/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110629.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, June 29, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 127


CANADA: 10,000 People to Participate in Indian Day School Suit
CITY PHILADELPHIA: "Stop and Frisk" Class Action Settlement OK'd
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Lockridge Grindal Nauen Files Class Action
DROPBOX INC: Faces Class Action Over Data Security Breach
ENCORE CAPITAL: FTC Opposes Debt Buyer Class Action Settlement

FIRST AMERICAN: Respa Ruling May Shield Banks From Litigation
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Washington to Get $1 Mil. From Settlement
GRUNENTHAL: Thalidomide Victims File Class Action
H&R BLOCK: Appeal in "Basile" Suit Remains Pending
H&R BLOCK: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Suit vs. RSM

H&R BLOCK: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Class Suits
HONDA MOTOR: Continues to Defend Six Class Suits in U.S.
HY-VEE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
LADY GAGA: 1-800-LAW-FIRM Files RICO Class Action
MACANDREWS & FORBES: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New York

NORDSTROM INC: Wage and Hour Law-Violations Suit Still Pending
POSTROCK ENERGY: Hearing to Approve Settlement Set for July 28
REDFORD TOWNSHIP, MI: More Than 200 Claims Filed Over Flooding
SONY: Faces Class Action Over Network Security Employee Layoffs
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: Sued Over Mortgage Loan Modifications

TOYOTA AUTO: Appeal in "Harel Pia" Suit Remains Pending
YUHE INT'L: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action


CANADA: 10,000 People to Participate in Indian Day School Suit
Rick Garrick, writing for Wawatay News, reports that an update on
a class action lawsuit by former day school students was given
June 11 at the Nishnawbe Aski Nation Residential School Gathering
in Thunder Bay.

"We've got over 10,000 people registered for the day school class
action now," said Joan Jack, Esq., a lawyer who launched the
McLean Day School Class Action lawsuit in 2009 against the federal

"Because the legal arguments are not strong on the side of the day
scholars, I ended up getting all of the day school students'
enquiries referred to me.  This turned into a big groundswell,"
Ms. Jack said during the gathering.

An amendment to the claim later allowed other day school students
from across Canada to potentially join the lawsuit.

Thousands of First Nation day school students were left out of the
$1.9-billion residential school compensation settlement because
they went home to their families every night.

Day schools were operated on or near First Nation communities to
educate registered Indian, Metis and Inuit children.

An Ojibway from Berens River in Manitoba who specializes in
Aboriginal law, Jack lives in B.C. with her husband.

Since launching the suit she has received referrals from big law
firms and Service Canada offices all over the country.

"So surprise, you know what happened? We're united," Ms. Jack
said.  "And now it's wonderful, because now we have political
power.  If we stay united as day school students, we have
political power.  We are a force to be reckoned with."

A number of Indian day schools were located in northern Ontario,
including Aroland Indian Day School, Big Trout Lake Indian School,
Christ the King Day School in Moosonee, Lac Seul Day School, Long
Lac Indian Day School and Northwestern Bay Day School in Fort

Former Assembly of First Nations national chief, Phil Fontaine,
and another lawyer are now working with Jack on the lawsuit, with
Fontaine providing advice and direction.

"Phil is a really good man and he has decided he is going to put
his shoulder to the truck again and see if he can get this one
unstuck," Ms. Jack said.

Mr. Fontaine was national chief when he helped negotiate the
Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement, which excluded day
school students.

Ms. Jack is looking to raise money to hire a legal team for the
next step in the class action lawsuit.

"I need to raise the resources so I can hire specialized class
action lawyers because it is a specialized field of law," Ms. Jack

"Some lawyers have been volunteering here and there, but I need to
get our team in order."

Once the federal government files their defense against the
statement of claim, the case goes to a certification process where
the court hears arguments from both sides of the case.

If the court agrees there was an injustice, a settlement agreement
is usually negotiated.

"We are not looking for a handout," Ms. Jack said.  "We have been
victimized by the Canadian state and seeking justice is different
than asking for a handout.  Seeking justice is about having the
other party stand up and say 'Yes, this was wrong.'"

Former day school students wanting to take part in the class
action can fill out a form found at http://www.joanjack.ca

CITY PHILADELPHIA: "Stop and Frisk" Class Action Settlement OK'd
Reuben Kramer at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge last week approved a settlement to a federal class action
that accused Philadelphia police of targeting black and Latino men
for unconstitutional searches on the street.

The practice, colloquially known as "stop and frisk," was the
subject of a November 2010 class action brought by eight black and
Latino men against the city and Police Commissioner Charles

Those men, which included an attorney, a University of
Pennsylvania ethnographer and a state lawmaker, claimed that they
were baselessly stopped -- either while driving or as pedestrians
-- and in some cases taken into police custody, primarily because
of the color of their skin.

Some of the stops resulted in minor charges -- failure to
disperse, driving with overly tinted windows -- that were
subsequently dismissed, according to the suit.

In other cases, no formal charges were brought, court papers show.

U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell certified a class in the
settlement agreement signed on June 21, and said qualified members
of the class can sue for damages.

The Philadelphia Police Department has weathered similar
accusations of racial profiling and other discriminatory conduct
in past years.

A 1996 settlement in NAACP et al. v. City of Philadelphia brought
about sweeping changes aimed at addressing alleged racially biased
policing.  That case involved minority Philadelphians claiming
that they were targeted for improper narcotics charges and were
subjected to police brutality.

Hundreds of convictions were overturned and the city agreed to pay
over $6 million to the wrongfully accused, according to the
American Civil Liberties Union, which helped litigate the "stop
and frisk" suit.

As part of the 1996 settlement, data from thousands of pedestrian
and car stops was analyzed to ensure that minority Philadelphians
would no longer be subjected to unconstitutional race-based

But "The data compiled by the City continued to show lack of cause
for stops, frisks and detentions, and a highly racially disparate
impact on African-Americans and Latinos through to 2005, when
monitoring of the 1996 Agreement terminated," according to the
2010 suit.

That suit claimed that stop-and-frisks actually increased since
2005, and accused the city's top cop, Commissioner Ramsey, of
failing to properly train and supervise his officers to put a
conclusive end to the police department's racial profiling.

A consent decree filed on June 21 attempts to do just that.

The settlement calls for establishment of an elaborate, digital-
monitoring regime aimed at affording supervisors within and
outside the police department the ability to scrutinize the city's
stop-and-frisk practices.

The department will maintain "an electronic data base that
provides the parties with access to digitized information that is
sufficient to enable the parties to conduct electronic data
analysis with respect to legality of the stops and frisks,"
according to the settlement.

"Further, the City shall train PPD [Philadelphia Police
Department] officers with respect to the electronic data base
system and their responsibilities to record the relevant
information for each stop and frisk."

The parties have also "agreed not to litigate the
constitutionality of past stop and frisk practices, and they enter
into this Agreement to implement measures to ensure future
compliance with constitutional standards."

Additionally, "Stops and frisks shall not be permissible, without
limitation, where the officer has only anonymous information of
criminal conduct, or because the person is only 'loitering' or
engaged in 'furtive movements,' or is acting 'suspiciously,' or
for the purpose of 'investigation of person' . . . or . . . [on
the basis that] the person is in a 'high crime' or 'high drug'
area," according to the settlement.

The settlement also requires that a monitor be appointed to
provide ongoing supervision and analysis of the police
department's stop-and-frisk practices and to issue recommendations
to the court.

JoAnne Epps, dean of Temple University's Beasley School of Law,
will serve as that monitor, plaintiffs' counsel, David Rudovsky of
Kairys Rudovsky Messing & Feinberg told Courthouse News.

Seven of the eight named plaintiffs will split $115,000 in
damages, Mr. Rudovsky said.

The other named plaintiff, a former state lawmaker who has since
won the Democratic primary in the race for Philadelphia sheriff,
will reportedly not receive damages.

Mr. Rudovsky said that the 1996 settlement was effective, but was
not open-ended, and that its safeguards eroded when it was
terminated around 2005.

This time around, he said, "the agreement is open-ended.  There's
no [scheduled] termination."

A copy of the Settlement Agreement, Class Certification, and
Consent Decree in Bailey, et al. v. City of Philadelphia, et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-05952 (E.D. Pa.), is available at:


The Plaintiffs were represented by:

          David Rudovsky, Esq.
          Paul Messing, Esq.
          718 Arch Street, Suite 501S
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 925-4400
          E-mail: drudovsky@krlawphila.com

               - and -

          Mary Catherine Roper, Esq.
          P.O. Box 40008
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          E-mail: mroper@aclupa.org

               - and -

          Seth Kreimer, Esq.
          3900 Chestnut Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19104

The Defendants were represented by:

          Shelley R. Smith
          City Solicitor
          Craig M. Straw
          Chief Deputy City Solicitor
          Law Department
          1515 Arch Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19102

               - and -

          Carlton L. Johnson, Esq.
          ARCHER & GREINER, P.C.
          One Liberty Place
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215-963-3300
          E-mail: cjohnson@archerlaw.com

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Lockridge Grindal Nauen Files Class Action
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. filed a class action suit in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
against Community Health Systems, Inc. (NYSE:CYH) and certain of
its officers and/or directors that alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of purchasers of
Community Health Systems common stock during the period between
July 27, 2006, through April 11, 2011, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants emphasized the Company's positive financial performance
and future business prospects, but failed to disclose or
recklessly disregarded that the Company's performance has been
driven by the improper and undisclosed practice of systematically
admitting patients into Community Health Systems' hospitals
despite no clinical need.  According to the Complaint, Community
Health Systems artificially increased inpatient admissions for the
purpose of receiving substantially higher and unwarranted payments
from Medicare and other sources that wrongfully inflated its
financial performance.

The Complaint further alleges that the true facts, which were
known by Defendants but concealed from the investing public during
the Class Period, were that 1) the Company had for years engaged
in the improper practice of systematically admitting patients into
hospitals despite no clinical need, most notably by unnecessarily
converting emergency-room visits into more lucrative inpatient
admissions; 2) the Company's wrongful admissions procedures were
designed to overbill Medicare and other sources for patient
admissions; 3) as a result of the improper admissions and improper
billing practices, the Company's reported revenues and earnings
were materially and wrongfully inflated; and 4) based on the
foregoing, Defendants lacked a basis for their positive statements
about the Company's prospects and growth.

It is further alleged that on April 11, 2011, amidst Community
Health Systems' $3.3 billion hostile takeover bid of Tenet
Healthcare Corp., investors and analysts were shocked to learn
that Tenet had filed a lawsuit against Community Health Systems,
its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial
Officer alleging that Community Health Systems had failed to
disclose for years certain fraudulent admissions and billing
practices, including its practice of systematically admitting,
rather than observing, patients despite no clinical need, in order
to artificially increase inpatient admissions for the purpose of
receiving substantially higher and unwarranted payments from
Medicare and other sources.

Following the April 11, 2011, disclosures, Community Health
Systems' common stock declined by $14.41 per share, or 35.7%, on
unusually heavy trading volume from a closing price of $40.30 per
share on April 8, 2011, to close at $25.89 per share on April 11,

If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court
no later than July 8, 2011, to serve as a lead plaintiff for the
Class.  You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to
share in any possible recovery.  Plaintiff seeks to recover
damages on behalf of the Class.

Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. represents shareholders in class
actions.  The firm has offices in Minneapolis and Washington, D.C.

If you have any questions about this Notice, the action, your
rights, or your interests, please contact:

          Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com

DROPBOX INC: Faces Class Action Over Data Security Breach
Courthouse News Service reports that the DropBox web-hosting
service introduced a bug that unlocked its 25 million users'
accounts and data for everyone to see, a class claims in
California's Northern District.

A copy of the Complaint in Wong v. Dropbox, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-
03092 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          10850 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 370
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          E-mail: aw@ahdootwolfson.com

ENCORE CAPITAL: FTC Opposes Debt Buyer Class Action Settlement
Mike Bevel, writing for insideARM.com, reports that the Federal
Trade Commission has decided to throw its $0.02-worth into the
ongoing drama surrounding a proposed settlement between Encore
Capital Group and a group of consumers participating in a class
action suit against the San Diego-based debt buyer.

The class action settlement was preliminarily approved by the
Court, the plaintiffs, and Encore (the defendants) on March 11,
2011.  In part, it reads:

"Under the proposed settlement, class members who do not opt out:
release and forever discharge Encore Capital Group, Inc. [and its
affiliates, agents, and representatives] from all causes of
action, suits, claims and demands, whatsoever, known or unknown,
in law or in equity, based on state or federal law, which the
class now has, ever had or hereafter may have against the Released
Parties, arising out of or relating to the Released Parties' use
of affidavits in debt collection lawsuits."

The FTC, however, isn't having it.

In both a press release and an amicus brief filed on June 21,
2011, the FTC is expressing concern that the settlement "may
deprive over a million consumers across the nation of their
existing rights to challenge improper judgments entered against
them, to defend themselves in ongoing debt collection actions, and
to vindicate violations of collections laws in state and federal
court by Midland Funding, LLC, Midland Credit Management, Inc.,
and Encore Capital Group, Inc. and their agents."

Encore addressed many of the FTC's concerns in a statement back in
March: "Our process accurately [reflects] the individual who
incurred the debt, the amount owed, and our ownership of the
account.  The company has also invested millions of dollars in
sophisticated technology and analytics to ensure that we pursue
litigation only when we believe the consumer has the financial
ability to repay the debt.  Nevertheless, our company took the
court's concerns very seriously and we transformed our processes
in this key area.  As a result, we believe Encore Capital has been
defining the industry's best practices."

The biggest concern that FTC has, though, is the amount of the
payoff and the potential harm to the plaintiffs: "Class members
will have to give up too much in exchange for too little,"
receiving a pay-out capped at $10. In exchange, the FTC says,
plaintiffs would "surrender their rights under the FDCPA and state
laws to challenge Midland's actions related to the company's use
of affidavits in debt collection lawsuits."

Encore Capital Group naturally disagrees with the FTC's
disagreeing with the settlement.  In a statement provided to
insideARM.com by Brandon Black, Encore Capital's Chief Executive
Officer, the company said:

"Encore Capital Group and its wholly owned subsidiaries, Midland
Credit Management, Inc. and Midland Funding, LLC, strongly
disagree with the arguments contained in an amicus brief recently
filed by the Federal Trade Commission and the implication the
company may have intentionally pursued collection efforts against
individuals who did not have debt obligations to fulfill.

"Encore believes the settlement reached in this case is fair,
reasonable and adequate.  The company is confident in the
integrity and accuracy of its processes and in the validity of the
underlying debts at issue.  Encore is optimistic that the judge,
after examining all of the facts and evidence, will support the
company's position and formally approve the settlement."

FIRST AMERICAN: Respa Ruling May Shield Banks From Litigation
Sara Lepro, writing for American Banker, reports that the Supreme
Court has agreed to hear a Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
case whose outcome could shield banks and other lenders from
litigation under a wide range of federal and state laws.

The court will decide in the fall whether a consumer who purchased
title insurance through a referral arrangement that allegedly
violated Respa's anti-kickback provisions can sue in federal court
if she cannot show actual injury.

Lawyers for banks are closely watching the case, First American
Financial Corp. v. Edwards.  If the high court rules against the
consumer, large companies including banks that fight hundreds of
lawsuits filed under Respa, as well as the Truth in Lending Act
and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act may start challenging the
constitutionality of awarding damages when consumers cannot prove
they were harmed.

"The viability of this type of garden variety 'gotcha' litigation
might be undermined if the Supreme Court rules in favor of First
American," said Alan S. Kaplinsky, Esq., a partner in at Ballard
Spahr LLP -- kaplinsky @ballardspahr.com -- who represents banks
and is not involved in the case.

Hundreds of cases are filed each year by borrowers alleging
violations of Respa, which prohibits "any fee, kickback or thing
of value," in exchange for a business referral.

Respa also forbids that a "portion, split, or percentage of any
charge made or received for the rendering of a real estate
settlement service" be paid for services that are not actually
rendered to the customer.

If a violation of the statute is proven, a court can award a
plaintiff treble damages, or triple the amount, for any charge

"Anybody who is involved in the real estate industry and provides
settlement services under Respa, which includes lenders, is
potentially affected by this case," said Charles A. Newman, Esq.,
a partner at SNR Denton in St. Louis --
charles.newman@snrdenton.com --  who represents First American,
the second-largest title insurer in the U.S.

The plaintiff in the case in question, Denise Edwards, bought a
home in Cleveland in 2006 and paid $455.43 for title insurance.

In a lawsuit filed in 2007 in U.S. District Court in California,
she claimed her title insurer, Tower City Title Agency LLC of
Highland Heights, Ohio, entered into a captive insurance agreement
with First American that was illegal under Respa.

The lawsuit said that because First American paid $2 million for a
17.5% minority interest in Tower City in 1998, it received the
majority of the local agent's referral business.

The suit sought class action status on behalf of all consumers who
purchased title insurance through a title agency that was subject
to an exclusive referral agreement with First American, and
damages of up to $150 million.

The District court refused to grant the case class-action status.
Ms. Edwards appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which
rejected a motion from First American to dismiss the appeal on the
grounds that Ms. Edwards lacked standing to file suit under Respa.

First American had argued that because Ohio law mandates that all
title insurers charge the same price, the homeowner could not have
been overcharged for title insurance as a result of the
exclusivity agreement.

In siding with Ms. Edwards, Circuit Judge Susan Graber wrote in an
eight-page opinion that "the damages provision in Respa gives rise
to a statutory cause of action whether or not an overcharge

In its appeal of that decision, First American asked the Supreme
Court to review two issues: whether a consumer can recover treble
damages if she did not suffer any injury; and if awarding such
damages violates Article 3 of the constitution, which requires an
injury in fact to bring a claim.

The Supreme Court limited its review to constitutionality issue.

"That is what makes this case enormously significant because it
has implications that go well beyond Respa," Mr. Kaplinsky said.

"If the Supreme Court reverses the Ninth Circuit, it will be a
very rare case where the consumer will be able to prove actual
injury under Respa and TILA.  This could be a very happy event for
First American and the banking industry."

Against the backdrop of the Supreme Court decision last week in
favor of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. -- a ruling that limited the power
of large groups of plaintiffs -- there is reason to believe the
court could side with First American, Mr. Kaplinsky said.

On June 20, in a five-to-four decision, the court barred a sex
discrimination case against Wal-Mart from proceeding as a class

In the majority opinion, Justice Antonin J. Scalia wrote that the
suit did not satisfy a requirement of the class-action rules that
"the class has common 'questions of law or fact.'"

GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Washington to Get $1 Mil. From Settlement
John Gillie, writing for The News Tribune, reports that Washington
will get $1 million as a result of a consumer-protection action
settlement brought by 38 states against two drug companies,
Attorney General Rob McKenna said on June 24.

The state's windfall will come from a $40.75 million settlement
agreed to by GlaxoSmithKline LLC and SB Pharmco Puerto Rico.

The states' attorneys general claimed there were defects in the
manufacturing of the drugs in a plant in Cidra, Puerto Rico.  The
plant has been closed since 2009.

The drugs involved in the claim were Kytril, Bactroban, Paxil CR
and Avandamet.  All the products involved in the manufacturing
problem were recalled several years ago.

The money from the settlement will be used to pay the costs of the
litigation and fund consumer-protection enforcement or medical
health programs.

GRUNENTHAL: Thalidomide Victims File Class Action
ABC News reports that a Victorian woman is leading a new class
action which will challenge the medical history surrounding

The drug caused deaths and birth defects after it was prescribed
for pregnant woman in the 1950s and 1960s.

Action has been lodged in the Victorian Supreme Court against the
manufacturer and distributor on behalf of Australian survivors,
who have been denied compensation in the past.

There have been a number of settlements in cases against the
German drug manufacturer Grunenthal.

This lawsuit will be led on behalf of victims who have been denied
compensation for various reasons, including denial by the company
that their mother took the drug.

Law firm Slater and Gordon says it has uncovered evidence that
will challenge medical history by asserting the drug caused a
wider range of health problems than previously known.

It says companies involved knew more than they admitted and the
standards required to prove the mother took the drug has been too

The lead plaintiff, Melbourne woman Lynette Rowe, was born with no
arms and legs after her mother took the morning sickness drug
while she was pregnant in 1961.

Ms. Rowe, 49, still requires round-the-clock care, and her father,
Ian Rowe, fears what will happen when he and his wife can no
longer look after their daughter.

"We're in our 70s now, in fact I turn 80 next year, and of course
it gets harder for us to look after her and of course we dread a
little bit more each year the prospect of what Lynette will do
when we are no longer able to look after her," he said.

"Even beyond securing Lynette's future, it has been really
important to Lynette and to Wendy and I to finally see evidence
which gives an explanation to an event that has completely
reshaped our lives for the past 50 years."

The class action follows last year's successful settlement with
the British group Diageo for 45 Australian and New Zealand
thalidomide victims.

Peter Gordon from Gordon Legal, who was involved in that case,
said he realized then there were still many victims in Australia
who have not received any compensation.

"I came to realize that there were a significant number of people
affected by thalidomide who have never been compensated, or even
had the psychological satisfaction of an explanation for the
physical abnormalities they have lived with for 50 years," he

He says his team has uncovered new evidence over the past year,
including information that challenges the range of injuries and
defects attributed to the drug.

"The range of injuries might have been mistaken, the barriers set
for people to prove that their mothers took thalidomide might have
been too high," he said.

"[It] might mean that there is in fact a significant number of
people who have lived their entire lives with significant
disabilities but never with the psychological satisfaction of an
explanation for them or proper compensation for them."

Andrew Rule, writing for Herald Sun, reports that Mr. Gordon has
orchestrated a wave of lawsuits in Australia and overseas against
pharmaceutical giant Grunenthal, which sold the drug that caused
thousands of deaths and terrible birth deformities 50 years ago.

Since starting the action last year against the German company,
Mr. Gordon has asked his former firm, Slater & Gordon, and leading
law firms in the US and Britain to join him in the fight to
compensate hundreds of struggling thalidomide victims.

The proceedings in the Victorian Supreme Court are to win
financial help for previously unrecognized thalidomide victims --
including Ms. Rowe.

More proceedings are expected to be launched soon.

Leading American trial lawyers will fight parallel cases in the
U.S., with more lawsuits planned in Canada and Britain to argue
the case for multi-million-dollar payments to previously
unrecognized thalidomide victims.

But the international campaign heavily depends on the success of
the Australian case -- notably that of Ms. Rowe, cared for since
her birth in 1962 by her parents.

If Ms. Rowe wins, the extent of her lifelong disability could see
her get one of the biggest personal injury payouts in Australian

If the court finds Grunenthal at fault, Ms. Rowe's lawyers will
ask the judge to calculate the cost -- at a full commercial rate
-- of 24-hour care every day for the past 49 years, plus punitive
damages, loss of earnings and the cost of care for the rest of her

The payout could run to tens of millions of dollars -- and would
open the gate for a "flow-on" of compensation cases for up to 100
other suspected Australian thalidomide victims who have never been
compensated, and hundreds more in other countries.

Despite the fact Ms. Rowe was born at the peak of the birth-defect
epidemic and that she has 26 known thalidomide symptoms, the Rowes
have not been compensated.

The doctor who treated her mother with various drugs during her
pregnancy at first suggested that "a virus" had caused the missing
limbs, but members of the late doctor's family and medical
colleagues have told the Herald Sun he privately never questioned
thalidomide was the reason.

No known virus inflicts the catastrophic deformities suffered by
Ms. Rowe.

And it seems clear many doctors in the 1950s and '60s handed out
samples distributed by travelling drug company "reps", sometimes
before those drugs were approved for sale or prescription.

The Rowe family says they do not hold a grudge against the doctor
who gave Mrs. Rowe drugs for morning sickness in 1961.

"We blame the companies that made the drug and sold it without
testing it properly," Wendy Rowe said.

The class action follows Mr. Gordon's successful negotiation last
July for a $50 million ex-gratia payment from the British firm
Diageo for 45 acknowledged Australian and New Zealand victims.

Months of research since the Diageo settlement has convinced
Mr. Gordon, Slater & Gordon's Michael Magazanik ,and doctors
worldwide that the number of real thalidomide victims is much
greater than previously understood.

H&R BLOCK: Appeal in "Basile" Suit Remains Pending
H&R Block, Inc.'s appeal from the reversal of a class
decertification ruling in the class action lawsuit filed by Sandra
J. Basile remains pending, according to the Company's June 23,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended April 30, 2011.

H&R Block, Inc., has been named in multiple lawsuits as defendants
in litigation regarding its refund anticipation loan program in
past years.  All of those lawsuits have been settled or otherwise
resolved, except for one.

The sole remaining case is a putative class action styled Sandra
J. Basile, et al. v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., April Term 1992
Civil Action No. 3246, in the Court of Common Pleas, First
Judicial District Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County,
instituted on April 23, 1993.  The plaintiffs allege inadequate
disclosures with respect to the RAL product and assert claims for
violation of consumer protection statutes, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, common law fraud,
usury, and violation of the Truth In Lending Act. Plaintiffs seek
unspecified actual and punitive damages, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees and costs.  A Pennsylvania class was certified,
but later decertified by the trial court in December 2003.  An
appellate court subsequently reversed the decertification
decision.  The Company is appealing the reversal.

The Company says it has not concluded that a loss related to this
matter is probable nor has it accrued a loss contingency related
to this matter.  Plaintiffs have not provided a dollar amount of
their claim and the Company is not able to estimate a possible
range of loss.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses
to this case and intends to defend it vigorously.  There can be no
assurances, however, as to the outcome of this case or its impact
on the Company's consolidated results of operations.

H&R BLOCK: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Suit vs. RSM
H&R Block, Inc., is awaiting court approval of an agreement in
principle to settle a class action lawsuit commenced against its
subsidiary over allegations of fraud, conversion and unfair
competition, according to the Company's June 23, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended April 30, 2011.

The Company's subsidiary, RSM EquiCo, Inc., its parent and certain
of its subsidiaries and affiliates, are parties to a class action
filed on July 11, 2006, and styled Do Right's Plant Growers, et
al. v. RSM EquiCo, Inc., et al., Case No. 06 CC00137, in the
California Superior Court, Orange County.  The complaint contains
allegations relating to business valuation services provided by
RSM EquiCo, including allegations of fraud, conversion and unfair
competition.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual and punitive
damages, in addition to pre-judgment interest and attorneys' fees.
On March 17, 2009, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on all claims.

To avoid the cost and inherent risk associated with litigation,
the parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle this
case, subject to approval by the California Superior Court.  The
settlement would require a maximum payment of $41.5 million,
although the actual cost of the settlement depends on the number
of valid claims submitted by class members.  The defendants
believe they have meritorious defenses to the claims in this case
and, if for any reason the settlement is not approved, they will
continue to defend the case vigorously.  Although the Company has
recorded a liability for expected losses, there can be no
assurance regarding the outcome of this matter.

H&R BLOCK: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Class Suits
H&R Block, Inc., continues to defend itself from several wage and
hour class action lawsuits pending in various states, according to
the Company's June 23, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended April 30,

The Company has been named in several wage and hour class action
lawsuits throughout the country, including Alice Williams v. H&R
Block Enterprises LLC, Case No. RG08366506 (Superior Court of
California, County of Alameda, filed January 17, 2008) (alleging
improper classification of office managers in California);
Arabella Lemus v. H&R Block Enterprises LLC, et al., Case No. CGC-
09-489251 (United States District Court, Northern District of
California, filed June 9, 2009) (alleging failure to timely pay
compensation to tax professionals in California and to include
itemized information on wage statements); Delana Ugas v. H&R Block
Enterprises LLC, et al., Case No. BC417700 (United States District
Court, Central District of California, filed July 13, 2009)
(alleging failure to compensate tax professionals in California
and eighteen other states for all hours worked and to provide meal
periods); and Barbara Petroski v. H&R Block Eastern Enterprises,
Inc., et al., Case No. 10-CV-00075 (United States District Court,
Western District of Missouri, filed January 25, 2010) (alleging
failure to compensate tax professionals nationwide for off-season
training).  A class was certified in the Lemus case in December
2010 (consisting of tax professionals who worked in company-owned
offices in California from 2007 to 2010) and in the Williams case
in March 2011 (consisting of office managers who worked in
company-owned offices in California from 2004 to 2011).  A
conditional class was certified in the Petroski case in March 2011
(consisting of tax professionals who were not compensated for
certain training courses occurring on or after April 15, 2007).

The plaintiffs in the wage and hour class action lawsuits seek
actual damages, pre-judgment interest and attorneys' fees, in
addition to statutory penalties under California and federal law,
which could equal up to 30 days of wages per tax season for class
members who worked in California.  A portion of the Company's loss
contingency accrual is related to these lawsuits for the amount of
loss that the Company considers probable and estimable.

For those wage and hour class action lawsuits for which the
Company is able to estimate a range of possible loss, the current
estimated range is $0 to $70 million in excess of the accrued
liability related to those matters.  This estimated range of
possible loss is based upon currently available information and is
subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions and
uncertainties.  The Company says the matters underlying the
estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results
may vary significantly from the current estimate.  Because this
estimated range does not include matters for which an estimate is
not possible, the range does not represent the Company's maximum
loss exposure for the wage and hour class action lawsuits.  The
Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims in
these lawsuits and intend to defend them vigorously.  The amounts
claimed in these matters are substantial in some instances and the
ultimate liability with respect to these matters is difficult to
predict.  There can be no assurances as to the outcome of these
cases or their impact on the Company's consolidated results of
operations, individually or in the aggregate.

HONDA MOTOR: Continues to Defend Six Class Suits in U.S.
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. continues to defend six purported class
action lawsuits in the United States of America, according to the
Company's June 23, 2011, Form 10-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31, 2011.

Various legal proceedings are pending against the Company, and it
believes that such proceedings constitute ordinary routine
litigation incidental to its business.  With respect to product
liability, personal injury claims or lawsuits, the Company
believes that any judgment that may be recovered by any plaintiff
for general and special damages and court costs will be adequately
covered by the Company's insurance and accrued liabilities.
Punitive damages are claimed in certain of these lawsuits.  The
Company is also subject to potential liability under other various
lawsuits and claims, including six purported class actions in the
United States of America.

Honda says it recognizes an accrued liability for loss
contingencies when it is probable that an obligation has been
incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated.
Honda reviews these pending lawsuits and claims periodically and
adjusts the amounts recorded for these contingent liabilities, if
necessary, by considering the nature of lawsuits and claims, the
progress of the case and the opinions of legal counsel.  After
consultation with legal counsel, and taking into account all known
factors pertaining to existing lawsuits and claims, Honda believes
that the ultimate outcome of such lawsuits and pending claims,
including six purported class actions in the United States, should
not result in liability to Honda that would be likely to have an
adverse material effect on its consolidated financial position,
results of operations or cash flows.

HY-VEE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
Jeff Eckhoff, writing for Des Moines Register, reports that a
Kansas-based "product specialist" for Hy-Vee who claims he
routinely works more than 40 hours per week has sued the West Des
Moines supermarket chain as part of a federal class-action that
seeks reimbursement for unpaid overtime.

Todd Jung, an Overland Park, KS, resident who has worked for
Hy-Vee since 2003, alleges in court papers filed earlier last week
that Hy-Vee "has had a policy and practice of failing and refusing
to pay its salaried Inventory Specialists and/or its salaried
Product Specialists compensation at an overtime rate for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours during workweeks."

The lawsuit, filed in Des Moines by Iowa lawyer, Christine
Branstad, Esq., and two Kansas-based attorneys, seeks
reimbursement for any Hy-Vee employee in the country who has held
those jobs and been denied overtime within the last three years.

A Hy-Vee spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment.

LADY GAGA: 1-800-LAW-FIRM Files RICO Class Action
Attorneys from 1-800-LAW-FIRM filed Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organization (RICO) charges on June 24 against Lady Gaga
(nee Stefani Germonatta) and affiliated companies alleging they
misrepresented charitable donations from the sale of wristbands
intended for Japan's earthquake relief efforts.  The class action
suit was filed by Firm Partner Alyson Oliver in U.S. Federal
Court.  The full complaint is now available on the company's
Web site, http://www.1800LAWFIRM.com

Shortly after the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami that
devastated Japan, Lady Gaga marketed and distributed "Lady Gaga
Japan Earthquake Relief Wristbands" through her Web site and
claimed that "all proceeds go directly to Japan relief efforts."
The suit alleges the Defendants made materially false and
misleading representations by added additional "shipping charges"
in excess of the amount required to ship the wristbands based on
their weight and retained a portion of the proceeds from each
transaction instead of donating all proceeds to the Japan Relief
Efforts.  It also states the Defendants artificially inflated
reports of the total donations by including the portion of funds
retained by Defendants in their calculations and used the inflated
financials to solicit additional "donations."

"While we commend Lady Gaga for her philanthropic efforts, we want
to ensure that claims that "all proceeds will be donated to
Japan's earthquake relief efforts" are in fact true," said
Ms. Oliver.  "Our intention with this lawsuit is to uncover any
improprieties committed by Lady Gaga and appropriate the full
donations assumed to the victims in Japan."

1-800-LAW-FIRM is seeking compensations, including consequential
and special damages in amounts proved, as well as for statutory
damages, including a return of all amounts paid for the products
sold by Defendants to the Plaintiffs and the Class Members.

                       About 1-800-LAW-FIRM

1-800-LAW-FIRM is a legal network that covers the entire spectrum
of legal areas including accidents and injuries, bankruptcy,
consumer protection, defective products, pharmaceuticals,
employment/labor law, Social Security claims, professional
malpractice, veterans' claims, and whistle-blower cases.

MACANDREWS & FORBES: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New York
Courthouse News Service reports that MacAndrews & Forbes Worldwide
shareholders seek to enjoin board chairman Ronald Perelman from
buying out the remaining 57% of outstanding company shares too
cheaply, for $24 per share in cash.

A copy of the Complaint in Feit v. Perelman, et al., Index No.
651743/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert H. Lefkowitz, Esq.
          Joseph Levi, Esq.
          30 Broad Street, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          E-mail: jlevi@zlk.com

               - and -

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
          1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com

NORDSTROM INC: Wage and Hour Law-Violations Suit Still Pending
Nordstrom Inc. continues to defend four class action lawsuits
alleging violations of wage and hour laws in California, according
to the Company's June 23, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The lawsuits are:

(1)  The Complaint in the Maraventano lawsuit, filed on
October 18, 2010, is a putative class action alleging
       failure to pay California selling employees for stocking
       time/duties.  The Company is pursuing its defenses;

(2)  The Complaint in Balasanyan-Nalbandian lawsuit, filed on
April 5, 2011, is a putative class action alleging failure
to pay minimum wages for all hours worked, failure to
timely pay wages upon termination or resignation and
failure to properly compensate in accordance with the
California Labor Code and the FLSA related to stocking
time/duties and marketing activities.  The Company is
pursuing its defenses.

(3)  The Complaint in the Mendoza Litigation, filed on
December 22, 2009, is a putative class action alleging
       failure to provide one day's rest in seven for hourly
       non-exempt employees in California.  The Company is
       pursuing its defenses; and

   (4) The Complaint in the Algee Litigation, filed on
       December 17, 2010, is a putative class action alleging
       misclassification on behalf of all Executive Chefs in
       California.  The Company is pursuing its defenses.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC

POSTROCK ENERGY: Hearing to Approve Settlement Set for July 28
A hearing for the court's final approval of a settlement in the
class action lawsuit filed against PostRock Energy Corporation in
Oklahoma is scheduled for July 28, 2011, according to the
Company's June 23, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

The Company has been sued in two consolidated lawsuits filed by
approximately 56 royalty owners in the District Court of Nowata
County, State of Oklahoma.  On June 15, 2011, an additional
lawsuit was filed in the same court on behalf of a putative class
consisting of all Oklahoma royalty interest owners not covered by
the consolidated lawsuits.  In each of the lawsuits, the
plaintiffs allege that the Company has wrongfully deducted post-
production costs from the plaintiffs' royalties and have engaged
in self-dealing contracts and agreements resulting in a less than
market price for the gas production.  A settlement agreement has
been entered resolving all claims in both the consolidated
individual royalty owner action and in the class action.  On
June 20, 2011, the District Court preliminarily certified the
class and approved the settlement.  Following a 30-day period
during which members of the class may opt out, a hearing on final
approval of the class settlement is scheduled to be held on
July 28, 2011.  A total of $5.6 million will be paid to the
claimants in the settlement, which was fully reserved as of
March 31, 2011.

REDFORD TOWNSHIP, MI: More Than 200 Claims Filed Over Flooding
Observer & Eccentric reports that Redford Township resident
Larry Buck was hit twice when the May 25 deluge hit southeast

"My basement got flooded when the drain backed up," he said.  "A
couple (of) hours later my family (in his quad-level home in the
24000 block of Ross) was flooded when the river overflowed.  I
lost everything."

Mr. Buck, a businessman, was among about 150 people who met on
June 23 with lawyers considering a class-action suit to collect
damages.  He hadn't filed a claim with the township, Mr. Buck
said, in part because he was still tabulating the damage.

But he and other flood victims have time to be included in a
class-action lawsuit to collect damages, said Steven Liddle, of
the law firm of Macuga, Liddle & Dubin, P.C., that hosted the
meeting.  His firm contemplates separate class-action suits for
each community, the attorney said.  More information is available
at (313) 392-0015.

But time is running out, he said.  Flood victims have until July 9
to file notice of their intent to seek damages through the courts.
Filing such a notice of intent does not necessarily mean a person
will become part of any lawsuit, Mr. Liddle said.  "But if people
don't file notice," he said, "they will lose their right to sue."

More than 200 claims were filed with the township and subsequently
turned over to its insurance company, officials said, including
some who said they plan to be part of any class action.  As of
June 24, there were no reports of any response.

More than four inches of ran fell within 12 hours during that
deluge, resulting in the worst flooding in recent history,
according to officials.  Some residents reported as much as four
feet of water in basements and lower levels of their homes.

SONY: Faces Class Action Over Network Security Employee Layoffs
Kris Graft, writing for Gamasutra, reports that a new class action
lawsuit filed against Sony and its subsidiaries over the
PlayStation Network security breach alleges that the company fired
a number of network security employees just prior to a cyber
attack that left over 100 million accounts compromised across PSN
and Sony Online Entertainment.

"Sony sought to cut its costs at the expense of its customers by
terminating a significant number of employees immediately prior to
the security breach, including personnel responsible for
maintaining the security of the network," said the complaint, as
obtained by Gamasutra.

The court document alleged that two weeks prior to the April
breach, Sony "laid off a substantial percentage of its Sony Online
Entertainment workforce, including a number of employees in the
Network Operations Center," which is responsible for preparing and
responding to security breaches, a confidential witness said.

In March this year, SOE laid off 205 workers and closed three

The suit also alleged that Sony "spent lavishly" to safeguard its
own proprietary development server, the PS DevNetwork, "but
recklessly declined to provide adequate protections for its
customers' personal information," citing a confidential witness
who was an employee with Sony Computer Entertainment America from
2006 to 2008, and with SOE for five months in 2010, according to
the suit.

Sony also knew that its network security was weak "because it had
experienced hackings of sensitive data on a smaller scale prior to
the massive security breach," the suit claimed.

Another confidential witness, a platform support engineer for SOE
from 2006 till March 2011, claimed that "Sony's technicians only
installed firewalls on an ad-hoc [emphasis in original] basis
after they determined that a particular user was attempting to
gain unauthorized access to the network."  The suit claimed that
the practice fell short of widely-adopted security standards.

And another confidential witness, a senior project coordinator for
SCEA from June 2000 till March 2011, "expressed an utter lack of
surprise" about the breach, "since he and others at Sony knew it
had been breached on prior occasions as well," the complaint

The suit names Sony Corporation of America, Sony Computer
Entertainment America, Sony Pictures Entertainment and Sony
Network Entertainment International as defendants.

In April, hackers attacked PSN and obtained sensitive personal
information from 77 million user accounts.  The company said it
"could not rule out the possibility" that credit card information
had been compromised, and took down the service on April 20.

Soon after, the company said nearly 25 million SOE game accounts
were compromised, and shut down SOE's Station.com online PC games
service.  Sony eventually restored all online game services in
most territories by early June, and vowed that it had beefed up
its network security.

The suit was filed this week on behalf of a larger class by
New York residents Felix Cortorreal, Jacques Daoud Jr. and Jimmy
Cortorreal.  The plaintiffs are seeking actual damages in the
amount paid for the equipment and network, and "appropriate
restitution" for class members, among other forms of relief.

Gamasutra has contacted SCEA for comment.

SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: Sued Over Mortgage Loan Modifications
Keller Rohrback L.L.P. disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California.  The case was filed against SunTrust
Mortgage, Inc. and SunTrust Banks, Inc. STI -0.12%.  The complaint
was filed on behalf of homeowners who pursued mortgage loan
modifications with SunTrust and alleges that Defendants violated
consumer protection laws and breached contracts and other duties
by, among other things:

   -- Taking advantage of mortgagors' defaults;

   -- Promising modification and forbearance, soliciting
modification applications, and representing that certain written
materials are part of the modification process;

   -- Failing to grant promised modifications or reneging on
contractual modifications;

   -- Unduly delaying modifications;

   -- Repeatedly telling mortgagors that documents are lost,
missing, incomplete, or otherwise defective;

   -- Proceeding with foreclosures based on mortgagors' failure to
meet shifting demands;

   -- Increasing principal balances and imposing late charges and
other fees and expenses on mortgagors;

   -- Hanging foreclosure over mortgagors' heads as they are
dragged through the modification process;

   -- Substantially increasing debts by incorrectly applying
payments; and

   -- Failing to keep accurate records.

Keller Rohrback's national investigation of the practices alleged
in the complaint is ongoing.

If your home mortgage loan is or was serviced by SunTrust, if your
home was sold in a foreclosure sale while you were seeking a loan
modification from SunTrust, or if you have information about
SunTrust's loan modification practices, please contact paralegal
Maggie Norton or attorneys Sharon Hritz, Esq. or Lynn Sarko, Esq.
at (800) 776-6044 or (805) 456-1496, or via e-mail at

Keller Rohrback -- http://www.krclassaction.com-- provides class
action representation.  The firm has offices in Santa Barbara,
Seattle, Phoenix and New York.

TOYOTA AUTO: Appeal in "Harel Pia" Suit Remains Pending
An appeal from the order dismissing a putative bondholder class
action lawsuit filed by Harel Pia Mutual Fund against Toyota Motor
Credit Corporation remains pending, according to Toyota Auto
Receivables 2010-A Owner Trust's June 23, 2011, Form 10-D filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the monthly
distribution period May 1 to May 31, 2011.

Toyota Motor Credit Corporation and certain affiliates had also
been named as defendants in a putative bondholder class action,
Harel Pia Mutual Fund vs. Toyota Motor Corp., et al., filed in the
Central District of California on April 8, 2010, alleging
violations of federal securities laws.  The plaintiff filed a
voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit on July 20, 2010.

On July 22, 2010, the same plaintiff in the federal bondholder
action refiled the case in California state court on behalf of
purchasers of TMCC bonds traded on foreign exchanges (Harel Pia
Mutual Fund v. Toyota Motor Corp., et al., Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles).  The complaint alleged
violations of California securities laws, fraud, breach of
fiduciary duty and other state law claims.  On September 15, 2010,
defendants removed the state court action to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California pursuant to
the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act and the Class
Action Fairness Act.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on
October 15, 2010.  After a hearing on January 10, 2011, the court
granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice on
January 11, 2011.  The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on
January 27, 2011.

TMCC believes that it has meritorious defenses to these claims and
intends to defend against them vigorously.

No further updates were provided in the Company's latest SEC

YUHE INT'L: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on June 24 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the
securities of Yuhe International, Inc. (NASDAQ: YUII) during the
period from December 31, 2009 through June 23, 2011, inclusive,
and is seeking to recover investors' damages from violations of
federal securities laws.

To join the Yuhe class action, visit the Rosen Law Firm's Web site
at http://www.rosenlegal.com or call Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-
free, at 866-767-3653; you may also e-mail pkim@rosenlegal.com  or
szhang@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

The case filed by the Rosen Law Firm is pending the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.


The Complaint asserts violations of the federal securities laws
against Yuhe and its officers and directors for issuing false and
misleading information to investors about the financial and
business condition of the Company.  The Complaint alleges that (a)
Yongye's financial results as reported to the SEC for the fiscal
years ended 2009 and 2010 were materially false and misleading;
(b) Yuhe lied to investors about its purported acquisition of 13
breeder farms from Weifangshi Dajiang Qiye Group Co. Ltd.; and (c)
Yuhe's business was not growing at the rate represented by

The Complaint alleges that on or about June 16, 2011, information
from an analyst entered the market, quoting Dajiang's chairman,
that Yuhe did not acquire Dajiang's farms, as Yuhe had represented
in its SEC filings and other public statements.  This announcement
shocked the market and Yuhe's stock lost more than half of its
value.  On June 17, 2011, trading in the Company's stock was
halted.  On June 23, 2011, the Company announced its auditor had
resigned because of Yuhe "management's misrepresentation and
failure to disclose material facts surrounding certain acquisition
transactions and off balance sheet related party transactions."
Moreover, the auditor stated that its audited financial statements
of Yuhe International, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010,
should no longer be relied upon and that the auditor no longer
will be associated with the financial statements.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 23, 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 Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at
866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com

You may also visit the firm's Web site at

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Leah
Felisilda, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Julie Anne
Lopez, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

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

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

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

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

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *