CAR_Public/110627.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, June 27, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 125

                             Headlines

BP: Seeks Dismissal of 12 Oil-Spill Claims in MDL Suit
CARLYLE CAPITAL: Accused in D.C. Suit of Misleading Shareholders
CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Class Action Over Gas Royalties Settled
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Class Action
DEUTSCHE BANK: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action

DIAL CORP: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Marketing Campaign
EDEBITPAY LLC: Faces Class Action Over Payday Loan Scam
FRONTIER OIL: Reaches Deal to Settle Merger-Related Suit in Texas
HOLLY CORP: Settles Frontier Merger-Related Suit in Texas
JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued Over Alleged Hazard Insurance Kickbacks

METROPOLITAN LIFE: GM Retirees File Suit Over Slashed Benefits
NAPA HOME: Recalls 460,000 NAPAfire and FIREGEL Bottles and Jugs
RITE AID: Files Class Action Over Seating Policy
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA: Sued Over Transfer Policy
SENSASLIM: Faces AU$4.2-Mil. Class Action Over Diet Spray

SOUTHERN UNION: Being Sold for Too Little, Tex. Suit Claims
SZ ENTERPRISES: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
UNITED STATES: Homeless Veterans File Class Action




                             *********

BP: Seeks Dismissal of 12 Oil-Spill Claims in MDL Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that BP wants
to dismiss 12 oil-spill claims from states in Mexico, district
attorneys in Louisiana, and Alabama cities, because they allege
state law violations, though the Gulf oil spill is a matter for
federal law.

"It would be quite a feat for one federal statute (OPA) [the Oil
Pollution Act], by silence, to strip other federal statutes (the
CWA and OCSLA) [Clean Water Act and Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act] of the preemption necessary for their operation," BP
attorneys wrote.

BP claims that because the oil spill came on the Outer Continental
Shelf, which is subject to the federal Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act (OCSLA), state laws do not apply, even when the oil
damaged state waters and coastlines.

And because federal law takes precedent, BP says, the lawsuits
from the Alabama cities and Mexican states must be thrown out for
violating OPA regulations, which require presentment of claims
before a lawsuit is filed.

Finally, BP says, the Mexican states' lawsuits do not allege any
actual damages, and there is no contract between the United States
and Mexico regarding recovery of environmental damages caused by
oil spills from foreign entities.

"A state has no independent authority, under common law or
otherwise, to regulate pollution that originated from a source
outside its territory, even if the effects of the pollution are
felt within the state.  See Int'l Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S.
481 (1987)," BP says in its complaint.

"Although the law under OCSLA is exclusively federal, its content
may be borrowed from the law of the adjacent state.  But the
adjacent state's law may apply (if at all) (i) only indirectly as
surrogate federal law and (ii) only if necessary to fill a gap in
federal law.  . . . In this case, because OPA and the Clean Water
Act provide comprehensive remedial and penal schemes to address
oil spills, there is no place for state law, and all state law
claims brought by the Alabama cities, the Mexican states, and the
Louisiana district attorneys are preempted," according to the
complaint.

In August 2010, at the urging of the federal government, BP, as
"responsible party," established a $20 billion fund to pay claims
through its Gulf Coast Claims Facility (GCCF), which is overseen
by Kenneth Feinberg.  The purpose of the facility, under OPA, is
to provide a way for claimants to circumvent litigation, which
could take years, and get a quick payment for damages from the oil
spill.

BP says that lawsuits by the Mexican states and Alabama cities
were filed without presentment to the GCCF, so should be
dismissed.

BP adds that even if the Mexican states did present claims to BP
before filing lawsuits, it wouldn't matter, because there is no
oil spill agreement between the United States and Mexico.

"The Mexican States concede that, because they are foreign
claimants, OPA requires that they 'shall demonstrate' that
recovery is 'authorized' by a treaty or executive agreement
between the United States and Mexico.  . . . The Mexican states
cite four treaties that they contend 'provide for the protection
of the environment' and thus 'authorize their claims.'"

But BP says that isn't true, as none of the agreements the Mexican
states cite and "to which the United States is a party contains
such provisions.  These agreements touch on certain environmental
or boundary issues, but do not authorize recovery of removal costs
or damages, as required by OPA if a foreign claimant is to
recover.

"In the Agreement of Cooperation Between the United States of
America and the United Mexico States Regarding Pollution of the
Marine Environment by Discharges of Hydrocarbons and Other
Hazardous Substances ("Hydrocarbon Pollution Agreement"), the
United States and Mexico 'agree[d] to establish a United States-
Mexico joint-contingency plan regarding pollution of the marine
environment by discharges of hydrocarbons and other hazardous
substances . . ., with the object of developing measures to deal
with such polluting incidents and ensuring an adequate response. .
. .  The agreement does not authorize Mexico claimants to pursue
damages under OPA or any other law, or otherwise mention
compensation," BP says.

Somewhere between 130,000 and 140,000 litigants seek damages in
the oil spill litigation.  Because every lawsuit has several
plaintiffs, slightly fewer than 400 lawsuits have been filed.

The litigation stems from the April 20, 2011 explosion of the
Deepwater Horizon that killed 11 and set off the worst oil spill
in U.S. history.

Attorneys overseeing the case have sorted claims into bundles,
depending on allegations.  The 12 cases BP wants to dismiss belong
to Bundle C.

"In an effort to avoid preemption under the Clean Water Act,
plaintiffs contend that BP's arguments rely on an 'overextended
misrepresentation' of the holding of Ouellette. (Mex. States' Br.
at 30-32; see also La. District Attorneys' Br. at 7-8; PSC's Br.
at 28-31.)  On the contrary, Ouellette's holding is squarely on
point: Ouellette held that only the federal . . . system and the
law of the source state can regulate discharges of pollution
within such a state, whereas other states (even if affected by the
pollution) lack the power to regulate water pollution beyond their
borders."

BP added: "It would be quite a feat for one federal statute (OPA),
by silence, to strip other federal statutes (the CWA and OCSLA) of
the preemption necessary for their operation. Where, as here,
Congress expressly limited a savings clause to save only those
claims that would otherwise be preempted by a defined statute, it
could not possibly have intended (without any indication in the
text) that the same narrow savings clause could save claims that
are expressly preempted by an entirely different and preexisting
federal statute.  To conclude otherwise would be even more
illogical than interpreting a statute's savings clause to save
claims that the statute itself preempts."

As for the Louisiana district attorneys' claims, BP wrote:
"Although the Louisiana Parish District Attorneys insist that a
savings clause for wildlife penalty cases in LOSPRA [Louisiana Oil
Spill Prevention and Response Act] preserves their claims, they
neglect to quote the actual language of the clause, which plainly
refutes their argument: 'Nothing herein shall be construed to
preclude the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries from bringing a
civil suit to recover penalties for the value of each fish, wild
bird, wild quadruped, and other wildlife and aquatic life
unlawfully killed, caught, taken, possessed, or injured pursuant
to R.S. 56:40.1 et seq.' La. Rev. Stat. Sec. 30:2491 (B)."

The motion to dismiss the 12 lawsuits was filed by Don Haycraft,
with Liskow & Lewis of New Orleans, in the document, "BP's Reply
in Support of Motion to Dismiss Certain Complaints in Pleading
Bundle C."

A copy of BP's Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Certain
Complaints in Pleading Bundle C in In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig
"Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, Case
No. 10-md-02179 (E.D. La.) (Barbier, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/21/BPBundleC.pdf


CARLYLE CAPITAL: Accused in D.C. Suit of Misleading Shareholders
----------------------------------------------------------------
Greenfield & Goodman, LLC and Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP on
June 22 disclosed that two related class actions have been
commenced in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia on behalf of certain purchasers of the Class B shares and
restricted depositary shares of Carlyle Capital Corporation,
incorporated in Guernsey, Channel Islands, and currently in
liquidation during the period from June 19, 2007 through March 17,
2008, inclusive and were damaged thereby, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  On March 17,
2008, the Royal Court of Guernsey entered a "winding up" order
directing that CCC be liquidated.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in one or both of the
actions commenced, you must move the Court no later than 60 days
from June 22, 2011.  If you wish to discuss these actions or have
any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact plaintiff's counsel, Richard D. Greenfield, Esq. at
Greenfield & Goodman LLC at 917-495-4446, or via e-mail at
whitehatrdg@earthlink.net or Matt Miller, Esq. at Cuneo Gilbert &
LaDuca at 202-789-3960, or via e-mail at mmiller@cuneolaw.com

Any member of the 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 in either or both cases.

The Complaint in Phelps v. Stomber, et al, Civil Action No. 11-
1142 (D.D.C.) charges certain of the former officers and directors
of CCC with violations of the Exchange Act.

The Complaint in in E.L. Phelps v. Carlyle Capital Corp., Case No.
11-cv-01143 (D.D.C.) (Berman, J.) charges CCC with violations of
the Exchange Act.  A copy of this is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/22/Carlyle.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
          Matthew E. Miller, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          507 C Street, N.E.
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: mmiller@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Richard D. Greenfield, Esq.
          Marguerite R. Goodman, Esq.
          GREENFIELD & GOODMAN, LLC
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (917) 495-4446
          E-mail: whitehatrdg@earthlink.net

The Complaints allege that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made material misrepresentations and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's true financial
condition, business and prospects.  Specifically, the Complaints
allege that, inter alia, defendants caused the Company to
disseminate financial statements that were not fairly presented
and failed to make complete and timely disclosures concerning
certain actions taken by CCC's officers and directors which
resulted in the Company's eventual entry into "winding up"
proceedings.

Richard D. Greenfield, Esq. of Greenfield & Goodman, LLC has over
30 years of experience in banking, securities and consumer
litigation, having served as Lead or Co-Lead Counsel for
plaintiffs in many shareholder class and derivative actions.
Mr. Greenfield is a former director of a NYSE-listed bank holding
company.

Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca -- http://www.cuneolaw.com-- is a firm
that specializes in the representation of plaintiffs in consumer,
antitrust, civil rights and securities class actions and is active
in major litigations pending in federal and state courts
throughout the United States.  It has offices in Washington, D.C.,
New York, Los Angeles and Alexandria, Va.


CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Class Action Over Gas Royalties Settled
--------------------------------------------------------------
Claire Galofaro, writing for TriCities.com, reports that the
smallest of the half-dozen class-action suits over coalfield gas
rights was settled on June 22 for $3.4 million, to be split among
some 1,850 Southwest Virginia landowners.

The lawsuit alleges that Chesapeake Appalachia, a subsidiary of
the nation's second-largest producer of natural gas, Oklahoma-
based Chesapeake Energy Corp., underpaid gas royalties to
landowners for decades, eventually resulting in an approximate
loss of just under $3.6 million.

The $3.4 million settlement represents 95% of that loss, which
attorneys for the plaintiffs described on June 22 as a "remarkably
high recovery."

Landowners who leased their gas to Chesapeake will receive a
notice in the mail once the settlement is finalized at an Oct. 4
hearing.  They will have the choice to do one of three things:

    * do nothing, remain a class member and receive a check in the
mail.  Attorneys' fees and other expenses will be deducted from
the $3.4 million, which will then be divided among the landowners
involved based on their percent of the total royalties paid.  For
example, if Chesapeake had paid $100 in royalties to Southwest
Virginia landowners and John Smith received 10%, or $10, Smith
would be entitled to 10% of the settlement.

    * opt out and receive none of the settlement money.  Those who
opt out retain their right to sue the company individually.

    * object to the proposed settlement.

The class action is one of six pending in federal court and,
compared to the other five, is of a relatively small scale.
Chesapeake Appalachia operates far fewer gas wells in Southwest
Virginia than CNX Gas Co. and EQT Production Co., the two
companies listed as defendants on the other five suits.

The June 22 settlement was the first resolution to any of the
cases.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP has filed a class action suit against
Community Health Systems, Inc. and certain of its officers and/or
directors that alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 on behalf of purchasers of Community Health Systems common
stock during the period July 27, 2006, through April 11, 2011,
inclusive.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee (Civil Action No. 11-00601).  A copy
of the complaint may be obtained from Kaplan Fox or the Court.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants emphasized the Company's positive financial performance
and future business prospects, but failed to disclose or
recklessly disregarded that the Company's performance has been
driven by the improper and undisclosed practice of systematically
admitting patients into Community Health Systems' hospitals
despite no clinical need.  According to the Complaint, Community
Health Systems artificially increased inpatient admissions for the
purpose of receiving substantially higher and unwarranted payments
from Medicare and other sources that wrongfully inflated its
financial performance.

The Complaint further alleges that the true facts, which were
known by defendants but concealed from the investing public during
the Class Period, were that (1) the Company had for years engaged
in the improper practice of systematically admitting patients into
hospitals despite no clinical need, most notably by unnecessarily
converting emergency-room visits into more lucrative inpatient
admissions; (2) the Company's wrongful admissions procedures were
designed to overbill Medicare and other sources for patient
admissions; (3) as a result of the improper admissions and
improper billing practices, the Company's reported revenues and
earnings were materially and wrongfully inflated; and (4) based on
the foregoing, defendants lacked a basis for their positive
statements about the Company's prospects and growth.

It is further alleged that on April 11, 2011, amidst Community
Health Systems' $3.3 billion hostile takeover bid of Tenet
Healthcare Corp., investors and analysts were shocked to learn
that Tenet had filed a lawsuit against Community Health Systems,
its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial
Officer alleging that Community Health Systems had failed to
disclose for years certain fraudulent admissions and billing
practices, including its practice of systematically admitting,
rather than observing, patients despite no clinical need, in order
to artificially increase inpatient admissions for the purpose of
receiving substantially higher and unwarranted payments from
Medicare and other sources.

Following the April 11, 2011 disclosures, Community Health
Systems' common stock declined by $14.41 per share, or 35.7%, on
unusually heavy trading volume from a closing price of $40.30 per
share on April 8, 2011, to close at $25.89 per share on April 11,
2011.

If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court
no later than July 8, 2011, to serve as a lead plaintiff for the
Class.  You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to
share in any possible recovery.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class and is
represented by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.

Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP -- http://www.kaplanfox.com--
prosecutes investor class actions and actions involving financial
fraud.  The firm has offices in New York, San Francisco, Los
Angeles, Chicago and New Jersey.

If you have any questions about this Notice, the action, your
rights, or your interests, please contact:

        Pamela A. Mayer, Esq.
        KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
        850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
        New York, New York 10022
        Telephone (800) 290-1952
                  (212) 687-1980
        E-mail: pmayer@kaplanfox.com

             - and -

        Laurence D. King, Esq.
        KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
        350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
        San Francisco, California 94104
        Telephone: (415) 772-4700
        E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com


DEUTSCHE BANK: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, a 180-lawyer firm, on June 22
disclosed that a class action has been filed on behalf of an
institutional investor in the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Deutsche Bank AG
ordinary shares during the period between January 3, 2007, and
January 16, 2009.

The complaint charges Deutsche Bank and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Deutsche Bank is a global investment bank.  The complaint
alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results and concealed the Company's failure to write
down impaired securities containing mortgage-related debt.

As a result of defendants' false statements, Deutsche Bank shares
traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period,
reaching a high of $159.59 per share in May 2007.  Later, Deutsche
Bank's shares declined as it reported billions of dollars in
losses, many of which were directly or indirectly related to
mortgage-backed securities.  Recently, the US Department of
Justice sued Deutsche Bank for misrepresentations about its
mortgage loans.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the
Class Period, were as follows: (a) defendants failed to record
adequate provisions for losses on the deterioration in mortgage
assets and collateralized debt obligations on Deutsche Bank's
books caused by the high amount of non-collectible mortgages
included in the Company's portfolio; (b) Deutsche Bank's
MortgageIT subsidiary was issuing and had issued billions of
dollars of mortgage loans which did not comply with stated lending
practices, leading to thousands of defaults; (c) Deutsche Bank's
internal controls were inadequate to ensure that losses on
residential mortgage-related assets were accounted for properly;
and (d) Deutsche Bank had transferred billions of dollars in
defaulting, or soon-to-default, mortgages to unwitting investors
and government programs due to its disregard of adverse findings
by outside consultants, company said.

Courthouse News Service reports that IBEW Local 90 Pension Fund
has also filed suit against Deutsche Bank.


DIAL CORP: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Marketing Campaign
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Keahey, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that a
class action has been filed against Dial Corp. claiming the
company has a misleading marketing campaign over its product "Dial
Complete."

Bridget Becnel Delivorias and Karen Finney, individually and on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed suit
against The Dial Corp. on June 14 in federal court in New Orleans.

The lawsuit states that the marketing campaign for Dial Complete
is deceptive by implying that it will completely protect the
consumer from germs.  The suit also claims the product is
deceptively marketed by claims that Dial Complete's active
ingredient Triclosan, enables it to outperform other soap
products.

The defendant is accused of violation of the Louisiana Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, breach of contract,
breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, negligent design
and failure to warn and redhibition.

The proposed class action will include all Louisiana residents who
purchased Dial Complete products for personal or household use,
within the statutory limitations.

The plaintiffs are asking for an award of restitution,
disgorgement, actual, statutory and punitive damages, attorney's
fees, court costs and interest.

The lawsuit was filed by Daniel E. Becnel Jr., Matthew B. Moreland
and Salvadore Christina, Jr. of Becnel Law Firm in Reserve and
LaPlace attorney Robert M. Becnel.  A jury trial is requested.

U.S. District Judge Jay C. Zainey is assigned to the case.

Case No. 2:11-cv-01403


EDEBITPAY LLC: Faces Class Action Over Payday Loan Scam
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Internet payday lenders EDebitPay and Platinum Online Group take
information from loan applicants "and use it to forge checks on
behalf of the applicants . . . without the applicants' knowledge
or consent."

Both defendant companies are LLCs that operate out of Sherman
Oaks.  The two named plaintiffs are a woman from San Francisco and
a man from Malibu.

"Defendants operate a scam where they lure people into applying
for payday loans on Internet websites," according to the
complaint.  "Defendants take the information they gather from the
payday loan applications -- including the applicants' banking
information -- and use it to forge checks on behalf of the
applicants.  These checks are fakes; they are created without the
applicants' knowledge or consent.  These checks supposedly pay for
defendants' coupon service, though no applicant ever agreed to buy
such services.  In fact, the idea that a cash-strapped, payday
loan applicant would spend money on defendants' coupon service,
the purpose of which is to encourage a person to spend additional
money with defendants' coupons, is absurd.  The money is
transferred from the applicants' checking accounts to defendants'
account before the applicants realize that the forged checks have
been drawn or that withdrawals have been made.  Defendants have
performed this scam thousands of times, and robbed people in need
of their remaining money."

Both named plaintiffs say they "specifically did not register
and/or rejected all third party offers that were advertised on the
payday loan websites" when they sought payday loans from the
defendants in May this year.  Both say that without their
knowledge or consent, the defendants used their personal
information to register them for the defendants' online services.

"However, plaintiffs had never heard of defendants' coupon
services, let alone registered for these services."

Both say the defendants "drafted remotely created checks" from
their checking accounts, payable to Platinum Online Group, without
permission, and deposited the checks.

They seek restitution, costs and damages.

A copy of the Complaint in Deffenbaugh, et al. v. EDebitPay,
L.L.C., et al., Case No. 11-cv-03024 (N.D. Calif.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/22/Edebitpay.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Karl S. Kronenberger, Esq.
          Henry M. Burgoyne, III, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          KRONENBERGER BURGOYNE, LLP
          150 Post Street, Suite 520
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 955-1155
          E-mail: hank@kbinternetlaw.com
                  karl@kbinternetlaw.com
                  jeff@kbinternetlaw.com


FRONTIER OIL: Reaches Deal to Settle Merger-Related Suit in Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Frontier Oil Corporation reached an agreement to settle a
consolidated class action lawsuit pending in Texas over its
proposed merger with Holly Corporation and North Acquisition,
Inc., according to the Company's June 21, 2011, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On February 21, 2011, Frontier Oil Corporation entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger with Holly Corporation and North
Acquisition, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Holly ("Merger
Sub").  Twelve substantially similar shareholder lawsuits styled
as class actions were filed by alleged Frontier shareholders
challenging the merger and naming as defendants Frontier, its
board of directors and, in certain instances, Holly and Merger Sub
as aiders and abettors.  To date, such shareholder actions have
been filed in Harris County, Texas, Laramie County, Wyoming, the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, and the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.  On
March 25, 2011, the lawsuits pending in the District Court of
Harris County, Texas, were consolidated under the style
In re: Frontier Oil Corp., Cause No. 2011-11451.

These lawsuits generally allege that (1) the consideration to be
received by Frontier's shareholders in the merger is inadequate,
(2) the Frontier directors breached their fiduciary duties by,
among other things, approving the merger at an inadequate price
under circumstances involving certain alleged conflicts of
interest, (3) the merger agreement includes preclusive deal
protection provisions, and (4) Frontier, and in some cases Holly
and Merger Sub, aided and abetted Frontier's board of directors in
breaching its fiduciary duties to Frontier's shareholders.  In
addition to these claims, the three lawsuits filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas and the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas allege that the
defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making untrue statements of material fact
and omitting to state material facts necessary to make the
statements that were made not misleading in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus.  The shareholder actions seek various
remedies, including enjoining the transaction from being
consummated in accordance with its agreed-upon terms, compensatory
damages, and costs and disbursements relating to the lawsuits.

On June 17, 2011, the defendants reached an agreement-in-principle
with the plaintiffs in: In re: Frontier Oil Corp., to settle the
eight consolidated class action lawsuits pending in Harris County,
Texas.  No agreement has been reached with plaintiffs in the other
cases who may attempt to continue to pursue their claims.  In
connection with the proposed settlement, certain additional
disclosures are being made to Frontier's shareholders.  The
parties contemplate that the agreement-in-principle will be
documented by the parties, that the written agreement will contain
customary provisions and further agree that approval of the
settlement must, and will, be sought from the court following
notice to the shareholders of Frontier and consummation of the
merger.  In connection with the approval of the settlement, a
hearing will be scheduled at which the court will consider the
fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement which, if
finally approved by the court, will resolve all of the claims that
were or could have been brought in the actions being settled and
the other actions, including all claims relating to the merger,
the merger agreement and any disclosures made in connection
therewith.  The parties contemplate that the settlement will
provide individual shareholders with the right to opt out of the
settlement before the hearing and, if the number of shares held by
individual shareholders who opt out reaches a certain percentage,
the settlement will further provide defendants with the right to
withdraw from the settlement.  In addition, in connection with the
settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiff's counsel will
petition the court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to
be paid by the defendants.

The Defendants say they cannot be certain that the parties will
ultimately enter into a written settlement agreement or that the
court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such an agreement.  If the court does not approve the
settlement or if sufficient individual shareholders opt out and
defendants elect to withdraw from the settlement, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the agreement-in-principle may be
modified or terminated.

Frontier avers that the settlement will not affect the amount of
merger consideration to be paid in the merger.


HOLLY CORP: Settles Frontier Merger-Related Suit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
Holly Corporation reached an agreement to settle a consolidated
class action lawsuit in Texas over its proposed merger with
Frontier Oil Corporation, according to the Company's June 21,
2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On February 21, 2011, Frontier Oil Corporation entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger among Frontier, Holly Corporation and
North Acquisition, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Holly
("Merger Sub").  Twelve substantially similar shareholder lawsuits
styled as class actions were filed by alleged Frontier
shareholders challenging the merger and naming as defendants
Frontier, its board of directors and, in certain instances, Holly
and Merger Sub as aiders and abettors.  To date, such shareholder
actions have been filed in Harris County, Texas, Laramie County,
Wyoming, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas.  On March 25, 2011, the lawsuits pending in the District
Court of Harris County, Texas, were consolidated under the style
In re: Frontier Oil Corp., Cause No. 2011-11451.

These lawsuits generally allege that (1) the consideration to be
received by Frontier's shareholders in the merger is inadequate,
(2) the Frontier directors breached their fiduciary duties by,
among other things, approving the merger at an inadequate price
under circumstances involving certain alleged conflicts of
interest, (3) the merger agreement includes preclusive deal
protection provisions, and (4) Frontier, and in some cases Holly
and Merger Sub, aided and abetted Frontier's board of directors in
breaching its fiduciary duties to Frontier's shareholders.  In
addition to these claims, the three lawsuits filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas and the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas allege that the
defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making untrue statements of material fact
and omitting to state material facts necessary to make the
statements that were made not misleading in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus.  The shareholder actions seek various
remedies, including enjoining the transaction from being
consummated in accordance with its agreed-upon terms, compensatory
damages, and costs and disbursements relating to the lawsuits.

On June 17, 2011, the defendants reached an agreement-in-principle
with the plaintiffs in: In re: Frontier Oil Corp., to settle the
eight consolidated class action lawsuits pending in Harris County,
Texas.  No agreement has been reached with plaintiffs in the other
cases who may attempt to continue to pursue their claims.  In
connection with the proposed settlement, certain additional
disclosures are being made to Frontier's shareholders.  The
parties contemplate that the agreement-in-principle will be
documented by the parties, that the written agreement will contain
customary provisions and further agree that approval of the
settlement must, and will, be sought from the court following
notice to the shareholders of Frontier and consummation of the
merger.  In connection with the approval of the settlement, a
hearing will be scheduled at which the court will consider the
fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement which, if
finally approved by the court, will resolve all of the claims that
were or could have been brought in the actions being settled and
the other actions, including all claims relating to the merger,
the merger agreement and any disclosures made in connection
therewith.  The parties contemplate that the settlement will
provide individual shareholders with the right to opt out of the
settlement before the hearing and, if the number of shares held by
individual shareholders who opt out reaches a certain percentage,
the settlement will further provide defendants with the right to
withdraw from the settlement.  In addition, in connection with the
settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiff's counsel will
petition the court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to
be paid by the defendants.

The Defendants say they cannot be certain that the parties will
ultimately enter into a written settlement agreement or that the
court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such an agreement.  If the court does not approve the
settlement or if sufficient individual shareholders opt out and
defendants elect to withdraw from the settlement, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the agreement-in-principle may be
modified or terminated.

Holly avers that the settlement will not affect the amount of
merger consideration to be paid in the merger.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued Over Alleged Hazard Insurance Kickbacks
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
JPMorgan Chase Bank took kickbacks (commissions and fees) from
providers of forced-placed homeowners hazard insurance, and from
their own affiliates, and forced borrowers to pay for unnecessary
insurance.

A copy of the Complaint in McNeary-Calloway v. JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A., et al., Case No. 11-cv-03058 (N.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/22/JPMorgan.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          580 California Street, Suite 1750
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 400-3000
          E-mail: rabadou@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
          Terence S. Ziegler, Esq.
          Joseph A. Weeden, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
                  eciolko@ktmc.com
                  tziegler@ktmc.com
                  jweeden@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey J. Angelovich, Esq.
          Michael B. Angelovich, Esq.
          Brad Seidel, Esq.
          NIX PATTERSON & ROACH, LLP
          Daingerfield, TX 75638
          Telephone: (903) 645-7333

               - and -

          James P. Gitkin, Esq.
          Eric T. Salpeter, Esq.
          SALPETER GITKIN, LLP
          Museum Plaza, Suite 503
          200 South Andrews Avenue
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 467-8622


METROPOLITAN LIFE: GM Retirees File Suit Over Slashed Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Shepardson, writing for The Detroit News, reports that a
group of 45 General Motors salaried retirees filed suit on June 22
in Wayne Circuit Court, claiming Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
breached its contract when it slashed benefits.

In recent years GM reduced life insurance for most salaried
retirees to $10,000 from higher guaranteed amounts.  GM ended life
insurance for its top former executives.

Some retirees lost $500,000 to $1 million in insurance policies
when the value was reduced to $10,000, said Andrew Rogers, a
lawyer for the retirees.  The suit says the reduced benefits are
insufficient to even cover funeral and burial expenses and are
"extreme and outrageous."

Another 300 were also affected and could be affected as part of a
class-action, Mr. Rogers said.

Mr. Rogers said earlier on June 22 that the John Smale listed in
the suit is the former GM chairman.  He said late on June 22 that
he had been mistaken -- and that the person suing is not the
former GM chairman.

In a June 1, 2009 letter to retirees on the day GM filed for
bankruptcy, then GM CEO Fritz Henderson told retirees who joined
GM before 1993 "the amount of Basic Life Insurance provided by GM
is being reduced to $10,000" and was effective soon after GM
exited bankruptcy the following month.

However, GM said retirees could buy additional insurance by
enrolling in a voluntary Life Insurance program through MetLife --
and it did not require "proof of good health" -- but they would
have to pay for the extra coverage.  But during the first two
years of participation in the program, the death benefits are
equal to the amount of the premiums paid.  After that, retirees
could get paid full coverage.

MetLife notified retirees named in the suit that their "continuing
life insurance" coverage would "remain in effect for the rest of
your life," but GM reduced the amount of coverage to $10,000, the
retirees said in a statement.

Some of the letters from MetLife guaranteeing lifetime coverage
date to 1986, Mr. Rogers said.

"These retirees have taken tremendous losses in their promised,
deferred compensation and retirement plans.  They are holding
written promises from MetLife that they relied on and used for
planning their retirement future," said Sheldon Miller, another
attorney for the retirees.  "Hitting them with this additional
loss of life insurance coverage, when they hold lifetime
guarantees comes at a time when they can no longer replace
insurance on the open market due to their age and reduced income
and is unconscionable."

The retirees are seeking to reinstate the full value of their
reduced policies.  MetLife spokesman John Calagna declined to
comment on the suit.  "We have not seen the lawsuit so we are not
in a position to comment on it.  MetLife continues to provide
valuable life insurance coverage to GM's active employees and
retirees," Mr. Calagna said.

GM spokesman Jim Cain defended the company's actions.

"Without question, the changes needed in order for GM to survive
were difficult for many individuals and their families.  But the
right to modify or terminate employee benefits has always been an
integral component of the plans themselves, as was frequently
communicated to participants.  Unfortunately, Old GM's ultimate
decline made both its bankruptcy and these sacrifices necessary to
save both GM and thousands of jobs," Mr. Cain said.

This is the second suit filed by some GM retirees in recent weeks.

Last month, more than 100 former GM executives sued the automaker
in federal court to recoup pension benefits slashed during the
company's bankruptcy.

The retirees, including former vice presidents and high-ranking
managers, are trying to recoup benefits plus interest, and want a
federal judge to order GM to accurately pay future benefits.

The executives suing include a number of former GM vice
presidents, including John G. Middlebrook, who was vice president
and general manager of vehicle brand marketing.  He also was a
general manager of the Chevrolet Division and helped launch GM's
now-shuttered Saturn division.

Others suing include Richard C. Nerod, retired president of GM-
Latin America, Africa and Middle East; and Donald W. Hudler, a GM
vice president and former president of Saturn.

Overall, GM saved $4.6 billion in trimming pension and retiree
health care benefits during its bankruptcy reorganization, the
company said in a filing last year.


NAPA HOME: Recalls 460,000 NAPAfire and FIREGEL Bottles and Jugs
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Napa Home & Garden, of Duluth, Georgia, announced a voluntary
recall of about 460,000 bottles and jugs of pourable NAPAfire and
FIREGEL Gel Fuel.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The pourable gel fuel can ignite unexpectedly and splatter onto
people and objects nearby when it is poured into a firepot that is
still burning.  This hazard can occur if the consumer does not see
the flame or is not aware that the firepot is still ignited.  Fuel
gel that splatters and ignites can pose fire and burn risks to
consumers.

Napa is aware of 37 reports of incidents, including 23 burn
injuries to consumers.

The product is a clear, pourable gel fuel packaged in clear one-
quart plastic bottles and one-gallon plastic jugs and sold in non-
scented and citronella scents.  The fuel is poured into a
stainless steel cup in the center of firepots or other decorative
lighting devices and ignited.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11255.html

The recalled products were sold at Bed Bath & Beyond, Shopko,
Restoration Hardware, specialty and gift shops, furniture stores,
and home and garden stores nationwide, as well as through
Amazon.com, home and garden catalogs, and home decorators and
landscape architects between December 2009 and June 2011 for
between $5 and $78.

Consumers should immediately stop using the pourable gel fuel in
firepots and return all bottles or jugs to the retailer where the
consumer purchased the fuel for a full refund.  A retrofit for the
Napa brand firepots is being evaluated and may be available in the
near future.  For additional information, call Napa Home & Garden
at (888) 893-2323 between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time
Monday through Friday, visit Napa's Web site at
http://www.napahomeandgarden.com/or write to Napa, 3270 Summit
Ridge Parkway, Suite 240, Duluth, GA 30096-1617.


RITE AID: Files Class Action Over Seating Policy
------------------------------------------------
Leigh Kamping-Carder, writing for Law360, reports that a former
Rite Aid Corp. store manager on June 21 filed a proposed class
action that could comprise up to 1,000 workers who were allegedly
denied proper seating accommodations by the pharmacy chain.

Andrew Loesch claims Rite Aid did not provide employees who
regularly operated the cash register with appropriate seats, even
though the work would allow it, in violation of a California
regulation.

"Plaintiff and the class members were injured by Rite Aid's common
practice of failing to provide seats," the complaint said.


SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA: Sued Over Transfer Policy
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the education of up to 4,000
autistic schoolchildren is jeopardized by a policy that would
automatically transfer such students to new schools for grades
three through five and six through eight, according to a class
action.

A copy of the Complaint in P.V., et al. v. The School District of
Philadelphia, et al., Case No. 11-cv-04027 (E.D. Pa.) (Davis, J.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/22/PAutistic.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sonja Kerr, Esq.
          PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CENTER OF PHILADELPHIA
          1709 Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Second Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 627-7100
          E-mail: skerr@pilcop.org

               - and -

          Cheryl Krause, Esq.
          Tara L. Kelly, Esq.
          Darla D. Woodring, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          Cira Centre
          2929 Arch Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19104-2808
          Telephone: (215) 994-4000
          E-mail: cheryl.krause@dechert.com
                  tara.kelly@dechert.com
                  darla.woodring@dechert.com


SENSASLIM: Faces AU$4.2-Mil. Class Action Over Diet Spray
---------------------------------------------------------
Julia Medew and Ian McIlwraith, writing for The Age, reports that
diet spray company SensaSlim is facing a AU$4.2 million class
action from more than 70 people who say they were duped into
buying a franchise to sell the herbal product.

Law firm Slater & Gordon said it was working with the Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission to see if its action against
SensaSlim in the Federal Court for misleading and deceptive
conduct could include a bid for compensation on behalf of
franchisees.

Senior lawyer Van Moulis said he had been contacted by more than
70 people who had each paid about AU$60,000 to sell the spray in
exclusive areas based on SensaSlim's claim that it had medical
research to prove the efficacy of its product.

"They are pretty angry and a lot of them are shocked that they
seem to have been duped," Mr. Moulis said.

The Age revealed on June 22 that the ACCC had won a Federal Court
order to freeze SensaSlim's assets based on allegations it had
misled consumers.  It coincided with revelations that SensaSlim's
"research" appeared to have been fabricated with the creation of
the Geneva-based "Intercontinental Research Institute".

The institute claimed positive results from a voluntary internet
trial of more than 11,000 users and featured photographs of
executives who were actually doctors from St. Paul Lung Clinic in
Minnesota.  The doctors said they had nothing to do with the
institute or SensaSlim.  The institute's Web site was not
operating on June 22.

The same doctors' photos are on another Web site for the
apparently non-existent Mountebank Clinic in New South Wales.  The
"clinic" is claimed to be part of a group called Reef Health,
which is owned by Roxanne Naylor and Andrew Tatar, one of three
men arrested in Vanuatu in 2007 for allegedly helping to smuggle
convicted conman Peter Foster out of Fiji.  Mr. Foster, best known
for his financial dealings with Cherie Blair, has previously been
involved with several other diet products labeled as scams.

Reef Health on June 22 took down the Mountebank Clinic Web site
and its solicitors sent a letter to The Age accusing its reporters
of having "hacked" the site.  The Age accessed the pages through
Google.

Mr. Moulis said his clients were shocked by the "sensational
revelations" about SensaSlim in The Age and feared they would lose
their money.  "They had relied upon representations by SensaSlim
that the product was as good as they said it was and that they had
the medical research to back it up."

If the ACCC does not include Mr. Moulis's application for
compensation, he said he would launch a class action in the
Federal Court to run alongside the ACCC's case.

The law firm that had been acting for SensaSlim, Kennedys, said it
had terminated its contract with the company.

Seven people have complained about SensaSlim to the Therapeutic
Goods Administration, including Melbourne academic Dr. Ken Harvey,
whose complaint prompted the company to launch a defamation case
against him.  The TGA said the case had prevented it from
proceeding with complaints against SensaSlim.  This meant
SensaSlim could continue to promote and sell its product.

SensaSlim did not respond to questions from The Age on June 22 and
continued to spruik its product as "the most effective slimming
solution available in the world today".


SOUTHERN UNION: Being Sold for Too Little, Tex. Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say Southern
Union Co. is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process
to Energy Transfer Equity, for $7.9 billion: $4.2 billion in new
ETE shares priced at $33, and assumption of $3.7 billion of
Southern Union debt.

A copy of the Complaint in Jaroslawicz, et al. v. Southern Union
Company, et al., Case No. 2011-37091 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Harris
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/22/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roger B. Greenberg, Esq.
          Thane Tyler Sponsel III, Esq.
          SCHWARTZ, JUNELL, GREENBERG & OATHOUT, LLP
          Two Houston Center
          909 Fannin Street, Suite 2700
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 752-0017
          E-mail: rgreenberg@schwartz-junell.com
                  tsponsel@schwartz-junell.com

               - and -

          Marc I. Gross, Esq.
          Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: migross@pomlaw.com
                  gfbruckner@pomlaw.com


SZ ENTERPRISES: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Christine Stuart at Courthouse News Service reports that The Kirby
"high end" vacuum cleaner company, through its Connecticut
distributor, promised desperate workers sales jobs at $500 to $800
a week, then paid them as little as 40 cents an hour for 70-hour
weeks, eight workers say in a federal class action.

"Defendants led plaintiffs to believe that promised paychecks,
bonuses, and prizes were around the corner.  But as defendants
knew all along, nothing was around the corner," says the opt-in
class action, filed by New Haven Legal Assistance.

There are four defendants: Scott Zabka, "a distributor of Kirby-
brand vacuum cleaners," dba co-defendant S.Z. Enterprises, of
Orange, Conn., and Scott Fetzer Companies dba The Kirby Company, a
Delaware corporation based in Ohio.

"Defendant Kirby only sells its vacuums and related products
through a 'Company Marketing System,' a personnel system, and a
business system implemented at their authorized regional
distributors," the complaint states.  "Defendant Kirby
conditionally appointed Defendants Zabka and SZE as the sole
distributor of its products in most or all of Connecticut in 1999.
Defendants Kirby conditioned that appointment on Defendants
Zabka's and SZE's acceptance of the former's control and
domination of the business and personnel policies."

In a nutshell, the complaint states: "Defendants recruited
plaintiffs and other job applicants to work for them by
fraudulently misrepresenting their business and the terms and
conditions of employment.  Among other things, defendants promised
$500 - $800 in pay per week, characterized the work as a
management-training program and characterized their business as an
appliance outlet or home maintenance company.  Not only did
defendants fail to pay $500 per week, they paid only a fraction of
the amount owed by law.  In reliance on defendants' continued
false misrepresentations, Plaintiffs worked without proper
compensation and offered up their own family and friends to
defendants as sales prospects.  . . . Plaintiffs and other
employees, hoping to earn a living during hard times, held on
until they were either broke or figured the business for a scam.
Defendants themselves enjoyed and profited from plaintiffs' free
labor."

One named plaintiff was paid $85 for three weeks of work at 70
hours a week.  One received $200 for three weeks of work.  A third
made $25 for four weeks of full-time work, according to the
complaint.

Just as horrifying, perhaps, for anyone who has done such work:
"Defendants required employees to report to the Orange office
every morning, six days a week, to participate in two-hour
meetings," according to the complaint.

"Kirby and S.Z. Enterprises utilize recruiting, hiring, and
employment policies that are well-designed to take advantage of
the so-called jobless recovery," plaintiffs' attorney James
Bhandary-Alexander said in a statement.

"Low-wage workers are facing desperate times, and Kirby
monopolizes on that by lying to them, stringing them along, and
ultimately paying them nothing for their work.  By the time these
workers figure out they have been scammed, they have worked
hundreds of hours for free.  Many of them wind up penniless."

New Haven County had a 9.3% unemployment rate in April, higher
than the national average, according to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.  More than a quarter of New Haven residents live in
poverty.

The plaintiffs seek damages for unpaid wages and overtime, plus
liquidated damages to be determined at trial.

A copy of the Complaint in Dixon, et al. v. Zabka, et al, Case No.
11-cv-00982 (D. Conn.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/22/Vacuum.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Susan Nofi-Bendici, Esq.
          James Bhandary-Alexander, Esq.
          Shelley White, Esq.
          NEW HAVEN LEGAL ASSISTANCE ASSOC.
          426 State Street
          New Haven, CT 06510
          Telephone: (203) 946-4811
          Email: snofi-bendici@nhlegal.org
                 jbhandary-alexander@nhlegal.org
                 swhite@nhlegal.org


UNITED STATES: Homeless Veterans File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Steve Vogel, writing for The Washington Post, reports that the
Department of Veterans Affairs, which is the subject of a class-
action lawsuit filed this month alleging that its failure to
provide housing to veterans suffering from severe post-traumatic
stress disorder or other mental disorders leaves many of them
facing homelessness, has filed its master plan for modernizing the
West Los Angeles campus, which is at the center of the dispute.

"This Master Plan builds on VA's progress to end veteran
homelessness and ensures that land use at West Los Angeles will
continue to put the needs of Veterans first -- now and into the
future," Donna M. Beiter, director of the VA's Greater Los Angeles
Healthcare System, said in a statement.

Mark Rosenbaum, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties
Union representing homeless veterans in the lawsuit, said the
master plan makes no advances from a draft plan filed in January,
which he criticized as inadequate.  "There's nothing in this," he
said on June 22.  "It's a commitment to no commitment."

The lawsuit, filed June 8 in the U.S. District Court in
California, asks a federal judge to order the VA to use empty
buildings on the sprawling West Los Angeles campus to provide
permanent supportive housing for a class of veterans who suffer
from conditions that the plaintiffs argue require a stable home
environment for successful treatment.

The VA estimates that on any given night, some 76,500 veterans in
America are homeless.  VA Secretary Eric K. Shinseki has pledged
to end "the shame of veterans' homelessness" by 2015.

"Though much work remains, VA has made significant progress to
reduce homelessness over the past two years under his leadership,"
Ms. Beiter said.


                             *********

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, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Julie Anne
Lopez, 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  * * *