/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110719.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, July 19, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 141


APPLE INC: May Face Class Action Over iPhone "Tracker" Device
BANK OF AMERICA: Homeowners' Temporary Injunction Bid Rejected
BISHOP ROSEN: Sued Over Unpaid Wages and Improper Deductions
BLOCKBUSTER INC: Appeals in Suit By Facebook Users Still Stayed
BLOCKBUSTER INC: "Dufrain" Suit Remains Stayed in California

BLOCKBUSTER INC: Still Defends Suits Over Viewing Fee Policies
DEAN FOODS: Settles Tennessee Dairy Farmers Suit for $140-Mil.
DG FASTCHANNEL: Settles Securities Class Action
DUNCAN ENERGY: Robbins Umeda Files Securities Class Action
EBIX INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

GENESIS FINANCIAL: Sued Over Debt Collection Violations
GOOGLEBIZWATCH: Faces Class Action Over Invasion of Privacy
MICHAELS STORES: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach
OLANDER PROPERTY: Violates Landlord-Tenant Ordinance, Suit Says
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Ex-Students' Suit Gets Class Action Status

TRILEGIANT CORP: Faces RICO Class Action in Arizona
UNITED STATES: Judge Rejects Green Card Lottery Class Action
UNIONBANCAL: Bank Overdraft Suit Gets Class Action Status
VARIAN SEMICONDUCTOR: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims


APPLE INC: May Face Class Action Over iPhone "Tracker" Device
Bae Ji-sook, writing for The Korea Herald, reports that a lawyer
announced on July 14 that he will lead a class action against
Apple Inc. for violation of privacy with its iPhone "tracker"

All eyes are now on whether Apple will aggressively defend against
the litigation, which may affect the majority of Korea's 3 million
iPhone users and inflict billions of won in losses on the business

According to MiraeLaw law firm, one of its lawyers, Kim Hyeong-
seok, launched the Web site http://www.sueapple.co.kron July 14
and looked for people willing to join a fresh round of litigation
against Apple to set an example of mobile privacy protection.  The
Web site was shut down due to heavy traffic.

Mr. Kim's moves came a couple of weeks after he won a ruling from
Changwon District Court last month ordering Apple to pay him
KRW1 million ($925) for lax management of its information gathered
through the tracker service.

According to computer expert Alasdair Allan's revelation earlier
this year, the iPhone keeps track of where users go, saving every
detail in a secret file on the device, which is then copied to the
owner's computer when the two are synchronized.  The data can be
collected without users' permission and is stored for up to a
year, he claimed.

What the court found problematic was not the fact that Apple had a
tracking program but the fact that the information was not
encrypted well enough to prevent leakage and possible abuse by
another person.  The judge said Apple seemed to have won the
rights to gather personal information from the user in advance but
had not executed its obligation to manage it with care.  This may
pose a threat to one's constitutional rights, the judge said.

Mr. Kim, who filed the suit in April, claimed that the idea of his
personal information leaked to a third party for abuse inflicted
distress and asked for compensation.  Apple has reportedly sent a
total of KRW998,000 as of the end of June without appeal, with
KRW2,000 deducted for bank transaction fees.

The media have forecast that the small victory will cause a
butterfly effect in Korea and abroad, where many users are also
seeking compensation from the mobile phone maker for the same

Three million people in Korea are iPhone users and when iPad users
are taken into account, the number of possible plaintiffs would
soar even higher, insiders say.

"The amount of compensation is not large but since an iPhone is
less than KRW1 million, it could impose a huge threat to Apple," a
pundit was quoted by saying to a local daily.

But some legal experts were skeptical about such a rosy picture
for the consumers.  They said that should Apple decide to build a
strong defense to the class action suit, there would not be much
for consumers to do.

"The plaintiffs must prove the presence of physical, emotional or
other form of damage inflicted by the use of iPhone tracker
program.  It's not going to be easy.  The Changwon Court ruling
was made with absolute silence from Apple," a legal expert told a
local daily.

The Korea Herald could not reach an Apple Korea spokesperson for
comments on the litigation, but according to an official statement
made by the headquarters in April, Apple denies the allegations.

"Apple is not tracking the location of your iPhone," spokesperson
Natalie Harrison said.

She said the tracking was to provide mobile users with fast and
accurate location information while preserving their security and

The press release also noted, "The data is not the iPhone's
location data -- it is a subset (cache) of the crowd-sourced Wi-Fi
hotspot and cell tower database which is downloaded from Apple
into the iPhone to assist the iPhone in rapidly and accurately
calculating location.  The reason the iPhone stores so much data
is because of a bug we uncovered and plan to fix shortly."

BANK OF AMERICA: Homeowners' Temporary Injunction Bid Rejected
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
court will hear claims that Bank of America improperly
administered the federal Home Affordable Loan Modification
Program, costing homeowners their chance to avoid foreclosure.

Mortgagors across the country brought class actions against BoA
last year after trying to participate in the HAMP program and
avoid foreclosure.

The federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Legislation
consolidated 26 cases from 19 states and transferred them to
Boston Federal Court.

The opinion by U.S. District Judge Rya Zobel summed up the complex

In October 2008, BoA "accepted $15 billion . . . as part of the
Troubled Asset Relief Program.  In January 2009, it accepted an
additional $10 billion in TARP funds in connection with its
acquisition of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., and a partial guarantee
against losses on $118 billion in mortgage-related assets.  In
April 2009, it signed a contract with the U.S. Department of the
Treasury agreeing to participate in HAMP, which provided BAC, as
the servicing arm of Bank of America, incentive payments for
granting to eligible borrowers affordable mortgage loan
modifications and other alternatives to foreclosure."

BAC Home Loans Services is a subsidiary of Bank of America.

"As part of the program, BAC entered into a standard agreement
with each plaintiff for a temporary trial modification of that
plaintiff's existing note and mortgage.

Each Trial Period Plan promised that if the borrower complied with
the terms of the agreement and the borrower's [situation] remained
unchanged in all material respects, then the borrower would
receive a permanent modification on the same terms.  BAC entered
into TPP agreements with several borrowers in Massachusetts.
"Under the TPP, the borrower made reduced mortgage payments based
on the financial documentation submitted during the eligibility
phase.  The homeowner could also be required to open an escrow
account and submit additional financial documents and to undergo
credit counseling.  The trial period lasted three months.  As long
as the borrower complied with the terms of the TPP and the income
representations were verified, the servicer was directed under the
terms of the TPP to offer the borrower a permanent modification at
the end of the three-month period.

"The named plaintiffs are homeowners who signed TPPs.  They
contend that the TPP was a binding contract between the parties
under which BAC was obligated to offer permanent loan
modifications if plaintiffs complied with the TPP's terms and
conditions over a three-month trial period.  Although they did
fully comply and were eligible, defendants either failed to grant
permanent modification or failed to give a written response to
their respective applications."

To make matters more complex, the plaintiffs proposed that they be
divided into two classes.

"First, a class of homeowners whose mortgage loans have been
serviced by one or both defendants, but who were never admitted
into the TPP.  While not parties to any contract, they reason that
they are among the intended beneficiaries of a Servicer
Participation Agreement between BANA [Bank of America North
America] and the U.S. Treasury."

"Second, they propose 15 statewide classes of homeowners who
entered into the TPP but were not given a permanent HAMP
modification or a written notice that their request for permanent
modification had been denied."

The court held that the second class lacked standing to bring its
claims and dismissed it.

"Nothing in the statute suggests any intent . . . to benefit these
plaintiffs; its terms compel the opposite conclusion," Judge Zobel

Nonetheless, the TPP plaintiffs will be allowed to proceed on
nearly all of their claims, except those that arise under the
Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

Contrary to BoA's allegations that no valid contracts were formed,
"the complaint meticulously details each plaintiff's initial and
ongoing," Judge Zobel wrote.

Judge Zobel found that the complaint adequately states a claim
that BoA dealt with plaintiffs unfairly and in bad faith, by
alleging that "BOA willfully failed to modify qualifying loans,
declined to properly train and supervise its agents, encouraged
and/or allowed employees to make inaccurate representations, all
'in bad faith and for its own economic benefit.'"

Claims regarding unfair and deceptive acts under state consumer
protection acts will also be allowed to stand.

But Judge Zobel rejected the plaintiffs' application for a
temporary injunction "which would bar defendants from foreclosing
on their mortgages until a determination on the merits in this

Judge Zobel noted that the named plaintiffs are "already
beneficiaries of a 'voluntary foreclosure hold.'"

Other class members may be out of luck: "an injunction as to these
before class certification . . . would be both improper and

A copy of the Memorandum of Decision in In Re Bank of America Home
Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) Contract Litigation,
Case No. 10-md-02193 (D. Mass.), is available at:


BISHOP ROSEN: Sued Over Unpaid Wages and Improper Deductions
Roger Spann, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Bishop, Rosen & Co., Inc., Robert Rosen, Isaac
Schlesinger, Case No. 651910/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.,
July 13, 2011) is brought to recover unpaid wages and improper
wage deductions from the Defendants.  Mr. Spann seeks declaratory
relief and monetary damages for the Defendants' willful violation
of the New York Labor Law.

Mr. Spann is a resident of New York, and worked for the Defendants
from April 2007 until September 2008.

Bishop Rosen is a New York Company, and was the Plaintiff's
employer under New York state law.  Mr. Rosen is an owner, and the
president, director and chief executive officer of Bishop Rosen.
Mr. Schlesinger is an owner and the vice president, secretary,
director and chief financial officer of Bishop Rosen.  Throughout
the last six years, the Defendants have operated as full-service
independent broker-dealers offering a comprehensive range of
financial and wealth management services for retail investors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Kadushin, Esq.
          Charles Joseph, Esq.
          Michael D. Palmer, Esq.
          D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
          233 Broadway, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10279
          Telephone: (212) 688-5640
          Facsimile: (212) 688-2548
          E-mail: matthew@jhllp.com

BLOCKBUSTER INC: Appeals in Suit By Facebook Users Still Stayed
Appeals from the final judgment approving a settlement in the
class action lawsuit involving Blockbuster Inc. and Facebook Inc.
remain stayed, according to the Company's July 13, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended January 2, 2011.

Blockbuster is a defendant in one remaining lawsuit arising out of
the Blockbuster and Facebook Web site.  On August 12, 2008, Sean
Lane, Mohannaed Sheikha, Sean Martin, Ali Sammour, Mohammaed
Zidan, Sara Karrow, Colby Henson, Denton Hunker, Firas Sheikha,
Hassen Sheikha, Linda Stewart, Tina Tran, Matthew Smith, Erica
Parnell, John Conway, Austin Muhs, Phillip Huerta, Alicia Hunker,
and Megan Lynn Hancock (a minor, through her parent Rebecca Holey)
filed a putative class action complaint under the Video Privacy
Protection Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, and California's Computer Crime Law in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.
Plaintiffs assert claims against Facebook, Inc., Blockbuster Inc.,
Fandango, Inc., Hotwire, Inc., STA Travel, Inc., Overstock.com,
Inc., Zappos.com, Inc., Gamefly, Inc., and John Does 1-40,
corporations.  Plaintiffs are purporting to act on behalf of every
Facebook member who visited one or more of Facebook's affiliates'
Web site and engaged in activities that triggered the Facebook
affiliates' Web site to communicate with Facebook regarding the
activity from November 6, 2007, to December 5, 2007.  Plaintiffs
claim Blockbuster violated the VPPA, ECPA, and CFAA by allegedly
violating the plaintiffs' privacy through their activities on the
Blockbuster and Facebook Web site.  Plaintiffs seek class
certification, injunctive and equitable relief, statutory damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs.

On March 17, 2010, the court approved a settlement on behalf of
the putative class of plaintiffs.  The settlement is funded and
supported by Facebook and requires no contribution from
Blockbuster.  On May 27, 2010, the court entered final judgment
dismissing the case with prejudice.  In June 2010, several
separate appeals of the final judgment were filed by persons
objecting to the terms of the settlement.  On September 23, 2010,
Blockbuster filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11
in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of
New York (Case No. 10-14997).  On September 28, 2010, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order
staying the appeals as to defendant Blockbuster only.  The Company
believes that the claims are without merit and should it become
necessary, the Company intends to vigorously defend itself.

BLOCKBUSTER INC: "Dufrain" Suit Remains Stayed in California
The class action lawsuit commenced by Ellen Dufrain against
Blockbuster Inc. remains stayed in California, according to the
Company's July 13, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended January 2, 2011.

On September 30, 2008, Ellen Dufrain filed a putative class action
against Blockbuster in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
California, alleging failure to fully reimburse California-based
managers for work expenses and unfair business practices.
Plaintiff seeks class certification, unpaid work expenses, an
accounting, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, equitable
relief, interest, costs, and attorney's fees.  On March, 9, 2010,
plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding a new claim for
statutory penalties.  On April 8, 2010, Blockbuster removed the
case to the United States District Court for the Central District
of California.  On May 17, 2010, the case was remanded back to the
Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California.  By order dated
September 8, 2010, the trial court certified two classes; one
class of all California-based store-level management employees
employed from September 30, 2004, through the date of judgment to
whom Blockbuster failed to fully reimburse mileage expenses for
the use of their personal vehicle while performing company
business, and another class of those who were subjected to
unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts or practices.

On September 23, 2010, Blockbuster filed a voluntary petition for
relief under Chapter 11 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for
the Southern District of New York (Case No. 10-14997).
Blockbuster's voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing has
automatically stayed this case.  The Company believes that the
claims are without merit and it intends to vigorously defend

BLOCKBUSTER INC: Still Defends Suits Over Viewing Fee Policies
Blockbuster Inc. continues to defend class action lawsuits
relating to its extended viewing fee and other policies, according
to the Company's July 13, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended January 2,

Blockbuster was a defendant in 12 lawsuits filed by customers in
nine states and the District of Columbia between November 1999 and
April 2001.  These putative class action lawsuits alleged common
law and statutory claims for fraud and deceptive practices and/or
unlawful business practices regarding the Company's extended
viewing fee policies for customers who chose to keep rental
product beyond the initial rental term.  Some of the cases also
alleged that these policies imposed unlawful penalties and
resulted in unjust enrichment for the Company.  In January 2002,
the 136th Judicial District Court of Jefferson County, Texas,
entered a final judgment approving a national class settlement
(the "Scott settlement").  Under the approved settlement, the
Company paid $9.25 million in plaintiffs' attorneys' fees during
the first quarter of 2005 and made certificates available to class
members for rentals and discounts through November 2005.  One
additional extended viewing fee case in the United States is
inactive and subject to dismissal pursuant to the Scott

In addition, there is one case, filed on February 18, 1999, in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, Cohen
v. Blockbuster, not completely resolved by the Scott settlement.
Marc Cohen, Uwe Stueckrad, Marc Perper and Denita Sanders assert
common law and statutory claims for fraud and deceptive practices,
unjust enrichment and unlawful penalties regarding Blockbuster's
extended viewing fee policies.  Such claims were brought against
Blockbuster, individually and on behalf of all entities doing
business as Blockbuster or Blockbuster Video.  Plaintiffs seek
relief on behalf of themselves and other plaintiff class members
including actual damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.
By order dated April 27, 2004, the Cohen trial court certified
plaintiff classes for U.S. residents who incurred extended viewing
fees and/or purchased unreturned videos between February 18, 1994,
and December 31, 2004, and who were not part of the Scott
settlement or who do not have a Blockbuster membership with an
arbitration clause.  In the same order, the trial court certified
a defendant class comprised of all entities that have done
business in the United States as Blockbuster or Blockbuster Video
since February 18, 1994.  On August 15, 2005, the trial court
denied Blockbuster's motion to reconsider the trial court's
certification of plaintiff classes.  On September 26, 2007, the
Illinois Appellate Court remanded the trial court's decision to
certify plaintiff classes back to the trial court for
reconsideration of the Company's motion to decertify plaintiff
classes.  Plaintiffs did not petition the Illinois Supreme Court
for leave to appeal.  On March 14, 2008, upon reconsideration, the
trial court granted Blockbuster's motion to decertify plaintiff
classes and decertified both plaintiff and defendant classes.

On September 23, 2010, Blockbuster filed a voluntary petition for
relief under Chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code in
the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of
New York (Case No. 10-14997).  Blockbuster's voluntary Chapter 11
bankruptcy filing has automatically stayed this case.  On
December 21, 2010, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Order Allowing
Class Proof of Claim and Certifying the Proposed Classes,
requesting that the bankruptcy court certify a class action proof
of claim on behalf of the classes in Blockbuster's Chapter 11
bankruptcy case.  Blockbuster objected to plaintiff's motion for
class certification.  On January 20, 2011, the bankruptcy court
denied plaintiffs' Motion for Order Allowing Class Proof of Claims
and Certifying the Proposed Classes.

The Company believes the plaintiffs' position in Cohen is without
merit and it intends to vigorously defend itself in the lawsuit.
In addition, two putative class action lawsuits are pending
against Blockbuster in Canada.  William Robert Hazell filed an
action in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on August 24,
2001, against Viacom Entertainment Canada Inc., Viacom,
Blockbuster Canada Inc. and Blockbuster.  The case asserts claims
for unconscionability, violations of the trade practices act,
breach of contract and high handed conduct.  The relief sought
includes actual damages, disgorgement, and exemplary and punitive
damages.  Douglas R. Hedley filed an action in the Court of
Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, in Saskatchewan on
July 19, 2002.  The case asserts claims of unconscionability,
unjust enrichment, misrepresentation and deception, and seeks
recovery of actual damages of $3 million, disgorgement,
declaratory relief, punitive and exemplary damages of $1 million
and attorneys' fees.  The Company believes the plaintiffs'
positions in all of these cases are without merit and, if
necessary, intends to vigorously defend itself.

DEAN FOODS: Settles Tennessee Dairy Farmers Suit for $140-Mil.
Dean Foods Company has reached a $140 million settlement with
certain Tennessee dairy farmers, according to the Company's
July 13, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On July 12, 2011, Dean Foods Company announced that it had entered
into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in its previously
disclosed Tennessee dairy farmer class action lawsuit.  Under the
proposed settlement agreement, which is pending approval by the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee, the Company will pay a total of $140 million over a
period of four to five years into a fund that will be available
for distribution to dairy farmer class members in a number of
Southeastern states.  The Company says there can be no assurance
that the Court will approve the agreement as proposed by the
parties.  The Company will make an initial payment of $60 million
upon preliminary approval of the agreement by the Court, and will
make subsequent payments of $20 million in each of the following
four years on the anniversary of the final approval date.  The
Company anticipates that payments made in connection with this
settlement are deductible for tax purposes, with deductibility
occurring in the period of cash outlay.

The Company expects to take a charge, less imputed interest, in
the second quarter of 2011 with respect to the proposed
settlement.  The Company does not believe that entry into the
settlement agreement, or payment of the settlement amounts, will
have a material adverse impact on its financial results or its
financial covenants under its senior secured credit agreement and
receivables-backed facility.  Under its credit agreements, the
Company is required to comply with certain financial covenants,
including, but not limited to, maximum senior secured leverage,
maximum leverage and minimum interest coverage ratios, each as
defined under and calculated in accordance with the terms of the
Company's senior secured credit facility and its receivables-
backed facility.  Each ratio is determined by calculating the
Company's consolidated EBITDA, which is comprised of its net
income plus interest expense, taxes, depreciation, amortization
expense and certain other non-cash expenses, and add-backs
resulting from acquisition related non-recurring charges and
certain of the Company's subsidiaries.  In addition, the
calculation of consolidated EBITDA may include adjustments related
to other charges reasonably acceptable to the administrative agent
and is calculated on a pro-forma basis to give effect to any
acquisitions, divestitures or relevant changes in the Company's
composition or certain of its subsidiaries.  The Company has
received confirmation from the administrative agent that the
charge resulting from payment of the settlement amounts will be
treated as such an adjustment.

"We continue to be confident that we have operated lawfully and
fairly at all times in the Southeast," Gregg Engles, the Company's
chairman and chief executive officer, said in a statement released
on July 12, 2011.  "We believe this settlement is in the best
interest of our shareholders, employees, customers and consumers.
Settling this case allows us to focus on the business challenges
that we face, and to continue to take costs out of our operations
while avoiding the expense, uncertainty and distraction of a
protracted litigation and the likelihood of a lengthy appeals

The statement notes that class members will be notified of the
proposed settlement pursuant to a notice plan that is subject to
approval of the Court.  Dean Foods expects to receive court
approval for the settlement agreement, but there can be no
assurance that the court will approve the agreement as proposed by
the parties.

DG FASTCHANNEL: Settles Securities Class Action
Labaton Sucharow LLP on July 14 disclosed that the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York approved the
following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that
could benefit certain purchasers of securities of DG Fastchannel,



No. 10 Civ. 6523 (RJS)



YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Court, that the above-
captioned litigation has been preliminarily certified as a class
action for the purposes of settlement only and that a settlement
with DG, Scott K. Ginsburg, Neil H. Nguyen and Omar A. Choucair,
in the amount of $2,000,000 in cash, has been proposed by the

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Richard J. Sullivan of
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York in the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500
Pearl Street, Courtroom 21C, New York, NY 10007-1312 at 3:30 p.m.,
on September 13, 2011 to, among other things: determine whether
the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; determine whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation for distribution of the settlement proceeds should be
approved as fair and reasonable; and consider the application of
Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
litigation expenses.  The Court may change the date of the hearing
without providing another notice.

you have not yet received the full printed Notice of Pendency of
Class Action and Proposed Settlement and a Proof of Claim and
Release Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by
contacting the Claims Administrator:

          In re DG Fastchannel, Inc.  
          Claims Administrator  
          c/o Strategic Claims Services  
          600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 3  
          Media, PA 19063  
          Telephone: 866-274-4004
          E-mail: info@strategicclaims.net   
          Web site: http://www.strategicclaims.net   

Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of
a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel.

          Jonathan Gardner, Esq.  
          140 Broadway  
          New York, NY 10005  
          Telephone: 888-219-6877
     E-mail: settlementquestions@labaton.com     
          Web site: http://www.labaton.com   

If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Settlement proceeds, you must submit a Proof
of Claim postmarked no later than October 24, 2011.  To exclude
yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request for
exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice, such that it is received or postmarked no later than
August 23, 2011.  If you are a Class Member and do not exclude
yourself from the Class, you will be bound by the Final Order and
Judgment of the Court.  Any objections to the proposed Settlement,
Plan of Allocation and/or application for attorneys' fee and
reimbursement of expenses must be filed with the Court and served
on counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Notice, such that they are received or postmarked no
later than August 23, 2011.  If you are a Class Member and do not
timely submit a valid Proof of Claim, you will not be eligible to
share in the Net Settlement Fund, but you nevertheless will be
bound by the Final Order and Judgment of the Court.

DATED: JULY 14, 2011




DUNCAN ENERGY: Robbins Umeda Files Securities Class Action
Robbins Umeda LLP on July 14 disclosed that the firm commenced a
class action lawsuit on July 5, 2011, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division on behalf of
all persons who hold units of common stock of Duncan Energy
Partners L.P. against Duncan Energy and its board of directors for
violations of sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed acquisition
of Duncan Energy by Enterprise Products Partners L.P.

The complaint arises out of an April 29, 2011 press release
announcing that the company had entered into a definitive merger
agreement with Enterprise, pursuant to which Duncan Energy
unitholders would receive 1.010 common units of Enterprise for
each common unit of Duncan Energy they own, equating to
approximately $43.82 per Duncan Energy unit.

The complaint alleges that certain of the defendants, in
connection with Proposed Acquisition, breached or aided and
abetted the other defendants' breaches of their express and
implied contractual duties under the Amended and Restated
Agreement of Limited Partnership of Duncan Energy, dated
February 5, 2007, and all subsequent amendments thereto.  The
complaint further alleges that, in an attempt to secure unitholder
approval of the Proposed Acquisition, the defendants filed a
materially misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in violation of sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
omitted and/or misrepresented information is believed to be
material in assisting Duncan Energy unitholders in making an
informed decision whether or not to vote in favor of the Proposed

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief on behalf of all Duncan Energy
unitholders as of April 29, 2011.  The plaintiff is represented by
Robbins Umeda LLP and the Kendall Law Group, LLP.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from July 5, 2011.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Esq. of Robbins
Umeda LLP at 800-350-6003, via the shareholder information form on
our Web site or by e-mail at info@robbinsumeda.com

You may also contact Joe Kendall of Kendall Law Group, LLP at
(214) 744-3000 or by e-mail at jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com

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

Robbins Umeda LLP, a California-based law firm, and Kendall Law
Group, LLP, a Texas based law firm, have significant experience
representing investors in securities fraud class actions, merger-
related shareholder class actions, and shareholder derivative

EBIX INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit against Ebix, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class
action (civil action no. 11:CV) in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Ebix
securities from May 6, 2009, through June 30, 2011, inclusive.
The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a); and SEC
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, 17 C.F.R. Section

If you are a shareholder who purchased Ebix securities during the
Class Period, you have until September 12, 2011, to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact:

        Rachelle R. Boyle
        Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP
        Telephone: 888-476-6529 (ext. 237)
        E-mail: rrboyle@pomlaw.com

Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.

Ebix supplies software and electronic commerce solutions to the
insurance industry.  The Complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, Defendants issued a series of materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
financial results.  Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the
Company's tax provisions did not conform to Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles; (2) the Company overstated its account
receivables; (3) the Company consistently failed to tie customer
payments to specific invoices; (4) the Company lacked adequate
internal and financial controls; and (5) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On March 24, 2011, Seeking Alpha published a report accusing the
Company of engaging in a number of accounting manipulations,
including: a) manipulating stated organic growth; b) overstating
profit margins; c) overstating its accounts receivables; d)
manipulating tax liabilities; and e) inflating cash flows. The
Report concluded that the Company's "problems run deeper than
accounting.  The EBIX story also comes with multiple auditor
resignations, governance abuses, misrepresented organic growth,
questionable cash flow and a contentious CEO."  On this news, the
Company's shares declined $7.20 per share, or nearly 24%, to close
on March 24, 2011, at $22.52 per share, on unusually heavy trading

On June 30, 2011, the media reported that the shareholders of Peak
Performance Solutions, Inc., who sold their business to Ebix,
filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, claiming that Ebix was consistently
unable to bill customers properly, tie customer payments to
invoices, and provide basic financial data or calculate revenues
for Peak.  On this news, the Company's shares declined an
additional $1.30 or more than 6% and closed at $19.05.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- specializes
in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation.  The firm has offices in New York, Chicago and
Washington, D.C.

GENESIS FINANCIAL: Sued Over Debt Collection Violations
National consumer law firm Weisberg & Meyers, LLC on July 14
disclosed that a class action lawsuit against Genesis Financial
Solutions, Inc., NCO Portfolio Management Inc. and WebBank
continues to move forward.  The lawsuit (CaseNo. 3:10-cv-02037-L),
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas Division) alleges that Defendants
deceptively used an offer for a pre-approved Pearl Card(R)Gold
MasterCard(R) to collect or receive payment for an alleged debt,
when in fact the offer was a collection letter.  The lawsuit
alleges multiple violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act and the Texas Finance Code.

According to court documents Plaintiff Mark Myers received a
mailed communication on July 12, 2010 with an offer from NCO
Financial Services and GFS Financial Solutions that stated in bold
print at the top, "Transfer your debt to a Pre-Approved+
MasterCard(R)!"  The average consumer receives numerous credit
card offers in the mail each month and may have perceived this
offer, which was an attempt to collect a debt on behalf of the
defendants, as a typical credit card application/offer, or junk
mail and tossed it in the trash, and in the process, thrown away a
communication that triggered specific rights under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Part and parcel of the FDCPA's rights afforded to a debtor is what
is commonly referred to as the "Mini-Miranda Warning", a statement
that identifies the name of the debt collector, the company they
represent, and advises the debtor of his/her right to validate and
dispute an alleged debt within 30 days.  The Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act mandates that each time a debtor is contacted by a
debt collector via written communication, the "Mini-Miranda
Warning" must be provided.

The complaint alleges that the communication received by Plaintiff
Myers and others did not clearly display the "Mini-Miranda
Warning" in its entirety where it could easily be viewed and read.
This important information advising a debtor of his/her rights,
appeared on the reverse side of the offer and thus could easily
have been missed or overlooked and was overshadowed by the
voluminous amount of fine print that has become standard in most
credit card offers.  A signature confirming acceptance of this new
Pearl Card(R) Gold MasterCard(R) offer would validate the amount
of the alleged debt and restart the clock on the statute of
limitations, which may have already expired, unbeknownst to the
debtor.  By signing and agreeing to proceed with the credit card
offer, the debtor has now waived his rights to validate and/or
dispute the alleged debt.

The complaint also alleges that Defendant WebBank allowed GFS and
NCO the use of its Utah banking charter for the credit card offer,
though WebBank was not actually a party to the collection efforts.
The communication itself states "GFS is not affiliated with
WebBank . . . . ."  The Utah banking charter allows GFS and NCO,
through alleged partnership, the opportunity to use Utah's laws
which allow for no caps on interest rates and fees for all 50
states other than what competition dictates, in the MasterCard(R)

Plaintiff seeks to recover actual and punitive damages on behalf
of class members, comprised of all those who received a
correspondence similar to the mailed offer received by lead
Plaintiff Mark Myers on July 12, 2010, for a period of 1 year
prior to the date lawsuit was filed.

             About Genesis Financial Solutions, Inc.

Genesis Financial Solutions, Inc., founded in 2001 and based in
Beaverton, Oregon, is a consumer financial services company that
engages in originating, buying, acquiring, servicing, and managing
consumer receivables.  Its solutions include performing and non-
performing non-prime credit card, student lending, and debt buying
for companies seeking liquidity for their consumer receivables.
It also offers consumer debt buying and servicing solutions,
including credit cards, medical, health club, retail,
telecom/wireless, student loans, and auto loan portfolios.

               About NCO Portfolio Management, Inc.

NCO Portfolio Management, Inc. is a subsidiary of the NCO Group,
Inc. and has headquarter offices in Horsham Pennsylvania alongside
the parent company.  NCO Portfolio Management purchases and
manages investments in delinquent consumer debt, purchasing
discounted portfolios of charged-off Visa, MasterCard, private-
label credit card, and other consumer credit accounts directly
from such credit grantors as banks, finance companies, and
retailers in the US, Canada, and the UK.  The company then turns
over the acquired accounts to another unit/subsidiary of NCO Group
for servicing and collection.  NCO Portfolio Management primarily
serves companies in the financial services, health care,
telecommunications, and utilities industries.

                        About WebBank Inc.

WebBank has headquarter offices in Salt Lake City, Utah, and is a
FDIC insured, state chartered Industrial Bank organized under the
laws of the State of Utah and operating under federal law for
licensing issues.  Through its industrial bank charter, WebBank
can provide niche financing.  The charter allows WebBank to offer
financing solutions on a nationwide platform for consumer and
commercial private-label products and services.  WebBank engages
in a full range of banking activities including making loans,
issuing credit cards, and taking deposits that are federally

       About Weisberg & Meyers, LLC, Attorneys for Consumers

Weisberg & Meyers LLC, Attorneys for Consumers, is a nationally
recognized consumer law firm, has attorneys licensed to practice
in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey, New
Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas and Washington, and works with attorneys
throughout the country to protect the rights of aggrieved
consumers.  The Firm's diverse practice includes claims under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA), as well as violations of the Truth In
Lending Act (TILA), the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), and
Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA).  The Firm also offers Debt
Settlement services, prosecutes Class Actions Lawsuits, and
handles Breach of Warranty, Lemon Law and Consumer Fraud Claims.

GOOGLEBIZWATCH: Faces Class Action Over Invasion of Privacy
A group of Nashville residents and attorneys are part of a class-
action lawsuit against GooglebizWatch alleging invasion of
privacy, The Tennessean reports.

The case stems from 2007 to 2010, when Google canvassed the
country in automobiles to collect images for Google Maps' street-
view feature.  While cruising the country's streets, Google also
collected some information from home and business wireless
networks if those networks were not password-protected.

The Tennessean reports that the case currently features three
Nashville plaintiffs.  San Francisco-based law firm Lieff
CabraserbizWatch, which has one of its three offices in Nashville,
is heading up the case.

MICHAELS STORES: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach
Chris Fry at Courthouse News Service reports that Michaels Stores
took almost 3 months to warn customers that their debit cards' PIN
numbers may have been stolen by skimming devices in at least 20
states, a class action claims in Passaic County Court.

The class claims that between Feb. 8 and May 6 this year "an
unidentified third-party or third-parties tampered with Michaels
payment processing equipment and gained access to the extremely
sensitive financial information of thousands of Michaels consumers
in at least twenty states."

The class claims the company "failed to take any commercially
reasonable steps to safeguard its customers' nonpublic, sensitive,
personal and financial account information . . . making its
consumers an easy target for third-party skimmers."

And, the class adds: "After the security breach occurred, Michaels
further harmed its customers by delaying notifying them for almost
three months after the security breach began. . . . On May 5,
2011, almost three months after the security breach occurred, the
company sent the belated email alert to some of its customers."

What's more, the e-mail alert was less than honest, the class
claims: "Despite knowing of the data breach for weeks, if not
months, Michaels stated in the email alert, 'Michaels has just
learned that it may have been victim of PIN pad tampering in the
Chicago area and that customer credit and debit card information
may have been compromised.'"

Michaels is an art supplies store that owns and operates more than
1,000 outlets in the United States and Canada.

The class claims that the delay in issuing the alert "created a
significantly greater risk" that "deprived customers of the
opportunity to protect themselves and their personal information
during that three-month time period."

Michaels acknowledged in May "that 90 individual PIN pads in
Michaels' 964 stores showed signs of tampering, and Michaels
removed approximately 7,200 PIN pads comparable to the identified
tampered PIN pads from its U.S. stores," according to the

One of the two named plaintiffs says her credit card was
compromised when she used it to make a $3.19 purchase at a
Michaels store in New Jersey.

The named plaintiffs say that "at no time has Michaels offered any
credit monitoring assistance" despite suggesting in a letter to
customers that they may want to seek it.

The class seeks monitoring services, compensatory, statutory and
treble damages for negligence and violations of the Consumer Fraud

A copy of the Complaint in Rosenfeld, et al. v. Michael Stores,
Inc., Case No. L3086-11 (N.J. Super. Ct., Passaic Cty.), is
available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
          Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          E-mail: bgreenberg@litedpelma.com

               - and -

          Mark Smilow, Esq.
          Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
          WEISS & LURIE
          1500 Broadway, 16th Fl.
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          E-mail: msmilow@weisslurie.com

OLANDER PROPERTY: Violates Landlord-Tenant Ordinance, Suit Says
Scott Beale and Jacinda Treadway, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Olander Property Management Co.,
Inc., Leonard Stann and Sara Stann, Case No. 2011-CH-24615 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., July 13, 2011) is a class action lawsuit
brought to secure redress against the Defendants for violations of
the City of Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Stanns failed to timely provide
them with either a notice of renewal or a notice of refusal to
renew their lease in a property owned by the Stanns.

The Plaintiffs are former tenants of a residential apartment
building located at 1647 N. North Park Avenue, in Chicago,

Olander is an Illinois corporation, which owns or manages the
North Park apartment.  The Stanns are the owners or managers of
the North Park apartment.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James K. Genden, Esq.
          105 W. Adams, Suite 3200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312)-372-9282
          E-mail: jgenden@torshen.com

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Ex-Students' Suit Gets Class Action Status
Tom Bailey at Memphis Commercial Appeal reports that three years
after a federal and state raid on a truck-driving school in
Millington, more than 8,700 former students can now collectively
sue Swift Transportation Corp. for the disruption to their

U.S. Dist. Judge Bernice Donald granted class-action status
earlier this month to lawsuits filed by some of the former
students of Swift Driving Academy.

Tennessee Department of Safety records "indicate that more than
8,700 former Swift students had their CDLs (commercial driver
license) revoked and were required to retest in order to obtain a
new CDL," the ruling states.

Swift operates both a trucking terminal in Memphis and a driving
academy in Millington.

Until the 2008 raid, the Tennessee Department of Safety had not
only permitted Swift employees to be third-party testers -- on
behalf of the state -- of commercial license applicants, but even
placed a driver license station in the Swift terminal in Memphis.

The arrangement made it easier for Swift driving students to get
their licenses after completing 23 days of training.

But authorities cracked down after an investigation into
allegations that the normal rigors of the licensing process there
had been corrupted by cutting corners.

Also, Swift students from out of state were being housed at a
Millington motel, claiming the hotel as a Tennessee residence to
get a Tennessee license, then returning to their home states to

After the raid, Tennessee required all former students from
Tennessee over a three year period to be retested in order to keep
their CDL.  The Department of Safety also recommended the states
of other former students require retesting, too.

Frank Watson, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, estimates the
damages sought in a class-action suit could total $35 million.
That's based on 8,740 former students getting reimbursed the
$3,000 to $3,900 paid for the training plus a $150 testing fee,
Mr. Watson said.

"Swift will maintain the testing was separate and apart from the
training," Mr. Watson said.  "But the reality is folks spent three
weeks of their lives and it was all for naught," Mr. Watson said,
"unless they re-tested and gained their CDL."

For many, it was hard to retest because they didn't have easy
access to a truck, he said.

But Dave Berry, a vice president for Swift, said on July 13, "We
will vigorously defend ourselves, and our lawyers believe we have
solid grounds for an appeal."

State records identify the affected 8,700 students, and each will
automatically be included in the class action lawsuit, Mr. Watson

TRILEGIANT CORP: Faces RICO Class Action in Arizona
Courthouse News Service reports that a RICO class action claims
Trilegiant Corp. bilks online consumers with help from its parent
companies Affinion Group and Apollo Global Management, and credit
card issuer Chase Bank.

A copy of the Complaint in Restrepo v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., et
al., Case No. 11-cv-00423 (D. Ariz.) (Collins, J.), is available


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen I. Leshner, Esq.
          STEPHEN I. LESHNER, P.C.
          1440 East Missouri Ave, Suite 265
          Phoenix, AZ 85014
          Telephone: (602) 266-9000
          E-mail: steve@steveleshner.com

UNITED STATES: Judge Rejects Green Card Lottery Class Action
Matt O'Brien, writing for Contra Costa Times, reports that a
federal judge on July 14 dismissed a class-action lawsuit filed by
a Dublin man and 35 other people who were told they won a chance
to get a U.S. green card, only to be informed that the State
Department voided the results of its annual visa lottery because
of a computer glitch.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson said she sympathized with
the plaintiffs and thousands of others who thought they had been
selected for one of 50,000 diversity visas, which are awarded
randomly each year to people from countries with low rates of
emigration to the U.S.

Judge Jackson, however, sided with the State Department in arguing
that the results had to be voided because a computer problem had
caused the selection to favor certain applicants over others.  The
process is supposed to be strictly random.

The emotional impact of the State Department's reversal "has been
painful and real," Judge Jackson wrote in a 34-page ruling for the
U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., but "there are 19 million
more stories, from other lottery participants, many of which may
be equally or even more compelling, and it is for that reason that
Congress determined that every applicant would have an equal
chance of winning the right to apply for the visa."

Of the 19 million people around the world who entered the lottery,
the plaintiffs were among 22,316 who received a message from the
State Department in early May that they had been randomly selected
to apply for a green card.  The State Department later explained
that computer problems skewed the results, causing them to not be
truly random.

The government voided the results and promised a redraw this
summer.  The results of the second lottery attempt were scheduled
to be released on July 15.

The plaintiffs argued that while the original results, which
favored people who applied on the first two days of the submission
period, were unusual, they should still be considered random
because no one knew which dates were more favorable when they
applied.  Judge Jackson dismissed that argument.

"Plaintiffs' attempts to characterize the results of the flawed
process as random make a hash of the statute and defy common
sense," she wrote.

Among the plaintiffs was 28-year-old software engineer Anton
Kuraev, a Dublin resident from Russia who has been living in the
Bay Area on a temporary work visa but wants to stay here
permanently.  Mr. Kuraev said that he believes Judge Jackson's
ruling makes sense but he remains angered that the State
Department made such a big mistake affecting thousands of lives.

"I completely disagree with the fact that none of those who
contributed to this mess is penalized," Judge Kuraev wrote in an
e-mail.  "What they did is a shame."

He spent hundreds of dollars to file the necessary paperwork.

"I wish one day this lottery program will be terminated and all
its visa pool will be distributed in a more reasonable manner,"
Judge Kuraev said.

Another would-be immigrant who was told he was a winner, 24-year-
old French online entrepreneur Tarik Ansari, said he was
disappointed by the ruling but would be checking the State
Department Web site early on July 15 hoping he gets selected

Because there are millions of entrants, the likelihood of getting
picked twice is slim.

"The chances are two thirds of one percent.  It's pretty low,"
said Mr. Ansari, who lives in San Francisco on a temporary
business visa and is launching a new dating Web site he created.
"It's disappointing."

While Mr. Ansari plans to look for other routes to American
citizenship, for many people the diversity visa is the only
option.  Other visas are based on family connections, employer
sponsorships or having suffered from political persecution.

"It's a broken system, but at least it's a door," Mr. Ansari said
of the random lottery.  "A lot of people cannot come to this
country unless they are really educated."

UNIONBANCAL: Bank Overdraft Suit Gets Class Action Status
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal
judge overseeing a nationwide bank overdraft fee litigation
granted class-action status to UnionBanCal customers, the first
certification in a case targeting more than two dozen lenders, a
law firm for the customers said.

The July 13 ruling by U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King in
Miami means the customers, who could number in the tens of
thousands, may sue the parent of Union Bank as a group, which
could cut costs and allow higher recoveries.

The judge also threw out a racketeering claim against UnionBanCal,
a San Francisco-based unit of Japan's Mitsubishi UFJ Financial
Group Inc, court records show.

Lawyers for UnionBanCal did not immediately return calls seeking a
comment.  UnionBanCal ended March with $80.6 billion of assets,
and operated more than 400 branches in California, Oregon,
Washington and Texas.

The overdraft fee litigation consolidates lawsuits filed across
the country against JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc., Wells
Fargo & Co. and other U.S., Canadian and European lenders.

It accuses lenders of routinely processing transactions from
largest to smallest rather than in chronological order.  This can
cause account balances to fall faster, and overdraft fees --
typically $25 or $35 -- to pile up sooner.

"To the extent the conduct of other banks is similar to that of
Union Bank, and we think it is, the certification makes it more
likely than not that class-action cases against other banks will
also be certified," said Peter Prieto, a partner at Podhurst
Orseck in Miami, whose colleague Aaron Podhurst is co-lead counsel
for the plaintiffs.

Judge King in May granted tentative approval to Bank of America
Corp's $410 million settlement of similar charges, in a case
involving roughly 1 million customers.

Last year, the Federal Reserve prohibited banks from charging
overdraft fees on electronic and debit card transactions without
advance customer approval.

Critics say overdraft fees disproportionately burden customers
with lower incomes or low account balances.

The case is In re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of Florida, No. 09-md-02036.

VARIAN SEMICONDUCTOR: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say Varian
Semiconductor Equipment Associates is selling itself too cheaply
through an unfair process to Applied Materials, for $4.9 billion
or $63 a share.

A copy of the Complaint in Crane v. Varian Semiconductor Equipment
Associates, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-11236 (Stearns, J.), is
available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Pastor, Esq.
          63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 742-9700
          E-mail: dpastor@gilmanpastor.com

               - and -

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          Shane Rowley, Esq.
          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Francis McConville, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Fl.
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.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, 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  * * *