/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110720.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, July 20, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 142 Headlines A-POWER ENERGY: Aug. 31 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set APPLE INC: Makes First Payment After iOS Tracking Scandal BLUE CROSS: ABA Therapy Suit Can Proceed as Class Action CENTRAL VERMONT: Sued Over Proposed Gaz Metro Merger COCA-COLA: Mediation for VitaminWater Class Action Postponed COMPUTER SCIENCES: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Class Action DOLLAR TREE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime E.I. DU PONT: Faces Class Action Over Imprelis Herbicide EBIX INC: Ryan & Maniskas Files Securities Class Action FARMERS GROUP: Settles Class Action for $455 Million GOOGLE INC: Disputes Class Action Over "Street View" LAUREATE EDUCATION: Shareholders Get $35MM, Oct. 13 Hearing Set LEVITT CORP: September 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set LOGITECH INT'L: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Class Action MALAYSIA AIRLINES: Settles Price-Fixing Class Action for $3.2MM NASSAU COUNTY, NY: July 26 Trial Set for Redistricting Plan Suit OLD NATIONAL BANK: Loses Bid to Dismiss Overdraft Class Action POPULAR INC: ERISA Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay TIME WARNER: Sued by Deaf People Over Refusal to Caption Videos YUHE INT'L: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears ZENTA MORTGAGE: Faces Class Action Over Failure to Pay Overtime ********* A-POWER ENERGY: Aug. 31 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP on July 15 disclosed that all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of A-Power Energy Generation Systems, Ltd. between March 31, 2008, and June 27, 2011, inclusive, have until August 31, 2011, to move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff in the securities fraud class action lawsuit. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP. Please contact us by phone to discuss this action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at (310) 201-9150 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our Web site at http://www.glancylaw.com A-Power, through its subsidiaries, provides onsite distributed power generation systems and micro power grids for industrial companies, primarily in the People's Republic of China. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business and financial performance. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company improperly accounted for its related-party transactions such that its financial statements were presented in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP); (2) the Company's revenues and income were misstated in violation of GAAP; (3) revenue and income reported in the Company's filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission were overstated, as the Company reported materially lower revenue and net income in its filings with China's State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC); (4) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5), as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial results were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 requires the Court to appoint a "Lead Plaintiff" in this case. Any person or group who suffered a loss as a result of purchasing A-Power securities between March 31, 2008, and June 27, 2011, may ask the Court to be appointed as Lead Plaintiff, but must file a motion no later than the August 31, 2011 deadline. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP is a law firm with significant experience in prosecuting class actions, substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud, and is representing A-Power shareholders in this litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact: Michael Goldberg, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Toll Free: (888) 773-9224 E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com APPLE INC: Makes First Payment After iOS Tracking Scandal --------------------------------------------------------- According to an article posted at Social Barrel by Solon Harmony Dolor, Apple made its first payment to a complainant after the iOS tracking scandal broke in the past months and a class action suit is being readied against the consumer electronics giant, various reports detail. According to Reuters in a report published on July 14, it has confirmed that Apple has paid Kim Hyung-Suk, a lawyer from South Korea, KRW1 million (about $950) last month for compensation because of a complaint it filed against Apple for tracking. Reuters says that it had confirmed the payment made by the American company via "two officials at Changwon District Court" who spoke to the news organization on July 14. Mr. Kim is said to be part of a firm called Mirae Law and the firm is reportedly preparing a class action suit against Apple, Reuters says. In a separate report, the Agence France-Presse, which has talked to Kim, said that the lawyer has revealed that by July 15, about 20,000 has joined the class action suit being prepared by the law firm. "Users who bought iPhones or iPads before May 1 will be able to join the action," Mr. Kim told the AFP. BLUE CROSS: ABA Therapy Suit Can Proceed as Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- In a case brought by families having a child with autism spectrum disorder against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III, on July 14 entered an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The families filed suit against Blue Cross over its policy of denying applied behavior analysis (ABA) therapy to children with autism. The suit alleges that Blue Cross has illegally characterized ABA therapy as "experimental," even though it is validated by overwhelming medical and scientific authorities. The ruling means that the case will proceed on behalf of thousands of families who have Blue Cross insurance and who have a child with autism. The Order was issued in the case of Potter v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, No. 10-cv-14981 (E.D. Mich). ABA is a well recognized and scientifically valid form of autism treatment for children, as numerous authorities have found, including the U.S. Surgeon General, the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and a study commissioned by both the Medicare and Medicaid systems. Moreover, 26 states mandate insurance coverage for ABA therapy. Yet, despite settling a class action last year on this same issue, and paying approximately one million dollars in benefits, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan persists in denying coverage for ABA therapy on the ground that it is "experimental." Studies show that providing ABA therapy to children with autism allows them to achieve their maximum potential and greater independence in their adult lives. The families are represented by Gerard Mantese and John Conway of Michigan, whose contact information are: Gerard Mantese, Esq. MANTESE HONIGMAN ROSSMAN AND WILLIAMSON, P.C. 1361 E. Big Beaver RoadTroy, MI 48083 Telephone: 248-457-9200 Cell: 248-515-6419 E-mail: Gmantese@manteselaw.com - and - John J. Conway, Esq. JOHN J. CONWAY, P.C. 26622 Woodward Avenue, Suite 225 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: 313-961-6525 Cell: 313-574-2148 E-mail: John@johnjconway.com CENTRAL VERMONT: Sued Over Proposed Gaz Metro Merger ---------------------------------------------------- John Curran, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a Central Vermont Public Service Corp. shareholder is suing to block the utility's proposed sale, saying it undervalued its stock in accepting two purchase offers and will shortchange investors by going through with the second. CVPS, which is Vermont's largest electric utility, says it acted appropriately. On May 30, Canadian utility Fortis Inc. announced plans to buy CVPS for $35.10 per share. That led to a rival bid of $35.25 per share from Gaz Metro of Montreal, which owns Green Mountain Power Corp. Last week, CVPS announced it was backing out of the Fortis agreement in favor of the Gaz Metro proposal, a $472.4 million deal that would result in a merger of CVPS and Green Mountain Power. Not so fast, says CVPS shareholder Howard Davis. In a federal lawsuit filed on July 13 in U.S. District Court in Rutland, the Maine man says CVPS accepted an inadequate offer from Fortis, had to buy its way out of it and as a result got the second offer at a similarly inadequate price. The suit says CVPS' board members "engaged in self-dealing and obtained for themselves personal benefits, including personal financial benefits" not shared by shareholders. In a joint statement issued on July 15, CVPS, Green Mountain Power and Gaz Metro defended the CVPS board. "We are confident that the CVPS board conducted a professional, comprehensive process leading up to the sale agreement, which provides a 45% premium on the stock, and complied with all of their duties," said the statement, provided by CVPS spokesman Steve Costello. "We are confident that the court will agree." No information about Davis was included in the complaint, and his attorneys -- A. Jeffry Taylor of Rutland and Juan Monteverde of New York -- wouldn't say where in Maine he lives or give any other information or comment. Mr. Davis, whose attorneys want the suit declared a class action on behalf of all CVPS shareholders, says CVPS' board failed to adequately gauge the market value of the company before agreeing to the Fortis deal and agreed to a too-low price, despite CVPS' strong performance and improved earnings in the previous year. CVPS had to pay Fortis $19.5 million for a termination fee and expenses to get out of it -- a $1.50-per-share hit to shareholders, according to the suit. Had CVPS not agreed to such a low price in the Fortis offer, it could've elicited a higher one from Gaz Metro, according to the suit. The suit acknowledges that the Gaz Metro offer is superior but contends it could've been for more money. In addition, Mr. Davis says, the Gaz Metro proposal includes the same "preclusive devices" that resulted in the $19.5 million payment to sever the Fortis deal, which will either discourage more bids for CVPS or require another substantial cash payment if CVPS backs out of the Gaz Metro deal. The suit seeks to either block the Gaz Metro purchase of CVPS or to recover damages resulting from the individual defendants' alleged violations of their fiduciary duty. It names CVPS, Gaz Metro Limited Partnership and 10 individual board members as defendants. COCA-COLA: Mediation for VitaminWater Class Action Postponed ------------------------------------------------------------ Emily Jed, writing for Vending Times, reports that mediation between Coca-Cola and consumer advocacy group The Center for Science in the Public Interest over health claims on Coke's VitaminWater will be rescheduled now that a new "copycat" lawsuit has been filed against the soft drink giant, according to industry news Web site FoodNavigator-USA. The CSPI's lawsuit, filed in 2009, brings together class action suits in New Jersey, New York and California alleging that Coca-Cola has misled consumers over the health benefits of VitaminWater. Coca-Cola's motion to dismiss the lawsuit was rejected in 2010. The beverage giant agreed to enter mediation with the CSPI that was scheduled to begin on July 19. CSPI's legal director said the mediation will be postponed until the court can hear the new "copycat" lawsuit, and allow CSPI to negotiate "on behalf of the entire bunch of lawsuits." The mediation will likely be rescheduled for September or October, according to FoodNavigator-USA. Federal judge John Gleeson of the U.S. District Court in Brooklyn, NY, rejected Coke's motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that the soft drink giant's claim that its VitaminWater is a "vitamin-enhanced water beverage" and its slogan "vitamins + water = all you need" could mislead consumers into believing the drink contains only vitamins and water. He also rejected Coca-Cola's argument that by listing the sugar content of VitaminWater on the nutrition panel it could not be accused of misleading consumers. The judge also claimed Coca-Cola's use of the term "healthy" violated FDA regulations on vitamin-fortified foods. The rules prohibit companies from making health claims on foods that may be high in sugar and calories and lacking in nutrients and only meet various nutrient thresholds via fortification. Coca-Cola, which acquired the Glaceau VitaminWater brand in 2007 through its acquisition of Energy Brands, has declined to comment on the case. COMPUTER SCIENCES: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Gardy & Notis, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of purchasers of shares of common stock of Computer Sciences Corporation during a class period of May 21, 2009, to May 25, 2011. The class action seeks to recover damages on behalf of plaintiff and a class of all other individual and institutional investors who purchased or otherwise acquired CSC common stock during the class period. The defendants in the case are CSC, Michael W. Laphen, Michael J. Mancuso and Donald G. DeBuck. The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by concealing material information and making false and misleading statements relating to CSC's business and financial condition with respect to (i) pervasive accounting irregularities, (ii) material issues with a series of contracts between CSC and Britain's National Health Services, and (iii) forecasts for the fiscal year 2011 for which CSC had no reasonable basis. If you purchased CSC common stock between May 21, 2009, and May 25, 2011, you may, no later than September 13, 2011, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You must meet certain legal requirements to serve as a lead plaintiff. For more information regarding the lawsuit, or to obtain a copy of the complaint filed in the lawsuit, please contact plaintiff's counsel at: Charles A. Germershausen, Esq. GARDY & NOTIS, LLP 560 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 Telephone: 201-567-7377 E-mail: cgermershausen@gardylaw.com Web site: http://www.gardylaw.com DOLLAR TREE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims Dollar Tree Stores makes assistant store managers work off the clock and stiffs them for overtime. A copy of the Complaint in Smith v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Case No. 11-mi-99999 (N.D. Ga.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/15/DollarTree.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Deirdre M. Stephens, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 191 Peachtree St., NE, Ste. 4200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 965-8811 E-mail: djohnson@forthepeople.com E.I. DU PONT: Faces Class Action Over Imprelis Herbicide --------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims DuPont pushes its Imprelis herbicide to kill broadleaf weeds, but it also kills spruce, pines and other evergreens, costing people "millions of dollars" nationwide. A copy of the Complaint in Washtenaw Acquisition, LLC, et al. v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Case No. 11-cv-00624 (D. Del.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/15/DuPont.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christine S. Azar, Esq. Charles B. Vincent, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1225 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 573-2540 E-mail: cazar@labaton.com cvincent@labaton.com - and - Christopher J. Keller, Esq. Hollis L. Salzman, Esq. Michael W. Stocker, Esq. Kellie C. Lerner, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 07-0700 E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com hsalzman@labaton.com mstocker@labaton.com klerner@labaton.com - and - E. Powell Miller, Esq. Lauren G. Northrop, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com - and - Gary K. August, Esq. ZAUSMER, KAUFMAN, AUGUST, CALDWELL & TAYLER, P.C. 31700 Middlebelt Road, Suite 150 Farmington Hills, MI 48334 Telephone: (248) 851-4111 EBIX INC: Ryan & Maniskas Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Ryan & Maniskas, LLP on July 15 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Ebix, Inc. between May 6, 2009, through June 30, 2011, inclusive. For more information regarding this class action suit, please contact: Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. Ryan & Maniskas, LLP Toll-Free: (877) 316-3218 E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com Web site: http://www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/ebix Ebix supplies software and electronic commerce solutions to the insurance industry. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's tax provisions did not conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (2) the Company overstated its account receivables; (3) the Company consistently failed to tie customer payments to specific invoices; (4) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On March 24, 2011, Seeking Alpha published a report accusing the Company of engaging in a number of accounting manipulations, including: (a) manipulating stated organic growth; (b) overstating profit margins; (c) overstating its accounts receivables; (d) manipulating tax liabilities; and (e) inflating cash flows. The Report concluded that the Company's "problems run deeper than accounting. The EBIX story also comes with multiple auditor resignations, governance abuses, misrepresented organic growth, questionable cash flow and a contentious CEO." On this news, the Company's shares plummeted $7.20 per share, or nearly 24%, to close on March 24, 2011, at $22.52 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. On June 30, 2011, the media reported that the shareholders of Peak Performance Solutions, Inc., who sold their business to Ebix, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, claiming that Ebix was consistently unable to bill customers properly, tie customer payments to invoices, and provide basic financial data or calculate revenues for Peak. On this news, the Company's shares declined an additional $1.30 or more than 6% and closed at $19.05. If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than September 12, 2011, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Ryan & Maniskas, LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. For more information about the case or to participate online, please visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/ebix or contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. toll-free at (877) 316-3218, or by e-mail at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com For more information about class action cases in general or to learn more about Ryan & Maniskas, LLP, please visit our Web site: http://www.rmclasslaw.com Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is a national shareholder litigation firm. Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal courts nationwide. FARMERS GROUP: Settles Class Action for $455 Million ---------------------------------------------------- Girardi & Keese, Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack, the Law Office of Philip K. Maxwell, and the Law Office of Joe K. Longley on July 14 released a statement regarding the Farmers Group, Inc. Class Action Settlement. There is a $455 million Settlement with Farmers Group, Inc., Fire Underwriters Association, and Truck Underwriters Association (together called "Farmers Group") and Zurich Financial Services Ltd. involving management-service fees (Farmers Group and Zurich are the "Defendants"). What is the lawsuit about? The lawsuit concerns the management-service fees that Farmers Group charged to the Farmers Exchanges. Am I included? You are a Class Member if, at any time from 1999 through 2010, you were a subscriber to, or a named insured on, an insurance or reinsurance policy issued by Farmers Insurance Exchange, Fire Insurance Exchange, or Truck Insurance Exchange. The Class in this lawsuit does not include insureds of any other insurance companies operating under the Farmers Insurance Group of Companies servicemark. What does the Settlement provide? The proposed Settlement provides for: -- A total payment of $455 million to be paid to Class Members, with any leftover money going to the Exchanges, -- A payment of up to $90 million in attorneys' fees, expenses, and incentive award, -- Payment of the costs of administering the Settlement, and -- Certain business improvements to provide further education to subscribers about the Subscription Agreement and the management fee. The Settlement Agreement, available at the Web site, contains more details about the Settlement. How to get a payment? You need to submit a Claim Form to get a payment. You can get a Claim Form online or by calling the toll-free number. The deadline to file a Claim Form is December 6, 2011. You can file a claim by mail or online. What are my other rights? Remain in the Settlement: If you remain in the Settlement, you will be bound by the terms of the Settlement and will give up your right to sue the Defendants and the Exchanges on claims covered by the Settlement. If you do not submit a Claim Form, you will not receive a payment from the Settlement. Get out of the Settlement: If you wish to keep your right to sue the Defendants or the Exchanges on claims covered by the Settlement, you must exclude yourself from the Class. Exclusion requests must be received by August 18, 2011. Remain in the Settlement and Object: If you stay in the Settlement, you can object to it. Objections must be received by August 18, 2011. The Court will hold a hearing in the case, known as Fogel v. Farmers Group, Inc., No. BC300142, on September 7, 2011, in Los Angeles, California, to consider whether to approve the Settlement and a request by Class Counsel for attorneys' fees, expenses, and incentive award. You or your own lawyer may ask to appear and speak at the hearing at your own cost. For more information, call 1-888-538-5785 or visit http://www.FogelSettlement.com GOOGLE INC: Disputes Class Action Over "Street View" ---------------------------------------------------- Marcus Washington, writing for NewsChannel5.com, reports that a national class action lawsuit claims Google has taken mapping a step further when taking pictures for the company's "street view," they captured more than a photo. It's unique and useful technology, but a recent lawsuit claims it goes too far grabbing personal information while snapping the picture. "Authorities across the world started asking a lot of questions and at first Google denied having done this. Ultimately they admitted doing this and in fact intercepted these communications and stored them," said Kathryn Barnett, at Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann and Berstein. She is representing three Tennesseans, of 22 people across the country, who are suing Google. The suit claims those cars intercepted, copied, downloaded and saved, information sent from a computer when the cars passed. "People who were banking at home, people who were sending medical records, people sending anything. Anything you were transmitting when Google drove by your house; unless you had a password on your system, Google took it, they have it," Ms. Barnett said. Ms. Barnett explained the information could only be taken if you were using unsecured wireless Internet, in other words, if you didn't protect your system with a password. "We don't know what they have, because we haven't been able to discover yet. We have an idea, but one of the very things we want to do is find out: what Google took, why Google took it, what Google has done with it," said Ms. Barnett. The class action lawsuit was filed in California, the headquarters of Google. While the company admits mistakes, Google said it does not feel the company broke the Federal Wiretap law, the basis they are being sued. "We want the courts to tell companies they can't do this and even if you have a lot of resources and are clever enough to come up with a new technology to intercept private communications, that doesn't make it right, that doesn't it make it fair," said Ms. Barnett. Attorneys intended to file paper work with the judge in California last July 15, saying Google should not be allowed to appeal a ruling allowing the suit to go forward. LAUREATE EDUCATION: Shareholders Get $35MM, Oct. 13 Hearing Set --------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Dance, writing for Baltimore Business Journal, reports that shareholders of Laureate Education Inc. have been awarded $35 million in a class-action settlement dating back to the company's $3.8 billion sale in 2007. Laureate went from public to private in that deal, led by CEO Douglas Becker and other company management, but some shareholders argued the sale wasn't the best value for them. Such lawsuits are common when companies take on major mergers and acquisitions, but it's less often that shareholders end up getting any money out of them. The Laureate buyout was one of Baltimore's largest deals of the past decade. The settlement, while it does not prove any impropriety, gives cash back to shareholders who were left wondering what could have been of the company. Online higher education specialist Laureate, along with Educate Inc., was once a piece of the former Sylvan Learning Systems. Baltimore City Circuit Court is seeking shareholders who owned Laureate stock as the buyout was being considered to weigh in on approving the settlement. Circuit Court Judge W. Michel Pierson is holding a hearing on the settlement at 9:30 a.m., Oct. 13, to consider final approval of the settlement. The court gave it preliminary approval June 13. Shareholders are being given until Sept. 29 to object to the settlement. The Laureate buyout deal was part of a wave of private equity deals, as such money was flowing freely leading up to the recession in 2007 and 2008. A group of investors led by Becker made an initial offer in January 2007 and upped it to $3.82 billion in June 2007. The consortium backing Becker's buyout proposal included private equity giants like Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., Citi Private Equity and Sterling Capital. At the time, Laureate was Greater Baltimore's ninth-largest public company, with more than $1 billion in revenue in 2006. The buyout was the largest deal in the Baltimore area of 2008. As the deal was being considered, some shareholders, including Baltimore money manager T. Rowe Price Group Inc., argued the deal benefited management while shortchanging stockholders, leading to the increased offer. By July 2007, stockholders had tendered more than half of outstanding Laureate shares, sealing approval of the deal. Typically in such a class-action settlement, a defined set of people will fit into the "class" eligible for some kind of relief, said Brian Moffet, a lawyer with Gordon Feinblatt in Baltimore who is not associated with the Laureate case. In this case, the class includes anyone who owned Laureate stock between the time of the initial buyout offer, Jan. 28, 2007, through Aug. 17, 2007. If stockholders did not voluntarily sell their shares in the buyout, they were given $62 in cash, the same as those who were in favor of the buyout. Anyone who qualifies for the class is automatically included but is being given a chance to opt out of the settlement. Class- action settlements typically give those included in the class the chance to opt in or out of the settlement, Mr. Moffet said. Shareholders who don't opt out of the settlement will receive their share of the $35 million, based on how many shares they owned. More than 60 million shares were purchased in the buyout. Laureate officials declined to comment on the settlement. Arthur N. Abbey, a New York lawyer with Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams LLP who is representing the shareholders, could not be reached for comment. LEVITT CORP: September 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set --------------------------------------------------------- Kirby McInerney LLP on July 15 issued a statement regarding the Robert D. Dance vs. Levitt Corp. and Alan B. Levan Proposed Class Action Settlement. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ROBERT D. DANCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. LEVITT CORP. and ALAN B. LEVAN, Defendants., Case No. 08-60111 - CIV GRAHAM/GOODMAN, Class Action SUMMARY NOTICE TO: ALL PERSONS WHO ACQUIRED THE PUBLICLY-TRADED COMMON STOCK OF LEVITT CORPORATION (TRADING SYMBOL NYSE: LEV OR NYSE: WDG) BETWEEN JANUARY 31, 2007 AND AUGUST 14, 2007, INCLUSIVE: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, that a hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 28, 2011, at 9:30 a.m., before the Honorable Donald L. Graham at the United States Courthouse, Federal Justice Building, 400 North Miami Avenue, Courtroom 13-4, Miami, Florida 33128-1812, for the purpose of determining (1) whether the proposed settlement for the sum of One Million Nine Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,950,000) in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether, after the hearing, this Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated as of June 14, 2011; (3) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; and (4) whether the application of Class Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses incurred in this Litigation should be approved. If you acquired the publicly-traded common stock of Levitt between January 31, 2007 and August 14, 2007, inclusive, your rights may be affected by the settlement of this Litigation. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you should obtain copies by writing to Dance v. Levitt Corp., et al, Claims Administrator, c/o The Garden City Group, Inc. or by visiting the Web site of the Claims Administrator at http://www.gcginc.com The Notice contains details about this Litigation and settlement, including what you must do to exclude yourself from the settlement, object to the terms of the settlement, or file a Proof of Claim. If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release postmarked no later than September 25, 2011, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a Request for Exclusion postmarked by September 7, 2011, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to above. All Members of the Class who have not timely and validly requested exclusion from the Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Litigation pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Stipulation of Settlement. Your objection(s) must be mailed on or before September 7, 2011 to: the Court; Kirby McInerney LLP; and on behalf of the Defendants, at the following addresses: COURT: Office of the Clerk, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Federal Justice Building, 400 North Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida 33128-1812 FOR NAMED PLAINTIFFS: Mark A. Strauss, KIRBY McINERNEY LLP, 825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor, New York, NY 10022 FOR DEFENDANTS: Adam M. Schachter, Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A., Museum Tower, Suite 2200, 150 West Flagler Street, Miami, FL 33130 PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about the settlement, you may contact Class Counsel for Named Plaintiffs and the Class at the address listed above. DATED: July 15, 2011, BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA LOGITECH INT'L: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Dyer & Berens LLP on July 15 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Logitech International SA common stock between October 28, 2010, and April 1, 2011, inclusive. What actions may I take at this time? If you purchased shares during the Class Period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must request appointment by the court no later than July 22, 2011. If you would like to discuss this action, the lead plaintiff process, or have any questions concerning this notice, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. at (888) 300- 3362 x302 or via e-mail at jeff@dyerberens.com What are the allegations in the complaint? The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's true financial condition, business and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges: (a) that the Company's distributors were overstocked with inventory of certain product lines; (b) that the Company's pricing and promotional activity was not operating according to plan; (c) that demand for the Company's products in the Europe, Middle East and Africa markets was significantly declining far below internal expectations; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company were lacking in a reasonable basis of fact. Based upon the foregoing, the complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff is represented by several law firms, including Dyer & Berens LLP, which specializes in prosecuting investor class actions involving financial fraud. Contact: Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. Dyer & Berens LLP 303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (888) 300-3362 x302 Web site: http://www.DyerBerens.com MALAYSIA AIRLINES: Settles Price-Fixing Class Action for $3.2MM --------------------------------------------------------------- According to an article posted at Air Cargo World, Malaysia Airlines will pay $3.2 million to settle a class-action lawsuit brought against the carrier due to its part in the ongoing price- fixing scandal. The firms Kaplan Fox; Labaton Sucharow; Levin, Fishbein, Savran & Berman; and Hausfeld LLP have been representing purchasers affected by carriers who fixed prices. Kaplan won the Malyasi settlement, and last month, Hausfield settled with British Airways and LAN Airlines for more than $150 million. Now that Malaysia has settled, 12 of 42 carriers have agreed to pay money to claimants. Air France-KLM/Martinair and Lufthansa have paid out some of the heftiest fees associated with the class- action suit, doling out $87 and $85 million, respectively. NASSAU COUNTY, NY: July 26 Trial Set for Redistricting Plan Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that minority voters who filed a class action lawsuit against the Nassau County Legislature and Board of Elections to stop a redistricting plan they say will disenfranchise 40% of voters in advance of this November's elections will get their day in court later this month. According to the plaintiffs, the redistricting is merely a blatant attempt by county Republicans to boost their control of the county legislature. On July 5, local Democratic leaders won the right to take similar claims to state court, where the legislators plan to argue that the redistricting violates the Nassau County charter. The federal class action, on the other hand, attacks the redistricting plan on the grounds of alleged violations to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which safeguard the rights of minority voters. The four minority voters serving as lead plaintiffs note the Voting Rights Act is responsible for the existence of the Nassau Legislature. In 1993, different minority voters sued the now-defunct Board of Supervisors, which a federal judge disbanded for violating the Constitution's principle of "one-person, one vote rule." A year later, the newly-formed Nassau County Legislature held its first elections in 19 districts, and two of the winners would become the county's first African-American representatives in its nearly century-long history. In 2009, Newsday reported that former Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi said in a debate that Nassau is still one of the most segregated places in America. Republican Presiding Officer Peter Schmitt, who introduced the maps in April, now claims to be holding the mantle of the Voting Acts Right, while the Democratic leaders and many minority voters suing him in twin cases believe he is making a mockery of it. Taking cues from the legal opinions of Nassau County Attorney John Ciampoli, a former counsel for the New York State Senate Republican Campaign Committee, Mr. Schmitt said the radical reshuffling was necessary because the 2010 Census revealed that the old maps unconstitutionally diluted minority votes. A lawyer for the minority voters in the class action called that explanation "hogwash." "This has nothing to do with the rights of minorities," lead attorney Frederick Brewington told Courthouse News. "They didn't do this to help. They did it to hurt, and they know it." In a prior phone interview with Courthouse News, Mr. Ciampoli said that the new maps could avoid lawsuits alleging violations to the Voting Rights Act. Instead, the redistricting plan prompted the class action against the county's Legislature and Board of Directors, filed on June 6. Critics say the new maps force two Democrats to run against each other and isolate like-minded voters so dramatically that certain districts are only connected by water. The maps also change the district of local Democrat Diane Yatauro, the Minority Leader of the Legislature, after she announced she would not be seeking another term, but before her replacement had been named. The timing ensured that the plan would sidestep a local law prohibiting redistricting incumbents. Nassau Democrats call the redistricting "mandering of the worst ilk," designed by Republicans to maintain or increase their 11-to- 8 majority status in the next election. "They moved the lines strategically to capitalize on this situation so that they could gain three more seats," Mr. Brewington said. In May, the Republican-majority legislature approved the redistricting in a vote split roughly on party lines. Both lawsuits preceded the vote, and either one of them can prevent the redistricting from taking effect before the November elections. But Mr. Brewington cautioned that victory in either case might not mean that Democrats are in the clear. "No one can imagine what the possibilities are because the last chapter hasn't been written," Mr. Brewington said. U.S. Magistrate Judge Arlene Lindsay ordered the parties to wrap up discovery by July 20. Trial is set for July 26. A copy of the Order in Boone, et al. v. Nassau County Legislature, et al., Case No. 11-cv-02712 (E.D.N.Y.), is available at: http://is.gd/H7q95F OLD NATIONAL BANK: Loses Bid to Dismiss Overdraft Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- An Indiana judge has denied Old National Bank's motion to dismiss a class action complaint filed on behalf of the bank's customers who were charged overdraft protection fees when they used their Old National Bank debit cards. According to the complaint, the bank reordered its customers' debit card transactions to increase the bank's revenue from such fees. "We believe that this practice is unfair to consumers, especially when the amount of the fee exceeds the transaction amount," said William M. Sweetnam, managing member of Sweetnam LLC in Chicago, Illinois, who represents the plaintiff and the proposed class. The amounts charged, typically $35 per overdraft paid, can amount to hundreds of dollars in fees charged to consumers who rely on their debit cards for everyday purchases. Recently, federal legislation was enacted requiring consumers to opt-in to receive overdraft protection and consent to the associated charges. Old National Bank has denied the allegations of the complaint. Old National Bank is a wholly owned subsidiary of Old National Bancorp and provides banking services in Indiana, Illinois and Kentucky. About Sweetnam LLC: Established in 2008, Sweetnam LLC -- http://www.sweetnamllc.com-- was formed to represent victims of fraud at the hands of corporations, financial institutions and insurance companies. Sweetnam LLC has extensive experience prosecuting class actions in state and federal courts across the country involving violations of consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices statutes, breach of warranty and violations of federal securities laws, shareholder derivative suits and appeals. Sweetnam LLC has acted as lead counsel, co-lead counsel and has been a member of the executive and steering committees in consumer, antitrust and other class action, complex and multidistrict litigation matters. Contact: William Sweetnam, Esq. SWEETNAM LLC Telephone: 847-498-7500 E-mail: info@sweetnamllc.com POPULAR INC: ERISA Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gainey & McKenna and Harwood Feffer LLP, Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel, and Popular, Inc. on July 15 disclosed that a Settlement has been preliminarily approved by the United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico in the consolidated class action lawsuit, In re Popular Inc. ERISA Litigation, Master File: 3:09- CV-01552-ADC, against Popular, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and directors, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Settlement will provide for a payment of $8.2 million to the Plans (minus Court-approved fees and expenses), which will then be allocated to the accounts of participants of the Plans (defined below) who had portions of their Plan accounts invested in Employer Stock in the Employer Stock Fund during the Class Period. You do not need to send in a claim or take any other action to participate in the Settlement. If you qualify, you will receive an allocation. The Court will hold a hearing at 10:00 a.m. on August 26, 2011, in the Courtroom of Judge Aida M. Delgado-Colon of the United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, Clemente Ruiz-Nazario U.S. Courthouse, 150 Carlos Chardon Street, Hato Rey, P.R. 00918 to consider whether to approve the Settlement, the proposed plan of allocation and a request by the attorneys representing all Settlement Class Members for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, and for case contribution awards to the named plaintiffs. If approved, these amounts will be paid from the settlement fund. You may ask to speak at the hearing by filing a Notice of Intention to Appear, but you are not required to do so. Although you cannot opt out of the Settlement, you may object to all or any part of the Settlement in accordance with the long-form Notice of Class Action Settlement. The Settlement Class consists of all participants of the Popular, Inc. Puerto Rico Savings and Investment Plan and the Popular, Inc. U.S.A. 401(k) Savings & Investment Plan who held Employer Stock, as that term is defined in the Plans, in their individual accounts in the Plans at any time during the period starting on January 24, 2008 and ending on April 6, 2011, and as to each such Person, his, her, or its beneficiaries, alternate payees (including spouses of deceased Persons who were Plan participants), and Successors-In- Interest, but excluding the Defendants. If you are a Settlement Class Member and have not received a copy of the long-form Notice of Class Action Settlement and would like to receive additional information or a copy of the Notice, please visit http://www.berdonclaims.comor call toll-free 800-766-3330 and identify yourself as a Settlement Class Member. Inquiries should NOT be directed to the Court or the Clerk of the Court. TIME WARNER: Sued by Deaf People Over Refusal to Caption Videos --------------------------------------------------------------- Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness, Inc., Daniel Jacob, Edward Kelly and Jennifer Olson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Time Warner Inc., Case No. RG 11580682 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., June 15, 2011) seeks to end the ongoing violation of California anti-discrimination law that Time Warner commits against people, who are deaf or hard of hearing by refusing to caption its online news videos at CNN.com. Through this refusal, Time Warner denies deaf individuals access to much of the most important content it offers through CNN.com, the Plaintiffs contend. They assert that their lawsuit seeks to end Time Warner's ongoing discrimination by requiring it to provide closed captioning for its videos on CNN.com. The Plaintiffs are residents of California and with disability in that they are deaf. GLAD is a non-profit California corporation with a mission to ensure that the deaf and hard of hearing community in California has access to the same opportunities as their hearing counterparts. Time Warner is a Delaware public company, and is one of the largest media and entertainment companies in the world. Time Warner maintains approximately 1,100 subsidiaries, including Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. that owns CNN.com. Time Warner removed the lawsuit on July 14, 2011, from the Superior Court of the state of California, County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Time Warner argues that the removal is proper because it is a citizen of the states of Delaware and New York, and not California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:11-cv- 03458 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laurence W. Paradis, Esq. Anna Levine, Esq. Elizabeth Leonard, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor Berkeley, CA 94704-1204 Telephone: (510) 665-8644 Facsimile: (510) 665-8511 E-mail: lparadis@dralegal.org alevine@dralegal.org eleonard@dralegal.org - and - Linda M. Dardarian, Esq. Rachel E. Brill, Esq. GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER, BORGEN & DARDARIAN 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 763-9800 Facsimile: (510) 835-1417 E-mail: ldardarian@gdblegal.com rbrill@gdblegal.com - and - Peter Blanck, Esq. 900 S. Crouse Avenue Crouse-Hinds Hall, Suite 300 Syracuse, NY 13244-2130 E-mail: pblanck@syr.edu The Defendant is represented by: Thomas R. Burke, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 276-6500 Facsimile: (415) 276-6599 E-mail: thomasburke@dwt.com - and - Janet L. Grumer, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566 Telephone: (213) 633-6800 Facsimile: (213) 633-6899 E-mail: janetgrumer@dwt.com YUHE INT'L: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears ------------------------------------------------------ The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. is representing Yuhe International, Inc. shareholders in a securities class action lawsuit. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. reminds investors of the important August 23, 2011 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action filed by the firm. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you purchased the stock of Yuhe International, Inc during the period from December 31, 2009, through June 23, 2011, you may participate in the class action as a lead plaintiff and seek to recovers investment losses. To join the Yuhe class action, visit the Rosen Law Firm's Web site at http://www.rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq., or Laurence Rosen, Esq. toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also e-mail lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws against Yuhe and its officers and directors for issuing false and misleading information to investors about the financial and business condition of the Company. The Complaint alleges that (a) Yuhe's financial results as reported to the SEC for the fiscal years ended 2009 and 2010 were materially false and misleading; (b) Yuhe lied to investors about its purported acquisition of 13 breeder farms from Weifangshi Dajiang Qiye Group Co. Ltd.; and (c) Yuhe's business was not growing at the rate represented by defendants. The Complaint alleges that on or about June 16, 2011, information from an analyst entered the market, quoting Dajiang's chairman, that Yuhe did not acquire Dajiang's farms, as Yuhe had represented in its SEC filings and other public statements. This announcement shocked the market and Yuhe's stock lost more than half of its value. On June 17, 2011, trading in the Company's stock was halted. On June 23, 2011, the Company announced its auditor had resigned because of Yuhe "management's misrepresentation and failure to disclose material facts surrounding certain acquisition transactions and off balance sheet related party transactions." Moreover, the auditor stated that its audited financial statements of Yuhe International, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010 should no longer be relied upon and that the auditor no longer will be associated with the financial statements. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 23, 2011. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com You may also visit the firm's Web site at http://www.rosenlegal.com The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. ZENTA MORTGAGE: Faces Class Action Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Adam O'Daniel, writing for Charlotte Business Journal, reports that Zenta Mortgage Services could be forced to turn over records on many of its mortgage servicers if a U.S. District Court rules in favor of a former employee who is suing the company. Former Zenta employee Joseph Savitskie of Charlotte is suing the company, alleging it failed to pay overtime and violated labor laws. His lawyers have filed a motion asking for the case to be elevated to class-action status and for Zenta to turn over the names of other mortgage servicers they claim have also been denied overtime pay. Zenta employs hundreds of mortgage servicers at its office off Arrowood Road in south Charlotte. Its workers service mortgages for large U.S. banks. The firm has been hiring since late 2009, when it received promises of up to $10 million in state incentives to add as many as 1,000 jobs in Charlotte. Gov. Bev Perdue came in Charlotte with Zenta Chief Executive Henry Hortenstine to announce the expansion. In court filings, Mr. Savitskie's attorneys argue Zenta has wrongfully denied overtime pay to all of its mortgage underwriters. Therefore, they contend the company should be compelled to provide the names of other mortgage underwriters so they can be given the opportunity to opt in to the lawsuit. If that motion is approved by a judge, Zenta would have to provide lawyers with a list of all underwriters who are or were employed at any time in the past three years. In addition, attorneys are asking for Zenta to provide their names, job titles, addresses, telephone numbers, personal e-mail addresses, dates of employment, location of employment, employee numbers and Social Security numbers, according to court documents. Zenta has denied the allegations, and its lawyers have said they will fight the lawsuit and the motion for class-action status. They argue in a recent court filing that the claims should be denied because Zenta acted "in good faith and with a reasonable grounds for believing that employees engaging in mortgage underwriting activities were exempt from overtime." Mr. Savitskie, employed by Zenta from August 2010 until March 4, sued Zenta this spring, accusing the company of asking underwriters to work more than 40 hours per week with no overtime pay. Zenta management told Mr. Savitskie and others "that it was in their best interest to work as much as possible," the suit alleges. It contends the practice violates the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Savitskie, who is now represented by Philadelphia law firm Berger & Montague, could not be reached for comment. One of his lawyers, Shanon Carson, declines to comment. The case hinges on gray areas of employment law that deal with which types of employees are exempt from overtime pay. Until recently, mortgage servicers fell under an "administrative exemption" for overtime pay that applies to non-manual labor jobs directly related to the management or policies of the employer, experts say. But a recent U.S. Second Court of Appeals ruling found in favor of a former employee of JPMorgan Chase & Co. That suit argued that underwriters engage in the production of loans and not administrative tasks that relate to management or company policy. Therefore, they shouldn't be considered exempt, that suit contended. How that exemption is interpreted and applied to mortgage underwriters is the crux of the Zenta lawsuit. "It's a hot area of wage-and-hour litigation right now," says Meredith Jefferies, a Charlotte School of Law professor who practiced law at Alston & Bird for 12 years. "Since that opinion came out, these types of claims have been popping out everywhere." ********* 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 * * *