---

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

           Wednesday, December 8, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 242

                             Headlines

BEDFORD COUNTY: Faces Class Action Over Bail Bonding System
BIRMINGHAM, AL: Board of Education Sued Over SRO Program
BLUE SHIELD: California Appeals Court Dismisses Class Action
CADENCE FINANCIAL: Settles Shareholder Class Action
CHINA EDUCATION: Accused in Calif. Suit of Misleading Investors

CORKT MCMILLIN: Judge Certifies Class in Liberty Station Suit
ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
DEL MONTE: D&Os Sued Over Sale of Company for Inadequate Price
HEALTHMARKETS INC: Sued Over Fraudulent Marketing Scheme
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Agrees to $5MM LaserJet Settlement in C.D. Calif.

HIGHMARK INC: Sued Over Alleged Insurance Premium Conspiracy
LTX-CREDENCE: Being Sold to Verigy for Too Little, Suit Claims
MERSCORP INC: Foreclosed Fulton Homeowners File Class Action
NOVA SCOTIA: Judge Allows Health Care Class Action to Proceed
PETROKAZAKHSTAN INC: Insider Trading & Tipping Claims Due Feb. 24

QUANTCAST: Settles Class Action Over Cookies for $2.4 Million
REALOGY CORP: Faces Class Action Over "Bogus" Health Insurance
RJ REYNOLDS: Faces Class Action Over Light Cigarette Advertising
RINO INTERNATIONAL: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
ROYAL BANK: Investors Pledge to Continue Class Action

SUNWEST MANAGEMENT: Three Law Firms Agree to Pay $52.5 Mil.
TOBACCO COMPANIES: Appealing $270 Million Class Action Award
VERIZON COMMS: Faces Class Action Over Wage & Hour Law Violations
VISION AIRLINES: Class in Hazard Pay Suit Wins $4.5 Mil. Award
WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Home Loan Procedures

WINTER BEE: To Pay Penalty Over 2009 Recall of Hooded Sweatshirts
ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Surgeons Request Knee Implant Recall


                             *********

BEDFORD COUNTY: Faces Class Action Over Bail Bonding System
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Mosely, writing for Shelbyville Times-Gazette, reports a
federal class action lawsuit has been filed against the county, a
deputy and others by a man who claims he was severely beaten at
the jail and that the rights of thousands of others have been
violated by the local bail bonding system.

Ricky Robertson, individually and on behalf of others, is suing
Bedford County, Deputy Kevin Roddy and John Does over alleged
violations of the 4th, 8th and 14th amendments to the U.S.
Constitution.

The class action part of the suit is claiming that Robertson and
countless others have had their due process rights violated
because bail amounts in Bedford County are set in "an arbitrary
manner."

Sheriff officials referred inquiries about the suit to county
attorney John T. Bobo, who was out of town on Friday and
unavailable for comment.

However, federal court records indicate that no summons was
received with the initiating documents, therefore, summons have
not been issued against any of the defendants.

Beating claims

Mr. Robertson was arrested on Nov. 28 of last year for disorderly
conduct and public intoxication and was released on $1,500 bond,
according to jail records.

In the suit, Mr. Robertson claims that he was in a verbal
altercation with his son-in-law, who was on the phone with someone
about him owing back child support.  The person on the other side
of the phone called police upon hearing the argument between
Mr. Robertson and the son-in-law.

Sheriff's deputies, including Mr. Roddy, arrived at
Mr. Robertson's house and he allowed them in and both men were
questioned.  The suit claims that a few minutes after Mr. Roddy
and other deputies "stepped outside to confer among themselves,"
they asked Mr. Robertson to step outside, at which point he was
arrested for public intoxication.

Mr. Robertson claims he protested, but otherwise complied and was
transported to the county jail, informing the arresting officers
along the way that he suffered from an anxiety disorder.  When
they arrived at the jail, Mr. Robertson claims that Mr. Roddy
and/or the unknown deputies took him from the patrol car and
forcefully pushed him into jail by lifting his handcuffed hands
high above his shoulders from the back.

The more Mr. Robertson protested about the pain, the higher they
lifted his handcuffed hands, the suit claims, and by the time
Robertson entered the jail "he was in severe pain due to a
previous injury to his shoulder."  The suit claims that when
deputies at the jail told Robertson to empty his pockets, he
removed his wallet "and pounded it onto the table in front of
him."

"Without warning, the deputies present in booking whose names are
presently unknown, proceeded to severely beat, kick, knee and
punch the plaintiff and to push his face into the wall
repeatedly," the suit states, claiming that Robertson lost
consciousness.

The suit also claims that the deputies who did not participate in
the alleged beating watched and did nothing to stop it, and when
Mr. Robertson woke up and asked for medical treatment, the
deputies refused and laughed at him.

No report taken

Mr. Robertson claims he eventually contacted a bail bondsman, who
took him to the hospital after seeing the results of the alleged
beating.  X-rays were allegedly taken, as well as color photos of
the alleged beating by hospital staff.

Other claims made by Mr. Robertson's suit is that the staff at the
hospital called the sheriff's department to report the alleged
beating, but was told that Mr. Robertson could complain about it
to the judge at his next court hearing.

"No deputies, detectives or investigators responded to the
hospital to take any report of the assault or to gather evidence
or question witnesses," the suit claims.  "Nothing further was
ever done about it."

Mr. Robertson also claims that as he inquired with several
attorneys in the Bedford County area, "certain unknown deputies"
would allegedly pull him over and ask for ID, but would never
charge him or issue a citation for any traffic offense.  He sees
this as intimidation and "remains intimidated to this day."

He claims that as a result of the beating, he received massive
bruises throughout his body, broken ribs and a finger, ringing in
his ears, soft tissue damage, rotator cuff damage, "other physical
damage that will necessitate surgery," aggravation of his anxiety
disorder, emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment and an
ongoing fear of the police and nightmares, as well as "past and
continuing need for medical treatment with related medical
expenses and counciling for emotional injuries."

The suit also claims that Mr. Robertson's bail was set "based on
some rule of thumb or preset bail list" and that he was never
questioned about his ties to the community, how long he has lived
here, family connections, employment or other factors.

Suit demands

Count one of the suit is against the county, with the second count
against Mr. Roddy and the John Does for the alleged beating,
violation of constitutional rights, failing to provide medical
attention, and beating Mr. Robertson "for the only purpose of a
show of authority and for the intentional purpose of maliciously
and sadistically causing pain."

The third count of the suit covers assault and battery allegations
against Mr. Roddy and the unnamed deputies, with count four
stating that Bedford County is liable for the actions of its
employees.

But count five is the class action part of the suit, which claims
that the county has approved of a system where a person's bail is
set "based on something other than the statutory elements or an
individualized determination of the need for bail and set in an
arbitrary manner" which violated Robertson's constitutional rights
"and others similarly situated to him."

The suit claims that all charges carry a monetary bail requirement
which is a violation of due process and that the system "serves to
enrich bail bondsman who are practically guaranteed a steady
stream of relatively risk-free revenue through the process of
requiring all detainees to post bonds for monetary bail."

As a result, Mr. Robertson and others have "had their
Constitutional rights against the setting of excessive bail and
against having their liberty deprived without due process of law
violated."

The class action allegations state that thousands of people are
arrested in Bedford County and have their bail set or denied "by
the arbitrary system" used by the county each year.

Mr. Robertson is demanding two permanent injunctions -- one
requiring training on the appropriate use of force against inmates
and on probable cause for public intoxication, with the other
requiring the setting of bail "in a consistent manner that
comports with the requirements of due process."

He is also asking for a jury trial, compensatory and punitive
damages against the county and individual defendants to be
determined at trial, and reasonable attorney fees, as well as cost
of the suit and further relief "as the court deems just and
proper."

Mr. Robertson is represented by Murfreesboro attorney Jerry
Gonzalez.


BIRMINGHAM, AL: Board of Education Sued Over SRO Program
--------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Dalzell Walsh at Courthouse News Service reports that in a
federal class action, students and parents accuse the Birmingham
Board of Education and Police Chief of "creating a police state
within the city's public high schools" by allowing police officers
to "brutalize" students "with chemical weapons," including Mace,
as a way to "enforce basic school discipline."  Schools call
police to handle even "minor incidents of childish misbehavior,"
and "school personnel not only watch, but sometimes even celebrate
when schoolchildren are Maced," according to the complaint.
Ninety-six percent of the children in Birmingham public schools
are black.

The class action was filed on behalf of seven students of
Birmingham City Schools "who have been brutalized with chemical
weapons and other excessive force while attempting to obtain an
education."

The 61-page complaint, filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center,
claims the defendants have placed police officers, known as School
Resource Officers, in every city school.

It says the "original goal and purpose of the SRO Program was to
protect the safety of the students. . . . But in practice, SROs
frequently became involved -- both on their own initiative and at
the request of school personnel -- in minor incidents in which
safety was not an issue.  In some instances, it is the SROs
themselves who threaten the safety they are charged to protect."

The students say that "SROs handle misbehavior traditionally
managed by the school, such as children who utter expletives or
refuse to comply with directives."  But rather than protect
students, the SROs are "quick to resort to pepper spray aka Mace
or Freeze + P. School personnel not only watch but sometimes even
celebrate when schoolchildren are Maced," the complaint states.

Chemical weapons are particularly dangerous to children with
asthma, and the "Department of Health and Human Services has
reported an especially high prevalence of asthma among African
Americans, particularly among African-American children,", who
account for 96 percent of the city's public school students,
according to the complaint.

"Physical injuries are not the only negative consequences that
result from the use of pepper spray in Birmingham high schools.
As a result of the defendants' unconstitutional policy and
conduct, the plaintiffs and countless other BCS students have been
conditioned to fear and distrust school and law enforcement
officials.  Plaintiffs' attachment to school has been undermined,
one has dropped out, and all have been robbed of the sense of
security and safety that children should experience while
attending schools."

All seven plaintiff students say they were attacked with chemical
weapons for various infractions, from fighting in the schoolyard
to cursing at a teacher.  They say that "because Mace is used so
frequently and so indiscriminately in Birmingham's public high
schools, each plaintiff -- and each member of the class -- faces a
real and substantial risk of future and repeated injury."

The class claims that police officers working as school resource
officers "have abandoned their primary mission -- to protect
student safety -- in order to become stools of school personnel
who have abdicated their disciplinary responsibilities."

"This phenomenon was acknowledged publicly by interim
Superintendent Barbara Allen," the class says.

Citing a March 22, 2009 article in the Birmingham News, the
complaint states:

"'Other school system aren't arresting kids for small things; they
handle it from within,' Ms. Allen said.  'We call the police.

"She said SROs too often are called upon to handle small fights,
disruptive behavior and dress-code violations, such as sagging
pants."

The class seeks injunctions and punitive damages for civil rights
violations, use of excessive force, assault and battery, and the
tort of outrage.

The Birmingham Board of Education is the lead defendant.  The
other defendants, all sued in their individual and official
capacity, are School Superintendent Craig Witherspoon, Police
Chief A.C. Roper, Officers J. Nevitt, A. Clark, R. Tarrant, and M.
Benson, and Assistant Principal Anthony Moss.

A copy of the Complaint in J.W.,et al. v. Birmingham Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 10-cv-03314 (N.D. Ala.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/03/PepperSchool.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ebony Glenn Howard, Esq.
          Mary C. Bauer, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          400 Washington Avenue
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: 334-956-8200


BLUE SHIELD: California Appeals Court Dismisses Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Westlaw reports that in dismissing a putative class-action
lawsuit, a California appeals court has ruled that a health care
service plan did not act in bad faith when it failed to inform
members that different policy designations would save them money
on their premiums.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal said the company had no duty
to disclose such information.

Michael and Victoria Levine sued Blue Shield of California in the
San Diego County Superior Court.  Michael, an attorney,
represented the couple in the class-action lawsuit.

The Levines claimed Blue Shield was obligated to inform them that
their health care premiums would have cost less if they designated
Victoria instead of Michael as the primary insured and added
Michael's two children to a single family plan instead of keeping
them insured under separate policies.

Michael added Victoria to his Blue Shield health plan after they
were married in 2007.  At that time he was in his early 40s, and
Victoria was 25, the opinion says.

The couple said they would have saved about $500 per month on
their premiums if the younger Victoria had been named primary
insured.

They asserted bad faith, fraudulent concealment and unjust
enrichment.

Blue Shield filed a demurrer, arguing that the Levines' claims
fell short because the insurer had no duty to instruct them
regarding the most cost-effective way to structure their coverage.

Blue Shield also objected that Michael's status as class counsel
and class representative prevented the lawsuit from proceeding as
a class action.

The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, and
the Levines appealed.

The appeals court affirmed.

The Levines have not cited "any case in which a court has
concluded that the covenant of good faith and fair dealing
requires an insurer to disclose to a purchaser of insurance the
lowest price that the insurer is willing to accept for insurance
coverage," the panel said.

The panel further rejected the Levines' argument that a special
relationship existed between themselves and Blue Shield.

This relationship existed, the Levines claimed, because by the
time Michael added Victoria to his health plan:

    * Michael was already a plan member.

    * The insurer had access to the family's health history.

    * Michael had authorized the company to deduct premiums from
      his bank account.

"The amount of money that an insurer is willing to accept in
exchange for coverage is not information that implicates the
special relationship between an insurer and its insured because it
does not relate to coverage or the processing of claims," the
court said.

The panel also held that Blue Shield had no statutory duty under
Insurance Code Section 332 to disclose how the couple could have
saved money on their health care premiums.

Section 332 provides that a party to an insurance contract "shall
communicate to the other, in good faith, all facts within his
knowledge which are or which he believes to be material to the
contract and as to which he makes no warranty, and which the other
has not the means of ascertaining."

"We are loathe to interpret a long-existing statute that does not
expressly require such a disclosure in a manner that would impose
a broad new duty that is in derogation of the common law," the
panel said.

Plaintiffs were represented by Michael L. Levine of San Diego.
Defense attorney was Brad W. Seiling of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips
in Los Angeles.

Levine v. Blue Shield of California, No. D056578, 2010 WL 4369797
(Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 5, 2010).


CADENCE FINANCIAL: Settles Shareholder Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
The Commercial Dispatch reports Cadence Financial Corp. has
tentatively settled a lawsuit accusing the directors of the
Starkville-based bank of misleading shareholders for personal
profit.

In a statement filed last week with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the bank said that it agreed to reveal new details of
how it sought new investors and potential buyers for the bank.

The suit, filed in New York on Oct. 28, revolved around the agreed
sale of Cadence to Community Bancorp LLC in September.  The deal
pays shareholders $2.50 cash per share, while an alternative deal
with Trustmark Corp. would have provided shareholders with
Trustmark stock valued at $2 per share.

Cadence shareholders will vote to approve the sale of Cadence to
Community Bancorp at a meeting in Starkville on Dec. 9.

The bank was criticized in the lawsuit for using Keefe, Bruyette,
Woods, Inc., which was Cadence's financial adviser, to perform the
in-house evaluation of whether or not to sell the company, and
failing to disclose how many banks and investors had been
contacted by Cadence about a sale.

According to Cadence's filing on the lawsuit settlement, Cadence
began approaching private investors in July who might have been
interested in providing capital or acquiring the bank.  Twelve
potential investors were contacted, the bank said.

KBW also contacted five banks "that would, based on their
financial and regulatory capital positions, be able to consummate
a transaction with Cadence," the bank said.

The class action suit, brought by Cadence shareholder RSD Capital,
alleged Cadence Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Lewis Mallory
Jr., President and Chief Operating Officer Mark Abernathy, Cadence
Financial Corp., Community Bancorp LLC, and 10 additional members
of Cadence's board of directors concealed details in a proxy
statement to public shareholders in order to complete "a
transaction which protects and advances the interests of Cadence's
management team who are using this opportunity to benefit
themselves."

Donna Rupp, communications manager for Cadence, said in October
that the suit was "without any merit."

Cadence's directors were accused of selling the company because it
was unable to repay the government $44 million received through
the Troubled Asset Relief Program.  However, the suit stated
Mallory and Abernathy stand to receive three times their base
salaries and one year's worth of medical premiums after turning
over control, but will remain employed if the previous payments
violate regulations.

In its filing Thursday, Cadence says that KBW used a "Selected
Peer Group Analysis" formula to find investors and buyers, based
on companies with "shared similar business characteristics,"
including their location, types of customers served, and the size
of the companies' businesses.


CHINA EDUCATION: Accused in Calif. Suit of Misleading Investors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that another for-
profit school has been accused of exaggerating its profits to dupe
investors into buying its stock at inflated prices.  China
Education Alliance, which claims to teach English online and in
China, faces a shareholder class action in Los Angeles Federal
Court.

Named plaintiff Vinnie Apicella claims the China Education
Alliance and its officers and directors grossly misrepresented the
company's financial performance.

The defendants told investors that company revenue climbed from
$8.3 million in 2006 to $36.9 million in 2009, while it told the
SEC that its net income increased from $2.63 million in 2006 to
$15.2 million in 2009, according to the complaint.

For the first nine months of 2010 China Education Alliance,
reported revenue of $33.8 million with a net income of $13
million.

But Mr. Apicella says all those filings were false and misleading.

"Financial statements which CEU filed in its annual reports with
China's State Administration of Industry and Commerce for its main
operating subsidiary, Harbin Zhong He Li Da Education technology
Inc., reported revenue of merely $612,800 for fiscal 2008, $23,500
for fiscal 2007, and $54,500 for fiscal 2008," according to the
complaint.

He claims that Kerrisdale Capital, a market research firm, issued
a report on Nov. 29 this year accusing the company of financial
fraud.

The report cited a number of red flags: that the alliance's Web
sites did not work and were full of broken links and html errors,
that the sites received only a fraction of the visitor traffic
generated by comparable sites, and that after hiring an
investigator to visit its training center in Harbin, China,
Kerrisdale found it barren of desks and teaching equipment,
according to the complaint.

By this time, the misrepresentations had inflated the price of the
alliance's securities to $7 a share, Mr. Apicella says.

"As truth of the company's materially false and misleading
statements entered the market, the price of the company's stock
plummeted, falling to less than $3 per share," the complaint
states.

The company has denied the allegations in the Kerrisdale report.
But Mr. Apicella seeks class damages from the company and its
officers Xiqun Yu, Susan Liu and Zibing Pan.

A copy of the Complaint in Apicella v. China Education Alliance,
Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-09239 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/06/ChinaEd.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          333 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

                    Rosen Law Firm's Statement

The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. Thursday disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the
common stock of China Education Alliance, Inc. (NYSE: CEU - News)
during the period from March 31, 2009 to November 29, 2010,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover investors'
damages from violations of federal securities laws.

To join the China Education class action, visit the Rosen Law
Firm's Web site at http://www.rosenlegal.com/or call Laurence
Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you
may also email lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action.  The case is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California as case no.
CV10-9239.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION.  UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE.  YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN
AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

The Complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
against China Education Alliance and certain of its officers and
directors for misrepresenting the Company's financial performance.
The Complaint alleges that contrary to the Company's annual
reports filed with the SEC for fiscal 2008, which reported $24.9
million of revenue, an annual report for the Company's main
operating subsidiary filed with the Chinese authorities reported
less than a million of revenue for 2008.  This discrepancy, along
with other accounting inconsistencies, and contradictions about
the Company's online education and training center operating
segments, has raised red flags of fraud.  When this adverse
information was released to the market on November 29, 2010 the
price of China Education Alliance stock fell substantially
damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 31, 2011.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, New York 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Toll Free: 1-866--767-3653
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com

You may also visit the firm's Web site.

The Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.


CORKT MCMILLIN: Judge Certifies Class in Liberty Station Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew T. Hall, writing for SignOnSanDiego, reports San Diego
Superior Court Judge Richard Strauss formally certified Liberty
Station resident Bonnie Mann's case against Corky McMilllin
Companies as a class action lawsuit at a hearing Friday, upholding
his tentative ruling from Thursday night.

What's next? Both sides will presumably begin preparing for a
trial though no trial date has been set.  A settlement is also
possible.

Lawyers on both sides were not available for comment Friday
afternoon.

Ms. Mann said she was pleased by the class-action certification.

"I feel that fairness prevailed because everyone in Liberty
Station and Point Loma is affected by The Rock Church," she said.
"We deserve to be heard and to be compensated."

Per the judge's order, the class includes "all home owners who
purchased homes from Defandants McMillin-NTC 129, LLC; McMillin-
NTC 80, LLC; McMillin-NTC 138, LLC; and Corky McMillin
Construction Services. Inc. in the residential community of
Liberty Station after The Rock Academy and Church applied for a
permit on June 4, 2003 and before it occupied the Liberty Station
premises on July 1, 2007."

Ms. Mann said the class could total more than 200 people because
100 of 348 original homeowners have sold houses already and others
may opt out for various reasons, including the fact that some
attend services at The Rock Church.

Church spokeswoman MaryAnne Pintar e-mailed a statement after 5
p.m. that said: "While the Rock is not a party in this lawsuit,
the church will of course cooperate with both sides should
information be needed from us while the facts are being gathered.
We also will continue to do our very best to address concerns
expressed by our neighbors."

McMillin executive Kim Elliott did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.


ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a St. Louis judge has approved a
settlement in a class-action lawsuit against Enterprise Rent-A-Car
over vehicles it sold that lacked side airbags, and the deal isn't
sitting well with car owners.

Under the agreement, people who bought the cars that were once
part of the company's rental fleet will receive $100 vouchers
toward Enterprise rentals or car purchases.  Car owners say the
vouchers don't make up for the lost value of their cars.  Four law
firms who brought the lawsuit will split $1.3 million.

Most of the affected cars were 2006 through 2008 models of
Chevrolet Impalas in which the airbags weren't installed upon
Enterprise's request, even though they were standard safety
features.  Dropping the option, at $200 per vehicle, saved
Enterprise $15 million over three years, the Kansas City Star
reported.

The St. Louis-based company agreed to give the vouchers to anyone
who owned the vehicles as of March 2010, other than dealers and
wholesalers trying to sell them.  Owners also will get yellow
stickers warning that there are no side airbags in the vehicles.

Attorney Stuart C. Talley, who was among a group lawyers that
tried to intervene and derail the settlement, called it "one of
the worst settlements I've ever seen."  He said the case was an
example of the "rubber stamp" nature of many class-action suits.

"The attorneys get paid off a lot and class members get next to
nothing," Mr. Talley said.

The Kansas City Star newspaper reported in 2009 that General
Motors allowed Enterprise and other large fleet buyers to "delete"
head-protecting side airbags at the factory.  Once the cars --
mostly Chevrolet Impalas and Cobalts, along with some HHRs and
Buick LaCrosses -- were no longer used for rentals, they were sold
to consumers or auctioned to automobile dealers across the
country.

The vehicles passed safety tests.  Federal standards do not
require vehicles to have side airbags.

Anthony J. Majestro, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, agreed that
the final settlement fell short of what he had anticipated early
in his investigation, but said lawyers found no evidence in the
marketplace that the absence of side airbags hurt resale value.

St. Louis County Circuit Judge Maura B. McShane said the case was
"by no means a slam dunk for the plaintiffs."

"The Court finds those terms are approved as fair, reasonable and
adequate and in the best interests" of the owners, Judge McShane
wrote in his order.

The settlement does not release Enterprise or GM from liability if
someone is injured in a broadside crash, but it does restrict
class members from suing Enterprise over questions about their
cars' value, or from demanding that the airbags be installed.

Judge Talley filed affidavits from experts that said the lack of
airbags reduced a vehicle's value by at least $2,650.

"Clearly, $100 coupons are insufficient to adequately reimburse
consumers whose vehicles are worth thousands less," Judge Talley's
team argued.

The judge rejected claims from the intervening lawyers last month
who claimed "fraud and collusions" between the two sides working
out the agreement.


DEL MONTE: D&Os Sued Over Sale of Company for Inadequate Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivian Golombusky, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Del Monte Foods Company, et al., Case No. 6027- (Del.
Ch. Ct. November 30, 2010), seeks to enjoin the proposed
acquisition of publicly owned shares of Del Monte common stock by
Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P., Vestar Capital Partners and
Centerview Partners -- Sponsors -- and their wholly owned
subsidiary, Blue Merger Sub Inc., for $19.00 in cash per share in
a transaction valued at approximately $5.3 billion, including the
assumption of roughly $1.3 billion in net debt.

Ms. Golumbusky alleges that in pursuing the unlawful plan to
facilitate the acquisition of Del Monte by the Sponsors for gross
inadequate consideration and through a flawed process, each of the
defendants (namely the directors and officers of the Company, the
Sponsors and Blue Merger Sub) violated applicable law by directly
breaching or aiding the other defendants' breaches of their
fiduciary duties.

Del Monte is one of the country's largest producers, distributors
and marketers of branded food and pet products for the U.S. retail
market.

KKR is a leading global alternative asset manager with
$55.5 billion in assets under management as of September 30, 2010.
Vestar is a leading international private equity firm specializing
in management buyouts and growth capital investments with
$7 billion in assets under management.  Centerview operates a
private equity business and an investment banking advisory
practice focused exclusively on making investments in US middle
and upper-middle market consumer businesses, with roughly
$500 million in commited capital.

Ms. Golombusky says that the individual defendants, separately and
together, in connection with the proposed transaction, breached
their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders by engaging
in self-dealing and obtaining personal benefits, including
personal financial benefits, not shared equally by Plaintiff or
the other shareholders of Del Monte common stock.

Ms. Golombusky states that the $19.00 per share consideration is
unfair and grossly inadequate given the Company's future growth
prospects, Wall Street analysts' recent estimates of Del Monte
stock value of $22.00 per share, and because the intrinsic value
of Del Monte's common stock is materially in excess of the amount
offered.  The Complaint says the proposed transaction is also
unfair because the individual defendants agreed to certain onerous
and preclusive deal protection devices that effectively ensure
that no competing offers will emerge for the company, including:

  -- a "no shop" provision prohibiting the members of Del Monte's
     Board from taking any affirmative action to comply with their
     fiduciary duties to maximize shareholder value, including
     soliciting alternative acquisition proposals or business
     combinations.

  -- a "no solicitation" provision barring the Board and any
     Company personnel from attempting to procure a price in
     excess of the amount offered by the Sponsors.

  -- a matching rights provision whereby the Company must promptly
     notify the Sponsors of any unsolicited competing bidder's
     offer.  Then, if and only if the Board determines that the
     competing offer constitutes a "Superior Offer," the Sponsors
     are granted three business days to amend the terms of the
     Merger Agreement to make a counter-offer that the Company
     must consider in determining whether the competing bid still
     constitutes a "Superior Offer."

In addition to the no-shop and matching rights provisions, the
Merger Agreement includes a steep $60,000,000 termination fee that
will all but ensure that no competing offer will be made.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
          The Brandwine Building
          1000 West Street, 10th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984-3800

               - and -

          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330


HEALTHMARKETS INC: Sued Over Fraudulent Marketing Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Coston at Courthouse News Service reports that a woman says
she was left with a septic kidney stone and a pile of unpaid bills
after she was duped into buying worthless medical insurance, and
that the company that sold it to her had just settled a class
action that accused it of doing what it continues to do.  She sued
Healthmarkets and its subsidiaries, including The Mega Life and
Health Insurance Co. and Americans for Financial Security, in
Federal Court.

Sandra Means claims she was victimized by the defendants'
"elaborate and fraudulent nationwide marketing scheme . . . to
sell medical insurance.  Defendants prey on individual consumers
and small business owners who work hard to make ends meet and who
cope with difficulties in obtaining quality medical insurance at
affordable prices."

Ms. Means says she was roped into it by Americans for Financial
Security, which is controlled by Healthmarkets.  She also sued
Specialized Association Services Ltd., and a John Doe insurance
agent.

Ms. Means says American's John Doe agent pitched the policy to her
at her home in 2005, and did not mention the intertwined nature of
the defendants.

"Doe promised that the American-endorsed policy underwritten by
Mega Life was a major medical policy that would pay up to $1
million after only a small deductible," the complaint states.

"Doe promised this was possible as defendants had special
contractual relationships with medical providers requiring them to
accept, as payment in full, payments made by defendants. This was
untrue.  In truth, the policy was a limited policy paying limited
benefits," and there were no such "special contractual
relationships," Ms. Means says.

The complaint continues: "The sales pitch that plaintiff fell for
is the same sales pitch more than 100,000 U.S. insurance consumers
have fallen for in joining American, and paying membership fees,
in order to obtain so-called negotiated affordable group rates on
medical insurance.  Defendants settled a class action that
encompasses persons who purchased insurance from Aug. 1, 1998 to
May 14, 2004.  However, defendants continue the same wrongful acts
and still fail to properly disclose the relationship between
defendants."

The complaint claims this "illegal and fraudulent marketing
scheme" is pushed nationwide with "a multimillion-dollar marketing
campaign".

She seeks punitive damages for fraud, breach of contract, breach
of faith, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional
misrepresentation, and asks leave amend the complaint as a class
action.

A copy of the Complaint in Means v. Healthmarkets, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-00485 (N.D. Fla.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/03/MegaHealth.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Debra Renee Sherrer Baggett, Esq.
          AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
          17 East Main Street, Suite 200
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 916-7450
          E-mail: rbaggett@awkolaw.com


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Agrees to $5MM LaserJet Settlement in C.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company has agreed to a $5 million settlement in
In re HP LaserJet Printer Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-00667 (C.D.
Calif.), and, on Oct. 12, 2010, the Court gave preliminary
approval to the settlement and certified a settlement class of
purchasers and owners of certain Laserjet printers.

To be a class member, you must have purchased the printer for your
own use or received it as a gift in the United States (and not for
resale or distribution).  A list of printers at issue in this
settlement is available at:

  https://www.hplaserjetprintersettlement.com//Documents/AffectedModelsList.pdf

Opt-out notices and any objections to the settlement pact must be
filed Jan. 4, 2011.

Claims for $7 and $13 e-credits must be filed by Feb. 15, 2011.

This lawsuit is a combination of two separate class action
lawsuits filed against HP:

    * Baggett v. HP -- This case claims that HP designed certain
of its color LaserJet printers and print cartridges to prevent
further printing after a certain amount of use even though toner
remains in the print cartridge that could be used to print
additional pages. HP denies all claims.

    * Young v. HP -- This case involves different HP color
LaserJet printers than those at issue in the Baggett lawsuit, but
makes similar allegations and further alleges that HP failed
properly to disclose that the relevant color LaserJet print
cartridges include an "override" mechanism that permitted a user
to continue printing as long as desired after any interruption or
termination of printing caused by toner level in the print
cartridge. HP denies all claims.

The Settlement Administrator can be reached at:

         HP Inkjet Settlement Administrator
         P.O. Box 5270
         Portland, OR 97208-5270
         Facsimile: 877-341-4607
         E-Mail: info@HPLaserJetPrinterSettlement.com

Counsel for the Plaintiff Class is:

         Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
         Richard L. Kellner, Esq.
         KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP
         644 South Figueroa Street
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Telephone: (213) 217-5000
         E-mail: rlk@kbklawyers.com

              - and -

         Gregory E. Keller, Esq.
         Darren T. Kaplan, Esq.
         Chitwood, Harley Harnes LLP
         2300 Promenade II
         1230 Peachtree Street, N.E.
         Atlanta, GA 30309
         Telephone: (404) 873-3900

              - and -

         Patrick McNicholas, Esq.
         McNicholas & McNicholas
         10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1400
         Los Angeles, CA 90024
         Telephone: (310) 474-1582

Counsel for HP is:

         Kristofor T. Henning, Esq.
         MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
         1701 Market Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         E-mail: Khenning@morganlewis.com
                 Fcorrado@morganlewis.com


HIGHMARK INC: Sued Over Alleged Insurance Premium Conspiracy
------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Lord, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports a
Whitehall-based real estate firm filed a federal lawsuit Thursday
charging that a conspiracy between Highmark Inc. and the
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center raised its insurance
premiums.

The complaint seeks class action status and comes three days after
an appeals court resuscitated an existing lawsuit claiming anti-
competitive activity by the region's leading insurer and dominant
hospital system.

Royal Mile Co., in its complaint, contends that UPMC refused to
contract with major, national health insurance companies or
otherwise helped to marginalize their participation in the local
market.  It charges that Highmark, "in exchange," eliminated a
low-cost insurance product that had resulted in business for rival
hospital system West Penn Allegheny Health System and paid West
Penn less for services than it paid UPMC.

The result, according to the lawsuit, is "artificially inflated
premium costs." It says "hundreds of thousands" parties are
affected.

Many of its claims echo those West Penn made in a court complaint
that was dismissed last year.  On November 29, 2010, the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed U.S. District Judge Arthur J.
Schwab's dismissal of that case, sending it back to him for fuller
consideration.

Andrew Stone, one of the attorneys for Royal Mile, said the
appeals court's findings regarding the local healthcare and
insurance markets helped to spur the filing.

A UPMC spokesman said the lawsuit "does nothing more than
piggyback on West Penn Allegheny's earlier lawsuit, which is
without any legal or factual basis.  Nothing has been presented to
support the allegations or to suggest anything other than lawful,
unilateral, pro-competitive conduct by UPMC."

Highmark had not seen the lawsuit and declined comment.

Royal Mile is owned by the family that built Caste Village,
according to its Web site.  Mr. Stone said it employs about 30
people.


LTX-CREDENCE: Being Sold to Verigy for Too Little, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim LTX-
Credence Corp. is selling itself too cheaply to Verigy Ltd., for
$438 million, or $8.55 a share, in Santa Clara County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Khan, et al. v. LTX-Credence
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1-10-CV-188773 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Santa Clara Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/03/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
          Leigh A. Parker, Esq.
          WEISS & LURIE
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard, 23rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: 310-208-2800
          E-mail: jlurie@weisslurie.com
                  lparker@weisslurie.com


MERSCORP INC: Foreclosed Fulton Homeowners File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Rosenblum and Matthew Cardinale, writing for Atlanta
Progressive News, report that on October 15, 2010, a class action
lawsuit was filed on behalf of foreclosed homeowners in Fulton
County who had their mortgage title transferred to MERS, an entity
that is alleged to routinely engage in the fraudulent recording of
deeds, in Fulton County Superior Court.

The case is called Rollins vs Mortgage Electronic Recording
Systems, Inc. also known as MERSCORP or MERS.

Dustin Rollins is an affected homeowner, who filed on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated persons.  David Ates is the
attorney representing the class.

The judge is Melvin Westmoreland.

The lawsuit argues that MERS has no legal right to foreclose on
the properties, because MERS is not a lender, nor is MERS a
servicing agent.

The lawsuit also states that MERS is foreclosing, without having
produced the mortgage note, which would show they have a right to
foreclose.

Rollins v. MERSCORP Inc. is a class action suit, which accuses
MERS of wrongfully foreclosing, based on the fact that MERS had no
legal right to foreclose in the first place.

Rollins v. MERSCORP Inc. hopes to reverse the previously
foreclosed properties, and if the lawsuit is successful, this
could be a precedent for future lawsuits.

With Georgia being a non-judicial foreclosure state, the lawsuit
is important because it brings an issue before the court which
would otherwise not be reviewed by the court.

The lawsuit, however, does not include households who have not
foreclosed, including those currently facing foreclosure.  It does
not address the overall title questions impacting all the
homeowners with their home titles held by MERS, including those
who have not fallen behind on payments.

The Fulton County class action lawsuit is just part of an
onslaught of class actions lawsuits filed around the country.

An estimated sixty percent of mortgages in the US have MERS on
title.

According to author Christopher L Peterson, MERS is a shell
company, with few employees, that has no legal interest in our
properties.

The lawsuit claims MERS is a foreign-owned company that is not
registered as a Georgia corporation with the Secretary of State's
Office.

The lawsuit claims MERS is wrongfully foreclosing on millions of
homes, clouding the title, while avoiding millions of dollars in
county recording fees.

As previously reported by Atlanta Progressive News, MERS was
created for the purpose of making the transfer and sale of loans
cheap and easy.  Unfortunately, as Peterson states, this is not
legal, and when one separates a loan from a deed, by eliminating
the need to record transfers, this clouds the title, and destroys
the legal tracking system, which has caused massive legal
problems.

Up until a few years ago, people used to be able to go down to the
county and trace the title of a property, but today it is nearly
impossible to trace the title because of MERS.

MERS shareholders, board of directors, and members are some of the
very entities, that received bailouts, and contributed to the
current US economic crisis.  MERS shareholders include
organizations such as AIG, Bank of America, Chase Home Mortgage,
CitiMortgage, Fannie Mae, First American Title, Freddie Mac, GMAC,
HSBC Finance Corporation, Merryll Lynch, the Mortgage Bankers
Association, and Wells Fargo.

Many of these same companies made billions by packaging risky
mortgages, giving them AAA ratings, selling them for a profit, and
then betting that the loans would default.

The MERS system was created to avoid recording fees, while they
transferred these loans over and over, causing the current
economic crisis.

As previously reported by APN, banks and financial gambling
institutions were literally transferring mortgages via Excel
spreadsheet.

Peterson claims MERS may have robbed counties across the US of
millions maybe billions of dollars in past and future recording
fees.

There is an epidemic of wrongful foreclosures, mortgage fraud, and
countless homeowners are being thrown out of their homes, for no
good reason.

Peterson warns those who are fortunate enough to pay off their
mortgage, they may not have good title.  For those who are paying
their mortgages, they could be paying money, only to find out the
entity they are paying to is not the legal noteholder.

These lawsuits may take years to settle.  The companies are
quickly seeking to lobby for the passage of federal legislation,
to make MERS a legal way of doing business.

Meanwhile, county attorneys do have discretion to sue for past and
current recording fees, and to make sure counties start receiving
fees on all transfers.


NOVA SCOTIA: Judge Allows Health Care Class Action to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Jackson, writing for TheChronicleHerald.ca, reports hundreds
and perhaps thousands of Nova Scotians who paid their medical
costs while in nursing homes are a step closer to having their day
in court to argue that the province should pay that money back.

Justice David MacAdam of Nova Scotia Supreme Court signed a
certification order on Nov. 29 allowing a class action against the
province to proceed.

He had previously ruled in May that the matter could go ahead as a
class action, but the province made further arguments.

The lawsuit was first launched in 2005 by Joan Morrison, then 73,
and her husband Elmer, who has since died.  It was on behalf of
all people who paid for health care in nursing homes from Feb. 1,
2001, to Jan. 1, 2005.

Ms. Morrison paid more than $150,000 over three years for her
husband's medical and boarding costs in the home.

In all, 180 people have signed on to the case.  Making it a class
action means everyone who paid medical costs during the time in
question is part of the lawsuit.

The claim against the Health Department alleges that the former
practice of charging nursing home residents for their medical care
and dividing the assets of married couples in order to pay for it
violated several provincial and federal laws, as well as the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Halifax lawyer Ray Wagner, the lead lawyer in the case, said he is
not sure how much money could be at stake, and the amounts would
vary widely from person to person.

The lawsuit includes people who paid medical costs in the period
from 2001 to 2005 who are still alive, as well as spouses or
estates of those who have since died.

The province is reviewing the judge's order, said Health
Department spokesman Brett Loney.

Premier Darrell Dexter, who led the fight to end the practice of
charging nursing home residents for medical costs while in
opposition, said he is concerned about the potential liability of
taxpayers.

"At that time, I never insisted that the government should assume
a liability and pay back money that had been paid," he said.  "I
simply said that the policy was wrong, and that from a policy
perspective, the government should be changing its policy.

"The idea that there's a suit is worrisome. The idea that there
could be a significant liability to the province is also
worrisome."

Mr. Wagner said he thinks the lawsuit could go to trial in a year
or year and a half if the province doesn't appeal the judge's
certification.


PETROKAZAKHSTAN INC: Insider Trading & Tipping Claims Due Feb. 24
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In 2007, class action lawsuits were commenced in Ontario and
Alberta against 1000128 Alberta Ltd., CNPC International (Canada)
Ltd., China National Oil and Gas Exploration and Development
Corp., CNPC International Ltd. and China National Petroleum
Corporation.  The Plaintiffs in the actions allege that the
Defendants engaged in insider trading and "tipping" relating to
the common shares of PetroKazakhstan Inc. and participated in an
unlawful conspiracy to engage in insider trading and "tipping"
relating to the common shares of PKZ, contrary to statutory and
common law.

On July 12, 2010 the parties to the class actions executed a
Settlement Agreement which provides that the Defendants will pay
CDN$9,990,000.  The balance of this fund after payment of Court-
approved attorneys' fees and expenses and the costs of settlement
administration, including the costs of printing and mailing
notices will be divided among all eligible Class Members.  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.

Class Members will be eligible for compensation pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement if they timely submit a complete Claim Form,
including any supporting documentation, with the Administrator.
Class Members will have until February 24, 2011, to submit a Claim
Form.  In order to be eligible to receive compensation pursuant to
the settlement, a Class Member must submit a Claim Form, including
trading information that demonstrates that the Class Member sold
common shares of PKZ during the specified Class Period, to the
Administrator by the deadline for submission of claims.
Additional information is available at
http://www.petrokazakhstansettlement.com/which is maintained by
Gilardi & Co. LLC.

The Courts in charge of the case are the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice and the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, and the actions
are known as West Coast Soft Wear Ltd. v. 1000128 Alberta Ltd. et
al, Court File No. 53272CP and William Ball Wheeler v. 1000128
Alberta Ltd. et al, Court File No. 0701-01410.  The law firm of
Siskinds LLP is counsel to the plaintiff in the Ontario class
proceeding.  The law firm of Abells Regan LLP is counsel to the
plaintiff in the Alberta class proceeding.


QUANTCAST: Settles Class Action Over Cookies for $2.4 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Singel, writing for Wired.com, reports online tracking firm
Quantcast has agreed to pay $2.4 million to settle a class action
lawsuit alleging it secretly used Adobe's ubiquitous Flash plug-in
to re-create tracking cookies after users deleted them.

More than $1 million of the settlement will go to fund privacy
groups chosen by the plaintiffs, and 25% will go to the lawyers
who filed the suit.  It's unlikely that any money will go to the
class, since it essentially includes every internet user in the
U.S.

UC Berkeley researchers first noted the behavior in August 2009,
calling the behavior "zombie cookies," since unique ids handed out
by Quantcast would return in a user's browser even after deleting
the company's cookie.  Quantcast is used by thousands of sites to
measure the number of unique visitors and to get information on
the kinds of people visiting their site -- athletic, older,
interested in food, etc.

The company's clients include of the net's biggest Web sites
including ESPN, Hulu and MTV.com.

"We chose to settle the litigation to bring clarity and certainty
to our customers and to avoid the burden and cost of further
litigation," the company said in a blog post announcing the
proposed settlement, which will have to be approved by a federal
court judge in Central California.

The announcement comes just days after federal regulators called
for browser makers and online ad firms to collaborate to create a
"Do Not Track" browser feature that does not rely on cookies or a
centralized opt-out list.  In announcing the recommendation, the
FTC specifically said it was working with Adobe to address abuses
of its Flash technology.

Quantcast undid the respawning code within 24 hours of Wired.com's
report on the research, and promises in the settlement not to use
Flash "to counteract any computer user's decision to either
prevent or delete HTTP cookies.  The lead researcher on the
original study, Ashkan Soltani, has been helping the Wall Street
Journal in its ongoing series on web tracking.

The federal suit was filed in July 2010 by Joseph Malley, a Texas-
based lawyer who also played key roles in other high profile
privacy lawsuits, including a $9.5 million settlement earlier this
year from Facebook over its ill-fated Beacon program and a
settlement with Netflix after the company gave imperfectly
anonymized data to contestants in a movie recommendation contest.

The suit also targeted a wide swath of the net's top Web sites,
including MTV, ESPN, MySpace, Hulu, ABC, NBC and Scribd, which
were sued in federal court on the grounds they violated federal
computer intrusion law by using Quantcast's technology.  The
proposed settlement releases those companies from the lawsuit, as
well.

Unlike traditional browser cookies, Flash cookies are relatively
unknown to web users, and they are not controlled through the
cookie privacy controls in a browser.  That means even if a user
thinks they have cleared their computer of tracking objects, they
most likely have not.

Adobe's Flash software is installed on an estimated 98 percent of
personal computers, and has been a key component in the explosion
of online video, powering video players for sites such as YouTube
and Hulu.

Web sites can store up to 100 kilobytes of information in the
plug-in, 25 times what a browser cookie can hold.  Sites such as
Pandora.com also use Flash's storage capability to pre-load
portions of songs or videos to ensure smooth playback.

QuantCast was using the same user ID in its HTML and Flash
cookies, and when a user got rid of the former, Quantcast would
reach into the Flash storage bin, retrieve the user's old number
and reapply it so the customer's browsing history around the net
would not be cut off to its tracking system.

A similar suit is still pending against an ad firm called
SpecificMedia.

All modern browsers now include fine-grained controls to let users
decide what cookies to accept and which to get rid of, but Flash
cookies are handled differently.  These are fixed through a web
page on Adobe's site, where the controls are not easily understood
(there is a panel for Global Privacy Settings and another for Web
site Privacy Settings -- the difference is unclear).  In fact, the
controls are so odd, the page has to tell you that it is the
control, not just a tutorial on how to use the control.

Those who are looking to have more control over their cookies in
all forms can find some help in two add-ons for Firefox:
BetterPrivacy and Abine.


REALOGY CORP: Faces Class Action Over "Bogus" Health Insurance
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Green, writing for Las Vegas Sun, reports one of the largest
international operators and franchisors of real estate brokerages
faces a national class-action lawsuit charging it offered health
insurance to U.S. agents and brokers that in some cases turned out
to provide no coverage.

The suit was filed Friday in U.S. District Court for Nevada
against Realogy Corp. of Parsippany, N.J., which has brokerages
under the Century 21, Coldwell Banker, Coldwell Banker Commercial,
ERA, Sotheby's International Realty and Better Homes and Gardens
Real Estate brands.  Under these brands, there are some 14,700
franchised and company-owned offices with about 267,000 sales
associates.

Friday's lawsuit says that in July 2007, Realogy sponsored major
medical and limited-benefit health insurance programs and then
marketed them to some 250,000 brokers, sales associates and their
families.

The suit says Realogy represented that the plans were available in
all 50 states, but that the three companies Realogy represented
would provide the insurance were not licensed in every state.

"Plaintiffs and class members paid premiums to the Realogy-
sponsored health programs based upon in large part upon Realogy's
sponsorship of the programs," but some later found their medical
bills went unpaid "because the Realogy-sponsored health programs
were not legitimate insurance programs," the lawsuit charges.

Officials at Realogy couldn't immediately be reached for comment
about the allegations.

The lead plaintiffs in Friday's suit are Christopher Bulen and
Janith Martinez, sales associates at what was called Century 21
Mountain Properties in Reno.  That brokerage was purchased in 2008
and its name was changed to Coldwell Bankers Select.  The suit was
filed by attorneys with the Reno law firm Leverty & Associates.

It typically takes some time for judges to decide whether to
certify such cases as class actions.

In the suit, Mr. Bulen and Ms. Martinez said they chose a health
plan offered through Realogy and supposedly provided by a company
called Association of Franchise and Independent Distributors LLC
(AFID) of Springfield, Ohio, and that they paid monthly premiums
of $618.

But after a June accident, Mr. Bulen required trauma care and
medical providers could not reach AFID to file a claim and have
now billed Mr. Bulen for more than $53,000, the suit says.

The lawsuit alleges Realogy induced the agents into buying "bogus"
insurance and asserts claims of negligence; breach of a fiduciary
relationship and constructive fraud; negligent misrepresentation,
deceptive trade practices and other counts.

Realogy, in its 2007 announcement that it was offering insurance
to agents and brokers, appeared to have been addressing a longtime
issue in the real estate industry: most agents are independent
contractors, and brokerages typically don't offer insurance
benefits.

The National Association of Realtors in 2009 announced it was
offering affordable "limited medical insurance" to Realtors called
Realtors Core Health Insurance.

At the time, the NAR said more than 25 percent of Realtors had no
health insurance and that only 17 percent of real estate firms
offered health care coverage for independent contractor agents.

In their lawsuit Friday, the Reno agents noted their insurer,
AFID, had been the subject of cease and desist orders from
regulators in North Carolina, Ohio and other states for
"conducting the unauthorized practice of insurance."

Orders in 2008 and 2009 by the North Carolina Department of
Insurance said AFID and a company called Real Benefits Association
(RBA) of Basking Ridge, N.J., had jointly marketed a health
insurance program called "The One Advantage Plan."

The orders said it was sometimes referred to as "One Advantage
Program," "Privilege Care," "Per4mance Plus" plan and other names
and that it purportedly provided major medical, limited medical
and other benefits.

AFID also offered optional vision, dental, life and disability
insurance, the orders said.

The orders said some of these benefits supposedly were "composed
of several indemnity contracts fully insured by American
International Group (AIG), Guarantee Trust Life (GTL) and American
Insurance Company (ACE)" -- but North Carolina investigators found
AIG, GTL and ACE had nothing to do with AFID and RBA.

Some of the benefits were said to be offered by "Affinity Group
Benefits Association Inc." through "Beema Insurance Co.," but
North Carolina regulators said Beema was not authorized to do
business in that state at the time.

The North Carolina agency also found representations by RBA that
it was a federally-recognized labor union a "sham" aimed at
evading state regulation of its insurance offerings.

AFID and its owner Paul Olzeski consented to the entry of a North
Carolina order finding they had sold insurance when they should
have known that the insurance was not provided through an
authorized insurer.

A copy of the Complaint in Bulen, et al. v. Realogy Corporation,
et al., Case No. 10-cv-00755 (D. Nev.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/12/06/Realogy.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Vernon E. Leverty, Esq.
          Patrick R. Leverty, Esq.
          William R. Ginn, Esq.
          LEVERTY & ASSOCIATES LAW CHTD.
          832 Willow Street
          Reno, NV 89502
          Telephone: (775) 322-6636


RJ REYNOLDS: Faces Class Action Over Light Cigarette Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reports two residents of Minnesota are
suing the tobacco giant R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, in a suit
seeking class action on behalf of all people in the state who have
smoked the company's 'light' brands of cigarettes.

Rather than claiming ill health as a result of using the tobacco
products, the plaintiffs are alleging they were deceived by the
company's advertising and marketing, specifically that which
related to the implications of smoking 'light' cigarettes.  The
plaintiffs also claim that the cigarette manufacturer engaged in
deceptive and unfair business practices around the promotion of
these products in a variety of ways.


RINO INTERNATIONAL: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. reminds investors of the January 14, 2011
lead plaintiff deadline in the class action the firm filed on
behalf of investors who purchased the common stock of RINO
International Corporation during the period from March 31, 2009 to
November 11, 2010, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit is
seeking to recover damages for investors from violations of
federal securities laws.

To join the RINO class action, visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/or call Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip
Kim, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email
lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

The Complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against RINO and certain of
its officers and directors for misrepresenting the Company's true
financial performance.  The Complaint alleges that contrary to the
Company's annual report filed with the SEC for fiscal 2009 which
reported $193 million of revenue, the Company's annual report
filed with the Chinese authorities reported only $11 million of
revenue for 2009.  This discrepancy, along with other accounting
inconsistencies, and questionable transactions between RINO and
its management, has raised red flags and prompted an internal
review.  The Complaint asserts that when the market learned of
this adverse information, the price of RINO stock dropped damaging
investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 14, 2011.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact:

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Toll-Free: 866-767-3653
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com

You may also visit the firm's Web site.

No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class
is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain
one.  You may choose to do nothing at this point and remain an
absent class member.

The Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com/-- represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.


ROYAL BANK: Investors Pledge to Continue Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Kenny Kemp, writing for Herald Scotland, reports an army of
pensioners and small investors who lost savings after the Royal
Bank of Scotland's disastrous GBP12 billion rights issue in 2008
have pledged to continue their legal battle despite a Financial
Services Authority investigation declaring that Sir Fred Goodwin
and RBS were not guilty of any fraudulent activity before the bank
failure.

Leon Kaye, the London-based solicitor representing the RBS Action
Group, which has 8000 members signed up for its class action,
said: "We are bashing on with our class action against RBS.  We're
alleging negligence by the bank in the rights issue in 2008."

In 2008 RBS shareholders were invited to subscribe to the GBP12
billion rights issue, then a record for a UK company.  The issue
meant an entitlement of 11 new shares for every existing 18 shares
at 200p.  The RBS Action Group was set up by Michael Lanoureux and
his wife, an RBS pensioner, who claim: "We were deliberately
misled by RBS both before the rights issue and by the statements
made in the rights issue prospectus."

Several large pension funds in the United States have also made
claims against the bank.

Brian Peart, spokesman for the UK Shareholders' Association, which
represents tens of thousands of small stock market investors,
said: "There is no doubt that RBS's chief executive and its
chairman were negligent when they gambled with investors' money.
It is disgusting that they have all been able to retire on large
pensions while other small business people who put their
retirement money into the banks -- including Northern Rock, Lloyds
TSB and Bank of Scotland -- have had their savings wiped out."

The FSA review concluded that RBS's "bad decisions" were not the
result of a lack of integrity by Sir Fred Goodwin or any of his
board.

The bank collapsed in October 2008 and was nationalized in January
2009.


SUNWEST MANAGEMENT: Three Law Firms Agree to Pay $52.5 Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Oregon has
preliminarily approved proposed Settlements in class action
lawsuits on behalf of a Plaintiff Class that includes: (a) all
individuals and entities that purchased investments in the Sunwest
Enterprise on or after January 1, 2002, and (b) the Receiver as
assignee of the claims or interests of any such individuals or
entities.  The "Sunwest Enterprise" includes Sunwest Management,
Inc., Canyon Creek Development, Inc., Canyon Crest Financial, LLC,
and numerous other affiliated, single-purpose entities that were
created by entities owned or controlled by Sunwest Management,
Inc., Jon M. Harder, and Darryl E. Fisher for the purpose of
owning and operating senior living facilities and other real
estate developments.  The securities were in the form of investor,
noncommercial notes, tenancy-in-common interests, membership
interests, preferred membership interests, or limited partnership
interests in one or more properties or entities managed by or
affiliated with Sunwest Management, Inc.

If given final approval by the Court, the Settlements will resolve
two class action lawsuits filed in 2010, and other lawsuits, that
allege that the law firms of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, K&L Gates
LLP, and Thompson & Knight LLP are liable under Oregon securities
laws.  The Defendant Law Firms deny the allegations and the Court
has not ruled on whether or not the allegations made on behalf of
the Plaintiff Class are correct.

The Settlements, which will only go into effect if given final
approval by the Court, require that the Defendant Law Firms pay a
total of $52.5 million into the Litigation Trust established in
connection with the Receivership Distribution Plan in SEC v.
Sunwest Management, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-CV-6056-HO (D.
Ore.).  The Receiver is also a plaintiff in one of the class
action lawsuits and holds assigned claims that are part of the
Settlement Class.  The Settlements provide that the Receiver may
request that no more than $5 million of this fund be provided to
the Receivership to resolve its claims against the Defendant Law
Firms.  Each of the Defendant Law Firms may withhold funds to
resolve claims brought by persons who opt out of the Settlements.
The withheld funds cannot exceed $3 million for each Defendant Law
Firm, and any settlement of such claims must be approved by the
Court.

After deduction of attorneys' fees and costs in an amount
determined by the Court to be reasonable, the remaining funds will
be distributed to the Plaintiff Class members who have suffered
losses as a result of their investment in Sunwest and have not
already released their claims against the Defendant Law Firms. The
amounts will be paid in accordance with the Distribution Plan. If
approved, the Settlements will affect the legal rights of all
persons in the Plaintiff Class.

Any person or entity who thinks they may be a member of the class
should obtain a copy of the court-approved notice that is being
distributed to the class.  A copy of the notice can be obtained at
http://www.grassmueckgroup.com/sunwest.phpor by calling the
settlement claims administrator at 866-674-6791.  Among other
things, the notice explains how class members can tell the Court
if they have any objections to the terms of the Settlement
Agreements, distribution and use of the settlement funds, or to
fee applications filed by class counsel.

A hearing to consider, among other matters, final approval of the
Settlements, is scheduled for February 4, 2011.

The deadlines to object to the Settlements or any part of them and
to exclude oneself from the Settlements are also set forth in the
court-approved notice.


TOBACCO COMPANIES: Appealing $270 Million Class Action Award
------------------------------------------------------------
Agence France-Presse reports US tobacco companies and an industry
trade group have filed an appeal with the US Supreme Court against
a class action lawsuit that awarded 270 million dollars to half a
million smokers.

In the appeal filed Thursday, tobacco companies including Philip
Morris and R.J. Reynolds argued that the Louisiana suit wrongly
aggregated "disparate, highly individualized claims" spanning 50
years into one claim to recover costs of smoking cessation
programs.

The tobacco companies and trade group argue the Louisiana court
used the "unorthodox" procedure of filing a class-action suit to
get around examining individuals' specific claims.

"The end result was a 270-million-dollar judgment requiring
defendants to pay for smoking-cessation services for every member
of the class even though no class member ever proved the
established elements of his or her individual claim or confronted
any individual defenses," the appeal said.

"The handling of this case by the Louisiana courts represents a
profound departure from 'traditional' procedure."

The only two members of the class-action lawsuit who were called
to testify at the trial had already quit smoking, the tobacco
companies said in their appeal to the Supreme Court in Washington.

In September, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia granted the
tobacco companies a temporary stay against the Louisiana court's
decision, saying it was important to consider "the extent to which
class treatment may constitutionally reduce the normal
requirements of due process."

Judge Scalia also said that there was "national concern over abuse
of the class-action device."


VERIZON COMMS: Faces Class Action Over Wage & Hour Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik -- a California employment law
firm -- filed a wage and hour class action lawsuit against Verizon
entitled Pratt vs. Verizon on Friday, December 3, 2010 in Orange
County Superior Court.  The wage and hour lawsuit arises from
Verizon's alleged failure to pay call center employees for all
compensable work time, including time spent working at the call
centers before and after scheduled shifts.

According to the complaint, Verizon "intentionally and unlawfully
failed to pay the [call center employees] for compensable work
time which was spent logging onto computers, initializing software
applications, and preparing to take and/or making phone calls."

The call center plaintiff alleges that Verizon "had in place two
conflicting policies and practices."  Verizon refuses to pay the
call center workers until they took their first phone call at the
start of their scheduled shifts; however, the call center customer
support employees were required to work before the start of their
scheduled shifts preparing their computer systems.  The
communications giant, Verizon, allegedly enforced this policy by
penalizing all employees who were not prepared to take their first
call with "customer mistreat," "adherence" and "tardy" call center
discipline policies.  The complaint claims that if the call center
employees failed to perform this work off the clock, Verizon could
potentially terminate their employment.

The call center employees allege that this additional time spent
preparing computer systems before the start of their scheduled
shifts was work performed subject to Verizon's control and for the
benefit of the communications company.  As a result, the call
center employees allege that all the time they spent booting up
and shutting down computers constitutes "hours worked" for
purposes of California wage and hour laws and is therefore
compensable time for which they should have been paid regular
wages and overtime wages pursuant to the California Labor Code and
other state labor regulations.

For more information about California overtime laws and employee
workplace rights, contact an employment law attorney at
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik by visiting
http://www.bamlawca.comor calling 877-852-3912.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a California employment law
firm dedicated to representing employees who are victims of
illegal employer pay practices and other unfair treatment in the
workplace.  With employment offices in San Diego, San Jose and San
Francisco, the no win no fee employment law firm handles
individual lawsuits and class actions throughout the state.


VISION AIRLINES: Class in Hazard Pay Suit Wins $4.5 Mil. Award
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Miami trial lawyers of Grossman Roth, P.A. disclosed that a
class-action lawsuit against Vision Airlines Inc. -- resulted in a
$4.5 million award for the plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs are
represented by lead trial lawyer and Grossman Roth partner David
Buckner, co-counsel Ross Goodman of the Goodman Law Group, and
Brett von Borke and Kenneth R. Hartmann of Kozyak, Tropin &
Throckmorton.

The multimillion-dollar award, handed down by a federal jury in
Las Vegas, will be shared by the 175 crew members who make up the
class.  All contended that Vision, a North Las Vegas charter
airline, had failed to provide the extra hazard pay due them for
flying government missions into war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan
since 2005.  Mr. Buckner -- the newest partner at Grossman Roth
and a former Assistant United States Attorney -- says the case
doesn't end here.  The next step is to seek an injunction
requiring Vision to abide going forward by contracts calling for
hazard pay.

The lawsuit, filed in January 2009, brought out a wealth of
dramatic details on how the Vision flights were carried out: the
crews flew difficult maneuvers, in missions that usually took
place at night, to avoid enemy ground fire.  Each of the 175
former and current Vision pilots and flight crew put their lives
on the line with every flight -- and in return were not paid one
cent of the hazard pay owed them, until the jury did what Vision
would not: the right thing.

"It's a great result for the class," Mr. Buckner said of the
jury's decision.  "It is always gratifying to see justice done."
In their filings with the court, the trial team noted that Vision
itself had received extra hazard pay from the contractors that
hired it to run flights in and out of hotspots in Iraq and
Afghanistan.  But it never shared that compensation with the
employees who actually carried out the dangerous missions."

Grossman Roth said the courtroom victory wasn't just about
compensation, or fairness.  It was about giving those who have
been injured -- whether financially or physically -- a chance to
recover; and to lay responsibility and accountability where it
belongs, according to Grossman Roth.

                       About Grossman Roth

For three decades, the attorneys of Grossman Roth, P.A. have been
fighting for -- and coming through for -- those needlessly
injured, financially or physically, by the actions of others.
Along the way, Grossman Roth has become one of South Florida's
pre-eminent firms for wrongful death lawsuits, personal injury
claims, complex business litigation and class action lawsuits --
helping clients obtain the recovery they deserve.


WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Home Loan Procedures
----------------------------------------------------------------
AOMID News reports that in a suit filed in Northern California,
Wells Fargo and one of its servicers are facing charges of
deliberately duping their home loan borrowers.

America's Servicing Company, along with Wells Fargo, were both
named in a class action lawsuit filed by the law firm Harwood
Feffer, LLP.  The suit alleges that the America's Servicing
Company deliberately went out of their way to tell borrowers to
default on their Wells Fargo mortgages, claiming that it was the
only way they would be able to qualify for a loan modification.

The actions by ASC, the suit alleges, allowed the servicer along
with Wells Fargo to amass huge sums in late fees and penalties,
along with the interest on non-performing loans.

The suit is being filed on behalf of all borrowers who
deliberately defaulted on their mortgages based on advice given to
them by ASC.

ASC does not take part in the federal government's Home Affordable
Modification Program, which states that borrowers must be in
danger of foreclosure before seeking loan modification.

Wells Fargo has not specifically commented on the lawsuit filed in
Northern California, however in previous statements, Wells Fargo
has said that it is in our customers' and the country's best
interests to assist customers who can afford their homes -- with
some help -- to remain in them."

Harwood Feffer LLP currently represents 12 homeowners who are
named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, and are actively seeking more
participants as well.

Wells Fargo also offers its own loan modifications programs as
well in addition to being involved in the HAMP program.


WINTER BEE: To Pay Penalty Over 2009 Recall of Hooded Sweatshirts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission disclosed that Winter
Bee Inc. of Los Angeles, Calif., has agreed to a civil penalty of
$200,000. The penalty settlement, which has been accepted
provisionally by the Commission, provides that Winter Bee must pay
$40,000 of the $200,000 penalty.  The Commission agreed to suspend
$160,000 of the penalty because the firm demonstrated an inability
to pay the full amount.  The full amount could become due
immediately if CPSC finds that Winter Bee misrepresented its
financial condition.  The settlement resolves CPSC staff
allegations that Winter Bee knowingly failed to report to CPSC
immediately, as required by federal law, that children's hooded
sweatshirts it manufactured and sold had drawstrings at the neck.

Children's upper outerwear with drawstrings, including
sweatshirts, poses a strangulation hazard to children that can
result in serious injury or death.  In June 2009, CPSC and Winter
Bee announced a recall of 80,000 children's hooded sweatshirts
with drawstrings at the neck.  Winter Bee manufactured and sold
two styles of these sweatshirts under the brand name "Speedy" at
various retailers in the Los Angeles area.

CPSC issued drawstring guidelines in 1996, to help prevent
children from strangling on or getting entangled in the neck and
waist drawstrings of upper outerwear, such as jackets and
sweatshirts. In 1997, industry adopted a voluntary standard for
drawstrings that incorporated the CPSC guidelines.  In May 2006,
CPSC's Office of Compliance announced that children's upper
outerwear with drawstrings at the hood or neck would be regarded
as defective and as presenting a substantial risk of injury to
young children.

Federal law requires manufacturers, distributors, and retailers to
report to CPSC immediately after obtaining information reasonably
supporting the conclusion that a product contains a defect which
could create a substantial product hazard, creates an unreasonable
risk of serious injury or death, or fails to comply with any
consumer product safety rule or any other rule, regulation,
standard, or ban enforced by CPSC.

In agreeing to the settlement, Winter Bee denies CPSC staff
allegations that it knowingly violated the law.


ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Surgeons Request Knee Implant Recall
-----------------------------------------------------
Class Action.org is alerting patients who have been implanted with
the Zimmer NexGen knee implants of new research which was
presented at a March 2010 conference among orthopedic surgeons.
The data claims that the failure rate of the Zimmer knee
replacement is nearly 9% and the actual number of knee implant
complications which require corrective surgery could be even
higher.  Although a Zimmer knee replacement recall has not yet
been issued, several prominent surgeons have requested that such
an action be taken.  If you or a loved one has experienced Zimmer
knee replacement problems, visit
http://www.classaction.org/zimmer-knee-replacement.htmto learn
more about the request for a Zimmer knee implant recall and to
receive a free evaluation of your claim.

The surgeons who presented the new data regarding the failure of
Zimmer knee implants reviewed a two-year study which examined 108
patients who received the knee replacements.  This study found
that 9% of the participants needed corrective surgery, and 36%
showed indications of loose knee implants.  The study concluded
that the Zimmer knee replacement problems were linked to the
design of the implant, and were unrelated to the surgical
technique, surgeon or patient type.

Patients who have experienced Zimmer knee implant problems have
complained of implant failure, loosening of replacement knees,
knee pain and other complications.  Symptoms of loose or failing
knee implants may include the following: lasting knee pain; knee
stiffness; limping; difficulty walking; trouble placing weight on
the knee; and decreased motion in the joint.  Patients who are
experiencing signs of Zimmer knee replacement complications should
contact their doctor, who can perform a bone scan or x-ray to
confirm a loose artificial knee.

If you or a loved one has experienced unexplained knee pain, a
loose feeling in the replacement joint or have undergone revision
surgery, visit Class Action.org today and complete the Free Case
Evaluation form.  The attorneys working with Class Action.org are
offering this online legal consultation at no cost and remain
dedicated to defending the rights of those injured due to
defective medical devices.

                     About Class Action.org

Class Action.org -- http://www.classaction.org/-- is dedicated to
protecting consumers and investors in class actions and complex
litigation throughout the United States.  Class Action.org keeps
consumers informed about product alerts, recalls, and emerging
litigation and helps them take action against the manufacturers of
defective products, drugs, and medical devices.  Information about
consumer fraud issues and environmental hazards is also available
on the site.

                             *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Leah
Felisilda, Neil U. Lim, Rousel Elaine Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante,
Ronald Sy, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2010.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *