/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110720.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, July 20, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 142


A-POWER ENERGY: Aug. 31 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
APPLE INC: Makes First Payment After iOS Tracking Scandal
BLUE CROSS: ABA Therapy Suit Can Proceed as Class Action
CENTRAL VERMONT: Sued Over Proposed Gaz Metro Merger
COCA-COLA: Mediation for VitaminWater Class Action Postponed

COMPUTER SCIENCES: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Class Action
DOLLAR TREE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
E.I. DU PONT: Faces Class Action Over Imprelis Herbicide
EBIX INC: Ryan & Maniskas Files Securities Class Action
FARMERS GROUP: Settles Class Action for $455 Million

GOOGLE INC: Disputes Class Action Over "Street View"
LAUREATE EDUCATION: Shareholders Get $35MM, Oct. 13 Hearing Set
LEVITT CORP: September 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
LOGITECH INT'L: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Class Action
MALAYSIA AIRLINES: Settles Price-Fixing Class Action for $3.2MM

NASSAU COUNTY, NY: July 26 Trial Set for Redistricting Plan Suit
OLD NATIONAL BANK: Loses Bid to Dismiss Overdraft Class Action
POPULAR INC: ERISA Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay
TIME WARNER: Sued by Deaf People Over Refusal to Caption Videos
YUHE INT'L: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears

ZENTA MORTGAGE: Faces Class Action Over Failure to Pay Overtime


A-POWER ENERGY: Aug. 31 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP on July 15 disclosed that all persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
A-Power Energy Generation Systems, Ltd. between March 31, 2008,
and June 27, 2011, inclusive, have until August 31, 2011, to move
the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff in the securities fraud class
action lawsuit.  The case is pending in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.

A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP.  Please contact us by phone to discuss this
action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at (310) 201-9150 or
Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by e-mail to
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our Web site at

A-Power, through its subsidiaries, provides onsite distributed
power generation systems and micro power grids for industrial
companies, primarily in the People's Republic of China.  The
Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants issued a
series of materially false and misleading statements concerning
the Company's business and financial performance.  Specifically,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) the Company improperly accounted for its
related-party transactions such that its financial statements were
presented in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
(GAAP); (2) the Company's revenues and income were misstated in
violation of GAAP; (3) revenue and income reported in the
Company's filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
were overstated, as the Company reported materially lower revenue
and net income in its filings with China's State Administration
for Industry and Commerce (SAIC); (4) the Company lacked adequate
internal and financial controls; and (5), as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's financial results were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 requires the
Court to appoint a "Lead Plaintiff" in this case.  Any person or
group who suffered a loss as a result of purchasing A-Power
securities between March 31, 2008, and June 27, 2011, may ask the
Court to be appointed as Lead Plaintiff, but must file a motion no
later than the August 31, 2011 deadline.

Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP is a law firm with significant
experience in prosecuting class actions, substantial expertise in
actions involving corporate fraud, and is representing A-Power
shareholders in this litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Toll Free: (888) 773-9224
          E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com

APPLE INC: Makes First Payment After iOS Tracking Scandal
According to an article posted at Social Barrel by Solon Harmony
Dolor, Apple made its first payment to a complainant after the iOS
tracking scandal broke in the past months and a class action suit
is being readied against the consumer electronics giant, various
reports detail.

According to Reuters in a report published on July 14, it has
confirmed that Apple has paid Kim Hyung-Suk, a lawyer from South
Korea, KRW1 million (about $950) last month for compensation
because of a complaint it filed against Apple for tracking.

Reuters says that it had confirmed the payment made by the
American company via "two officials at Changwon District Court"
who spoke to the news organization on July 14.

Mr. Kim is said to be part of a firm called Mirae Law and the firm
is reportedly preparing a class action suit against Apple,
Reuters says.

In a separate report, the Agence France-Presse, which has talked
to Kim, said that the lawyer has revealed that by July 15, about
20,000 has joined the class action suit being prepared by the law

"Users who bought iPhones or iPads before May 1 will be able to
join the action," Mr. Kim told the AFP.

BLUE CROSS: ABA Therapy Suit Can Proceed as Class Action
In a case brought by families having a child with autism spectrum
disorder against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Judge Stephen
J. Murphy, III, on July 14 entered an Order granting Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification.  The families filed suit against
Blue Cross over its policy of denying applied behavior analysis
(ABA) therapy to children with autism.  The suit alleges that Blue
Cross has illegally characterized ABA therapy as "experimental,"
even though it is validated by overwhelming medical and scientific

The ruling means that the case will proceed on behalf of thousands
of families who have Blue Cross insurance and who have a child
with autism.  The Order was issued in the case of Potter v. Blue
Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, No. 10-cv-14981 (E.D. Mich).

ABA is a well recognized and scientifically valid form of autism
treatment for children, as numerous authorities have found,
including the U.S. Surgeon General, the National Institute of
Mental Health, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and a study
commissioned by both the Medicare and Medicaid systems.  Moreover,
26 states mandate insurance coverage for ABA therapy.  Yet,
despite settling a class action last year on this same issue, and
paying approximately one million dollars in benefits, Blue Cross
Blue Shield of Michigan persists in denying coverage for ABA
therapy on the ground that it is "experimental."  Studies show
that providing ABA therapy to children with autism allows them to
achieve their maximum potential and greater independence in their
adult lives.

The families are represented by Gerard Mantese and John Conway of
Michigan, whose contact information are:

          Gerard Mantese, Esq.
          1361 E. Big Beaver
          RoadTroy, MI 48083
          Telephone: 248-457-9200
          Cell: 248-515-6419
          E-mail: Gmantese@manteselaw.com

               - and -

          John J. Conway, Esq.
          JOHN J. CONWAY, P.C.
          26622 Woodward Avenue, Suite 225
          Royal Oak, MI 48067
          Telephone: 313-961-6525
          Cell: 313-574-2148
          E-mail: John@johnjconway.com

CENTRAL VERMONT: Sued Over Proposed Gaz Metro Merger
John Curran, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
Central Vermont Public Service Corp. shareholder is suing to block
the utility's proposed sale, saying it undervalued its stock in
accepting two purchase offers and will shortchange investors by
going through with the second.

CVPS, which is Vermont's largest electric utility, says it acted

On May 30, Canadian utility Fortis Inc. announced plans to buy
CVPS for $35.10 per share.  That led to a rival bid of $35.25 per
share from Gaz Metro of Montreal, which owns Green Mountain Power

Last week, CVPS announced it was backing out of the Fortis
agreement in favor of the Gaz Metro proposal, a $472.4 million
deal that would result in a merger of CVPS and Green Mountain

Not so fast, says CVPS shareholder Howard Davis.

In a federal lawsuit filed on July 13 in U.S. District Court in
Rutland, the Maine man says CVPS accepted an inadequate offer from
Fortis, had to buy its way out of it and as a result got the
second offer at a similarly inadequate price.

The suit says CVPS' board members "engaged in self-dealing and
obtained for themselves personal benefits, including personal
financial benefits" not shared by shareholders.

In a joint statement issued on July 15, CVPS, Green Mountain Power
and Gaz Metro defended the CVPS board.

"We are confident that the CVPS board conducted a professional,
comprehensive process leading up to the sale agreement, which
provides a 45% premium on the stock, and complied with all of
their duties," said the statement, provided by CVPS spokesman
Steve Costello.  "We are confident that the court will agree."

No information about Davis was included in the complaint, and his
attorneys -- A. Jeffry Taylor of Rutland and Juan Monteverde of
New York -- wouldn't say where in Maine he lives or give any other
information or comment.

Mr. Davis, whose attorneys want the suit declared a class action
on behalf of all CVPS shareholders, says CVPS' board failed to
adequately gauge the market value of the company before agreeing
to the Fortis deal and agreed to a too-low price, despite CVPS'
strong performance and improved earnings in the previous year.

CVPS had to pay Fortis $19.5 million for a termination fee and
expenses to get out of it -- a $1.50-per-share hit to
shareholders, according to the suit.

Had CVPS not agreed to such a low price in the Fortis offer, it
could've elicited a higher one from Gaz Metro, according to the

The suit acknowledges that the Gaz Metro offer is superior but
contends it could've been for more money.

In addition, Mr. Davis says, the Gaz Metro proposal includes the
same "preclusive devices" that resulted in the $19.5 million
payment to sever the Fortis deal, which will either discourage
more bids for CVPS or require another substantial cash payment if
CVPS backs out of the Gaz Metro deal.

The suit seeks to either block the Gaz Metro purchase of CVPS or
to recover damages resulting from the individual defendants'
alleged violations of their fiduciary duty.  It names CVPS, Gaz
Metro Limited Partnership and 10 individual board members as

COCA-COLA: Mediation for VitaminWater Class Action Postponed
Emily Jed, writing for Vending Times, reports that mediation
between Coca-Cola and consumer advocacy group The Center for
Science in the Public Interest over health claims on Coke's
VitaminWater will be rescheduled now that a new "copycat" lawsuit
has been filed against the soft drink giant, according to industry
news Web site FoodNavigator-USA.

The CSPI's lawsuit, filed in 2009, brings together class action
suits in New Jersey, New York and California alleging that
Coca-Cola has misled consumers over the health benefits of

Coca-Cola's motion to dismiss the lawsuit was rejected in 2010.
The beverage giant agreed to enter mediation with the CSPI that
was scheduled to begin on July 19.

CSPI's legal director said the mediation will be postponed until
the court can hear the new "copycat" lawsuit, and allow CSPI to
negotiate "on behalf of the entire bunch of lawsuits."  The
mediation will likely be rescheduled for September or October,
according to FoodNavigator-USA.

Federal judge John Gleeson of the U.S. District Court in Brooklyn,
NY, rejected Coke's motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds
that the soft drink giant's claim that its VitaminWater is a
"vitamin-enhanced water beverage" and its slogan "vitamins + water
= all you need" could mislead consumers into believing the drink
contains only vitamins and water.  He also rejected Coca-Cola's
argument that by listing the sugar content of VitaminWater on the
nutrition panel it could not be accused of misleading consumers.

The judge also claimed Coca-Cola's use of the term "healthy"
violated FDA regulations on vitamin-fortified foods.  The rules
prohibit companies from making health claims on foods that may be
high in sugar and calories and lacking in nutrients and only meet
various nutrient thresholds via fortification.

Coca-Cola, which acquired the Glaceau VitaminWater brand in 2007
through its acquisition of Energy Brands, has declined to comment
on the case.

COMPUTER SCIENCES: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Class Action
Gardy & Notis, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on
behalf of purchasers of shares of common stock of Computer
Sciences Corporation during a class period of May 21, 2009, to
May 25, 2011.

The class action seeks to recover damages on behalf of plaintiff
and a class of all other individual and institutional investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired CSC common stock during the
class period.  The defendants in the case are CSC, Michael W.
Laphen, Michael J. Mancuso and Donald G. DeBuck.  The complaint
alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by concealing material information
and making false and misleading statements relating to CSC's
business and financial condition with respect to (i) pervasive
accounting irregularities, (ii) material issues with a series of
contracts between CSC and Britain's National Health Services, and
(iii) forecasts for the fiscal year 2011 for which CSC had no
reasonable basis.

If you purchased CSC common stock between May 21, 2009, and
May 25, 2011, you may, no later than September 13, 2011, request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class.  A
lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.  You must meet
certain legal requirements to serve as a lead plaintiff.

For more information regarding the lawsuit, or to obtain a copy of
the complaint filed in the lawsuit, please contact plaintiff's
counsel at:

          Charles A. Germershausen, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          560 Sylvan Avenue
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: 201-567-7377
          E-mail: cgermershausen@gardylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.gardylaw.com

DOLLAR TREE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Dollar Tree Stores makes assistant store managers work off the
clock and stiffs them for overtime.

A copy of the Complaint in Smith v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.,
Case No. 11-mi-99999 (N.D. Ga.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Deirdre M. Stephens, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          191 Peachtree St., NE, Ste. 4200
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 965-8811
          E-mail: djohnson@forthepeople.com

E.I. DU PONT: Faces Class Action Over Imprelis Herbicide
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
DuPont pushes its Imprelis herbicide to kill broadleaf weeds, but
it also kills spruce, pines and other evergreens, costing people
"millions of dollars" nationwide.

A copy of the Complaint in Washtenaw Acquisition, LLC, et al. v.
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Case No. 11-cv-00624
(D. Del.), is available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christine S. Azar, Esq.
          Charles B. Vincent, Esq.
          300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1225
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 573-2540
          E-mail: cazar@labaton.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
          Hollis L. Salzman, Esq.
          Michael W. Stocker, Esq.
          Kellie C. Lerner, Esq.
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 07-0700
          E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com

               - and -

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Lauren G. Northrop, Esq.
          950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Gary K. August, Esq.
          31700 Middlebelt Road, Suite 150
          Farmington Hills, MI 48334
          Telephone: (248) 851-4111

EBIX INC: Ryan & Maniskas Files Securities Class Action
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP on July 15 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of Ebix, Inc. between May 6, 2009, through June 30,
2011, inclusive.

For more information regarding this class action suit, please

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          Ryan & Maniskas, LLP
          Toll-Free: (877) 316-3218
          E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com
          Web site: http://www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/ebix

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 plummeted $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.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than
September 12, 2011, request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff of the class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court
must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the
claims of other class members, and that the class member will
adequately represent the class.  Under certain circumstances, one
or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff."
Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by
the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may
retain Ryan & Maniskas, LLP or other counsel of your choice, to
serve as your counsel in this action.

For more information about the case or to participate online,
please visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/ebix or contact Richard A.
Maniskas, Esq. toll-free at (877) 316-3218, or by e-mail at

For more information about class action cases in general or to
learn more about Ryan & Maniskas, LLP, please visit our Web site:

Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is a national shareholder litigation firm.
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is devoted to protecting the interests of
individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in
state and federal courts nationwide.

FARMERS GROUP: Settles Class Action for $455 Million
Girardi & Keese, Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack, the Law Office of
Philip K. Maxwell, and the Law Office of Joe K. Longley on July 14
released a statement regarding the Farmers Group, Inc. Class
Action Settlement.

There is a $455 million Settlement with Farmers Group, Inc., Fire
Underwriters Association, and Truck Underwriters Association
(together called "Farmers Group") and Zurich Financial Services
Ltd. involving management-service fees (Farmers Group and Zurich
are the "Defendants").

What is the lawsuit about?

The lawsuit concerns the management-service fees that Farmers
Group charged to the Farmers Exchanges.

Am I included?

You are a Class Member if, at any time from 1999 through 2010, you
were a subscriber to, or a named insured on, an insurance or
reinsurance policy issued by Farmers Insurance Exchange, Fire
Insurance Exchange, or Truck Insurance Exchange.  The Class in
this lawsuit does not include insureds of any other insurance
companies operating under the Farmers Insurance Group of Companies

What does the Settlement provide?

The proposed Settlement provides for:

   -- A total payment of $455 million to be paid to Class Members,
with any leftover money going to the Exchanges,

   -- A payment of up to $90 million in attorneys' fees, expenses,
and incentive award,

   -- Payment of the costs of administering the Settlement, and

   -- Certain business improvements to provide further education
to subscribers about the Subscription Agreement and the management

The Settlement Agreement, available at the Web site, contains more
details about the Settlement.

How to get a payment?

You need to submit a Claim Form to get a payment.  You can get a
Claim Form online or by calling the toll-free number.  The
deadline to file a Claim Form is December 6, 2011.  You can file a
claim by mail or online.

What are my other rights?

Remain in the Settlement: If you remain in the Settlement, you
will be bound by the terms of the Settlement and will give up your
right to sue the Defendants and the Exchanges on claims covered by
the Settlement.  If you do not submit a Claim Form, you will not
receive a payment from the Settlement.

Get out of the Settlement: If you wish to keep your right to sue
the Defendants or the Exchanges on claims covered by the
Settlement, you must exclude yourself from the Class.  Exclusion
requests must be received by August 18, 2011.

Remain in the Settlement and Object: If you stay in the
Settlement, you can object to it.  Objections must be received by
August 18, 2011.

The Court will hold a hearing in the case, known as Fogel v.
Farmers Group, Inc., No. BC300142, on September 7, 2011, in Los
Angeles, California, to consider whether to approve the Settlement
and a request by Class Counsel for attorneys' fees, expenses, and
incentive award.  You or your own lawyer may ask to appear and
speak at the hearing at your own cost.

For more information, call 1-888-538-5785 or visit

GOOGLE INC: Disputes Class Action Over "Street View"
Marcus Washington, writing for NewsChannel5.com, reports that a
national class action lawsuit claims Google has taken mapping a
step further when taking pictures for the company's "street view,"
they captured more than a photo.

It's unique and useful technology, but a recent lawsuit claims it
goes too far grabbing personal information while snapping the

"Authorities across the world started asking a lot of questions
and at first Google denied having done this.  Ultimately they
admitted doing this and in fact intercepted these communications
and stored them," said Kathryn Barnett, at Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann and Berstein.

She is representing three Tennesseans, of 22 people across the
country, who are suing Google.

The suit claims those cars intercepted, copied, downloaded and
saved, information sent from a computer when the cars passed.

"People who were banking at home, people who were sending medical
records, people sending anything.  Anything you were transmitting
when Google drove by your house; unless you had a password on your
system, Google took it, they have it," Ms. Barnett said.

Ms. Barnett explained the information could only be taken if you
were using unsecured wireless Internet, in other words, if you
didn't protect your system with a password.

"We don't know what they have, because we haven't been able to
discover yet.  We have an idea, but one of the very things we want
to do is find out: what Google took, why Google took it, what
Google has done with it," said Ms. Barnett.

The class action lawsuit was filed in California, the headquarters
of Google.

While the company admits mistakes, Google said it does not feel
the company broke the Federal Wiretap law, the basis they are
being sued.

"We want the courts to tell companies they can't do this and even
if you have a lot of resources and are clever enough to come up
with a new technology to intercept private communications, that
doesn't make it right, that doesn't it make it fair," said
Ms. Barnett.

Attorneys intended to file paper work with the judge in California
last July 15, saying Google should not be allowed to appeal a
ruling allowing the suit to go forward.

LAUREATE EDUCATION: Shareholders Get $35MM, Oct. 13 Hearing Set
Scott Dance, writing for Baltimore Business Journal, reports that
shareholders of Laureate Education Inc. have been awarded $35
million in a class-action settlement dating back to the company's
$3.8 billion sale in 2007.

Laureate went from public to private in that deal, led by CEO
Douglas Becker and other company management, but some shareholders
argued the sale wasn't the best value for them.  Such lawsuits are
common when companies take on major mergers and acquisitions, but
it's less often that shareholders end up getting any money out of

The Laureate buyout was one of Baltimore's largest deals of the
past decade.  The settlement, while it does not prove any
impropriety, gives cash back to shareholders who were left
wondering what could have been of the company.  Online higher
education specialist Laureate, along with Educate Inc., was once a
piece of the former Sylvan Learning Systems.

Baltimore City Circuit Court is seeking shareholders who owned
Laureate stock as the buyout was being considered to weigh in on
approving the settlement.  Circuit Court Judge W. Michel Pierson
is holding a hearing on the settlement at 9:30 a.m., Oct. 13, to
consider final approval of the settlement.  The court gave it
preliminary approval June 13.

Shareholders are being given until Sept. 29 to object to the

The Laureate buyout deal was part of a wave of private equity
deals, as such money was flowing freely leading up to the
recession in 2007 and 2008.  A group of investors led by Becker
made an initial offer in January 2007 and upped it to $3.82
billion in June 2007.  The consortium backing Becker's buyout
proposal included private equity giants like Kohlberg Kravis
Roberts & Co., Citi Private Equity and Sterling Capital.

At the time, Laureate was Greater Baltimore's ninth-largest public
company, with more than $1 billion in revenue in 2006.  The buyout
was the largest deal in the Baltimore area of 2008.

As the deal was being considered, some shareholders, including
Baltimore money manager T. Rowe Price Group Inc., argued the deal
benefited management while shortchanging stockholders, leading to
the increased offer.

By July 2007, stockholders had tendered more than half of
outstanding Laureate shares, sealing approval of the deal.

Typically in such a class-action settlement, a defined set of
people will fit into the "class" eligible for some kind of relief,
said Brian Moffet, a lawyer with Gordon Feinblatt in Baltimore who
is not associated with the Laureate case.

In this case, the class includes anyone who owned Laureate stock
between the time of the initial buyout offer, Jan. 28, 2007,
through Aug. 17, 2007.  If stockholders did not voluntarily sell
their shares in the buyout, they were given $62 in cash, the same
as those who were in favor of the buyout.

Anyone who qualifies for the class is automatically included but
is being given a chance to opt out of the settlement.  Class-
action settlements typically give those included in the class the
chance to opt in or out of the settlement, Mr. Moffet said.

Shareholders who don't opt out of the settlement will receive
their share of the $35 million, based on how many shares they
owned.  More than 60 million shares were purchased in the buyout.

Laureate officials declined to comment on the settlement.
Arthur N. Abbey, a New York lawyer with Abbey Spanier Rodd &
Abrams LLP who is representing the shareholders, could not be
reached for comment.

LEVITT CORP: September 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
Kirby McInerney LLP on July 15 issued a statement regarding the
Robert D. Dance vs. Levitt Corp. and Alan B. Levan Proposed Class
Action Settlement.


ROBERT D. DANCE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. LEVITT CORP. and ALAN B. LEVAN,
Defendants., Case No. 08-60111 - CIV GRAHAM/GOODMAN, Class Action



YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, that a
hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 28, 2011, at 9:30
a.m., before the Honorable Donald L. Graham at the United States
Courthouse, Federal Justice Building, 400 North Miami Avenue,
Courtroom 13-4, Miami, Florida 33128-1812, for the purpose of
determining (1) whether the proposed settlement for the sum of One
Million Nine Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,950,000) in cash
should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate;
(2) whether, after the hearing, this Litigation should be
dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the terms and conditions set
forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated as of June 14, 2011;
(3) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and should be approved; and (4) whether the application
of Class Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses incurred in this Litigation should be

If you acquired the publicly-traded common stock of Levitt between
January 31, 2007 and August 14, 2007, inclusive, your rights may
be affected by the settlement of this Litigation.  If you have not
received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Class Action and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you
should obtain copies by writing to Dance v. Levitt Corp., et al,
Claims Administrator, c/o The Garden City Group, Inc. or by
visiting the Web site of the Claims Administrator at

The Notice contains details about this Litigation and settlement,
including what you must do to exclude yourself from the
settlement, object to the terms of the settlement, or file a Proof
of Claim.  If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim and Release postmarked no later than September 25, 2011,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery.

If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a
Request for Exclusion postmarked by September 7, 2011, in the
manner and form explained in the detailed Notice referred to
above.  All Members of the Class who have not timely and validly
requested exclusion from the Class will be bound by any judgment
entered in the Litigation pursuant to the terms and conditions of
the Stipulation of Settlement.  Your objection(s) must be mailed
on or before September 7, 2011 to: the Court; Kirby McInerney LLP;
and on behalf of the Defendants, at the following addresses:

COURT: Office of the Clerk, United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Federal Justice Building, 400 North
Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida 33128-1812

Third Avenue, 16th Floor, New York, NY 10022

FOR DEFENDANTS: Adam M. Schachter, Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler
Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A., Museum Tower, Suite 2200, 150 West
Flagler Street, Miami, FL 33130

THIS NOTICE.  If you have any questions about the settlement, you
may contact Class Counsel for Named Plaintiffs and the Class at
the address listed above.


LOGITECH INT'L: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Class Action
Dyer & Berens LLP on July 15 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Logitech
International SA common stock between October 28, 2010, and
April 1, 2011, inclusive.

What actions may I take at this time? If you purchased shares
during the Class Period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you
must request appointment by the court no later than July 22, 2011.
If you would like to discuss this action, the lead plaintiff
process, or have any questions concerning this notice, please
contact plaintiff's counsel, Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. at (888) 300-
3362 x302 or via e-mail at jeff@dyerberens.com

What are the allegations in the complaint? The complaint alleges
that during the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's true financial
condition, business and prospects.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges: (a) that the Company's distributors were overstocked with
inventory of certain product lines; (b) that the Company's pricing
and promotional activity was not operating according to plan; (c)
that demand for the Company's products in the Europe, Middle East
and Africa markets was significantly declining far below internal
expectations; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
positive statements about the Company were lacking in a reasonable
basis of fact.  Based upon the foregoing, the complaint charges
the Company and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The plaintiff is represented by several law firms, including Dyer
& Berens LLP, which specializes in prosecuting investor class
actions involving financial fraud.

Contact: Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq.
         Dyer & Berens LLP
         303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 300
         Denver, CO 80203
         Telephone: (888) 300-3362 x302
         Web site: http://www.DyerBerens.com

MALAYSIA AIRLINES: Settles Price-Fixing Class Action for $3.2MM
According to an article posted at Air Cargo World, Malaysia
Airlines will pay $3.2 million to settle a class-action lawsuit
brought against the carrier due to its part in the ongoing price-
fixing scandal.

The firms Kaplan Fox; Labaton Sucharow; Levin, Fishbein, Savran &
Berman; and Hausfeld LLP have been representing purchasers
affected by carriers who fixed prices.  Kaplan won the Malyasi
settlement, and last month, Hausfield settled with British Airways
and LAN Airlines for more than $150 million.

Now that Malaysia has settled, 12 of 42 carriers have agreed to
pay money to claimants.  Air France-KLM/Martinair and Lufthansa
have paid out some of the heftiest fees associated with the class-
action suit, doling out $87 and $85 million, respectively.

NASSAU COUNTY, NY: July 26 Trial Set for Redistricting Plan Suit
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that minority
voters who filed a class action lawsuit against the Nassau County
Legislature and Board of Elections to stop a redistricting plan
they say will disenfranchise 40% of voters in advance of this
November's elections will get their day in court later this month.

According to the plaintiffs, the redistricting is merely a blatant
attempt by county Republicans to boost their control of the county

On July 5, local Democratic leaders won the right to take similar
claims to state court, where the legislators plan to argue that
the redistricting violates the Nassau County charter.

The federal class action, on the other hand, attacks the
redistricting plan on the grounds of alleged violations to the
14th Amendment of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of
1965, which safeguard the rights of minority voters.

The four minority voters serving as lead plaintiffs note the
Voting Rights Act is responsible for the existence of the Nassau

In 1993, different minority voters sued the now-defunct Board of
Supervisors, which a federal judge disbanded for violating the
Constitution's principle of "one-person, one vote rule."

A year later, the newly-formed Nassau County Legislature held its
first elections in 19 districts, and two of the winners would
become the county's first African-American representatives in its
nearly century-long history.

In 2009, Newsday reported that former Nassau County Executive
Tom Suozzi said in a debate that Nassau is still one of the most
segregated places in America.

Republican Presiding Officer Peter Schmitt, who introduced the
maps in April, now claims to be holding the mantle of the Voting
Acts Right, while the Democratic leaders and many minority voters
suing him in twin cases believe he is making a mockery of it.

Taking cues from the legal opinions of Nassau County Attorney
John Ciampoli, a former counsel for the New York State Senate
Republican Campaign Committee, Mr. Schmitt said the radical
reshuffling was necessary because the 2010 Census revealed that
the old maps unconstitutionally diluted minority votes.

A lawyer for the minority voters in the class action called that
explanation "hogwash."

"This has nothing to do with the rights of minorities," lead
attorney Frederick Brewington told Courthouse News.  "They didn't
do this to help.  They did it to hurt, and they know it."

In a prior phone interview with Courthouse News, Mr. Ciampoli said
that the new maps could avoid lawsuits alleging violations to the
Voting Rights Act.

Instead, the redistricting plan prompted the class action against
the county's Legislature and Board of Directors, filed on June 6.

Critics say the new maps force two Democrats to run against each
other and isolate like-minded voters so dramatically that certain
districts are only connected by water.  The maps also change the
district of local Democrat Diane Yatauro, the Minority Leader of
the Legislature, after she announced she would not be seeking
another term, but before her replacement had been named.  The
timing ensured that the plan would sidestep a local law
prohibiting redistricting incumbents.

Nassau Democrats call the redistricting "mandering of the worst
ilk," designed by Republicans to maintain or increase their 11-to-
8 majority status in the next election.

"They moved the lines strategically to capitalize on this
situation so that they could gain three more seats,"
Mr. Brewington said.

In May, the Republican-majority legislature approved the
redistricting in a vote split roughly on party lines.
Both lawsuits preceded the vote, and either one of them can
prevent the redistricting from taking effect before the November

But Mr. Brewington cautioned that victory in either case might not
mean that Democrats are in the clear.

"No one can imagine what the possibilities are because the last
chapter hasn't been written," Mr. Brewington said.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Arlene Lindsay ordered the parties to wrap
up discovery by July 20.

Trial is set for July 26.

A copy of the Order in Boone, et al. v. Nassau County Legislature,
et al., Case No. 11-cv-02712 (E.D.N.Y.), is available at:


OLD NATIONAL BANK: Loses Bid to Dismiss Overdraft Class Action
An Indiana judge has denied Old National Bank's motion to dismiss
a class action complaint filed on behalf of the bank's customers
who were charged overdraft protection fees when they used their
Old National Bank debit cards.  According to the complaint, the
bank reordered its customers' debit card transactions to increase
the bank's revenue from such fees.  "We believe that this practice
is unfair to consumers, especially when the amount of the fee
exceeds the transaction amount," said William M. Sweetnam,
managing member of Sweetnam LLC in Chicago, Illinois, who
represents the plaintiff and the proposed class.  The amounts
charged, typically $35 per overdraft paid, can amount to hundreds
of dollars in fees charged to consumers who rely on their debit
cards for everyday purchases.  Recently, federal legislation was
enacted requiring consumers to opt-in to receive overdraft
protection and consent to the associated charges.  Old National
Bank has denied the allegations of the complaint.

Old National Bank is a wholly owned subsidiary of Old National
Bancorp and provides banking services in Indiana, Illinois and

                       About Sweetnam LLC:

Established in 2008, Sweetnam LLC -- http://www.sweetnamllc.com--
was formed to represent victims of fraud at the hands of
corporations, financial institutions and insurance companies.
Sweetnam LLC has extensive experience prosecuting class actions in
state and federal courts across the country involving violations
of consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices statutes, breach
of warranty and violations of federal securities laws, shareholder
derivative suits and appeals.  Sweetnam LLC has acted as lead
counsel, co-lead counsel and has been a member of the executive
and steering committees in consumer, antitrust and other class
action, complex and multidistrict litigation matters.

Contact: William Sweetnam, Esq.
         Telephone: 847-498-7500
         E-mail: info@sweetnamllc.com

POPULAR INC: ERISA Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay
Gainey & McKenna and Harwood Feffer LLP, Plaintiffs' Co-Lead
Counsel, and Popular, Inc. on July 15 disclosed that a Settlement
has been preliminarily approved by the United States District
Court, District of Puerto Rico in the consolidated class action
lawsuit, In re Popular Inc. ERISA Litigation, Master File: 3:09-
CV-01552-ADC, against Popular, Inc. and certain of its current and
former officers and directors, alleging breaches of fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The Settlement will provide for a payment of $8.2 million to the
Plans (minus Court-approved fees and expenses), which will then be
allocated to the accounts of participants of the Plans (defined
below) who had portions of their Plan accounts invested in
Employer Stock in the Employer Stock Fund during the Class Period.
You do not need to send in a claim or take any other action to
participate in the Settlement.  If you qualify, you will receive
an allocation.

The Court will hold a hearing at 10:00 a.m. on August 26, 2011, in
the Courtroom of Judge Aida M. Delgado-Colon of the United States
District Court, District of Puerto Rico, Clemente Ruiz-Nazario
U.S. Courthouse, 150 Carlos Chardon Street, Hato Rey, P.R. 00918
to consider whether to approve the Settlement, the proposed plan
of allocation and a request by the attorneys representing all
Settlement Class Members for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, and for case contribution awards to the
named plaintiffs.  If approved, these amounts will be paid from
the settlement fund.  You may ask to speak at the hearing by
filing a Notice of Intention to Appear, but you are not required
to do so.  Although you cannot opt out of the Settlement, you may
object to all or any part of the Settlement in accordance with the
long-form Notice of Class Action Settlement.

The Settlement Class consists of all participants of the Popular,
Inc. Puerto Rico Savings and Investment Plan and the Popular, Inc.
U.S.A. 401(k) Savings & Investment Plan who held Employer Stock,
as that term is defined in the Plans, in their individual accounts
in the Plans at any time during the period starting on January 24,
2008 and ending on April 6, 2011, and as to each such Person, his,
her, or its beneficiaries, alternate payees (including spouses of
deceased Persons who were Plan participants), and Successors-In-
Interest, but excluding the Defendants.  If you are a Settlement
Class Member and have not received a copy of the long-form Notice
of Class Action Settlement and would like to receive additional
information or a copy of the Notice, please visit
http://www.berdonclaims.comor call toll-free 800-766-3330 and
identify yourself as a Settlement Class Member.

Inquiries should NOT be directed to the Court or the Clerk of the

TIME WARNER: Sued by Deaf People Over Refusal to Caption Videos
Greater Los Angeles Agency on Deafness, Inc., Daniel Jacob, Edward
Kelly and Jennifer Olson, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Time Warner Inc., Case No. RG 11580682
(Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., June 15, 2011) seeks to end the
ongoing violation of California anti-discrimination law that Time
Warner commits against people, who are deaf or hard of hearing by
refusing to caption its online news videos at CNN.com.

Through this refusal, Time Warner denies deaf individuals access
to much of the most important content it offers through CNN.com,
the Plaintiffs contend.  They assert that their lawsuit seeks to
end Time Warner's ongoing discrimination by requiring it to
provide closed captioning for its videos on CNN.com.

The Plaintiffs are residents of California and with disability in
that they are deaf.  GLAD is a non-profit California corporation
with a mission to ensure that the deaf and hard of hearing
community in California has access to the same opportunities as
their hearing counterparts.

Time Warner is a Delaware public company, and is one of the
largest media and entertainment companies in the world.  Time
Warner maintains approximately 1,100 subsidiaries, including
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. that owns CNN.com.

Time Warner removed the lawsuit on July 14, 2011, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of Alameda, to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  Time Warner argues that the removal is proper because
it is a citizen of the states of Delaware and New York, and not
California.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:11-cv-
03458 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Laurence W. Paradis, Esq.
          Anna Levine, Esq.
          Elizabeth Leonard, Esq.
          2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor
          Berkeley, CA 94704-1204
          Telephone: (510) 665-8644
          Facsimile: (510) 665-8511
          E-mail: lparadis@dralegal.org

               - and -

          Linda M. Dardarian, Esq.
          Rachel E. Brill, Esq.
          300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 763-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 835-1417
          E-mail: ldardarian@gdblegal.com

               - and -

          Peter Blanck, Esq.
          900 S. Crouse Avenue
          Crouse-Hinds Hall, Suite 300
          Syracuse, NY 13244-2130
          E-mail: pblanck@syr.edu

The Defendant is represented by:

          Thomas R. Burke, Esq.
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 276-6500
          Facsimile: (415) 276-6599
          E-mail: thomasburke@dwt.com

               - and -

          Janet L. Grumer, Esq.
          865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566
          Telephone: (213) 633-6800
          Facsimile: (213) 633-6899
          E-mail: janetgrumer@dwt.com

YUHE INT'L: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. is representing Yuhe International, Inc.
shareholders in a securities class action lawsuit.  The Rosen Law
Firm, P.A. reminds investors of the important August 23, 2011 lead
plaintiff deadline in the securities class action filed by the
firm.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.  If you
purchased the stock of Yuhe International, Inc during the period
from December 31, 2009, through June 23, 2011, you may participate
in the class action as a lead plaintiff and seek to recovers
investment losses.

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

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

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

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 23, 2011.  If you wish to join the litigation,
or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class
action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm,
toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com
You may also visit the firm's Web site at

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

ZENTA MORTGAGE: Faces Class Action Over Failure to Pay Overtime
Adam O'Daniel, writing for Charlotte Business Journal, reports
that Zenta Mortgage Services could be forced to turn over records
on many of its mortgage servicers if a U.S. District Court rules
in favor of a former employee who is suing the company.

Former Zenta employee Joseph Savitskie of Charlotte is suing the
company, alleging it failed to pay overtime and violated labor
laws.  His lawyers have filed a motion asking for the case to be
elevated to class-action status and for Zenta to turn over the
names of other mortgage servicers they claim have also been denied
overtime pay.

Zenta employs hundreds of mortgage servicers at its office off
Arrowood Road in south Charlotte.  Its workers service mortgages
for large U.S. banks.  The firm has been hiring since late 2009,
when it received promises of up to $10 million in state incentives
to add as many as 1,000 jobs in Charlotte.  Gov. Bev Perdue came
in Charlotte with Zenta Chief Executive Henry Hortenstine to
announce the expansion.

In court filings, Mr. Savitskie's attorneys argue Zenta has
wrongfully denied overtime pay to all of its mortgage
underwriters.  Therefore, they contend the company should be
compelled to provide the names of other mortgage underwriters so
they can be given the opportunity to opt in to the lawsuit.

If that motion is approved by a judge, Zenta would have to provide
lawyers with a list of all underwriters who are or were employed
at any time in the past three years.  In addition, attorneys are
asking for Zenta to provide their names, job titles, addresses,
telephone numbers, personal e-mail addresses, dates of employment,
location of employment, employee numbers and Social Security
numbers, according to court documents.

Zenta has denied the allegations, and its lawyers have said they
will fight the lawsuit and the motion for class-action status.

They argue in a recent court filing that the claims should be
denied because Zenta acted "in good faith and with a reasonable
grounds for believing that employees engaging in mortgage
underwriting activities were exempt from overtime."

Mr. Savitskie, employed by Zenta from August 2010 until March 4,
sued Zenta this spring, accusing the company of asking
underwriters to work more than 40 hours per week with no overtime
pay.  Zenta management told Mr. Savitskie and others "that it was
in their best interest to work as much as possible," the suit

It contends the practice violates the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Savitskie, who is now represented by Philadelphia law firm
Berger & Montague, could not be reached for comment.  One of his
lawyers, Shanon Carson, declines to comment.

The case hinges on gray areas of employment law that deal with
which types of employees are exempt from overtime pay.  Until
recently, mortgage servicers fell under an "administrative
exemption" for overtime pay that applies to non-manual labor jobs
directly related to the management or policies of the employer,
experts say.

But a recent U.S. Second Court of Appeals ruling found in favor of
a former employee of JPMorgan Chase & Co.  That suit argued that
underwriters engage in the production of loans and not
administrative tasks that relate to management or company policy.
Therefore, they shouldn't be considered exempt, that suit

How that exemption is interpreted and applied to mortgage
underwriters is the crux of the Zenta lawsuit.

"It's a hot area of wage-and-hour litigation right now," says
Meredith Jefferies, a Charlotte School of Law professor who
practiced law at Alston & Bird for 12 years.  "Since that opinion
came out, these types of claims have been popping out everywhere."


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  * * *