/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090413.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, April 13, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 71 Headlines AMERICAN EXPRESS: Still Facing Antitrust Suits Over Tying Deal BLUEPHOENIX SOLUTIONS: Defends Claim by Former Lirax Shareholder COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Calif. Judge Trims Shareholder Litigation DISH DBS: Continues to Defend Lawsuits by Retailers in Colorado DISH DBS: Defends Antitrust Suit Over Bundled Channel Offerings HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Murray Frank Announces Class Period Expansion LOCKHEED MARTIN: Ill. Judge Allows "Abbott" Lawsuit to Proceed MASCO CONTRACTOR: Checks For $8.5M Deal To Arrive On April 15 MECHEL OAO: Faces Shareholders' Litigation in N.Y. Federal Court NORTHERN TRUST: Berger & Montague Files ERISA Violations Lawsuit SAMSON RESOURCES: Faces Suit in Colorado Over Royalty Payments SCHERING-PLOUGH: Court Rules Sales Reps Not Exempt from FLSA STATE STREET: La. Firm Files Mass. Suit Over "Reckless" Lending TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Campbell" Suit in California TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Canadian Consumer Litigation TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Diamond" Consumer Fraud Suit TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Securities Suits Over Merger TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Wenzel Consumer Suit in Calif. TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Schlessinger Seeks to Amend Lawsuit UNITED COMPONENTS: Bids to Junk Purchasers Amended Suits Pending UNITED COMPONENTS: Unit Faces Purchasers' Lawsuit in California UNITED COMPONENTS: Unit Faces Suit Over Filters Sale in Ontario UNITED COMPONENTS: Unit Faces Suit Over Filters Sale in Quebec New Securities Fraud Cases AUSTIN CAPITAL: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Barroway Topaz Announces Stock Suit Filing ********* AMERICAN EXPRESS: Still Facing Antitrust Suits Over Tying Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- American Express Company continues to face purported antitrust class-action suits concerning the company's charge cards, credit cards and debit cards, according to American Express Credit Account Master Trust's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. American Express has been named in a number of purported class- action suits in which the plaintiffs allege an unlawful antitrust tying arrangement between American Express' charge cards, on the one hand, and its credit cards and debit cards, on the other, in violation of various state and federal laws. The plaintiffs in these actions seek injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of damages. With the exception of one case pending in California, the cases have been consolidated under the caption "In re American Express Merchants' Litigation" in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. American Express filed a motion to dismiss all of the actions that were filed in the Southern District of New York prior to April 30, 2004, and, with respect to the case pending in California, to stay the action pending resolution of the motion to dismiss. On March 15, 2006, the Court granted American Express' motion, with the Court finding the claims of those merchants whose card acceptance agreement contained an arbitration clause to be subject to arbitration. That decision has been appealed. American Express also filed a motion to dismiss an action filed in the Southern District of New York in July 2004, which motion was denied in July 2005. On Oct. 1, 2007, the plaintiffs in such action filed a motion seeking certification of a class, which American Express has opposed. Each of American Express and the plaintiffs also have moved for summary judgment in their favor in such action. American Express Credit Account Master Trust was established in 1996, by American Express Company for the purpose of ongoing funding and contingent funding of all U.S. lending receivables. American Express is a global payments and travel company. Its principal products and services are charge and credit payment card products, and travel-related services offered to consumers and businesses around the world. BLUEPHOENIX SOLUTIONS: Defends Claim by Former Lirax Shareholder ---------------------------------------------------------------- BluePhoenix Solutions Ltd. intends to defend the putative class action claim filed by a former shareholder of Liraz Systems Ltd., with the Tel Aviv, Jaffa District Court. In July 2003, the former Liraz shareholder filed an application with the Tel Aviv, Jaffa District Court to approve a claim filed by him against the company, as a class action. The claim relates to the acquisition of Liraz shares, which the company completed in March 2003. The shareholder alleges that the share price the company paid to Liraz's shareholders in the tender offer and in a subsequent mandatory purchase was lower than the fair price of Liraz shares. The maximum amount of the claim is approximately $8.7 million in the aggregate. Under Israeli law, the court's approval is required for the plaintiff to represent all of the shareholders of Liraz who sold their shareholdings to the company pursuant to the tender offer and the mandatory acquisition. The plaintiff has applied for such approval in the lawsuit. Based on its analysis of the statement of claim, including an evaluation of the fair value of the Liraz shares, and the price paid for Liraz in a previous transaction immediately prior to the tender offer, the company says that the allegations in this proceeding are without merit, according to its March 31, 2009 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. BluePhoenix Solutions Ltd. -- http://www.bphx.com- develops and markets value driven enterprise information technology (IT) modernization (EIM), solutions that enable companies to automate the process of modernizing and upgrading their mainframe and distributed IT infrastructure. COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Calif. Judge Trims Shareholder Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Mariana Pfaelzer of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed claims of insider trading against all but one former executive of Countrywide Financial Corp., The Associated Press reports. The judge allowed the allegations contained in a shareholders lawsuit to remain against Countrywide's former chairman and chief executive, Angelo Mozilo, according to the AP report. The class-action lawsuit alleged that Mr. Mozilo sold $478 million in shares between 2004 and 2008, representing a 656 percent increase over the dollar value of his stock sales during the previous four years. However, in a ruling issued on April 6, 2009, Judge Pfaelzer said the lawsuit failed to demonstrate that former Chief Operating Officer Stanford Kurland and other top executives illegally traded stock, reports The Associated Press. The judge said some of Mr. Mozilo's modifications to his automatic stock sale plan were "unusual." The lawsuit alleges Mr. Mozilo illegally increased his automatic sale plan three times in late 2006 and 2007 after Countrywide started to buy millions of dollars worth of its own shares, propping up the company's share price, The Associated Press reported. The complaint also said Mr. Mozilo lied during a July 2007 Countrywide earnings call when he said he was only selling options with expiration dates. The Associated Press reported that the plaintiff's 435-page complaint explains how Countrywide, which was bought by Bank of America Corp., shifted away from traditional fixed-rate mortgages toward riskier loans, such as subprime and adjustable rate mortgages. It claims the change created more risk for shareholders, who lost money when the company's stock price dropped in 2007. DISH DBS: Continues to Defend Lawsuits by Retailers in Colorado --------------------------------------------------------------- DISH DBS Corp. continues to defend several class-action lawsuits filed by retailers in Colorado state and federal courts, according to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. During 2000, lawsuits were filed by retailers in Colorado state and federal courts attempting to certify nationwide classes on behalf of certain of the company's retailers. The plaintiffs are requesting the Courts declare certain provisions of, and changes to, alleged agreements between the company and the retailers invalid and unenforceable, and to award damages for lost incentives and payments, charge backs, and other compensation. The company has asserted a variety of counterclaims. The federal court action has been stayed during the pendency of the state court action. The company has filed a motion for summary judgment on all counts and against all plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed a motion for additional time to conduct discovery to enable them to respond to the company's motion. The state court granted limited discovery, which ended during 2004. The plaintiffs claimed the company did not provide adequate disclosure during the discovery process. The state court agreed, and denied the company's motion for summary judgment as a result. In April 2008, the state court granted plaintiff's class certification motion and in January 2009, the state court entered an order excluding certain evidence that the company can present at trial based on the prior discovery issues. The state court also denied plaintiffs' request to dismiss the company's counterclaims. DISH DBS Corp. (formerly known as EchoStar DBS Corp.), a holding company and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of DISH Network Corporation, provides direct broadcast satellite services to subscribers through its Dish Network segment. The Company is based in Englewood, Colo. DISH DBS: Defends Antitrust Suit Over Bundled Channel Offerings --------------------------------------------------------------- DISH DBS Corp. continues to defend an antitrust action filed by a purported class of cable and satellite subscribers, according to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. On Sept. 21, 2007, a purported class of cable and satellite subscribers filed an antitrust action against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The suit also names as defendants DirecTV, Comcast, Cablevision, Cox, Charter, Time Warner, Inc., Time Warner Cable, NBC Universal, Viacom, Fox Entertainment Group, and Walt Disney Company. The suit alleges, among other things, that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to provide customers with access only to bundled channel offerings as opposed to giving customers the ability to purchase channels on an "a la carte" basis. The company filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court denied in July 2008. DISH DBS Corp. (formerly known as EchoStar DBS Corp.), a holding company and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of DISH Network Corporation, provides direct broadcast satellite services to subscribers through its Dish Network segment. The Company is based in Englewood, Colo. HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Murray Frank Announces Class Period Expansion ---------------------------------------------------------------- Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP who represents shareholders of Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. (NYSE:HPY) announces expansion of the Class Period to include all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Heartland securities between February 13, 2008 and February 23, 2009, inclusive. Previously, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (No. 09-cv-01264), on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. during the period between August 5, 2008 and February 23, 2009, inclusive (Class Action Reporter, March 31, 2009). The Complaint charges Heartland and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Heartland together with its subsidiaries provides bank card payment processing services to more than 250,000 merchants and businesses nationwide. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose: -- that the Company's safety and security measures designed to protect consumers' financial records and data from security breaches were inadequate and ineffective; -- that the Company's payment processing system had been infected with malware as early as May 2008; -- that defendants were made aware of a potential breach of Heartland's payment processing network; -- that, as a result of the above, the Company faced liabilities associated with the breach and increasing costs associated with implementing appropriate security measures; -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company was at risk of losing customers; and -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls. On January 20, 2009, Heartland revealed that the Company's payment processing network had been breached by malicious software, exposing tens of millions of debit cardholders to fraud. As consumers used their debit cards, so-called "sniffer software" had been capturing, among other things, card numbers, expiration dates and cardholder names. According to an article published that same day in The New York Times, the breach occurred as early as May 2008. On this news, shares of Heartland declined $1.26 per share, or 8.16%, to close on January 20, 2009, at $14.18 per share, on unusually heavy volume. Over the next two days, shares of Heartland further declined $6.00 per share, or an additional 42.31%, to close on January 22, 2009 at $8.18 per share. On February 24, 2009, Heartland again shocked investors when it reported earnings for the 2008 fiscal year and fourth quarter. The Company posted a lower-than-expected quarterly profit and disclosed that it might incur losses from the recent security breach of its system and that the Company could not estimate the amount of losses that might be incurred in connection with the security breach. On this news, shares of Heartland declined $2.31 per share, or 30.20%, to close on February 24, 2009, at $5.34 per share, on unusually heavy volume. During the Class Period, shares of Heartland's common stock declined $21.84 per share, or approximately 65%, from its Class Period high of $27.19 per share on September 19, 2008. 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/ LOCKHEED MARTIN: Ill. Judge Allows "Abbott" Lawsuit to Proceed -------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Judge Michael J. Reagan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois allowed the lawsuit captioned, "Abbott v. Lockheed Martin Corp., Case No. 06-cv- 0701-MJR," to proceed as a class-action case, Fred Schneyer of planadviser.com reports. The suit involves employees challenging the fee levels in Lockheed Martin Corp.'s 401(k) plans. The plaintiffs are five Lockheed employees who are 401(k) employees. In general, the lawsuit claims that the company didn't properly monitor plan fees and that it did not properly administer the Stable Value Fund in the retirement programs, according to the planadviser.com report. The planadviser.com reported Judge Reagan ruled that as many as 100,000 employees could be part of the class in the excessive- fee fiduciary breach suit. The judge also refused Lockheed claims to dismiss three of the plaintiff's original claims that the defendants committed a fiduciary breach by: -- not making sure participants did not suffer adversely by excessive overall fees; -- failing to prudently administer the Stable Value Fund as an investment option; and -- imprudently diluting returns in the company stock funds by unnecessarily holding cash or holding excessive amounts of cash in the funds. Even though plaintiffs had asked all three issues be approved to be part of the class action, Judge Reagan only certified the first two, according to his ruling, reports planadviser.com. According to Reagan, because the company stock funds were unitized, a small employee group was able to day trade, which, as the court pointed out, lowered the returns for other participants. The fund had to hold surplus cash to fund the day traders' activities, the court said, which put the day traders' financial status at odds with that of non-day traders. That difference made a class certification inappropriate, according to Judge Reagan, reports planadviser.com. Dropped from the case entirely were fiduciary breach claims that the company did not monitor revenue-sharing payments as well as a claim that Lockheed improperly offered a retail fund instead of an institutionally priced fund, planadviser.com reported. MASCO CONTRACTOR: Checks For $8.5M Deal To Arrive On April 15 ------------------------------------------------------------- Checks for the $8.5-million settlement of a purported class- action suit by thousands of mostly Latino workers who accused Masco Contractor Services, Inc., and its California units, Western Insulation and Schmid Insulation Contractors of violating California's wage and hour laws are set to arrive to qualified California immigrant workers on April 15, 2009, Scott Sabatini of Legal Newsline reports. Joanna Lin of The Los Angeles Times previously reported that Masco, and its California units, settled for $8.5-million the purported class-action lawsuit. The workers, most of whom did not belong to a union, installed insulation, rain gutters and fireplaces, Todd Jackson, one of several attorneys representing the more than 3,100 employees tells The Los Angeles Times. In general, the suit alleged that defendants failed to pay the workers for a full day's work when warranted. The settlement was approved on March 9, 2009 by Judge Dale Fischer of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Workers represented in the lawsuit include current and former California installers who worked for Western Insulation and Schmid Insulation at any time from Oct. 13, 2002, to Sept. 30, 2008, and who worked for Masco between Jan. 1 and Sept. 30, 2008. Affected workers do not have to file any claim forms and will begin receiving settlement checks by mail in mid-April, attorneys said. Workers who have changed their address since their time of employment or who have questions about the settlement can call (888) 546-7439. MECHEL OAO: Faces Shareholders' Litigation in N.Y. Federal Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mechel OAO faces a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by shareholders accusing the company of not keeping investors up to date on a damaging 2008 antitrust probe and of making false financial statements, Reuters reports. The U.S.-listed mining and metals company was investigated in Russia for coking coal price-fixing and the Russian government fined Mechel and imposed a 15 percent price cut on the company. Its stock peaked above $58 last Monday before sinking as low as $2.56 in January, according to the Reuters report. The plaintiffs, led by shareholder Dean Frederick, accused Mechel of not disclosing enough information about its behavior, the investigation, the fines or the threat to future revenue, and that its "financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times." The suit was filed on April 8, 2009. It was brought on behalf of those who bought the stock between Oct. 3, 2007 and July 25, 2008. NORTHERN TRUST: Berger & Montague Files ERISA Violations Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- On March 30, 2009, Berger & Montague, P.C. filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all 401(k) and pension plans that invested or maintained investments between January 1, 2007 and the present in any collective trusts managed or operated by The Northern Trust Company or Northern Trust Investments, N.A., where such Collective Trusts engaged in the practice known as "security lending." The lawsuit is captioned, "Diebold v. Northern Trust Investments, N.A., et al. (Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-01934)." The lawsuit alleges that the Northern Trust Defendants engaged in breaches of fiduciary duties established by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), as well as other ERISA violations, when they recklessly engaged in "securities lending" for their own benefit. They did so in a manner that involved imprudent and unreasonable risk of loss to the 401(k) and pension plans whose funds they managed in the Collective Trusts. The complaint alleges that the 401(k) and pension plans suffered large financial losses as a result of these securities lending practices. The practice of securities lending involves the temporary "loan" of a stock (or other security) by its long-term owner - here, the Collective Trusts - who then secured the loan with collateral. The collateral is supposed to be invested in safe, short-term, liquid instruments; however, the complaint alleges that the Northern Trust Defendants instead chose investments that were illiquid, highly-leveraged and unduly risky, including mortgage-backed securities and other securitized debt instruments that were inappropriate investments for retirement plans. The complaint further alleges that the fees and other compensation the Northern Trust Defendants collected in connection with their securities lending activities violated ERISA. For more details, contact: Todd Collins, Esq. (tcollins@bm.net) Shanon J. Carson, Esq. (scarson@bm.net) Ellen T. Noteware, Esq. (enoteware@bm.net) Berger & Montague, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-3040; (215) 875-4656; (215) 875-3051 Fax: (215) 875-4604 SAMSON RESOURCES: Faces Suit in Colorado Over Royalty Payments -------------------------------------------------------------- Samson Resources Co. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in Colorado that was filed by a local landowner known as LLH Operations LLLP and the estate of Mary B. Fassett for allegedly skimping on royalty payments from the natural-gas wells that the company's operates, Joe Hanel of The Durango Herald reports. The claim was filed in state court in La Plata County, but at Samson's request it was transferred on March 25, 2009 to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado under the caption, "LLH Operations LLLP et al v. Samson Resources Company, Case No. 1:2009-cv-00673." The lawsuit claims Samson historically deducted the cost of getting gas to market from its royalty payments - something it's not supposed to do. Samson recently stopped deducting the costs from royalty payments, but according to the lawsuit, it has not refunded past deductions, reports The Durango Herald. The Durango Herald reported that the plaintiffs want the judge to give them permission for a class-action lawsuit so that other Samson royalty owners could share in the judgment if they win in court. According to the lawsuit, there are more than 200 Samson royalty owners. The suit is "LLH Operations LLLP et al v. Samson Resources Company, Case No. 1:09-cv-00673-WDM-KMT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Judge Walker D. Miller, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: George Robert Miller, Esq. (miller@marattys.com) Miller, Argo & Robbins, LLC 101 West 11th Street #112 Durango, CO 81301 Phone: 970-247-1113 Fax: 970-259-2690 Thomas D. Kitch, Esq. Fleeson, Gooing, Coulson & Kitch, LLC P.O. Box 997 Wichita, KS 67201 Phone: 316-267-7361 - and - Thomas P. Dugan, Esq. (tpdugan@dugan-law.com) Dugan & Associates, PC 900 Main Avenue #A Durango, CO 81301 Phone: 970-259-1770 Fax: 970-259-1882 Representing the defendants is: Charles A. Armgardt, Esq. (carmgardt@modrall.com) Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A. P.O. Box 2168 500 4th Street, N.W. #1000 Albuquerque, NM 87103-2168 Phone: 505-848-1800 Fax: 505-848-1891 SCHERING-PLOUGH: Court Rules Sales Reps Not Exempt from FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has ruled in favor of plaintiffs in the purported class-action suit, "Kuzinski et al v. Schering-Plough Corporation, Case No. 3:2007- cv-00233," which alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Jim Edwards of BNET reports. Specifically, the court declared that sales reps for Schering- Plough may be entitled to back pay for the unpaid overtime they have worked. The court ruled that reps are not the kind of sales people who are "exempt" from the FLSA, and thus a case demanding overtime pay for extra hours worked can go forward. The case is a potential class-action suit affecting all Schering sales reps, according to the BNET report. The complaint was filed by four former and current Schering reps, Eugene Kuzinski, Marc Campano, Jerry Harris, and Shawn Jones. Mr. Kuzinski had worked for Schering for 20 years, ending in 2006, BNET reported. STATE STREET: La. Firm Files Mass. Suit Over "Reckless" Lending -------------------------------------------------------------- The New Orleans law firm of Fishman Haygood Phelps Walmsley Willis & Swanson LLP filed a purported class-action suit in Massachusetts against State Street Corp. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on April 7, 2009, under the caption, "Fishman Haygood Phelps Walmsley, Willis & Swanson, L.L.P. v. State Street Corporation et al., Case No. 1:09-cv-10533-PBS." The suit is alleging the institutional money manager used funds from its clients' retirement plans to engage in reckless securities lending that lost the plans hundreds of millions of dollars over the past year, according to a report by Law360. The suit is "Fishman Haygood Phelps Walmsley, Willis & Swanson, L.L.P. v. State Street Corporation et al., Case No. 1:09-cv- 10533-PBS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Patti B. Saris, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Matthew P. McCue (mmccue@massattorneys.net) Law Office of Matthew P. McCue 179 Union Avenue Framingham, MA 01702 Phone: 508-620-1166 Fax: 508-820-3311 TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Campbell" Suit in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc. and TicketsNow.com, Inc. face a purported class action complaint filed on March 23, 2009, asserting causes of action under California's Business and Professions Code and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The class-action complaint filed against Ticketmaster Entertainment and TicketsNow is styled, "Campbell v. Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc. and TicketsNow.com, Inc., Case No. CV09-1968 (PSG) (United States District Court, Central District of California)." The lawsuit alleges that Ticketmaster and TicketsNow committed unfair business practices by, among other things, "redirecting" consumers from Ticketmaster.com to TicketsNow.com. Plaintiff purports to represent a nationwide class consisting of "all persons who were redirected from Ticketmaster.com to TicketsNow.com and purchased tickets above face value from TicketsNow.com." Plaintiff seeks disgorgement and restitution on behalf of the class and attorneys fees and costs, according to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., formerly Ticketmaster, -- http://www.ticketmaster.com-- is a live ticketing and marketing company. It operates in approximately 20 countries worldwide, providing ticket sales, ticket resale services, marketing and distribution through www.ticketmaster.com, one of the largest e- commerce sites on the internet, and related proprietary internet and mobile channels, approximately 7,100 independent sales outlets and 17 call centers worldwide. TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Canadian Consumer Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc. and several of its subsidiaries face putative consumer class-action complaints filed in Canada. In February 2009, five putative consumer class-action complaints were filed in Canada against TNow Entertainment Group, Inc., Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., Ticketmaster Canada Ltd., and Premium Inventory, Inc. All of the cases allege essentially the same set of facts and causes of action: each plaintiff purports to represent a class consisting of all persons who purchased a ticket from Ticketmaster Entertainment, Ticketmaster Canada or TicketsNow from early February 2007 to the present. Each proposed class purports to extend to United States as well as Canadian consumers. The complaints allege in essence that Ticketmaster Entertainment and Ticketmaster Canada conspired to divert a large number of tickets for resale through the TicketsNow website at prices higher than face value in violation of Ontario's Ticket Speculation Act, the Amusement Act of Manitoba, the Amusement Act of Alberta, and the Quebec Consumer Protection Act. Each lawsuit seeks $500 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages on behalf of the class, according to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., formerly Ticketmaster, -- http://www.ticketmaster.com-- is a live ticketing and marketing company. It operates in approximately 20 countries worldwide, providing ticket sales, ticket resale services, marketing and distribution through www.ticketmaster.com, one of the largest e- commerce sites on the internet, and related proprietary internet and mobile channels, approximately 7,100 independent sales outlets and 17 call centers worldwide. TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Diamond" Consumer Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc. and Ticketsnow.com, Inc. faces a purported consumer class-action complaint in California, according to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. On Feb. 6, 2009, a purported class-action complaint asserting several causes of action under the federal antitrust laws as well as California and New York consumer protection laws was filed against Ticketmaster Entertainment and TicketsNow. The complaint is styled, "Diamond v. Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc. and Ticketsnow.com, Inc., Case No. CV 09-0912 (CBM) (United States District Court, Central District of California)." The lawsuit alleges that Ticketmaster and TicketsNow unlawfully attempted to monopolize and/or have monopolized the market for secondary tickets and deceived consumers by, among other things, selling large quantities of tickets to TicketsNow's ticket brokers, either prior to or at the time that tickets for an event go on sale, thereby forcing consumers to purchase tickets at significantly marked-up prices on TicketsNow instead of Ticketmaster.com. The plaintiff seeks actual damages or restitution in an amount to be determined at trial and attorneys fees and costs. Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., formerly Ticketmaster, -- http://www.ticketmaster.com-- is a live ticketing and marketing company. It operates in approximately 20 countries worldwide, providing ticket sales, ticket resale services, marketing and distribution through www.ticketmaster.com, one of the largest e- commerce sites on the internet, and related proprietary internet and mobile channels, approximately 7,100 independent sales outlets and 17 call centers worldwide. TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Securities Suits Over Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc. and and its Board of Directors face two putative securities class-action lawsuits filed in California Superior Court, according to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. The suits are captioned: -- McBride v. Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., Case No. BC407677 (Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County), filed on Feb. 13, 2009; and -- Police & Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v. Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc. et al., Case No. BC408228 (Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County), filed on Feb. 20, 2009. The plaintiff in the McBride case alleges that the Live Nation transaction (the "Transaction") delivers insufficient value to Ticketmaster Entertainment stockholders; that the board failed to adequately consider alternative transactions; and that Ticketmaster Entertainment insiders benefit disproportionately from the Transaction. Among other things, the complaint seeks an injunction against the consummation of the Transaction and compensatory damages for Ticketmaster Entertainment stockholders. The second putative class-action suit, Police & Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit, was filed against Ticketmaster Entertainment and the members of its Board of Directors in the same Los Angeles court in which the McBride complaint was filed. The focus of this case is the alleged failure of Ticketmaster Entertainment to obtain the highest price and on alleged insufficiencies in the deal protections. Also included is a disclosure claim, which alleges that Ticketmaster Entertainment wrongfully failed to disclose certain antitrust-related schedules with the merger agreement, which the plaintiff alleges makes it difficult for stockholders to assess certain provisions of the merger agreement. Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., formerly Ticketmaster, -- http://www.ticketmaster.com-- is a live ticketing and marketing company. It operates in approximately 20 countries worldwide, providing ticket sales, ticket resale services, marketing and distribution through www.ticketmaster.com, one of the largest e- commerce sites on the internet, and related proprietary internet and mobile channels, approximately 7,100 independent sales outlets and 17 call centers worldwide. TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Wenzel Consumer Suit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The putative class-action lawsuit styled "Wenzel v. Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., Case No. CV 09-01234 (GHK)," is pending in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California. On Feb. 20, 2009, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc. in the Central District of California. Plaintiff purports to represent a nationwide class of consumers consisting of "all persons who inadvertently purchased tickets from TicketsNow.com as a result of deceptive and unfair business practices engaged in by Ticketmaster Entertainment between Jan. 1, 2005 to the present and who were damaged thereby." The plaintiff claims that Ticketmaster Entertainment violated California's Business and Professions code by redirecting consumers from Ticketmaster.com to Ticketsnow.com, thereby engaging in false advertising and an unfair business practice by deceiving consumers into inadvertently purchasing tickets from TicketsNow for amounts greater than face value. The plaintiff claims Ticketmaster Entertainment has been unjustly enriched by this conduct and seeks compensatory damages, a refund to every class member of the difference between face value and the amount paid to TicketsNow, an injunction preventing Ticketmaster Entertainment from engaging in further unfair business practices with TicketsNow, and attorney fees and costs, according to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., formerly Ticketmaster, -- http://www.ticketmaster.com-- is a live ticketing and marketing company. It operates in approximately 20 countries worldwide, providing ticket sales, ticket resale services, marketing and distribution through www.ticketmaster.com, one of the largest e- commerce sites on the internet, and related proprietary internet and mobile channels, approximately 7,100 independent sales outlets and 17 call centers worldwide. TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Schlessinger Seeks to Amend Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The motion for leave to file a second amended complaint in "Curt Schlessinger et al. v. Ticketmaster, No. BC304565," is pending, according to Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc.'s March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. On Oct. 21, 2003, a purported representative action was filed in California state court, challenging Ticketmaster Entertainment's charges to online customers for UPS ticket delivery. The complaint alleged in essence that it is unlawful for Ticketmaster Entertainment not to disclose on its website that the fee it charges to online customers to have their tickets delivered by UPS contains a profit component. The complaint asserted a claim for violation of Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code and sought restitution or disgorgement of the difference between (i) the total UPS delivery fees charged by Ticketmaster Entertainment in connection with online ticket sales during the applicable statute of limitations period, and (ii) the amount Ticketmaster Entertainment paid to UPS for that service. On Aug. 31, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended class-action and representative-action complaint alleging (i) as before, that Ticketmaster Entertainment's website disclosures in respect of its charges for UPS ticket delivery violate Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code, and (ii) for the first time, that Ticketmaster Entertainment's website disclosures in respect of its ticket order-processing fees constitute false advertising in violation of Section 17500 of the California Business and Professions Code. On this latter claim, the amended complaint seeks restitution or disgorgement of the entire amount of order-processing fees charged by Ticketmaster Entertainment during the applicable statute of limitations period. On Aug. 14, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which Ticketmaster Entertainment opposed. On Sept. 25, 2006, Ticketmaster Entertainment filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which the plaintiffs opposed. On Nov. 21, 2006, Ticketmaster Entertainment requested that the court stay the case pending the California Supreme Court's decisions in two cases (In re Tobacco II Cases, 142 Cal. App. 4th 891, and Pfizer Inc. v. Superior Court (Galfano), 141 Cal. App. 4th 290) that present issues concerning the interpretation of Proposition 64 that are directly pertinent to both of the pending motions. The plaintiffs opposed Ticketmaster Entertainment's request. On Nov. 29, 2006, the court ordered that the case be stayed pending the California Supreme Court's ruling on the two cases. On July 11, 2007, the court lifted its stay of the action for the limited purpose of allowing the plaintiffs to proceed with their motion for class certification. The parties thereafter submitted supplemental briefing in support of their respective positions and argued the motion at a September 20 hearing. On Dec. 19, 2007, the court issued an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification without prejudice. The court also issued an order staying the action for an additional 180 days or until the California Supreme Court issues a ruling in the Tobacco II and Pfizer appeals. Oral argument in the Tobacco II case took place on March 3, 2009. On Feb. 20, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, which purports to add the allegation that Ticketmaster Entertainment's order processing fees are unconscionably high. Ticketmaster Entertainment opposed the motion on March 16, 2009. The hearing is scheduled for April 1, 2009. Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., formerly Ticketmaster, -- http://www.ticketmaster.com-- is a live ticketing and marketing company. It operates in approximately 20 countries worldwide, providing ticket sales, ticket resale services, marketing and distribution through www.ticketmaster.com, one of the largest e- commerce sites on the internet, and related proprietary internet and mobile channels, approximately 7,100 independent sales outlets and 17 call centers worldwide. UNITED COMPONENTS: Bids to Junk Purchasers Amended Suits Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Motions to dismiss the U.S. direct and indirect purchasers' amended purported class-action complaints, which name United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion Laboratories Inc., as defendant, remain pending. According to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the class actions allege conspiracy violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, related to aftermarket oil, air, fuel and transmission filters. Direct Purchaser Litigation As of March 15, 2009, the company and Champion have been named as two of multiple defendants in 23 complaints originally filed in the District of Connecticut, the District of New Jersey, the Middle District of Tennessee and the Northern District of Illinois, related to aftermarket oil, air, fuel and transmission filters. Eight of these complaints also named The Carlyle Group as a defendant, but those plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Carlyle from each of those actions without prejudice. Champion, but not United Components, was also named as a defendant in 13 virtually identical actions originally filed in the Northern and Southern Districts of Illinois, and the District of New Jersey. All of these complaints are styled as putative class actions on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased aftermarket filters in the U.S. directly from the defendants, or any of their predecessors, parents, subsidiaries or affiliates, at any time during the period from Jan. 1, 1999 to the present. Each case seeks damages, including statutory treble damages, an injunction against future violations, costs and attorney's fees. On Nov. 26, 2008, all of the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint. This complaint names Champion as one of multiple defendants, but it does not name United Components. The complaint is styled as a putative class action and alleges conspiracy violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The direct purchaser plaintiffs seek damages, including statutory treble damages, an injunction against future violations, costs and attorney's fees. On Feb. 2, 2009, Champion filed its answer to the direct purchasers' Consolidated Amended Complaint. Indirect Purchaser Litigation United Components and Champion were also named as two of multiple defendants in 17 similar complaints originally filed in the District of Connecticut, the Northern District of California, the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern District of New York by plaintiffs who claim to be indirect purchasers of aftermarket filters. Two of these complaints also named The Carlyle Group as a defendant, but the plaintiffs in both of those actions voluntarily dismissed Carlyle without prejudice. Champion, but not United Components, was also named in three similar actions originally filed in the Eastern District of Tennessee, the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern District of California. These complaints allege conspiracy violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and/or violations of state antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition law. They are styled as putative class actions on behalf of all persons or entities who acquired indirectly aftermarket filters manufactured and/or distributed by one or more of the defendants, their agents or entities under their control, at any time between Jan. 1, 1999 and the present; with the exception of three complaints, which each allege a class period from Jan. 1, 2002 to the present, and one complaint which alleges a class period from the "earliest legal permissible date" to the present. The complaints seek damages, including statutory treble damages, an injunction against future violations, disgorgement of profits, costs and attorney's fees. On Dec. 1, 2008, all of the indirect purchaser plaintiffs, except Gasoline and Automotive Service Dealers of America ("GASDA"), filed a Consolidated Indirect Purchaser Complaint. This complaint names Champion as one of multiple defendants, but it does not name United Components. The complaint is styled as a putative class action and alleges conspiracy violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and violations of state antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition law. The indirect purchaser plaintiffs seek damages, including statutory treble damages, penalties and punitive damages where available, an injunction against future violations, disgorgement of profits, costs and attorney's fees. On Feb. 2, 2009, Champion and the other defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Indirect Purchaser Complaint. On that same date, Champion, United Components and the other defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the GASDA complaint. JPML Order On Aug. 18, 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order transferring the U.S. direct and indirect purchaser aftermarket filters cases to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings before the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. Pursuant to a stipulated agreement between the parties, all defendants produced limited initial discovery on Jan. 30, 2009. The Court has ordered that all further discovery shall be stayed until after it rules on the motions to dismiss. United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs, develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling and engine management products to the automotive, trucking, industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining vehicle markets. The company offers approximately 41,000 part numbers. It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts market, or the aftermarket. Over 85% of its net sales, during the year ended December 2007, were made to vehicle replacement parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original equipment service (OES). Filtration products made up 40.1% of sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products. UNITED COMPONENTS: Unit Faces Purchasers' Lawsuit in California --------------------------------------------------------------- United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion Laboratories, Inc. faces a putative class-action lawsuit filed by purchasers in the Superior Court of California, for the County of Los Angeles, according to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. On Jan. 12, 2009, Champion, but not United Components, was named as one of ten defendants in an action filed in the Superior Court of California, for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of a purported class of direct and indirect purchasers of aftermarket filters. On March 5, 2009, one of the defendants filed a notice of removal to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and then subsequently requested that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfer this case to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs, develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling and engine management products to the automotive, trucking, industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining vehicle markets. The company offers approximately 41,000 part numbers. It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts market, or the aftermarket. Over 85% of its net sales, during the year ended December 2007, were made to vehicle replacement parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original equipment service (OES). Filtration products made up 40.1% of sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products. UNITED COMPONENTS: Unit Faces Suit Over Filters Sale in Ontario --------------------------------------------------------------- United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion Laboratories, Inc., faces a putative class-action suit related to the sale of aftermarket filters in Ontario, Canada. Champion, but not United Components, was also named as one of 14 defendants in a class action filed on May 21, 2008, in Ontario, Canada. This action alleges civil conspiracy, intentional interference with economic interests, and conspiracy violations under the Canadian Competition Act related to the sale of aftermarket filters. The plaintiff seeks joint and several liability against the 14 defendants in the amount of $150 million in general damages and $15 million in punitive damages. The plaintiff is also seeking authorization to have the matter proceed as a class proceeding, which motion has not yet been ruled on, according to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs, develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling and engine management products to the automotive, trucking, industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining vehicle markets. The company offers approximately 41,000 part numbers. It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts market, or the aftermarket. Over 85% of its net sales, during the year ended December 2007, were made to vehicle replacement parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original equipment service (OES). Filtration products made up 40.1% of sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products. UNITED COMPONENTS: Unit Faces Suit Over Filters Sale in Quebec -------------------------------------------------------------- United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion Laboratories, Inc., faces a putative class-action suit related to the sale of aftermarket filters in Quebec, Canada. Champion, but not United Components, was also named as one of five defendants in a class action filed in Quebec, Canada. This action alleges conspiracy violations under the Canadian Competition Act and violations of the obligation to act in good faith (contrary to art. 6 of the Civil Code of Quebec) related to the sale of aftermarket filters. The plaintiff seeks joint and several liability against the five defendants in the amount of $5.0 million in compensatory damages and $1.0 million in punitive damages. The plaintiff is seeking authorization to have the matter continue as a class proceeding, which motion has not yet been ruled on, according to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs, develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling and engine management products to the automotive, trucking, industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining vehicle markets. The company offers approximately 41,000 part numbers. It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts market, or the aftermarket. Over 85% of its net sales, during the year ended Dec., 2007, were made to vehicle replacement parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original equipment service (OES). Filtration products made up 40.1% of sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products. New Securities Fraud Cases AUSTIN CAPITAL: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (http://www.csgrr.com/cases/austincapital/)filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of institutional investors in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors in Austin Capital Management Ltd. hedge funds during the period between January 2, 2005 and December 11, 2008, seeking to recover losses resulting from Austin Capital's placement of significant amounts of investor money into funds managed by Bernard Lawrence Madoff and his firm. The action includes a sub-class of those employee benefit plans which invested with Austin Capital during the Class Period, asserting claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") for breach of fiduciary duty. The complaint charges Austin Capital, its investment managers and its outside auditors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and ERISA. Austin Capital is a limited partnership that oversees hedge fund investment portfolios for individual and institutional clients. The complaint alleges that Austin Capital placed significant amounts of investor money into funds managed by Madoff and his firm. Madoff has now been charged with running what may be the largest Ponzi scheme ever. Unknown to investors in its funds, Austin Capital had invested approximately 7.5% of its funds in Madoff-managed investments. This was contrary to the duties Austin Capital had to its investors of good faith and fair dealing and contrary to the representations Austin Capital had made regarding its processes for selecting fund managers. As a result of defendants' breaches and false statements, Austin Capital investors made additional investments in Austin Capital and/or held interests they would have redeemed. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all investors in Austin Capital hedge funds during the Class Period. For more details, contact: David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058 Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/austincapital/ INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Barroway Topaz Announces Stock Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of purchasers of securities of Insight Enterprises, Inc. (Nasdaq: NSIT) between April 22, 2004 and February 6, 2009 inclusive. The Complaint charges Insight and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Insight provides brand-name information technology hardware, software, and services to large enterprises, small to medium-sized businesses, and public sector institutions in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia-Pacific. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: -- that the Company committed errors in the manner in which it accounted for certain aged trade credits; -- that the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); -- that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On February 9, 2009, the Company shocked investors when it announced that it would be restating previously reported earnings because management had identified errors in the way it historically accounted for certain aged trade credits. Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares declined $2.85 per share, or 43.8 percent, to close on February 9, 2009 at $3.05 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. For more details, contact: Darren J. Check, Esq. David M. Promisloff, Esq. Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 e-mail: info@btkmc.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 * * *