/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120213.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, February 13, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 30


ALL MARKET: Settles Vita Coco Class Action for $10 Million
ARCHDIOCESE OF MILWAUKEE: To Challenge Sexual Abuse Claims
ARCTIC GLACIER: Settles Canadian Securities Class Action
ASTELLAS PHARMA: Must Face Antitrust Class Action, Judge Rules
B.C. GOV'T: 250 People Joins Class Action Over Drunk Driving Law

BBCN BANCORP: Awaits Approval of Merger-Related Suit Settlement
CHINA MEDICAL: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action
COLUMBIA LABORATORIES: Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
IG INVESTMENT: Ont. Court of Appeal Confirms Class Certification
INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: "Zhao" Plaintiffs Dismissed Suit in Dec.

KOSS CORP: Awaits Approval of Settlement in "Puskala" Suit
LEE ENTERPRISES: Class Certification Reversal Bid Still Pending
LEE ENTERPRISES: Continues to Defend Suits Over Retiree Benefits
MONSANTO: Dioxin Suit Opening Arguments Set for February 13
RBS CITIZENS: 7th Cir. Affirms Class Certification in Wage Suit

SAMMSOFT: Sued Over False Representations on Free PC Virus Scan
SPECTRUM HOME: Recalls 165 Chandeliers Due to Injury Hazard
STATE OF MILWAUKEE: Court Voids MPS Disability Case Settlement
SUPPORT.COM INC: Sued Over Alleged Fraudulent Software Products
SYNGENTA CROP: CMD Actions Undermine Standing in Atrazine Suit

TENNESSEE VALLEY: Dispositive Bids in Suit vs. TVARS Due in Oct.
TENNESSEE VALLEY: Still Defends Katrina-Related Suit in Miss.
TYSON FOODS: Bids for Judgment in "Weissman" Suit Still Pending
TYSON FOODS: Georgia Court Grants Attorneys' Fees in FLSA MDL
TYSON FOODS: Still Defends "Thompson" Class Suit in Oklahoma

UGI CORP: "Swiger" Class Suit Remains Stayed in West Virginia
UNION PACIFIC: Awaits Ruling on Motions to Dismiss "Oxbow" Suit
UNITED STATES: Capitol Police Faces Discrimination Class Action
UPMC: Hospital Workers to Appeal Class Action Ruling
WAIORA: Sued Over Zeolite Supplement False Labeling


ALL MARKET: Settles Vita Coco Class Action for $10 Million
Labaton Sucharow LLP announced a nationwide class action
settlement valued at $10 million with All Market, Inc. (d/b/a Vita
Coco), the leading manufacturer and seller of coconut water in the
United States.

Coconut water is one of the fastest growing beverages sold in the
United States.  Vita Coco markets its coconut water as "super-
hydrating," "nutrient-packed," "mega-electrolyte," and healthy
"super-water."  Labaton Sucharow filed a proposed nationwide class
action, styled Fishbein et al., v. All Market Inc., No. 11-cv-
05580, against the company after an independent study revealed
that Vita Coco's products do not contain the electrolyte levels
indicated on the products' labels.  The class action complaint
alleges that Vita Coco's coconut water products are mislabeled and
do not hydrate more effectively than less expensive sports drinks.

Kellie Lerner, one of the attorneys in the action, stated: "For
the millions of consumers who pay for products that claim to
improve their health, this settlement sends a message that
companies will be held accountable when they exaggerate or
misstate the health benefits of their products."

As part of the settlement, Vita Coco has agreed to:

   -- provide class members a choice of either a cash refund or
product vouchers (limitations apply);

   -- change its labels and advertising to more accurately reflect
the content and benefits of its coconut water;

   -- institute a regular, independent testing program which is
intended to reduce potential variations in the nutritional content
of Vita Coco coconut water products; and

   -- provide $3 million in product over the next three years to
various charitable institutions that promote healthy living.

Labaton Sucharow LLP -- http://www.labaton.com-- is a law firm
representing institutional investors in class actions and complex
securities litigation, as well as consumers and businesses in
class actions seeking to recover damages for anticompetitive or
deceptive practices.  It has offices in New York City and
Wilmington, Delaware.

ARCHDIOCESE OF MILWAUKEE: To Challenge Sexual Abuse Claims
Cary Docter and Ben Handelman, writing for Fox6 News, report that
the deadline has passed for those wishing to be part of a class
action lawsuit against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, and roughly
500 alleged victims of sexual abuse have come forward.  Lawyers
believe the number of abused may be hundreds more, but they can no
longer take action against the church.

On July 14, 2011, a bankruptcy court entered an order that
requires sexual abuse survivors to file a claim no later than
February 1, 2012.  This deadline is called a "bar date" because it
means that people who come forward after that date may be "barred"
from ever filing a claim against the Milwaukee Archdiocese.

By getting a bar date, the Archdiocese is able to limit who can
sue after the bar date.  In most circumstances, abuse survivors
will not be able to sue the Archdiocese if they fail to file a
claim with the bankruptcy court before February 1.

In the final hours before the deadline, claims against the
Archdiocese were still coming in.  Attorney Patrick Cavanaugh
Brennan added a few more to his roughly 40 clients who say they
have been raped or abused by priests, teachers or other members of
the church.  "I think people put this off as long as they could,
and then when they realized this is literally the last day, we got
some calls [Wednes]day," Mr. Brennan said.

Julie Wolf is a spokesperson for the Archdiocese, and says the
number of claims is alarming.  "By the end of the day, we are
expecting that number to near or top 500.  It's a horrible number,
when you think about it.  I mean, any abuse is horrible.  Even one
claim is too many.  We are hopeful that we will get through this,
and we will be able to continue the essential ministries of the
church going forward," Ms. Wolf said.

Peter Isley is the Midwest Director of the Survivors Network for
Those Abused by Priests, or SNAP.  His worry is that the church
will now attempt to get the majority of the estimated 500 claims
tossed out by a judge.  "They are going to try and throw virtually
90-some percent of these legitimate claims that it didn't happen,
out of court on February 9," Mr. Isley said.

The church says they have challenged some of the claims already.
SNAP says the challenges are hypocritical since the church asked
people to come forward with claims, and are now pushing them away.

The claims were set to go before a judge on February 9.

ARCTIC GLACIER: Settles Canadian Securities Class Action
Arctic Glacier Income Fund on Feb. 8 disclosed that it has reached
an agreement to settle the class action lawsuit filed in Canada by
unitholders of the Fund.  The settlement of C$13.75 million will
be entirely funded by Arctic Glacier's insurers, without the Fund
admitting liability or making any monetary contribution.  The
settlement remains subject to approval by the Ontario Court.

The class action named the Fund and its trustees, its operating
company, Arctic Glacier Inc. and certain of its current and past
senior officers and directors.  The suit sought damages on behalf
of all persons who acquired Arctic Glacier units between March 22,
2002 and September 16, 2008 and who held some or all of these
units on September 16, 2008.  All parties will be released from
claims advanced in the class action when the settlement receives
final approval.

According to The Canadian Press, over the years, Arctic Glacier
has been the subject of a number of government, industry and
investor lawsuits involving its business practices.  In 2011, the
fund settled four lawsuits in Ontario and Alberta by direct
purchasers of packaged ice and agreed to pay C$2 million.  In
2009, a U.S. subsidiary pleaded guilty to participating in "a
criminal, anti-competitive conspiracy."  Michigan's attorney
general said that Arctic Glacier agreed to pay a C$350,000 fine.
It was accused of conspiring with another ice company to assign
customers in order to lead to potentially higher ice prices.  In
2011 Arctic Glacier resolved a class action with U.S. purchasers
and a civil action in Wisconsin.

                      About Arctic Glacier

Arctic Glacier Income Fund, through its operating company, Arctic
Glacier Inc., is a producer, marketer and distributor of high-
quality packaged ice in North America, primarily under the brand
name of Arctic Glacier(R) Premium Ice.  Arctic Glacier operates 39
production plants and 48 distribution facilities across Canada and
the northeast, central and western United States servicing more
than 75,000 retail locations.

Arctic Glacier Income Fund trust units are listed on the Canadian
National Stock Exchange under the trading symbol AG.UN.  There are
350.3 million trust units outstanding.

ASTELLAS PHARMA: Must Face Antitrust Class Action, Judge Rules
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that Japanese
drugmaker Astellas Pharma must face claims that it tried to ban
generic versions of its transplant drug Prograf to extend its
monopoly, rather than out of genuine concern for public wellbeing,
a federal judge in Boston found.

A group of consumers who bought Prograf, Astellas' brand-name
version of the immunosuppressant drug tacrolimus, claims the
company filed a "sham" petition to the Food and Drug
Administration to try to halt the approval of a generic version --
and raked in almost $1 billion in artificially inflated prices
while the FDA considered its petition.

Eight "substantively identical" antitrust cases filed against
Astellas around the country were consolidated and transferred to
federal court in Massachusetts.

The consolidated complaint alleged that in September 2007,
Astellas "filed a baseless citizen petition with the FDA with the
sole intent of foreclosing market entry by generic competitors,
that improperly extended its monopoly and kept Prograf prices at
supra-competitive levels," according to the ruling.

While the FDA provides a 180-day period for resolving citizen
petitions, the class claimed that the FDA frequently takes much
longer to respond.

In this case, the FDA took nearly two years to respond to
Astellas' citizen petition.  In an August 2009 letter, the FDA
"described numerous deficiencies in Astellas' submission and
denied nearly all of the relief requests," the ruling states.
That same day, the FDA approved an application filed by drug maker
Sandoz to sell a generic brand of the drug.

One day later, Astellas sued the FDA in federal court in the
District of Columbia, asserting that its decision was arbitrary
and capricious, but Astellas' motion for a temporary restraining
order was denied.

In April 2010, the consumers filed class action lawsuits claiming
that "U.S. Prograf sales were worth $929 million for the 12 months
ending in April 2009, and the citizen petition was filed only for
the purpose of extending Astellas' position as the sole tacrolimus
provider, not for any legitimate concern about the efficacy or
safety of generic tacrolimus," according to the ruling.

Astrellas moved to dismiss, claiming that its citizen petition was
protected by the First Amendment.

U.S. District Judge Rya Zobel disagreed.

"When petitioning conduct is a mere sham to cover what is actually
nothing more than an attempt to interfere directly with the
business relationship of a competitor, such conduct is not

Judge Zobel found that the allegations were "more than sufficient
to withstand a motion to dismiss."

She specifically cited plaintiffs' allegations that Astellas
"advocated for relief in its citizen petition that it knew would
not be granted by the FDA, and that had been previously and
repeatedly rejected by the FDA, and Prograf sales were $929
million for 2009, giving Astellas an incredibly strong financial
incentive to extend its position as the sole tacrolimus provider."

Astellas faces a class action antitrust claim from insurance
companies based on similar allegations.

A copy of the decision in Jamie S. v. Milwaukee Public Schools, et
al., Nos. 09-2741 & 09-3274 (7th Cir.), is available at:


B.C. GOV'T: 250 People Joins Class Action Over Drunk Driving Law
CTV News reports that a total of 250 people have joined a class
action lawsuit to get compensated after being punished under
B.C.'s tough drunk driving legislation.

The legal move follows a ruling made by Justice Jon Sigurdson last
November which declared that a section of the province's law on
drunk driving was unconstitutional.  Justice Sigurdson determined
that immediate 90-day driving penalty, fines and costs issued to
people who blow over .08 in roadside tests are not "demonstrably
justified in a free and democratic society."

Lawyer Diego A. Solimano of Merchant Law Group LLP is now
representing people who he says were unjustly penalized under the
law and is seeking damages for them.

"We are in the process of collecting names of people, getting
together as big a group as we can, so that when the time comes to
have it certified we are able to hit the ground running and go
right for compensation," he told CTV News.

Mr. Solimano said there is no definite timeline, but hopes to have
the class action suit make progress forward by April.  He and his
firm are aiming to win his clients compensation for the
approximately $4,000 they paid in fines and penalties as well as
for financial damages incurred by job loss.

"A lot of these people were taxi drivers or truck drivers and they
can no longer work because now they have this device installed in
their car which made them have to blow every time they're about to
start their engine," he added.

Mr. Solimano explained part of the problem was that people were
given penalties based on readings from roadside screening devices,
not breathalyzers.  After blowing into them the devices gave a
pass, warn or fail reading.

"Blowing into a screening device is almost like going to a
hospital to have a disease diagnoses determined and just having
them take a pin prick of blood instead of taking a full blood
sample," he said.

More than 18,000 people were punished under B.C.'s drinking and
driving laws.

Justice Sigurdson ruled the government has until June to rewrite
the legislation so that it doesn't violate charter rights.

But the constitutional arguments aren't over yet.  On Jan. 20, the
lawyer for Aman Preet Sivia filed a notice of appeal in the B.C.
Court of Appeal.  The appeal of Justice Sigurdson's decision will
argue that the penalties for refusing to provide a breath sample
also violate charter rights.

Government officials told CTV News that since there hasn't been a
decision yet on that matter, a refusal will still trigger a 90-day
driving ban and drivers will have to install an ignition interlock
in their car for a year.  The car will only operate if a sober
driver blows into the device.

Meanwhile, more drivers who failed the roadside screening test are
fighting to get their licenses back.

Lawyer Paul Doroshenko says he has received one interim license
for a client who has served his 90-day ban and doesn't want to be
penalized further.  The license is good until the end of June --
when the revised legislation is due.  Mr. Doroshenko says 25
others are also expected to be allowed to drive again while the
laws are in limbo.

BBCN BANCORP: Awaits Approval of Merger-Related Suit Settlement
BBCN Bancorp, Inc., is awaiting approval of an agreement settling
a merger-related class action lawsuit, according to the Company's
February 3, 2012, Form 8-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Effective November 30, 2011, Nara Bancorp, Inc. completed its
merger with Center Financial Corporation, pursuant to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of December 9, 2010.  In
the transaction, Center merged with and into Nara Bancorp, with
Nara Bancorp being the surviving corporation under the new name
"BBCN Bancorp, Inc."  Concurrently with the merger, Nara Bank, a
California banking corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Nara
Bancorp, merged with and into Center Bank, a California banking
corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Center, with Center
Bank surviving the merger and continuing its corporate existence
under the name "BBCN Bank."

On May 2, 2011, a purported class action was filed in Los Angeles
County Superior Court against Center, its directors and Nara
Bancorp alleging, among other things, that the directors breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with their approval of the
proposed merger with Nara Bancorp and that Center breached its
fiduciary duties in connection with the disclosures it made
regarding the proposed merger.  On July 29, 2011, the parties to
the litigation agreed to settle all claims asserted in the action,
subject to, among other things, the execution of a stipulation of
settlement and court approval.  As part of the settlement, Nara
Bancorp and Center agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures
included in an amendment to the registration statement for the
Nara Bancorp shares to be issued at the completion of the merger.
In addition, defendants have agreed to pay up to $400,000 in
plaintiff's attorneys' fees and expenses, if and to the extent
approved by the court.  The court hearing on the proposed
settlement was scheduled for November 16, 2011.  Such payment
would be due only if the merger is consummated and be payable by
the combined company.

If approved by the court, the settlement also would result in the
release by the plaintiff and the proposed settlement class of all
claims that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect
of the merger agreement, the merger and any disclosures made in
connection therewith (but excluding any properly perfected claims
for statutory appraisal in connection with the merger, certain
claims arising under the federal securities laws and any claims to
enforce the settlement).

CHINA MEDICAL: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all purchasers of the American Depositary Shares
of China Medical Technologies, Inc. between November 26, 2007 and
December 12, 2011, inclusive seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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 at
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our Web site at

China Medical develops, manufactures and markets immunodiagnostic
and molecular diagnostic products.  The Complaint alleges that
throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse
facts about the Company's business, operations and prospects,
including: (1) that the Company's acquisition of Beijing Bio-Ekon
Biotechnology Co. Ltd. ("BBE") was from a third-party seller
connected to China Medical's CEO; (2) that the Company
substantially overpaid to acquire BBE; (3) that China Medical's
acquisition of BBE involved the use of fraudulent shell companies;
(4) that the Company was suffering substantial operating losses
prior to the acquisition; (5) that a majority of the Company's
accounts receivable were in excess of 120 days; (6) that, as a
result, China Medical's financial results were overstated; (7)
that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls;
and (8), as a result of the foregoing, that the Company's
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and
is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm with
significant experience in prosecuting class actions and
substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may move the
Court, no later than February 17, 2012 to serve as lead plaintiff;
however, you must meet certain legal requirements.  To be a member
of the class you need not take action at this time; you may retain
counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent
class member.  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.
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Toll Free: (888) 773-9224
          E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com

COLUMBIA LABORATORIES: Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
Shareholders of Columbia Laboratories, Inc. are reminded of the
securities class action lawsuit filed against Columbia and certain
of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States
District Court, District of New Jersey, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Columbia
securities between December 6, 2010 and January 20, 2012,
inclusive.  This class action is brought under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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 Columbia securities during
the Class Period, you have until Monday, April 2, 2012 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 at
rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free,
x350.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.

Columbia is an international pharmaceutical company that develops
and markets women's health care and endocrinology products.  The
Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Columbia
conditioned investors to believe that the Company's PROCHIEVE
progesterone vaginal gel 8% ("PROCHIEVE 8%"), a gel intended to
prevent preterm births in women with short cervices, would receive
FDA approval through a host of materially false and misleading
statements regarding the safety and efficacy of the product, as
well as reportedly positive results from PROCHIEVE's clinical

On January 17, 2012, the FDA published information ahead of a
meeting by the Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs of
the FDA scheduled for January 20, 2012.  The FDA documents
revealed that PROCHIEVE 8% did "not support the efficacy of
progesterone gel compared with placebo in reducing the risk of
preterm births before 33 completed weeks of gestation among women
with a short cervical strength."  Moreover, the safety of the gel
was similar to a placebo as "[n]o maternal deaths occurred and the
rates of fetal, neonatal and infant deaths were similar in both
treatment arms."

As a result of this revelation, Columbia shares declined $1.305
per share or more than 54%, to close at $1.095 per share on
January 17, 2012.

On January 20, 2012, the Advisory Committee voted 13 to 4 not to
recommend approval of PROCHIEVE 8%, as the risks of the
progesterone gel outweighed the benefits.

As a result, Columbia's shares declined an additional $0.874 per
share or more than 55%, to close at $0.706 per share on January
23, 2012.

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

IG INVESTMENT: Ont. Court of Appeal Confirms Class Certification
Julius Melnitzer, writing for Financial Post, reports that the
Ontario Court of Appeal has shocked Bay Street by ruling that
capital-markets participants who settle complaints with the
Ontario Securities Commission for less than the full value of
investors' damages remain liable to class-action lawsuits.

The Court's decision in the case of Fischer v. IG Investment
Management Ltd. confirmed the certification of a class action
against alleged wrongdoing by five defendant mutual fund managers
in the mutual fund market-timing debacle in 2004.

"This decision provides long-awaited crisp guidance to judges,
lawyers and corporations as to the critical role class actions
play in providing for access to justice in the context of
securities cases," says Joel Rochon -- jrochon@rochongenova.com --
of Toronto's Rochon Genova LLP, who, with colleagues Peter Jervis
and Sakie Tambakous --
stambakos@rochongenova.com --  represented the class.

The ruling means the lawsuit against CI Mutual Funds Inc. and AIC
Ltd. can proceed to trial.  The other defendants, IG Investment
Management Ltd., Franklin Templeton Investments Corp. and AGF
Funds Inc. were not involved in the appeal as they chose to settle
the class-action suits.

The ruling puts considerable pressure on the remaining defendants
to settle to avoid the cost of a lengthy and complex trial.

"CI and AIC will probably settle, too, now because they dont seem
to have much of a defense left," says Kirk Baert --
kbaert@kmlaw.ca -- of Toronto's Koskie Minsky LLP, who regularly
represents plaintiffs in class actions.

The ruling has wide repercussions.  It means a class action can't
be blocked simply because there is regulatory remedy for some
alleged wrongdoing.

"Ontario's Class Proceedings Act requires that a class action be
the preferable procedure for resolving a dispute before it can be
certified," says Benjamin Zarnett --
bzarnett@goodmans.ca -- of Toronto's Goodmans LLP, who, with
colleagues Jessica Kimmel -- jkimmel@goodmans.ca -- and Melanie
Ouanounou -- mouanounou@goodmans.ca -- represented CI.  "So
arguably Fischer could apply in any case where companies are
holding up an alternative process, whether it's regulatory or
voluntary, as a preferable alternative to a class action."

The Fischer case arose in the wake of the market-timing scandal.
The OSC commenced proceedings against the five defendant funds.
It claimed they failed to act in the public interest in relation
to the market-timing activity in their funds.

The regulatory proceedings ended when the funds agreed to pay
$205-million to aggrieved investors.  The settlement agreements
specified that they were without prejudice to the rights of
investors to bring civil suits against the mutual-fund managers
with respect to the same subject matter.

Dennis Fischer and other representative plaintiffs initiated the
class action after the OSC proceedings ended.  The investor
plaintiffs sought to recover the difference between the OSC
settlement and the hundreds of millions of additional dollars they
maintained were required for full compensation.

In January 2010, Mr. Justice Paul Perell of the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice refused to certify the case, but the Divisional
Court reversed his ruling.  The Court of Appeal upheld the
Divisional Court result, but for different reasons.

The last word on the subject, however, may not yet have been

"CI is looking very carefully at the feasibility of bringing a
leave to appeal application to the Supreme Court of Canada,"
Mr. Zarnett says.  "It's a very important issue involving matters
of principle, to which each of the three courts that pronounced on
it in this case have taken a very different approach."

INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: "Zhao" Plaintiffs Dismissed Suit in Dec.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned Hui Zhao v. International
Rectifier Corp. filed a notice of dismissal of the action in
December 2011, according to the Company's February 3, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended December 25, 2011.

In August 2008, shortly after the Company's disclosure that Vishay
Intertechnology, Inc. ("Vishay") had made an unsolicited, non-
binding proposal to acquire all outstanding shares of the Company,
a purported class action complaint captioned Hui Zhao v.
International Rectifier Corp., No. BC396461, was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles.  The complaint named as defendants the Company and all of
its directors and alleged that the Vishay proposal was unfair and
that acceptance of the offer would constitute a breach of
fiduciary duty by the Board.  In October 2008, the case was
consolidated with five other substantially similar complaints
seeking the same relief.  Later in October 2008, plaintiffs filed
a consolidated amended complaint purporting to allege claims for
breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of a putative class of
investors based on the theory that the Board breached its
fiduciary duty by rejecting the Vishay proposal.  In April 2009,
the Superior Court sustained the Company's demurrer to the amended
complaint on the ground that the action should have been brought
not as a class action but as a shareholder derivative action, and
ordered the action to be dismissed with prejudice.  In June 2009,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the final judgment of

On June 20, 2011, the Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior
Court's order sustaining the demurrer, but reversed the portion of
the order that dismissed the action with prejudice.  The Court of
Appeal remanded the case to the Superior Court with directions to
permit plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint to
attempt to plead a shareholder derivative action.   Pursuant to
Section 472b of the California Code of Civil Procedure,
plaintiffs' amended complaint was due to be filed on or about
September 26, 2011.  Plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint
by that time.

On November 14, 2011, plaintiffs indicated that they would not
seek leave to file a second amended complaint and, in exchange for
payment of plaintiffs' appellate court costs of a de-minimus
amount, plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the action.  On or about
December 9, 2011, following the Company's such payment to
plaintiffs, plaintiffs filed a notice of dismissal of the action.

KOSS CORP: Awaits Approval of Settlement in "Puskala" Suit
Koss Corporation is awaiting approval of a settlement of the class
action lawsuit commenced by David A. Puskala in Wisconsin,
according to the Company's February 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2011.

On January 15, 2010, a class action complaint, captioned David A.
Puskala v. Koss Corporation, et al., United States District Court,
Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case No. 2:2010cv00041, was filed
in federal court in Wisconsin against the Company, Michael Koss
and Sujata Sachdeva.  The lawsuit alleges violations of Section
10(b), Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act relating
to the unauthorized transactions and requests an award of
compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial.  On
October 24, 2011, the Company announced that a settlement in
principle has been reached subject to Court approval involving the
claims that were brought against the Company and Michael Koss.
This settlement involves a total payment of $1 million to the
shareholders included within the class.  This amount will be
funded by the Company's insurance company, with any fee awarded to
plaintiffs' counsel to be paid out of the $1 million settlement.

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

LEE ENTERPRISES: Class Certification Reversal Bid Still Pending
In 2008, a group of newspaper carriers filed a lawsuit against Lee
Enterprises, Incorporated's subsidiary, Lee Publications, Inc.
("Lee Publications"), which is currently pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California (the
"California Litigation"), in which the plaintiffs claimed to be
employees of Lee Publications and not independent contractors.
The plaintiffs seek relief related to alleged violations of
various employment-based statutes, and request punitive damages
and attorneys' fees.  In July 2010, the trial court granted the
plaintiffs' petition for class certification.  Lee Publications
filed an interlocutory appeal, which was denied.  After concluding
discovery, Lee Publications filed a motion to reverse the class
certification ruling.  This motion is currently pending before the
trial court.

Lee Publications denies the allegations of employee status,
consistent with its past practices and industry practices, and
intends to vigorously contest the action, which is not covered by

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 3,
2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange

LEE ENTERPRISES: Continues to Defend Suits Over Retiree Benefits
Lee Enterprises, Incorporated, continues to defend lawsuits
involving its subsidiary over retiree benefits, according to the
Company's February 3, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

In 2009 and 2011, the St. Louis Newspaper Guild filed three
separate lawsuits against St. Louis Post-Dispatch LLC ("PD LLC")
in the Eastern District of Missouri.  In these cases, the St.
Louis Newspaper Guild sought to compel PD LLC to participate in
arbitration under two different union contracts regarding changes
made by PD LLC to retiree medical benefits.  Two cases involving
the same union contract were consolidated into one lawsuit, in
which the trial court judge granted the St. Louis Newspaper
Guild's motion for summary judgment and ordered arbitration.  PD
LLC successfully appealed that decision, and the appellate court
remanded the matter back to the trial court.  Lee Enterprises then
filed class action lawsuits under both union contracts at issue
(collectively with the lawsuits initially filed by the St. Louis
Newspaper Guild, the "Newspaper Guild Litigation"), seeking a
declaratory judgment that the medical benefit rights were not
vested under those contracts and that PD LLC had the right to
change the retiree benefits without arbitration.  The Newspaper
Guild Litigation is now currently pending in two consolidated
cases before one judge in the Eastern District of Missouri.

On September 28, 2011, the Communication Workers Union filed a
lawsuit against PD LLC in the Eastern District of Missouri (the
"CWU Litigation" and, together with the Pressmen Litigation and
the Newspaper Guild Litigation, the "Retiree Cases"), in which
plaintiff seeks to compel PD LLC to participate in arbitration
under the union contract after PD LLC increased retiree premium
cost for those under age 65 and eliminated coverage for those 65
and older.  The matter is currently before the Eastern District of

MONSANTO: Dioxin Suit Opening Arguments Set for February 13
Jeff Brady, writing for NPR, reports that for about two decades,
ending in 1971, a former Monsanto chemical plant in West Virginia
produced the herbicide 2,4,5-T which was used in "Agent Orange" --
the defoliant the military sprayed over Southeast Asia during the
Vietnam War.

Now, Monsanto faces a class-action lawsuit, filed on behalf of
people living where the herbicide was manufactured in Nitro, W.Va.

Nitro became a town during World War I, named after the type of
gunpowder workers produced there.  Later private companies like
Monsanto manufactured other chemicals in Nitro, employing
thousands of people.  It's always been a chemical town.

"If you ever drove over the I-64 bridge at Nitro, you really got
an odor back in the '60s and '70s," says Nitro Mayor Rusty Casto.
But now the plants are gone.

The class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of tens of thousands
of people who lived, worked and went to school in Nitro after
1949.  The suit claims the company spread toxic substances all
over town, mainly dioxins, which have been linked to cancer.  At
issue in this case: whether Monsanto will have to pay millions of
dollars to monitor the health of everyone included in the case.

The Vietnam War connection has longtime peace activists paying

"We need to have the facts about what these chemicals were, what
they were all about, where the residue then was deposited," says
Jim Lewis, a retired Episcopal priest in nearby Charleston.

Mr. Lewis says residents also need to be fairly compensated.  But
in Nitro, while most of the residents remain part of the lawsuit,
many have mixed feelings about the case.

Gertie Estep, 79, spent a decade working for a chemical plant;
most of her family was employed by Monsanto, where she says the
pay was good.

"We raised our families from those plants and we had no problems,"
says Ms. Estep, "Of course I know a lot of people in Nitro have
had cancer, but I'm not sure [whether] they can blame that on the
plants or not."

That is one of the many issues that will be argued before a jury
in court.  Attorneys for the plaintiffs and for Monsanto won't
comment on the case.  The court has issued a gag order out of
concern pretrial publicity could sway the jury.

This is not the first time lawyers have sued Monsanto over health
effects in Nitro.  In the 1980s, a lawsuit was brought on behalf
of seven former employees.

"We won one case," says Nitro lawyer Harvey Peyton, who was a
co-counsel on the case.  "One man developed bladder cancer during
the course of the trial.  The jury found in his favor and awarded
him some moderate damages."  But Mr. Peyton and his colleagues
lost the other cases.

Mr. Peyton is not involved in the current class-action lawsuit,
but he has followed it.  There's one development he finds
troubling.  Originally, the suit called for Monsanto to both
monitor people's health and clean up polluted property.  The court
rejected the property claims last year, leaving just the medical

"So you just brand this class area as 'dangerous' from a health
standpoint, but there's nobody to clean it up," says Mr. Peyton.

The cleanup issue is still being appealed.  Meanwhile the medical
monitoring case is headed to trial after settlement negotiations
failed.  A jury has been selected and the court says opening
arguments could begin as early as Feb. 13.

RBS CITIZENS: 7th Cir. Affirms Class Certification in Wage Suit
Alison Frankel, writing for Thomson Reuters, reports that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit just handed lawyers
representing employees in wage-and-hour class actions potent
protection against the U.S. Supreme Court's 2011 ruling in Wal-
Mart v. Dukes.

The opinion came in a class-action suit filed in Chicago federal
court against RBS Citizens, otherwise known as Charter One bank.
Back in 2010, U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow certified two
classes, one of hourly workers and one of assistant branch
managers, concluding that certification was appropriate for these
narrowly-defined classes.  The bank's lawyers at Proskauer Rose
appealed.  After oral arguments at the Seventh Circuit -- but
before the appellate panel decided the case -- the Supreme Court
issued its ruling in Dukes.  The Seventh Circuit then asked both
sides for briefs on Dukes's implications for the case.  In the
first appellate ruling to address Dukes' application to wage-and-
hour class actions, the Seventh Circuit affirmed class

"Ultimately, the glue holding together the [Charter One classes]
is based on the common question of whether an unlawful overtime
policy prevented employees from collecting lawfully earned
overtime compensation," the court concluded.  The allegedly
unlawful policy, the appellate judges said, satisfied the
commonality requirement that the Dukes class did not.

Of course, the Dukes holding had a profound impact in the world of
class-action suits.  "There's B.D. -- Before Dukes -- and A.D. --
After Dukes," a Seyfarth Shaw partner told OTC colleague Andrew
Longstreth earlier this month.  But as Mr. Longstreth noted,
plaintiffs' lawyers held out hope even in the A.D. era for Fair
Labor Standards Act cases, otherwise known as wage-and-hour class
actions.  Unlike employment-discrimination suits such as Dukes,
FLSA actions (and suits based on parallel state statutes like the
one at issue in the Charter One case) do not require plaintiffs to
show the defendants intended harm.

Charter One's team from Proskauer Rose tried to minimize that
distinction in its Dukes brief to the Seventh Circuit.  The
proposed wage-and-hour class, it argued, suffered "from exactly
the same lack of 'glue' that would ensure the common question . .
. an answer that can be determined 'in one stroke' without
considering facts particular to each plaintiff."  Proskauer also
argued that because Charter One allows local branch managers to
determine how much supervisory and managerial work the assistant
branch managers perform, that class also fails the Dukes
commonality test.

The Seventh Circuit panel, made of up Judge Michael Kanne and
Judge Charles Clevert, sitting by designation, rejected both
arguments. (Judge Terrance Evans heard the oral argument, but died
in August 2011 and did not participate in the decision.)  The
Charter One classes, wrote Judge Kanne, are not like the enormous,
nationwide class in Dukes that was barred by the Supreme Court.
All of the Charter One plaintiffs are in Illinois, and the classes
are relatively small (fewer than 1200 hourly class members and
"significantly fewer" assistant branch managers).  Further, the
Dukes plaintiffs needed to show a discriminatory intent that the
Charter One employees didn't have to prove under the relevant wage
statute, Judge Kanne wrote.  Class members were all subject to
what the plaintiffs called an "unofficial policy" that led to the
denial of certain overtime pay.  That unofficial policy, the
Seventh Circuit wrote, is "the common answer that potentially
drives the resolution of this litigation."

The opinion represents a big step in the direction of settling how
Dukes applies to wage-and-hour classes, said Brendon Donelon of
The Law Office of Donelon, who represents the Charter One
employees.  By Mr. Donelon's count, 16 federal district courts
have concluded that Dukes does not preclude class certification in
wage-and-hour cases.  Four or five district courts, he said, have
reached the opposite finding.  Because the Seventh Circuit is the
first federal appeals court to address this particular issue,
Mr. Donelon said, he expects the opinion to get a lot of play as
plaintiffs seeking overtime pay in other courts battle Dukes

A spokesperson for the Charter One said the bank is "reviewing
this procedural decision and will continue to vigorously defend
against the claims in this suit, which are without merit."

Proskauer's Mark Batten declined to comment.

SAMMSOFT: Sued Over False Representations on Free PC Virus Scan
Chris Marshall at Courthouse News Service reports that a company
designed its free virus scan software to exaggerate computer
errors in order to lure customers into buying the full product,
according to a federal class action.

James LaGarde claims Sammsoft's Advanced Registry Optimizer
overstates the existence and severity of computer errors while
performing a free scan of user's computers.

Sammsoft allows customers to download the software and perform a
free diagnostic scan that detects errors the program can fix.  The
company then offers to fix 100 of the detected errors for free but
requires customers to buy the full, registered version to fix the
remaining problems.

Mr. LaGarde sued Sammsoft on behalf of a class of other people in
the United States who bought the product based on the false
representations.  The class alleges breach of contract and express
and implied warranties and unjust enrichment.  According to the
suit, Sammsoft boasts that over ten million users worldwide have
downloaded the software.

He claims Sammsoft intentionally designed the Advanced Registry
Optimizer to misrepresent and exaggerate not only the existence
and severity of errors but also the overall system and security
status of the scanned personal computer, "regardless of the actual
condition of the computer to induce the consumer to purchase the

He went on to say that Sammsoft lulls users who buy the product
outright without first doing the free scan into a "false sense of
security" that the software is honestly and accurately detecting
and removing or repairing credible errors and security threats.
The real value of the product, "stripped of these artifices, is
much less than reflected in its purchase price."

Mr. LaGarde paid $29.95 for the product.

He said because average customers lack technical expertise to
understand the underlying functions in the software, they trust
Sammsoft to honestly describe the usefulness of its products and
design its product to accurately report errors.

The company "betrayed that trust, and as a result, millions of
consumers have been tricked into paying for its Advanced Registry
Optimizer software," added.

A copy of the Complaint in Lagarde v. Support.com, Inc. d/b/a
Sammsoft, Case No. 12-cv-00609 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean P. Reis, Esq.
          30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
          Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
          Telephone: (949) 459-2124
          E-mail: sreis@edelson.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Chandler R. Givens, Esq.
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com

SPECTRUM HOME: Recalls 165 Chandeliers Due to Injury Hazard
About 165 Crystal chandeliers were voluntarily recalled by
Spectrum Home Furnishings of Farmingdale, New Jersey, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The recalled chandeliers contain a mounting loop that can fail
during use causing the chandeliers to fall from the ceiling and
injure bystanders under the chandelier.

The firm has received five reports of the chandeliers falling from
the ceiling.  No injuries have been reported.  Approximately
$1,000 in property damage has been reported.

The recall involves three models of chandeliers with model numbers
a83-21502/36+1, a83-1502/36+1 and a46-490/30 printed on the
exterior of the box in which the products were shipped.  Models
a83-21502/36+1 and a83-1502/36+1 are clear crystal chandeliers
measuring about 52-inches wide and 60-inches high.  Both models
have identical appearance, with one model number containing a
different type of crystal.

Model a46-490/30ed is black wrought iron with clear crystals
measuring about 46 inches wide and 46 inches in height.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:


The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold online
from January 2007 through December 2010 for about $1,000 to $2,500
on the Web sites http://www.spectrumhome3.com/,
http://www.spectrumhome4.com/or http://www.gallery84.com/.

Consumers should prevent people from going into immediate area
under the chandeliers.  Contact Spectrum Home Furnishings to
receive a free replacement part, $150 to cover costs with
replacement of the defective part, and a $25 incentive credit.
Spectrum Home Furnishings is contacting all known purchasers.  For
additional information, contact Spectrum Home Furnishings at (800)
524-1539 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.gallery84.com/and click the "recall" link in the top
menu of the page.

STATE OF MILWAUKEE: Court Voids MPS Disability Case Settlement
Glynis Farrell at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
appeals court voided a settlement in a long-running class action
against the Milwaukee Public Schools citing the "indefiniteness"
of the definition of the alleged affected class.

In 2001, Disability Rights Wisconsin and seven disabled students
sued the Milwaukee Public School District and the Wisconsin
Department of Public Instruction over allegedly widespread
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act violations.

Jamie S. claims she was denied entry into the school's special
needs program at age 8.  She is now 19-years-old.

The IDEA requires participating States to provide all disabled
students with a free and appropriate public education.  Its Child
Find mandate requires disabled children to be located and
evaluated regardless of the severity of their needs.

The district court rejected the students' original request for
class certification, but certified a modest version: "students
eligible to receive a special education from MPS 'who are, have
been or will be' denied or delayed entry into the IEP process."

A bench trial led to the lower court's ruling holding MPS and DPI
accountable for systematic IDEA violations.  In 2008, the DPI
settled with the advocacy group and agreed to hold Milwaukee
Public responsible for implementing a corrective plan.

In 2009, the district court ordered the school to set up a court-
monitored system to locate and assess disabled children delayed or
denied entry into its special services program.

According to Milwaukee Public, the system would cost the district
$74 million.  It moved to challenge the court's order, its class
certification and a 2008 settlement between the DPI and Disability
Rights Wisconsin.

The students asked the appeals court to review the district
court's rejection of its original class certification.

In its 51-page ruling, the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
scrapped the 2008 DPI settlement and reversed the class
certification on three grounds.

The district court's approval of the DPI settlement must be
vacated because there "can be no class settlement if the class
should not have been certified in the first place," Judge Diane S.
Sykes wrote for the three-judge panel.

A large part of the class remains unidentified, the court noted.
"In other words, the certified class combined all disabled
students eligible for special education from MPS who were not
identified as potentially eligible for services, not timely
referred for evaluation after identification, not timely evaluated
after referral, not evaluated in a properly constituted IEP
meeting, or whose parents did not (for whatever reason) attend an
otherwise proper IEP meeting," Judge Sykes noted.

Adding: "One immediately obvious defect in the class is its
indefiniteness.  A significant segment of the class (of unknown
and unknowable size) comprises disabled students who may have been
eligible for special education but were not identified and remain

Since the IDEA claims are vast and highly individualized, there is
no common issue or single resolution that would make class
certification suitable.  Each child's scenario must be dealt with
separately, the panel says.

"To bring individual IDEA claims together to litigate a class, the
plaintiffs must show that they share some question of law or fact
that can be answered all at once and that the single answer to
that question will resolve a central issue in all class members'
claims," the judge wrote.

A common injunction does not exist that would apply to each class
members' individual needs, the ruling states.

"While the compensatory-education remedies will often or always be
injunctive in nature, there can be no single injunction that
provides final relief to the class as a whole," Judge Sykes wrote.

The disabled students and the advocacy group plan to take its case
to the Supreme Court or have it reviewed by a 13-judge 7th Circuit

SUPPORT.COM INC: Sued Over Alleged Fraudulent Software Products
James Lagarde, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Support.com, Inc., d/b/a Sammsoft, a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 3:12-cv-00609 (N.D. Calif., February 7,
2012) is based upon the Defendant's alleged practice of defrauding
consumers through the design and sale of certain of its software

The Plaintiff relates that Support.com markets and sells a variety
of products that it claims will increase the speed, performance,
and stability of a consumer's personal computer, fix security and
privacy risks, remove harmful errors, and improve Internet speeds.
He asserts that the method Support.com uses to induce consumers to
purchase at least one of these software products -- Advanced
Registry Optimizer -- as well as the software itself is undeniably
fraudulent.  He alleges that Support.com intentionally designed
ARO to misrepresent and exaggerate the existence and severity of
detected errors, as well as the overall "system" and "security
status" of the PC, regardless of the actual condition of the
computer to induce the consumer to purchase the software.

Mr. LaGarde is a citizen of the state of Maryland.

Support.com is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters and
principal place of business in Redwood City, California.
Support.com is a developer of computer utility software.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean P. Reis, Esq.
          30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
          Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
          Telephone: (949) 459-2124
          Facsimile: (949) 459-2123
          E-mail: sreis@edelson.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Chandler R. Givens, Esq.
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com

SYNGENTA CROP: CMD Actions Undermine Standing in Atrazine Suit
Ann Maher, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports that
the American Tort Reform Association says that a "WikiLeaks-like"
Web site published by the Center for Media and Democracy had
posted previously unsealed, proprietary documents related to a
Madison County atrazine class action to undermine the defendant's
standing with the public.

According to records obtained by this paper, Sourcewatch.org
between Jan. 9 and 26 had uploaded more than 100 documents related
to the Holiday Shores v. Syngenta Crop Protection litigation that
originated in 2004 by plaintiff attorney Stephen Tillery.

He is suing Syngenta and other makers of the weed killer in state
and federal court claiming the chemical contaminates water

One of the documents uploaded by SourceWatch was a deposition
taken by Mr. Tillery of Syngenta communications employee Sherry
Ford.  The deposition is not part of the record on file at the
Madison County courthouse.

Most of the documents were removed on Jan. 29 and 30, following an
ATRA posting on Jan. 27, "'Organic' advocates seek to influence
Madison County atrazine case," which mentioned the SourceWatch
"document dump."

On Jan. 31, ATRA's communications director Darren McKinney wrote
another post stating that SourceWatch was taking down the
documents, "particularly the ones that suggest a direct link
between the Web site and the plaintiffs' attorneys."

Mr. McKinney also wrote that online records of the deletions were
being erased.

"So much for all that 'transparency' that SourceWatch's sponsor,
the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), hypocritically insists
is always in short supply when it comes to all those big, bad
corporations that just happen to employ tens of millions of
Americans," he wrote.

Lisa Graves, executive director of CMD, wrote in an e-mail
response that the CMD does not comment on ongoing investigations,
"including if or when we may proceed on any matter we may or may
not be examining," she wrote.  She also said that editing logs are

"As SourceWatch is a wiki, the editing logs for articles and
documents are unalterable, so any suggestion to the contrary would
be false; but I am reviewing the material you reference and per
our policy I cannot comment on the materials that are available to
the public through this or other litigation or sources."

Ms. Graves was provided a copy of a SourceWatch screen shot
profile of Sherry Ford, and a screen shot showing the Sherry Ford
page as having been deleted.  She was also provided a user
contribution log from Jan. 26 which showed more than 100
references to the Madison County litigation, including the Sherry
Ford deposition and a (Circuit Judge Bill) Mudge order.  The same
user's log on Jan. 30 showed that a large majority of those page
references no longer existed.

In response, Ms. Graves said she would not be commenting "in
response to the little game you have going between your outlet and
ATRF's lies."

Mr. McKinney wrote on Jan. 31 that SourceWatch's "Atrazine
Exposed" webpage is funded in large part by the organic farming
industry, "perhaps designed to undermine Syngenta -- the
manufacturer of atrazine, a safe and widely used weed killer -- in
the eyes of future jurors, or otherwise to help pressure the
chemical company into a costly settlement with the plaintiffs.

"In any case, CMD and SourceWatch routinely rant and rave about
corporations' efforts to influence politics, public policy and the
law, but apparently they have no qualms about trying to do so
themselves.  A victory for the plaintiffs in the atrazine class
action, slowly playing out in longstanding judicial hellhole
Madison County since 2004, will make conventional farming more
costly and thus could make organic farming marginally more
competitive.  So who's trying to exercise influence now?"

TENNESSEE VALLEY: Dispositive Bids in Suit vs. TVARS Due in Oct.
Final dispositive motions in the lawsuit involving the Tennessee
Valley Authority Retirement System are due on October 12, 2012,
according to Tennessee Valley Authority's February 3, 2012, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended December 31, 2011.

On March 5, 2010, eight current and former participants in and
beneficiaries of Tennessee Valley Authority Retirement System
("TVARS") filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Tennessee against the six then-current
members of the TVARS Board of Directors ("TVARS Board").  The
lawsuit challenged the TVARS Board's decision to suspend the TVA
contribution requirements for 2010 through 2013, and to amend the
TVARS Rules and Regulations to (1) reduce the calculation for cost
of living adjustment ("COLA") benefits for CY 2010 through CY
2013, (2) reduce the interest crediting rate for the fixed fund
accounts, and (3) increase the eligibility age to receive COLAs
from age 55 to 60.  The plaintiffs allege that these actions
violated the TVARS Board members' fiduciary duties to the
plaintiffs (and the purported class) and the plaintiffs'
contractual rights, among other claims.  The plaintiffs sought,
among other things, unspecified damages, an order directing the
TVARS Board to rescind the amendments, and the appointment of a
seventh TVARS Board member.  Five of the six individual defendants
filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit, while the remaining
defendant filed an answer to the complaint.  On
July 28, 2010, TVA moved to intervene in the lawsuit in the event
it was not dismissed.  On September 7, 2010, the district court
dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty claim against the directors
without prejudice, allowing the plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint within 14 days against TVARS and TVA but not the
individual directors.  The plaintiffs previously had voluntarily
withdrawn their constitutional claims, so the court also dismissed
those claims without prejudice.  The court dismissed with
prejudice the plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract, violation
of the Internal Revenue Code, and appointment of a seventh TVARS
Board member.

On September 21, 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
against TVARS and TVA.  The plaintiffs allege, among other things,
violations of their constitutional rights (due process, equal
protection, and property rights), violations of the Administrative
Procedure Act, and breach of statutory duties owed to the
plaintiffs.  They seek a declaratory judgment and appropriate
relief for the alleged statutory and constitutional violations and
breaches of duty.  TVA filed its answer to the amended complaint
on December 27, 2010.  A briefing schedule has been issued and
final dispositive motions are due on October 12, 2012.

TENNESSEE VALLEY: Still Defends Katrina-Related Suit in Miss.
In April 2006, Tennessee Valley Authority was added as a defendant
to a class action lawsuit brought in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi by 14 Mississippi
residents allegedly injured by Hurricane Katrina.  The plaintiffs
sued seven large oil companies and an oil company trade
association, three large chemical companies and a chemical trade
association, and 31 large companies involved in the mining and/or
burning of coal, alleging that the defendants' greenhouse gas
("GHG") emissions contributed to global warming and were a
proximate and direct cause of Hurricane Katrina's increased
destructive force.  Action by the United States Supreme Court on
January 10, 2011, ended this case in a manner favorable to TVA.

On May 27, 2011, under a Mississippi state statute that permits
the re-filing of lawsuits that were dismissed on procedural
grounds, the plaintiffs filed another lawsuit against the same and
additional defendants, again alleging that the defendants' GHG
emissions contributed to global warming and were a proximate and
direct cause of Hurricane Katrina' s increased destructive force.
A number of defendants, including TVA, have filed motions to
dismiss the complaint.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 3,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.

TYSON FOODS: Bids for Judgment in "Weissman" Suit Still Pending
Tyson Foods, Inc. has one pending wage and hour action involving
its Tyson Prepared Foods plant located in Jefferson, Wisconsin
(Weissman, et al. v. Tyson Prepared Foods, Inc., Jefferson County
(Wisconsin) Circuit Court, October 20, 2010).  The plaintiffs
allege that employees should be paid for the time it takes to
engage in pre- and post-shift activities such as changing into and
out of protective and sanitary clothing and the associated time it
takes to walk to and from their workstations post-donning and pre-
doffing of protective and sanitary clothing.  Six named plaintiffs
seek to act as state law class representatives on behalf of all
current and former employees who were allegedly not paid for time
worked and seek back wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-
judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.  On May 16,
2011, Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a state law class of
all hourly employees who have worked at the Jefferson plant from
October 20, 2008, to the present.  The Company has filed motions
for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the claims, or, in the
alternative, to limit the claims made for non-compensable clothes
changing activities.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 3,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.

Tyson Foods, Inc. -- http://www.tyson.com/-- is a meat protein
company and a food production company with recognized brand names
in the food industry.  The Company produces, distributes and
markets chicken, beef, pork, prepared foods and related allied

TYSON FOODS: Georgia Court Grants Attorneys' Fees in FLSA MDL
A Georgia court granted an application for attorneys' fees and
costs in connection with Tyson Foods, Inc.'s settlement of a
multidistrict litigation over allegations of Federal Labor
Standards Act violations, according to the Company's February 3,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.

Several private lawsuits are pending against the Company alleging
that the Company failed to compensate poultry plant employees for
all hours worked, including overtime compensation, in violation of
the Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  These lawsuits include
DeAsencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (DeAsencio), filed on August 22,
2000, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  This matter involves similar allegations that
employees should be paid for the time it takes to engage in pre-
and post-shift activities such as changing into and out of
protective and sanitary clothing, obtaining clothing and walking
to and from the changing area, work areas and break areas. They
seek back wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs appealed a jury verdict
and final judgment entered in the Company's favor on
June 22, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.  On September 7, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit reversed the jury verdict and remanded the
case to the District Court for further proceedings.  The Company
sought rehearing en banc, which was denied by the Court of Appeals
on October 5, 2007.  The United States Supreme Court denied the
Company's petition for a writ of certiorari on June 9, 2008.  The
new trial date has not been set.

The other private lawsuits are Sheila Ackles, et al. v. Tyson
Foods, Inc. (N. Dist. Alabama, October 23, 2006); McCluster, et
al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (M. Dist. Georgia, December 11, 2006);
Dobbins, et al. v. Tyson Chicken, Inc., et al. (N.D. Alabama,
December 21, 2006); Buchanan, et al. v. Tyson Chicken, Inc., et
al. and Potter, et al. v. Tyson Chicken, Inc., et al. (N.D.
Alabama, December 22, 2006); Jones, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.,
et al., Walton, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al. and Williams,
et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., et al. (S.D. Mississippi,
February 9, 2007); Balch, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (E.D.
Oklahoma, March 1, 2007); Adams, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (W.D.
Arkansas, March 2, 2007); Atkins, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
(M.D. Georgia, March 5, 2007); Laney, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
and Williams, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (M.D. Georgia,
May 23, 2007) (the Williams Case).  Similar to DeAsencio, each of
these matters involves allegations that employees should be paid
for the time it takes to engage in pre- and post-shift activities
such as changing into and out of protective and sanitary clothing,
obtaining clothing and walking to and from the changing area, work
areas and break areas.  The plaintiffs in each of these lawsuits
seek or have sought to act as class representatives on behalf of
all current and former employees who were allegedly not paid for
time worked and seek back wages, liquidated damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees.  On April 6, 2007,
the Company filed a motion for transfer of the actions for
coordinated pretrial proceedings before the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, which was granted on August 17, 2007.
These cases and five other cases subsequently filed involving the
same allegations (i.e., Armstrong, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
(W.D. Tennessee, January 30, 2008); Maldonado, et al. v. Tyson
Foods, Inc. (E.D. Tennessee, January 31, 2008); White, et al. v.
Tyson Foods, Inc. (E.D. Texas, February 1, 2008); Meyer, et al. v.
Tyson Foods, Inc. (W.D. Missouri, February 2, 2008); and Leak, et
al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (W.D. North Carolina, February 6, 2008)),
were transferred to the U.S. District Court in the Middle District
of Georgia, In re: Tyson Foods, Inc., Fair Labor Standards Act
Litigation (MDL Proceedings).

On September 2, 2011, the parties executed a settlement agreement
and filed a joint motion with the court seeking its approval of
the settlement.  The court approved the settlement on
September 15, 2011, and Tyson will pay at least $12.25 million but
no more than $17.5 million in back pay and damages to eligible
class members.  The settlement agreement provides a process for
identifying and certifying eligible class members, which includes
a 75-day notice period for certain class members to become
eligible for payment under the settlement.  In addition, the
settlement agreement provides that plaintiffs' attorneys must file
an application for fees with the court but that no more than $14.5
million in attorneys' fees and costs will be paid.  Plaintiffs'
attorneys filed their fee application, which was approved on
January 23, 2012.

Tyson Foods, Inc. -- http://www.tyson.com/-- is a meat protein
company and a food production company with recognized brand names
in the food industry.  The Company produces, distributes and
markets chicken, beef, pork, prepared foods and related allied

TYSON FOODS: Still Defends "Thompson" Class Suit in Oklahoma
On October 23, 2001, a putative class action lawsuit styled R.
Lynn Thompson, et al. vs. Tyson Foods, Inc. was filed in the
District Court for Mayes County, Oklahoma, by three property
owners on behalf of all owners of lakefront property on Grand Lake
O' the Cherokees.  Simmons Foods, Inc. and Peterson Farms, Inc.
also are defendants.  The plaintiffs allege the defendants'
operations diminished the water quality in the lake thereby
interfering with the plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their
properties.  The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.  While the District Court certified a
class, on October 4, 2005, the Court of Civil Appeals of the State
of Oklahoma reversed, holding the plaintiffs' claims were not
suitable for disposition as a class action.  This decision was
upheld by the Oklahoma Supreme Court and the case was remanded to
the District Court with instructions that the matter proceed only
on behalf of the three named plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief, restitution and compensatory and punitive
damages in an unspecified amount in excess of $10,000.  The
Company and the other defendants have denied liability and
asserted various defenses.  The defendants have requested a trial
date, but the court has not yet scheduled the matter for trial.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 3,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.

Tyson Foods, Inc. -- http://www.tyson.com/-- is a meat protein
company and a food production company with recognized brand names
in the food industry.  The Company produces, distributes and
markets chicken, beef, pork, prepared foods and related allied

UGI CORP: "Swiger" Class Suit Remains Stayed in West Virginia
A class action lawsuit filed by Samuel and Brenda Swiger in West
Virginia remains stayed, according to UGI Corporation's
February 3, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2011.

In 2005, Samuel and Brenda Swiger (the "Swigers") filed what
purports to be a class action in the Circuit Court of Harrison
County, West Virginia, against UGI, an insurance subsidiary of
UGI, certain officers of UGI and the General Partner, and their
insurance carriers and insurance adjusters.  In this lawsuit, the
Swigers are seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of
the putative class for alleged violations of the West Virginia
Insurance Unfair Trade Practice Act, negligence, intentional
misconduct, and civil conspiracy.  The Court has not certified the
class and, in October 2008, stayed the lawsuit pending resolution
of a separate, but related class action lawsuit filed against
AmeriGas Propane, L.P. in Monongalia County, which was settled in
Fiscal 2011.  The Company believes it has good defenses to the
claims in this action.

UNION PACIFIC: Awaits Ruling on Motions to Dismiss "Oxbow" Suit
Union Pacific Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its and
other defendants' motions to dismiss an antitrust lawsuit
commenced by Oxbow Carbon & Minerals LLC, according to the
Company's February 3, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

Twenty small rail shippers (many of whom are represented by the
same law firms) filed virtually identical antitrust lawsuits in
various federal district courts against the Company's subsidiary,
Union Pacific Railroad Company ("Railroad"), and four other Class
I railroads in the U.S (one railroad was eventually dropped from
the lawsuit).  The original plaintiff filed the first of these
claims in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey on May 14, 2007,
and the additional plaintiffs filed claims in district courts in
various states, including Florida, Illinois, Alabama,
Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia.  These lawsuits allege
that the named railroads engaged in price-fixing by establishing
common fuel surcharges for certain rail traffic.

The Company received additional complaints following the initial
claim, increasing the total number of complaints to 30.  In
addition to lawsuits filed by direct purchasers of rail
transportation, a few of the lawsuits involved plaintiffs alleging
that they are or were indirect purchasers of rail transportation
and seeking to represent a purported class of indirect purchasers
of rail transportation that paid fuel surcharges.  These
complaints added allegations under state antitrust and consumer
protection laws.  On November 6, 2007, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all of the rail fuel
surcharge cases be transferred to Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S.
District Court in the District of Columbia for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.  Subsequently, the direct
purchaser plaintiffs and the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaints against UPRR and
three other Class I railroads.

One additional shipper filed a separate antitrust lawsuit during
2008.  Subsequently, the shipper voluntarily dismissed the action
without prejudice.

On October 10, 2008, Judge Friedman heard oral arguments with
respect to the defendant railroads' motions to dismiss.  In a
ruling on November 7, 2008, Judge Friedman denied the motion with
respect to the direct purchasers' complaint, and pretrial
proceedings are underway in that case.  On December 31, 2008,
Judge Friedman dismissed the complaints of the indirect purchasers
based upon state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust
enrichment laws.  He also ruled, however, that these plaintiffs
could proceed with their claim for injunctive relief under the
federal antitrust laws, which is identical to a claim by the
direct purchaser plaintiffs.  The indirect purchasers appealed
Judge Friedman's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia.  On April 16, 2010, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed Judge Friedman's
ruling dismissing the indirect purchasers' claims based on various
state laws.  On December 13, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court denied
the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' Petition for Certiorari.

With respect to the direct purchasers' complaint, Judge Friedman
conducted a two-day hearing on October 6 and 7, 2010, on the class
certification issue and the railroad defendants' motion to exclude
evidence of interline communications.  On April 7, 2011, Judge
Friedman issued an order deferring any decision on class
certification until the Supreme Court issued its decision in the
Wal-Mart employment discrimination case.  The Supreme Court issued
its decision on June 20, 2011, and Judge Friedman required the
parties to confer on the impact of the Wal-Mart decision.
Plaintiffs and the defendant railroads filed briefs in August and
early September stating their views on the impact of the Wal-Mart
case on class certification in the fuel surcharge litigation.  The
decision from Judge Friedman regarding class certification is
still pending.

                          Oxbow Matter

The Railroad received a copy of a complaint filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia on June 7, 2011, by
Oxbow Carbon & Minerals LLC and related entities (Oxbow).  The
complaint named the Railroad and one other U.S. Class I Railroad
as defendants and alleged that the named railroads engaged in
price-fixing and monopolistic practices in connection with fuel
surcharge programs and pricing of shipments of certain
commodities, including coal and petroleum coke.  The complaint
seeks injunctive relief and payment of damages of over $30
million, and other unspecified damages, including treble damages.
Some of the allegations in the complaint are addressed in the
existing fuel surcharge litigation.  The complaint also includes
additional unrelated allegations regarding alleged limitations on
competition for shipments of Oxbow's commodities.  Judge Friedman,
who presides over the fuel surcharge matter, also presides over
this matter.  The parties filed briefs and answers regarding the
motions to dismiss the action filed by the defendant railroads,
and the court's decision regarding this motion is pending.

The Company denies the allegations that its fuel surcharge
programs violate the antitrust laws or any other laws and denies
the other allegations in the Oxbow complaint.  The Company
believes that these lawsuits are without merit, and it will
vigorously defend its actions.  Therefore, the Company currently
believes that these matters will not have a material adverse
effect on any of its results of operations, financial condition,
and liquidity.

UNITED STATES: Capitol Police Faces Discrimination Class Action
Danielle Wright, writing for BET, reports that a fourth class-
action lawsuit has been leveled against the Capitol Police
Department, and those involved aren't backing down.

Approximately fifty officers, civilians and employees have filed a
suit in U.S. District Court.  They allege that they have been
subjected to "continuous, pervasive and egregiously discriminatory
actions" by the Capitol Police, as expressed in a statement
released Wednesday by the U.S. Capitol Black Police Association.

Hostile work environments, reprisals, denial of promotions, age
discrimination and denial of career-enhancing opportunities are
just some of the allegations of discrimination outlined in the

"The Chief of Police, Phillip Morse, and members of the Capitol
Police Board, have done little, if anything, to eliminate the
obvious inequities that have negatively impacted the careers of
African-American officers and employees," the association claims.

In 2001, nearly 300 Black Capitol Hill police officers and
employees filed a lawsuit citing discrimination by the Capitol
Police Board.  The current action lawsuit comes more than a decade
after the unresolved dispute.

"The United States Capitol Police Department continues to project
a model culture of discrimination as reflected in a 'modern day
version of a 19th Century Southern Plantation in law enforcement,"
association member and Capitol Police Lt. Frank Adams said in a
previous complaint.

The Black Police Association claims that the case highlights a
lack of progress toward racial and gender equality within the U.S.
Capitol Police since the case was initiated eleven years ago.

Capitol police aren't the only Black officers facing
discrimination.  Just a month ago, the New York Civil Liberties
Union filed a federal complaint with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission against the NYPD alleging Black officers
are not promoted in the department's intelligence division and
that a "secret list" keeps the officers from climbing the ranks.

In addition to their complaint, a civil suit may follow.

UPMC: Hospital Workers to Appeal Class Action Ruling
Outpatient Surgery reports that two recent federal court rulings
have denied class action status to hospital workers who contended
that automatic meal-break deductions might be in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and that they were due back pay.  Without
class action status, employees would be forced to bring individual
lawsuits, which would probably render litigation ineffective.

Healthcare workers nationwide were particularly upset that the
automatic deductions for meal breaks occurred during training time
and even when circumstances forced them to work through the break

Some healthcare attorneys consider 2 recent federal court rulings
involving the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and West
Penn Allegheny health systems in Pittsburgh as a major setback for
the meal break lawsuits.

The main issue in these cases is compliance with the FLSA.  In
researching the Pittsburgh cases in preparation for trial, both
federal judges said could they could not find many examples of
withholding payments for work done in meal breaks.  In the UPMC
case, for example, the judge found most employees had been trained
on meal-break cancellation policies and they were not being
discouraged from reporting work.  "The named plaintiffs themselves
admit to having been trained on and/or were aware of how to cancel
meal break deductions," the judge wrote, adding that plaintiffs
"failed to identify opt-in member(s) who were dissuaded from
cancelling, or instructed not to cancel, deductions for meal

The judge found that because UPMC entities had a variety of
different policies on automatic deductions, one single class
action suit would not be applicable.  "The breadth of these
disparate factual and employment settings seems self-apparent,"
she wrote.  "There are far too many individualized inquiries to be
addressed through representative testimony, bifurcation and sub-

Justin M. Cordello -- jcordello@theemploymentattorneys.com -- an
attorney for the plaintiffs in both cases, says his clients will
appeal the UPMC decision and are considering an appeal of the West
Penn Allegheny decision.  He says the decisions represent the
first denial of class action status for a raft of such cases
nationwide, none of which have gone to trial yet.  A similar case
in Syracuse, N.Y., he adds, has already been granted class action
status and similar lawsuits with other systems, including
University of Pennsylvania Health System in Philadelphia and the
Care Group Healthcare System in Boston, have been settled without
going to trial.

Mr. Cordello says the automatic deduction policy is not a good fit
for health care because workers are constantly being called back
to work during meal breaks.  He adds that making it easy for
employees to report work is not a good a good solution for the
problem, because employees may be under too much pressure to keep
work claims to a minimum.  The best solution, he says, is simply
to pay employees for all meal breaks, but this rarely happens
because hospitals think it costs too much.  John J. Myers and
Mariah L. Lewis, attorneys for UPMC, did not respond to requests
for comment.

WAIORA: Sued Over Zeolite Supplement False Labeling
Ryden Marter at New Times Reporter, citing Law 360, reports that a
class action lawsuit was filed against Florida based nutritional
supplement company Waiora.  Waiora is a multi-level marketing
company based in Boca Raton.  The suit alleges that over a period
of 6 years, Natural Cellular Defense (NCD) was sold that didn't
have the listed amount of the ingredient zeolite, and in fact
contained only a fraction of the stated amount of the mineral.

According to the filed complaint, an independent lab test surfaced
that showed only an average of 150 mg per bottle, while the label
stated there was 2400 mg in a bottle.  At least one of the
plaintiff representatives approached Waiora Managers with the test
results seeking an explanation, but Waiora stood by the label
claim, despite the evidence.  The tests mentioned in the complaint
claim that in one instance there was a mere 1% of stated
ingredient actually found in the bottle tested.

According to their Web site, Waiora has sold over 3.5 million
bottles of Natural Cellular Defense at over $50 per bottle.  The
complaint claims that there was "blatant misrepresentation on the
part of numerous parties, which manufactured, marketed, and sold a
product to the general public under false pretenses, and with
false labeling".

The document further claims that millions of bottles of NCD (i.e.
zeolite and water) have been sold, including to gravely ill and
specifically targeted individuals.

Defendants named include Stan Cherelstein (President/CEO of
Waiora), Norwood "Eddie" Stone (Waiora co-founder), James Flowers
(instrumental in the manufacture of NCD), and Erik "Rik" Deitsch
("Chief Science Officer").  They will defend against various
charges including fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence,
unjust enrichment, and violation of Florida's Unfair and Deceptive
Trade Practices Act.

A copy of the full complaint is available at http://is.gd/uDVzh9


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.  Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2012.  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 Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *