---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, February 24, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 39

                             Headlines

AEROFLOT: Faces Class Action Over Flight Delays
AMB PROPERTY: Defends Two Lawsuits Over ProLogis Merger
AMCOR: Potential Exposure to Price-Fixing Class Action Reduced
AMERICAN PUBLIC: Answer to Amended Securities Suit Due March 11
ATHENAHEALTH INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit

AXIS CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Insurance Manipulation Claims
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Continues to Defend Product Liability Suits
BRISTOL-MYERS: Court Dismisses Indirect Purchaser Claims
BRISTOL-MYERS: Still Defends "Santa Clara" Lawsuit in California
BRISTOL-MYERS: Final Settlement Hearing Set for March in Mass.

CHINA AGRITECH: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
CLARUS MARKETING: Sued for Billing Unauthorized "Membership Fees"
CLIFFS NATURAL: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "White" Suit
CLIFFS NATURAL: Status Conference in Consolidated Suit Set Feb. 28
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Class Action Settlement Set for Approval

EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Settlement of "Transport Rates" Suit Approved
EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Still Defends "Wage & Hour" Suit in California
FBL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend EquiTrust Class Suits
FREDERICK COUNTY: Awaits Court Approval of "Pionteck" Settlement
HITACHI HOME: Sued for Failing to Disclose Defect in Televisions

INT'L PAPER: May Face Breach of Fiduciary Duty Class Action
J.CREW GROUP: Hearing on Order to Show Cause Set for Feb. 24
LENNOX INTERNATIONAL: Final Approval of Settlement Set for June 2
LORILLARD INC: Share of Judgment in "Scott" Suit Undertermined
MARK CIAVARELLA: Faces Class Action Over Juvenile Detentions

NETFLIX INC: Still Defends DVD Rental Antitrust Class Action Suit
PPG INDUSTRIES: Awaits Approval of Settlements in Antitrust Suit
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Arizona Court Denies Class Certification
SONY CORP: Claims in "OtherOS" Class Action Dropped
TIME WARNER: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Antitrust Suits

TIME WARNER: Continues to Defend "Swinegar" Lawsuit in California
TIME WARNER: Summary Judgment Motion Remains Pending in New York
TIME WARNER: Defends "Calzada" Lawsuit in California
TRAVELCENTERS AMERICA: Continues Defense of Suit v. Comdata
TRAVELCENTERS AMERICA: Continues to Defend "Hot Fuel" Suits

WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action Over ATM Usage Fee

* Canada Sup. Ct. to Review Decisions on Two Tobacco Suits Today



                             *********

AEROFLOT: Faces Class Action Over Flight Delays
-----------------------------------------------
Khristina Narizhnaya, writing for The Moscow Times, reports that
lawyer Sergei Litvintsev took extra time off from work to
celebrate the New Year's holiday in Egypt with his family, but the
vacation got off to an unfortunate start because an ice storm
delayed his flight from Sheremetyevo Airport by 28 hours.

Frustrated by the lack of information on the Aeroflot flight,
Mr. Litvintsev, 24, decided to get even with the largest Russian
airline.  While waiting, he met another lawyer, Kristina Kameneva,
and the two devised a plan, he told The Moscow Times on Feb. 18.

Once finally airborne, they collected other passengers' contact
information for potential further legal action to demand
compensation from the airline for emotional stress and financial
damages while being stranded.

Back in Moscow, they started a Facebook group, "Citizen Action
Against Aeroflot," which brought together people who found
themselves in a similar situation at the airport.  In a collective
petition that the lawyers finally submitted to the airline on
Feb. 17, they represent a group with 600 members, Mr. Litvintsev
said.

One of them, Filipp Chistov, 32, said he was flying to Austria to
ski with a group of friends but got stuck for about two days at
Sheremetyevo.  He lost about $1,000 in unused hotel reservations
and airport meal costs.

But the chaos at the terminal -- the lack of food, information or
support -- is what enraged him the most, he said.

"People are tired of being treated so rudely.  We want to show a
monopolist that we deserve respect," Mr. Chistov said.

Mr. Litvintsev is raising the prospect of another claim because
the number of potential plaintiffs in the online community has
grown to more than 1,000, he said.

The group is demanding a payment of 100,000 rubles to 150,000
rubles ($3,420 to $5,130) for each member, depending on the hours
spent waiting.  One hour is worth 4,000 rubles, Mr. Litvintsev
said.

They also want a public apology from the airline because they
insist that, contrary to the law, it failed to provide them with
adequate meals or any hotel rooms.

"The departure time kept changing," Mr. Litvintsev said.  "I was
livid."

If Aeroflot rejects the demands, the group will take the matter to
court, Mr. Litvintsev said.

Aeroflot spokeswoman Irina Dannenberg on Feb. 18 said that the
company would consider the petition.  She apologized for the
delayed flights and said that next time the airport should be
closed.

About 20,000 passengers were stranded at Moscow airports for
nearly three days at the end of December as many carriers had to
cancel hundreds of flights because an ice storm disrupted power
lines and deicing fluid was in short supply.

Aeroflot, whose passengers account for the largest proportion of
the victims, at the time gave out 500 ruble ($17) vouchers for
food, which soon ran out.

Aeroflot fired deputy chief executive officer Vladimir Smirnov in
the aftermath and offered a voucher for a one-way flight to a
country of the passenger's choice.  So far only 3,000 vouchers
have been claimed, Ms. Danenberg said.

Metropol analyst Andrei Rozhkov said many victims of the delays
are unable to afford purchasing the return ticket necessary to
take advantage of Aeroflot's compensation offer, hence the low
claim rate.


AMB PROPERTY: Defends Two Lawsuits Over ProLogis Merger
-------------------------------------------------------
AMB Property Corporation and its operating subsidiary, AMB
Property L.P., are defending themselves against two pending
putative shareholder class actions filed in connection with the
Companies' merger with ProLogis, a Maryland real estate investment
trust, New Pumpkin Inc., a Maryland corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of ProLogis, Upper Pumpkin LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company and a wholly owned subsidiary of New Pumpkin,
and Pumpkin LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly
owned subsidiary of Upper Pumpkin, according to the Companies'
joint Feb. 18, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

The two cases are James Kinsey, et al. v. ProLogis, et al., no.
2011CV818, filed on or about February 2, 2011, in the Denver
County District Court, Colorado; and Vernon C. Burrows, et al. v.
ProLogis, et al., filed on or about February 15, 2011, in the
Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore City.

The complaints seek to enjoin the merger, alleging, among other
things, that ProLogis' directors and certain executive officers
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize the value
to be received by ProLogis shareholders and by improperly
considering certain directors' personal interests in the
transaction in determining whether to enter into the merger
agreement. The Maryland complaint also includes a derivative claim
on behalf of ProLogis based upon the same allegations. Both
complaints also assert a claim of aiding and abetting breaches of
fiduciary duties against ProLogis, the Parent Company and the
merger entities. The Colorado complaint also asserts a claim of
aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties against the
Operating Partnership. In addition to an order enjoining the
transaction, the complaints seek, among other things, attorneys'
fees and expenses, and the Maryland complaint further seeks
certain monetary damages. The Parent Company and the Operating
Partnership view the complaints to be without merit and intend to
defend against them vigorously.


AMCOR: Potential Exposure to Price-Fixing Class Action Reduced
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Butler, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
packaging company Amcor says its takeover of Alcan Packaging is on
target, with the company expecting to reap up to $120 million in
cost savings this financial year.

Amcor on Feb. 21 announced a profit for the six months to
December 31 of $226 million, driven by surging sales and the
halving of one-off expenses.

It has also reduced its potential exposure to a class action over
an alleged price-fixing cartel with competitor Visy and shrugged
off the possibility of a showdown with tax authorities in Latin
America.

Chief executive Ken MacKenzie said the company was expecting a
"good" second half, with earnings "well ahead" of the same period
last financial year.

The result saw Amcor shares rise 1.9% on Feb. 21, to close at
$6.85.

Profit before significant items was up 55% to $267 million,
reflecting a 51% surge in sales, to $6.18 billion, following the
purchase of Alcan in August 2009.

The soaring Australian dollar carved $50 million from earnings,
but Amcor expects it will also provide a windfall by increasing
cost savings from the Alcan acquisition by a quarter.

"We remain confident of achieving $200 million to $250 million in
synergies by the third full year of ownership," Mr. MacKenzie
said.

"These synergies relate to overhead cost reductions, procurement
savings and improved operational efficiencies from the Alcan
Packaging acquisition."

He said of that benefit, between $100 million and $120 million
would fall in the current financial year.

The company has already pocketed $51 million in savings in the
first half of the year.

"Importantly, the first-half result clearly demonstrates that the
businesses have been able to retain the cost synergies and improve
earnings," Mr. MacKenzie said.

In notes to its audited financial statements, Amcor said the
amount claimed against it in a price-fixing class action had been
reduced from $697 million, including interest, to $321 million.

The amount represents economic damage allegedly caused to Amcor's
customers by price fixing between it and Visy between 2000 and
2005.

Amcor is "vigorously defending" the lawsuit and has cross-claimed
against Visy.

The company said Latin American revenue authorities, which it did
not specify, had made "a series of excise and income tax claims"
against it, but the likelihood of any impact on its financial
position was "remote".


AMERICAN PUBLIC: Answer to Amended Securities Suit Due March 11
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Public Education, Inc.'s answer to an amended securities
class action complaint pending in West Virginia is due March 11,
2011, according to the Company's Feb. 18, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On August 12, 2010, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against the Company, Dr. Wallace E. Boston, Jr., Dr. Frank B.
McCluskey and Harry T. Wilkins, in the United States Court for the
Northern District of West Virginia (Martinsburg Division),
encaptioned Douglas N. Gaer v. American Public Education, Inc. et
al, C.A. No. 3:10 CV-81. The plaintiff alleges that the Company
and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff purports to be acting on behalf
of a class consisting of purchasers or acquirers of the Company's
stock between
February 22, 2010 to August 5, 2010.  The plaintiff alleges that,
as a result of the defendants' allegedly false misleading
statements or omissions concerning the Company's prospects, the
Company's common stock traded at artificially inflated prices
throughout the Class Period. The plaintiff seeks compensatory
damages and fees and costs, among other relief, but has not, at
this time, specified the amount of damages being sought in this
action.  In an order dated November 10, 2010, Douglas Gaer and the
City of Miami Firefighters' and Police Officers' Retirement Trust
were appointed co-lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs' counsel was
approved.  On January 25, 2011, plaintiffs filed an Amended
Complaint asserting the same statutory claims against the Company,
Dr. Boston and Mr. Wilkins.  By court order, Defendants must
answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint on or before
March 11, 2011.  The Company intends to vigorously defend this
action.


ATHENAHEALTH INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
athenahealth, Inc., is still awaiting a ruling on its motion to
dismiss an amended complaint alleging violations of federal
securities law, according to the Company's Feb. 18, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On March 19, 2010, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers entitled Casula v. athenahealth, Inc. et al, Civil
Action No. 1:10-cv-10477. On June 3, 2010, the court appointed
Waterford Township General Employees Retirement System as the lead
plaintiff. On August 2, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by disseminating false and
misleading statements through press releases, statements by senior
management, and SEC filings. The alleged false and misleading
statements concern, among other things, the amortization period
for deferred implementation revenues. The amended complaint seeks
unspecified damages, costs, and expenses. The defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint on October 1, 2010, and a
reply brief in further support of the motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on December 30, 2010. The Company believes that
it has meritorious defenses to the amended complaint, and will
contest the claims vigorously.


AXIS CAPITAL: Continues to Defend Insurance Manipulation Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
AXIS Capital Holdings Limited continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit alleging that the Company manipulated
insurance bids, according to the Company's Feb. 18, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

In 2005, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company's U.S. insurance subsidiaries. In re Insurance Brokerage
Antitrust Litigation was filed on August 15, 2005 in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey and includes
as defendants numerous insurance brokers and insurance companies.
The lawsuit alleges antitrust and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act violations in connection with the payment of
contingent commissions and manipulation of insurance bids and
seeks damages in an unspecified amount. On October 3, 2006, the
District Court granted, in part, motions to dismiss filed by the
defendants, and ordered plaintiffs to file supplemental pleadings
setting forth sufficient facts to allege their antitrust and RICO
claims. After plaintiffs filed their supplemental pleadings,
defendants renewed their motions to dismiss. On April 15, 2007,
the District Court dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs'
complaint, as amended, and granted plaintiffs 30 days to file
another amended complaint and/or revised RICO Statement and
Statements of Particularity. In May 2007, plaintiffs filed (i) a
Second Consolidated Amended Commercial Class Action complaint,
(ii) a Revised Particularized Statement Describing the Horizontal
Conspiracies Alleged in the Second Consolidated Amended Commercial
Class Action Complaint, and (iii) a Third Amended Commercial
Insurance Plaintiffs' RICO Case Statement Pursuant to Local Rule
16.1(B)(4). On June 21, 2007, the defendants filed renewed motions
to dismiss. On September 28, 2007, the District Court dismissed
with prejudice plaintiffs' antitrust and RICO claims and declined
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' remaining
state law claims. On October 10, 2007, plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal of all adverse orders and decisions to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and a hearing was held in
April 2009. On August 16, 2010, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the antitrust and RICO
claims arising from the contingent commission arrangements and
remanded the case to the District Court with respect to the
manipulation of insurance bids allegations. The Company believes
that the lawsuit is completely without merit and continues to
vigorously defend the filed action.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Continues to Defend Product Liability Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corp. continues to defend itself against product
liability class action lawsuits filed in various courts, according
to the Company's February 17, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2010.

Two product liability class action lawsuits and more than 54
individual lawsuits involving approximately 54 individual
plaintiffs remain pending in various state and federal
jurisdictions against Boston Scientific Corporation's subsidiary
Guidant Corp. alleging personal injuries associated with
defibrillators or pacemakers involved in certain 2005 and 2006
product communications.  The majority of the cases in the United
States are pending in federal court but approximately five cases
are currently pending in state courts.

On November 7, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation established MDL-1708 (MDL) in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota and appointed a single judge to
preside over all the cases in the MDL.  In April 2006, the
personal injury plaintiffs and certain third-party payors served a
Master Complaint in the MDL asserting claims for class action
certification, alleging claims of strict liability, negligence,
fraud, breach of warranty and other common law and statutory
claims and seeking punitive damages.  The majority of claimants
allege no physical injury, but sue for medical monitoring and
anxiety.

On July 12, 2007, the company reached an agreement to settle
certain claims, including those associated with the 2005 and 2006
product communications, which was amended on November 19, 2007.
Under the terms of the amended agreement, subject to certain
conditions, the company would pay a total of up to $240 million
covering up to 8,550 patient claims, including almost all of the
claims that have been consolidated in the MDL as well as other
filed and unfiled claims throughout the United States.  On
June 13, 2006, the Minnesota Supreme Court appointed a single
judge to preside over all Minnesota state court lawsuits involving
cases arising from the product communications.

At the conclusion of the MDL settlement in 2010, 8,180 claims had
been approved for participation.  As a result, the Company made
all required settlement payments of approximately $234 million,
and no other payments are due under the MDL settlement agreement.

On April 6, 2009, Sept. 24, 2009, April 16, 2010 and August 30,
2010, the MDL Court issued orders dismissing with prejudice the
claims of most plaintiffs participating in the settlement; the
claims of settling plaintiffs whose cases were pending in state
courts have been or will be dismissed by those courts.

On April 22, 2010, the MDL Court certified an order from the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation remanding the remaining
cases to their trial courts of origin.

No updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC filing.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Court Dismisses Indirect Purchaser Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
An Ohio court has dismissed the indirect purchaser claims against
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. in In re: Plavix Indirect Purchaser
Antitrust Litigation, according to the Company's Feb. 18, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Eighteen lawsuits comprised of both individual suits and purported
class actions have been filed against the Company in U.S. District
Court, Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, by various
plaintiffs, including pharmacy chains (individually and as
assignees, in whole or in part, of certain wholesalers), various
health and welfare benefit plans/funds and individual residents of
various states. These lawsuits allege, among other things, that
the purported settlement with Apotex of the patent infringement
litigation violated the Sherman Act and related laws. Plaintiffs
are seeking, among other things, permanent injunctive relief
barring the Apotex settlement and/or monetary damages.

The putative class actions filed on behalf of direct purchasers
have been consolidated under the caption In re: Plavix Direct
Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, and the putative class actions
filed on behalf of indirect purchasers have been consolidated
under the caption In re: Plavix Indirect Purchaser Antitrust
Litigation. Amended complaints were filed on October 19, 2007.
Defendants filed a consolidated motion to dismiss in December
2007. The District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss
all of the Direct Purchaser claims. No appeal was taken from that
dismissal. In January 2011, the District Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to all of the indirect
purchaser claims. The Company says it is not possible at this time
to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits or their impact
on the Company.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Still Defends "Santa Clara" Lawsuit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. continues to face a class action lawsuit
filed by the County of Santa Clara over failure to provide proper
discounts to certain entities, according to the Company's Feb. 18,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In August 2005, the County of Santa Clara filed a purported class
action against the Company and numerous other pharmaceutical
manufacturers on behalf of itself and a putative class of other
cities and counties in California, as well as the covered entities
that purchased drugs pursuant to the 340B drug discount program
(340B Entities), alleging that manufacturers did not provide
proper discounts to 340B Entities. In May 2009, the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California denied plaintiff's
motion, without prejudice, to certify the class. In September
2010, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on the issue of
whether 340B Entities have standing to sue. The District Court had
previously dismissed the case after finding that 340B Entities did
not have standing, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the District Court. The District Court has stayed
the case pending a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Company stated that it is not possible at this time to
reasonably assess the outcome of this lawsuit, or its potential
impact on the Company.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Final Settlement Hearing Set for March in Mass.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The final hearing to consider approval of a settlement resolving a
consolidated class action lawsuit in Massachusetts is scheduled
sometime in March 2011, according to the Company's Feb. 18, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company, together with a number of other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, has been a defendant in a number of private class
actions as well as suits brought by the attorneys general of
various states. In these actions, plaintiffs allege that
defendants caused the Average Wholesale Prices (AWPs) of their
products to be inflated, thereby injuring government programs,
entities and persons who reimbursed prescription drugs based on
AWPs. The Company is a defendant in five state attorneys general
suits pending in state courts around the country. Beginning in
August 2010, the Company was the defendant in a trial in the
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth Court), brought
by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In September 2010, the jury
issued a verdict for the Company, finding that the Company was not
liable for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation; however, the
Commonwealth Court Judge issued a decision on a Pennsylvania
consumer protection claim that did not go to the jury, finding the
Company liable for $27.6 million and enjoining the Company from
contributing to the provision of inflated AWPs. The Company has
moved to vacate the decision and the Commonwealth has moved for a
judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a
new trial. These motions are currently pending before the
Commonwealth Court.

One set of class actions were consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts (AWP MDL). In August 2009,
the District Court granted preliminary approval of a proposed
settlement of the AWP MDL plaintiffs' claims against the Company
for $19 million, plus half the costs of class notice up to a
maximum payment of $1 million. A final approval hearing is
scheduled to occur in March 2011.


CHINA AGRITECH: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. reminds investors of the important
April 12, 2011 lead plaintiff deadline.  If you purchased the
common stock of China Agritech, Inc. during the period from
February 8, 2010 through February 3, 2011, you should contact the
Rosen Law Firm for more information about the importance of
serving as a lead plaintiff.  The lawsuit firm by the firm is
seeking to recover damages for investors from violations of
federal securities laws

No class has yet been certified in the above action.  Until a
class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you
retain one.  You may choose to do nothing at this point and remain
an absent class member.

To join the China Agritech class action, visit the Rosen Law
Firm's Web site at http://www.rosenlegal.com/or call Laurence
Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you
may also email lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action.  The case is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

The Complaint alleges China Agritech issued materially false and
misleading financial statements.  Particularly, the Complaint
alleges that on or about February 3, 2011, analyst firm LM
Research issued a report alleging, among other things, that the
Company's statement of revenue and earnings for the fiscal year
2009 are materially false and misleading.  The Report, citing
sources, claims that China Agritech's U.S. financial statements
were materially different than the financial statements filed with
Chinese authorities by a number of the Company's subsidiaries.
The report claims that the revenue reported in the Company's SEC
filings for 2009 is ten times larger than what the Chinese
regulatory reports show.  The LM Research report also noted a
number of potential badges of fraud within the Company.  The
Complaint alleges that when these disclosures of potential fraud
concerning China Agritech were revealed to the market, the price
of China Agritech stock dropped, damaging investors.

If you wish to join the class action as serve as lead plaintiff,
you must move the Court no later than April 12, 2011.  A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.  For more information
or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class
action, please contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
                    (917) 797-4425
         Toll Free: 1-866--767-3653
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
         Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


CLARUS MARKETING: Sued for Billing Unauthorized "Membership Fees"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Cox, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly
siutated v. Clarus Marketing Group, LLC, and Provide-Commerce,
Inc., Case No. 11-cv-00729 (N.D. Calif. February 16, 2011), accuse
the defendants of advertising a 'free' discount on its websites
and then slipping in a monthly charge for a membership program
that was not authorized, in violation of the Electronic Funds
Transfer Act.

Specifically, plaintiffs relate that as they were completing their
online purchases at one of the many websites owned and operated by
Provide-Commerce, defendants provided them with an advertisement
offering them "Free Shipping" on their purchases and 12 future
transactions.  Plaintiffs say that by merely clicking on the
advertisement, without accepting the offer, they had "unwittingly
agreed to join a membership program operated by CMG that costs
around $9.00 to $15.00 per month."

The Plaintiffs allege that they did not provide their credit card
number, debit card number, or billing information directly to CMG.

Plaintiffs claim that Provide-Commerce permitted CMG to manipulate
its website for the purpose of soliciting its customers.  CMG and
Provide-Commerce, according to the Complaint, then "split the
spoils" as well as certain commissions, earning million in profits
for themselves.

Defendants' aver that the scam is akin to a unsuspecting victim
walking into a retail store and being offered a coupon to use in
the store in exchange for providing his or her email address on a
form, and then having his or her credit or debit card information
subsequently forwarded by the store to another person who
repeatedly charge the customer, based on the fact that somewhere
on the form there was a disclosure that the customer was
"authorizing" this to happen.

Provide-Commerce is an e-commerce company that operates at least
five online stores: RedEnvelope, ProFlowers, Cherry-
Moon Farms, Secret Spoon, and Shari's Berries.  CMG operates as a
marketing and Internet services company in the United States.  The
Company offers online shopping alternatives, such as various
consumer subscription programs and loyalty based products for
consumers and businesses.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James R. Patterson, Esq.
          Alisa A. Martin, Esq.
          HARRISON PATTERSON & O'CONNOR LLP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619( 756-6990
          E-mail: jpatterson@hpolaw.com
                  amartin@hplaw.com

               - and -

          Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
          Mazin A. Sbaiti, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 521-3605
          E-mail: bsteckler@baronbudd.com
                  msbaiti@BaronBudd.com


CLIFFS NATURAL: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "White" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. is awaiting court ruling on a motion
to dismiss a case styled as White, et al. v. USX Corporation, et
al, according to the Company's Feb. 17, 2011 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2010.

There are currently three cases that comprise the Alabama Dust
Litigation, namely the White, et al. v. USX Corporation, et al.,
Waid et al. v. U.S. Steel Mining Company et al. and Alexander
case.

In 1997, a case styled White, et al. v. USX Corporation, et al.
was brought alleging that dust from the Concord Preparation Plant
damaged properties in the area.  In 2002, the plaintiffs entered
into a non-opt out, injunctive-relief only settlement agreement
with the former owner to implement fourteen remedial measures.
PinnOak and Oak Grove were added to the case in 2004.  Plaintiffs
subsequently sought additional remedial measures because they
claimed the original fourteen remedial measures were not adequate.
The parties agreed to a supplement to the 2002 settlement that was
approved by the court on December 11, 2008.  The terms of the
supplement provided that in exchange for an immaterial payment
amount for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs and the
implementation of a one-year ambient air monitoring plan, the
plaintiffs would provide a release and dismiss the lawsuit if the
monitoring plan were successfully completed.  Despite successful
completion of that plan, the plaintiffs now contend that the air
monitors should be relocated and testing should start over due to
continuing complaints of excess dust.  The Company opposed this
and on September 22, 2010, filed a motion to enforce the
supplement to the settlement agreement and to dismiss the case.
An evidentiary hearing was held in December 2010.

The Company is awaiting a ruling, although it expects the losing
side will appeal to the Supreme Court of Alabama.


CLIFFS NATURAL: Status Conference in Consolidated Suit Set Feb. 28
------------------------------------------------------------------
A status conference has been set for February 28, 2011, in a
consolidated case involving Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. in
Alabama, according to the Company's Feb. 17, 2011 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2010.

Together with the White, et al. v. USX Corporation, et al., Waid
et al. v. U.S. Steel Mining Company et al. and Alexander case
comprise the Alabama Dust Litigation.

Waid et al. v. U.S. Steel Mining Company et al., was brought in
2004 by approximately 160 individual plaintiffs asserting property
damage and injuries arising from particulate emissions from the
Concord Preparation Plant.  On June 26, 2009, the Supreme Court of
Alabama ruled that the plaintiffs in this case could pursue their
damages claims originating after July 1, 2003, as only claims
before that date are barred by the White class action settlement.
Plaintiffs have been ordered to sever the claims of any personal
injury plaintiffs; currently there are none, and after the
completion of property inspections, the number of plaintiffs has
been reduced to 116.  The judge asked the parties to consider
mediation and report back on June 8, 2010, after the depositions
of ten plaintiffs; however that hearing never went forward.  A new
judge was assigned to the case and sworn in on January 17, 2011,
and has scheduled a status conference for February 28, 2011.

On February 1, 2009, an additional lawsuit, the Alexander case,
was filed by approximately 210 individual plaintiffs also
asserting post July 1, 2003 claims for property damage and
injuries arising from particulate emissions from the Concord
Preparation Plant.  This case has been consolidated with the Waid
litigation for purposes of discovery.  The Company has also
completed property inspections and appraisals in this case, which
may result in a reduction of the number of plaintiffs.  The new
judge assigned to this case has scheduled a status conference on
February 28, 2011.  This litigation is in the early stages and the
Company intends to defend the consolidated case vigorously.


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Class Action Settlement Set for Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Rothfeld, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports
that the class action settlement between shareholders of
Countrywide Financial Corp. and its owners is up for approval this
week.

But the deal, originally for $624 million and the largest for
shareholders who suffered losses in the meltdown, has already been
rejected as by major institutional investors as too small, as the
National Law Journal reports.

Some of those investors, including the mammoth California Public
Employees Retirement System, are betting they can get a better
deal by going it alone, according to the National Law Journal
story.  According to the story:

Other funds that opted out of the deal have moved forward with
their own suits, citing losses far greater than what they would
have received in the proposed settlement.  On Jan. 26, Oregon
Attorney General John Kroger and state Treasurer Ted Wheeler sued
Countrywide to recover $14 million in losses.  In a press release,
they said the settlement would have netted less than $500,000 to
the state.  "Oregon will not accept pennies on the dollar when
Wall Street defrauds Oregonians," Mr. Kroger said in a prepared
statement.

The settlement stems from risky lending practices by the country's
largest housing loan originator during the real estate boom that
led to the crash of its stock price during the bust, and eventual
purchase by Bank of America Corp.

The institutional defections have led to some changes in the
agreement, which is now $601.5 million and set for final federal
court review in Los Angeles on Feb. 25.  The other $22.5 million
that had been included has been set aside for settlements with
those who've opted out.

The lead plaintiffs' counsel, Labaton Sucharow, has reduced its
request for fees by almost $1 million, to $46.5 million, or about
7.73% of the deal.  And settlements between the Securities and
Exchange Commission and Countrywide executives, including former
chief Angelo Mozilo, have added another $48.1 million to the pot.

Countrywide could have pulled out of the settlement given the
opt-outs, but it hasn't.

A BofA spokeswoman called it "unfortunate" that some investors
haven't wanted to embrace what she called "a fair and equitable
agreement."

And Joel Bernstein, a senior lawyer for the plaintiffs, said he
still believed it was a "really excellent deal."  Mr. Bernstein
said that if other investors who lost a lot of money want to hire
their own lawyers and "take a different kind of risk than our
clients want to take, they're entitled to do that."


EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Settlement of "Transport Rates" Suit Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Medical Services Corp.'s subsidiary, American Medical
Response, Inc., recently obtained court approval of its settlement
of a class action lawsuit pending in Washington, according to the
Company's Feb. 18, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On December 13, 2005, a lawsuit purporting to be a class action
was commenced against the Company, in Washington State Court,
Spokane County.  The complaint alleged that AMR billed patients
and third party payors for transports it conducted between 1998
and 2005 at higher rates than contractually permitted.  The court
has certified a class in this case which is comprised of
approximately 15,000 Spokane County residents.  In September 2010,
the Company and class representatives reached an agreement to
resolve the claims for approximately $1.1 million, which amount
includes all remaining refunds due to class members and attorney's
fees for the plaintiffs' counsel.  The settlement was recently
approved and finalized by the court.


EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Still Defends "Wage & Hour" Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Medical Services Corp.'s subsidiary, American Medical
Response, Inc., and certain subsidiaries are still defending
themselves against wage and hour class action lawsuits in
California, according to the Company's Feb. 18, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

Four different lawsuits purporting to be class actions have been
filed against AMR and certain subsidiaries in California alleging
violations of California wage and hour laws. On April 16, 2008,
Lori Bartoni commenced a suit in the Superior Court for the State
of California, County of Alameda, which has since been removed to
the United States District Court, Northern District of California
and later remanded back to state court; on July 8, 2008, Vaughn
Banta filed suit in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles; and on January 22, 2009, Laura Karapetian
filed suit in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles. In addition, in the first quarter of 2010,
Melanie Aguilar filed suit in the Superior Court of the State of
California on substantially identical claims. The four cases have
been joined together as "coordinated cases" and are all pending in
state court in Alameda County, California, other than Bartoni,
which is currently stayed due to interlocutory appeal. In the
Bartoni case, the Company has filed a motion to compel arbitration
pursuant to the applicable collective bargaining agreement.  On
November 5, 2010, the court denied the motion and the Company
appealed. At the present time, courts have not certified classes
in any of these cases. Plaintiffs allege principally that the AMR
entities failed to pay daily overtime charges pursuant to
California law, and failed to provide required meal breaks or pay
premium compensation for missed meal breaks. Plaintiffs are
seeking to certify the classes and are seeking lost wages,
punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other sanctions permitted
under California law for violations of wage hour laws. The Company
is unable at this time to estimate the amount of potential
damages, if any.


FBL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend EquiTrust Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
FBL Financial Group Inc. is still defending itself against two
purported class action lawsuits filed against its life insurance
subsidiary, EquiTrust Life Insurance Company, on behalf of
annuities purchasers, according to the Company's Feb. 18, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

The first case is Tabares v. EquiTrust Life Insurance Company,
filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on May 5, 2008. Tabares is a
California class action on behalf of all persons who purchased
certain deferred annuities from EquiTrust Life. The complaint
asserts a sub-class of purchasers that were age 60 or older at the
time of purchasing those annuities from EquiTrust Life. Plaintiffs
seek restitution and injunctive relief on behalf of all class
members, compensatory damages for breach of contract and punitive
damages for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing
and common law fraud. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
was heard on June 22, 2010. On August 2, 2010, the trial court
issued an Order "Denying in Part and Granting in Part Class
Certification." The Court denied certification on Plaintiffs' core
claims: for fraud and violation of the consumer protection
statute. The Court did grant certification on the claims for
breach of contract, declaratory relief and the claims for breach
of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. This certification
does not represent a finding on the merits with respect to
Plaintiffs' claim, only that it meets the criteria for the
establishment of a class. In addition, the Court dismissed the
only class representative of "senior" status and ordered the
attorneys to confer and draft a suitable notice to be sent to all
class members. Plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider the
August 2, 2010 ruling. EquiTrust Life opposed that motion. A brief
hearing was conducted and in January 2011, the Court overruled
Plaintiff's motion and requested further briefing.

The second case is Eller v. EquiTrust Life Insurance Company,
filed in United States District Court, District of Arizona, on
January 12, 2009. This purported national class action includes
all persons who purchased EquiTrust Life index annuities, with one
sub-class for all persons age 65 and older that purchased an
EquiTrust Life index annuity contract with a maturity date beyond
the annuitant's actuarial life expectancy; and a 30-state sub-
class under various consumer protection and unfair insurance
practices statutes. This case seeks rescission and injunctive
relief including restitution and disgorgement of profits on behalf
of all class members, compensatory damages, unjust enrichment and
punitive damages. The original deadline for the Plaintiffs to file
their class certification motion was in January 2011. Several
deadlines have been pushed further into 2011 and the Plaintiff's
class certification motion is expected late in the first quarter
of 2011.


FREDERICK COUNTY: Awaits Court Approval of "Pionteck" Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick County Bancorp, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its
settlement to resolve a lawsuit filed in Maryland, according to
the Company's Feb. 18, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2010.

On July 30, 2010, the Bank was served with a lawsuit, Pionteck, v.
Frederick County Bank, filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, Greenbelt Division, alleging
noncompliance the ATM notice requirements of the Electronic Funds
Transfer Act. The complaint, which purports to be a class action,
was filed on July 15, 2010. If the class action proceeds and the
Bank is ultimately found to be liable, statutory damages from the
noncompliance could be up to 1% of the Bank's net worth,
approximately $270 thousand at December 31, 2010. The Bank has
entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiff for an
amount, inclusive of plaintiff legal fees and costs, below the
maximum statutory damages. The settlement agreement is subject to
approval by the court.

The Company's December 31, 2010 financial statements reflect a
reserve for litigation and settlement costs that the Company
believes to cover substantially all remaining expense to be
incurred in connection with this matter. If the settlement
agreement is approved by the court, the Company believes that it
would not have a material adverse affect on the Company's
financial position. There can be no assurance that the settlement
agreement will be approved by the court on the proposed terms, or
that final settlement will not result in greater expense than that
anticipated.


HITACHI HOME: Sued for Failing to Disclose Defect in Televisions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elliot Musial, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Hitachi Home Electronics (America), Inc., et al., Case No.
2011-CH-05835 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. February 16, 2011),
accuses the consumer electronics company of failing to disclose a
known defect in their Hitachi LCS Rear Projection Televisions,
which  would render the Televisions worthless or require expensive
repairs, in violation of the I11inois Consumer Fraud Act.

Plaintiff alleges that the defect in a component known as the
Optical Block causes a video anomaly that causes the Televisions
to display colored haze, spots and streaks which cover the
programming on the television screen.  HHE imports, distributes
and markets the Televisions.

"By making these untrue claims, and by failing to disclose the
defect or the need to repair it, defendants were able to command
suggested retail prices for these units of approximately
$3,000.00, or more," Mr. Musial said in the Complaint.

Mr. Musial, who purchased a Hitachi LCD Real Projection
Television, model 50VX915, demanded a warranty repair from
Hitachi, but Hitachi refused to repair the defect and honor their
warranty, insisting that the warranty on his television had
lapsed, and that he would have to pay for its repair.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
          Lori A. Fanning, Esq.
          Matthew E. VanTine, Esq.
          MILLER LAW LLC
          115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 332-3400

               - and -

          Sanford P. Dumain, Esq.
          Peter Safirstein, Esq.
          Jennifer S. Czeisler, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300

               - and -

          Robert I. Lax, Esq.
          LAX LLP
          380 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3100
          New York, NY 10168
          Telephone: (212) 818-9150

               - and -

          Joseph J.M. Lange, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq.
          LANGE & KONCIUS, LLP
          222 North Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 2000
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 414-1880


INT'L PAPER: May Face Breach of Fiduciary Duty Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
CCH reports that plan participants in 401(k) plans may be able to
bring a class action for breach of fiduciary duty involving excess
fees and imprudent investment options if the class is properly
defined to ensure that the applicable typicality and adequacy of
defense requirements are satisfied, according to the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals in Spano v. The Boeing Company (CA-7) and
Beesley v. International Paper Company.  However, the court
vacated a class certification that was so broad and diffuse as to
not allow for a determination of whether there was sufficient
congruence between the interests of members of the class.

Class action suits allege excess fees and other fiduciary breaches

Participants in 401(k) plans maintained by Boeing and
International Paper brought separate suits under ERISA, alleging
various breaches of fiduciary duty.  Specifically, it was charged
that the fiduciaries: caused the plans to pay excessive fees and
expenses (through contract fees and revenue sharing for mutual
funds in the plans); included improper investment options in the
plans; and concealed material information from participants
regarding plan fees and expenses and plan investment options.

The trial court granted each of the participant representatives'
motions to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(1) (Rule 23).  The class definition adopted by the trial
court included "all persons, excluding the Defendants and/or other
individuals who are or may be liable for the conduct described in
the Complaint, who are, were, or may have been affected by the
conduct set forth in the Complaint, as well as those who will
become participants or beneficiaries of the Plan in the future."

The companies appealed, arguing that the class definition did not
meet the applicable procedural requirements.  More broadly, the
companies asserted that class treatment is never permissible for
actions under a defined contribution (DC) plan because each
employee chooses which instrument to include in his or her account
and the amount of the investment.  The Seventh Circuit
consolidated the cases in order to review the disputed class
certification.

Class action fiduciary breach claims under DC plans

Initially, the appeals court found that individual participants in
a DC plan are not precluded, under LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg &
Associates (552 U.S 248 (2008)), from bringing fiduciary breach
claims as a class action. H owever, LaRue does not guarantee
individual participants the right to proceed as a class.  The
Seventh Circuit emphasized that before deciding whether to allow a
case to proceed as a class action, a trial court must make the
factual and legal inquiries necessary under Rule 23.  It is not
sufficient for the trial court to review the complaint and ask
whether, taking the facts as the party seeking the class presents
them, the case seems suitable for class treatment.

With respect to the Boeing plan participants, the court initially
found that the charge that the company imposed excess fees on
participants and the claim that the company failed to satisfy its
fiduciary duties in the selection of investment options described
problems that could operate across the plan, rather than just at
an individual level.  Accordingly, the court concluded that the
proposed class met the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2).

However, the court was unable to determine whether the typicality
requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) was met because the class was defined
too broadly to allow it to ascertain whether there was sufficient
congruence between the investments held by the named plaintiffs
and those held by the unnamed members of the class.  A class
representative in a DC case, the court explained, must "at a
minimum, need to have invested in the same funds as class
members."

In addition, the court could not determine, because of the size of
the class, whether the adequacy of defense requirement of Rule
23(a) was met.  The court suggested that some members of the
broadly defined class could actually be harmed by the relief being
sought.

With respect to Rule 23(b), the court stressed that, absent a
common interest between the class members, it could not assume
that an adjudication of one person's claim would be dispositive of
the interests of other members not parties to individual
adjudication or would substantially impair or impede their ability
to protect their interests (as required under Rule 23(b)(1)((B)).

The court further found that the failure to satisfy the
requirements of typicality and adequacy of defense also applied to
the class of International Paper participants.  According to the
court, there was no guarantee that the misrepresentation claims of
the lead plaintiff were typical of the other members of the class.
Similar problems pertained to the imprudent investment option
claims and excess fee charges.

The court suggested that a more clearly defined class could
satisfy the Rule 23(a) requirements.  In defining the class more
narrowly on remand, the trial court would, however, need to assure
the class representatives, at a "meaningful level of detail" stand
in the same position as the absentee members of the class.


J.CREW GROUP: Hearing on Order to Show Cause Set for Feb. 24
------------------------------------------------------------
In a February 18, 2011, Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission, J.Crew Group, Inc., disclosed that a
motion for an order to show cause in a class action lawsuit in New
York is set to be heard on Feb. 24, 2011.

As previously disclosed by J.Crew Group, Inc., seven purported
class action complaints were filed in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, in connection with the previously announced
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of November 23, 2010, among
the Company, Chinos Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and
Chinos Acquisition Corporation, a Delaware corporation and a
wholly owned subsidiary of Parent and Leonard Green & Partners,
L.P. The Company also previously disclosed that on January 13,
2011, the court in the New York Actions ruled that those cases
will be stayed indefinitely in favor of shareholder litigation
proceeding in Delaware. On February 17, 2011, the plaintiffs in
the New York Actions presented to the Supreme Court of the State
of New York an Order to Show Cause seeking to vacate the stay of
the New York Actions, consolidate all of the New York Actions,
enjoin the shareholder vote to adopt the Merger Agreement
scheduled for March 1, 2011, and direct a hearing on the
plaintiffs' claims. On February 24, 2011, the Supreme Court of the
State of New York will hold a hearing to consider this Order to
Show Cause, to determine whether to vacate the stay of proceedings
already entered, and to determine whether to schedule a
preliminary injunction hearing at a later date if the stay is
vacated. The Company believes that the Order to Show Cause is
without merit and plans to vigorously defend against it.


LENNOX INTERNATIONAL: Final Approval of Settlement Set for June 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The final hearing to consider approval of a settlement of a class
action lawsuit against Lennox International, Inc., is set for
June 2, 2011, according to the Company's Feb. 18, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On February 6, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California styled Keilholtz v. Lennox Hearth Products, Inc.,
Lennox Industries, Inc. and Lennox International, Inc. The
lawsuit, which  involves no personal injury claims, alleges that
certain of the Company's single-pane, glass-front, gas fireplaces
are hazardous and that consumers were not adequately warned, and
seeks economic damages. On February 16, 2010, the court issued an
order certifying a nationwide class of plaintiffs.

On August 23, 2010, the Company and the plaintiffs entered into a
binding Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) containing tentative
terms for settlement of the case. At the parties' request, the
court stayed the lawsuit shortly after the MOU was signed. On
January 11, 2011, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement. The court set June 2, 2011, as the date for the final
approval hearing.


LORILLARD INC: Share of Judgment in "Scott" Suit Undertermined
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc., is awaiting the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on
a writ of certiorari filed by defendants in the case Scott v. The
American Tobacco Company, et al., according to the Company's
Feb. 18, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

In July 2008, the District Court of Orleans Parish, Louisiana,
entered an amended final judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in
Scott v. The American Tobacco Company, et al. (District Court,
Orleans Parish, Louisiana, filed May 24, 1996), a class action on
behalf of certain cigarette smokers resident in the State of
Louisiana. In April 2010, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth
Circuit, issued a decision that modified the trial court's 2008
amended final judgment. The Court of Appeal's decision reduced the
judgment amount to approximately $242 million to fund a ten-year
court-supervised smoking cessation program. The April 2010
decision ordered that an award of post-judgment interest will
accrue from July 2008. Interest awarded by the amended final
judgment will continue to accrue from July 2008 until the judgment
either is paid or is reversed on appeal.

As of February 9, 2011, judicial interest totaled approximately
$32.1 million. Lorillard Tobacco's share of any judgment,
including an award of post-judgment interest, has not been
determined. In the fourth quarter of 2007, the Company recorded a
pretax provision of approximately $66 million for this matter.
Lorillard, Inc., which was a party to the case in the past, is no
longer a defendant. The U.S. Supreme Court has granted defendants'
application to stay execution of the amended final judgment until
defendants' petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme
Court is resolved.  As of February 9, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court
had not determined whether it will grant review of defendants'
certiorari petition. It is not possible to predict the final
outcome of this matter.


MARK CIAVARELLA: Faces Class Action Over Juvenile Detentions
------------------------------------------------------------
Antoinette Campbell, writing for Cable News Network, reports that
a Pennsylvania judge recently convicted for putting juveniles into
"for profit" detention centers is being sued, a civil rights
attorney said on Feb. 21.

The class-action civil lawsuit was originally filed in 2009.  It
names several defendants, including Mark Ciavarella, whose alleged
illegal actions date back to 2003, on and off the bench.

The former Luzerne County judge was found guilty on Feb. 18 of 12
of 39 racketeering and fraud charges for accepting millions of
dollars in bribes from friends who owned detention centers to
which he sent juveniles.

"I can't say I've ever seen something as bad as kids being
incarcerated for no reason at all," attorney Barry Dyller told CNN
affiliate WBRE-TV in Wilkes-Barre/Scranton.

The case against Mr. Ciavarella made national headlines when a
distraught mother lashed out Friday at the former judge after his
conviction.

Sandy Fonzo's 17-year-old son, Edward Kenzakowski, spent six
months in a detention center after Mr. Ciavarella sentenced him
for possession of drug paraphernalia.

According to Fonzo, her son, who had no prior record, was never
able to recover and eventually took his own life.

"He (Ciavarella) killed his spirit," Ms. Fonzo told CNN, "He
(Ciavarella) crushed him, and he (Ciavarella) didn't help him."
Ms. Fonzo said her son was full of resentment and pent-up anger
after being sent to the detention center.

"He was just never the same," Ms. Fonzo said.

She said she came to the courthouse believing Mr. Ciavarella would
be taken straight to jail.  But when she found out he was going
home with his daughter, she was shocked and angered, and began
shouting at Mr. Ciavarella.

"Do you remember me?" Ms. Fonzo screamed lunging toward
Ciavarella, "Do you remember my son?" she screamed again.  "He's
gone," she cried, "He shot himself in the heart, you scumbag!"

Ms. Fonzo was then subdued and moved away from Mr. Ciavarella.

The class-action suit alleges that Mr. Ciavarella and another
judge devised a "material scheme to abuse the juvenile system and
deprive allegedly delinquent children and their parents of clearly
established civil rights for significant personal gain."

The suit alleges RICO violations, civil conspiracy, wrongful
imprisonment and violation of due process and civil rights.

It also alleges the activity goes back several years and includes
Mr. Ciavarella and his wife, Cynthia, another former judge,
Michael Conahan, and his wife, Barbara.

It names the facilities used by the judges, their owners and
anyone who help build, operate or collected any money in
connection with the "alleged scheme."

Mr. Dyller said families whose children had been wrongly
imprisoned began reaching out to him after charges were brought
against Mr. Ciavarella.

"Thousands of kids appeared before Mark Ciavarella between 2003
and 2008.  That's the time period we're looking at," Mr. Dyller
told WBRE.

The suit also alleges the defendants "prohibited or discouraged
juveniles from having legal representation during court
proceedings," creating the potential for an increased number of
juvenile offenders to be sent to specific detention facilities.

Mr. Ciavarella is free on bond until his sentencing.  He could
face up to 157 years in prison.

"There is no justice," Ms. Fonzo said.

"(Ciavarella) will never receive my sentence," she said.  "I have
nothing."


NETFLIX INC: Still Defends DVD Rental Antitrust Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NetFlix, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class action
lawsuit involving subscription prices, according to the Company's
Feb. 18, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

In January through April of 2009, a number of purported anti-trust
class action suits were filed against the Company in various
United States Federal Courts. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and
Walmart.com USA LLC were also named as defendants in these suits.
These cases have been transferred by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to the Northern District of California to
be consolidated or coordinated for pre-trial purposes, and have
been assigned the multidistrict litigation number MDL-2029. A
number of substantially similar suits were filed in California
State Courts, and have been consolidated in Santa Clara County.
The plaintiffs, who are current or former Netflix customers,
generally allege that Netflix and Wal-Mart entered into an
agreement to divide the markets for sales and online rentals of
DVDs in the United States, which resulted in higher Netflix
subscription prices. On March 19, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion
to certify a class consisting of "any person or entity in the
United States that paid a subscription fee to Netflix on or after
May 19, 2005 up to and including the date of class certification"
with certain exceptions. The Court granted the motion for class
certification on December 23, 2010. A number of other cases have
been filed in Federal and State courts by current or former
subscribers to the online DVD rental service offered by
Blockbuster Inc., alleging injury arising from similar facts.
These cases have been related to MDL 2029 or, in the case of the
California State cases, coordinated with the cases in Santa Clara
County. On August 27, 2010, Wal-Mart stated that it had settled
the cases with both the Netflix and Blockbuster plaintiffs. A
hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement was heard on February 9, 2011, but the court has not
yet ruled on the motion. Netflix is not part of the settlement and
continues to litigate these cases. With respect to this matter,
management has determined that a potential loss is not probable
and accordingly, no amount has been accrued.


PPG INDUSTRIES: Awaits Approval of Settlements in Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc. is awaiting court approval of settlements it
entered resolving a consolidated class action alleging violations
of antitrust laws, according to the Company's February 17, 2011
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Several complaints were filed in late 2007 and early 2008 in
different federal courts naming PPG and other flat glass producers
as defendants in purported antitrust class actions.  The
complaints alleged that the defendants conspired to fix, raise,
maintain and stabilize the price and the terms and conditions of
sale of flat glass in the United States in violation of federal
antitrust laws.  In June 2008, these cases were consolidated into
one federal court class action in Pittsburgh, Pa.  In the
consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs sought a permanent
injunction enjoining the defendants from future violations of the
federal antitrust laws, unspecified compensatory damages,
including treble damages, and the recovery of their litigation
costs.  Many allegations in the complaints were similar to those
raised in proceedings by the European Commission in which fines
were levied against other flat glass producers arising out of
alleged antitrust violations.  PPG is not involved in any of the
proceedings in Europe.  PPG divested its European flat glass
business in 1998.  A complaint containing allegations
substantially similar to the U.S. litigation and seeking
compensatory and punitive damages in amounts to be determined by
the court was filed in the Superior Court in Windsor, Ontario,
Canada in August 2008 regarding the sale of flat glass in Canada.
In the third quarter of 2010, the other defendants in these cases
agreed to settlements.  Although PPG is aware of no wrongdoing or
conduct on its part in the operation of its flat glass business
that violated any antitrust laws, in order to avoid the ongoing
expense of this protracted case, as well as the risks and
uncertainties associated with complex litigation involving jury
trials, in the third quarter of 2010 PPG reached an agreement in
principle to resolve these flat glass antitrust matters for
approximately $6 million.  All of the other defendants also agreed
to settlements.  Final settlement agreements were executed in the
fourth quarter of 2010.  The charge for these matters was reported
in Other charges in the third quarter of 2010.


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Arizona Court Denies Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
A federal court has denied class certification of a lawsuit filed
against Republic Services, Inc., in Arizona, according to the
Company's Feb. 18, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On July 8, 2009, CLN Properties, Inc., and Maevers Management
Company, Inc., filed a complaint against Republic Services, Inc.
and Allied Waste Industries, Inc., in the United States District
Court in Arizona, in which plaintiffs complain about fuel recovery
fees and environmental recovery fees. The complaint purports to be
filed on behalf of a nationwide class of similarly situated
plaintiffs. The complaint asserts various legal and equitable
theories of recovery and alleges in essence that the fees were not
properly disclosed, were unfair, and were contrary to contract.
The District Court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on December 13, 2010. Plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of that ruling, which the District Court also
denied. Plaintiffs have not filed a timely interlocutory appeal,
but could file an appeal after any judgment in this case.

The Company says that based on the District Court's opinion and
the small amounts at issue with respect to the 10 remaining
plaintiffs, it will no longer report on this case after the filing
of the current Form 10-K.


SONY CORP: Claims in "OtherOS" Class Action Dropped
----------------------------------------------------
Ben Kuchera, writing for Ars Technica, reports that the claims
against Sony in the ongoing class-action lawsuit dealing with the
removal of the "OtherOS" functionality in the PlayStation 3
hardware have all been dropped, save for one: a claim that Sony
violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by removing the ability
to run Linux.  This is the same law under which Sony is suing
George Hotz for hacking the PS3, in fact.

One of Sony's defenses is rather interesting, as the company
claims that it had no way of knowing gamers who bought the
hardware would want to use these functions for the life of the
system, and the multiple warranties and Terms of Service all said
that Sony had the right to remove functions from the hardware.
From the court documents filed by Sony:

To establish the implied warranty of fitness existed, Plaintiffs
must allege that SCEA had "reason to know" of their special
purpose, i.e., to use the PS3 in perpetuity for all advertised
features and functions including the Other OS; that Plaintiffs
relied on SCEA's expertise; and that SCEA had "reason to know" of
their reliance on the continued availability of all features and
functions.  Plaintiffs have not only failed to allege these
requisite facts, they indeed cannot due to the explicit language
of SCEA's Warranty, SSLA, and Terms of Service.  Specifically,
because SCEA had the right to terminate or alter any feature or
function, it had no reason to believe that Plaintiffs purchased
their PS3s particularly with the expectation and belief that all
features, including the Other OS, would be available for the
"life" of the PS3.

Sony is arguing that your system needs to keep all the features it
was sold with for the length of its warranty, and then after that
time, removal of any function is fair game.  "I think the problem
is that in order to accept the notion that Sony made an
unauthorized intrusion onto the plaintiffs' PS3s, you have to
start with the assumption that what was 'disabled' was something
that the plaintiffs had an ownership interest in . . ." Sony's
laywer argued.

He continued, saying that gamers had a choice.  "We're talking
about if you are so interested in keeping this one feature, then
you're not going to be able to access the PSN anymore.  You may
not be able to play some games. But that is not hacking into
somebody's computer, which is the essence of the [Computer Fraud
and Abuse Act]."  This isn't a matter of accepting or declining a
software update, it's the problem of Sony placing consumers in a
position where they lose functionality no matter what they do.
That may be a tough sell to the court.


TIME WARNER: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Antitrust Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable, Inc., is still awaiting a ruling on its request
to dismiss lawsuits alleging violations of antitrust laws,
according to the Company's Feb. 18, 2011, Form 10-K filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2010.

The Company is the defendant in In re: Set-Top Cable Television
Box Antitrust Litigation, ten purported class actions filed in
federal district courts throughout the United States. These
actions are subject to a Multidistrict Litigation Order
transferring the cases for pre-trial purposes to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York. On May 10, 2010, the
plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated class action
complaint, alleging that the Company violated Section 1 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act, various state antitrust laws and state
unfair/deceptive trade practices statutes by tying the sales of
premium cable television services to the leasing of set-top
converters boxes. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things,
unspecified treble monetary damages and an injunction to cease
such alleged practices. On September 30, 2010, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The Company
intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously.


TIME WARNER: Continues to Defend "Swinegar" Lawsuit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable, Inc., is still defending itself against a class
action lawsuit alleging violations of California consumer laws,
according to the Company's Feb. 18, 2011, Form 10-K filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2010.

On November 14, 2008, the plaintiffs in Mark Swinegar, et al. v.
Time Warner Cable Inc., filed a second amended complaint in the
Los Angeles County Superior Court, as a purported class action,
alleging that the Company provided to and charged plaintiffs for
equipment that they had not affirmatively requested in violation
of the proscription in the Cable Consumer Protection and
Competition Act of 1992 against "negative option billing" and that
such violation was an unlawful act or practice under California's
Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiffs are seeking restitution under
the UCL and attorneys' fees. On February 23, 2009, the court
denied TWC's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, and
on July 29, 2010, the court denied the Company's motion for
summary judgment. On October 7, 2010, the Company filed a petition
for a declaratory ruling with the FCC requesting that the FCC
determine whether the Company's general ordering process complies
with the Cable Act's "negative option billing" restriction. On
October 20, 2010, the FCC requested public comment on this matter.
The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously.


TIME WARNER: Summary Judgment Motion Remains Pending in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in a class
action lawsuit remains pending in New York, according to the
Company's Feb. 18, 2011, Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On September 17, 2009, the plaintiffs in Jessica Fink and Brett
Noia, et al., v. Time Warner Cable Inc., filed an amended
complaint in a purported class action in U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York alleging that the Company uses a
throttling technique which intentionally delays or blocks a user's
Road Runner service. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary
damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. On September 25,
2009, TWC moved for summary judgment in this action, which is
pending.  The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit
vigorously.


TIME WARNER: Defends "Calzada" Lawsuit in California
----------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable, Inc., is defending itself against a class
action lawsuit alleging it illegally recorded phone calls in
California, according to the Company's Feb. 18, 2011, Form 10-K
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

On January 27, 2011, the plaintiffs in Calzada, et al. v. Time
Warner Cable LLC, filed a purported class action in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court alleging that the Company recorded
phone calls with plaintiffs without notice in violation of
provisions of the California Penal Code and the California Unfair
Business Practices Act. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other
things, unspecified treble monetary damages, injunctive relief,
restitution and attorneys' fees. The Company intends to defend
against this lawsuit vigorously.


TRAVELCENTERS AMERICA: Continues Defense of Suit v. Comdata
-----------------------------------------------------------
TravelCenters of America, LLC, remains a defendant in a purported
class action lawsuit against Comdata Network Inc. pending in
Pennsylvania.

On April 6, 2009, five independent truck stop owners, who are
plaintiffs in a purported class action suit against Comdata
Network, Inc., or Comdata, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, filed a motion to amend their
complaint to add TravelCenters of America as a defendant, which
was allowed on March 25, 2010. The amended complaint also adds as
defendants Ceridian Corporation, Pilot Travel Centers LLC and
Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc. Comdata markets fuel
cards which are used for payments by trucking companies to truck
stops. The amended complaint alleges antitrust violations arising
out of Comdata's contractual relationships with truck stops in
connection with its fuel cards. The plaintiffs are seeking
unspecified damages and injunctive relief. This case is in the
discovery stage. The Company believes that there are substantial
factual and legal defenses to the plaintiffs' claims against it,
but that the costs to defend this case could be significant.

No updates were reported in the Company's Feb. 18, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

TravelCenters of America, LLC -- http://www.tatravelcenters.com/
-- operates and franchises travel centers primarily along the
U.S. interstate highway system.  The Company was formed as a
wholly owned subsidiary of Hospitality Properties Trust.  Its
customers include long haul trucking fleets and their drivers,
independent truck drivers and motorists.


TRAVELCENTERS AMERICA: Continues to Defend "Hot Fuel" Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
TravelCenters of America, LLC, is still defending itself against
certain class actions filed over "hot fuel," according to the
Company's Feb. 18, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

Beginning in December 2006, a series of class action lawsuits was
filed against numerous companies in the petroleum industry,
including the company's predecessor and the company's
subsidiaries, in United States district courts in over 20 states.
Major petroleum refineries and retailers have been named as
defendants in one or more of these lawsuits.  The plaintiffs in
the lawsuits generally allege that they are retail purchasers who
purchased motor fuel at temperature greater than 60 degrees
Fahrenheit at the time of sale.  One theory alleges that the
plaintiffs purchased smaller quantities of motor fuel than the
amount for which defendants charged them because the defendants
measured the amount of motor fuel they delivered by volumes which,
at higher temperatures, contain less energy.  A second theory
alleges that fuel taxes are calculated in temperature adjusted 60
degree gallons and are collected by governmental agencies from
suppliers and wholesalers, who are reimbursed in the amount of the
tax by the defendant retailers before the fuel is sold to
consumers.  These "tax" cases allege that, when the fuel is
subsequently sold to consumers at temperatures above 60 degrees,
the retailers sell a greater volume of fuel than the amount on
which they paid tax, and therefore reap unjust benefit because the
customers pay more tax than the retailer pays.  The company
believes that there are substantial factual and legal defenses to
the theories alleged in these so called "hot fuel" lawsuits.  The
"temperature" cases seek non-monetary relief in the form of an
order requiring the defendants to install temperature correcting
equipment on their retail fuel pumps.  They also seek monetary
relief in the form of damages.  The plaintiffs have not quantified
the damages they seek.  The "tax" cases also seek monetary relief.
Plaintiffs have proposed a formula (which the company disputes) to
measure these damages as the difference between the amount of fuel
excise taxes paid by defendants and the amount collected by
defendants on motor fuel sales.  Plaintiffs have taken the
position in filings with the Court that under this approach, the
company's damages for an eight-year period for one state would be
approximately $10.7 million.  The company denies liability and
disagrees with the plaintiff's position.  The cases have been
consolidated in the District Court pursuant to multi-district
litigation procedures.  On May 28, 2010, the Court ruled that,
with respect to two cases originally filed in U.S. District Court
in the state of Kansas, it would grant plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class of plaintiffs seeking injunctive relief
(implementation of fuel temperature equipment and/or posting of
notices regarding the effect of temperature on fuel), and that it
would defer plaintiffs' motion to certify a class with respect to
damages.  A TA entity was named in one of those two Kansas cases,
but the Court ruled that the named plaintiffs were not sufficient
to represent a class as to TA, and as a result, there has been no
class certified as to TA.  The defendants with respect to which a
class has been certified have petitioned the United States Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit for interlocutory review of the
Court's class certification decision.  The U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas has not issued a decision on class
certification with respect to the remaining cases that have been
consolidated in the multi-district litigation and discovery in
those cases is ongoing.  Because these various motions are
pending, the Company says that it cannot estimate its ultimate
exposure to loss or liability, if any, related to these lawsuits.
However, the continued cost of litigating these cases could be
significant.


WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action Over ATM Usage Fee
--------------------------------------------------
Kelly Gilblom, writing for Puget Sound Business Journal, reports
that a class action complaint that named Wells Fargo as defendant
alleges the bank violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act by not
posting notification of a usage fee on one of its downtown Seattle
ATMs.

The complaint, filed Feb. 17 by Melody French in U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington, said French was
charged a $3 fee without notice when she used an Olive Way ATM,
owned by Wells Fargo.  According to the court documents, she was
not an account holder at Wells Fargo when she used the machine.

Ms. French is seeking unspecified damages and for the bank to
cover her legal fees.  She is also seeking class action
certification for the suit.  The court documents said she believes
"at least thousands" of people have been affected by the bank's
alleged violation of the fund transfer law.

Neither the bank nor Ms. French's attorney, Jeffrey Grant of
Seattle-based law firm Skellenger Bender, could be immediately
reached for comment.

Ms. French's attorney, Jeffrey Grant of Seattle-based law firm
Skellenger Bender, said: "It's pretty classic for those types of
banking schemes.  The fee is small, but a lot of consumers will
end up being affected by it.  You're talking a lot of money."

He added Ms. French is seeking class action certification because
"the amount is so small, it really doesn't make much sense for
someone on their own to go to try to get it worked out."
Mr. Grant estimated the court will decide within 90 days if it
will grant class action status.


* Canada Sup. Ct. to Review Decisions on Two Tobacco Suits Today
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Canada will today begin its review of
decisions of the British Columbia Court of Appeal concerning the
role of the federal government as "third party" to two ground-
breaking trials against tobacco companies.

These cases, with links to the relevant Supreme Court Factums,
are:

   * the suit brought against the companies by the government
     of British Columbia to recover the costs of treating
     tobacco-caused diseases.  See http://is.gd/dqtSTl

   * The 'Knight" class action suit against BAT/Imperial Tobacco
     related to the sale of so-called light cigarettes.  See
     http://is.gd/e8UQlB

In December 2009, the B.C. Court of Appeal had partially supported
the industry's view that the federal government could be brought
into its defense in both the B.C. government and Knight cases.
This decision was appealed by both parties.

The companies have made similar efforts to engage the federal
government in other current tobacco litigation, and the Supreme
Court decision is expected to affect other provincial efforts to
sue the companies.  Because of Quebec's different legal system,
the federal government is already party to the two class action
suits against the companies in that province.


                             *********

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  * * *