/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090722.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, July 22, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 143 Headlines AMERICAN AIRLINES: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Remains Pending AMERICAN AIRLINES: "LaFlamme" Agrees to Dismiss Claims in Feb. AMERICAN AIRLINES: Still Defending Consolidated Lawsuit Over RPA ATLAS MINING: To Defend Amended Suit by Common Stock Purchasers BARE ESCENTUALS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in California BOSAI MINERALS: Faces Pa. Lawsuit Over Refractory-Grade Bauxite CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Decision in Unpaid Overtime Case Appealed CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Mich. CROWN MEDIA: Faces Securities Lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court CSX CORP: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Still Pending in Columbia DUANE READE: July 28 Hearing Set for Appeal to Medi-Span Deal DUANE READE: July 28 Trial Set for Bid v. First Data Bank Deal FIBERNET TELECOM: To Defend "Chen" Civil Complaint in New York FIRST ADVANTAGE: Faces Del. Lawsuit Over First American Takeover FUWEI FILMS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York HARLEY INTERNATIONAL: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Madoff Investments JASPER COUNTY: Mo. Judge Recuses Self From Suit v. Rita Hunter KBR INC: Faces Okla. Lawsuit Over Burn Pits in Iraq, Afghanistan MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Faces Fla. Suit Over Side Effects of Zicam MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Faces Fla. Suit Over Side Effects of Zicam MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Ariz. MAXIM INTEGRATED: Some Claims in Calif. Backdating Lawsuit Nixed MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Appeal in Calif. DRAM Antitrust Cases Pending MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Approval to Settlement of SRAM Suits Pending MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Canadian DRAM Antitrust Suits Still Pending MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Consolidated Securities Suit Remains Pending MICRON TECHNOLOGY: SRAM Antitrust Suits Still Pending in Canada MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Price-Fixing Lawsuits in Canada NEW JERSEY: State Troopers Challenge Mandatory Retirement Policy NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Del. Lawsuit Over Hisamitsu Merger WILLIS GROUP: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Over R. Allen Stanford Scheme * 2009 Securities Class Actions Filings Decline, Report Says New Securities Fraud Cases BARE ESCENTUALS: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Izard Nobel Announces Stock Suit Filing MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Faruqi & Faruqi Announces Stock Suit Filing MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Izard Nobel Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing ********* AMERICAN AIRLINES: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated class action lawsuit captioned "In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation, 06-MD-1775," remains pending, according to American Airlines, Inc.'s July 15, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Forty-five purported class action lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. against the company and certain foreign and domestic air carriers alleging that the defendants violated U.S. antitrust laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and surcharges on cargo shipments. These cases, along with other purported class action lawsuits in which the company was not named, were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York as "In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation, 06-MD-1775," on June 20, 2006. Plaintiffs are seeking trebled money damages and injunctive relief. The company has not been named as a defendant in the consolidated complaint filed by the plaintiffs. However, the plaintiffs have not released any claims that they may have against the company, and the company may later be added as a defendant in the litigation. If the company is sued on these claims, it will vigorously defend the suit, but any adverse judgment could have a material adverse impact on the Company. American Airlines, Inc. -- http://www.aa.com/index.jhtml/-- is the principal subsidiary of AMR Corp. All of American's common stock is owned by AMR. American is a scheduled passenger airline. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, American provided scheduled jet service to approximately 150 destinations throughout North America, the Caribbean, Latin America, Europe and Asia. American is also a scheduled air freight carrier, providing a range of freight and mail services to shippers throughout its system onboard American's passenger fleet. In September 2008, the company announced that it has completed the sale of American Beacon Advisors, Inc., its wholly owned asset- management subsidiary, to Lighthouse Holdings, Inc. AMERICAN AIRLINES: "LaFlamme" Agrees to Dismiss Claims in Feb. -------------------------------------------------------------- American Airlines, Inc., says in its Form 10-Q filing dated July 15, 2009, that it will defend itself in the event that the Turner plaintiffs pursue their claims or the LaFlamme plaintiffs re-file claims against the company. Two purported class-action lawsuits over allegations that the company violated U.S. antitrust laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and surcharges for passenger transportation in Japan and Germany, were respectively filed on March 13, 2008, and March 14, 2008, under the captions: -- "Turner v. American Airlines, et al., Civ. No. 08-1444 (N.D. Cal.);" and -- "LaFlamme v. American Airlines, et al., Civ. No. 08- 1079 (E.D.N.Y.)." The plaintiffs in the Turner and LaFlamme cases are seeking trebled money damages and injunctive relief. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 22, 2008) According to the company's July 15, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, the Turner plaintiffs have failed to perfect service against the company, and it is unclear whether they intend to pursue their claims. On Feb. 17, 2009, the LaFlamme plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their claims against the company without prejudice. American Airlines, Inc. -- http://www.aa.com/index.jhtml/-- is the principal subsidiary of AMR Corp. All of American's common stock is owned by AMR. American is a scheduled passenger airline. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, American provided scheduled jet service to approximately 150 destinations throughout North America, the Caribbean, Latin America, Europe and Asia. American is also a scheduled air freight carrier, providing a range of freight and mail services to shippers throughout its system onboard American's passenger fleet. In September 2008, the company announced that it has completed the sale of American Beacon Advisors, Inc., its wholly owned asset- management subsidiary, to Lighthouse Holdings, Inc. AMERICAN AIRLINES: Still Defending Consolidated Lawsuit Over RPA ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Airlines, Inc. and and the Association of Professional Flight Attendants (APFA) continue to defend a consolidated class action complaint regarding a Restructuring Participation Agreement (RPA). On July 12, 2004, a consolidated class action complaint that was subsequently amended on Nov. 30, 2004, was filed against American and the APFA, the union which represents American's flight attendants (Ann M. Marcoux, et al., v. American Airlines Inc., et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York). While a class has not yet been certified, the lawsuit seeks on behalf of all of American's flight attendants or various subclasses to set aside and to obtain damages allegedly resulting from the April 2003 Collective Bargaining Agreement referred to as the RPA. The RPA was one of three labor agreements American successfully reached with its unions in order to avoid filing for bankruptcy in 2003. In a related case (Sherry Cooper, et al. v. TWA Airlines, LLC, et al., also in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York), the court denied a preliminary injunction against implementation of the RPA on June 30, 2003. The Marcoux suit alleges various claims against the APFA and American relating to the RPA and the ratification vote on the RPA by individual APFA members, including: violation of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) and the APFA's Constitution and By-laws, violation by the APFA of its duty of fair representation to its members, violation by American of provisions of the Railway Labor Act (RLA) through improper coercion of flight attendants into voting or changing their vote for ratification, and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970 (RICO). On March 28, 2006, the district court dismissed all of various state law claims against American, all but one of the LMRDA claims against the APFA, and the claimed violations of RICO. On July 22, 2008, the district court granted summary judgment to American and APFA concerning the remaining claimed violations of the RLA and the duty of fair representation against American and the APFA (as well as one LMRDA claim and one claim against the APFA of a breach of its constitution). On Aug. 20, 2008, a notice of appeal was filed on behalf of the purported class of flight attendants. According to American Airlines' July 15, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, a final adverse court decision invalidating the RPA and awarding substantial money damages would have a material adverse impact on the company. American Airlines, Inc. -- http://www.aa.com/index.jhtml/-- is the principal subsidiary of AMR Corp. All of American's common stock is owned by AMR. American is a scheduled passenger airline. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, American provided scheduled jet service to approximately 150 destinations throughout North America, the Caribbean, Latin America, Europe and Asia. American is also a scheduled air freight carrier, providing a range of freight and mail services to shippers throughout its system onboard American's passenger fleet. In September 2008, the company announced that it has completed the sale of American Beacon Advisors, Inc., its wholly owned asset- management subsidiary, to Lighthouse Holdings, Inc. ATLAS MINING: To Defend Amended Suit by Common Stock Purchasers --------------------------------------------------------------- Atlas Mining Company's management intends to defend an amended class action complaint filed on behalf of purchasers of the company publicly traded common stock during the period Jan. 19, 2005 through Oct. 8, 2007. The company, certain of its directors and former officers and employees, its prior auditor, Chisolm, Bierwolf & Nilson, LLC, and Nano Clay and Technologies, Inc., its defunct, wholly owned subsidiary, are defendants in a class action filed on Oct. 11, 2007, on behalf of purchasers of the company publicly traded common stock during the period Jan. 19, 2005 through Oct. 8, 2007. The First Amended Complaint alleges that the company damaged purchasers by making material misstatements in publicly disseminated press releases and Securities and Exchange Commission filings regarding the extent of the halloysite deposit on company property, the availability and quality of halloysite for sale, and claimed sales of halloysite. The Complaint also alleges that the company improperly manipulated reported earnings with respect to purported halloysite sales and misrepresentations by the individual defendants as to our financial statements. The plaintiffs seek remedies under Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The company's former officers and employees have requested, with respect to this action, payment of their attorneys' fees and indemnification. Lead counsel in this case has been selected, according to the company's July 15, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Atlas Mining Company -- http://www.atlasmining.com-- is a natural resources company engaged in the acquisition, exploration and development of its resource properties in the states of Idaho and Utah. The company also provides contract mining services and specialized civil construction services for mine operators, exploration companies and the construction and natural resources industries through its trade name Atlas Fausett Contracting (AFC). AFC performs site evaluation, feasibility studies, trouble-shooting and consultation prior to the undertaking of exploration and mine development. The company also operates in timber industry. The company contracts its logging to a qualified logger when it is selling the timber. Its property consists primarily of pine, fir and larch. The company's major mining properties include Shoshone County, Idaho, and Juab County, Utah. BARE ESCENTUALS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- An investor with Bare Escentuals, Inc. (Nasdaq: BARE) has filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Bare Escentuals between November 7, 2006 and November 26, 2007, alleging the company violated Federal Securities Laws. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Bare Escentuals, Inc. (Nasdaq: BARE) between November 7, 2006 and November 26, 2007, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint charges Bare Escentuals and certain of its executives with violations of the Exchange Act. Bare Escentuals, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the development, marketing, and sale of cosmetics, and skin care and body care products under bareMinerals, RareMinerals, Buxom, and md formulations brands worldwide. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's true financial condition, business and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose the following adverse facts, among others: -- that the Company's infomercial business was not performing according to internal expectations and would need to be substantially revamped; -- that the Company's new infomercial had led to an immediate decrease in sales and was not performing to internal expectations; and -- as a result, the Company's growth rate would be slowing from historical growth rates. On August 1, 2007, Bare Escentuals announced its financial results for the second quarter of fiscal 2007, the period ended July 1, 2007. That same day, the Company held a conference call with investors and analysts to discuss the Company's earnings and operations, during which it was revealed that its infomercial sales were weakening. In response to this announcement, the price of Bare Escentuals common stock fell $3.55 per share, or approximately 13%, to close at $24.75 per share, on extremely heavy trading volume. On October 31, 2007, Bare Escentuals announced its financial results for the third quarter of fiscal 2007, the period ended September 30, 2007. Following the press release, the Company held a conference call with investors and analysts to discuss the Company's earnings and operations, during which it was revealed that the Company had seen continued weakness in its infomercial business. In response to this announcement, the price of Bare Escentuals common stock fell $2.24 per share, or approximately 8%, to close at $24.70 per share, on extremely heavy trading volume. Then, on November 26, 2007, the Company announced that President of Wholesale Sales Diane Miles had resigned to "pursue other opportunities, effective immediately," which resulted in shares of the Company's stock falling $3.42 per share over the next two trading days, to close at $19.75 per share on November 28, 2007. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Bare Escentuals common stock during the Class Period. For more details, contact: Darren J. Robbins, 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/bareescentuals/ BOSAI MINERALS: Faces Pa. Lawsuit Over Refractory-Grade Bauxite --------------------------------------------------------------- The China-based companies of Bosai Minerals Group Co. Ltd. and CMP Tianjin are facing a purported class-action lawsuit that accuses them of engaging in a conspiracy to fix and inflate the price of refractory-grade bauxite sold to a U.S.-based metal refining services company and other purchasers, Law360 reports. The suit was filed by refractory supplier Resco Products Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, according to Law360. CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Decision in Unpaid Overtime Case Appealed ------------------------------------------------------------ A national class action against Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) for unpaid overtime is being appealed to the Ontario Divisional Court. On June 18, 2009, Ontario Superior Court Justice Joan Lax refused to certify the case as a class action. The Court was of the opinion that the claims of the class members were not sufficiently common but, rather, the causes of overtime were individual in nature. Dara Fresco, the proposed representative Plaintiff is asking, on behalf of thousands of current and former CIBC employees, that the Divisional Court overturn Justice Lax's ruling and to certify the case as a class action. "My experience from working in a dozen branches of the CIBC is that unpaid overtime is a regular occurrence at the branches. Hundreds of CIBC employees from across the country have contacted me and my lawyers and confirmed that it is their experience as well," said Ms. Fresco. "If affected employees at CIBC and elsewhere are to have a meaningful way to address these issues, I believe that the appeal court needs to understand the nature of the work environments and the position of the employees, and needs to certify this case as a class action." Louis Sokolov, one of Ms. Fresco's lawyers said "Many of the most significant class action decisions in Ontario were initially denied but later reversed on appeal. We believe that there are compelling reasons to certify this case as a class action and are hopeful that the appeal court will do so." Ms. Fresco's lawyers are required to file the materials in support of her appeal by the end of August, following which CIBC will have 60 days respond. For more details, contact: Louis Sokolov Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP Phone: (416) 979-6439 CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Mich. -------------------------------------------------------------- An investor has filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan behalf of certain investors of Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd. (AMEX: CPD) over potential claims against the company, concerning possible securities violations related to public statements made by the Company between May 29, 2008 and June 25, 2009. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased the securities of Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. (AMEX: CPD), between May 29, 2008 and June 25, 2009, inclusive. The Complaint charges Caraco and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Caraco is engaged primarily in the business of developing, manufacturing, marketing and distributing generic and private- label pharmaceuticals to the nation's largest wholesalers, distributors, warehousing and non-warehousing chain drugstores and managed care providers, throughout the U.S. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning Caraco's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants' public statements were false and misleading or failed to disclose or indicate, among other things, the following: -- that the Company failed to meet the United States Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) current Good Manufacturing Practice ("cGMP") requirements; -- that the Company failed to take corrective measures in order to have its manufacturing facilities comply with the FDA's cGMP requirements; -- that the Company had failed to remedy repeat violations of FDA regulations previously observed and documented by the FDA; -- that the foregoing significantly jeopardized the Company's ability to gain FDA approval of pending new drug applications; and -- as a result of the above, that the Company would have to recall certain products. On June 25, 2009, the FDA announced that U.S. Marshals had seized drug products manufactured by Caraco from the Company's facilities. According to the FDA, this action followed Caraco's continued failure to meet the FDA's cGMP requirements, which assure the quality of manufactured drugs. The FDA stated that through the seizure it sought to immediately stop the Company from further distributing drugs until there is assurance that Caraco complies with good manufacturing requirements. On this news, shares of Caraco declined $1.79 per share, or approximately 43%, to close on June 25, 2009, at $2.39 per share, on unusually heavy volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. For more details, contact: Michael Goldberg, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP Los Angeles, CA Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224 e-mail: info@glancylaw.com Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com CROWN MEDIA: Faces Securities Lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crown Media Holdings, Inc. faces a securities class action lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery on July 13, 2009. The lawsuit was brought against each member of the Board of Directors of Crown Media Holdings, Inc., Hallmark Cards, Incorporated and its affiliates, as well as the company as a nominal defendant, by a minority stockholder of the company regarding the recapitalization proposal which the company received from Hallmark Cards, Incorporated. The plaintiff is S. Muoio & Co. LLC which owns beneficially approximately 5.8% of the company's Class A common stock, according to the complaint and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Proposal, which the company publicly announced on May 28, 2009, provides for a recapitalization of its outstanding debt to Hallmark Cards affiliates in exchange for new debt and convertible preferred stock of the company. The lawsuit claims to be a derivative action and a class action on behalf of the plaintiff and other minority stockholders of the company. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that, the defendants have breached fiduciary duties owed to the company and minority stockholders in connection with the Proposal. The lawsuit includes allegations that if the Proposal is consummated, an unfair amount of equity would be issued to the majority stockholders, thereby reducing the minority stockholders' equity and voting interests in the company, and that the majority stockholders would be able to eliminate the minority stockholders through a short-form merger. The complaint requests the court to enjoin the defendants from consummating the Proposal and to award plaintiff fees and expenses incurred in bringing the lawsuit. On July 14, 2009, the company issued a press release announcing that that the Special Committee of its Board of Directors formed to review and consider the Proposal has retained Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated as its independent financial advisor, according to its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated July 15, 2009. Crown Media Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.hallmarkchannel.com/ - - owns and operates a pay television channel, known as the Hallmark Channel dedicated to entertainment programming for adults and families. In addition, the company owns and operates the Hallmark Movie Channel, which is around the clock digital cable network dedicated to offering viewers a collection of movies and mini-series and the Hallmark Movie Channel HD, which was launched in April 2008. Its channels are distributed in the United States and its territories and possessions, including Puerto Rico. Its wholly owned subsidiary is Crown Media United States, LLC. CSX CORP: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Still Pending in Columbia --------------------------------------------------------------- CSX Corp. and other major U.S. railroads continue to face a consolidated class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia over allegations that the individual railroads violated the U.S. antitrust laws. Since May 2007, at least 30 putative class-action lawsuits have been brought by indirect purchasers in various federal district courts against CSX and four other U.S.-based Class I railroads. The lawsuits contain substantially similar allegations to the effect that the defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in violation of antitrust laws. The lawsuits seek unquantified treble damages allegedly sustained by purported class members, attorneys' fees and other relief. All but three of the lawsuits purport to be filed on behalf of a class of shippers that allegedly purchased rail freight transportation services from the defendants through the use of contracts or through other means exempt from rate regulation during defined periods commencing as early as June 2003 and were assessed fuel surcharges. Three of the lawsuits purport to be on behalf of indirect purchasers of rail services. One additional lawsuit has been filed by an individual shipper. The class-action lawsuits have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and oral arguments were heard on Oct. 10, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 22, 2008). The district court has dismissed all of the indirect purchasers causes of action except for injunctive relief. The indirect purchasers have appealed that decision and the district court case has been stayed pending the appeal. The railroads have asked the District Court for the District of Columbia to first proceed with discovery relating to the appropriateness of class certification, and then permit merit discovery only if a class is certified (Class Action Reporter, May 4, 2009). The court denied the railroads' request to first proceed with discovery relating to the appropriateness of class certification, and then permit merits discovery only if a class is certified. The court, however, agreed with the railroads that class certification should be decided as early as possible, rejecting plaintiffs' proposal that certification be determined after the close of all discovery and close to trial, according to the company's July 15, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 26, 2009. CSX Corp. -- http://www.csx.com/-- is a transportation company. The company owns companies providing rail, intermodal and rail- to-truck transload services, connecting more than 70 ocean, river and lake ports. CSX operates in two segments: rail and intermodal. DUANE READE: July 28 Hearing Set for Appeal to Medi-Span Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- A July 28, 2009 expedited hearing has been set for the appeal from the approved settlement in Medi-Span's class action lawsuit against Duane Reade Holdings, Inc. over average wholesale price (AWP) reporting, according to the company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated July 15, 2009. In May 2007, Medi-Span, the other primary source of AWP reporting, entered into a similar settlement agreement in connection with a separate class action filed in the U.S. District for the District of Massachusetts subject to final court approval. In January 2008, the court denied approval of the Medi-Span settlement as proposed. Subsequently, a new settlement agreement was submitted to the court. On March 17, 2009, the court issued an order approving the revised settlement. Pursuant to the settlements, as approved, Medi-Span has agreed to reduce the reported AWP for certain drugs by four percent. Separately, and not pursuant to the settlement agreements, Medi- Span has indicated that they will also reduce the reported AWP for a large number of additional drugs not covered by the settlement agreements and that they intend to discontinue the reporting of AWP in the future. Under the terms of the court's decision, the settlement agreement can become effective no earlier than 180 days from the entry of final judgment, which was March 30, 2009. Some parties have appealed the court's ruling. While the court did not grant a stay of the implementation of the settlement, the court granted an expedited hearing on the appeal, which has been set for July 28, 2009. Duane Reade Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.duanereade.com/-- is a drugstore chain in New York City. As of Dec. 27, 2008, the company operated 148 of its 251 stores in Manhattan's business and residential districts. In addition, at Dec. 27, 2008, it operated 77 stores in New York and 26 stores in the New York and New Jersey suburbs, including the Hudson River communities of northeastern New Jersey, as well as Westchester, Nassau and Suffolk counties in New York. As of Dec. 27, 2008, the company operated 251 stores, 15 of which were opened during the fiscal year ended December 27, 2008 (fiscal 2008). It closed six stores, during fiscal 2008. As of Dec. 27, 2008, approximately 59% of its stores were in Manhattan, 31% were in the outer boroughs of New York City and 10% were located outside New York City. As of Dec. 27, 2008, the company occupied 1.7 million square feet of retail space. DUANE READE: July 28 Trial Set for Bid v. First Data Bank Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- An expedited hearing has been set for July 28, 2009, on the appeal from the approved settlement in First Data Bank's class action lawsuit against Duane Reade Holdings, Inc. over average wholesale price (AWP) reporting. In October 2006, in connection with a class action filed in the U.S. District for the District of Massachusetts, First Data Bank, which is one of two primary sources of AWP of drugs price reporting, announced that it had entered into a settlement agreement related to its reporting of average wholesale prices, subject to final court approval. Under the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, First Data Bank agreed to reduce the reported AWP of certain drugs by four percent and to discontinue the publishing of AWP at a future time. In January 2008, the court denied approval of the First Data Bank settlement as proposed. Subsequently, a new settlement agreement was submitted to the court. On March 17, 2009, the court issued an order approving the revised settlement. Pursuant to the settlements, as approved, First Data Bank has agreed to reduce the reported AWP for certain drugs by four percent. Separately, and not pursuant to the settlement agreements, First Data Bank has indicated that they will also reduce the reported AWP for a large number of additional drugs not covered by the settlement agreements and that they intend to discontinue the reporting of AWP in the future. Under the terms of the court's decision, the settlement agreement can become effective no earlier than 180 days from the entry of final judgment, which was March 30, 2009. Some parties have appealed the court's ruling. While the court did not grant a stay of the implementation of the settlement, the court granted an expedited hearing on the appeal, which has been set for July 28, 2009, according to the company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated July 15, 2009. Duane Reade Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.duanereade.com/-- is a drugstore chain in New York City. As of Dec. 27, 2008, the company operated 148 of its 251 stores in Manhattan's business and residential districts. In addition, at Dec. 27, 2008, it operated 77 stores in New York and 26 stores in the New York and New Jersey suburbs, including the Hudson River communities of northeastern New Jersey, as well as Westchester, Nassau and Suffolk counties in New York. As of Dec. 27, 2008, the company operated 251 stores, 15 of which were opened during the fiscal year ended December 27, 2008 (fiscal 2008). It closed six stores, during fiscal 2008. As of Dec. 27, 2008, approximately 59% of its stores were in Manhattan, 31% were in the outer boroughs of New York City and 10% were located outside New York City. As of Dec. 27, 2008, the company occupied 1.7 million square feet of retail space. FIBERNET TELECOM: To Defend "Chen" Civil Complaint in New York -------------------------------------------------------------- FiberNet Telecom Group, Inc. intends to defend a putative class action complaint captioned, "Chen v. DeLuca, et al.," filed in the Supreme Court of New York for the County of New York. On July 10, 2009, the civil action was filed against the company and its directors, as well as Zayo Group, LLC ("Zayo Group") and Zayo Merger Sub, Inc., a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Zayo Group ("Merger Sub"). The action was brought by a purported stockholder of the company, on behalf of a putative class of company stockholders, and, among other things, seeks to enjoin the consummation of the merger of Merger Sub with and into the company (the "Merger") and seeks an award of monetary damages, costs and an accounting for all profits and any special benefits obtained by the defendants as a result of the proposed Merger. Plaintiff alleges that the decisions by the company's directors to approve the Merger constituted breaches of their respective fiduciary duties because they failed to engage in an honest and fair sales process and failed to disclose material facts regarding the proposed Merger. Plaintiff also contends that the company, Zayo Group and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the company's directors, according to the company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated July 14, 2009. FiberNet Telecom Group, Inc. -- http://www.ftgx.com/-- provides interconnection services enabling the exchange of voice, video and data traffic between multiple, global networks. The Company owns and operates colocation facilities and diverse transport routes in the gateway markets of New York/New Jersey, Los Angeles, Chicago and Miami. The Company's network infrastructure and facilities are designed to provide broadband interconnectivity for network operators, including domestic and international telecommunications carriers and service providers. In its network-neutral colocation facilities, FiberNet provides racks, cabinets and customized caged spaces for its customers to deploy networking equipment and establish network points of presence. The facilities are located in the carrier hotels of gateway markets. The Company also provides redundant power systems, environmental controls and security for customers' colocation needs at these network aggregation points. FIRST ADVANTAGE: Faces Del. Lawsuit Over First American Takeover ---------------------------------------------------------------- An investor with First Advantage Corporation (NASDAQ: FADV) has filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware behalf of current investors of the company, who own the Class A common stock of First Advantage, over alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of state law in connection with an alleged unfair takeover price that was announced. According to the complaint, "The Proposed Transaction significantly undervalues First Advantage. First American has chosen this particular moment in time to buy out First Advantage's minority shareholders in breach of the fiduciaries duties it owes to them." The complaint alleges that the Proposed Transaction is not entirely fair and is an opportunistic attempt by First American to benefit itself at the expense of First Advantage's shareholders, to whom it owes fiduciary duties." The First American Corporation (NYSE: FAF), America's largest provider of business information, announced on Monday, June 29, 2009, that it has made an offer to acquire the remaining shares of its 74% owned subsidiary, First Advantage Corp. Under the terms of the offer, First Advantage's shareholders would receive, at a fixed exchange ratio, 0.5375 of a share of First American common stock for each share of First Advantage common stock. The proposed exchange ratio represents an offer price of $14.04 per share and a 10.2 percent premium to First Advantage's stock price, based on First American's and First Advantage's closing stock prices on Friday, June 26, 2009. The offer values First Advantage at $837 million. Since First American already owns approximately 74% of Frist Advantage the remaining value for First American to takeover First Advantage is with 59.76 million shares in total presently with 15.537 6million shares (26% remaining outstanding shares) at $14.04 per share $218.148 million. First Advantage said the offer is being reviewed by a committee of independent directors. FUWEI FILMS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York ---------------------------------------------------------- Fuwei Films (Holdings) Co. Ltd. (Nasdaq: FFHL), a manufacturer and distributor of high-quality BOPET plastic films in China, announced that the Company has received a Memorandum and Order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York regarding the shareholder class action suit. On March 14, 2008, a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed against Fuwei, certain of its present and former officers, directors, and shareholders, and the underwriters for Fuwei's December 19, 2006 initial public offering, alleging that the Registration Statement and Prospectus contained materially false and misleading information in violation of federal securities laws. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the Complaint on May 14, 2008. At this preliminary stage of the litigation, the Court is required to assume that the facts alleged by the plaintiffs are true and must draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs' favor. Applying that standard, the Court granted the defendants' motions in part and denied them in part. The Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims to the extent they were based upon Fuwei's alleged failure to disclose the DMT arbitration proceeding. The Court also dismissed certain of plaintiffs' claims to the extent they were brought on behalf of shareholders who did not purchase their shares directly in the IPO. The Court sustained plaintiffs' remaining claims. However, the Court noted that the defendants may be able to assert affirmative defenses provided by the federal securities laws in a motion for summary judgment, which could resolve the case before trial. Now that the motions to dismiss have been ruled upon, the defendants must submit responsive pleadings to the Complaint and discovery will proceed. HARLEY INTERNATIONAL: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Madoff Investments ---------------------------------------------------------------- Harley International Ltd., a hedge fund run by Cayman Island- based Euro-Dutch Management Ltd., is facing a purported class- action lawsuit alleging that the fund and its managers and advisers breached their fiduciary duties to investors by failing to recognize clear signs that Bernard L. Madoff was operating a Ponzi scheme, Law360 reports. The suit was filed on July 17, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by Tradex Global Master Fund SPC Ltd., under the caption, Tradex Global Master Fund SPC Ltd. v. Inder Rieden et al, Case No. 1:2009-cv-06395." Listed as defendants are Anthony L.M. Inder Rieden, Dawn E. Davies, Euro-Dutch Management Ltd., Aspen International Investment Ltd., Ernst & Young, Ernst & Young L.L.P., Harley International (Cayman) Ltd. and Fix Asset Management. For more details, contact: Thomas George Ciarlone, Jr., Esq. (tciarlone@lawssb.com) Shalov Stone & Bonner & Rucco LLP 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000 New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 239-4340 Fax: (212) 239-4310 JASPER COUNTY: Mo. Judge Recuses Self From Suit v. Rita Hunter -------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit challenging fees charged by Rita Hunter as Jasper County public administrator will be heard by a judge outside the county, after Presiding Judge David Dally recused himself form the case on July 17, 2009, Susan Redden writes for The Joplin Globe. The Missouri Supreme Court will be asked to assign a judge to the case, Judge Dally said after a brief hearing, according to The Joplin Globe. Debby Woodin of The Joplin Globe previously reported a class- action lawsuit was filed asking that Jasper County public administrator Rita Hunter be removed as conservator of her 450 to 500 clients or be ordered to refund any fees she has charged them that the court deems excessive (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 1, 2008). The report relates that the lawsuit was brought by the same attorney who won dismissal of criminal charges against a California woman and her husband who had been charged with kidnapping the woman's Carthage mother while she was a ward of the public administrator. The attorney, R. Lynn Myers, of Springfield, filed the lawsuit against the public administrator over the case. Mr. Myers said that he has studied about 90 of the probate court files of public-administrator cases since he initially took the case of 95-year-old Emma France and her 67-year-old daughter, Dolores Forste. According to Joplin Globe, one of the issues in the lawsuit is an allegation that Ms. Hunter was careless in obtaining guardianship and conservatorship, and that she charged Ms. France about $4,500 for her services. Mr. Myers said he believes that fees have been charged other clients, too, beyond what state law allows. Mr. Myers added that the fees set by Ms. Hunter have increased about 400% over those charged by her predecessor. Ms. Hunter is double-billing some clients, he alleges, by charging fees for some of her work or a deputy clerk's work when she is paid a salary by the county to provide those services. Mr. Myers also pointed out that under Missouri law, public administrators generally are allowed to either collect a salary or charge fees for services, but not both, though there are certain exceptions. The law does allow some special fees to be charged by salaried administrators for things such as attorney bills, he said. He also believes there must be a contract in place that specifies the services and fees to be charged. "I think you have to establish the standards the public administrator can use to charge" clients, Mr. Myers said. "The administrator is there to be the safety net. They're there to catch those without families or the indigent," and the service should not be used as a profit center for county operations, he said. He further noted that the office has generated about $400,000 for county coffers since Ms. Hunter took office in 2005. Joplin Globe says that Ms. Hunter, who is a candidate for re- election facing two Republican opponents in the Aug. 5 primary, said she had not yet been served with a copy of the lawsuit as of Wednesday afternoon. "I know nothing about this until I'm actually served," she said, adding that her attorney would not be aware of it yet either. "I have no comment," she said, though she did question the timing of the lawsuit coming less than a week before the primary election and asked how reporters knew about the lawsuit. Mr. Myers told Joplin Globe that the timing is just coincidental. Mr. Myers clarified that he is not asking that Ms. Hunter be removed as guardian of her cases. In Missouri, guardians make decisions for the person, such as granting permission for medical care or placement for housing, and the role as conservator is a separate function to manage a person's money and property. Courts may limit powers to the role of one or the other, depending on the need of a client. Mr. Myers also said he started looking into fees charged in other cases after he had Ms. France released from Ms. Hunter's oversight and the criminal charges dismissed. The report relates that Ms. France asked her daughter to take her home with her, and when the daughter did take her mother to California, she and her husband were charged with interfering with custody and other crimes. The report recalls that all the charges eventually were dismissed when Mr. Myers showed that Ms. France was not in need of a guardian, and that state law was not followed in making her a ward of the public administrator. KBR INC: Faces Okla. Lawsuit Over Burn Pits in Iraq, Afghanistan ---------------------------------------------------------------- KBR, Inc., Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc., Kellogg, Brown & Root LLC and Halliburton Co. are facing a purported class- action lawsuit filed by two Oklahoma veterans of the war in Iraq, who are claiming that the companies "callously exposed and continue to expose soldiers and others to toxic smoke, ash and fumes" in Iraq and Afghanistan, David Harper of Tulsa World reports. The suit was filed on July 16, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma by David Green and Nick Daniel Heisler, under the caption, "Green et al v. KBR, Inc. et al, Case No. 4:2009-cv-00459." Mr. Green of Miami, Okla., and Mr. Heisler of Lawton say in the lawsuit that they are seeking "redress for American soldiers and others deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan who were poisoned" by the companies, according to Tulsa World. The lawsuit alleges "the defendants were paid millions of dollars by the United States government to dispose of waste on bases and camps in Iraq and Afghanistan. Defendants promised to dispose of all waste in a method designed to minimize safety risks, to minimize the environmental effects of any burn site they operated and to minimize any type of smoke exposure to people" in and around the area, reports Tulsa World. According to the complaint though, "the defendants utterly failed to fulfill any of the promises they made to the United States government." "This misconduct began in 2004 and continues unabated," it states. Tulsa World reported that the plaintiffs claim the "defendants operated burn pits that released known carcinogens and respiratory sensitizers into the air, creating a severe health hazard for plaintiffs and all people located near the burn pits, potentially causing both acute and chronic health problems." The complaint asks for sufficient "monetary damages to compensate each plaintiff for his or her physical injuries, emotional distress, fear of future disease and need for continued medical treatment and monitoring." Beyond that, the lawsuit asks the plaintiffs be awarded "punitive damages in an amount sufficient to strip defendants of all the revenue and profits earned from their pattern of constant, wanton and outrageous misconduct and callous disregard and utter indifference to the welfare of Americans serving and working in Iraq and Afghanistan," Tulsa World reports. For more details, contact: Elizabeth M. Burke, Esq. Genevieve McCormack Burke O'Neil LLC 1000 Potomac St Ste 150 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: 202-232-5504 Fax: 202-232-5513 - and - Armando J. Rosell, Esq. (rosell@lawokc.com) Mulinix Ogden Hall Andrews & Ludlam PLLC 210 Park Ave Ste 3030 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: 405-232-3800 Fax: 405-232-8999 MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Faces Fla. Suit Over Side Effects of Zicam --------------------------------------------------------------- Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit over its Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Gel product, which the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based recalled in June, after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned that some users were experiencing loss of smell, Paul Brinkmann of bizjournals.com reports. The suit was filed on July 1, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Laura Gonzalez-Jones, under the caption, "Gonzalez-Jones v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., Case No. 1:09-cv-21836-CMA." Ms. Gonzales-Jones of Miami, alleges negligence and product liability, stating that she lost her sense of smell after using Zicam, according to bizjournals.com. For more details, contact: Sarah Clasby Engel, Esq. (sengel@harkeclasby.com) Harke & Clasby 155 S Miami Avenue Suite 600 Miami, FL 33130 Phone: 305-536-8220 Fax: 305-536-8229 (fax) MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Faces Fla. Suit Over Side Effects of Zicam --------------------------------------------------------------- Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. and CVS Caremark Corp. are facing a purported class-action lawsuit over its Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Gel product, which the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based recalled in June, after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warned that some users were experiencing loss of smell, Paul Brinkmann of bizjournals.com reports. The suit was filed on July 16, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Katherine Jane Phodes and her husband, David Holtzman, under the caption, "Phodes et al v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et al, Case no. 1:2009-cv- 22032." The suit alleges that the plaintiff lost her sense of smell after using Zicam. That suit also names as a defendant CVS Caremark Corp., where the product was purchased, according to bizjournals.com. It seeks reimbursement for medical expenses and damages for pain and suffering, among other things, reports bizjournals.com. For more details, contact: Seth Eric Miles, Esq. (sem@grossmanroth.com) Grossman Roth, P.A. 2525 Ponce De Leon Blvd. Suite 1150 Miami, FL 33134 Phone: 305-442-8666 Fax: 305-285-1668 MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Ariz. --------------------------------------------------------------- An investor with Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. (NASDAQ: MTXX) has filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of shareholders of Matrixx Initiatives, who purchased Matrixx stock between December 22, 2007 and June 15, 2009, in relation to Matrixx Initiatives alleged violations of FDA regulations involving the Zicam Cold Remedy products. Saxena White P.A. has filed suit on behalf of shareholders of Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. (NASDAQ: MTXX) in relation to the Company's alleged violations of FDA regulations involving the Zicam Cold Remedy products. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona and seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who purchased Matrixx stock between December 22, 2007 and June 15, 2009, inclusive. Matrixx is a nutrient and drug delivery company that develops, manufactures and markets delivery systems for bioactive compounds. The Company, through its subsidiary, produces, markets and sells, among other pharmaceutical products, Zicam Cold Remedy nasal gel, Zicam Cold Remedy gel swabs, and Zicam Cold Remedy children's swabs. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts concerning the Company's operational well-being and future prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose or indicate: -- that Matrixx had received notice of hundreds of serious adverse events involving consumers' use of the Zicam Cold Remedy Products; -- that Matrixx failed to report these incidents to the FDA despite having an obligation to do so; -- that the Company failed to comply with FDA regulations despite repeated assurances of its compliance; and -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its meeting FDA regulations were false and misleading when made. As a result of this news, the Company's shares declined $13.46 per share, or an astounding 70 percent, to close on June 16, 2009 at $5.78 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Sept. 15, 2009. For more details, contact: Joseph E. White, III, Esq. Greg Stone, Esq. Saxena White P.A. 2424 North Federal Highway Suite 257 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: (561) 394-3399 Fax: (561) 394-3382 Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com MAXIM INTEGRATED: Some Claims in Calif. Backdating Lawsuit Nixed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James Ware of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a number of claims in a proposed securities fraud class-action lawsuit against Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., Law360 reports. In an order issued on July 16, 2009, Judge Ware agreed to discard some of the claims in the case, which is alleging the company and several former officers and directors improperly participated in a stock options backdating scheme that artificially pumped up Maxim's stock price, according to Law360. It was previously reported that a motion that sought for the dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud class-action suit against Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. was in California federal court (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 16, 2009). On Feb. 6, 2008, a class-action suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Maxim and its former chief executive officer and former chief financial officer. The complaint alleges that the company and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements and omissions relating to the grants of stock options. It seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased the company's common stock during the period from April 29, 2003 to Jan. 17, 2008, unspecified damages, interest and costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and disbursements. Following stipulations of the parties, a First Consolidated Class Complaint was filed on Dec. 16, 2008, the Court entered a schedule for Defendants' responses to the Complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on Jan. 30, 2009, according to the company's Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 27, 2008. The suit is "In re Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:08-cv-00832-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge James Ware, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Peter Arthur Binkow, Esq. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-201-9150 Fax: 310-201-9160 e-mail: info@glancylaw.com - and - Martin D. Chitwood, Esq. (MChitwood@chitwoodlaw.com) Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP 1230 Peachtree Street, NE Promenade II, Suite 2300 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-873-3900 Fax: 404-876-4476 Representing the defendants are: Thad Alan Davis, Esq. (thaddavis@quinnemanuel.com) Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-443-3000 - and - David Michael Friedman, Esq. (david.friedman@lw.com) Latham & Watkins, LLP 505 Montgomery Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, Ca 94111-2562 Phone: (415) 391-0600 Fax: (415) 395-8095 MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Appeal in Calif. DRAM Antitrust Cases Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs' interlocutory appeal in connection to several purported antitrust class-action lawsuits against Micron Technology, Inc., and other suppliers of dynamic random access memories (DRAM) that were transferred to California for consolidated proceedings remains pending. The purported class-action lawsuits generally allege violations of antitrust statutes. At least 68 purported class-action complaints have been filed against the company and other DRAM suppliers in various federal and state courts in the U.S. and in Puerto Rico on behalf of indirect purchasers alleging price-fixing in violation of federal and state antitrust laws, violations of state unfair competition law, and unjust enrichment relating to the sale and pricing of DRAM products during the period from April 1999 through at least June 2002. Cases have been filed in these states: Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, and West Virginia, and also in the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The complaints purport to be on behalf of a class of individuals and entities that indirectly purchased DRAM and products containing DRAM in the respective jurisdictions during various time periods ranging from April 1999 through at least June 2002. They allege violations of the various jurisdictions' antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition laws relating to the sale and pricing of DRAM products and seek treble monetary damages, restitution, costs, interest and attorneys' fees. A number of these cases have been removed to federal court and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for consolidated proceedings. On Jan. 29, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part the company's motion to dismiss a second amended consolidated complaint in the matter. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion seeking certification for interlocutory appeal of the decision. On Feb. 27, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit accepted the plaintiffs' interlocutory appeal (Class Action Reporter, April 30, 2009). No further developments in the matter were reported in the company's July 14, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 4, 2009. Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a provider of advanced semiconductor solutions. Through its worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge computing, consumer, networking and mobile products. MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Approval to Settlement of SRAM Suits Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- A settlement of the purported antitrust class-action lawsuit filed against Micron Technology, Inc., among others, over the sale of Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) products is pending the U.S. courts approval. Subsequent to the issuance of subpoenas to the SRAM industry, a number of purported class action lawsuits have been filed against the company and other SRAM suppliers. Six cases have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, asserting claims on behalf of a purported class of individuals and entities that purchased SRAM directly from various SRAM suppliers during the period from Nov. 1, 1996 through Dec. 31, 2005. Additionally, at least seventy-four cases have been filed in various U.S. District Courts asserting claims on behalf of a purported class of individuals and entities that indirectly purchased SRAM and/or products containing SRAM from various SRAM suppliers during the time period from Nov. 1, 1996 through Dec. 31, 2006. In September 2008, a class of direct purchasers was certified, and plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their complaint to cover Pseudo-Static RAM or "PSRAM" products as well. The complaints allege price fixing in violation of federal antitrust laws and state antitrust and unfair competition laws and seek treble monetary damages, restitution, costs, interest and attorneys' fees. (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 20, 2009) On March 19, 2009, the company executed settlement agreements with both the direct purchaser class and the purported indirect purchaser class. If approved by the Court, the agreements would resolve the pending U.S. class action SRAM litigation against the company and release Micron from those claims (Class Action Reporter, April 30, 2009). No further developments on the matter were disclosed in the company's July 14, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 4, 2009. Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a provider of advanced semiconductor solutions. Through its worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge computing, consumer, networking and mobile products. MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Canadian DRAM Antitrust Suits Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Micron Technology, Inc., and other suppliers of dynamic random access memories (DRAM) continue to face several purported class- action lawsuits in Canada that allege violations of antitrust statutes. Three purported class-action lawsuits over DRAM have also been filed in Canada, on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, alleging violations of the Canadian Competition Act. The three cases have been filed in these Canadian courts: Superior Court, District of Montreal, Province of Quebec; Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Ontario; and Supreme Court of British Columbia, Vancouver Registry, British Columbia. The suits allege violations of the various jurisdictions' antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition laws relating to the sale and pricing of DRAM products and seek treble monetary damages, restitution, costs, interest and attorneys' fees. In May and June 2008 respectively, the plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied in the British Columbia and Quebec cases. The plaintiffs have filed an appeal of those decisions (Class Action Reporter, April 30, 2009). The company reported no development in the matter in its July 14, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 4, 2009. Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a provider of advanced semiconductor solutions. Through its worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge computing, consumer, networking and mobile products. MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Consolidated Securities Suit Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated securities fraud class-action suit against Micron Technology, Inc. is still pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. On Feb. 24, 2006, a putative class-action complaint was filed against the company and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, alleging claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Four substantially similar complaints subsequently were filed in the same court. The cases purport to be brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the company's stock from Feb. 24, 2001, to Feb. 13, 2003. The five lawsuits have been consolidated and a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed on July 24, 2006. The complaint generally alleges violations of federal securities laws based on, among other things, claimed misstatements or omissions regarding alleged illegal price-fixing conduct. It seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. On Dec. 19, 2007, the Court issued an order certifying the class but reducing the class period to purchasers of the company's stock during the period from Feb. 24, 2001, to Sept. 18, 2002 (Class Action Reporter, April 30, 2009). No further updates regarding the case were reported by the company in its July 14, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 4, 2009. The suit is "City of Roseville et al. v. Micron Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00085-BLW," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, Judge Judge B. Lynn Winmill, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Bruce S. Bistline, Esq. (bbistline@gordonlawoffices.com) Gordon Law Offices 623 W. Hays Boise, ID 83702-5512 Phone: (208) 345-7100 Fax: 1-208-345-0050 - and - Mary Blasy, Esq. (maryb@lerachlaw.com) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP 100 Pine St., Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 288-4545 Fax: 415-288-4534 Representing the defendants are: Douglas W. Greene, Esq. (dgreene@wsgr.com) Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-883-2529 Fax: 208-883-2699 - and - Richard H. Greener Esq. (rgreener@greenerlaw.com) Greener Banducci Shoemaker, P.A. 950 W. Bannock St. 900 Boise, ID 83702 Phone: (208) 319-2600 MICRON TECHNOLOGY: SRAM Antitrust Suits Still Pending in Canada --------------------------------------------------------------- Micron Technology, Inc., along with other Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) suppliers, continues to face a number of purported antitrust class-action lawsuits in Canada over the sale of SRAM. Three purported class-action SRAM lawsuits also have been filed in Canada, on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, alleging violations of the Canadian Competition Act. The substantive allegations in these cases are similar to those asserted in the SRAM cases filed in the U.S. cases (Class Action Reporter, April 30, 2009). The company reported no developments in the matter in its July 14, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 4, 2009. Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a provider of advanced semiconductor solutions. Through its worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge computing, consumer, networking and mobile products. MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Price-Fixing Lawsuits in Canada -------------------------------------------------------------- Micron Technology, Inc. continues to face three purported class- action lawsuits filed in Canada that allege price-fixing of Flash products. The suits assert violations of the Canadian Competition Act. These cases assert claims on behalf of a purported class of individuals and entities that purchased Flash memory directly and indirectly from various Flash memory suppliers (Class Action Reporter, April 30, 2009). The company reported no development in the matter in its July 14, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 4, 2009. Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a provider of advanced semiconductor solutions. Through its worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge computing, consumer, networking and mobile products. NEW JERSEY: State Troopers Challenge Mandatory Retirement Policy ---------------------------------------------------------------- About 120 New Jersey state troopers have filed a purported class-action lawsuit challenging the state's mandatory retirement policy, Business Management Daily reports. Under current state law, state troopers must retire at age 55. The suit calls the policy discriminatory and outdated. According to Business Management Daily. NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Del. Lawsuit Over Hisamitsu Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- An investor has filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit in the Delaware Chancery Court on behalf of current investors of Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: NOVN), who purchased the shares before July 14, 2009, over potential breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of state law in connection with an alleged unfair takeover price. Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Hisamitsu Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. announced on Tuesday, July 14, 2009, that they have entered into a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which Hisamitsu Pharmaceutical offered to acquire Noven Pharmaceutical for total cash consideration of approximately $428 million, or $16.50 per share, in an all-cash tender offer for 100% of the outstanding shares of Noven. The offer price represents a 22% premium to the closing price of Noven's common stock on July 13, 2009. The plaintiff "alleges that The Proposed Transaction reflects a clear effort by Hisamitsu to takeover Noven at an unfair price." The complaint further alleges that "Hisamitsu's offer consideration is only a 22 percent premium over the $13.48 closing price of Noven on the last trading day before the announcement of the Proposed Transaction." The complaint alleges that "the consideration that Hisamitsu has stated it will offer to holders of Noven common stock, and that Noven's Board has accepted in unanimously agreeing to the Proposed Transaction, is unfair and inadequate because, among other things, the intrinsic value of Noven common stock is materially higher than the amount offered, giving due consideration to the Company's growth and operating results and a promising new drug product in its pipeline." WILLIS GROUP: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Over R. Allen Stanford Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- Willis Group Holdings Ltd. and its U.S. subsidiary is facing a lawsuit seeking class-action status for hundreds of Latin American investors, which claims that the London-based insurance broker falsely gave assurances about investments offered by financier R. Allen Stanford, Curt Anderson of The Associated Press reports. The suit was filed on July 17, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern of Florida by Reinaldo Ranni, under the caption, "Ranni v. Willis of Colorado Inc et al, Case No. 1:2009-cv-22085." It also names Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis Group's subsidiary, as a defendant. The lawsuit is seeking unspecified damages. It claims that from 2005 to 2008, Willis provided letters that Mr. Stanford's operations were fully insured and had been independently audited. The lawsuit claims neither was true, according to The Associated Press. Mr. Stanford is accused in a 21-count federal indictment of operating a $7 billion Ponzi scheme that swindled investors, many from Latin America, reports The Associated Press. For more details, contact: Luis Eduardo Delgado, Esq. (ldelgado@homerbonnerlaw.com) Homer Bonner & Delgado 1200 Four Seasons Tower 1441 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 305-350-5100 Fax: 305-379-0918 * 2009 Securities Class Actions Filings Decline, Report Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Federal securities class action activity declined in the first half of 2009, with a particularly significant decline in the second quarter, according to Securities Class Action Filings' 2009: Mid-Year Assessment, an annual report prepared by the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse in cooperation with Cornerstone Research. A total of 87 federal securities class actions were filed in the first half of 2009, a 22.3 percent decline from the 112 filings in both halves of 2008. Only 35 filings were observed in the second quarter, the lowest quarterly total since the first quarter of 2007. Financial services firms are defendants in 66.7 percent of these filings, an increase over the 50.0 percent share of all filings in 2008. This report introduces a new metric, the Class Action Filing-Foreign Index (CAF-F Index), that measures the number of securities class action filings in U.S. federal courts against defendant corporations headquartered outside the United States. Federal securities class action lawsuits against issuers with non-U.S. headquarters ("foreign firms") have been rising for more than a decade and reached 31 filings (13.8 percent of total filings) in 2008, with an average of 18 foreign firms (9.4 percent of total filings) sued in each year since 1997. Thus far in 2009, 18 lawsuits have been filed against foreign firms, representing 20.7 percent of the total. Filings against foreign firms are concentrated in the financial sector, as 41.9 percent of the filings in 2008 and 77.7 percent of the filings in the first half of 2009 were against financial firms. Disclosure Dollar Losses (DDL) totaled only $48 billion, well below the semiannual average of $69 billion. Two-thirds of these losses are generated by two mega-DDL cases with DDLs in excess of $5 billion each. This considerable decline in DDL, and its heavy concentration in two cases, likely reflects lower stock market valuations: prices are declining from a lower base, meaning that investors' losses at the time of disclosure are compressed. Both average and median DDL were also lower in the first half of 2009, but were still higher than the semiannual average for the 12 years ending December 2008. Maximum Dollar Losses (MDL), however, totaled $429 billion, a 22.2 percent increase from the second half of 2008 and 20.5 percent above the semiannual average. The median MDL was also 80.3 percent higher than the semiannual average. There were seven mega MDL filings-lawsuits with an MDL of $10 billion or more-that accounted for $376 billion of MDL in the first half of 2009 and represent 87.6 percent of MDL in the first half of 2009, the largest share in the prior 12 years. The decline in DDL and the simultaneous increase in MDL can be explained by the fact that the MDL metric measures declines over the entire length of the alleged class period, which can often include higher stock prices because the class period may have begun before the recession. In contrast, the DDL metric considers only the stock price decline contemporaneous with the corrective disclosure, which today typically occurs at lower valuations. Commentary Professor Joseph Grundfest, Director of the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse in cooperation with Cornerstone Research: "Securities litigation activity continues to be driven by claims against financial services firms, but all the large firms in the industry have already been sued. Plaintiffs are therefore filing claims against the smaller number of smaller financial services firms yet to be sued. Those facts, combined with the general decline in stock market valuations, help explain the decline in the number of companies sued and in the dollar amounts at risk in recent litigation, as measured by the DDL." "A disproportionate number of recent claims against foreign firms target the financial services sector. The uptick in litigation activity against foreign firms can therefore be viewed as a side-effect of the larger trend to sue financial services firms, wherever they are headquartered. The key question for the plaintiffs is whether they can get jurisdiction in the U.S. Courts." Dr. John Gould, Vice President of Cornerstone Research: "The continued rise in securities class action filings against foreign firms, as presented in the report's new metric, underscores the interconnected nature of the credit crisis and the global reach of securities class action litigation." "A possible explanation for the decline in filings thus far in 2009 may be the reduced stock market volatility. The market was much more volatile in the second half of 2008, when filings were rising, compared to the first half of this year, when filings dropped off. Moving forward, greater market stability may signal a reduced number of securities class action filings." Key Findings -- If the filing rate for the first half of the year continues, then 174 securities class actions will be filed this year, a 22.3 percent decrease from 2008 and an 11.7 percent decrease from the annual average for the 12 year period ending December 2008. -- About half of the filings so far in 2009 were driven by the credit crisis, with 42 filings in the first half of the year containing allegations related to the credit crisis. -- The dramatic decline in the number of class action filings is contemporaneous with a 43.7 percent decline from the fourth quarter of 2008 to the second quarter of 2009 in stock market volatility as measured by the Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatility Index (VIX). -- The Litigation Heat Maps, a recent addition to the report, show that 2.8 percent of companies that represent 7.5 percent of market capitalization in the S&P 500 index were defendants in filings in the first half of 2009. Financial firms were hit hard as 12.8 percent of companies in the S&P 500 classified by Bloomberg as financial were named as defendants, accounting for 41.2 percent of the market capitalization of that sector. -- The number of filings against unique issuers on major U.S. exchanges decreased in the first half of 2009 on an absolute level and as a percentage of total filings. This decline was driven by a large number of filings related to non- exchange-traded securities and private companies in the first half of 2009. -- There were 15 filings related to Ponzi schemes thus far in 2009. The majority of these lawsuits, 11 filings, were on behalf of investors in Madoff funds, with most suits targeting so-called feeder funds, hedge funds, and other financial intermediaries that invested their clients' money with Madoff. Professor Grundfest and Dr. Gould are available to speak to the media about the report titled Securities Class Action Filings: 2009 Mid-Year Assessment. The full text of the report is available at the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse (http://securities.stanford.edu)and Cornerstone Research (http://securities.cornerstone.com)websites. A copy of the full text report is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3fab New Securities Fraud Cases BARE ESCENTUALS: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of those who purchased the common stock of Bare Escentuals, Inc. (Nasdaq: BARE) between November 7, 2006 and November 26, 2007 for violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's true financial condition, business and prospects. Specifically, it is alleged that defendants failed to disclose the following adverse facts, among others: -- that the Company's infomercial business was not performing according to internal expectations and would need to be substantially revamped; -- that the Company's new infomercial had led to an immediate decrease in sales and was not performing to internal expectations; and -- as a result, the Company's growth rate would be slowing from historical growth rates. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Sept. 15, 2009. 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 CARACO PHARMACEUTICAL: Izard Nobel Announces Stock Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of those who purchased the securities of Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. (AMEX: CPD) between May 29, 2008 and June 25, 2009, inclusive. The Complaint charges that Caraco and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically, it is alleged that defendants failed to disclose the following: -- Caraco failed to meet the United States Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") current Good Manufacturing Practice ("cGMP") requirements; -- Caraco failed to take corrective measures in order to have its manufacturing facilities comply with the FDA's cGMP requirements; -- Caraco had failed to remedy repeat violations of FDA regulations previously observed and documented by the FDA; -- that the foregoing significantly jeopardized the Company's ability to gain FDA approval of pending new drug applications; and -- as a result of the above, Caraco would have to recall certain products. On June 25, 2009, the FDA announced that U.S. Marshals had seized drug products from the Company's facilities. According to the FDA, this action followed Caraco's continued failure to meet the FDA's cGMP requirements. On this news, shares of Caraco fell approximately 43% to $2.39 per share. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Sept. 15, 2009. For more details, contact: Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Wayne T. Boulton, Esq. Izard Nobel LLP Phone: (800) 797-5499 e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com/caracopharmaceutical/ MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Faruqi & Faruqi Announces Stock Suit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. (Nasdaq: MTXX) between December 22, 2007 and June 15, 2009, inclusive. The complaint alleges that Defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the Complaint alleges Defendants failed to disclose: -- that Matrixx had received notice of hundreds of serious adverse events involving consumers' use of the Company's Zicam line of cold remedy products ("Zicam"); -- that Matrixx failed to report these incidents to the FDA despite having an obligation to do so; -- that the Company failed to comply with FDA regulations despite repeated assurances of its compliance; and -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its meeting FDA regulations were false and misleading when made. On June 16, 2009, Matrixx issued a press release confirming it had received a warning letter from the FDA, which asserted the Company was in violation of FDA regulations regarding the sale of Zicam, and announcing the withdrawal of Zicam from the market. Upon this revelation, the Company's shares declined $13.26 per share, or 70%, to close at $5.78 per share on unusually heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and all other individual and institutional investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Matrixx common stock between December 22, 2007 and June 15, 2009. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Sept. 15, 2009. For more details, contact: Anthony Vozzolo, Esq. (Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com) Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330 MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Izard Nobel Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of those who purchased the securities of Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. (NASDAQ: MTXX) between December 22, 2007 and June 15, 2009, inclusive. The Complaint charges that Matrixx and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws. Matrixx, through its subsidiary, produces, markets and sells Zicam Cold Remedy Products. The Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts concerning the Company's operational well-being and future prospects including the following: -- that Matrixx had received notice of hundreds of serious adverse events involving consumers' use of the Zicam Cold Remedy Products; -- that Matrixx failed to report these incidents to the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") despite having an obligation to do so; -- that Matrixx failed to comply with FDA regulations despite repeated assurances of its compliance; and -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its meeting FDA regulations were false and misleading when made. On June 16, 2009, Matrixx disclosed that it had received an FDA Warning Letter and would withdraw the Zicam Cold Remedy Products from the market. On this news, Matrixx's stock price fell approximately 70%. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Sept. 15, 2009. For more details, contact: Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Wayne T. Boulton, Esq. Izard Nobel LLP Phone: (800) 797-5499 e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com/matrixxinitiatives/ ********* 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, 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 * * *