CAR_Public/110728.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, July 28, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 148

                             Headlines

ALLIANT SOUTHSIDE: Sued by Tenants Over Rodent Infestation
BANK OF NEW YORK: Sued for Assigning Fictitious FX Rates
BANNER SUPPLY: Judge Seeks More Info on Class Action Settlement
CATHOLIC HEALTH: Mothers of Stolen Babies Mull Class Action
CITIMORTGAGE INC: Accused of Breaching Contracts in New York

CONAGRA FOODS: Faces Class Actions Over Wesson Cooking Oils
FEDERAL INSURANCE: Asked to Pay Osmond Class Action Settlement
HARRISBURG, PA: Court Weighs on Howard Day Settlement
LOS ANGELES, CA: Telephone Tax Class Action May Proceed
METRO: Short-Statured Population May File Class Action

METROPOLITAN WATER: Sued Over July 2010 Flood in Cook County, IL
NOVO NORDISK: Faces Wage & Hour Overtime Class Action in Calif.
OREGONIAN PUBLISHING: Two Classes Seek to Revive Privacy Suit
OTTAWA, CANADA: Further Mediation Expected for Flooding Suit
PROGRESS ENERGY: Faces Securities Class Action in North Carolina

SONY: Zurich American Refuses to Cover Class Action Costs
TRAVELERS COS: Appeals in Asbestos-Related Suits Remain Pending
TRAVELERS COS: Final Hearing in Antitrust Suit Set for Sept. 14
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Reports $306-M Expense in Embraco Matters in June
ZOO ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Securities Class Action in Ohio




                             *********

ALLIANT SOUTHSIDE: Sued by Tenants Over Rodent Infestation
----------------------------------------------------------
Larry Blankenship, Roderick James, Antoinette Hudson, Yvette
Willis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Southside Preservation Portfolio, LLC, et al.; The
Woodlawn Organization; Woodlawn Community Development Corporation;
Kass Management Services, Incorporated; and EF&A Funding d/b/a
Alliant Capital, LLC a/k/a/ Alliant Southside, LLC, Case No. 2011-
CH-25778 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., July 22, 2011) is a class
action complaint brought by Chicago tenants against their
landlords.

Their landlords are five corporate Defendants who, despite
receiving large sums of money from the federal, state, and city
governments, relegate their tenants to living in squalor,
surrounded by rodent and insect infestations, the complaint
alleges.  The Plaintiffs are also accusing the Defendants of
mismanaging security deposits and failing to provide the required
summaries of the Chicago Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance.

The Plaintiffs are residents of Chicago, Illinois, and has leased
apartments owned or managed by the Defendants.

Southside is an inactive Illinois limited liability company and a
wholly owned subsidiary and affiliate of Woodlawn.  Prior to its
involuntary dissolution by the state of Illinois, Southside was
the owner and manager of the Leased Properties.  Woodlawn is a not
for profit Illinois corporation, and the owner and controlling
interest of Southside.  The Woodlawn Organization is a not for
profit Illinois corporation, and the owner of, and has controlling
interest in, Woodlawn.  KASS is an Illinois corporation, and
following the involuntary dissolution and foreclosure of
Southside, became the manager and owner of the Leased Properties.
EF&A is a limited liability company based in Michigan, and the
successor-in-interest to Southside following its foreclosure and
involuntary dissolution.  Alliant is now the owner and manager of
the Leased Properties.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Berton N. Ring, Esq.
          BERTON N. RING, P.C.
          123 West Madison Street, 15th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 781-0290
          Facsimile: (312) 781-0390


BANK OF NEW YORK: Sued for Assigning Fictitious FX Rates
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action, a
union pension fund accuses The Bank of New York Mellon of
"assigning fictitious foreign currency exchange rates to the
Class' purchase and sales of foreign securities . . . for the
exclusive pecuniary benefit" of the bank.

A copy of International Union of Operating Engineers, Stationary
Engineers Local 39 Pension Trust Fund v. The Bank of New York
Mellon Corporation, et al., Case No. 11-cv-03620 (N.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/25/BNYMellon.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard M. Heimann, Esq.
          Lexi J. Hazam, Esq.
          Robert L. Lieff, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          Embarcadero Center West
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          E-mail: rheimann@lchb.com
                  lhazam@lchb.com
                  rlieff@lchb.com

               - and -

          Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
          Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com
                  clebsock@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          William P. Butterfield, Esq.
          Ralph J. Bunche, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, NW Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com
                  wbutterfield@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Steven E. Fineman, Esq.
          Daniel P. Chiplock, Esq.
          Michael J. Miarmi, Esq.
          LIEF, CARBRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-1413
          E-mail: sfineman@lchb.com
                  dchiplock@lchb.com
                  mmiarmi@lchb.com

               - and -

          Michael P. Thornton, Esq.
          Michael A. Lesser, Esq.
          THORNTON & NAUMES LLP
          100 Summer Street, 30th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 720-1333
          E-mail: mthornton@tenlaw.com
                  mlesser@tenlaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory S. Hach, Esq.
          Michael A. Rose, Esq.
          Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
          HACH ROSE SCHUMACHER SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
          185 Madison Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 213-8311
          E-mail: ghach@hrssclaw.com
                  mrose@hrssclaw.com
                  fschirripa@hrssclaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Schumacher Jr., Esq.
          HACH ROSE SCHUMACHER SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 745-0966


BANNER SUPPLY: Judge Seeks More Info on Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a South Florida judge has ruled
that a Miami-based supplier of tainted Chinese drywall must
disclose more details about a proposed $55 million class-action
settlement.

A Broward County judge ruled on July 25 that Banner Supply Co.
must release more information about its insurance coverage and
assets.  It must also disclose the number of victims and how the
money will be split.

A federal judge in New Orleans gave preliminary approval of the
class-action settlement earlier this month.

Attorney David Durkee says the South Florida decision could
potentially help thousands decide whether to take the settlement
or pursue separate lawsuits in Florida.

Lawsuits claim Banner Supply sold more than a million sheets of
Chinese drywall.  It contains harmful toxins that corrode pipes
and electrical wiring, emit sulfur gases and cause health
problems.


CATHOLIC HEALTH: Mothers of Stolen Babies Mull Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Donna Sharpe, writing for Newcastle Herald, reports that Therese
Pearson, of Merewether, and Juliette Clough, of Windale, agree
that nothing will ease the decades of pain they have endured and
they want to launch a class action against the organization that
drugged them and "stole" their babies.

The women agree that Monday's apology from Catholic Health
Australia is too little too late and nothing more than a strategy
to shut them up and make them go away.

As young girls both women were drugged, forced to sign adoption
papers and their babies were "stolen" from them, an act that made
them feel like dirt, affected their lives and the lives of their
loved ones.

They thought they would receive personal apologies from Catholic
Health Australia, but instead learned of the apology from the
media.

"This has done little to relieve any of our pain," Ms. Clough
said.

"It has validated their wrongdoing but it's not liberating us the
victims.

"I really want to pursue a class action now."

Ms. Clough's baby boy was taken from her in 1969 when she was 15.

Her mother had committed suicide, her father did not want the
responsibility of children and the Catholic Church put her in a
home where she was raped and fell pregnant.

She delivered a boy she named Richard at the Mater Hospital,
Waratah.

"My legs were tied in stirrups, I was drugged and didn't know what
was going on and I don't remember signing any papers for
adoption," she said.

Ms. Clough's son is now 41 and believed to be living in the
Northern Territory.  She has been unsuccessful in contacting him.

Ms. Pearson, who also delivered a son, said as a young Catholic
girl she was an embarrassment to her family.

She was an unwed 19-year-old in 1964 when she was coerced into
adopting out her baby.

"I didn't even know if I had a son or a daughter because pillows
were held over my face and stomach when he was born," she said.

She later made contact with her son, a Canberra businessman named
Peter, in 1996.

"I have mixed thoughts about [Mon]day's announcement.  I think
they just want to shut us up.

"It certainly hasn't given us back all those lost years."

Ms. Pearson said a recent inquiry into the Catholic Church and its
adoption practices from the 1950s to the 1970s has only scratched
the surface of a worldwide problem.

"There are many others like us," she said.

Ms. Pearson has formed the Hunter arm of Origins, a group that
offers support, healing and assistance with family reunions for
those associated with adoption separation and secrecy.


CITIMORTGAGE INC: Accused of Breaching Contracts in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel and Brenda Seller, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. CitiMortgage, Inc., Case No. 652001/2011
(N.Y. Sup Ct. July 22, 2011) is brought to challenge Citi's
failure to honor its uniform written agreements with borrowers to
modify mortgages and prevent foreclosures under the federal Home
Affordable Modification Program.

The Plaintiffs allege common law claims for breach of contract,
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and
promissory estoppel and statutory violations under the New York
General Business Law.

The Sellers are residents of Westchester County, New York.  They
have a mortgage from Citi for their primary residence located at
12 Hemlock Drive, in Lincolndale, New York.

Citi is a New York corporation, authorized to transact business in
New York.  Citi is the fourth largest mortgage service provider in
the United States of America.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Oren Giskan, Esq.
          Catherine E. Anderson, Esq.
          GISKAN SOLOTAROFF ANDERSON & STEWART LLP
          11 Broadway, Suite 2150
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 847-8315
          E-mail: ogiskan@gslawny.com
                  canderson@gslawny.com

               - and -

          Richard Wolfson, Esq.
          RICHARD WOLFSON P.C.
          100 Ring Road West, Suite 214
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 220-1380

               - and -

          Keith Scott Lederman, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF KEITH SCOTT LEDERMAN
          100 Ring Road West, Suite 214
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 806-4363
          E-mail: ktlederman@aol.com


CONAGRA FOODS: Faces Class Actions Over Wesson Cooking Oils
-----------------------------------------------------------
Western Farm Press reports that class action suits filed in
federal courts in New York and California allege that ConAgra
Foods is violating state consumer protection and business
practices laws by claiming that its Wesson cooking oils are "100
percent natural."  The claim is misleading, the complaints argue,
because the oils come from "unnatural" biotech corn, canola and
soybeans.

The lawyers asked the courts to find that the labeling claims are
misleading and award an undetermined amount of money to their
clients and all other consumers who bought the oils, believing
that they were "natural" and not derived from genetically modified
crops.

The suit contends that the oils are not 100 percent natural,
citing a definition by the World Health Organization of GMOs as
"organisms in which the genetic material has been altered in a way
that does not occur naturally."  It alleges that the claims
violate California and New York false advertising and unfair
competition laws and business codes.


FEDERAL INSURANCE: Asked to Pay Osmond Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that The Screen Actors Guild
demands $330,000 from Federal Insurance Co., claiming it refused
in bad faith to pay the settlement of Ken Osmond's (Eddie
Haskell's) class action on residuals.


HARRISBURG, PA: Court Weighs on Howard Day Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------
Matt Miller, writing for The Patriot-News, reports that four
public housing tenants who sued the Harrisburg Housing Authority,
saying they fear for their lives after being displaced by
renovations at the William Howard Day Homes, might soon be going
home.

At least 100 other families affected by the ongoing modernization
project will have the same choice if a federal judge approves a
proposed settlement of the class-action case.

The accord being weighed by U.S. Middle District Chief Judge
Yvette Kane requires that all Howard Day residents who were or
might be ousted by the renovation work be given the chance to
return to the complex off North Cameron Street.

The residents who sued the authority claimed their rights were
being trampled because displaced Howard Day residents weren't
being allowed to return after being moved to other complexes,
including Hall Manor and Hoverter Homes, which they claimed are
more crime-ridden and dangerous.

"I would not say the plaintiffs got everything they were hoping
for, but it is a good result that will provide real help to these
people," Kevin Quisenberry of the Community Justice Project said
of the proposed accord.

Irwin W. Aronson, the authority's lawyer, on July 21 said that the
agency always intended to give displaced Howard Day tenants first
dibs on returning to renovated apartments.

"Our concern all along has been to avoid to the greatest degree
possible the displacement of people who don't want to be
displaced," Mr. Aronson said.  However, some relocations are
unavoidable given the scope of the renovations, he said.

The $10 million-plus project has been going on at the 70-year-old,
244-unit complex for years and is expected to take several more
years to complete.

Despite the claims in the tenants' suit, the authority "always
follows the law," Mr. Aronson said.

The court battle erupted in February when Kadejah Holton,
Christine Brooks, Kiesha Maclin and Elizabeth Whitley -- three
single mothers and a disabled senior citizen -- sued the agency,
claiming it was violating federal law by displacing them for
renovations and not allowing them to return to Howard Day.

The suit was declared a class-action on behalf of all Howard Day
residents in March.

Ms. Maclin claimed in the suit that, while she felt safe in her
Howard Day apartment, she is afraid to allow her 6-year-old
daughter to play outside at Hall Manor.

Ms. Wiley said a shooting occurred outside her Hoverter Homes
apartment a week after she moved in.

Ms. Brooks claimed she and her three children have seen gunfights
since moving to Hall Manor in mid-2009 and that a bullet hit her
front window last summer.

The women contended that their unwilling moves also upset their
transportation, school, day care and even medical care
arrangements.

They argued that the authority was violating the law by not
offering displaced Howard Day residents more housing options or
adequate moving assistance and by not permitting them to return
home as renovated units became available.

The proposed resolution to the Harrisburg suit would require the
authority to give every displaced family the right of first
refusal on returning to a renovated unit at Howard Day.

It would require that "reasonable" moving expenses be provided to
those who have to relocate at least temporarily.  The authority
would be barred from leasing renovated Howard Day units to new
occupants before all displaced residents decide whether to return.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Telephone Tax Class Action May Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles Times reports that a class action lawsuit against the
city of Los Angeles for a refund of potentially hundreds of
millions of dollars in telephone taxes may proceed as a result of
a unanimous ruling on Monday by the California Supreme Court.

The ruling, written by Justice Ming W. Chin, upheld the right of
citizens to bring class actions against municipal governments for
collection of allegedly illegal taxes.

The decision will affect similar lawsuits against Los Angeles
County, Long Beach and Chula Vista, lawyers in the case said.  The
suits claim that the governments have illegally taxed telephone
users.  The tax appears on phone bills.

The case against L.A. was filed in 2006.  The city argued that the
taxpayers should have filed individual claims for refunds before
bringing a class action and won in the trial court and the appeals
court.

As a result of Monday's ruling, "It's possible we will consider
bringing actions against other jurisdictions," said Frank
Gregorek, who argued the case for the taxpayer.  The class that
would recover funds would include all residents who paid the
taxes.

During the years at which the suit is aimed, L.A. charged users a
10% tax on their phone bills, he said. City voters later approved
the tax but lowered it to 8%, he said.

An attorney for the city was unavailable for comment.


METRO: Short-Statured Population May File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Nick Leys, writing for Herald Sun, reports that train operator
Metro has come under attack from Melbourne's short-statured
population, who claim they are being left with nowhere to sit and
nothing to hang on to.

Metro this week rolled out modified carriages with some seats
removed to create more standing room.

But for anyone who can't reach an overhead handle, or push through
a crowded carriage to grab a handrail, life has become just a
little bit harder.

Local members of the Short Statured People of Australia have
condemned the change, saying it is just one more reason not to use
public transport.

Samantha Lilly, 22, said the thought of entering a crowded
carriage with little hope of a seat was "just horrible".

"My face is at bottom height, so a crowded train is horrendous,"
the 112cm university student said.

"It's quite scary.  People don't know you are there and if they
step back you can get trampled.

"If people can see you and know your intentions they let you
through, but if they can't move they can't let you through
anyway."

Trams are just as frustrating.  Several years ago Ms. Lilly was
fined for not having a ticket, but she could not reach the vending
machine.

"A lot of us have that problem," she said.

"When I argued with them they told me to ask a stranger to buy a
ticket for me.  Eventually they dropped the fine, but I thought
things would change.  They haven't."

Sam Millard, 23, is 120cm and also a university student.  He
stopped using public transport because he decided it was unsafe.

"The hardest thing is getting on and off," Mr. Millard said.
"When things are really crowded it can be dangerous and you get
bumped around."

Mr. Millard and Ms. Lilly are attempting to take a class action
against Metro.

Metro spokeswoman Geraldine Mitchell said the removal of seats
would improve access to handrails.

"Our assessment of the congestion near the door areas has proven
there is limited access to handrails for all heights," she said.

"This change will ease congestion and improve customer flow,
providing better access to handrails."

Metro is removing the third aisle seat in 48 trains in the
X'Trapolis fleet, meaning every six-car X'Trapolis train will have
72 fewer seats -- down from 528 to 456.


METROPOLITAN WATER: Sued Over July 2010 Flood in Cook County, IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenice Hampton, Sharon Banks-Revis, Claire Batherson, Mark
Batherson, Theresa Becton, Maurice Brewster, Kimberly Davidson,
Claudia Duncan, Ju Wanna L. Elery, Nancy Elery, Valencia Goodlow,
Renita Grimes, Venetta Johnson, Frank Koob, Johnnie Mcclinton,
Marla Mcelroy, Carrier Navarra, Janice O'connor, Lavern Partee,
Jarvis Revis, Terry Revis, David Roselund, Cassandra Sanders,
Kimberly Suttle, Anita Thomas, Martha Turner, Michael Turner,
Geraldine Ward, Joseph Ward, Roy White, Sr., Kitty Williams,
Isabelle Wright, and Lenette Yarbar, each individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. Metropolitan
Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, Case No. 2011-CH-
25822 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., July 22, 2011) is brought in
connection with the MWRD's activities, including pumping of
stormwater and closing floodgates, after Cook County experienced a
heavy rainfall event on July 23 and 24, 2010.

The Plaintiffs allege that their private property was taken and
damaged by the MWRD for public use without just compensation, in
violation of the Illinois Constitution.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs
are asking for compensatory damages in excess of $50,000.

The Plaintiffs are residents of Cook County, Illinois, each being
a landowner or renter of real property located in Cook County,
Illinois.

The MWRD is a Cook County local public entity created by the
"Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Act."  The MWRD plans,
manages, implements and finances activities relating to stormwater
management, including management of floods and floodwaters, in
Cook County.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Glen J. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
          GLEN J. DUNN & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 546-5056
          Facsimile: (312) 546-5058
          E-mail: gdunn@gjdlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Grant Brown, Esq.
          JEFFREY GRANT BROWN, P.C.
          35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 789-9700
          Facsimile: (312) 782-4519


NOVO NORDISK: Faces Wage & Hour Overtime Class Action in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik on July 25 disclosed that on
May 18, 2011, the employment law attorneys at the firm filed a
class action lawsuit against pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk
on behalf of drug sales reps for alleged overtime wage and hour
violations.  The overtime complaint against the pharmaceutical
giant was filed in Sacramento Superior Court and is entitled Brown
v. Novo Nordisk, Case No. 34-2011-00103639.

According to the wage and hour class action complaint filed
against the drug company, Novo Nordisk violated California
overtime laws by failing to pay pharmaceutical sales
representatives for overtime hours worked.  Under California law,
companies are required to pay all non-exempt employees overtime
compensation whenever the employees work more than eight hours in
a day or forty hours in a week.  The primary requirement to
satisfy the outside salesperson exemption and not get paid
overtime under California law and the Fair Labor Standards Act is
that the sales reps are actually making sales.  In the Novo
Nordisk overtime class action lawsuit, the pharmaceutical sales
reps allege that they were not actually making sales but rather
promoting prescription drugs to physicians.  At most, the
physician can agree to prescribe the medicine to patients as
needed, but cannot actually buy the prescription medicine from the
pharmaceutical sales reps directly.

The drug sales rep overtime class action suit is one of many that
has been recently filed against pharmaceutical companies.  The
California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik are also representing pharma sales reps in overtime class
action suits against Merck (Frudakis v. Merck, Case No. SACV11-
00146 in the Central District of California) and Schering-Plough
(Valadez v. Schering-Plough, Case No. 10-CV-2595 in the Southern
District of California).  The class action lawsuits all allege
that the pharmaceutical sales reps should be paid overtime
compensation for working more than eight hour days under the
California Labor Code and/or forty hour weeks under the Fair Labor
Standards Act based on the contention that the drug sales reps do
not qualify for the outside salesperson exemption because they are
not actually making sales.

For more information about the pharmaceutical sales rep class
action suit against Novo Nordisk, visit the Novo Nordisk
California wage and hour class action suit Web site or call (866)
771-7099.

The California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug
& Bhowmik represent employees in class action and individual
lawsuits involving unpaid overtime, wage and hour violations,
wrongful termination, job harassment, discrimination and other
illegal employment law violations.


OREGONIAN PUBLISHING: Two Classes Seek to Revive Privacy Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
June Williams at Courthouse News Service reports that two classes
urged the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to
revive their lawsuits against several companies including the
publishers of The Oregonian newspaper that allegedly violated
federal law to obtain personal information about Washington and
Oregon residents.

The classes had accused the companies of using bulk requests to
obtain and "stockpile" their information for later use, which is
not allowed under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act.

Last year, federal judges dismissed the claims against Ampco
Parking Systems, Automotive.com and Members Only in the Washington
case, and Oregonian Publishing, Criminal Information Services and
Western Mercantile Agency in the Oregon case.

Both cases were dismissed for failure to state a claim.  In her
order dismissing the Washington case, U.S. District Judge Marsha
J. Pechman said the plaintiff's "threadbare complaint" failed to
show the information was obtained for an improper purpose.
Amended complaints that were filed in both actions were also
dismissed.

Arguing for the Oregonian class before the appellate panel on
July 12, Dallas-based attorney Thomas Corea had difficulty
convincing the judges that the consolidated appeal presented a
different issue from Taylor v. Acxiom in which the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit approved the legality of
bulk obtainment.

Judge Richard Clifton called it "exactly the same case."

"It seems to me you may be saying that Taylor is wrongly decided
or Taylor shouldn't be applied in the context of your plaintiffs'
claim, but I'm having real trouble figuring out how what happened
in Texas is any different than what happened in Oregon or
Washington," Judge Clifton said.  "You just don't like the result
in Texas," he added.

Mr. Corea responded that Taylor focused on improper use under the
Driver's Privacy Protection Act, but this case was about improper
obtainment.  He said that the defendants obtained the bulk files
for convenience and "stockpiling," while misrepresenting that they
had a "present purpose" for the information.

Judge Clifton said that the federal courts said this argument was
"not a viable legal theory."

"The courts have decided stockpiling is not illegal," he said.

Judge Edward Korman said Mr. Corea was "just trying to bootstrap
an argument that doesn't fly."

An attorney for the Oregonian publisher and other defendants said
the class had "absolutely no facts" to support their claims that
the driver's license information was improperly obtained.  "His
only theory of improper purpose is this theory of stockpiling,"
Charles Hinkle with Stoel Rives said.

Judge N. R. Smith said that if stockpiling was prohibited, then
companies would have to destroy the record after one use.  "So it
would be an absurd result to suggest that stockpiling is an
improper purpose," he said.


OTTAWA, CANADA: Further Mediation Expected for Flooding Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Neco Cockburn, writing for The Ottawa Citizen, reports that a
lawsuit launched against the City of Ottawa after west-side homes
were flooded nine years ago is still making its way through court,
even as more legal action is taken over further flooding and the
city works to fix the problem.

Derek Nicholson, a lawyer representing 77 plaintiffs who suffered
property damage when sanitary and storm sewers in Glen Cairn
overflowed during a storm on June 27, 2002, said a settlement in
the case has not been reached despite two mediation sessions.

The lawsuit was certified by a judge as a class-action on
March 21, 2005.  Mr. Nicholson said he offered in October 2009 to
settle out of court for C$1.7 million, which he said represented
80% of the residents' actual losses.  The offer remains on the
table, he said.

Mr. Nicholson said he expects further mediation within months,
adding that he hopes to set a trial date.  Even then, "I'd expect
(the trial date) would be eight months to a year from now," he
said.

Insurance companies and "lay people" are involved in the lawsuit,
but Mr. Nicholson said he fears some residents "just gave up" or
didn't get involved because of the amount of time it has taken.

The city would not comment on the case and a lawyer for an
engineering firm that was added as a defendant could not be
reached for comment.

As that case continues, more court action has been taken over
flooding on July 24, 2009, when nearly 1,500 west-side basements
were damaged following heavy rain.

The city has within the last two months denied more than 875
claims received from property owners and insurance companies after
that flooding, and at least two lawsuits have followed.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuits seek a total of almost C$2 million, and
one of the cases appears to open the door for a class action.
Statements of claim allege the city was negligent and failed to
properly inspect, repair or maintain its sewer and drainage
systems.  None of the allegations have been proven in court.

City legal staff provided in a staff report in May a legal
analysis that's to be used for the city's defense in at least one
of the cases, but declined to comment on the lawsuits.

The staff report generally found rainfall and high water levels
overwhelmed the sewer and drainage system, and sewer backups,
overflows at two sewage pumping stations and seven culvert
failures contributed to that flooding.

After several solutions were recommended, council approved the
C$32-million "West-End Flooding Investigation Action Plan" that's
meant to reduce the risk of flooding through improvements to
pumping stations, drainage and sewer systems.

Some of that work has started, said Kanata South Councillor
Allan Hubley, who's now lobbying the Insurance Bureau of Canada to
try to get insurance rates lowered for people in his ward.

Mr. Hubley, who was elected in October, said he came to office
promising that work would be done to mitigate the risk of
flooding, and "the other part of it was the insurance rates."

Mr. Hubley said 600 to 800 homes in the K2L postal area were
flooded, but about 6,500 residences are within the postal code and
most of them are also getting higher rates or deductibles "because
the companies set the rates based on a postal code."

"Even though it's just several hundred homes within the postal
code that are flooded in my ward's case, there are thousands of
homes impacted by this.  Their insurance rates have gone up
various degrees" because they're deemed to be in a higher-risk
area, he said.

Mr. Hubley said he hopes to meet with insurance bureau officials
within the next few months.  He wants to show insurance companies
that the city has come up with causes and is implementing
solutions to the flooding, "and then they can reassess the risk
based on this new knowledge," which hopefully leads to lower
rates, he said.


PROGRESS ENERGY: Faces Securities Class Action in North Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP disclosed that on July 18, 2011, it
commenced a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court, Eastern District of North Carolina (case no. 4:11-cv-00120-
D) on behalf of purchasers of Progress Energy, Inc. who purchased
shares between January 8, 2011, and July 19, 2011.

The Complaint alleges, among other things, that Progress Energy
and its Board of Directors unfairly deprived shareholders of the
true value of the Company by entering into a definitive merger
agreement with Duke Energy Corporation, wherein Progress Energy
shareholders will receive 2.6125 shares of Duke Energy common
stock for each share of Progress Energy stock they own, violated
their fiduciary duties to shareholders, and violated Section 14(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by omitting material
disclosures and providing misleading disclosures in its Proxy.

If you are a member of the class and own Progress Energy stock
purchased during the above period, you have 60 days from the date
of this notice to request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff.  To obtain additional information or a copy of the
complaint, contact Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. either via e-mail at
ek@zlk.com or by telephone at (877) 363-5972, or visit
http://www.zlk.com/progress-energy-pgn.html

Levi & Korsinsky has expertise in prosecuting investor securities
litigation and extensive experience in actions involving financial
fraud and represents investors throughout the nation,
concentrating its practice in securities and shareholder
litigation.

CONTACT: Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         30 Broad Street - 15th Floor
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (212) 363-7500
         Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
         Web site: http://www.zlk.com


SONY: Zurich American Refuses to Cover Class Action Costs
---------------------------------------------------------
Ericka Chickowski, writing for Dark Reading, reports that a new
court battle reported last week could potentially decide how
liability is determined when organizations covered by general
liability insurance get hacked and suffer a database breach.

The case at hand pits insurer Zurich American against its client
Sony: Zurich has refused to cover the costs of class-action
lawsuits stemming from Sony's embarrassing breaches earlier this
year, and wants the courts to weigh in with a judgment to clarify
the matter.

Sony says it expects the financial fallout from the breaches to
add up to more than $178 million this year; the firm is currently
fighting 55 class action lawsuits.  According to a report from
Reuters, Zurich recently stated in court papers that it had
received claims from Sony to cover costs related to these lawsuits
under a general liability insurance policy written by Zurich.

The insurer says it shouldn't have to pay the claim since the
policy is for "bodily injury, property damage, or personal and
advertising injury," and none of those apply within the class-
action suits.

Given the rising prevalence of data breaches and the increasing
storm of litigation companies face from customers furious about
their loss of privacy, this case is a must-follow precedence-
setter for professionals in IT security and enterprise risk
management.  Ty Sagalow, an insurance consultant and founder of
Innovation Insurance Group, says there are still many within the
industry who are under the mistaken assumption that general
liability policies will help them out in the event of a data
breach.

"There are probably still some risk managers out there that think
that their comprehensive general liability policy cover breaches,"
says Mr. Sagalow, who was one of the main experts in charge of
first drafting cyberinsurance policies for Zurich when he worked
for the company prior to starting his own consulting shop.  "These
types of cyberevents are not covered in the typical standard forms
of insurance."

Mr. Sagalow says that as cyber-risks increase in sophistication
and pervasiveness, organizations need to think about adding
additional coverage that can hold up to court scrutiny when
everything hits the fan.  But because cyberinsurance is such a new
phenomenon, it's a buyer-beware situation.

"Unlike many insurance policies that companies buy, there is no
standard form -- it's not like comprehensive general liability or
workman's comp or fleet auto -- cyber is not standard,"
Mr. Sagalow says.  "Plus, it is in an area which is called surplus
insurance, meaning that they're not subject to state filing
regulations for state approval, which allows freedom of an
insurance carrier to set terms and conditions."

This means that organizations considering cyberpolicies have to
read very carefully before signing on the dotted line, says
Rick Kam, president and founder of consultancy ID Experts, a firm
that helps with pre- and post-breach strategy.  He says that
companies often buy cyberinsurance expecting it to cover breaches,
only to discover after an event that the insurance is primarily
for instances such as denial-of-service attacks.

"Insurance has to be very specific to cover those issues related
to a data breach," Mr. Kam says.  "One of the major tips I would
suggest is to have their enterprise risk manager -- the person
responsible for their insurance policies -- meet with their
insurers to validate what's covered and what's not when it comes
to a breach."


TRAVELERS COS: Appeals in Asbestos-Related Suits Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals in asbestos-related lawsuits against The Travelers
Companies, Inc., remain pending, according to the Company's
July 21, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action
lawsuits (Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed
against Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC) and other insurers
(not including The St. Paul Companies, Inc. (SPC)) in state court
in West Virginia.  These and other cases subsequently filed in
West Virginia were consolidated into a single proceeding in the
Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia.  The plaintiffs
allege that the insurer defendants engaged in unfair trade
practices in violation of state statutes by inappropriately
handling and settling asbestos claims.  The plaintiffs seek to
reopen large numbers of settled asbestos claims and to impose
liability for damages, including punitive damages, directly on
insurers.  Similar lawsuits alleging inappropriate handling and
settling of asbestos claims were filed in Massachusetts and Hawaii
state courts.  These lawsuits are collectively referred to as the
Statutory and Hawaii Actions.

In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions
pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state
court amended their complaint to include TPC as a defendant,
alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged duties to
certain users of asbestos products.  The plaintiffs seek damages,
including punitive damages.  Lawsuits seeking similar relief and
raising similar allegations, primarily violations of purported
common law duties to third parties, have also been asserted in
various state courts against TPC and SPC.  The claims asserted in
these lawsuits are collectively referred to as the Common Law
Claims.

The federal bankruptcy court that had presided over the bankruptcy
of TPC's former policyholder Johns-Manville Corporation issued a
temporary injunction prohibiting the prosecution of the Statutory
Actions (but not the Hawaii Actions), the Common Law Claims and an
additional set of cases filed in various state courts in Texas and
Ohio, and enjoining certain attorneys from filing any further
lawsuits against TPC based on similar allegations.
Notwithstanding the injunction, additional common law claims were
filed against TPC.

In November 2003, the parties reached a settlement of the
Statutory and Hawaii Actions.  This settlement includes a lump-sum
payment of up to $412 million by TPC, subject to a number of
significant contingencies.  In May 2004, the parties reached a
settlement resolving substantially all pending and similar future
Common Law Claims against TPC.  This settlement requires a payment
of up to $90 million by TPC, subject to a number of significant
contingencies.  Among the contingencies for each of these
settlements is a final order of the bankruptcy court clarifying
that all of these claims, and similar future asbestos-related
claims against TPC, are barred by prior orders entered by the
bankruptcy court ("the 1986 Orders").

On August 17, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered an order
approving the settlements and clarifying that the 1986 Orders
barred the pending Statutory and Hawaii Actions and substantially
all Common Law Claims pending against TPC ("the Clarifying
Order").  The Clarifying Order also applies to similar direct
action claims that may be filed in the future.

On March 29, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York substantially affirmed the Clarifying Order
while vacating that portion of the order that required all future
direct actions against TPC to first be approved by the bankruptcy
court before proceeding in state or federal court.

Various parties appealed the district court's March 29, 2006
ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  On
February 15, 2008, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating
on jurisdictional grounds the District Court's approval of the
Clarifying Order.  On February 29, 2008, TPC and certain other
parties to the appeals filed petitions for rehearing and/or
rehearing en banc, requesting reinstatement of the district
court's judgment, which were denied.  TPC and certain other
parties filed Petitions for Writ of Certiorari in the United
States Supreme Court seeking review of the Second Circuit's
decision, and on December 12, 2008, the Petitions were granted.

On June 18, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of TPC,
reversing the Second Circuit's February 15, 2008 decision,
finding, among other things, that the 1986 Orders are final and
generally bar the Statutory and Hawaii actions and substantially
all Common Law Claims against TPC.  Further, the Supreme Court
ruled that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to issue the
Clarifying Order.  However, since the Second Circuit had not ruled
on certain additional issues, principally related to procedural
matters and the adequacy of notice provided to certain parties,
the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Second Circuit for
further proceedings on those specific issues.  On October 21,
2009, all but one of the objectors to the Clarifying Order
requested that the Second Circuit dismiss their appeal of the
order approving the settlement, and that request was granted.

On March 22, 2010, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in which
it found that the notice of the 1986 Orders provided to the
remaining objector was insufficient to bar contribution claims by
that objector against TPC. On April 5, 2010, TPC filed a Petition
for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc with the Second Circuit,
requesting further review of its March 22, 2010 opinion, which was
denied on May 25, 2010.  On August 18, 2010, TPC filed a Petition
for Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court seeking
review of the Second Circuit's March 22, 2010 opinion, and a
Petition for a Writ of Mandamus seeking an order from the Supreme
Court requiring the Second Circuit to comply with the Supreme
Court's June 18, 2009 ruling in TPC's favor.  The Supreme Court
denied the Petitions on November 29, 2010.

The plaintiffs in the Statutory and Hawaii actions and the Common
Law Claims actions filed Motions to Compel with the bankruptcy
court on September 2, 2010, and September 3, 2010, respectively,
arguing that all conditions precedent to the settlements have been
met and seeking to require TPC to pay the settlement amounts.  On
September 30, 2010, TPC filed an Opposition to the plaintiffs'
Motions to Compel on the grounds that the conditions precedent to
the settlements, principally the requirement that all contribution
claims be barred, have not been met in light of the Second
Circuit's March 22, 2010 opinion.  On December 16, 2010, the
bankruptcy court granted the plaintiffs' motions and ruled that
TPC was required to fund the settlements.  On
January 20, 2011, the bankruptcy court entered judgment in
accordance with its December 16, 2010 ruling and ordered TPC to
pay the settlement amounts plus prejudgment interest.  On
January 21, 2011, TPC filed an appeal with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York from the bankruptcy court's
January 20, 2011 judgment.  On January 24, 2011, certain of the
plaintiffs in the Common Law Claims actions appealed that portion
of the bankruptcy court's January 20, 2011 judgment that denied
their request for an order of contempt and for sanctions.  The
appeals are pending.

SPC, which is not covered by the Manville bankruptcy court rulings
or the settlements, is a party to pending direct action cases in
Texas state court asserting common law claims.  All such cases
that are still pending and in which SPC has been served are
currently on the inactive docket in Texas state court.  If any of
those cases becomes active, SPC intends to litigate those cases
vigorously.  SPC was previously a defendant in similar direct
actions in Ohio state court.  Those actions have all been
dismissed following favorable rulings by Ohio trial and appellate
courts.  From time to time, SPC and/or its subsidiaries have been
named in individual direct actions in other jurisdictions.

The Company says it is not possible to predict legal outcomes and
their impact on the future development of claims and litigation
relating to asbestos and environmental claims.  Any such
development will be affected by future court decisions and
interpretations, as well as changes in applicable legislation.
Because of these uncertainties, additional liabilities may arise
for amounts in excess of the current related reserves.  In
addition, the Company's estimate of ultimate claims and claim
adjustment expenses may change.  These additional liabilities or
increases in estimates, or a range of either, cannot now be
reasonably estimated and could result in income statement charges
that could be material to the Company's results of operations in
future periods.


TRAVELERS COS: Final Hearing in Antitrust Suit Set for Sept. 14
---------------------------------------------------------------
A final fairness hearing on the settlement in the consolidated
antitrust litigation against The Travelers Companies, Inc., is set
for September 14, 2011, according to the Company's July 21, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

In 2005, four putative class action lawsuits were brought against
a number of insurance brokers and insurers, including the Company,
by plaintiffs who allegedly purchased insurance products through
one or more of the defendant brokers.  The plaintiffs alleged that
various insurance brokers conspired with each other and with
various insurers, including the Company, to artificially inflate
premiums, allocate brokerage customers and rig bids for insurance
products offered to those customers.  To the extent they were not
originally filed there, the federal class actions were transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and were
consolidated for pre-trial proceedings with other class actions
under the caption In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation.
On August 1, 2005, various plaintiffs, including the four named
plaintiffs in the class actions, filed an amended consolidated
class action complaint naming various brokers and insurers,
including the Company, on behalf of a putative nationwide class of
policyholders.  The complaint included causes of action under the
Sherman Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO), state common law and the laws of the various states
prohibiting antitrust violations.  The complaint sought monetary
damages, including punitive damages and trebled damages, permanent
injunctive relief, restitution, including disgorgement of profits,
interest and costs, including attorneys' fees.  All defendants
moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.
After giving plaintiffs multiple opportunities to replead, the
court dismissed the Sherman Act claims on August 31, 2007, and the
RICO claims on September 28, 2007, both with prejudice, and
declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law
claims.  The plaintiffs appealed the district court's decisions to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  On August 16,
2010, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of
all Sherman Act and RICO claims against certain defendants,
including the Company, except for Sherman Act and RICO claims
involving the sale of excess casualty insurance through a single
defendant broker, as well as all state law claims, which they
remanded to the district court for further proceedings.  On
October 1, 2010, defendants, including the Company, filed renewed
motions to dismiss the remanded claims.  On March 18, 2011, the
Company and certain other defendants entered into an agreement
with the plaintiffs to settle the lawsuit.  The settlement, under
which the Company agreed to pay $6.75 million, is subject to court
approval.  Preliminary approval of the settlement was granted on
June 27, 2011, and a final fairness hearing is scheduled for
September 14, 2011.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Reports $306-M Expense in Embraco Matters in June
-----------------------------------------------------------------
As of June 30, 2011, Whirlpool Corporation has incurred expenses,
including defense costs and other expenses, aggregating $306
million due to the Embraco antitrust matters, according to the
Company's July 21, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011.

Government authorities in various jurisdictions are conducting
antitrust investigations of the global compressor industry,
including the Company's compressor business headquartered in
Brazil ("Embraco").  In 2010, Embraco sales represented
approximately 8% of the Company's global net sales.

In February 2009, competition authorities in Brazil, the United
States of America and Europe began to seek documents from the
Company in connection with their investigations.  A grand jury
subpoena from the United States Department of Justice (the "DOJ")
requested documents for the time period from 2003 to 2009.
Competition authorities in other jurisdictions have sought similar
information.

In September 2009, the Brazilian competition commission (CADE)
agreed to terminate the administrative investigation of the
Company's compressor business.  Under the terms of the settlement
agreement, Whirlpool affiliates and certain executives located in
Brazil acknowledged a violation of Brazilian antitrust law in the
Brazilian compressor market by some Embraco employees.  The
settlement agreement provides for the affiliates to make
contributions totaling 100 million Brazilian reais to a Brazilian
government fund.  The contributions translated to approximately
$56 million, all of which was recorded within interest and sundry
income (expense) in 2009.  The payments are to be made in twelve
semiannual installments of approximately $5 million through 2015.
As of June 30, 2011, approximately $15 million has been paid.

In September 2010, the DOJ and Embraco entered into a plea
agreement related to the DOJ's investigation which was approved by
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan in December 2010.  Under the plea agreement, the DOJ
recognized Embraco's substantial assistance in the investigation
and agreed not to bring further charges against Embraco or any
related entities for any conspiracy involving compressor pricing
during the investigation period.  Pursuant to the plea agreement,
Embraco (1) acknowledged that it violated United States antitrust
law with respect to the sale of certain compressors from October
2004 through December 2007, and (2) agreed to pay a fine totaling
$91.8 million to the United States government.  The full amount of
the fine was recorded within interest and sundry income (expense)
in the third quarter of 2010.  Embraco made the first payment of
$16.8 million in January 2011.  The five remaining annual payments
of $15.0 million plus interest will be made during each fourth
quarter through 2015.

Since the government investigations became public in February
2009, the Company has been named as a defendant in related
antitrust lawsuits in various jurisdictions seeking damages in
connection with the pricing of compressors from 1996 to 2009.
Several other compressor manufacturers who are the subject of the
government investigations have also been named as defendants in
the litigation.  United States federal lawsuits instituted on
behalf of purported purchasers and containing class action
allegations have been combined in one proceeding in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  The
Company continues to cooperate with ongoing government
investigations in other jurisdictions, to defend the related
antitrust lawsuits and to take other actions to minimize the
Company's potential exposure.

The final outcome and impact of these matters, and related claims
and investigations that may be brought in the future are subject
to many variables, and cannot be predicted.  The Company
establishes accruals only for those matters where the Company
determines that a loss is probable and the amount of loss can be
reasonably estimated.  The Company has now accrued for a loss with
respect to the investigation by the European Commission and
certain other matters because, based on recent developments, a
minimum loss amount can now be reasonably estimated.  As of
June 30, 2011, the Company has incurred, in the aggregate, charges
of approximately $306 million due to the Embraco antitrust
matters, including defense costs and other expenses.  These
charges have been recorded within interest and sundry income
(expense) when incurred.  At June 30, 2011, $209 million remains
accrued.  While it is currently not possible to reasonably
estimate the aggregate amount of costs which the Company may incur
in connection with these matters, such costs could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position, liquidity, or
results of operations.


ZOO ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Securities Class Action in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------
On July 22, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against
Zoo Entertainment, Inc.  The complaint alleges violations of
federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including
allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to
the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price.  The class period is from May 17, 2010, through
April 15, 2011.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.  If you
are a member of the Class, you may move the Court no later than
Tuesday, September 20, 2011, to serve as a lead plaintiff for the
Class.  However, in order to do so, you must meet certain legal
requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, participate in this or any
other lawsuit, or have any questions or concerns regarding this
notice, or preservation of your rights, please contact:

        William B. Federman, Esq.
        FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
        10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
        Oklahoma City, OK 73120
        Telephone: (405) 235-1560
        E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
        Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com


                            *********

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  * * *