/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/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 Headlines 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" device. 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 giant. 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 reason. 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 privacy. 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 situation. 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 wrote. 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 case." 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 unmanageable." 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: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/14/BoABoston.pdf 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. JOSEPH, HERZFELD, HESTER & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 233 Broadway, 5th Floor New York, NY 10279 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 688-2548 E-mail: matthew@jhllp.com charles@jhllp.com mpalmer@jhllp.com maimon@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 itself. 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, 2011. 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 settlement. 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 process." 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, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE DG FASTCHANNEL, INC SECURITIES LITIGATION No. 10 Civ. 6523 (RJS) SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE PUBLICLY TRADED SECURITIES OF DG FASTCHANNEL DURING THE PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 16, 2010 THROUGH AND INCLUDING AUGUST 29, 2010, AND WHO WERE ALLEGEDLY DAMAGED THEREBY. 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 Parties. 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. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING LITIGATION AND THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND. If 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. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 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 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 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 Acquisition. 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 actions. 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 240.10b-5. 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 volume. 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) offer. 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 insured. 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 complaint. 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 Act. 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: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/14/Michaels.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 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, Illinois 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. TORSHEN, SLOBIG, GENDEN, DRAGUTINOVICH & AXEL, LTD. 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 careers. 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 work. 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 said. 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 at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/14/RICO.pdf 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 again. 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: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/14/SCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: David Pastor, Esq. GILMAN AND PASTOR, LLP 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 srowley@faruqilaw.com jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com fmconville@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 * * *