/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120118.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, January 18, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 13


BANCO SANTANDER: Judge Sees Problems in Madoff Class Action
CAREER EDUCATION: Sperling & Slater Files Class Action
CHEMED CORP: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Ohio
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Settles Securities MBS Class Action
METLIFE INC: Sued in New York for Misleading Investors

NETFLIX INC: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in California
PLIMUS INC: Deceives Consumers in California, Class Suit Says
RBS CITIZENS: Faces Overtime Class Action in Rhode Island
REDBOX: Blind Individuals File Class Action Over Kiosks
SUPERVALU INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over C&S Transaction

SUPERVALU INC: Wisconsin Suit Remains Stayed Pending IOS Ruling
VEOLIA ENVIRONNEMENT: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action
WALGREEN'S: Attorneys Enter Appearance in Fraud Class Action


BANCO SANTANDER: Judge Sees Problems in Madoff Class Action
Richard Vanderford, writing for Law360, reports that foreign
investors suing Spain's Banco Santander SA for trusting money in
Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme face serious difficulties bringing
their proposed class action in a U.S. court, a New York federal
judge warned on Jan. 12.

"There are many serious problems that have been raised.  I
wouldn't take them lightly," U.S. District Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin told lawyers for the plaintiffs, a group of entirely
foreign-based investors.

CAREER EDUCATION: Sperling & Slater Files Class Action
Sperling & Slater on Jan. 13 disclosed that a class action has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of Career
Education Corporation Shares during the period between January 1,
2009 and November 1, 2011.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from Jan. 13.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Paul Slater or
Scott Hessell of Sperling & Slater at (312) 641-3200, or via
e-mail at pes@sperling-law.com or shessell@sperling-law.com

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges CECO and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
CECO operates various "for-profit" educational programs and

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and prospects.  Specifically, defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following: (a) that
CECO was materially overstating its retention rates and
employment, or "placement" rates following graduation ("Placement
Rates"); (b) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls
and was therefore unable to ascertain its true Placement Rates;
(c) that CECO failed disclose that the Company's purported
Placement Rates were achieved through an improper course of
conduct and a manipulative use of the term "employment"; (d) that
these Placement Rates were being reported in violation of the
Company's accreditation status and therefore, in violation of
their Title IV funding requirements; and (e) that, as a result of
the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their
positive statements about the Company and its prospects.

On May 17, 2011, CECO announced that it had received a subpoena
from the Attorney General of the State of New York. The subpoena
requested documents pertaining to student employment outcomes and
Placement Rates of graduates among other items in connection with
the NYAG's investigation into whether the Company and certain of
its schools complied with certain New York state consumer
protection, securities, finance and other laws.  On May 24, 2011,
the Company confirmed the NYAG's investigation and disclosed the
existence of the Subpoena in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC.  As a
result of these announcements, the price of CECO common stock
dropped approximately 3% from $22.39 on May 17, 2011 to $21.69 on
May 25, 2011.

Purportedly in connection with the NYAG's investigation, on
August 3, 2011, the Company reported that it had retained outside
counsel (subsequently identified as Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP) to
conduct an internal investigation to determine if the Placement
Rates that CECO was reporting to various accreditation agencies
were accurate.  On November 1, 2011, the Company released
preliminary results of the investigation in Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP
("Dewey Report"), which showed that many of CECO's schools had
been artificially inflating the Placement Rates reported to
accreditation agencies.  In reaction to these announcements, the
price of CECO common stock declined 15%, from $21.87 per share to
$18.51 per share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
CECO shares during the Class Period.  Plaintiff is represented by
Sperling & Slater which is on of the nation's preeminent
litigation boutiques.

Sperling & Slater is a Chicago-based litigation firm.  The
specializes in areas of complex business litigation, including
securities, antitrust, bankruptcy and insolvency, and intellectual

CHEMED CORP: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Ohio
Business Courier reports that a law firm announced that it is
commencing a class-action lawsuit that would include shareholders
of Chemed Corp.

The complaint stems from news that emerged Nov. 16 of a
whistleblower lawsuit alleging that Chemed cheated Medicare.
Chemed's stock fell $6.87 per share, or 11 percent, to close at
$50.65 per share that day.

San Diego-based Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd said it filed the
litigation on behalf of an institutional investor in U.S. District
Court in Cincinnati.  The suit would include purchasers of Chemed
common stock between Feb. 15, 2010, and Nov. 16, 2011.

"Any member of the putative class may move the court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice," according to a
news release from the law firm, "or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member."

Cincinnati-based Chemed operates hospice provider Vitas Healthcare
Corp. as well as Roto-Rooter, a plumbing and drain cleaning

Given the whistleblower allegations and a U.S. Department of
Justice investigation into fraudulent conduct by Vitas, the new
law firm claims in the news release, "defendants lacked a
reasonable basis for their positive statements about the company
and its prospects."

LEHMAN BROTHERS: Settles Securities MBS Class Action
Bob Van Voris, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Lehman
Brothers Holdings Inc. agreed to pay $40 million to settle a
securities-fraud class action over mortgage-backed securities.
Lehman reached the settlement after 10 months of mediation with a
group of union pension funds representing investors in 17
securities offerings, the plaintiffs said in court papers
requesting approval of the agreement from a federal court in

The settlement, which must be approved by the court before it can
take effect, would resolve the investors' claims that Lehman
disregarded underwriting standards for the securities, causing
them to lose money.  The pension funds said they believe there
were hundreds or thousands of investors in the securities, which
were sold for about $24.3 billion.

Lehman, formerly the fourth-biggest investment bank, collapsed in
2008.  Lehman filed for bankruptcy protection in New York listing
$613 billion in debt.

The case is In re Lehman Brothers Mortgage-Backed Securities
Litigation, 08-cv-6762, U.S. District Court, Southern District of
New York (Manhattan).

METLIFE INC: Sued in New York for Misleading Investors
Michael K. Stanley, writing for LifeHealthPro, reports that a
class action suit was filed on Jan 12, against MetLife Inc., with
charges stemming from allegations that certain officers and
directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
knowingly making misleading statements pertaining to the company's
financial obligations and therefore distorting the attractiveness
of company stock.

The class actions suit, which commenced in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York seeks to recover damages for
those who purchased MetLife common stock during the Class Period
(February 2, 2010 - October 6, 2011).

The suit is being handled by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd.  The
firm, which is experienced in dealing with cases involving
defrauded investors, maintains that any purchasers of common stock
within the Class Period are eligible to join the suit.  Darren
Robbins of Robbins Geller said, "I think institutional investors
who purchased these shares during the period find this deeply

Specifically the complaint deals with deceiving statements that
were made by individual officers and directors pertaining to the
company's future financial health in regards to its liability to
policyholders, beneficiaries, and state authorities.

On August 5, 2011, on the heels of a Form 10-Q filed with the SEC,
the company announced that regulatory investigations into its
death benefits practices potentially could result in a substantial
escheatment to states coupled with administrative penalties.  The
stock price reacted by dropping by 11% the following day.

On October 6, 2011, MetLife filed a Form 8-K with the SEC that
acknowledged that the company would be hit with a $115 million
after-tax charge to meet reserve requirements associated with
their death benefits practice.  The stock price then reacted by
declining further until it hit $28.80 a share on October 7, 2011.

MetLife spokesman John Calagna said "We believe all of our
disclosures were appropriate."

NETFLIX INC: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in California
City of Royal Oak Retirement System, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Netflix, Inc., Reed Hastings,
David B. Wells, Theodore A. Sarandos, Leslie J. Kilgore and Neil
D. Hunt, Case No. 3:12-cv-00225 (N.D. Calif., Case No.
January 13, 2012) is a securities fraud class action brought on
behalf of all persons, who purchased the common stock of Netflix
between December 20, 2010, and October 24, 2011, for violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff alleges that during the Class Period, the Defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business practices and its contracts with content
providers.  Specifically, the Defendants concealed negative trends
in Netflix's business, and as a result, Netflix's stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a
high of almost $300 per share on July 13, 2011, the Plaintiff
contends.  The Plaintiff asserts that after Netflix revealed that
it had lost a million subscribers upon its price increases
becoming effective, Netflix stock collapsed nearly $40 per share
to close at just under $170 per share on September 15, 2011.

The Plaintiff is a shareholder of Netflix.

Netflix offers subscription-based services for television shows
and movies by mailing DVDs to subscribers' homes or via streaming
to subscribers' televisions, computers and mobile devices.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Netflix.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          David C. Walton, Esq.
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3301
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Vanoverbeke, Esq.
          Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
          79 Alfred Street
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: (313) 578-1200
          Facsimile: (313) 578-1201
          E-mail: mvanoverbeke@vmtlaw.com

PLIMUS INC: Deceives Consumers in California, Class Suit Says
Kimberly Yordy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Plimus, Inc., a California corporation and Great Hill
Partners, LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability company, Case No.
3:12-cv-00229 (N.D. Calif., January 13, 2012) alleges that the
Defendants, in conjunction with third parties, actively promote
and profit from an array of Web sites that purport to offer
unlimited access to downloadable digital goods, such as
eBooks, movies, TV shows, and video games, all for a low one-time

For this one time fee, Ms. Yordy contends, Plimus represents that
consumers will receive lifetime access to thousands of digital
goods, but in reality, these Web sites do not offer products in
the manner advertised.  She asserts that the Defendants' marketing
campaigns include the mass production of fabricated consumer
reviews, testimonials, and fake blogs that are all intended to
deceive consumers seeking a legitimate product and induce them to

Ms. Yordy is a resident of Minnesota.

Plimus is a California corporation and does business throughout
the United States of America.  Plimus is a direct and wholly owned
subsidiary of Great Hill, a Massachusetts limited liability
company.  Plimus facilitates both the affiliate marketing and
payment processing for the Web sites, and aids in the creation of
marketing campaigns, drives consumer Internet traffic, helps
increase sales conversions, and accepts and processes payments for
those Web sites, in exchange for a percentage based fee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean P. Reis, Esq.
          30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
          Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
          Telephone: (949) 459-2124
          Facsimile: (949) 459-2123
          E-mail: sreis@edelson.com

               - and -

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Christopher L. Dore, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com

RBS CITIZENS: Faces Overtime Class Action in Rhode Island
On January 9, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
Federal District Court of Rhode Island to recover overtime wages
for loan officers employed by RBS Citizens and its related
entities, Citizens Bank, Charter One, and CCO Mortgage.  According
to the Complaint, RBS Citizens misclassified its loan officers
across the country as exempt from overtime pay.  The complaint
further alleges that RBS Citizens pays its loan officers on a
commission basis, but as of February 2012 will begin paying them
on an hourly basis, including overtime pay.

RBS Citizens is headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island and has
bank branches under the Citizens Bank and Charter One brand names
in Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
and Vermont.

Attorney Tim C. Selander of Nichols Kaster, PLLP stated, "We
believe that these loan officers, regardless of their location,
are entitled to overtime pay and that RBS violated the overtime
laws by failing to pay them appropriately when they worked more
than forty hours in a workweek.  Our goal is to help them recover
their overtime pay."

The group is represented by:

          Tim C. Selander, Esq.
          4600 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3281
          E-mail: selander@nka.com

               - and -

          Brendan Donelon, Esq.
          DONELON, P.C.
          802 Broadway, 7th Floor
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 221-7100
          E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com

               - and -

          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          Twining Office Center, Suite 211
          715 Twining Road
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491

               - and -

          Charles S. Kirwan, Esq.
          36 Park Place
          Pawtucket, RI 02860-4049
          Telephone: (401) 272-6800

The name of the case is Ginter, et al. v. RBS Citizens, N.A. d/b/a
Citizens Bank, Charter One, and CCO Mortgage, Court File No. 12-
cv-8.  Additional information about the case can be found at
http://www.nka.comor by contacting Nichols Kaster, PLLP toll free
at (877) 448-0492.

REDBOX: Blind Individuals File Class Action Over Kiosks
Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that in
the past few years, automated retail kiosks have put many DVD-
rental stores out of business.  This hasn't been a kind
development for visually impaired individuals who now have less
access to video store clerks to help get them movies.  Now, in a
new class action lawsuit in California, a group that advocates for
the civil rights of blind individuals is suing Redbox for
violating the Americans With Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint filed on Jan. 12, Redbox is denying
blind individuals equal access to goods and services.

The plaintiffs say they enjoy films too, particularly dialogue-
driven ones as well as movies where the action can be described by

But visually impaired individuals are increasingly troubled by the
rise of touch-screen technology.  Many banks have employed screen-
reading ATMs, but Redbox, according to the lawsuit, "has chosen to
rely on an exclusively visual interface."

This has made it difficult for them to access DVD-rental kiosks.
"Blind people must rely on sighted companions or strangers to
assist them in renting and returning DVDs at Redbox kiosks," says
the complaint.  "Blind people must also disclose personal
information, including their zip codes, to these other individuals
in order to complete a rental at the Redbox kiosks."

The lawsuit is being brought by the Lighthouse for the Blind and
Visually Impaired.

The group says that Redbox was informed of allegedly unlawful
accessibility barriers in November, but that the defendant has
failed to commit to accessible kiosks.  The plaintiffs want an
injunction to prohibit Redbox from violating the law and damages.

SUPERVALU INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over C&S Transaction
In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
against SuperValu Inc. alleging that a 2003 transaction between
the Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a
conspiracy to restrain trade and allocate markets.  In the 2003
transaction, the Company purchased certain assets of the Fleming
Corporation as part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy
proceedings and sold certain assets of the Company to C&S which
were located in New England.  Since December 2008, three other
retailers have filed similar complaints in other jurisdictions.
The cases have been consolidated and are proceeding in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota.  The
complaints allege that the conspiracy was concealed and continued
through the use of non-compete and non-solicitation agreements and
the closing down of the distribution facilities that the Company
and C&S purchased from each other.  Plaintiffs are seeking
monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.  The
Company is vigorously defending these lawsuits.  Separately from
these civil lawsuits, on September 14, 2009, the United States
Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") issued a subpoena to the Company
requesting documents related to the C&S transaction as part of the
FTC's investigation into whether the Company and C&S engaged in
unfair methods of competition.  The Company cooperated with the
FTC.  On March 18, 2011, the FTC notified the Company that it had
determined that no additional action was warranted by the FTC and
that it had closed its investigation.

No further updates were reported in the Company's January 12,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 3, 2011.

SUPERVALU INC: Wisconsin Suit Remains Stayed Pending IOS Ruling
In September 2008, a class action complaint was filed against
SuperValu Inc., as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC
("IOS"), Inmar, Inc., Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc.,
Carolina Coupon Clearing, Inc. and Carolina Services, in the
United States District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
The plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a
grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing services company who
allege on behalf of a purported class that the Company and the
other defendants (i) conspired to restrict the markets for coupon
processing services under the Sherman Act and (ii) were part of an
illegal enterprise to defraud the plaintiffs under the Federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.  The
plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive
relief.  The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this
lawsuit, however all proceedings have been stayed in the case
pending the result of the criminal prosecution of certain former
officers of IOS.  Although this lawsuit is subject to the
uncertainties inherent in the litigation process, based on the
information presently available to the Company, management does
not expect that the ultimate resolution of this lawsuit will have
a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.

No further updates were reported in the Company's January 12,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 3, 2011.

VEOLIA ENVIRONNEMENT: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a federal
securities class action (12 Civ. 0312) in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of all
persons who purchased American Depositary Shares of Veolia
Environnement S.A between April 27, 2007, and August 3, 2011
inclusive.  This class action is brought under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against the Company and
certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Veolia securities during
the Class Period, you have until February 27, 2012 to ask the
Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at
rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free,
x350.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.

Veolia operates utility and public transportation businesses.  The
Company supplies drinking water, provides waste management
services, manages and maintains heating and air conditioning
systems, and operates rail and road passenger transportation

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
the Company was materially overstating its financial results by
engaging in improper accounting practices; (2) the Company failed
to timely record an impairment charge for its Transport business
in Morocco, Environmental Services businesses in Egypt, Marine
Services business in the United States, and for Southern Europe;
(3) the Company's revenues were being adversely affected by the
renewal of some of its major concession contracts; (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 August 4, 2011, the Company announced financial results for the
period ended June 30, 2011.  In addition, the Company reported
operating income of EUR252.2 million, compared to EUR1,100.7
million in the prior year for the same period, due to "non-
recurring write-downs amounting to EUR686 million (principally in
Italy, Morocco and the United States)."  Further, the Company
disclosed that it had identified accounting fraud in its Marine
Services business whereby earnings for periods from 2007 through
2010 were inflated by at least EUR152 million.

On these revelations, Veolia ADS declined $4.66 or more than 22%,
to close at $16.10 on August 4, 2011.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- specializes
in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation.  It has offices in New York, Chicago, and Washington,
D.C.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean
of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of
securities class actions.

WALGREEN'S: Attorneys Enter Appearance in Fraud Class Action
Christina Stueve, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record,
reports that attorneys Matthew Jacober, Jaimie Thompson and Brian
Fries of the St. Louis law firm Lathrop & Gage on Jan. 6 entered
their appearances on behalf of Walgreen's, which is accused of
overcharging customers for medical records in a class action suit
filed last month in St. Clair County.

Walgreen's also requested that it have until Feb. 20 to file a
responsive pleading.  And, according to court documents,
plaintiff's attorneys have consented to the extension.

Raymond Griggs filed the complaint Dec. 14, claiming Walgreens
charged him a flat fee of $55 for copies of his medical records,
which he says was exorbitant and violated state law.

The suit says that companies are permitted by law to charge $24.81
in handling charges, $0.93 per page for the first 25 pages, $0.62
per page for the next 25 pages and $0.31 for more than 50 pages.

Mr. Griggs claims that Walgreens attempted to conceal its fraud by
stating its fees in an ambiguous manner.

His complaint says Walgreens violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud,
Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Uniform Deceptive Trade
Practices Act.  Mr. Griggs also alleges common law fraud and
unjust enrichment.

Mr. Griggs seeks a determination that his class action complaint
is valid, plus pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, exemplary,
treble and punitive damages, costs, the restitution of all fees he
and other plaintiffs paid to Walgreens and other relief the court
deems just.

St. Clair County  Circuit Court case number: 11-L-685.

Walgreen's is represented by:

          Matthew Jacober, Esq.
          Jaimie Thompson, Esq.
          LATHROP & GAGE LLP
          7701 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 500
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 613-2800
          E-mail: mjacober@lathropgage.com

               - and -

          Brian Fries, Esq.
          LATHROP & GAGE LLP
          Kansas City
          2345 Grand Blvd., Suite 2200
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 292-2000
          E-mail: bfries@lathropgage.com

Mr. Griggs and the proposed class are represented by:

          Corey D. Sullivan, Esq.
          John J. Carey, Esq.
          Francis J. "Casey" Flynn Jr., Esq.
          Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq.
          8235 Forsyth Ste 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 725-7700


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.  Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2012.  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 Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *