Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yesþ  Noo

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yeso  Noo

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yeso  Noþ

On November 3, 2010,April 30, 2011, the following shares of each of the issuer’s classes of common stock were outstanding:

Interim financial statements.The financial information contained in this report for the three and nine months ended September 30,March 31, 2011 and 2010, and 2009, and as of September 30, 2010,March 31, 2011, is unaudited. This report should be read in conjunction with the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009.2010.

A. Management’s responsibility.The accompanying interim financial statements were prepared by management, who is responsible for their integrity and objectivity. These financial statements have been prepared in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), including management’s best judgments and estimates. In the opinion of management, all adjustments necessary for a fair presentation of this information for all interim periods, consisting only of normal recurring accruals, have been made. The Company’s results of operations for interim periods are not necessarily indicative of results for a full year and actual results could differ from those estimates.

B. Consolidation.The condensed consolidated financial statements include all subsidiaries in which the Company owns more than 50% voting rights in electing directors and variable interest entities when required by FASB Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 810-10-05.directors. All significant intercompany amounts and transactions have been eliminated and provisions have been made for noncontrolling interests. Unconsolidated investees, in which the Company typically owns 20% through 50% of the equity, are accounted for by the equity method.

C. Reclassifications.Certain amounts in the 20092010 interim financial statements have been reclassified for comparative purposes. Net losses, as previously reported, were not affected.

Investments in debt and equity securities.The amortized costs and fair values follow:

Debt securities as of September 30, 2010March 31, 2011 mature, according to their contractual terms, as follows (actual maturities may differ due to call or prepayment rights):

The Company believes its investment portfolio is diversified and expects no material loss to result from the failure to perform by issuers of the debt securities it holds. Investments made by the Company are not collateralized. Foreign debt securities primarily include Canadian government bonds which aggregated $127.0 million and $114.9 million as of September 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively, and United Kingdom treasury bonds. The mortgage-backed securities are issued by U.S. Government-sponsored entities.

Fair value measurements.The Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures Topic of the FASB ASC defines fair value as the exchange price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability (an exit price) in the principal, or most advantageous, market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. The Fair Value Measurements Topic establishes a three-level fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs used to measure fair value. This hierarchy requires entities to maximize the use of observable inputs when possible. The three levels of inputs used to measure fair value are as follows:

Investment income.Gross realized investment and other gains and losses follows:

A summary of the Company’s stock option plan follows:

As of September 30, 2010,March 31, 2011, the weighted-average remaining contractual life of options outstanding was 2.62.4 years and there was no aggregate intrinsic value of dilutive options.

InDuring the three months ended March 2010,31, 2011, the Company granted 51,000 shares of fully vested, unrestricted Common Stock with a fair value of $0.7$0.6 million, which was recorded as compensation expense. During the same period, the Company also granted 37,000 shares of restricted Common Stock with a fair value of $0.5$0.4 million. The restricted Common Stock awards will vest at 20% each year over five years beginning after March 10, 2010.2012. Compensation expense associated with restricted stock awards will be recognized over this vesting period.

Earnings per share.The Company’s basic earnings per share attributable to Stewart was calculated by dividing the net earnings (loss)loss attributable to Stewart by the weighted-average number of shares of Common Stock and Class B Common Stock outstanding during the reporting periods.

To calculate diluted earnings per share, net earningsincome and the number of shares are adjusted for the effects of any dilutive shares. Using the if-converted method, net earningsincome is adjusted for interest expense, net of any tax effects, applicable to the convertible senior notes.Convertible Senior Notes. The number of shares is adjusted by adding the number of dilutive shares, assuming they are issued, during the same reporting period. The treasury stock method is used to calculate the dilutive number of shares related to the Company’s stock option plan.

ForAs the Company reported a net loss for the three and nine months ended September 30,March 31, 2011 and 2010, and 2009, the Company did not have any dilutive sharesthere were no calculations of diluted per share amounts under the treasury stock method mentioned abovemethod.

Also, since the exercise prices of the options were greater than the weighted-average market values of the shares, which results in their exclusion from the diluted earnings calculation.

Contingent liabilities and commitments.As of September 30, 2010,March 31, 2011, the Company was contingently liable for guarantees of indebtedness owed primarily to banks and others by certain third parties. The guarantees primarily relate to business expansion in prior years and expire no later than 2019. As of September 30, 2010,March 31, 2011, the maximum potential future payments on the guarantees amounted to $5.6$5.4 million. Management believes that the related underlying assets and available collateral, primarily corporate stock and title plants, would enable the Company to recover any amounts paid under the guarantees. The Company believes no reserve is needed since no payment is expected on these guarantees.

In the ordinary course of business the Company guarantees the third-party indebtedness of certain of its consolidated subsidiaries. As of September 30, 2010,March 31, 2011, the maximum potential future payments on the guarantees were not more than the related notes payable recorded in the condensed consolidated balance sheet. The Company also guarantees the indebtedness related to lease obligations of certain of its consolidated subsidiaries. The maximum future obligations arising from these lease-related guarantees are not more than the Company’s future minimum lease payments. In addition, as of September 30, 2010March 31, 2011 the Company had unused letters of credit and other commitments amounting to $3.6$3.5 million, primarily related to performance bonds and workers’ compensation self-insurance coverage.

Segment information.The Company’s two reportable segments are title insurance-related services (Title), which includes all corporate-level costs, including interest related to convertible senior notes, and real estate information (REI). Selected statement of operations information related to these segments follows:

Revenues generated in the United States and all international operations follows:

At the hearing, the Court issued a minute order assigning all the cases to a single judge and directed the parties to submit a proposed order governing other aspects of pretrial coordination. No trial dates have been set. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations and does not believe that the outcome of these matters will materially affect its consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

In February 2008, an antitrust class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Stewart Title Insurance Company, Monroe Title Insurance Corporation, Stewart Information Services Corporation, several other unaffiliated title insurance companies and the Title Insurance Rate Service Association, Inc. (TIRSA). The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by collectively filing proposed rates for title insurance in New York through TIRSA, a state-authorized and licensed rate service organization.

Complaints were subsequently filed in the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York and in the United States District Courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Florida, Massachusetts, Arkansas, California, Washington, West Virginia, Texas and Delaware. All of the complaints make similar class action allegations, except that certain of the complaints also allege violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and various state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaints generally request treble damages in unspecified amounts, declaratory and injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. To date, 78 such complaints have been filed, each of which names the Company and/or one or more of its affiliates as a defendant (and have been consolidated in the aforementioned states), of which seven have been voluntarily dismissed.

We reported a net loss attributable to Stewart of $22.6$10.3 million for the ninethree months ended September 30, 2010March 31, 2011 compared with a net loss attributable to Stewart of $81.9$29.0 million for the same period in 2009.2010. On a basic and diluted per share basis, our net loss attributable to Stewart was $1.23$0.55 for the ninefirst three months ended September 30, 2010of 2011 compared with a net loss attributable to Stewart of $4.51$1.59 for the first three months of 2010. Revenues were $366.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2011 compared with $351.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2010.

Total revenues increased 4.3% in the first quarter 2011 compared with the same period in 2009.2010, but were down 18.5% sequentially from the fourth quarter 2010. Total expenses decreased 2.2% and 14.0% from the first and fourth quarters 2010, respectively.

Total title revenues in the first quarter 2011 decreased 0.3% compared with the same quarter in 2010 and declined 19.7% sequentially from the fourth quarter 2010. The decline resulted predominantly from a significant reduction in refinance activity as mortgage interest rates rose almost 100 basis points from mid-November 2010 to the end of March 2011 after remaining at historically low levels for most of 2010. As a result, there was an estimated $156 billion in total U.S. residential refinance activity in the first quarter 2011 compared to $198 billion in the first quarter 2010, a reduction of 21.3%. Revenues of $1.2 billionfrom direct operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 were relatively flat when compared to the nine months ended September 30, 2009.

Losses from direct title operations decreased 8.4% inpolicy claims increased 18.5% for the thirdfirst quarter of 20102011 compared to the same period in the prior year. Although total orders closed for the quarter declined 15.5%, revenue per closing increased 3.2% to $1,845. This increase in overall revenue per order is due to the current quarter’s closings being less heavily weighted to refinancing transactions than in the prior year’s quarter. Revenues from agency operations2010 and decreased 7.9% in the third quarter of 201031.6% compared to the thirdfourth quarter 2010. As a percentage of 2009.title revenues, title losses were 9.4%, 7.9% and 11.1% in the first quarter 2011, first quarter 2010 and the fourth quarter 2010, respectively. The first quarter 2011 included charges of $5.7 million relating primarily to changes associated with legal costs for the Citigroup matter (see Item 1, Legal Proceedings), and the fourth quarter 2010 included a $5.1 million reserve strengthening charge. Excluding the impact of the reserve strengthening charges and large losses in these periods, title losses were 7.7% in the first quarters 2011 and 2010 and 9.8% in the fourth quarter 2010. Cash claim payments decreased 5.6% from the first quarter 2010 and 7.0% from the fourth quarter 2010, resulting in a return to a lower provisioning rate for title losses from the year 2010 level. We experienced no agency defalcation losses individually exceeding $1.0 million this quarter and only five such claims have been reported (averaging less than $1.5 million each) in the previous seven quarters.

Actual results can differ from our accounting estimates. While we do not anticipate significant changes in our estimates, there is a risk that such changes could have a material impact on our consolidated financial condition or results of operations for future periods.

Our most critical accounting estimate is providing reserves for title losses associated with issued title insurance policies. Our liability for estimated title losses as of September 30, 2010March 31, 2011 comprises both known claims ($151.9141.3 million) and our estimate of claims that may be reported in the future ($335.7351.9 million). The amount of the reserve represents the aggregate future payments (net of recoveries recognized) that we expect to incur on policy and escrow losses and in costs to settle claims.

Provisions for title losses, as a percentage of title operating revenues, were 9.0%9.4% and 12.3%7.9% for the ninethree months ended September 30,March 31, 2011 and 2010, and 2009, respectively. Actual loss payment experience, including the impact of payments on large losses as well as changes in estimates for large losses, is the primary reason for increases or decreases in our loss provision. A change of 100 basis points in this percentage, a reasonably likely scenario based on our historical loss experience, would have increased or decreased our provision for title losses and pretax operating results approximately $11.4$3.3 million for the ninethree months ended September 30, 2010.March 31, 2011.

Such losses are usually discovered when the independent agency fails to pay off an outstanding mortgage loan at closing (or immediately thereafter) from the proceeds of the new loan. Once the previous lender determines that its loan has not been paid off timely, it will file a claim against the title insurer. It is at this point that the title insurance underwriter is alerted to the potential theft and begins its investigation. As is industry practice, these claims are considered a claim on the newly issued title insurance policy since such policy insures the holder (in this case, the new lender) that all previous liens on the property have been satisfied. Accordingly, these claim payments are charged to policy loss expense. These incurred losses are typically more severe in terms of dollar value compared with traditional title policy claims sincebecause the independent agency is often able over time to conceal misappropriation of escrow funds relating to more than one transaction through the constant volume of funds moving through its escrow accounts. As long as new funds continue to flow into escrow accounts, an independent agencyagent can mask one or more defalcations. In declining real estate markets, lower transaction volumes result in a lower incoming volume of funds, making it more difficult to cover up the misappropriation with incoming funds. Thus, when the defalcation is discovered, it often relates to several transactions. In addition, the overall decline in an independent agency’s revenues, profits and cash flows increases the agency’s incentive to improperly utilize the escrow funds from real estate transactions.

Our evaluation of goodwill is normally completed annually in the third quarter using June 30 balances, but an evaluation may also be made whenever events may indicate impairment. This evaluation is based on a combination of a discounted cash flow analysis (DCF) and market approaches that incorporate market multiples of comparable companies and our own market capitalization. The DCF model utilizes historical and projected operating results and cash flows, initially driven by estimates of changes in future revenue levels, and risk-adjusted discount rates. Our projected operating results are primarily driven by anticipated mortgage originations, which we obtain from projections by industry experts. Fluctuations in revenues, followed by our ability to appropriately adjust our employee count and other operating expenses, are the primary reasons for increases or decreases in our projected operating results. Our market-based valuation methodologies utilize (i) market multiples of earnings and/or other operating metrics of comparable companies and (ii) our market capitalization and a control premium based on market data and factors specific to our ownership and corporate governance structure (such as our Class B Common Stock). To the extent that our future operating results are below our projections, or in the event of continued adverse market conditions, an interim review for impairment may be required, which may result in an impairment of goodwill.

Factors affecting revenues.The principal factors that contribute to changes in operating revenues for our title and REI segments include:

To the extent inflation causes increases in the prices of homes and other real estate, premium revenues are also increased. Conversely, falling home prices cause premium revenues to decline. Premiums are determined in part by the insured values of the transactions we handle. These factors may override the seasonal nature of the title insurance business. Historically, our first quarter is the least active and our third and fourth quarters are the most active in terms of title insurance revenues.

Title revenues.Revenues from direct title operations decreased $40.3increased $9.7 million, or 8.0%7.5%, in the first nine monthsquarter of 20102011 compared to the first nine monthsquarter of 2009, partially2010 primarily due to the salean increased number of closings and deconsolidation of several subsidiaries, as well as significantly fewer refinancingan increase in commercial and large transactions. The largest revenue decreasesincreases were in Texas and California. These revenue increases were offset somewhat by decreases were partially offset by improvements in our international and commercial revenues for the first nine months of 2010 compared to the first nine months of 2009.New York. Revenues from commercial and other large transactions increased $13.0$5.5 million, or 25.0%28.3%, in the first nine monthsquarter of 20102011 compared to the first nine monthsquarter of 2009.2010.

Direct operating revenues, excluding large commercial policies, decreased 11.8%orders closed increased 1.3% in the first nine monthsquarter of 20102011 compared to the first nine months of 2009, primarily due to a 23.0% decrease in direct orders closed during the same period. The average revenue per closing, excluding large commercial policies, increased 14.6% in the first nine monthsquarter of 2010 compared to the first nine months of 2009. Despite the decrease in direct orders closed in the first nine months of 2010 compared to the first nine months of 2009,and the average revenue per closing, including large commercial policies,file closed increased 19.6% during5.9% for the same period. Our decrease in direct orders closed and increase in average revenue per closing wereis driven by a different mixchange in the type of closingsorder closed, with the first nine monthsquarter of 20102011 experiencing more large commercial closings, more residential sale transactions and fewer residential refinancing closingsrefinancings than in the first nine monthsquarter of 2009.2010. Also, the first quarter of 2010 was negatively impacted by revised and expanded HUD-1 rules. On average, refinance premium rates are 60% of the title premium revenue of a similarly priced sale transaction. Direct operating revenues, excluding large commercial policies, increased 3.5% in the first quarter of 2011 compared to the first quarter of 2010. The average revenue per closing, excluding large commercial policies, increased 2.2% in the first quarter of 2011 compared to the first quarter of 2010.

Revenues from independent agencies increased $27.9decreased $10.8 million, or 4.3%5.3%, in the first nine monthsquarter of 20102011 compared to the first nine monthsquarter of 2009.2010. This increasedecrease is largely due to significant increasesthe decline in revenuestransaction volumes from existing agencies,large agents as well asa result of fewer refinancing transactions occurring in the additionfirst quarter of new, higher-remitting, lower-risk agencies. These increases resulted from2011 compared with the uneven recoverysame period in certain real estate markets with a higher concentration of agency business.2010. The largest increasesdecreases in revenues from agencies during the first ninethree months of 2010ended March 31, 2011 were in California, Florida, Virginia and New Jersey, and Texas.partially offset by increases in New York.

We actively modifyingincreased remittance rates with many of our independent agencies, increasing the amount of premiums remitted by our independent agencies to our underwriters.underwriters in 2010 and continuing into 2011. As these efforts were ongoing during most of 2010, we have not yet realized a full year of increased remittances. The fluctuation in remittance rates for the first quarter of 2011 compared with the same period in 2010 was also affected by the uneven recovery of real estate markets across the nation; those states with higher agency retention percentages experienced a disproportionate decrease in transaction activity in the first quarter of 2011. The geographic shifts in business activity may cause some quarter-to-quarter remittance rate fluctuation. However as the year progresses, the overall remittance rate should remain on an upward trajectory as we complete this nationwide transition to higher remittance levels. In addition, we expect the mix of agency business to normalize as real estate markets continue to stabilize nationally resulting in lower average retention percentages in the aggregate.

In addition, income tax expense recorded in the first ninethree months of 2010 consists of2011 includes foreign, state and state taxes andfederal income taxes associated with subsidiariessubsidiary earnings that are not included in our U.S. consolidated federal tax return, net of tax benefits from certain tax credits.return.

Our effective income tax rate for the first nine months of 2009 was significantly impacted by a valuation allowance against our deferred tax assets. Our 2009 annual effective tax rate was 27.9%.

Our business continues to be labor intensive, although we have made significant progress in automating our services. We have centralized order processing into Regional Production Centers, which allows us to more easily adjust staffing levels as order volumes fluctuate. There are typically delays between changes in market conditions and changes in staffing levels; therefore, employee costs do not change at the same rate as revenues change. We reduced our number of employees by approximately 140 during the first nine months of 2010.

The insurance regulators of the states in which our underwriters are domiciled require our statutory premium reserves to be fully funded, segregated and invested in high-quality securities and short-term investments. As of September 30, 2010,March 31, 2011, cash and investments funding the statutory premium reserve aggregated $416.8$400.2 million and our statutory estimate of claims that may be reported in the future totaled $335.7$351.9 million. In addition to this restricted cash and investments, we had unrestricted cash and investments (excluding cost-basis and equity method investments) of $99.0$117.4 million, which are available for underwriter operations, including claims payments.

Cash from investing activities was generated principally by proceeds from investments matured and sold in the amounts of $173.9$22.3 million and $242.8$58.0 million for the first nine monthsquarters of 20102011 and 2009,2010, respectively. We used cash for the purchases of investments in the amounts of $140.5$21.5 million and $144.8$44.9 million for the first nine monthsquarters of 2011 and 2010, and 2009, respectively, and at September 30, 2010, we had approximately $0.1 million of term bank debt outstanding.respectively. The cash from sales and maturities not reinvested was used principally to fund operations and, to a lesser extent in 2010, reduce notes payable.operations.

Capital expenditures including the purchases of real estate, were $9.0$4.2 million and $7.7$2.9 million for the first nine monthsquarters of 2011 and 2010, and 2009, respectively. Capital expenditures increasedWe maintain investment in the first nine months of 2010 and 2009 primarily due to the purchase of real estate. Generally, capital expenditures continue at reduced levels since almost no new offices were opened in the first nine months of 2010a level that enables us to implement technologies increasing our operational and 2009 due to poor economic conditions. We have continued to curtail spending in other areas, andback-office efficiencies. Notwithstanding this, we expect capital expenditures to remain in line with the prior year level as wealso continue to aggressively manage cash flow. We have no material commitments forflow and, therefore, overall capital expenditures.spending will continue to be at relatively reduced levels.

We anticipate improved operating results, and thus cash flow, in 2010 and 2011 from the impact of these actions and from our REI businesses and will continue to seek rate increases or modify agency splits where possible.appropriate, as well as aggressively seek opportunities to lower operating costs. We will also continue to identify new lines of business to enter into in order to improve our results of operations and cash flows.

We believe we have sufficient liquidity and capital resources to meet the cash needs of our ongoing operations. However, if we determine that supplemental debt, including additional convertible debentures, or equity funding is warranted to provide additional liquidity for unforeseen circumstances or strategic acquisitions, we may pursue those sources of cash. Other than scheduled maturities of debt, operating lease payments, purchase agreements and anticipated claims payments in 2010,2011, we have no material commitments. We expect that cash flows from operations and cash available from our underwriters, subject to regulatory restrictions, will be sufficient to fund our operations, including claims payments. However, to the extent that these funds are not sufficient, we may be required to borrow funds on terms less favorable than we currently have, or seek funding from the equity market, which may not be successful or may be on terms that are dilutive to existing shareholders.

Contingent liabilities and commitments. As of September 30, 2010,March 31, 2011, we were contingently liable for guarantees of indebtedness owed primarily to banks and others by certain third parties. The guarantees primarily relate to business expansion in prior years and expire no later than 2019. As of September 30, 2010,March 31, 2011, the maximum potential future payments on the guarantees amounted to $5.6$5.4 million. We believe that the related underlying assets and available collateral, primarily corporate stock and title plants, would enable us to recover any amounts paid under the guarantees. We believe no reserve is needed since no payment is expected on these guarantees.

In the ordinary course of business we guarantee the third-party indebtedness of certain of our consolidated subsidiaries. As of September 30, 2010,March 31, 2011, the maximum potential future payments on the guarantees were not more than the related notes payable recorded in theour condensed consolidated balance sheet. We also guarantee the indebtedness related to lease obligations of certain of our consolidated subsidiaries. The maximum future obligations arising from these lease-related guarantees are not more than our future minimum lease payments. In addition, as of September 30, 2010March 31, 2011, we had unused letters of credit and other commitments amounting to $3.6$3.5 million, primarily related to litigation bonds and workers’ compensation coverage.

Forward-looking statements by their nature are subject to various risks and uncertainties that could cause our actual results to be materially different than those expressed in the forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include, among other things, the severity and duration of current financial and economic conditions; continued weakness or further adverse changes in the level of real estate activity; changes in mortgage interest rates existing and new home sales, and availability of mortgage financing; our ability to respond to and implement technology changes, including the completion of the implementation of our enterprise systems; the impact of unanticipated title losses on the need to further strengthen our policy loss reserves; theany effect of title losses on our cash flows and financial condition; the impact of our increased diligence and inspections in our agency operations; changes to the participants in the secondary mortgage market and the rate of refinancings that affect the demand for title insurance products; our ability to successfully consummate acquisitions, and our ability to successfully integrate and manage acquired businesses should opportunities arise; regulatory non-compliance, fraud or defalcations by our title insurance agencies or employees; our ability to timely and cost-effectively respond to significant industry changes and introduce new products and services; the outcome of litigation claims by large classes of claimants; the impact of changes in governmental and insurance regulations, including any future reductions in the pricing of title insurance products and services; our dependence on our operating subsidiaries and underwriters as a source of cash flow; the continued realization of expected expense savings resulting from our expense reduction steps;steps taken since 2008; our ability to access the equity and debt financing markets when and if needed; our ability to grow our international operations; and our ability to respond to the actions of our competitors.competitors; failure to comply with financial covenants contained in our debt instruments; and inability to make scheduled payments on or refinance our indebtedness. These risks and uncertainties, as well as others, are discussed in more detail in our documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q2010 and our Current Reports on Form 8-K. We expressly disclaim any obligation to update any forward-looking statements contained in this report to reflect events or circumstances that may arise after the date hereof, except as may be required by applicable law.

All internal control systems, no matter how well designed, have inherent limitations. Therefore, even those systems determined to be effective can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement preparation and presentation. Internal control over financial reporting is a process that involves human diligence and compliance and is subject to lapses in judgment and breakdowns resulting from human failures. Internal controlscontrol over financial reporting also can be circumvented by collusion or improper management override. Due to such limitations, there is a risk that material misstatements may not be prevented or detected on a timely basis by internal controlscontrol over financial reporting. However, these inherent limitations are known features of the financial reporting process. Therefore, it is possible to design into the process safeguards to reduce, though not eliminate, this risk.

In January 2009, an action was filed by individuals against Stewart Title Guaranty Company, Stewart Title of California, Inc., Cuesta Title Company and others in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Luis Obispo alleging that the plaintiffs have suffered damages relating to loans they made through Hurst Financial Corporation to an individual named Kelly Gearhart and entities controlled by Gearhart. Gearhart and Hurst have filed for bankruptcy. Thereafter, several other lawsuits making similar allegations, including a lawsuit filed by several hundred individuals, were filed in San Luis Obispo Superior Court, and one such lawsuit was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The defendants vary from case to case but Stewart Information Services Corporation, Stewart Title Company and Stewart Title Insurance Company have also each been sued in at least one of the cases. Each of the complaints alleges some combination of the following purported causes of action: breach of contract, negligence, fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, constructive fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, financial elder abuse, violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,negligent misrepresentation, conversion, conspiracy, alter ego, specific performance and declaratory relief. We have demurred to or moved to dismiss the complaints in the actions where responses to the complaints have been due. Although the San Luis Obispo Superior Court has sustained demurrers to certain causes of action and certain individuals and entities and dismissed us from one case without leave to amend, the Court has overruled the demurrers as to someother causes of action. Accordingly, the cases will proceed into discovery. No trial dates have been set. The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted our motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint as to the claim for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and allowedCorrupt Organizations Act, with prejudice, and remanded the plaintiffs leaveremainder of the case to amend; ourthe San Luis Obispo Superior Court.

Discovery has commenced. Several of the cases were the subject of a court-ordered mediation on February 21-22, 2011. The mediation was adjourned without reaching a settlement, but the mediation process remains open and may be resumed in the future. We filed a motion to dismisscoordinate the amended complaint is pending.cases for pretrial purposes, which was heard on April 14, 2011. At the hearing, the Court issued a minute order assigning all the cases to a single judge and directed the parties to submit a proposed order governing other aspects of pretrial coordination. No trial dates have been set. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations and do not believe that the outcome of these matters will materially affect our consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

In February 2008, an antitrust class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Stewart Title Insurance Company, Monroe Title Insurance Corporation, Stewart Information Services Corporation, several other unaffiliated title insurance companies and the Title Insurance Rate Service Association, Inc. (TIRSA). The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by collectively filing proposed rates for title insurance in New York through TIRSA, a state-authorized and licensed rate service organization.

Complaints were subsequently filed in the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York and in the United States District Courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Florida, Massachusetts, Arkansas, California, Washington, West Virginia, Texas and Delaware. All of the complaints make similar class action allegations, except that certain of the complaints also allege violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and various state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaints generally request treble damages in unspecified amounts, declaratory and injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. To date, 78 such complaints have been filed, each of which names us and/or one or more of our affiliates as a defendant (and have been consolidated in the aforementioned states), of which seven have been voluntarily dismissed.

We are also subject to various other administrative actions and inquiries into our business conduct in certain of the states in which we operate. While we cannot predict the outcome of the various regulatory and administrative matters, we believe that we have adequately reserved for these matters and do not anticipate that the outcome of any of these matters will materially affect our consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

There have been no changes during the quarter ended September 30, 2010March 31, 2011 to our risk factors as listed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009.2010.

We had a book value per share of $24.47$23.31 and $25.34$24.40 as of September 30, 2010March 31, 2011 and December 31, 2009,2010, respectively. As of September 30, 2010,March 31, 2011, our book value per share was based on approximately $449.5$445.6 million in stockholders’ equity and 18,373,91819,122,929 shares of Common and Class B Common Stock outstanding. As of December 31, 2009,2010, our book value per share was based on approximately $462.1$448.3 million in stockholders’ equity and 18,231,78118,375,058 shares of Common and Class B Common Stock outstanding.

Those exhibits required to be filed by Item 601 of Regulation S-K are listed in the Index to Exhibits immediately preceding the exhibits filed herewith and such listing is incorporated herein by reference.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, I have duly caused this report to be signed on our behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.