---

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

             Monday, June 18, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 119

                             Headlines

AMERIGROUP CORP: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Labor Class Suit
ANTONIO CASSANO: Codacons Mulls Class Action Over Anti-Gay Slur
ARCTIC GLACIER: August 13 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
ARTSQUEST: Sued Over Fraudulent Sale of Chinese Beer Steins
BRANCH BANKING: Judge Refuses to Certify ATM Fee Notice Suit

CALIFORNIA: Suction-Dredge Miners File Class Action
CANADA: Mississauga Councilors Unaware of Flooding Class Action
CHINACAST EDUCATION: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Calif.
COCA-COLA: Merchandisers Seek Class Certification
CORBIS CORP: Shirley Jones Fights Right Over Red-Carpet Photos

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Securities Suit
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Appeal in "Rivera" Suit Still Pending
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Settles Claims in "Daniels" Suit in Dallas
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Awaits Ruling on appeal in "Reed" Suit
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Arbitration Hearings in "Montgomery" Suit Set

DELTA PETROLEUM: Federman Sherwood Files Class Action
DJSP ENTERPRISES: Ex-Employees' Class Action Gets Final Approval
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Awaits Approval of "Freudenberg" Suit Deal
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Court Dismissed "Oughtred" Suit in Feb.
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Roling" Suit

FOX SEARCHLIGHT: Ordered to Turn Over Intern Contact Information
GAMESTOP INC: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Class Action
HUANG SHUN: Faces Class Action for Sexual Harassment
HULU: Judge Dismisses Most of Claims in VPPA Class Action
ILLINOIS: GOP Activists Mull Class Action

LINCOLN COUNTY, WA: Employees File Wage Class Action
MODUSLINK GLOBAL: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action
OGLETREE DEAKINS: Maricopa County Files Class Action Over Billing
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Class Action in Penn.
SUN VALLEY: Faces Class Action Over Golf Club Membership

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Judge Cuts Stueve Siegel's Attorney Fees


                          *********

AMERIGROUP CORP: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Labor Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
AMERIGROUP Corporation is awaiting court approval of a settlement
entered in a consolidated class action lawsuit alleging violations
of labor laws, according to the Company's May 4, 2012 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

On November 22, 2010, Hamel Toure, a former AMERIGROUP New York,
LLC marketing representative, filed a putative collective and
class action complaint against AMERIGROUP Corporation and
AMERIGROUP New York, LLC in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of New York. Subsequently, another lawsuit,
styled Andrea Burch, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AMERIGROUP Corporation and AMERIGROUP New
York, LLC, was consolidated with the Toure case.

The Second Amended Class Action Complaint with respect to these
consolidated cases alleged, inter alia, that the plaintiffs and
certain other employees should have been classified as non-exempt
employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("the FLSA") and
during the course of their employment should have received
overtime and other compensation under the FLSA from October 22,
2007 until the entry of judgment and under the New York Labor Law
("the NYLL") from October 22, 2004 until the entry of judgment.
The Complaint requested certification of the NYLL claims as a
class action under Rule 23, designation of the FLSA claims as a
collective action, a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, an
award of unpaid overtime compensation, an award of liquidated
damages under the FLSA and the NYLL, pre-judgment interest, as
well as costs, attorneys' fees, and other relief.

On February 2, 2012, the Company reached an agreement in principle
with the plaintiffs to settle the litigation and on April 20, 2012
the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. The
anticipated settlement, which is reflected in the audited
Consolidated Financial Statements for the year ended December 31,
2011, did not have a material impact on the Company?s financial
position, results of operations or cash flows. The terms of the
final settlement are subject to court approval and there can be no
assurance that the court will approve such settlement.


ANTONIO CASSANO: Codacons Mulls Class Action Over Anti-Gay Slur
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniele Guido Gessa, writing for Gay Star News, reports that an
Italian consumers' association, Codacons, is demanding
compensation from Italian footballer Antonio Cassano after his
slur against gays.

Mr. Cassano, who's playing at the Euro 2012, the European soccer
tournament, with the Italian national team, yesterday said: "I
hope there are not 'froci' [queers] in our squad."

The footballer was answering a question by a journalist who had
asked him about the presence of gay players in his team.

Now Codacons is representing a group of gays for Italy's first
class action ever against an anti-gay slur.

A Codacons' statement said: "All the gays who feel offended by
Cassano's words should ask for compensation for the moral damage.
Our lawyers are ready for a class action.

"Cassano's words are dangerous because he is an example for
thousands of youngsters and the fact he has said 'sorry' is not
enough."

On June 12, after the case made headlines around the world, the
Italian footballer said: "I'm so sorry, I didn't want to offend
anyone.  I'm not homophobic, I only wanted to say that I don't
care if my mates are gay."


ARCTIC GLACIER: August 13 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
This notice is to all individuals and entities, wherever they may
reside or be domiciled (other than Excluded Persons as defined
below), who purchased Units of Arctic Glacier Income Fund during
the period from March 13, 2002 to September 16, 2008.

READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AS IT MAY AFFECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS. YOU
MAY NEED TO TAKE PROMPT ACTION.

Please note: This is a summary notice, produced for publication
purposes, announcing Court approval of the settlement reached in
this litigation.  A Long Form Notice, containing additional detail
is available on the Administrator's Web site:
http://www.nptricepoint.comor Class Counsel's Web site:
http://www.classaction.ca

COURT APPROVAL OF THE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

In September 2008, the plaintiffs commenced a class proceeding
against Arctic Glacier, Arctic Glacier Inc., and certain officers
and directors of Arctic Glacier in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice.  The class action arises out of Arctic Glacier's
announcement of an investigation by the United States Department
of Justice into anti-competitive conduct in the packaged ice
industry.  Following that announcement, Arctic Glacier suspended
its distributions to its unit-holders, and the trading price of
the units declined significantly.  By order issued March 1, 2011,
the Court certified the class action.  The Defendants sought leave
to appeal the certification order and leave to appeal was granted
on February 1, 2012.

On February 22, 2012, Arctic Glacier and Arctic Glacier Inc.
applied for protection from their creditors pursuant to the
Companies' Creditors Arrangements Act in the Court of Queen's
Bench for Manitoba and pursuant to Chapter 15 of the United States
Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court of the
District of Delaware.  Each of these Courts granted orders staying
all legal proceedings against Arctic Glacier and Arctic Glacier
Inc. for the purpose of permitting them to restructure their
affairs.  Those orders currently prohibit the commencement or
prosecution against Arctic Glacier and Arctic Glacier Inc. and
certain of their current or former officers and directors.  It is
not currently known when or if such stays of proceedings will be
lifted.  Those proceedings may result in further orders of the
Restructuring Courts compromising or extinguishing the claims of
Class Members.

On June 1, 2012, the Court approved the Settlement Agreement,
dated April 25, 2012.  The Settlement is a compromise of disputed
claims and is not an admission of liability, wrongdoing or fault
on the part of any of the Defendants, all of whom have denied, and
continue to deny, the allegations against them.

The Settlement provides for the payment of CAD$13,750,000 in full
and final settlement of the claims of Class Members, including
legal fees, disbursements, taxes and administration expenses in
return for releases and a dismissal of the class action.  The
Defendants, members of the immediate families of the Individual
Defendants, any officers, directors or employees of the Income
Fund or Arctic or any subsidiary of the Income Fund or Arctic, any
entity in respect of which any such person has a legal or de facto
controlling interest, and any legal representatives, heirs,
successors or assigns of any such person or entity, are not
permitted to participate in the Settlement.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

The Court has appointed NPT RicePoint as the Administrator of this
Settlement Agreement.  The Administrator will oversee the claims
and opt-out processes and will distribute the Settlement Amount.

Those Class Members who wish to receive compensation from the
Settlement Amount must mail or otherwise submit a completed Claim
Form and any supporting documents to the Administrator, no later
than September 11, 2012, at the following address:

           Arctic Glacier Income Fund Securities Litigation
           Claims Administrator
           P.O. Box 3355
           London, ON N6A 4K3

The Class Members who do not opt out and who file a valid claim
will be paid a pro rata share of the balance of the Settlement
Amount after payment of fees, expenses, and taxes.  The Long Form
Notice contains the complete details of the process for filing a
Claim Form and how the Settlement Amount will be distributed.

All Class Members will be bound by the terms of the Settlement
Agreement unless they "opt out."  This means that Class Members
who do not opt out will not be able to bring or continue any other
claim or legal proceeding against the Defendants, or any other
person released by the Settlement Agreement in relation to the
matters alleged in the class action.  If you do not want to be
bound by the Settlement Agreement you must opt out.  Please note
however, that by opting out you will be barred from making a claim
and receiving compensation from the Settlement Amount.

If you wish to opt out you must submit a fully completed Opt-Out
Form along with the documents identified therein to the
Administrator, no later than August 13, 2012.  If you are
considering opting out, you should have specific regard to the
impact of the orders which have been or may be made by the
Restructuring Courts on your ability to pursue litigation against
the Defendants in this action.  Those orders may severely limit or
eliminate your ability to commence or continue litigation against
the Defendants named in this action.

For further information regarding the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, the Plan of Allocation, filing a claim and/or opting
out, or to obtain a Claim Form or request to opt out, visit the
Administrator's Web site: http://www.nptricepoint.comor contact
the Administrator by calling 1-866-432-5534.

The law firm of Siskinds LLP is counsel to the Plaintiffs in the
class proceeding, and can be reached by telephone, toll free, at
1-800-461-6166 ext. 2380, by e-mail at nicole.young@siskinds.com
or on the internet at http://www.classaction.ca

Please do not contact the Court with inquiries about the class
action or the Settlement.  All inquiries should be directed to the
Administrator or Siskinds LLP.

June 13, 2012

PUBLICATION OF THIS NOTICE HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

Contacts:

        Administrator
        1-866-432-5534
        Web site: http://www.nptricepoint.com

        Siskinds LLP
        Telephone; 1-800-461-6166 ext. 2380
        E-mail: nicole.young@siskinds.com
        Web site: http://www.classaction.ca


ARTSQUEST: Sued Over Fraudulent Sale of Chinese Beer Steins
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reuben Kramer at Courthouse News Service reports that in two
federal lawsuits, an employment complaint and a consumer class
action, a woman claims she was fired for complaining that her
employer sold $3 Chinese beer steins for $70, falsely claiming
they had been handcrafted in Germany.

Rebecca Stoneback filed a whistleblower complaint and a class
action against Artsquest, which describes itself as a promoter of
art events and art education in Pennsylvania's Lehigh Valley.

Ms. Stoneback says she became aware that Artsquest "was
fraudulently selling beer steins and stoneware mugs by claiming
same were manufactured . . . in Germany, when in fact such steins
and mugs were manufactured at a factory in China."

She says she "refused to sell the mugs and steins until defendants
properly identified their origin."

Ms. Stoneback claims she was canned from her "instructor" position
or from a position stocking and selling merchandise "because she
opposed wrongdoing and because she refused to violate criminal and
consumer protection laws."

The steins at issue are called Muskifest steins and mugs, a
reference to Artsquest's decades-old, 10-day music festival in
downtown Bethlehem, Pa., Ms. Stoneback says.  The festival
attracts more than 1 million visitors annually and "is considered
to be the nation's largest non-gated music festival," Ms.
Stoneback says in one complaint.

She says Artsquest calls the steins "limited edition" and
"handcrafted in Germany."

But she says she discovered that Artsquest bought the steins from
China for $3 apiece, then sold them "for a near 2,500 percent
price increase," taking "a hefty profit of $67 per stein . . . for
each stein fraudulently sold."

"Prior to mid-March 2012, defendants purposefully prevented
plaintiff (and presumably other employees) from seeing the
shipping boxes in which the steins or mugs were shipped to
defendants," the complaint states.  "Instead, when a new shipment
arrived, the boxes were delivered to an off-site location,
unpacked, and then placed in the backroom of the store. Plaintiff
would then typically remove the steins . . . from the backroom and
place them in the front of the store for sale."

Ms. Stoneback's class action alleges a conspiracy "to defraud . .
. consumers into purchasing cheap Chinese made beer steins and
mugs under the premise that such items were handcrafted in
Germany."

She says that scheme violated the RICO Act.

Artsquest said it did not comment upon pending litigation.

A copy of the Complaint in Stoneback v. Artsquest, et al., Case
No. 12-cv-03287 (E.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/13/Stoneback2.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1878 Marlton Pike East, Ste. 10
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420


BRANCH BANKING: Judge Refuses to Certify ATM Fee Notice Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge refused to
certify a class led by Daniel Ballard, who claims that Branch
Banking and Trust Co. failed to display required fee notices on
ATMs.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion in Ballard v. Branch Banking and
Trust Company, Case No. 11-cv-01327 (D.D.C.), is available at:

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2011cv1327-23


CALIFORNIA: Suction-Dredge Miners File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Tish Kraft at Courthouse News Service reports that suction-dredge
miners claim in court that California has effectively banned the
"the only practicable method" of taking "commercially significant
amounts of gold" from rivers.

The New 49'ers Inc., 16 miners and Northwest Mining sued
California's Department of Fish and Game in a class action for
inverse condemnation, in Siskiyou County Court.

Suction dredge miners use giant hoses to suck sand, mud and gravel
from streambeds, mechanically "pan" it for gold, then spew the
disturbed water back into the stream.  Environmentalists call it
ecologically harmful.

The miners claim the ban caused "several thousand" class members
to suffer losses "roughly estimated to average $500,000 per
claim," a sum that "exceeds $50 million" in all.

An environmental attorney called elements of the lawsuit "patently
ridiculous."

"The miners' loss of $500,000 per claim is highly speculative, and
patently ridiculous," Jonathan Evans, attorney and Toxics and
Endangered Species Campaign Director for the Center for Biological
Diversity told Courthouse News.

"There is no way the miners can determine the amount of minerals
under our state waterways.  The majority of suction dredge mining
is done as a destructive hobby.  A survey from the California
Department of Fish and Game of suction dredge miners found that
only 18 percent do it for full-time income.  There's no reason
Californians should subsidize this polluting and destructive
practice."

The miners seek a writ of mandate vacating approval of the ban and
the findings that supported it, and the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Review vacated and the regulations set aside,
and Fish and Game ordered to keep issuing permits under the
previous suction-dredging regulations.

The miners, who say they have claims on federal land, call the ban
an unconstitutional taking, pre-empted by federal law, and say it
violates the California Environmental Quality Act.

The fees for suction-dredging permits do not cover the cost of the
permitting program, so the state ends up subsidizing the mining,
according to an analysis of Assembly Bill 120.

But the miners claim that two California laws and a set of
regulations keep the class members from gold.

"There are extremely small-scale nonmotorized recreational mining
activities, including panning for gold, that remain lawful in
California, but it is not possible to recover commercially
significant amounts of gold through such means," the miners say in
the complaint.

They claim California is violating their property rights and
denying them "all economically beneficial or productive use of
their mining claims," which amounts to taking them for public use.

Mr. Evans disagrees.

"The state's rules do not say they can't mine their claims by less
destructive means, such as panning for gold or hand mining," the
attorney said.  "No one in the environmental, tribal, or fisheries
community is claiming that miners should be barred from their
claims, but they shouldn't receive a state subsidy to pollute
waterways, kill wildlife and destroy tribal resources by suction
dredge mining."

The complaint states: "A fundamental error, repeated throughout
the FSEIR [final supplemental environmental impact review], is
confusing potential environmental impact with actual environmental
impact. There is no shortage of interested parties eager to lodge
testimony with the department that all sorts of consequences might
or could result from suction dredge mining.

"The only potentially significant adverse impact from suction
dredge mining would arise if miners dredged into a nest (redd) of
fish eggs, were unable to stop in time (though underwater and
observing his or her nozzle closely), and thereafter sucked the
eggs through the dredge, and this happened with sufficient
frequency to affect fish populations. Plaintiffs are unaware of
such an event ever occurring, in part because natural conditions
(snow, ice and cold water) and prior regulations limited dredging
activity when fish eggs were present."

Again, Mr. Evans disagrees.

"Regardless of whenever you are out there suction dredge mining it
harms the environment," he said.  "Whether you are actually
destroying the redds and salmon eggs or not, you are still
suspending mercury in the river.  Anytime you are out there
suction dredge mining in active water bodies you're destroying
wildlife and water bodies."

He added: "Suction dredge mining has an incredibly harmful effect
on California's water quality, wildlife, and cultural resources.
It's time to end this destructive practice.  The State Water
Resources Control Board condemns the harmful effects on water
quality because it suspends toxic mercury into California's water
supplies and aquatic systems.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
opposes the harmful effects of suction dredge mining on amphibians
and fish.  The state can't afford to subsidize this type of
polluting river mining in an era of limited budgets and limited
water supplies.  It costs California over $1 million a year to
subsidize the suction dredge. There is absolutely no reason why
California should be subsidizing this type of destructive
recreational mining."

The plaintiffs are represented by James Buchal, with Murphy &
Bucal, of Portland, Ore.


CANADA: Mississauga Councilors Unaware of Flooding Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Megan O'Toole, writing for National Post, reports that Mississauga
councillors are stunned that city staff failed to promptly inform
them of a C$200-million lawsuit targeting the municipality -- only
revealing the months-old litigation to members of council by
happenstance two weeks ago.

The lawsuit, which is aiming for class-action status, was launched
by representative plaintiffs Francesco and Katiana Panza, who
claim damages for "negligence and breach of common law and
statutory duties of care" after dozens of residents experienced
flooding in and around their homes.  Peel Region, the Halton
Regional Conservation Authority and the Environment Ministry are
also named as defendants.

Rainwater and sewage water has backed up onto residents'
properties and into their basements on at least seven occasions
since the summer of 2009, the claim alleges, damaging homes and
sending property values plummeting.

"The defendants, or any of them . . . deliberately and willfully
ignored, discounted and otherwise disregarded the concerns being
expressed to them by the plaintiffs and other class members," the
claim alleges.

None of the allegations have been tested in court, and spokesmen
for the city and Peel Region did not respond to interview
requests.  Spokesmen for the Environment Ministry and the Halton
Regional Conservation Authority declined to comment.

"As this relates to ongoing legal proceedings, it would not be
appropriate to comment further," ministry spokeswoman Kate Jordan
said.

Mississauga Councillor Sue McFadden -- who has been providing
regular updates to Ward 10 residents about actions the city has
taken to address the flooding problem, including cutting
vegetation along a local creek to improve water flow -- says she
scheduled a meeting with city staff two weeks ago to discuss the
status of a consultant's report into what caused the repeated
flooding.  It was there that she learned, through an offhand
comment by an outside lawyer, of the C$200-million lawsuit filed
in February.

"I just went ballistic on them.  Nobody knew, absolutely nobody
other than [staff in] risk management and that outside lawyer,"
Ms. McFadden said.

She says she has now been effectively "gagged" from communicating
with residents about the flooding issue, because she lives in the
affected community and is therefore in a conflict of interest
because of the pending litigation.


CHINACAST EDUCATION: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim Chinacast
Education Corp. sold shares at inflated prices by concealing,
inter alia, that its CEO wrongfully transferred $120 million
between bank accounts, in a federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Nakash v. ChinaCast Education
Corporation, et al., Case No. 12-cv-05107 (C.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/13/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Avraham N. Wagner, Esq.
          THE WAGNER FIRM
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 491-7949
          E-mail: avi@thewagnerfirm.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS, LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS, LLP
          10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 37701181
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


COCA-COLA: Merchandisers Seek Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------
The employment attorneys at Bisnar | Chase, LLP and Arias Ozzello
& Gignac LLP on June 12 filed a motion for class certification
against Coca-Cola on May 29, 2012 to certify a class of at least
3,373 current and former Merchandisers for failing to provide
compliant meal periods and failing to reimburse them for business
expenses incurred during the course-and-scope of their employment.
The hearing on the motion is set for July 2, 2012.

The case against Coca-Cola, which operates roughly 27 branches
throughout the state of California, was brought in September 2011,
in California state court in Los Angeles, but was removed to
federal court based on a motion filed by Coca-Cola under the Class
Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

The proposed Class plaintiffs seek to certify consists of: All
former and current Merchandisers who worked for Coca-Cola in one
of its branches in the State of California during the period
between September 7, 2007 to the conclusion of this action.  The
Subclasses plaintiffs seek to certify are, among others, the
following:

(a) Subclass 1: All Class Members who worked shifts of at least
six hours during the Class Period whose time records show no meal
period was taken [the "MISSED MEAL-PERIOD SUBCLASS"].

(b) Subclass 2: All Class Members who worked shifts of at least
six hours during the Class Period whose time records show less
than a 30-minute meal period [the "SHORT MEAL-PERIOD SUBCLASS"].

(c) Subclass 3: All Class Members who worked shifts of at least
six hours during the Class Period whose time records show a meal
period after the fifth hour of work [the "LATE MEAL-PERIOD
SUBCLASS"].

(d) Subclass 4: All Class Members who were not reimbursed for all
work-related non-commute mileage during the Class Period [the
"NON-COMMUTE MILEAGE SUBCLASS"].

(e) Subclass 5: All Class Members, who qualified for commute
mileage under Defendant's Mileage Reimbursement Policy and
Procedure, but were not paid commute mileage during the Class
Period [the "COMMUTE MILEAGE SUBCLASS"].

"What differentiates this case from other class action wage-and-
hour cases is that Coca-Cola's own records establishes its
liability," said Brian Chase, partner at Bisnar | Chase. "Coca-
Cola recorded every incident of a non-compliant meal period,
including missed-meal, short-meal or late meal periods.  Under
California law, employers are required to pay premium wages when
an employee is not provided a meal period.  Coca-Cola lacked a
policy of paying Merchandisers premium pay for meal period
violations."

The California employment lawyers at Bisnar | Chase and Arias
Ozzello & Gignac LLP are seeking damages for premium wages for
meal-period violations, unreimbursed expenses, and waiting time
penalties for failing to compensate former employees within the
Class Period for these unpaid wages.

       About Bisnar | Chase Personal Injury Attorneys, LLP

The Bisnar | Chase Employment Attorneys --
http://www.BestAttorney.com-- represent people who have been the
victims of employer abuse which includes wage and overtime claims,
wrongful termination, sexual harassment, disability
discrimination, work breaks, meal breaks, forced deduction from
pay checks, expense reimbursement, travel expenses, uniform cost
and upkeep reimbursement, breach of contract complaints and more.


CORBIS CORP: Shirley Jones Fights Right Over Red-Carpet Photos
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that Shirley
Jones asked the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit to overturn a ruling that Corbis, a stock photo Web site,
has the right to license red-carpet images of her.

Ms. Jones filed a federal class action against Corbis Corp. in
2010, claiming it had violated her common law and statutory rights
of publicity by exploiting her name, image and likeness in 10
photos on its Web site.

But in May 2011, U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson ruled that
Ms. Jones had given her consent for Corbis to display and license
the images because she knew it was customary for red-carpet
photographers to distribute such photos widely.

The 9th Circuit on June 7 heard arguments from Ms. Jones' attorney
Arthur Gold, with Chicago law firm Gold & Coulson, and Corbis'
attorney Laurence Pulgram, with Fenwick & West of San Francisco.

The hearing was consolidated to incorporate a similar class action
against Corbis by lead plaintiffs Anna Maria Alberghetti and
Bonnie Pointer of the Pointer Sisters.

Judges Betty Fletcher, Judge Kim Wardlaw, and Jay Bybee sat on the
panel.

Mr. Gold said that neither Ms. Jones' knowledge of red-carpet
photographers' practice of distributing images, nor Hollywood
custom at such events implied her consent.

Under questioning from the judges, Mr. Gold made a distinction
between images Corbis distributed to the media and those sold
commercially.

Ms. Jones "spent her lifetime" developing her persona and only she
could exploit her image for commercial use, even if a photographer
was the owner of a copyrighted image in which she appeared,
Mr. Gold argued.

But Mr. Pulgram said the images of Ms. Jones were pre-empted by
the Copyright Act, because all Corbis did was display and license
them.  To rule otherwise would set a "dangerous" precedent which
would not only harm the photo-licensing industry but the subjects
of the photos, the attorney said.

"If it were to become the case that photographers could not
display images without that display becoming violation of the
right of publicity, this would give each person depicted in the
image a veto over whether or not the public would ever get access
to that image," Mr. Pulgram said.

The attorney also claimed that Ms. Jones was not harmed
economically by the display of licensed images.

"In fact, if anything, she probably has an economic enhancement
because she might get a license out of it from a commercial user,"
Mr. Pulgram said.

In rebuttal, Mr. Gold said that Corbis hurt his clients' ability
to make money from images they had spent years building.

"Don't let anyone fool you," Mr. Gold said.  "They're not
licensing a copyright, they're selling pictures."

Ms. Jones, 78, starred in several Hollywood musicals, including
"Oklahoma" and "The Music Man," and the television sitcom "The
Partridge Family."  She won an Academy Award for best supporting
actress for her role as a prostitute in the 1960 drama, "Elmer
Gantry."


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., is awaiting a court ruling on its
motion to dismiss a consolidated putative securities class action
lawsuit, according to the Company's May 4, 2012 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2012.

On August 31, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Jimmy Elias Karam v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al. was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons who
acquired shares of the Company's common stock from October 30,
2007 through August 19, 2010, against the Company and Jack
Massimino, Peter Waller, Matthew Ouimet and Kenneth Ord, all of
whom are current or former officers of the Company. The complaint
alleges that, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
defendants made certain material misrepresentations and failed to
disclose certain material facts about the condition of the
Company's business and prospects during the putative class period,
causing the plaintiffs to purchase the Company's common stock at
artificially inflated prices. The plaintiffs further claim that
Messrs. Massimino, Waller, Ouimet and Ord are liable under Section
20(a) of the Act. The plaintiffs seek unspecified amounts in
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, as well as other
relief. On October 29, 2010, another putative class action
complaint captioned Neal J. Totten v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc.,
et al. was filed by the same law firm that filed the Karam matter
described above in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California. The Totten complaint is substantively
identical to the Karam complaint. Several other plaintiffs
intervened in the lawsuit and petitioned the Court to appoint them
to be the lead plaintiffs. On March 30, 2011, the Court appointed
the Wyoming Retirement System and Stichting Pensioenfonds Metaal
en Technieklead as lead plaintiffs, and Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP as counsel for lead plaintiffs, in the consolidated
action. Lead plaintiffs thereafter filed a second amended
consolidated complaint, and the Company moved to dismiss the
second amended consolidated complaint. On January 30, 2012, the
U.S. District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, and
gave the plaintiffs thirty days to file an amended complaint. On
February 29, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint
(the "TAC") in U.S. District Court, and, on March 30, 2012 the
Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
The Company believes the complaints are without merit and intends
to defend itself and its current and former officers vigorously.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Appeal in "Rivera" Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc.'s appeal from a state court order in a
putative class action demand in arbitration captioned Rivera v.
Sequoia Education, Inc. and Corinthian Colleges, Inc., remains
pending, according to the Company's May 4, 2012 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2012.

On May 28, 2008, a putative class action demand in arbitration
captioned Rivera v. Sequoia Education, Inc. and Corinthian
Colleges, Inc. was filed with the American Arbitration
Association. The plaintiffs are nine current or former HVAC
students from the Company's WyoTech Fremont campus. The
arbitration demand alleges violations of California's Business and
Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500, fraud and intentional
deceit, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract and unjust
enrichment/restitution, all related to alleged deficiencies and
misrepresentations regarding the HVAC program at these campuses.
The plaintiffs seek to certify a class composed of all HVAC
students in the Company's WyoTech Fremont and WyoTech Oakland
campuses over the prior four years, and seek recovery of
compensatory and punitive damages, interest, restitution and
attorneys' fees and costs. The Company never operated any HVAC
programs at the Company's WyoTech Oakland campus during its
ownership of that campus. The arbitrator ruled that the
arbitration provision in the former students' enrollment agreement
is not susceptible to class-wide resolution. On November 22, 2011,
a California state court judge refused to confirm the arbitrator's
clause construction decision and remanded the matter to the
arbitrator for further consideration. The Company has appealed the
state court order.  The Company believes the complaint is without
merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against these
allegations.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Settles Claims in "Daniels" Suit in Dallas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., settled claims in the petition
captioned Miesha Daniels, et al. v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc., Rhodes
Business Group, Inc., and Corinthian Colleges, Inc., in Dallas,
Texas, according to the Company's May 4, 2012 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2012.

On September 4, 2009, the Company was served with a petition filed
in Dallas County District Court entitled Miesha Daniels, et al. v.
Rhodes Colleges, Inc., Rhodes Business Group, Inc., and Corinthian
Colleges, Inc. The petition named thirteen former students of
three Dallas-area Everest campuses as plaintiffs and did not seek
certification as a class action. The plaintiffs alleged violations
of Texas' Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act,
breach of contract and fraud related to alleged pre-enrollment
representations regarding credit transfer, quality of education
and outcomes. The plaintiffs sought recovery of compensatory and
exemplary damages and attorneys' fees. The action in Dallas County
District Court was ordered to arbitration, where individual
arbitration demands were filed. Following losses on ten
arbitration awards, the plaintiffs' attorneys informed the Company
they no longer represented a total of approximately one-hundred-
and-fifty current or former students (as they had previously told
the Company), but they reduced their total client count to
thirteen students, upon whose behalf they filed arbitration
demands, bringing the total demands filed to those of the original
thirteen plaintiffs, plus an additional eleven individual students
(other previously filed arbitration demands were administratively
dismissed). Of the first eleven cases in which arbitration awards
have been returned, the Company received a complete defense
verdict in ten cases and the plaintiff received an immaterial
arbitration award in the other case.  Consistent with the
Company's view that these arbitration claims were without merit,
the Company resolved the remaining claims for an immaterial
amount.  Separately, the Company also settled its defamation and
theft of trade secrets cases against the plaintiffs' attorney to
the satisfaction of the parties.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Awaits Ruling on appeal in "Reed" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on its appeal
filed in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Reed, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Florida Metropolitan University, Inc. and Corinthian Colleges,
Inc., according to the Company's May 4, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2012.

On April 20, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Reed, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Florida Metropolitan University, Inc. and Corinthian
Colleges, Inc. was filed in the District Court of Travis County,
Texas. Florida Metropolitan University, Inc. is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company. Plaintiff purports to be a former
student in the Company's Everest University Online operations. The
complaint claims violations of Texas Education Code Sections
132.051(a) and 132.059(a) for alleged failure of Everest
University Online to receive a Certificate of Approval or an
exemption from the appropriate Texas state licensing bodies to
offer online courses in the State of Texas and to register its
admissions representatives with the State of Texas. The plaintiff
seeks to certify a class composed of all persons who contracted to
receive distance education from Everest University Online while
residing in Texas, and seeks damages on behalf of such persons,
pre- and post-judgment interest, declaratory and injunctive
relief, cost of suit, and such other relief as the court deems
proper. On July 26, 2010, the Court ordered the matter to binding
arbitration, and the plaintiff has filed a putative class action
demand in arbitration. The arbitrator has ruled that the
arbitration provision in the former student's enrollment agreement
is susceptible to class-wide resolution, but has not yet addressed
whether a class should be certified. The Company has appealed the
clause-construction decision and the case has been stayed pending
the appeal. On March 6, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit heard oral arguments in this matter. The Company
believes the complaint is without merit and intends to defend
itself and its subsidiary vigorously.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Arbitration Hearings in "Montgomery" Suit Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual arbitration hearings in a putative class action lawsuit
captioned Alisha Montgomery, et al., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. and
Corinthian Schools, Inc. d/b/a Everest College and Olympia
College, are scheduled to commence during the Company's fiscal
quarter ending June 30, 2012, the Company disclosed in its May 4,
2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

On November 23, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Alisha Montgomery, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. and Corinthian
Schools, Inc. d/b/a Everest College and Olympia College, was filed
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Corinthian Schools,
Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. Plaintiffs were
thirty-three individuals who purported to be current and/or former
students of the Company's Medical Assistant Program at the Everest
College campus in Merrionette Park, Illinois. The complaint
alleged breach of contract, violation of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and unjust enrichment,
all related to alleged deficiencies and misrepresentations
regarding the Company's medical assisting program at the
Merrionette Park campus. The plaintiffs sought to certify a class
composed of all persons who enrolled in the Company's Medical
Assisting program at the Everest College Merrionette Park campus
during the four years preceding the filing of the lawsuit, and
sought actual and compensatory damages on behalf of such persons,
costs and attorneys' fees, punitive damages, disgorgement and
restitution of wrongful profits, revenue and benefits to the
extent deemed appropriate by the court, and such other relief as
the court deemed proper. The Company removed the case to federal
court and moved to compel individual arbitrations, which the court
granted. Thirty-one plaintiffs have now filed individual demands
in arbitration. Individual arbitration hearings are scheduled to
commence during the Company's fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2012.
The Company believes these matters are without merit and intends
to defend itself and its subsidiary vigorously.


DELTA PETROLEUM: Federman Sherwood Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
On June 12, 2012, Federman & Sherwood, a law firm representing
investors nationwide, filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado against
certain, current and/or former officers and directors of Delta
Petroleum, Inc., alleging violations of federal securities laws
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934 and SEC
Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, which includes
allegations of issuing a series of material or false
misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which Federman & Sherwood has now expanded to include all
shareholders who purchased common stock from March 11, 2010
through November 9, 2011.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Delta
Petroleum, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during the
expanded Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class. You
may move the Court no later than Monday, June 18, 2012 to serve as
a lead plaintiff for the entire 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, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:

        K. Lynn Nunn
        FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
        10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
        Oklahoma City, OK 73120
        E-mail: kln@federmanlaw.com
        Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com


DJSP ENTERPRISES: Ex-Employees' Class Action Gets Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arlene Satchell, writing for Sun Sentinel, reports that Miami U.S.
District Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. has granted final approval of
the class-action lawsuit involving Plantation-based foreclosure
attorney David J. Stern.

Mr. Stern and co-defendants are accused of violating federal labor
laws when they fired hundreds of workers in late 2010 without
giving them adequate notice as required by law.

In the suit, the ex-employees of the Stern's law office, P.A.,
DJSP Enterprises, Inc., and affiliated foreclosure processing
businesses allege the companies failed to provide 60 days advance
notice mandated by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act.

Mr. Stern's firm collapsed in 2011 after lenders withdrew business
following allegations it had engaged in widespread fraudulent
court filings.

In March, the former employees agreed to a settlement, which was
to establish a $500,000 fund to provide them with pro rata wages.

"Given the challenges presented by the defendants' financial
circumstances, we're pleased to have obtained such meaningful
relief for the Class," Steven Jaffe, an attorney for the employees
said in a statement on June 12.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Awaits Approval of "Freudenberg" Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
E*TRADE Financial Corporation is awaiting court approval of a
settlement entered in a consolidated class action lawsuit filed by
Larry Freudenberg, according to the Company's May 4, 2012 Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2012.

On October 2, 2007, a class action complaint alleging violations
of the federal securities laws was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and its then Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, Mitchell H. Caplan and Robert J. Simmons, respectively,
by Larry Freudenberg on his own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated (the "Freudenberg Action"). On July 17, 2008,
the trial court consolidated this action with four other purported
class actions, all of which were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York and which
were based on the same facts and circumstances. On January 16,
2009, plaintiffs served their consolidated amended class action
complaint in which they also named Dennis Webb, the Company's
former Capital Markets Division President, as a defendant.
Plaintiffs contend, among other things, that the value of the
Company's stock between April 19, 2006 and November 9, 2007 was
artificially inflated because the defendants issued materially
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that the
Company was experiencing a rise in delinquency rates in its
mortgage and home equity portfolios; failed to timely record an
impairment on its mortgage and home equity portfolios; materially
overvalued its securities portfolio, which included assets backed
by mortgages; and based on the foregoing, lacked a reasonable
basis for the positive statements made about the Company's
earnings and prospects. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages in an
amount to be proven at trial, including interest and attorneys'
fees and costs. The parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") on December 17, 2011 to settle these
consolidated actions. Under the terms of the MOU, the Company and
its insurance carriers will pay $79.0 million in return for full
releases. Approximately $10.8 million of the total settlement
figure will be paid by the Company, and was expensed in the year
ended December 31, 2011. This settlement is subject to Court
approval and it has not yet been finalized. The defendants
continue to deny that they committed any violations of law or
breached any fiduciary duty to shareholders.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Court Dismissed "Oughtred" Suit in Feb.
----------------------------------------------------------
A federal court in New York dismissed a class action complaint
filed by John W. Oughtred against E*TRADE Financial Corporation,
according to the Company's May 4, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2012.

On April 2, 2008, a class action complaint alleging violations of
the federal securities laws was filed by John W. Oughtred on his
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company. Plaintiff contends, among other things, that
the Company committed various sales practice violations in the
sale of certain auction rate securities to investors between April
2, 2003, and February 13, 2008 by allegedly misrepresenting that
these securities were highly liquid and safe investments for short
term investing. On December 18, 2008, plaintiffs filed their first
amended class action complaint. Defendants filed their pending
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint on February 5,
2009, and briefing on defendants' motion to dismiss was completed
on April 15, 2009. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages in an amount
to be proven at trial, or, in the alternative, rescission of
auction rate securities purchases, plus interest and attorneys'
fees and costs. On March 18, 2010, the District Court dismissed
the complaint without prejudice. On April 22, 2010, Plaintiffs
amended their complaint. The Company has moved to dismiss the
amended complaint. By an Order dated March 31, 2011, the Court
granted the Company's motion and dismissed the action with
prejudice. On May 2, 2011, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Plaintiffs filed
their brief on August 12, 2011. The Company's responsive brief was
filed October 26, 2011. Plaintiffs' reply brief was filed on
November 21, 2011. Prior to any hearings on the appeal, the lead
plaintiffs in this action accepted the terms of the Purchase Offer
in connection with the North American Securities Administrators
Association ("NASAA") settlement, and this class action was
dismissed with prejudice in February 2012.

On July 21, 2010, the Colorado Division of Securities filed an
administrative complaint in the Colorado Office of Administrative
Courts against E*TRADE Securities LLC based upon purchases of
auction rate securities through E*TRADE Securities LLC by Colorado
residents. On October 19, 2011, E*TRADE Securities LLC and the
Colorado Division of Securities reached an agreement in principle
to settle the Colorado proceeding whereby E*TRADE Securities LLC
will offer to purchase auction rate securities held by Colorado
customers who found themselves unable to sell their securities
after those securities had been frozen in the broader auction rate
securities market. The agreement in principle also included an
agreement with the NASAA whereby E*TRADE Securities LLC will offer
to purchase auction rate securities purchased through E*TRADE
Securities LLC on a nationwide basis and pay a $5 million penalty
to be allocated among 48 states and the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands but exclusive of North Carolina
and South Carolina with whom E*TRADE Securities LLC previously had
reached separate settlements. Under the agreement in principle
each state will receive its allocated share of the $5 million
penalty pursuant to administrative consent cease and desist orders
to be entered into by each state. A Consent Order memorializing
the agreement in principle as it related to Colorado customers was
entered by the Colorado Securities Commissioner on November 16,
2011, and amended on November 23, 2011, whereby E*TRADE Securities
LLC, without admitting or denying the underlying allegations,
agreed to pay an administrative penalty to Colorado of $84,202,
which amount constituted Colorado's share of the total NASAA state
settlement amount of $5 million, and to reimburse the Colorado
Division of Securities' costs associated with the administrative
action in the amount of $596,580. Under the terms of the Consent
Order, E*TRADE Securities LLC will offer to purchase (or offer to
arrange a third party to purchase), at par plus accrued and unpaid
dividends and interest, from eligible investors nationwide their
auction rate securities purchased through E*TRADE Securities LLC,
or through an entity acquired by the Company on or before February
13, 2008, if such auction rate securities have failed at auction
at least once since February 13, 2008 ("the Purchase Offer").
E*TRADE Securities LLC also agreed to identify eligible investors
who purchased auction rate securities through E*TRADE Securities
LLC on or before February 13, 2008, and sold those securities
below par between February 13, 2008, and November 16, 2011, and to
reimburse those sellers the difference between par value and the
actual sales price plus reasonable interest. E*TRADE Securities
LLC agreed to hold open the Purchase Offer until May 15, 2012, and
to various other undertakings set forth in the Consent Order,
including the establishment of a dedicated toll-free telephone
assistance line and website to provide information and to respond
to questions regarding the Consent Order. As of March 31, 2012,
the total amount of auction rate securities held by Colorado
customers was approximately $50,000 and the total amount of
auction rate securities held by E*TRADE Securities LLC customers
nationwide (including Colorado customers) was approximately $17.7
million. The Company recorded a reserve of $48 million during the
year ended December 31, 2011. The reserve represented the
Company's estimate of the current fair value relative to par value
of auction rate securities held by E*TRADE Securities LLC
customers, as well as former customers who purchased auction rate
securities through E*TRADE Securities LLC and are covered by the
Consent Order. The agreement includes the resolution of all
material individual auction rate securities arbitrations and
litigations. The reserve also includes penalties and other
estimated settlement costs.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Roling" Suit
----------------------------------------------------
E*TRADE Financial Corporation continues to defend itself from a
class action lawsuit filed by Joseph Roling, according to the
Company's May 4, 2012 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2012.

On February 3, 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against E*TRADE Securities LLC by Joseph Roling on his
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The
lead plaintiff alleges that E*TRADE Securities LLC unlawfully
charged and collected certain account activity fees from its
customers. Claimant, on behalf of himself and the putative class,
asserts breach of contract, unjust enrichment and violation of
California Civil Code Section 1671 and seeks equitable and
injunctive relief for alleged illegal, unfair and fraudulent
practices under California's Unfair Competition Law, California
Business and Professional Code Section 17200 et seq. The plaintiff
seeks, among other things, certification of the class action on
behalf of alleged similarly situated plaintiffs, unspecified
damages and restitution of amounts allegedly wrongfully collected
by E*TRADE Securities LLC, attorneys' fees and expenses and
injunctive relief. The Company moved to transfer venue on the case
to the Southern District of New York; that motion was denied. The
Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in part and denied
the motion to dismiss in part. The Court bifurcated discovery to
permit initial discovery on individual claims and class
certification. Following preliminary discovery, Plaintiffs moved
to amend their verified complaint for a second time, to assert new
allegations and to add a plaintiff. The Company filed its
opposition to this motion on December 27, 2011. On March 27, 2012,
the Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment and
granted the Company's motion to dismiss. However, the Court
allowed plaintiffs to seek a new class representative and
permitted limited discovery on a narrow issue as to when the fee
increase was posted on the Company?s website in 2005. The Company
intends to vigorously defend itself against the remaining claims
in this action.


FOX SEARCHLIGHT: Ordered to Turn Over Intern Contact Information
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Packel, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federal
judge on June 12 ordered Fox Searchlight Pictures Inc. to provide
two former interns who are pursuing a putative class action
against the company for misclassifying workers as interns with
contact information for a set of the company's other interns.

Eric Glatt and Alexander Footman, who worked as unpaid interns on
the set of the Oscar-nominated film "Black Swan," sued the film
production studio in September 2011, claiming that the company had
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.


GAMESTOP INC: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
On June 5, 2012, the employment law firm Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit against Gamestop, Inc.
alleging Gamestop committed several California Labor Code
violations including systematically neglecting to pay their
employees for all hours worked.  Matheson, et al. vs. Gamestop,
Inc., Case No. 37-2012-00098353-CU-OE-CTL is currently pending in
the San Diego County Superior Court for the State of California.

The Gamestop employees alleged in the class action Complaint they
were required to clock out of Gamestop's timekeeping system and
continue working off the clock to fulfill their daily tasks.
Additionally, the Complaint alleges that Gamestop "consistently
does not allocate enough labor hours such that there is not enough
time for the employees to complete their required duties within
the allocated labor hours."  As a result, the Complaint claims
that these employees were systematically denied compensation for
the actual number of hours worked.

Furthermore, the Complaint asserts that the Gamestop employees
were regularly denied meal and rest breaks, and there was no
policy in place to compensate employees for missed meal or rest
breaks.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges that, "Plaintiff and
California Class Members are required by [Gamestop] to work alone,
or with an employee that cannot be left alone in [a Gamestop]
store, for the first five (5) hours of their scheduled shift."

The managing partner of the law firm, Norman B. Blumenthal, stated
"companies push for off-the-clock work because it's an easy way to
enhance corporate profits.  This is done at the expense of the
employee and it is illegal."

The employment law firm Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik represent
many California workers in class action lawsuits against their
current and/or former employers for various wage and hour
violations.


HUANG SHUN: Faces Class Action for Sexual Harassment
----------------------------------------------------
Purna Nemani at Courthouse News Service reports that a waitress
claims in a federal class action that her bosses forced her and
other Chinese women into prostitution and threatened to kill her
family when she reported it.

Dong Jie Song sued Huang Shun Corp. for sexual harassment and
civil rights violations in this U.S. territory, whose governmental
status is similar to Puerto Rico's.  Businesses on the chain of 15
Pacific islands north of Guam hire immigrant contract workers from
Asia and other Micronesian islands.

Ms. Song claims she was hired as a karaoke waitress but was
"coerced" into working as a prostitute.

"Although there were other karaoke waitresses, only the Chinese
waitresses were coerced to work as prostitutes," the complaint
states.

"Defendant paid Chinese employees less than employees of other
national origins.

For example, Filipino employees were paid bi-weekly and minimum
wage, as well as overtime; whereas Chinese employees were paid
once a month without overtime or minimum wage.  Chinese waitresses
were only paid commission; whereas Filipina waitresses were paid
hourly."

Ms. Song adds that "Chinese employees were expected to work
unlimited hours."

Chinese immigrant workers in the South Pacific are subjected to
frequent harassment, physical attacks and employment
discrimination, one such worker told Courthouse News in an
interview.  This woman, who now works legally in the United
States, said her family, and other Chinese immigrants in the
Philippines, were attacked during economic hard times "because
Chinese are such hard workers."

In her complaint, Ms. Song states: "Defendant subjected Chinese
employees to beatings and verbal abuse, whereas non-Chinese
workers were not."

She claims the abuse became physical, and that "Song gave a
statement and was prepared to testify as a witness in support of a
Chinese co-worker who filed a case regarding abuse against
defendant."

The complaint continues: "Song assisted three of her Chinese co-
workers who filed a case against defendant complaining of abuse
and unpaid wages.

"In retaliation, defendant told her and her Chinese co-workers
that they would not be able to survive and get food and he
threatened to kill them on or about September 17, 2009.

"In retaliation, defendant also beat up one of the co-workers and
threatened to kill Song's family.

"Song was constructively discharged on September 22, 2009 because
she complained and testified to authorities about the abuse."

Ms. Song seeks injunctive relief, back pay, future pay and
punitive damages, for herself and other affected class members.

She is represented by Colin Thompson of Saipan.


HULU: Judge Dismisses Most of Claims in VPPA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
magistrate judge tossed most claims from a class that said Hulu
illegally discloses their viewing data to third parties.

In their amended class action complaint, six Hulu subscribers said
the video site "repurposed" its browser cache so a marketing
analyst service called KISSmetrics could store their private data.

The class claimed Hulu also shared their private viewing choices
with Facebook, Google Analytics, and other online market research
and ad companies.

"Hulu's online privacy policy is misleading in that it does not
disclose its use of aggressive, rogue exploits of plaintiffs' and
class members' computer software to engage in widespread tracking
and information sharing," the complaint states.

The class claims that Hulu's actions "are so outside the
boundaries of reasonable expectations that even industry experts
had not previously observed these exploits 'in the wild,' that is,
in actual use on websites available to the public."

The class claimed they suffered losses from the illegal data
exploitation because their personal information has economic
value.

Hulu sought dismissal, which Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler
largely granted in an order on June 11.

Much of the dispute centered on the federal Video Privacy
Protection Act (VPPA), enacted in 1988 after a Washington, D.C.,
newspaper published the video rental history of Supreme Court
nominee Robert Bork.

In a filing in May, Hulu claimed that the class had abandoned six
of its seven claims dealing with privacy, computer fraud and
negligence, and that the court should dismiss those claims with
prejudice.

The other claim under the VPPA should be dismissed for a number of
reasons, O'Melveny & Myers attorney Randall Edwards wrote.  He
said the plaintiffs cannot prove injury and thus cannot establish
standing, because they have not explained which videos they
watched, or how their information was disclosed to third parties.

The VPPA permits disclosure to third parties as an "ordinary
course of business," the brief states.

Judge Beeler deferred ruling on the motion to dismiss the VPPA
claim, to determine if the class has standing under that law.

Judge Beeler found the plaintiffs had proved they had standing to
sue, but Hulu argued that the Supreme Court decision in Edwards v.
First American Corporation will resolve the issue in its favor.

In Edwards, the Supreme Court considered whether a purchaser of
real estate settlement services had standing to sue under Article
III of the Constitution.  The Court heard arguments in the case in
November 2011.

Judge Beeler ordered Hulu to submit a supplemental brief by July
19, and the class to submit a response by Aug. 2.

She scheduled more arguments for Aug. 23, and gave the parties the
option to alter the schedule depending on the timing of the
Edwards ruling.

A copy of the Order Dismissing Claims Two Through Seven, Ordering
Further Briefing on Standing Only, and Setting Further Hearing in
In Re Hulu Privacy Litigation, Case No. 11-cv-03764 (N.D. Calif.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/13/Hulu.pdf


ILLINOIS: GOP Activists Mull Class Action
-----------------------------------------
Chicago Now reports that GOP activists say they will file a legal
challenge to the Illinois Election Code, contending it violates
the equal protection of Republican voters and denies them the
right to vote for their party leadership.

"Illinois election law treats Republican and Democrat voters
differently," says longtime GOP activist William J. Kelly.  "Why
is that Democrat primary voters directly elect their party
leadership, but Republican voters do not? With this lawsuit, we
are going to challenge the constitutionality of that law."

Under 10 ILCS 5/7-8, the Illinois Republican Party is currently
run by a 19-member State Central Committee, one member from each
of Illinois' congressional districts -- none of whom are directly
elected.

But Mr. Kelly says that, in the late 1980s, two party bosses,
Republican Gov. James Thompson and party chair Al Jourdan
engineered a sudden change to the Illinois election code to
consolidate their power, stripping GOP voters of the right to vote
for their party leadership.  Illinois Republicans had that right
for more than a century.

Conservatives argue that this has resulted in a lack of any
accountability to GOP primary voters and party corruption.

To date, state GOP bosses have successfully thwarted any attempt
to return to direct elections both legislatively with the passage
of SB600 and SB35 and, most recently, at the Illinois Republican
Convention.

At the Illinois Republican convention last week, state GOP leaders
in an unelected 11-7 committee decision determined that delegates
would not be permitted a floor vote on "direct elections" -- a
move that would have restored voting rights to the Republican
electorate.

Mr. Kelly points out that convention rules are determined by
unelected party representatives and committee members are also
appointed by unelected party officials -- which bolsters the legal
argument to restore equal treatment of Republican voters in the
political process.

Republican voters have also complained that they were denied
delegate credentials and conservatives are now questioning the
validity of the convention proceedings in general.

"In 1724, Catholics in Ireland were denied the right to vote.
Prior to 1870, Black Americans were denied the right to vote.
American women marched in the streets for decades for the right to
vote," says Mr. Kelly.  "But in 2012, Illinois Republicans do not
have the right to vote for their party leadership.

Mr. Kelly was involved with another federal legal challenge to
voting rights.  In 1995, his political action committee filed a
lawsuit against the First and Fourth Congressional Districts,
charging that they were gerrymandered and unconstitutional and
reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

"We lost 6-3 in that decision," said Mr. Kelly of that suit.  "But
we fought.  Hopefully, we will have better luck this time around.
The law is definitely on our side."

If you are a Republican voter and would like to join the class
action lawsuit, e-mail williamjpkelly@gmail.com


LINCOLN COUNTY, WA: Employees File Wage Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Northwest Cable News reports that Lincoln County employees say
they're being cheated out of wages. On June 12, they filled a
million dollar class action lawsuit against the county.

Local Attorney Nick Kovarik is representing the Lincoln County
workers and says, "This is the first time the government has
blatantly violated Washington's minimum wage law."

Mr. Kovarik says the rock crushers pick-up work vehicles at the
county shed in Davenport, then drive to quarries miles away.  The
drive time is excluded from their hourly wage.  "An hour and ten a
day that they're not getting paid for."

Workers do get a monthly payment of 150 dollars for travel time
but it doesn't add up to what they'd make hourly.  Mr. Kovarik
calls it blatantly illegal.  "The government cannot use cheating
workers out of their wages to make up for budget shortfalls.
There are other ways to do it than make these hard working
citizens not got paid minimum wage and not get paid overtime
frankly it's ridiculous."

The claim is for $500,000 in missed wages, but it doubles to
around a million when the damages and attorneys fees are included.

The public works director and county commissioners declined to
comment about the suit until they had more time to read the
complaint.


MODUSLINK GLOBAL: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc. on behalf
of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock
of the Company during the period from September 26, 2007 through
June 8, 2012.  The complaint brings forth claims for violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

ModusLink provides supply chain management services and solutions.
On June 11, 2012, the Company announced that it would need to
restate financial results going back to 2007 and that its Audit
Committee investigation found that certain client contracts were
consistently misaligned with the Company's practice of retaining
volume discounts.  Additionally, the Committee found instances
where vendor costs incurred were marked up to clients inconsistent
with contracts.

Concurrently with these stunning announcements, the Company also
disclosed that the Securities and Exchange Commission had launched
an inquiry into these matters, and that ModusLink's President and
Chief Executive Officer, Defendant Joseph C. Lawler, was
immediately resigning from his positions with ModusLink and the
Company's Board of Directors. In addition, the Company also
announced the immediate departure of William R. McLennan,
President, Global Operations for ModusLink.

In reaction to the Company's announcements, ModusLink's stock
price plunged 34.74% to close at $2.78 on June 11, 2012.

You may obtain a copy of the complaint and join the class action
at http://www.saxenawhite.com
If you purchased ModusLink stock between September 26, 2007 and
June 8, 2012, inclusive, you may contact Joe White or Marc Grobler
at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights and interests.

If you purchased ModusLink common stock during the Class Period of
September 26, 2007 through June 8, 2012, inclusive, and wish to
apply to be the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your
behalf must be filed with the Court no later than August 11, 2012.
You may contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding
the appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class
action.  Please note that you may also retain counsel of your
choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class
member.

Saxena White P.A., located in Boca Raton, specializes in
prosecuting securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf
of institutions and individuals.

Contact: Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
         Marc Grobler, Esq.
         Saxena White P.A.
         2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
         Boca Raton, FL 33431
         Telephone: (561) 394-3399
         E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
                 mgrobler@saxenawhite.com
         Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com


OGLETREE DEAKINS: Maricopa County Files Class Action Over Billing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Cassens Weiss, writing for The ABA Journal, reports that
Maricopa County has taken a new tack in its billing dispute with
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak and Stewart.

A counterclaim filed by the county is a would-be class action
filed on behalf of any public sector clients that have been
overbilled by the firm.  According to the countersuit, the county
has identified 36 instances in which Ogletree classified
nonattorney law grads as associates for billing purposes. The
countersuit cites the county's belief -- without detailing any
specific evidence -- that Ogletree has "billed all of its public
sector clients in a similar fashion."

"It appears that Ogletree's practice, nationwide, is to enter
nonattorneys into its personnel database under the classification
of 'associate' when they begin work following law school, but
before they have passed the bar, and before they become admitted
to practice law," the suit says.

The counterclaim also accuses Ogletree of funneling some of its
legal work to 10 subcontractor law firms that sometimes billed at
rates surpassing the amounts allowed in Ogletree's contract with
the county.

The class action claims fraud and breach of contract.  Maricopa
County also alleges breach of fiduciary duty in a portion of the
countersuit dealing with its own claims.

Ogletree has billed the county about $5 million for its legal work
from 2007 to 2010, including work done on behalf of Sheriff Joe
Arpaio and former County Attorney Andrew Thomas; the county has
paid about $4 million.

Ogletree recently settled a suit claiming the county defamed it in
a termination letter alleging that the firm possibly inflated its
legal bills.  After dropping the suit, Ogletree refunded $51,000
to the county and admitted it had charged attorney rates for an
employee who had not yet received her law license, according to
prior coverage.  Ogletree blamed the overcharge on a coding
mistake.

The counterclaim alleges Ogletree also billed the county for a
second law grad who had not yet passed the bar.

According to the counterclaim, Ogletree did not include the
charges that were subject to the refund on documents that it
turned over to the county.  The counterclaim says Ogletree has
failed to cooperate in an audit despite a ruling requiring it to
turn over nonprivileged information.

"When the county has communicated with Ogletree that documents
that it provided were incomplete and/or false," the counterclaim
says, "Ogletree has, through its counsel, John Doran, responded
that the county was 'jousting at windmills' and that the
[county's] concerns were 'all foam and no beer.'"

Mr. Doran, a partner at Sherman & Howard in Phoenix, is
representing Ogletree in all its disputes with the county.  In an
interview with the ABA Journal, he calls the class action
counterclaim "truly frivolous," "futile," a "litigation stunt,"
"preposterous" and "the most bizarre class action in history."

Mr. Doran says Ogletree voluntarily paid Maricopa County for the
misclassified law grad "even though the county still owes us
almost a million dollars," and the firm offered to reimburse the
county if it found any other errors.  Rather than asking for
additional reimbursement because of the second misclassified
lawyer, he said, the county chose to file "a truly frivolous class
action."

"We have made clear to the county that these were inadvertent," he
said of the mischaracterized law grads.  "It is not a practice, it
is not a policy, it is not a procedure.  It is a coding error."

Mr. Doran said he has worked at other large law firms and it is a
common practice to bill unlicensed law grads as associates.  The
issue in the Maricopa County case, he said, is whether such
billing violates the contract.

Mr. Doran also said Ogletree did nothing wrong when it hired
subcontractor law firms because Maricopa County approved the
engagements and the billing rates.

Asked for a possible motive for the class action, Mr. Doran said
he had to be cautious in his response, and then listed "components
that go to motivation."  One component, he said, is that the
county's lawyers -- David Selden and Julie Pace -- are former
Ogletree partners, "an awkward dynamic."  Another component, he
said, was that the county represented officials and departments
adverse to the county, including the sheriff's and county
attorney's office. There was "bitter internecine warfare" between
the county and those offices even before Ogletree was hired, he
said.

"I think this class action is futile on a dozen different levels,"
Mr. Doran told the ABA Journal.  "They're not going to get
anything out of the class action.  It is simply another litigation
stunt, and we've seen lots of litigation stunts from the county."


ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Class Action in Penn.
----------------------------------------------------------
An investor in NASDAQ:ORRF shares filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against
Orrstown Financial Services over alleged Violations of Federal
Securities Laws in connection with certain financial statements.

Investors who purchased Orrstown Financial Services (NASDAQ:ORRF)
securities pursuant and/or traceable to its Registration Statement
and Prospectus issued in connection with its offering of common
stock on March 24, 2010, and/or purchased Orrstown Financial
Services (NASDAQ:ORRF) securities on the open market between March
24, 2010 and October 27, 2011, have certain options and there are
strict and short deadlines running.  Deadline: July 24, 2012.
NASDAQ:ORRF investors should contact the Shareholders Foundation
at mail@shareholdersfoundation.com or call +1(858) 779 - 1554.

According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges that defendants
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities
Act of 1933.  Specifically the plaintiff alleges that the
Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with its offering of common stock on March 24, 2010 for
the March 2010 Offering were allegedly negligently prepared and
allegedly failed to disclose material information about Orrstown
Financial Services' loan portfolio, underwriting practices, and
internal controls.

In October 2011, Orrstown Financial Services reported its
financial results for the third quarter of 2011.  Among other
things, Orrstown Financial Services, also said that the Federal
Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, one of the Bank's primary
regulators, refused to authorize Orrstown's requested declaration
of quarterly dividends.

According to the complaint, The Federal Reserve took this step to
prevent the Company from engaging in an unsafe and unsound banking
practice which would further deplete the Company's capital base.
Furthermore, Orrstown Financial Services disclosed that it had
$9.4 million in charge-offs for the third quarter of 2011, and
that the Company faced "decreases in asset quality ratios,
including elevated levels of nonaccrual loans, restructured loans
and delinquencies."

Orrstown Financial Services' Net Income of $16.58 million for 2010
turned into a Net Loss of $31.96 million in 2011.

Shares of Orrstown Financial Services (NASDAQ:ORRF) fell from over
$28 in April 2011 to as low as almost $8 in November 2011 and
closed on June 12, 2012, NASDAQ:ORRF closed at $7.75 per share.

Those who purchased Orrstown Financial Services (NASDAQ:ORRF)
securities pursuant and/or traceable to its Registration Statement
and Prospectus issued in connection with its offering of common
stock on March 24, 2010, and/or those who purchased Orrstown
Financial Services (NASDAQ:ORRF) securities on the open market
between March 24, 2010 and October 27, 2011, have certain options
and there are strict and short deadlines running.  Deadline:
July 24, 2012. NASDAQ:ORRF investors should contact the
Shareholders Foundation.

Contact: Shareholders Foundation, Inc.
         Trevor Allen
         3111 Camino Del Rio North - Suite 423
         92108 San Diego
         Telephone: +1-(858)-779-1554
         E-mail: mail@shareholdersfoundation.com


SUN VALLEY: Faces Class Action Over Golf Club Membership
--------------------------------------------------------
Greg Moore, writing for Idaho Mountain Express, reports that a
class-action suit has been filed against Sun Valley Co. over its
decision last year to open its recently acquired Elkhorn golf
course to lodging guests.  The course had been part of a private
club.

Two Ketchum couples, Harold and Penelope Coe and Alan and Wendy
Pesky, filed the suit in 5th District Court on May 31 on behalf of
everyone who bought Elkhorn Golf Club memberships in 2003-04, when
the course was bought by CG-Elkhorn Golf, and remained members
until about 2011.  The complaint states that that class includes
at least 100 people.

The complaint contends that CG-Elkhorn recruited potential members
with a promise that it would maintain the course as a members-only
club, and that if the club were ever sold, the buyer would take
title subject to a "membership plan."  According to the complaint,
CG-Elkhorn used the slogan "Privacy. Privilege. Perfection."
The complaint states that the club began construction of
condominiums and a clubhouse, as promised, but couldn't sell all
the condos and lacked the funds needed to maintain the golf
course.  Sun Valley Co. bought the course in July 2011.

In an interview, plaintiffs' attorney Ed Lawson said CG-Elkhorn's
contract with the members was legally passed on to Sun Valley Co.
when it acquired title to the property.

According to the complaint, Sun Valley Co. told club members
during a meeting on July 18, 2011, that it would open the course
to guests at the Sun Valley Lodge.  A Sun Valley representative
informed them that only 6,400 rounds were played on the Elkhorn
course annually, while about 20,000 were played on the Sun Valley
course.

The complaint states that Sun Valley Co. informed plaintiffs in a
letter dated Jan. 3, 2012, that it had changed its position and
would operate the Elkhorn course as a semi-private club.  By then,
the plaintiffs had joined the Valley Club, the complaint states.
The suit seeks an unspecified amount n damages.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Judge Cuts Stueve Siegel's Attorney Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Koepp, writing for Kansas City Business Journal, reports that
an appeals court on June 12 cut in half Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP's
attorney fees to just more than $3 million in a class-action
lawsuit.

The Kansas City firm represented plaintiffs who sued Volkswagen
Group of America Inc. in Jackson County Circuit Court in 2005 for
defective window regulators on certain models.  The case settled
in May 2010, giving each Missouri class member $75 plus repair
costs.

Only 177 of more than 22,000 class members submitted claims,
yielding a total payout of $125,261.

The trial court awarded Stueve Siegel $6,174,640 in fees for work
billed as high as $650 an hour, plus expenses of $550,000.

The amount of fees was determined in part by the potential benefit
to class members, calculated at $23 million.  In its ruling
Tuesday, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, said the
fee award also should take into account the actual payout because
only a fraction of any class is likely to make a claim.

Stueve Siegel had a similar case against Volkswagen in New Jersey
where the potential settlement value was more than $50 million.

                           *********

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  * * *