Gates and his predecessor Donald Rumsfeld for
neglecting to address the growing problem of sexual assault and
rape in the military.  The plaintiffs include 15 females and 2
males who hope to represent the staggering number of silenced
survivors in the armed forces.  The majority of these scenarios
involve a high ranking officer taking advantage of his (or her)
inferiors and then threatening them with a court martial for lying
if they came forward.

"I was raped.  When I told my command they waited.  They didn't do
anything to help me.  It was like they didn't care.  It wasn't
important.  I wasn't important.  The Coast Guard is a life saving
service but they didn't save mine," said one of the members of the
plaintiff Kori Cioca.  Although, the Coast Guard is technically
under a different jurisdiction, her story is similar to hundreds
of other survivors who have come forward in the military.

One woman who decided to tell her story explained on the Today
Show that she was raped one night after a barrack party by one of
her commanding officers.  After going through the ordeal she fell
into a depression and gained weight.  The military then put her on
a weight-loss plan that was run by the man who raped her.  It was
not until she was deployed to Iraq did she feel safe.

In 2009, the Pentagon received 2,923 reports of Sexual Assault.
This was a 9% increase from the year before.  However, less than 1
in 5 women will actually report an incident.  Although there has
been some progress with reporting these crimes when they happen,
rarely does the case ever go to court.  It is actually more likely
for a female member of the military to be raped then it is for her
to be killed by enemy fire in Iraq.

The actual lawsuit involves an unspecified amount in monetary
compensation but representatives of the case express that the
major goal is for these men and women to tell their story and make
a change in military culture and practices that facilitate and
even encourage this type of abuse.  The lawsuit specifically
charges Rumsfeld and Gates for continuing an environment in which
rape and sexual assault survivors are constantly exposed to a
repeated offense after the first assault and for discouraging the
crimes from being reported.


UTAH: To Settle Medicaid Class Action for $5.5 Million
------------------------------------------------------
Dan Weist, writing for The Salt Lake Tribune, reports that a
long-standing lawsuit that went to the Utah Supreme Court four
times is on the road to a final settlement for more than 1,200
Medicaid recipients.

The tentative settlement of $5.5 million would be split among the
people involved in the class action lawsuit, which was filed in
1995.

Utah lawmakers must first approve the settlement, which was worked
out in August.

The settlement legislation was introduced on Feb. 15 in the Utah
Senate.

"For these poor people, it's a pretty good deal," said Robert
Sykes, a Salt Lake City attorney who filed the suit for his
client, Paul Houghton, and others.

The case targeted Utah's policies for taking personal injury
settlements from Medicaid recipients to reimburse the state for
their care.  The plaintiffs' attorneys argued the state was not
paying enough toward the attorneys fees that the patients had to
pay to obtain the settlements.

Justices ruled that the state must pay a "fair share" of those
attorneys fees if the patient's lawyer had asked to represent the
state's interest.

Mr. Sykes said some of the people in the lawsuit will be
reimbursed more than $100,000.

Mr. Houghton, then of Davis County, was injured in a 1993
motorcycle accident that led to him participating in the suit.  It
eventually included any Medicaid recipient in similar
circumstances who joined the case over a 14-year period.

A state settlement of more than $1 million requires the governor's
and the Legislature's approval.  Gov. Gary Herbert approved the
settlement Feb. 9, but both chambers must agree as well.

If lawmakers give their approval, another court hearing must be
scheduled -- perhaps in May -- to allow the class-action
plaintiffs to voice their opinion on the fairness of the
agreement, Mr. Sykes said.


VERIZON WIRELESS: Sued Over Monthly "Get it Now" Download Fee
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Verizon Wireless charges $9.99 for a monthly "Get it Now" download
fee, without any explanation or reference to a subscription,
download, date, time or source of the fee.

A copy of the Complaint in Goggin v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a
Verizon Wireless, et al., Case No. 11-cv-_____, docketed as Doc.
10783 in Case No. No. 33-av-00001 on Feb. 15, 2011 (D. N.J.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/16/Verizon.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com


WALT DISNEY: Recalls 1,200 Children's Light-up Watches
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation
with Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, of Lake Buena Vista, Fla.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 1,200 Children's Light-up
Watches.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Watch battery current interacting with nickel in the watch's
stainless steel back can cause skin irritation and/or burning
sensations to children who are allergic to nickel.

The firm has received six reports of children receiving skin
irritation or burning sensations while wearing the watch.

This recall involves Buzz Lightyear, Tinker Bell and Lightning
McQueen brand light-up watches.  The Buzz Lightyear watch has a
blue band with a blue outline on the face of the watch. The Tinker
Bell watch has a purple band and purple crystals on the face of
the watch.  The Lightning McQueen watch has a red band and a red
outline on the face of the watch. Each model watch is sold
separately and is intended for children ages three years and
older.  All have a light up function that enables a child to press
a button to illuminate colorful lights on the dial of the watch.
A tracking code is engraved on the back of the watch, as well as
printed on the back of the packaging.  The tracking code is: K130-
6377-7-10187.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

    http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11133.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
DISNEYLAND(R) Resort stores in California, WALT DISNEY WORLD(R)
Resort stores in Florida, The Treasure Ketch and Cast Member shops
on the Disney Cruise Ship, and Disney's Earport Shop and The Magic
of Disney Shop located at the Orlando International Airport in
Florida from November 2010 through January 2011 for about $30.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled watch away from
children and contact Walt Disney Parks and Resorts for
instructions on returning the watch for a $40 refund.  For
additional information, contact Walt Disney Parks and Resorts at
(877) 560-6477 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.waltdisneyworld.com/


WINDERMERE COURT: Former Tenants File Class Action Over Fire
------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon McDonald, writing for newsworks, reports that as former
Windermere Court residents waited with trash bags on Feb. 15 to
salvage items from the charred West Philadelphia apartment
complex, two of them took legal action.

West Philly Local reports two former tenants have filed a class
action suit against Windermere Court Management Corp., and its
owners David and Sam Ginsberg, claiming the building did not have
the appropriate fire prevention equipment like smoke alarms and
sprinklers, and alleging the management company didn't inspect the
building regularly.

A five-alarm fire broke out in the building last month, displacing
residents.  Since then, the tenants have held rallies and voiced
concerns over the quick move to demolish the building while pets
and belongings are still inside.


YRC WORLDWIDE: TGN Urges Investors to Consider Recovery Options
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities Law Firm of Tramont Guerra & Nunez, P.A. (TGN)
provides notice to all prospective class members of the YRC
Worldwide class action lawsuit (Case No. 11 CV 002072) filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Kansas for
the class period from April 24, 2008 through November 2, 2009.
The class action lawsuit alleges defendants participated, "in a
fraudulent scheme and course of business that operated as a fraud
or deceit on purchasers of YRC common stock by disseminating
materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing
material adverse facts."  In light of these developments, TGN
urges investors who held YRC worldwide stock with full-service
brokerage firms to consider what recourse is available to recover
their investment losses.  The Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, (FINRA) is a self regulating organization with sales
practice rules and regulations that govern the securities
industry's conduct and safeguard the investing public.
Furthermore, an individual securities arbitration claim may allow
investors to claim larger losses in YRC Worldwide stock based on
higher market values that prevailed prior to the class period.

According to TGN many investors in YRC Worldwide stock, were led
to believe the stock was suitable for investors with moderate risk
tolerances and investment objectives.  Full-service brokerage
firms are obligated to give, and investors are entitled to rely
upon, brokerage firms for competent, suitable investment advice
concerning risk management strategies for concentrated stock
positions.  Brokerage firms are required to supervise the
activities in brokerage accounts.  Investment losses may be
attributed to the failure to adequately supervise the stockbroker
and the brokerage account.  Recommendations of unsuitable
investments and/or maintaining unprotected concentrated stock
positions are both causes of action that may be available to
investors against their full-service brokerage firm in an
individual securities arbitration claim filed with FINRA.

The Securities Law Firm of Tramont Guerra & Nunez, PA, is a
nationally recognized, Martindale Hubbell "AV" rated securities
law firm.  To request a confidential consultation from a TGN
attorney to determine whether you have a viable individual
securities arbitration claim for investment losses that exceed
$250,000 from a full service brokerage account, contact us on our
website.  To speak directly with an attorney, call (800) 578-0137
and ask for David Chacin, Esquire.


YUM! BRANDS: Continues to Defend Cole Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------
Long John Silver's continues to defend itself in an arbitration
initiated by Erin Cole and Nick Kaufman, which is proceeding as
an "opt-out" class action, according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s
February 15, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 25, 2010.

On November 26, 2001, Kevin Johnson, a former Long John Silver's
restaurant manager, filed a collective action against LJS in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of
himself and allegedly similarly-situated LJS general and assistant
restaurant managers.  Johnson alleged that LJS violated the FLSA
by perpetrating a policy and practice of seeking monetary
restitution from LJS employees, including Restaurant General
Managers and Assistant Restaurant General Managers, when monetary
or property losses occurred due to knowing and willful violations
of LJS policies that resulted in losses of company funds or
property, and that LJS had thus improperly classified its RGMs and
ARGMs as exempt from overtime pay under the FLSA.  Johnson sought
overtime pay, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees for himself
and his proposed class.

LJS moved the Tennessee district court to compel arbitration of
Johnson's suit.  The district court granted LJS's motion on
June 7, 2004, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit affirmed on July 5, 2005.

On December 19, 2003, while the arbitrability of Johnson's claims
was being litigated, former LJS managers Erin Cole and Nick
Kaufman, represented by Johnson's counsel, initiated arbitration
with the American Arbitration Association.  The Cole Claimants
sought a collective arbitration on behalf of the same putative
class as alleged in the Johnson lawsuit and alleged the same
underlying claims.

On June 15, 2004, the arbitrator in the Cole Arbitration issued a
Clause Construction Award, finding that LJS's Dispute Resolution
Policy did not prohibit Claimants from proceeding on a collective
or class basis.  LJS moved unsuccessfully to vacate the Clause
Construction Award in federal district court in South Carolina.
On September 19, 2005, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination
Award, finding, inter alia, that a class would be certified in the
Cole Arbitration on an "opt-out" basis, rather than as an "opt-in"
collective action as specified by the FLSA.

On January 20, 2006, the district court denied LJS's motion to
vacate the Class Determination Award and the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's
decision on January 28, 2008.  A petition for a writ of certiorari
filed in the United States Supreme Court seeking a review of the
Fourth Circuit's decision was denied on October 7, 2008.  The
parties participated in mediation on April 24, 2008, on
February 28, 2009, and again on November 18, 2009 without reaching
resolution.  An arbitration hearing on liability with respect to
the alleged restitution policy and practice for the period
beginning in late 1998 through early 2002 concluded in June, 2010.
On October 11, 2010, the arbitrator issued a partial interim award
for the first phase of the three-phase arbitration finding that,
for the period from late 1998 to early 2002, LJS had a policy and
practice of making impermissible deductions from the salaries of
its RGMs and ARGMs.  Hearings addressing the other phases of the
arbitration, including the rest of the class period and damages
have not been scheduled.

Based on the rulings issued to date in this matter, the Cole
Arbitration is proceeding as an "opt-out" class action, rather
than as an "opt-in" collective action.  LJS denies liability and
is vigorously defending the claims in the Cole Arbitration.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100 countries
and territories.  YUM consists of six operating segments:  KFC-
U.S., Pizza Hut-U.S., Taco Bell-U.S., Long John Silver's-U.S. and
A&W All American Food Restaurants-U.S., YUM Restaurants
International and YUM Restaurants China.  The company develops,
operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food items.


YUM! BRANDS: May 23 Hearing Set for Class Certification Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
Taco Bell Corp. continues to defend the matter In Re Taco Bell
Wage and Hour Actions pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California and a hearing on plaintiffs' class
certification motion has been scheduled for May 23, 2011,
according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s February 15, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 25, 2010.

Taco Bell is a concept owned and operated by YUM! Brands.

On Sept. 10, 2007, a putative class action against Taco Bell
Corp., the company and other related entities styled Sandrika
Medlock v. Taco Bell Corp., was filed in U.S. District Court,
Eastern District, Fresno, California.  The case was filed on
behalf of all hourly employees who have worked at corporate-owned
restaurants in California since September 2003 and alleges
numerous violations of California labor laws including unpaid
overtime, failure to pay wages on termination, denial of meal and
rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses
and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200.  The company
was dismissed from the case without prejudice on Jan. 10, 2008.

On April 11, 2008, Lisa Hardiman filed a Private Attorneys General
Act complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Fresno against Taco Bell Corp., the company and other
related entities.  This lawsuit, styled Lisa Hardiman vs. Taco
Bell Corp., et al., was filed on behalf of Hardiman individually
and all other aggrieved employees pursuant to PAGA.  The complaint
seeks penalties for alleged violations of California's Labor Code.
On June 25, 2008, Hardiman filed an amended complaint adding class
action allegations on behalf of hourly employees in California
very similar to the Medlock case, including allegations of unpaid
overtime, missed meal and rest periods, improper wage statements,
non-payment of wages upon termination, unreimbursed business
expenses and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200.

On June 16, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit against Taco
Bell Corp. and the company, styled Miriam Leyva vs. Taco Bell
Corp., et al., was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court.  The case
was filed on behalf of Leyva and purportedly all other California
hourly employees and alleges failure to pay overtime, failure to
provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay wages upon
discharge, failure to provide itemized wage statements, unfair
business practices and wrongful termination and discrimination.
The company was dismissed from the case without prejudice on
Aug. 20, 2008.

On Nov. 5, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit against Taco Bell
Corp. and the company styled Loraine Naranjo vs. Taco Bell Corp.,
et al., was filed in Orange County Superior Court.  The case was
filed on behalf of Naranjo and purportedly all other California
employees and alleges failure to pay overtime, failure to
reimburse for business related expenses, improper wage statements,
failure to pay accrued vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage
and unfair business practices.  The company filed a motion to
dismiss on Dec. 15, 2008, which was denied on Jan. 20, 2009.

On March 26, 2009, Taco Bell was served with a putative class
action lawsuit filed in Orange County Superior Court against Taco
Bell and the company styled Endang Widjaja vs. Taco Bell Corp., et
al.  The case was filed on behalf of Widjaja, a former California
hourly assistant manager, and purportedly all other individuals
employed in Taco Bell's California restaurants as managers and
alleges failure to reimburse for business related expenses,
failure to provide rest periods, unfair business practices and
conversion.  Taco Bell removed the case to federal district court
and filed a notice of related case.  On June 18, 2009 the case was
transferred to the Eastern District of California.

On May 19, 2009 the court granted Taco Bell's motion to
consolidate the Medlock, Hardiman, Leyva and Naranjo matters, and
the consolidated case is styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour
Actions.  On July 22, 2009, Taco Bell filed a motion to dismiss,
stay or consolidate the Widjaja case with the In Re Taco Bell Wage
and Hour Actions, and Taco Bell's motion to consolidate was
granted on Oct. 19, 2009.

The In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint on June 29, 2009, and on March 30, 2010,
the court approved the parties' stipulation to dismiss YUM from
the action.

The parties participated in mediation on Aug. 5, 2010 without
reaching resolution.  Motions regarding class certification were
scheduled to be filed by Dec. 30, 2010 and the hearing on
plaintiffs' class certification motion has been scheduled for
May 23, 2011.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100 countries
and territories.  YUM consists of six operating segments:  KFC-
U.S., Pizza Hut-U.S., Taco Bell-U.S., Long John Silver's-U.S. and
A&W All American Food Restaurants-U.S., YUM Restaurants
International and YUM Restaurants China.  The company develops,
operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food items.


YUM! BRANDS: Oral Argument in "Archila" Suit Heard Feb. 14
----------------------------------------------------------
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on
February 14, 2011, of an appeal regarding class certification of a
lawsuit against KFC U.S. Properties, Inc., according to YUM!
Brands, Inc.'s February 15, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 25, 2010.

On Oct. 14, 2008, a putative class action, styled Kenny Archila v.
KFC U.S. Properties, Inc., was filed in California state court on
behalf of all California hourly employees alleging various
California Labor Code violations, including rest and meal break
violations, overtime violations, wage statement violations and
waiting time penalties.  KFC removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 7, 2009. On
July 7, 2009, the Judge ruled that the case would not go forward
as a class action.  Plaintiff also sought recovery of civil
penalties under the California Private Attorney General Act as a
representative of other "aggrieved employees."  On Aug. 3, 2009,
the Court ruled that the plaintiff could not assert such claims
and the case had to proceed as a single plaintiff action. On the
eve of the Aug. 18, 2009 trial, the plaintiff stipulated to a
dismissal of his individual claims with prejudice but reserved his
right to appeal the Court's rulings regarding class and PAGA
claims.  KFC reserved its right to make any and all challenges to
the appeal. On or about Sept. 16, 2009, plaintiff filed a notice
of appeal. Plaintiff filed his opening appellate brief on
March 31, 2010, KFC filed its opposition brief on May 28, 2010,
and plaintiff filed his reply brief on June 25, 2010. The Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals scheduled oral argument on Plaintiff's
appeal for February 14, 2011.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100 countries
and territories.  YUM consists of six operating segments:  KFC-
U.S., Pizza Hut-U.S., Taco Bell-U.S., Long John Silver's-U.S. and
A&W All American Food Restaurants-U.S., YUM Restaurants
International and YUM Restaurants China.  The company develops,
operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food items.


YUM! BRANDS: "Rosales" Suit in Orange County Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action against Taco Bell Corp. styled Marisela
Rosales v. Taco Bell Corp. and filed in the Orange County Superior
Court, California remains stayed.

On September 28, 2009, a putative class action styled Marisela
Rosales v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in Orange County Superior
Court.  The plaintiff, a former Taco Bell crew member, alleges
that Taco Bell failed to timely pay her final wages upon
termination, and seeks restitution and late payment penalties on
behalf of herself and similarly situated employees.  This case
appears to be duplicative of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour
Actions case.  Taco Bell removed the case to federal court on
November 5, 2009, and subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, stay
or transfer the case to the same district court as the In Re Taco
Bell Wage and Hour Actions case.  The parties stipulated to remand
of the case to Orange County Superior Court on March 18, 2010.
The state court granted Taco Bell's motion to stay the Rosales
case on May 28, 2010, but required Taco Bell to give notice to
Rosales' counsel of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions
mediation.

No updates were reported in YUM! Brands, Inc.'s February 15, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 25, 2010.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100 countries
and territories.  YUM consists of six operating segments:  KFC-
U.S., Pizza Hut-U.S., Taco Bell-U.S., Long John Silver's-U.S. and
A&W All American Food Restaurants-U.S., YUM Restaurants
International and YUM Restaurants China.  The company develops,
operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food items.


YUM! BRANDS: Awaits Class Certification Ruling in "Hines" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter Domonique Hines v. KFC U.S. Properties,
Inc., are still awaiting a ruling on the plaintiff's motion for
class certification, according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s February 15,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 25, 2010.

On Oct. 2, 2009, a putative class action -- Domonique Hines v. KFC
U.S. Properties, Inc. -- was filed in California state court on
behalf of all California hourly employees alleging various
California Labor Code violations, including rest and meal break
violations, overtime violations, wage statement violations and
waiting time penalties. Plaintiff is a current non-managerial KFC
restaurant employee represented by the same counsel that filed the
suit Kenny Archila v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc. KFC filed an
answer on Oct. 28, 2009, in which it denied plaintiff's claims and
allegations.  KFC removed the action to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California on Oct. 29, 2009. KFC
filed a motion to transfer the action to the Central District of
California due to the overlapping nature of the claims in this
action and the Archila action.  Plaintiff filed a motion to remand
the action to state court. The District Court denied both motions.
Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on May 20, 2010
and KFC filed a brief in opposition. A hearing on plaintiff's
motion was held on Aug. 13, 2010, and the parties are awaiting a
ruling. No trial date has been set.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100 countries
and territories.  YUM consists of six operating segments:  KFC-
U.S., Pizza Hut-U.S., Taco Bell-U.S., Long John Silver's-U.S. and
A&W All American Food Restaurants-U.S., YUM Restaurants
International and YUM Restaurants China.  The company develops,
operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food items.


YUM! BRANDS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Wage & Hour Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Taco Bell Corp. continues to defend a consolidated wage and hour
class action lawsuit in San Diego, California, according to YUM!
Brands, Inc.'s February 15, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 25, 2010.

Taco Bell is a concept owned and operated by YUM! Brands.

On Aug. 4, 2006, a putative class action lawsuit against Taco Bell
styled Rajeev Chhibber vs. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in Orange
County Superior Court. On Aug. 7, 2006, another putative class
action lawsuit styled Marina Puchalski v. Taco Bell Corp. was
filed in San Diego County Superior Court. Both lawsuits were filed
by a Taco Bell Restaurant General Manager purporting to represent
all current and former RGMs who worked at corporate-owned
restaurants in California since August 2002. The lawsuits allege
violations of California's wage and hour laws involving unpaid
overtime and meal period violations and seek unspecified amounts
in damages and penalties. The cases were consolidated in San Diego
County as of Sept. 7, 2006.

Based on plaintiffs' revised class definition in their class
certification motion, Taco Bell removed the case to federal court
in San Diego on Aug. 29, 2008. On March 17, 2009, the court
granted plaintiffs' motion to remand. On Jan. 29, 2010, the court
granted the plaintiffs' class certification motion with respect to
the unpaid overtime claims of RGMs and Market Training Managers
but denied class certification on the meal period claims. The
parties participated in mediation on May 26, 2010, without
reaching resolution. The court held a hearing to finalize the
trial plan on January 28, 2011 and has not yet set the trial plan
or trial date.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100 countries
and territories.  YUM consists of six operating segments:  KFC-
U.S., Pizza Hut-U.S., Taco Bell-U.S., Long John Silver's-U.S. and
A&W All American Food Restaurants-U.S., YUM Restaurants
International and YUM Restaurants China.  The company develops,
operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food items.


YUM! BRANDS: Continues to Defend Calif. Labor Violations Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
KFC USA, Inc., KFC U.S. Properties, Inc., and KFC Corporation
continue to defend themselves from class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the California labor code, according to YUM! Brands,
Inc.'s February 15, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 25, 2010.

On August 18, 2010, a putative class action, styled Lisa Harrison
and Noe Rivera v. KFC USA, Inc., KFC U.S. Properties, Inc., and
KFC Corporation, was filed in California state court on behalf of
all former California hourly employees alleging various California
Labor Code violations, including failure to pay all vacation pay,
failure to reimburse business expenses (mileage and uniforms), and
waiting time penalties, as well as a claim of unfair competition.
KFC removed the action to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on October 4, 2010, and the case
was transferred to the Central District of California on
October 27, 2010.  On December 14, 2010, the court granted KFC's
motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' third cause of action (Plaintiffs'
claim for reimbursement of expenses).  Plaintiffs filed a First
Amended Complaint on December 28, 2010.  The First Amended
Complaint contained the same causes of action as the initial
complaint, along with a request for penalties pursuant to the
California Private Attorney General Act.  In response to KFC's
stated intention to file a motion to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on
January 21, 2011.  KFC's response to the Second Amended Complaint
is due by February 10, 2011.  No trial date has been set.

KFC denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all
claims in this lawsuit.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100 countries
and territories.  YUM consists of six operating segments:  KFC-
U.S., Pizza Hut-U.S., Taco Bell-U.S., Long John Silver's-U.S. and
A&W All American Food Restaurants-U.S., YUM Restaurants
International and YUM Restaurants China.  The company develops,
operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food items.


YUM! BRANDS: Exemplar Trial to Begin June 6 in "Moeller" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Exemplar trial will begin on June 6, 2011, in the class action
lawsuit styled, Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp., according to
YUM! Brands, Inc.'s February 15, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 25, 2010.

On December 17, 2002, Taco Bell was named as the defendant in a
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California styled Moeller, et al. v. Taco
Bell Corp.  On August 4, 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint that alleges, among other things, that Taco Bell has
discriminated against the class of people who use wheelchairs or
scooters for mobility by failing to make its approximately 220
company-owned restaurants in California accessible to the class.
Plaintiffs contend that queue rails and other architectural and
structural elements of the Taco Bell restaurants relating to the
path of travel and use of the facilities by persons with mobility-
related disabilities do not comply with the U.S. Americans with
Disabilities Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the California
Disabled Persons Act.  Plaintiffs have requested: (a) an
injunction from the District Court ordering Taco Bell to comply
with the ADA and its implementing regulations; (b) that the
District Court declare Taco Bell in violation of the ADA, the
Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and (c) monetary relief under the Unruh
Act or CDPA.  Plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, are seeking the
minimum statutory damages per offense of either $4,000 under the
Unruh Act or $1,000 under the CDPA for each aggrieved member of
the class.  Plaintiffs contend that there may be in excess of
100,000 individuals in the class.

On February 23, 2004, the District Court granted plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  The class includes claims for
injunctive relief and minimum statutory damages.

On May 17, 2007, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment seeking judicial declaration that Taco
Bell was in violation of accessibility laws as to three specific
issues: indoor seating, queue rails and door opening force.  On
August 8, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part with
regard to dining room seating.  In addition, the court granted
plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to door opening force at
some restaurants (but not all) and denied the motion with regard
to queue lines.

The parties participated in mediation on March 25, 2008, and again
on March 26, 2009, without reaching resolution.  On December 16,
2009, the court denied Taco Bell's motion for summary judgment on
the ADA claims and ordered plaintiff to file a definitive list of
remaining issues and to select one restaurant to be the subject of
a trial. The court has ordered the exemplar trial to begin on
June 6, 2011.  The trial will be bifurcated and the first stage
will address equitable relief and whether violations existed at
the restaurant.  Taco Bell will have the opportunity to renew its
motion for summary judgment on those issues and the opportunity to
move to decertify the class.  A case currently pending before the
U.S. Supreme Court, Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., may impact the
issue of class certification.  Depending on the findings in the
first stage of the trial and the court's rulings on motions for
summary judgment or class de-certification, the court may address
the issue of damages in a separate, second stage.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  Taco Bell has taken steps to
address potential architectural and structural compliance issues
at the restaurants in accordance with applicable state and federal
disability access laws.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100 countries
and territories.  YUM consists of six operating segments:  KFC-
U.S., Pizza Hut-U.S., Taco Bell-U.S., Long John Silver's-U.S. and
A&W All American Food Restaurants-U.S., YUM Restaurants
International and YUM Restaurants China.  The company develops,
operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food items.


YUM! BRANDS: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Smith" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Pizza Hut, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on its motion to dismiss a
second amended complaint filed by plaintiffs of a class action
lawsuit pending in Colorado, according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s
February 15, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 25, 2010.

On July 9, 2009, a putative class action styled Mark Smith v.
Pizza Hut, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado.  The complaint alleges that Pizza Hut
did not properly reimburse its delivery drivers for various
automobile costs, uniforms costs, and other job-related expenses
and seeks to represent a class of delivery drivers nationwide
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Colorado state law.
On January 4, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional
certification of a nationwide class of current and former Pizza
Hut, Inc. delivery drivers.  However, on March 11, 2010, the court
granted Pizza Hut's pending motion to dismiss for failure to state
a claim, with leave to amend.  On March 31, 2010, plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint, which in addition to the federal FLSA claims
asserts state-law class action claims under the laws of 16
different states.  Pizza Hut filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, and plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint a
second time.  On August 9, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs'
motion to amend.  Pizza Hut has filed another motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint.  The court has yet to rule on Pizza
Hut's motion.

Pizza Hut denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100 countries
and territories.  YUM consists of six operating segments:  KFC-
U.S., Pizza Hut-U.S., Taco Bell-U.S., Long John Silver's-U.S. and
A&W All American Food Restaurants-U.S., YUM Restaurants
International and YUM Restaurants China.  The company develops,
operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food items.


YUM! BRANDS: Continues to Defend "Whittington" Suit in Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------------
Taco Bell Corp. continues to defend itself from a class action
lawsuit filed by Jacquelyn Whittington in Colorado, according to
YUM! Brands, Inc.'s February 15, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 25, 2010.

On August 6, 2010, a putative class action styled Jacquelyn
Whittington v. Yum Brands, Inc., Taco Bell of America, Inc. and
Taco Bell Corp. was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado.  The plaintiff seeks to represent a
nationwide class of assistant managers who were allegedly
misclassified and did not receive compensation for all hours
worked and did not receive overtime pay after 40 hours in a week.
The plaintiff also purports to represent a separate class of
Colorado assistant managers under Colorado state law, which
provides for daily overtime after 12 hours in a day.  Yum has been
dismissed from the case.  Defendants filed their answer on
September 20, 2010, and the parties commenced class discovery,
which is currently on-going.

Taco Bell and the Company deny liability and intend to vigorously
defend against all claims in this lawsuit.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service
restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100 countries
and territories.  YUM consists of six operating segments:  KFC-
U.S., Pizza Hut-U.S., Taco Bell-U.S., Long John Silver's-U.S. and
A&W All American Food Restaurants-U.S., YUM Restaurants
International and YUM Restaurants China.  The company develops,
operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food items.




                             *********

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  * * *