/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090203.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, February 3, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 23 Headlines AMERICAN EXPRESS: Second Circuit Reverses Dismissal of N.Y. Suit CES ENVIRONMENTAL: Tex. Residents File Suit Over Treatment Plant E-MEDSOFT.COM: Seeks Approval of Ohio Securities Fraud Suit Deal GOLDMAN SACHS: Appeal to Dismissal of Short-Selling Suit Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Junk Wash. Mutual Securities Suit Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Exodus Case Dismissed Upon Reaching Settlement GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Suit Over NYSE Floor Specialist Activities GOLDMAN SACHS: Lawsuits Over Issuers' Research Coverage Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Seeks Review of Certification Order in N.Y. Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Seeks to Dismiss Suit on Auction Rate Securities GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement of Calif. Exodus Litigation Approved GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement of D.C. Stock Purchasers Suit Approved GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces Claims on Trading of Treasury Futures GOLDMAN SACHS: Suit for Alleged Montana Law Violations Pending GOLDMAN SACHS: Unit Faces Britannia Bulk Securities Litigation GOLDMAN SACHS: Units Defend Suit by Mortgage Certificates Buyers INFINEON TECH: Consolidated Securities Action Pending in Calif. INFINEON TECH: DRAM Price-Fixing Suits Still Pending in Canada INFINEON TECH: Indirect U.S. Purchaser Class Suits Still Pending LJ INT'L: Settles Consolidated Shareholder Litigation for $2M TAKATA CORP: California Judge Rules in $247M Seatbelt Litigation UBS AG: Faces N.Y. Suit Over U.S. Offshore Tax-Evasion Probe New Securities Fraud Cases BANK OF AMERICA: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing BANK OF AMERICA: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing IBSG INT'L: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Fraud Litigation ROYAL BANK: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. TRIAD GUARANTY: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing ********* AMERICAN EXPRESS: Second Circuit Reverses Dismissal of N.Y. Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- ST. PAUL, Minn., Jan. 30, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals today reversed the dismissal of a massive antitrust class action brought by merchants against the American Express Company ("Am Ex"). The case alleges that American Express in 1999 began a massive effort to take a share of the standard commodity credit card business away from Visa and MasterCard. However, Am Ex wished to partner with banks in issuing these credit cards. The merchants alleged that Am Ex understood that a high merchant fee would be attractive to the banks; therefore Am Ex illegally forced merchants to pay excessive rates equal to Am Ex's more attractive business and personal charge cards by tying the acceptance of the credit and charge cards together. As a condition of accepting Am Ex's credit and charge cards, Am Ex required merchants to sign away their ability to pursue claims as a class (known as a "class action waiver"). The U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York granted Am Ex's motion to dismiss the case and send it to arbitration. The small merchants appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that "the class action waiver . . . cannot be enforced in this case because to do so would grant Amex de facto immunity from antitrust liability by removing the plaintiffs' only reasonably feasible means of recovery." The policy of putting anti-class action rules in consumer and merchant agreements has been growing enormously in recent years. This case was the first case decided by a U.S. Appellate Court in which it was held that the high costs of the case itself voids such rules because the case could only proceed if all the plaintiffs were allowed to share the costs in a class action. The decision will no doubt be used by plaintiffs in dozens of other cases where defendants have attempted to ban class actions by inserting such a clause in a standard agreement. CES ENVIRONMENTAL: Tex. Residents File Suit Over Treatment Plant ---------------------------------------------------------------- Less than a month ago, Houston City Council members responded to an avalanche of complaints about explosions and sickening smells coming from a CES Environmental Services Inc. waste treatment plant in southeast Houston and decided to sue the company under nuisance laws in an attempt to remove the facility, Chris Vogel of Houston Press reports. CES Environmental Services, Inc. faces a purported class-action suit in Texas about explosions and sickening smells coming from a waste treatment plant in southeast Houston. The Houston Press reported that since then, more than 30 residents of the Griggs Terrace subdivision, which is adjacent to the plant, have filed a class-action lawsuit in Harris County District Court against CES Environmental alleging a number of illegal activities. According to the lawsuit, the residents allege that CES is "engaging in the illegal trafficking of hazardous substances through their neighborhood," and that "CES is apparently illegally changing labels on hazardous material barrels without remediating the contents of such barrels." The allegation is that drivers are bringing hazardous waste in to the facility with non-hazardous labels and then shipping it out, according to the Houston Press report. In addition, the lawsuit claims that CES is believed to be illegally disposing hazardous waste on and under the residents' property. "CES' conduct is offensive and illegal," the lawsuit states, and "has caused physical sickness." The residents are seeking to end CES' alleged activities and also request continued medical monitoring to determine the extent of the damage done to them, according to the lawsuit, reports the Houston Press. E-MEDSOFT.COM: Seeks Approval of Ohio Securities Fraud Suit Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys have asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to approve a settlement in a class-action suit accusing former executives and directors of bankrupt health care software company e-MedSoft.com of misleading investors about its alliance with collapsed National Century Financial Enterprises, Inc., Law360 reports. The plaintiffs' counsel filed an unopposed motion last week in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio asking for approval of the deal, according to Law360 report. GOLDMAN SACHS: Appeal to Dismissal of Short-Selling Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of their purported class-action suit related to short-selling transactions against The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and two of its subsidiaries remain pending. The Company, Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing, L.P. are among the numerous financial services firms that have been named as defendants in a purported class action filed on April 12, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by customers who engaged in short- selling transactions in equity securities since April 12, 2000. The amended complaint generally alleges that the customers were charged fees in connection with the short sales but that the applicable securities were not necessarily borrowed to effect delivery, resulting in failed deliveries, and that the defendants conspired to set a minimum threshold borrowing rate for securities designated as hard to borrow. The complaint asserts a claim under the federal antitrust laws, as well as claims under the New York Business Law and common law, and seeks treble damages as well as injunctive relief. Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint was granted by a decision dated Dec. 20, 2007. On Jan. 18, 2008, plaintiffs appealed from this decision. No further updates regarding the matter were provided by the Company in its Jan. 26, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 28, 2008. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ -- is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net- worth individuals. Its activities are divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities Services. GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Junk Wash. Mutual Securities Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The motion to dismiss a putative securities class action amended complaint, which names The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Goldman, Sachs & Co. as a defendant, remains pending. Goldman, Sachs & Co. is among numerous underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action amended complaint filed on Aug. 5, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. As to the underwriters, plaintiffs allege that the offering documents in connection with various securities offerings by Washington Mutual, Inc. failed to describe accurately the company's exposure to mortgage-related activities in violation of the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws. The defendants include past and present directors and officers of Washington Mutual, the Company's former outside auditors, and numerous underwriters. The underwriter defendants moved to dismiss on Dec. 8, 2008. Goldman, Sachs & Co. underwrote $788,500,000 principal amount of securities in the offerings at issue, according to the Company's Jan. 26, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 28, 2008. On Sept. 25, 2008, the U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) took over the primary banking operations of Washington Mutual, Inc. and then sold them. On Sept. 27, 2008, Washington Mutual, Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. bankruptcy court in Delaware. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ -- is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net- worth individuals. Its activities are divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities Services. GOLDMAN SACHS: Exodus Case Dismissed Upon Reaching Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in a purported class-action complaint against The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., over research coverage of Exodus Communications, Inc., entered into a settlement agreement disposing the case. Goldman Sachs is one of several investment firms named as defendants in substantively identical purported class-action lawsuits that allege violations of the federal securities laws in connection with research coverage of certain issuers and that seek compensatory damages. The suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Initially, Goldman Sachs was named as a defendant in several actions that commenced beginning in May 2003 and relate to a research coverage of Exodus Communications, Inc. These actions were consolidated, Goldman Sachs' motion to dismiss the case was granted with leave to replead, and the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was granted by order dated Dec. 4, 2007. The plaintiff moved for reconsideration on Dec. 21, 2007. By an order dated June 3, 2008, the district court denied the plaintiff's motion seeking reconsideration of the complaint's dismissal. On July 7, 2008, the plaintiffs appealed from the federal district court's order dismissing the complaint. While the appeal was pending, the parties entered into a settlement agreement on a non-class basis, disposing of the case, according to the company's Jan. 26, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 28, 2008. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ -- is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net- worth individuals. Its activities are divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities Services. GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Suit Over NYSE Floor Specialist Activities --------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and its affiliates, Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Specialists LLC (SLKS) and Spear, Leeds & Kellogg, L.P. continue to face a consolidated amended class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. SLKS, Spear, Leeds & Kellogg and the Company are among numerous defendants named in purported class-action lawsuits brought beginning in October 2003 on behalf of investors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging violations of the federal securities laws and state common law in connection with NYSE floor specialist activities. The actions seek unspecified compensatory damages, restitution and disgorgement on behalf of purchasers and sellers of unspecified securities between Oct. 17, 1998 and Oct. 15, 2003. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on Sept. 16, 2004. The defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted in part and denied in part by a decision dated Dec. 13, 2005. On June 28, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to certify a class. No further updates regarding the matter were provided by the Company in its Jan. 26, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 28, 2008. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ -- is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net- worth individuals. Its activities are divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities Services. GOLDMAN SACHS: Lawsuits Over Issuers' Research Coverage Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Goldman, Sachs & Co., continues to defend purported class-action suit alleging violations of the federal securities laws in connection with research coverage of certain issuers. Goldman, Sachs & Co. is one of several investment firms that have been named as defendants in substantively identical purported class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking compensatory damages. In one such action, relating to coverage of RSL Communications, Inc. commenced on July 15, 2003, Goldman, Sachs & Co.'s motion to dismiss the complaint was denied. The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, by an order dated Jan. 26, 2007, vacated the district court's class certification and remanded for reconsideration, according to the company's Jan. 26, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 28, 2008. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ -- is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net- worth individuals. Its activities are divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities Services. GOLDMAN SACHS: Seeks Review of Certification Order in N.Y. Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Henry M. Paulson, Jr. are seeking a review of a class certification order in a purported class-action lawsuit, alleging that defendants violated the federal securities laws in connection with the firm's research activities, according to the company's Jan. 26, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 28, 2008. The Company, Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Henry M. Paulson, Jr., the former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Group Inc., have been named as defendants in a purported class action filed originally on July 18, 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf of purchasers of Group Inc. stock from July 1, 1999 through May 7, 2002. The complaint alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary duties and violated the federal securities laws in connection with the firm's research activities. The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages and/or rescission. The action was transferred on consent to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, and defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In a decision dated Sept. 29, 2006, the federal district court granted Mr. Paulson's motion to dismiss with leave to replead but otherwise denied the motion. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted by a decision dated Sept. 15, 2008, and on Sept. 26, 2008, the Goldman Sachs defendants filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit seeking review of the certification ruling. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ -- is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net- worth individuals. Its activities are divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities Services. GOLDMAN SACHS: Seeks to Dismiss Suit on Auction Rate Securities --------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. seeks dismissal of a purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York over auction rate securities. On Sept. 4, 2008, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was named as a defendant, together with numerous other financial services firms, in two complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to manipulate the auction securities market in violation of federal antitrust laws. The actions were filed, respectively, on behalf of putative classes of issuers of and investors in auction rate securities and seek, among other things, treble damages. On Sept. 26, 2008, the parties to the putative securities class- action suit brought on behalf of Goldman Sachs customers who purchased auction rate securities, alleging violation of the federal securities laws, stipulated to dismiss the action with prejudice, and the stipulation was approved by the district court on Sept. 30, 2008. The defendants moved to dismiss on Jan. 15, 2009, according to the company's Jan. 26, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 28, 2008. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ -- is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net- worth individuals. Its activities are divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities Services. GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement of Calif. Exodus Litigation Approved -------------------------------------------------------------- The settlement of an amended purported class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California naming Goldman, Sachs & Co. as a defendant has been approved, according to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s Jan. 26, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 28, 2008. By an amended complaint dated July 11, 2002, Goldman, Sachs & Co. and the other lead underwriters for the February 2001 offering of 13,000,000 shares of common stock and $575,000,000 of 51/4% convertible subordinated notes of Exodus Communications, Inc. were added as defendants in a purported class-action suit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint, which also names as defendants certain officers and directors of Exodus Communications, Inc., alleged violations of the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws and seeks compensatory damages. The parties entered into a settlement agreement, with the underwriter defendants contributing $1 million toward a settlement fund. The settlement was approved by the district court on Oct. 31, 2008 and has become final, according to the Company's Jan. 26, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 28, 2008. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ -- is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net- worth individuals. Its activities are divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities Services. GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement of D.C. Stock Purchasers Suit Approved ---------------------------------------------------------------- Settlement of the purported class-action lawsuits against The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Goldman, Sachs & Co., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has been granted final approval. Goldman, Sachs & Co. has been named as a defendant in two purported class-action lawsuits commenced, beginning on May 26, 1999, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia brought on behalf of purchasers of Class A common stock of Iridium World Communications, Ltd. in a January 1999 underwritten secondary offering of 7,500,000 shares of Class A common stock. All parties entered into settlement agreements, with the underwriter defendants contributing $8.25 million to a settlement fund. The settlement was approved by the Court by order dated Oct. 23, 2008 and has become final, according to the company's Jan. 26, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 28, 2008. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ -- is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net- worth individuals. Its activities are divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities Services. GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces Claims on Trading of Treasury Futures ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. continues to face claims relating to trading of treasury futures in a purported class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of holders of short positions in 30-year U.S. Treasury futures and options on the morning of Oct. 31, 2001. The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleges that the firm purchased 30-year bonds and futures prior to the Treasury's refunding announcement that morning based on non-public information about that announcement, and that such purchases increased the costs of covering such short positions (Class Action Reporter, July 11, 2008). The complaint also names as defendants the Washington, D.C.- based political consultant who allegedly was the source of the information, a former Goldman Sachs economist who allegedly received the information, and another company and one of its employees who also allegedly received and traded on the information prior to its public announcement. The complaint alleges violations of the federal commodities and antitrust laws, as well as Illinois statutory and common law, and seeks, among other things, unspecified damages including treble damages under the antitrust laws. The district court dismissed the antitrust and Illinois state law claims but permitted the federal commodities law claims to proceed. On Dec. 20, 2006, the plaintiff moved for class certification. On May 7, 2008, Goldman Sachs moved for summary judgment in the purported class action pending with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. By a decision dated July 30, 2008, the federal district court granted Goldman, Sachs & Co.'s motion for summary judgment insofar as the remaining claims relate to trading of treasury bonds, but denied the motion without prejudice to the extent the claims relate to trading of treasury futures, according to the company's Jan. 26, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 28, 2008. By a decision dated Aug. 22, 2008, the court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ -- is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net- worth individuals. Its activities are divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities Services. GOLDMAN SACHS: Suit for Alleged Montana Law Violations Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Goldman, Sachs & Co., continue to face a purported class action alleging violations of Montana law in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, Butte Division. Goldman, Sachs & Co. and the Company have been named as defendants in a purported class action commenced originally on Oct. 1, 2001 in Montana District Court, Second Judicial District on behalf of former shareholders of Montana Power Company. The complaint generally alleges that Montana Power Company violated Montana law by failing to procure shareholder approval of certain corporate strategies and transactions, that the Company's board breached its fiduciary duties in pursuing those strategies and transactions, and that Goldman, Sachs & Co. aided and abetted the board's breaches and rendered negligent advice in its role as financial advisor to the company. The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages. In addition to Goldman, Sachs & Co. and Group Inc., the defendants include Montana Power Company, certain of its officers and directors, an outside law firm for the Montana Power Company, and certain companies that purchased assets from Montana Power Company and its affiliates. The Montana state court denied the Goldman Sachs defendants' motions to dismiss. Following the bankruptcies of certain defendants in the action, defendants removed the action to federal court, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, Butte Division, according to the Company's Jan. 26, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 28, 2008. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ -- is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net- worth individuals. Its activities are divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities Services. GOLDMAN SACHS: Unit Faces Britannia Bulk Securities Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Goldman, Sachs & Co., defends putative securities class actions arising from the initial public offering of common stock of Britannia Bulk Holdings, Inc. Goldman, Sachs & Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in numerous putative securities class actions filed beginning on Nov. 6, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York arising from the June 17, 2008 $125 million IPO of Britannia Bulk common stock. The complaints name as defendants the company, certain of its directors and officers, and the underwriters for the offering. The plaintiffs allege that the offering materials violated the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws and seek compensatory damages. Defendants have yet to respond, according to the Company's Jan. 26, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 28, 2008. Goldman, Sachs & Co. underwrote 3.75 million shares of common stock for a total offering price of $56.25 million. The principal operating subsidiary of Britannia Bulk Holdings, Inc. is subject to an insolvency proceeding in the U.K. courts. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ -- is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net- worth individuals. Its activities are divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities Services. GOLDMAN SACHS: Units Defend Suit by Mortgage Certificates Buyers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Three subsidiaries of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. defend a lawsuit brought on behalf of purchasers of various mortgage pass-through certificates and asset-backed certificates, according to the Company's Jan. 26, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 28, 2008. Goldman, Sachs & Co., Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company and GS Mortgage Securities Corp. are among the defendants in a purported class action commenced on Dec. 11, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York brought on behalf of purchasers of various mortgage pass-through certificates and asset-backed certificates issued by various securitization trusts in 2007 and underwritten by Goldman, Sachs & Co. The other defendants include the various issuer trusts that issued the securities as well as certain officers and directors of certain of the entity defendants. The complaint generally alleges that the registration statement and prospectus supplements for the certificates violated the federal securities laws. The complaint asserts claims against the issuer trusts and Goldman, Sachs & Co. under Section 11 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act), and a related "controlling person" claim against the other defendants under Section 15 of the Securities Act, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and rescission or recessionary damages. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. -- http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ -- is a global investment banking, securities and investment management firm that provides a range of services worldwide to a client base that includes corporations, financial institutions, governments and high-net- worth individuals. Its activities are divided into three segments: Investment Banking, Trading and Principal Investments, and Asset Management and Securities Services. INFINEON TECH: Consolidated Securities Action Pending in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Infineon Technologies AG is facing the third amended complaint in a consolidated securities class action filed on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the company's publicly-traded securities. Between September and November 2004, seven securities class action complaints were filed against the company and current or former officers in U.S. federal district courts, later consolidated in the Northern District of California, on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the company's publicly- traded securities who purchased them during the period from March 2000 to July 2004 (Securities Class Actions). The consolidated amended complaint alleges violations of the U.S. securities laws and asserts that the defendants made materially false and misleading public statements about the company's historical and projected financial results and competitive position because they did not disclose the company's alleged participation in dynamic random access memory chips (DRAM) rice-fixing activities and that, by fixing the price of DRAM, defendants manipulated the price of the Company's securities, thereby injuring its shareholders. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and attorneys' fees. In September 2006, the court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. In October 2006, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. In March 2007, pursuant to a stipulation agreed with the defendants, the plaintiffs withdrew the second amended complaint and were granted a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint in July 2007. A hearing was held on Nov. 19, 2007. On Jan. 25, 2008, the court entered into an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motions to dismiss the Securities Class Action complaint. The court denied the motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs' claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and dismissed the claim under Section 20A of the act with prejudice. On Aug. 13, 2008 the court denied a motion of the company for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations. On Aug. 25, 2008, the company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings against foreign purchasers, i.e., proposed class members who are neither residents nor citizens of the United States who bought securities of the company on an exchange outside the United States. On the same day, the plaintiffs also filed a motion to certify the class. A hearing on both motions was scheduled for Dec. 15, 2008. No further updates were provided in the company's Dec. 29, 2008 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2008. Infineon Technologies AG -- http://www.infineon.com-- is a semiconductor company. The Company designs, develops, manufactures and markets a range of semiconductors and complete systems solutions used in a variety of microelectronic applications, including computer systems, telecommunications systems, consumer goods, automotive products, industrial automation and control systems, and chip card applications. Its products include standard commodity components, full-custom devices, semi-custom devices and application-specific components for memory, analog, digital and mixed-signal applications. The company has operations, investments and customers located in Europe, Asia and North America. Infineon operates through its five business segments: Automotive, Industrial and Multimarket, Chip Card and Security, Wireless Solutions and Wireline Communications. Infineon's memory products business is conducted through its subsidiary, Qimonda AG. INFINEON TECH: DRAM Price-Fixing Suits Still Pending in Canada -------------------------------------------------------------- Two putative class proceedings are pending against Infineon Technologies AG for alleged price-fixing of dynamic random access memory chips (DRAM) products in Canada. Between December 2004 and February 2005, two putative class proceedings were filed in the Canadian province of Quebec, and one was filed in each of Ontario and British Columbia against the company, its U.S. subsidiary Infineon Technologies North America Corporation and other DRAM manufacturers on behalf of all direct and indirect purchasers resident in Canada who purchased DRAM or products containing DRAM between July 1999 and June 2002. The cases seek damages, investigation and administration costs, as well as interest and legal costs. The plaintiffs primarily allege conspiracy to unduly restrain competition and to illegally fix the price of DRAM, according to the company's Dec. 29, 2008 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2008. Infineon Technologies AG -- http://www.infineon.com-- is a semiconductor company. The Company designs, develops, manufactures and markets a range of semiconductors and complete systems solutions used in a variety of microelectronic applications, including computer systems, telecommunications systems, consumer goods, automotive products, industrial automation and control systems, and chip card applications. Its products include standard commodity components, full-custom devices, semi-custom devices and application-specific components for memory, analog, digital and mixed-signal applications. The company has operations, investments and customers located in Europe, Asia and North America. Infineon operates through its five business segments: Automotive, Industrial and Multimarket, Chip Card and Security, Wireless Solutions and Wireline Communications. Infineon's memory products business is conducted through its subsidiary, Qimonda AG. INFINEON TECH: Indirect U.S. Purchaser Class Suits Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Infineon Technologies AG continues to face class actions brought by individuals and entities who indirectly purchased dynamic random access memory chips (DRAM) in the United States. A number of putative class action lawsuits were filed against the company, its U.S. subsidiary Infineon Technologies North America Corporation and other DRAM suppliers, alleging price- fixing in violation of the Sherman Act and seeking treble damages in unspecified amounts, costs, attorneys' fees, and an injunction against the allegedly unlawful conduct. In September 2002, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered that these federal cases be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings as part of a Multi District Litigation. In September 2005, the company and IF North America entered into a definitive settlement agreement with counsel for the class of direct U.S. purchasers of DRAM (granting an opportunity for individual class members to opt out of the settlement). In November 2006, the court approved the settlement agreement and entered final judgment and dismissed the claims with prejudice. Sixty-four additional cases were filed through October 2005, in numerous federal and state courts throughout the United States. Each of these state and federal cases (except for one relating to foreign purchasers) purports to be on behalf of a class of individuals and entities who indirectly purchased DRAM in the United States during specified time periods commencing in or after 1999 (the Indirect U.S. Purchaser Class). The complaints variously allege violations of the Sherman Act, California's Cartwright Act, various other state laws, unfair competition law, and unjust enrichment and seek treble damages in generally unspecified amounts, restitution, costs, attorneys' fees and injunctions against the allegedly unlawful conduct. Twenty-three of the state and federal court cases were subsequently ordered transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings as part of the MDL proceeding. Nineteen of the twenty-three transferred cases are currently pending in the MDL litigation. The pending California state cases were coordinated and transferred to San Francisco County Superior Court for pre-trial proceedings. The plaintiffs in the indirect purchaser cases outside California agreed to stay proceedings in those cases in favor of proceedings on the indirect purchaser cases pending as part of the MDL pre-trial proceedings. On Jan. 29, 2008, the district court in the MDL proceedings entered an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings directed at several of the claims. Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint on Feb. 27, 2008. On March 28, 2008, the court granted plaintiffs leave to immediately appeal its decision to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On June 26, 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order agreeing to hear the appeal and the parties submitted a stipulation and proposed order to that effect. The district court stayed proceedings pending the Court of Appeals' decision whether to accept the appeal and scheduled a hearing for Oct. 30, 2008, to decide whether the stay should remain in place until the appeal is decided. On Oct. 30, 2008, the district court in the MDL proceedings entered an order staying the indirect purchaser proceedings in the Northern District of California during the period that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considers the appeal on the decision of the district court to dismiss certain claims of the plaintiffs, according to the company's Dec. 29, 2008 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2008. Infineon Technologies AG -- http://www.infineon.com-- is a semiconductor company. The Company designs, develops, manufactures and markets a range of semiconductors and complete systems solutions used in a variety of microelectronic applications, including computer systems, telecommunications systems, consumer goods, automotive products, industrial automation and control systems, and chip card applications. Its products include standard commodity components, full-custom devices, semi-custom devices and application-specific components for memory, analog, digital and mixed-signal applications. The company has operations, investments and customers located in Europe, Asia and North America. Infineon operates through its five business segments: Automotive, Industrial and Multimarket, Chip Card and Security, Wireless Solutions and Wireline Communications. Infineon's memory products business is conducted through its subsidiary, Qimonda AG. LJ INT'L: Settles Consolidated Shareholder Litigation for $2M ------------------------------------------------------------- HONG KONG, Jan. 30 /PRNewswire-Asia-FirstCall/ -- LJ International Inc. (LJI) (Nasdaq: JADE), a leading jewelry manufacturer and retailer in China, today reported that it has entered into a settlement agreement with the lead plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit against the Company filed in 2007. Under the settlement agreement dated January 14, 2009 between LJI and the lead plaintiff, LJI will create a settlement fund of $2 million in cash, to be funded entirely by its insurer. As part of the settlement agreement, all claims alleged in the lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice and LJI will be released from liability for all such claims. The settlement agreement is subject to preliminary approval and final approval by the Court. The Court has scheduled a hearing on the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement for February 23, 2009. The class covered by the lawsuit consists of all holders of LJI common stock during the period from February 15, 2007 through September 6, 2007. Plaintiffs had alleged, in a consolidated amended complaint on April 8, 2008, that LJI had made material misstatements concerning its projected fourth quarter and year-end 2006 earnings and net income. LJI has denied each of the claims alleged by the plaintiffs and has agreed to the settlement in order to eliminate the continuing costs of litigation and the time and attention required by senior management. TAKATA CORP: California Judge Rules in $247M Seatbelt Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Los Angeles County Superior Court has issued a ruling in a purported $247-million class-action lawsuit against Takata Corp. that was filed by car owners who claimed a seatbelt manufactured by the company that was installed in some 4 million cars in California was improperly tested and its buckle might open in a crash, The Associated Press reports. In a Jan. 16, 2009 preliminary ruling, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis ruled that the TK-52 seatbelt by Takata was safe and met federal standards. A final ruling is expected in March 2009. Car owner Lupe Zavala represented owners of about 80 different auto models in the class-action suit. He accused the Tokyo- based company of violating state law by allegedly misleading consumers about testing of the seatbelts, according to The Associated Press. The suit, which also named a New Jersey-based consumer testing organization, SGS U.S. Testing Co., Inc., didn't claim anyone was injured by the seatbelts, but argued they might cause future problems. In addition to money, it sought to have the seatbelts recalled and retested. Drew D. Hansen of Seattle, one of Mr. Zavala's attorneys told The Associated Press, "We respectfully disagree with the trial court's ruling and we plan to appeal." The suit was ironic because Mr. Zavala said in a deposition that the seatbelt had functioned properly in an accident involving a pickup truck, according to Mark H. Berry, Esq., a Los Angeles lawyer who represented Takata at trial. "He conceded that the seatbelt had protected his son" in the crash, Mr. Berry told The Associated Press reports. UBS AG: Faces N.Y. Suit Over U.S. Offshore Tax-Evasion Probe ------------------------------------------------------------ UBS AG (UBS) faces a purported class-action lawsuit over allegations the Swiss bank helped thousands of Americans avoid paying taxes, Chad Bray of Dow Jones reports. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Jan. 30, 2009 under the caption, "New Orleans Employees' Retirement System v. UBS AG et al., Case No. 1:2009-cv-00893." It alleges UBS bolstered the new account money it attracted by engaging in a fraudulent scheme to help ultra high-net worth U.S. clients avoid U.S. taxes by "secreting billions of their funds in 'undeclared' Swiss bank accounts." Dow Jones reported that the complaint alleges the Swiss bank concealed the scheme from U.S. authorities, while intentionally creating the impression the company's wealth-management group was experiencing unprecedented growth. It also claims UBS routinely assured investors and analysts that it employed state- of-the-art risk management tactics and had robust internal controls to mitigate risks. "These statements were all false and misleading because at the time they were made defendants were actively engaged in a tax- evasion scheme which, even when investigators had fingered some of the company's lower level client advisors, defendants ultimately could not abandon because it was simply too valuable to UBS," according to the lawsuit. The company's stock price "plummeted" when the scheme became public, the complaint said, reports Chad Bray of Dow Jones. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the New Orleans Employees' Retirement System, which manages about $400 million in assets and is a UBS shareholder. It is seeking class-action status on behalf of investors who purchased UBS shares between May 4, 2004 and Jan. 26, 2009, according to Chad Bray of Dow Jones. New Securities Fraud Cases BANK OF AMERICA: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- Updated 9:14 a.m. PT, Sat., Jan. 31, 2009 -- BALTIMORE, MD - Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a new class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of certain investors in Bank of America Corporation ("Bank of America" or the "Company") (NYSE: BAC). The original action has been brought on behalf of all Bank of America shareholders who held shares as of the record date of October 10, 2008 and were entitled to vote with respect to the acquisition of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. ("Merrill Lynch") by Bank of America at a December 5, 2008 special meeting of Bank of America shareholders and were damaged thereby, and on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Bank of America in the period from January 2, 2009 through January 20, 2009 (the "Class Period"). The new action has been brought only on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Bank of America in the period from July 21, 2008 through January 20, 2009 (the "Extended Class Period"). The complaint in the initial action accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company's failure to disclose during the Class Period the true financial condition of Merrill Lynch, a company acquired by Bank of America. The complaint in the newer action that has created the Extended Class Period does not include claims for holders of Bank of America shares on October 10, 2008 who were entitled to vote with respect to the acquisition of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America at a December 5, 2008 special meeting of Bank of America shareholders, but does claim that the Company's July 21, 2008 representations of the worst being behind on value declines was the start of a period of deception by Bank of America as to its prospects. According to both complaints, beginning on January 16, 2009, after the Company revealed the true extent of the deterioration of Merrill's financial condition, as evidenced by Merrill Lynch's $15 billion fourth quarter loss, the value of Bank of America's stock declined significantly. No class has yet been certified in these actions. For more details, contact: Charles J. Piven, Esq. (hoffman@browerpiven.com) Brower Piven The World Trade Center-Baltimore 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Phone: 410/332-0030 Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com BANK OF AMERICA: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Jan. 30, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Bank of America Corp. ("BofA" or the "Company") (NYSE:BAC) common stock during the period between July 21, 2008 and January 20, 2009 (the "Class Period") for violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results. Defendants concealed BofA's failure to properly value its mortgage-related assets and engage in proper due diligence in determining the fairness of its proposed merger with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated ("Merrill Lynch"). As a result of defendants' false statements, BofA's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $38.13 per share on October 1, 2008, and then retaining value in the $22-$25 per share range even as the stock market collapsed in early October 2008. It was at this time that BofA sold 455 million shares of its common stock at $22 per share in a secondary common stock offering that raised some $10 billion. On December 5, 2008, shareholders of both BofA and Merrill Lynch overwhelmingly approved the merger with Merrill Lynch. Thereafter, on January 16, 2009, BofA announced its first quarterly loss in 17 years. BofA announced a $1.8 billion loss for the fourth quarter of 2008, citing deeper trading and loan losses. The Company further slashed its dividend from $0.32 to a penny a quarter. In addition to its own losses, BofA reported that Merrill Lynch's preliminary results for the fourth quarter of 2008 indicated a net loss of $15.3 billion. BofA further confirmed that it would receive an additional $20 billion in assistance from the U.S. Government and that the government had agreed to provide guarantees against further Merrill Lynch losses of $118 billion. Over the course of the next several days, the complaint alleges, details began to emerge concerning the truth behind BofA's deal with Merrill Lynch, including the fact that BofA had learned of Merrill Lynch's substantial fourth quarter losses prior to completing its acquisition of Merrill Lynch. Between January 15 and 20, 2009, as news of BofA's financial position came to light, BofA's stock lost a dramatic 50% of its value, declining from $10.20 per share on January 14, 2009 to close at $5.10 per share on January 20, 2009. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact: Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com) The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. 29 Broadway, Suite 2400 New York, New York 10006 Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602 Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com IBSG INT'L: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Fraud Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Jan. 30, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP ("Levi & Korsinsky") today announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of all persons or entities who acquired IBSG International, Inc. ("IBSG" or the "Compnay") (OTCBB:IBIN) common stock between April 1, 2008 and January 12, 2009 (the "Class Period"). The class action is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint alleges that the Company and senior management issued false and misleading financial statements in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. For more details, contact: Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Phone: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 39 Broadway, Suite 1601 New York, NY 10006 Web site: http://www.zlk.com ROYAL BANK: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Business Wire 2009 -- 2009-01-31 05:02:03 -- Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has filed a class action complaint, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, against Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc ("RBS") (NYSE:RBS), certain of its officers and directors, and its underwriters, on behalf of a class of: 1) purchasers or acquirers of RBS Series "Q" 6.75% Preferred stock pursuant to the May 18, 2006 public offering; and/or 2) purchasers or acquirers of RBS Series "T" 7.25% Preferred stock pursuant to the September 20, 2007 public offering. The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a materially false and misleading registration statement, prospectuses, and other documents. These documents failed to disclose risks that: -- RBS's exposure to the sub-prime mortgage market was understated in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); -- RBS's risk control systems did not function properly; -- as a result of such exposure, RBS would be forced to take write-downs; -- such write-downs would substantially decrease RBS's capital levels; and -- this would force RBS to accept a bailout by the British government. As these events occurred, the price of RBS securities plummeted. At the close of the market on January 29, 2008, Series Q Stock closed at $5.44, and Series T Stock closed at $5.95, a small fraction of their original $25 offering prices. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. For more information, contact: Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP 275 Madison Ave., Suite 801 New York, NY 10016-1101 Phone: 212-682-1818 800-497-8076 e-mail: newcase@murrayfrank.com Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com/ TRIAD GUARANTY: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Jan. 30, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on behalf of purchasers of Triad Guaranty Inc. ("Triad" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:TGIC) common stock during the period between October 26, 2006 and November 10, 2008 (the "Class Period") for violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint charges Triad and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Triad, through its subsidiary, Triad Guaranty Insurance Corporation, provides private mortgage insurance products to residential mortgage lenders and investors in the United States. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results. As a result of defendants' false statements, Triad stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching its Class Period high of $58.45 per share in January 2007. However, beginning in late August 2007 and continuing throughout 2008, Triad began to acknowledge serious issues surrounding its exposure to anticipated losses and defaults related to its book of business for its Alt-A and pay-option adjustable rate mortgage ("ARM") products written in 2006 and 2007 due to a failure to engage in proper underwriting practices, resulting in a decline in Triad's stock price. Then, on November 10, 2008, Triad issued its financial results for the third quarter of 2008, reporting a net loss for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 of $160.1 million. On this news, Triad's stock price dropped $0.11 per share to close at $0.70 per share on November 11, 2008. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact: Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com) The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. 29 Broadway, Suite 2400 New York, New York 10006 Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602 Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com ********* A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent research, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. ********* 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. Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Stephanie T. Umacob, Gracele D. Canilao, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2009. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *