/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110106.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, January 6, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 4


ALABAMA: Suit Over PACT Plan Gets Class Action Status
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Connecticut Suit Over Foreclosures
BBG COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over "Unconscionable" Pay Phone Fees
CONAGRA FOODS: Continues to Defend Class Suit Over Diacetyl Info
CONVERGYS CORP: Faces Class Action for Failing to Pay Overtime

JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued for Reducing Home Equity Credit Lines
JULIANA GONZALES: Sued for Failing to Issue Receipts
LIBERTY TAX: Faces Class Action for Falsifying Documents
MADISON SQUARE: Settles Overtime Class Action for $1.3 Million
NESTLE WATERS: Accused in Calif. Suit of Racial Discrimination

NETFLIX INC: Judge Certifies Class in DVD Rental Antitrust Suit
UNITED STATES: Retired VA Nurses File Class Action Over Benefits
WALGREEN CO: No Appeals Filed on Dismissal of Amended Complaint
ZURICH INSURERS: Class Action Settlement Distribution Begins


ALABAMA: Suit Over PACT Plan Gets Class Action Status
Phillip Rawls, writing for The Associated Press, reports a judge's
ruling means all 42,000 participants remaining in Alabama's
prepaid college tuition plan will be affected by the outcome of a
lawsuit seeking to make sure tuition is paid under the financially
precarious program.

Circuit Judge Johnny Hardwick ruled the suit will become class-
action litigation covering all participants because they face
similar legal issues with the Prepaid Affordable College Tuition

A lawyer representing some of the parents who filed the suit said
all PACT participants will get a court resolution defining their
rights and the obligations of the state.

"Their fortunes rise or fall with this lawsuit," attorney Doyle
Fuller of Montgomery said Monday.

The attorney for the PACT board, George Beck of Montgomery, said
granting class-action status doesn't mean the judge is going to
rule for or against one side.  That will only be determined after
more court proceedings, he said.

The litigation seeks four years of tuition and mandatory fees for
the participants who will be headed to college, and it contends
the board has not been paying some fees that are truly mandatory
for all students.

The Legislature created PACT in 1989, with the goal of parents
paying in a fixed amount of money and their child getting four
years of tuition and mandatory fees at an Alabama university.  The
PACT board, headed by the state treasurer, invested the money and
used the earnings to pay college costs.

The program ran into financial trouble in 2009 after tuition rose
faster than expected and the steep financial downturn caused the
board's investments to lose about half their value.

In 2010, the Legislature agreed to shore up the program by
appropriating $548 million over 13 years.  That was supposed to
fully fund the program, but tuition kept rising faster than
anticipated at the most popular schools, the University of Alabama
System and Auburn University.  In the fall, the program's
financial consultant estimated it would need another $269 million
if tuition costs continue on their current pace.

"I agree with it," Mr. Fuller said.

The parents sued the program last year before the Legislature
allocated the $548 million.  The PACT board tried to get the suit
dismissed after the appropriation, but Hardwick refused.  Instead,
he granted the parents' request to make it a class-action suit.

Mr. Beck said the judge has also agreed to consider a counterclaim
filed by the PACT board.  Among other things, it asks him to rule
on what happens if money runs short, including whether the board
can dissolve the program and how it should distribute the
remaining funds, Mr. Beck said.

When granting class-action status last month, the judge divided
the 42,000 participants into two groups based on whether they
joined the PACT plan before or after the Legislature revised the
PACT law in May 2001.

That's when the Legislature took out part of the PACT law that
said the parents' payment allowed their child to go to college
"without further tuition costs or mandatory fees."  The judge
could make separate determinations for each group.

BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Connecticut Suit Over Foreclosures
Bryan Ellis Real Estate Letter reports Bank of America's refusal
to participate in foreclosure prevention programs even though it
accepted $25 billion from the Troubled Asset Relief Program has
plaintiffs in St. Louis, Connecticut, claiming that the
beleaguered lender broke faith with the U.S. Treasury and let
borrowers in foreclosure down.  The lawsuit, which was filed on
Dec. 27, is similar to earlier suits brought against BofA by the
attorneys general of Arizona and Nevada.  Plaintiffs in the suits
claim that "by accepting TARP money, [BofA] agreed to participate
in at least one TARP-authorized program to minimize foreclosures"
and agreed via contract with the U.S. Treasury to comply with HAMP
(Home Affordable Modification Program) regulations to "perform
loan modifications and other foreclosure prevention services."
The plaintiffs allege that the bank has done neither.

The suit claims that because BofA does not actually service most
of the loans it holds, the financial incentives against
modification prevented servicers from dedicating serious time or
good-faith effort to loan modifications and foreclosure
prevention.  "Bank of America has serially strung out, delayed and
otherwise hindered the modification processes it contractually
undertook to facilitate when it accepted billions of dollars from
the United States," the complaint alleges.  Participants in the
suit are seeking both injunction and damages.

Bank of America reported a complete payback of TARP money on
December 9, 2009.  It has consistently reported the lowest
completion rates on loan modifications of any lender and has
repeatedly "streamlined" the time frame and modification process
in an effort to maintain a good public image and good rapport with
consumers.  However, the lender has complained on record -- along
with others -- that the processes required by HAMP place too much
strain on lenders, requiring them to "collect too much paperwork"
and not placing enough responsibility for timely submission and
accuracy on borrowers themselves.

BBG COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over "Unconscionable" Pay Phone Fees
Greg Moran, writing for The San Diego Union-Tribune, reports that
a San Diego-based telecommunications company is facing potential
class-action lawsuits over fees charged when consumers use credit
or debit cards to make calls on pay telephones at airports, train
stations and other locations around the world.

The most recent lawsuit filed in November in federal court in
San Diego alleges the company, BBG Communications, charges
"unconscionable fees" for making calls using a credit card and
does not disclose how high those fees are to consumers.

The fees range from $10 per minute or in some cases as much as
$25, said Alan Mansfield, a San Diego lawyer who filed the lawsuit
along with John Mattes, an investigative journalist and lawyer.

An employee who answered the phone at BBG on Dec. 29 said no
company official was available last week to respond to the
lawsuit's allegations.

Elizabeth Berman, one of the lawyers representing the company,
declined to comment when reached at her office in Los Angeles.

The suit Mr. Mansfield filed was on behalf of two Northern
California men who said they made phone calls from a BBG pay phone
in Germany using their credit cards.  One man incurred a charge of
$54.33 for what the suit says was a one-minute call.  The second
man made two calls totaling seven minutes and was charged $150 by
the company.

Mr. Mansfield's suit is the second one filed against BBG in San
Diego federal court this year, both alleging the company
overcharges consumers and does not disclose upfront how high the
charges would be for using a credit card.  The suits are based on
slightly different legal grounds but both seek class- action
status, which a judge would have to grant.

That class could include tens of thousands of consumers, Mr.
Mansfield said.

He said BBG provides service to some 350,000 phones in airports,
rail stations and cruise ship terminals around the world, and
racks up an estimated 300 million minutes of calls per month.  The
iconic red telephone public phones in London are operated by BBG.

The company is on Gailes Boulevard, just south of Brown Field and
Otay Mesa Road.  It was founded in 1996 and provides
telecommunications services in North America, South America,
Europe, Japan, Israel and the Caribbean, according to a company
profile by Bloomberg news service.

The company is controlled by the Galicot family, according to the
suit, and the Bloomberg listing identified Gregory Galicot as the
president.  The Galicots are a prominent Tijuana family whose
patriarch, 72-year-old Jose Galicot, spearheaded the Tijuana
Innovadora, a two-week conference in October aimed at boosting
Tijuana's image and attracting investment.

Mr. Mansfield said that in the past the company has defended the
fees it charges by saying many calls require an operator, and the
company also uses satellite technology to route calls, pushing up
the costs.  But Mr. Mansfield said his clients never spoke to an
operator when making their calls and that the pay phones are hard-
wired and don't rely on a satellite.

The lawsuit said that the public phones BBG operates typically
advertise a low rate, about $1 or less per minute, for calls made
with coins.  But rates and fees for calls made with credit cards
or debit cards are not advertised or explained, according to the

When customers complain about the fees when they appear on their
credit cards, BBG offers only a partial refund of 30% to 40%,
Mr. Mansfield said.

The company has been the subject of ongoing complaints to the San
Diego Better Business Bureau, which rates local businesses and
gives BBG its lowest mark of "F."

The Better Business Bureau received 526 complaints in the past
three years about consumers being charged high rates for calls by
BBG and not being informed of them, according to the bureau's
report on the business.

Some of the complaints from consumers said they were charged the
fees even though their calls did not go through or were never
connected, the report said.

The lawsuit seeks refunds for members of the proposed class, which
would include anyone who had made a call on a BBG phone with a
credit or debit card and incurred a charge from November 2006 to
now.  It also seeks to force the company to disclose in advance
what the potential fees are for making such calls.

CONAGRA FOODS: Continues to Defend Class Suit Over Diacetyl Info
In a January 3, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
November 28, 2010, ConAgra Foods, Inc., disclosed that it is a
party to several lawsuits concerning the use of diacetyl, a butter
flavoring ingredient that was added to its microwave popcorn until
late 2007. The cases are primarily consumer personal injury suits
claiming respiratory illness allegedly due to exposures to vapors
from microwaving popcorn. Another case involved a putative class
action contending that the company's packaging information with
respect to diacetyl is false and misleading.

Through the second quarter of fiscal 2011, ConAgra has received a
favorable verdict, summary judgment ruling, and two dismissals in
connection with these suits, and the class action motion in the
packaging suit was denied. The verdict and the favorable summary
judgment ruling have been appealed.  ConAgra does not believe
these cases possess merit and continue to vigorously defend them.

No further details were disclosed in ConAgra's recent Form 10-Q.

CONVERGYS CORP: Faces Class Action for Failing to Pay Overtime
Michelle Massey, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reports
several customer service agents have filed a class action against
their employer for failing to pay overtime to thousands of its
telephone-dedicated customer service employees.

Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Wendy
Shofner, Sharon Cole, Linda Coppedge, Lisa Carniello and Christina
Daily filed suit against Convergys Corp. and Convergys Customer
Management Group Inc. on Dec. 17 in the Eastern District of Texas,
Marshall Division.

The lawsuit argues that the defendants are violating the Fair
Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime to thousands of
telephone-dedicated employees who perform work for the company
both before and after their assigned work shifts.

The employees state that Convergys has thousands of these
telephone-dedicated employees who work in more than 60 customer
contact centers/call centers, which the suit states is the
backbone of the service the defendants provide to their clients.

According to the court documents, the defendants' policy is to pay
its contact center agents only for the time that they are logged
into their phone systems and available for answering calls.

"The systematic failure to pay for unrecorded and routine work
activities adds up to thousands of dollars per year in unpaid
wages and overtime wages for each of these employees," the lawsuit

Claiming violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the employees
are asking the Court for an award of unpaid back wages, liquidated
damages, court costs, attorney's fees and interest.

The plaintiffs are represented by J. Derek Braziel and Meredith
Mathews of Lee & Braziel in Dallas, Richard J. Burch of Bruckner
Burch in Houston and Darren K. Coleman of Boon, Shaver, Echols &
Coleman in Longview.

A jury trial is requested.

Case No. 2:10-cv-00568

JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued for Reducing Home Equity Credit Lines
Courthouse News Service reports that to limit its exposure to the
housing price collapse, JPMorgan Chase Bank reduced or froze home
equity credit lines without assessing the properties, a class
action claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Crystal v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,
et al., Case No. 10-cv-06023 (S.D.N.Y.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Miriam Zakarin, Esq.
          1011 Avenue of the Americas, 4th Floor
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 725-6418

JULIANA GONZALES: Sued for Failing to Issue Receipts
Tina Jacobs, individually and on behalf of other tenants and
former tenants similarly situated v. Juliana Gonzales, et al.,
Case No. 2010-CH-55235 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. December 30,
2010), brings claims against the defendants for various violations
of the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance.

Specifically, Ms. Jacobs accuses defendant owner Gonzales and her
agent, John Maynard, of failing to tender a proper receipt for the
plaintiffs' security deposits as mandated by Section 5-12-080(b)
of the RLTO; commingling the plaintiffs' security deposits with
their own assets and failing to place the security deposits in a
federally insured interest bearing account in a financial
institution located in the State of Illinois as mandated by
Section 5-12-080(a) of the RTLO; failing to return plaintiffs'
security deposits within 45 days of vacating and failing to
deliver an itemized statement of damages within 30 days for any
alleged deductions as mandated by Section 5-12-080(d) of the RLTO;
and failing to provide a summary of the RLTO with the plaintiffs'
lease as mandated by Section 512-170 of the RLTO.

Plaintiff Tina Jacobs formerly resided in Apartment Unit 1f, at
4747 N. Magnolia, in Chicago, a development consisting of eight
residential dwelling units, that she leased from the defendants
and for which she tendered on March 1, 2006, the amount of $650 as
payment of her security deposit.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Miller, Esq.
          225 W. Washington, 22nd Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 654-0001

LIBERTY TAX: Faces Class Action for Falsifying Documents
Lauren Talarico, writing for WLTX, reports a widely used tax
filing company is being sued for allegedly falsifying documents
and ripping-off the Internal Revenue Service, as well as their
clients along the way.

The claims are being made against Liberty Tax Service.

Attorney Todd Ellis is among three lawyers representing local
plaintiffs in a suit against the company.

"This is a national class action," says Mr. Ellis.  "Where we
believe this is across Liberty Tax Service, across their entire
system.  Liberty Tax had a plan or a scheme to bring consumers
into their stores.  They have a systematic plan to increase their
profits by putting [filing] false, fraudulent or inappropriate
forms.  Therefore, the consumer would often get back
inappropriate, but larger returns."

The complaint states that Liberty Tax knowingly got their clients
more money that they were owed in hopes of getting what many call
the best type of advertisement there is: word of mouth.

Mr. Ellis says, "Liberty Tax would then benefit because customers
would go on to tell others that their returns were larger.  Thus,
getting others to come into the store."

The complaint states that the company got their clients extra
money by claiming things like unreimbursed business expenses, or
charitable donations, without the clients knowledge.

"Many tax service customers often don't receive copies of their
tax returns until after they're audited."

There are eight Midlands plaintiffs involved in this class action
suit.  Couples Kenneth and Myra Martin, David and Catherine
Goodwine, and Terry and Amanda Allen, all of Richland County.
There is also a couple from Newberry County, Jeffrey and Tawanna

Mr. Ellis believes more people nationwide may have similar

"The class could represent hundreds of thousands of consumers
because Liberty Tax Service provides 3,800 stores across the
United States, and 70 in South Carolina."

Mr. Ellis says the clients only discovered that improper paperwork
was filed after they were audited by the IRS.  The IRS made the
plaintiffs pay back the overpaid money, plus added penalties and

A spokesperson for Liberty Tax offered the following statement
regarding the lawsuit.  Martha O'Gorman said, "We don't believe
this case has any merit.  It is our policy not to comment on any
details of pending litigation."

MADISON SQUARE: Settles Overtime Class Action for $1.3 Million
More than 300 employees will receive $1.3 million from Madison
Square Garden in a settlement agreement filed on January 3, 2011
in federal court.  The settlement will bring to an end a class
action lawsuit brought in federal court in Manhattan in 2009 by
four security officers claiming that since 2003 Madison Square
Garden willfully failed to pay its security officers time and a
half for all the overtime they worked.

The settlement will bring money to 305 current and former Garden
employees based on their undercompensated overtime work.

"It is a shame, particularly in these recessionary times, that
hard-working breadwinners have to sue their employers to get paid
wages that federal and New York State law guarantees them," said
Robert A. Meister of Pedowitz & Meister LLP, the plaintiffs' New
York City attorneys.

The settlement is subject to approval by Judge Laura Taylor Swain
of the federal district court in Manhattan, where the lawsuit,
Castagna et al., v. Madison Square Garden, L.P., is pending.

NESTLE WATERS: Accused in Calif. Suit of Racial Discrimination
Courthouse News Service reports that black sales reps accuse
Nestle Waters dba Arrowhead Waters of racial discrimination, in a
class action in Alameda County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Childs, et al. v. Nestle Waters North
America, Inc., et al., Case No. 10553619 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Alameda Cty.), is available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Hoffman, Esq.
          Alec Segarich, Esq.
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1550
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 362-1111

NETFLIX INC: Judge Certifies Class in DVD Rental Antitrust Suit
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge granted class certification to Netflix subscribers who
accuse the online DVD rental service of monopolizing the market by
conspiring with Wal-Mart Stores and Walmart.com.

Consumers say Netflix was able to overcharge for subscription fees
because it convinced the superstore to withdraw from the DVD
rental market, leaving only Blockbuster as a competitor.

The class will involve millions of members around the country,
arguing the same points, according to the federal ruling in
Oakland, Calif.

"All purchased the same product from the same company, through the
same channel of distribution, and all paid supra-competitive
prices to Netflix as a result of the alleged conspiracy," U.S.
District Judge Phyllis Hamilton wrote.

Netflix argued that the class's claims may be barred by the four-
year statute of limitations, since some have speculated that the
alleged conspiratorial conduct began as early as 2004.

The Netflix subscribers had claimed in their complaint that the
Wal-Mart meetings started in 2005 -- within the statute's window.

Judge Hamilton found that the start of the conspiracy does not
alter the fact that Netflix, Wal-Mart and Walmart.com announced
their allegedly illegal market allocation agreement on May 19,

"That is the trigger date for plaintiffs' alleged injury -- and
thus, for the running of the statute of limitations," the ruling

The subscribers submitted expert testimony from Dr. John C. Beyer,
an economist, to bolster their claims that Netflix would have had
to compete more in pricing if Wal-Mart had not left the market.

Netflix and Wal-Mart argued that their witness, Dr. Janusz
Ordover, examined variables that Dr. Beyer ignored, including
Netflix's subscriber growth from three million since May 2005 to
14 million today and uncertainty over how Wal-Mart would have
performed in the marketplace.

Judge Hamilton agreed that the defendants raised valid, even
"troubling," objections to Dr. Beyer's testimony, but they did not
prove that the case will require individualized evidence.

"Contrary to defendants' contentions, Dr. Beyer's reports and the
analyses contained therein are supported by actual documentary
evidence and data thus far produced in the action, and provide an
adequate basis from which plaintiffs propose to demonstrate with
proof common to the class that Wal-Mart's exit from the online DVD
rental market harmed class members," Judge Hamilton wrote.

Judge Hamilton had heard arguments over whether the class had
standing in September 2009.

A copy of the Order Granting Motion for Class Certification in In
re: Online DVD Rental Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 09-cv-02029
(N.D. Calif.), is available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented byL

          Robert G. Abrams, Esq.
          Peter Barile, Esq.
          Thomas Isaacson, Esq.
          Paul Alexander, Esq.
          HOWREY LLP
          1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004-2402
          Telephone: (202) 383-6935
          E-mail: AbramsR@howrey.com

               - and -

          Guido Saveri, Esq.
          Lisa Saveri, Esq.
          SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
          706 Sansome Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111-1730
          Telephone: (888) 787-8681

               - and -

          Eugene Spector, Esq.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com

               - and -

          Sarah Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3053
          E-mail: sschalman-bergen@bm.net

Defendant Netflix Inc. is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Jacobson, Esq.
          Sarah Walsh, Esq.
          David Reichenberg, Esq.
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 999-5800
          E-mail: jjacobson@wsgr.com

Defendants Walmart.com and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. are represented

          Stephen Morrissey, Esq.
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
          Telephone: (310) 789-3100
          E-mail: smorrissey@susmangodfrey.com

UNITED STATES: Retired VA Nurses File Class Action Over Benefits
Brian Bowling, writing for Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, reports five
retired, part-time government nurses claim in a class-action
federal lawsuit that the Office of Personnel Management refuses to
properly calculate benefits for former Veterans Affairs nurses
unless they hire lawyers.

Sylvia Wigton, 79, of Butler and Gail G. Hudson, 73, of West
Grove, Chester County, filed the lawsuit along with Audrey L.
Gorgonzola, 75, of Boise, Idaho, Kathryn Daane, 75, of Sturgis,
S.D., and Dolores Vassalluzzo, 69, of Oceanside, Calif.

The VA started offering an incentive in the 1950s that gave part-
time nurses credit for full-time work on their pensions, the
lawsuit says.  The agency needed the incentive to get enough
skilled nurses willing to work part-time hours on irregular
schedules so that veterans hospitals around the country could
maintain full nursing staffs, the lawsuit says.

When the nurses retired, however, the Office of Personnel
Management refused to give them full-time credit for the years
they worked part-time, the lawsuit says.

A federal administrative law judge in 2008 upheld a claim by 160
retired VA nurses and the agency recalculated those retirees'
benefits as well as another 215 who hired lawyers to press their
claims, but it has made no attempt to identify and recalculate the
benefits for other retired VA nurses and has ignored claims some
retirees filed on their own behalf without a lawyer, the lawsuit

The lawsuit seeks a court order requiring the agency to identify
and recalculate the benefits for each retired VA nurse that was
promised the incentive.

WALGREEN CO: No Appeals Filed on Dismissal of Amended Complaint
No appeals were filed regarding the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois' dismissal of a complaint against
Walgreen Co., according to the Company's Jan. 3, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Nov. 30, 2010.

On April 16, 2008, the Plumbers and Steamfitters Local No. 7
Pension Fund filed a putative class action suit against the
company and its former and current chief executive officers.  The
plaintiffs amended the complaint on Oct. 16, 2008, which upon the
company's motion the District Court dismissed on Sept. 24, 2009.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs moved for the District Court to
reconsider the dismissal and to allow plaintiffs leave to further
amend the complaint.  The District Court granted plaintiffs'
motion on Nov. 11, 2009.

The second amended complaint was then filed on behalf of
purchasers of company common stock during the period between
June 25, 2007 and Oct. 1, 2007.  As in the first amended
complaint, the second amended complaint charges the Company and
its former and current chief executive officers with violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, claiming
that the company misled investors by failing to disclose (i)
declining rates of growth in generic drug sales and (ii)
increasing selling, general and administrative expenses in the
fourth quarter of 2007, which allegedly had a negative impact on

On Feb. 1, 2010, the company filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint.

On Sept. 29, 2010, the District Court dismissed the second amended
complaint with prejudice.  The plaintiffs did not appeal the
District Court's dismissal.

Walgreen Co. -- http://www.walgreens.com/-- is engaged in retail
drugstore business.  As of Aug. 31, 2009, the company operated
7,496 locations in 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico and Guam.  During the fiscal year ended Aug. 30, 2009 (fiscal
2009), the company opened or acquired 691 locations.  Total
locations do not include 337 convenient care clinics operated by
Take Care Health Systems, Inc. within the company's drugstores.
The company's drugstores are engaged in the retail sale of
prescription and non-prescription drugs and general merchandise.
General merchandise includes, among other things, household items,
personal care, convenience foods, beauty care, photofinishing,
candy, and seasonal items. Walgreens offers customers the choice
to have prescriptions filled at the drugstore counter, as well as
through the mail, by telephone and through the Internet.  In
January 2010, the company announced that it has completed the
acquisition of the assets of 12 Eaton Apothecary pharmacies.

ZURICH INSURERS: Class Action Settlement Distribution Begins
According to information posted on the Insurance Brokerage
Antitrust Litigation Web site, distribution has began under a
class action settlement involving persons who purchased or renewed
commercial insurance or reinsurance from any of the Zurich
Insurers or engaged the services of any of the Broker Defendants
in connection with one or more purchase(s) or renewal(s) of
commercial insurance or reinsurance from any other insurance
company during the period from August 26, 1994 through
September 1, 2005, inclusive.


The Settlement Administrator is:

          Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation
          c/o Complete Claim Solutions, LLC
          P.O. Box 24721
          West Palm Beach, FL 33416
          Toll Free: 1-866-722-3544
          International: 001-612-359-7999

On the Net: http://www.insurancebrokerageantitrustlitigation.com/


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

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

Copyright 2011.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

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

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

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

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *