/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/091126.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, November 26, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 234 Headlines ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: Accused of Denying Pa. Drivers Discounts AMH CGH: Settlement in San Ramon Regional Medical Center Case AVERY DENNISON: Pennsylvania District Court Dismisses All Claims CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Verizon Charged with Deceptive Data Practice COMPUTER SCIENCES: Lawsuit Over Stock Option Backdating Pending COMPUTER SCIENCES: Plaintiffs' Appeal in ERISA Suit Pending HARRAHS ENTERTAINMENT: Delaware Court Dismisses Murchison Suit HARRAHS ENTERTAINMENT: Tribe Files Notice of Appeal HCA INC: Gets Final Settlement in "Nursing Understaffing" Suit JP MORGAN: Bear Stearns Investors' Motion to Consolidate Denied KADANT INC: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissal Order Still Pending MATCH.COM: Class Action Lawsuit Moved from New York to Texas MERIX CORP: Consolidated Complaint in Oregon in Discovery Phase MERIX CORP: Faces Two Suits Resulting from Viasystems Merger OKLAHOMA: 10th Cir. Hears Debate About Foster Care Certification SEOUL TRADING: All Kinds of Fraud Alleged at Grocery Chain U.S. HOME: $1.5 Mil. Settlement in Calif. Labor Suit Pending U.S. HOMES: Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of Lawsuit U.S. HOMES: Wants Ex-Employee Suit Removed to Northern Calif. U.S. HOMES: FLSA Violations Suit Remains Pending in California New Securities Fraud Cases CVS CAREMARK: Shareholder Complaint Filed in D. R.I. SUNPOWER CORP: Two Shareholder Complaint Filed in N.D. Calif. THE PARK AVENUE: Shareholder Complaint Filed in N.Y. State Court ZALE CORP: Shareholder Complaint Filed in N.D. Texas ********* ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: Accused of Denying Pa. Drivers Discounts ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that Allstate refuses to give a discount to customers whose cars have anti-theft equipment, which is required by Pennsylvania law, a class action claims in Philadelphia Federal Court. Similar complaints were filed against Peerless, State Farm, Encompass, and Progressive Insurance. A copy of the Complaint in Mecadon v. Allstate Indemnity Company, Case No. 09-cv-05511 (E.D. Pa.) (Baylson, J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/20/Insurance.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Ira Neil Richards, Esq. Kenneth I. Trujillo, Esq. Jennifer E. Agnew, Esq. Gary Goldstein, Esq. TRUJILLO RODRIGUEZ & RICHARDS, LLC 1717 Arch Street, Suite 3838 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 215-731-9004 - and - John G. Jacobs, Esq. Bryan G. Kolton, Esq. THE JACOBS LAW FIRM, CHTD. 122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1850 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: 312-427-4000 - and - Joseph E. Mariotti, Esq. CAPUTO & MARIOTTI, P.C. 730 Main Street Moosic, PA 18507 Telephone: 570-342-9999 AMH CGH: Settlement in San Ramon Regional Medical Center Case ------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO: ALL PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES WITH DISABILITIES AS THAT TERM HAS BEEN DEFINED BY 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12102(2), INCLUDING THOSE PERSONS WHO HAVE AN IMPAIRMENT THAT SUBSTANTIALLY LIMITS A MAJOR LIFE FUNCTION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO MOBILITY, HEARING, AND SIGHT, WHO SEEK, HAVE SOUGHT, OR WILL SEEK ACCESS TO OR USE OF ANY GOOD, SERVICE, PROGRAM, FACILITY, PRIVILEGE, OR ACCOMMODATION OF THE FACILITIES OF SAN RAMON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER. You are covered by and will be bound by the settlement of a class action lawsuit involving physical access barriers at the facilities of San Ramon Regional Medical Center. This Notice is to inform you of facts that affect your legal rights. SUMMARY OF LAWSUIT A class action lawsuit entitled Access Now, Inc. et al. v. AMH CGH, Inc. et al., Case No. 98-3004-CIV-GOLD/ SIMONTON, is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida involving disability access at the facilities of San Ramon Regional Medical Center. The complaint alleges on behalf of all disabled individuals that the Medical Center is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act because it has failed to provide equal access for persons with disabilities to the Medical Center's facilities. The Medical Center denies these allegations. By entering into a settlement of this action, the Medical Center does not admit that it engaged in any wrongful action or inaction. This lawsuit has been certified by the Court as a class action. The named plaintiffs serve as class representatives, and their counsel are: Miguel M. de la O, Esq. David E. Marko de la O, Marko, Magolnick, Leyton 3001 SW 3rd Ave. Miami, Florida 33129 Those lawyers serve as counsel for the class. The Medical Center is represented by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. DEFINITION OF THE CLASS You are a member of the class if you are an individual with any type of disability whatsoever, and seek, have sought, or will seek access to or use of any facilities of the Medical Center. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT The named plaintiffs and the Medical Center have reached a proposed settlement of this class action lawsuit, which provides that the Medical Center will make modifications and alterations to its facilities with the purpose of providing equal access to and usability of the facilities by persons with disabilities. No money damages are to be paid to members of the class. PROCEDURES CONCERNING THE SETTLEMENT Court Hearing. On January 22, 2010, at 2:00 PM, the court will hold a hearing at the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Courtroom 11-1, located at 300 N.E. 1st Avenue, Miami, Florida 33132, to determine whether the proposed settlement agreement is fair and reasonable. Objections to the Settlement. If you believe the Court should not approve the settlement, you may advise the Court of your objections. In order to be considered, your objections must be in writing, signed, and sent via first-class mail to: Clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Courtroom 11-1, 300 N.E. 1st Avenue, Miami, Florida, 33132. A copy should also be mailed to counsel for the class at the address set forth below. Objections will not be considered by the Court unless received on or before December 22, 2009. Your written statement should specify in detail the factual basis and/or legal grounds on which you base your objections. If you provide written objections, you may appear in person at the hearing before the Court on January 22, 2010, as described above, to express your views concerning the settlement. An attorney may also appear at the hearing on your behalf. If you and/or your attorney intend to appear at the hearing, you should so advise the Court in the written statement of your objections. Any class member who fails to file a timely written objection may not appear before the Court at the hearing to voice objections relating to the adequacy and/or fairness of the proposed settlement. Entry of Judgment. If the settlement is approved by the Court, the order approving the settlement and a judgment dismissing this action with prejudice as to San Ramon Regional Medical Center will be entered. You should not expect to receive any further notices concerning the entry of such order and judgment. All class members will be bound by the judgment, which will bar class members from asserting any claims against the Medical Center concerning physical, communication, structural, and program access barrier. All class members are deemed to have waived the protection provided by any state law with respect to unknown claims at the time of a general release, and the general release forever discharges any claims relating to physical, communication, structural, and program access barriers, if any, at the Medical Center by a class member whether known or unknown to the class member at the time of the settlement agreement. FURTHER INFORMATION The nature of this lawsuit and the proposed settlement are summarized in this Notice. More detailed information, including a copy of the settlement agreement, may be obtained from class counsel or by consulting the public file on the case at the Office of the Clerk of the Court, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, 301 N. Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida. PLEASE FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES SET OUT ABOVE. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE JUDGE OR THE CLERK OF THE COURT WITH ANY QUESTION ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT. AVERY DENNISON: Pennsylvania District Court Dismisses All Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has issued an order of final approval and judgment thus dismissing all claims against Avery Dennison Corp., according to the company's Nov. 11, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 3, 2009. On April 24, 2003, Sentry Business Products, Inc. filed a purported class action on behalf of direct purchasers of label stock in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the company, UPM-Kymmene Corporation, Bemis Company Inc., and certain of their subsidiaries seeking treble damages and other relief for alleged unlawful competitive practices, with allegations including that the defendants attempted to limit competition among themselves through anticompetitive understandings. Ten similar complaints were filed in various federal district courts. In November 2003, the cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and consolidated for pretrial purposes. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on Feb. 16, 2004, which the company answered on March 31, 2004. On April 14, 2004, the court separated the proceedings as to class certification and merits discovery, and limited the initial phase of discovery to the issue of the appropriateness of class certification. On Jan. 4, 2006, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On Jan. 20, 2006, the company filed an answer to the amended complaint. On Aug. 14, 2006, the plaintiffs moved to certify a proposed class. The court substantively granted class certification on Nov. 19, 2007. On July 22, 2008, the court held a hearing to set a schedule for merits discovery. On May 12, 2009, the company entered into a settlement agreement with plaintiffs. Without admitting liability, the company agreed to pay plaintiffs $36.5 million, plus up to $.5 million related to notice and administration expenses, in two equal installments of $18.5 million, which were paid on May 27, 2009 and July 15, 2009. On June 10, 2009, the district court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement, and on Sept. 17, 2009, the district court issued an order of final approval and judgment, dismissing all claims against the company with prejudice. Avery Dennison Corporation -- http://www.averydennison.com/-- is engaged in the production of pressure-sensitive materials, office products and a variety of tickets, tags, labels and other converted products. The company's segments are Pressure- sensitive Materials, Retail Information Services and Office and Consumer Products. Pressure-sensitive materials are sold to label printers and converters that convert the materials into labels and other products through embossing, printing, stamping and die-cutting. Some are sold in converted form as printable media, tapes and reflective sheeting. It also manufactures and sells a variety of office products and other converted products and other items not involving pressure-sensitive components, such as binders, organizing systems, markers, fasteners, business forms, as well as tickets, tags, radio-frequency identification (RFID) inlays, and imprinting equipment for retail and apparel manufacturers. On April 1, 2008, it acquired DM Label Group (DM Label). CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Verizon Charged with Deceptive Data Practice ---------------------------------------------------------------- June Williams at Courthouse News Service reports that Verizon Wireless designed its cell phones to make errors inevitable and makes hundreds of millions dollars a month from a prominently placed data-transfer key that facilitates the mistakes, a class action claims in King County Court. Customers are charged $1.99 when they hit the data transfer key even if they cancel the request immediately and even if no data is transmitted, the complaint states. Lead plaintiff Carolyn Alcorn says she learned about the "intentionally deceptive practices" from a Nov. 12 New York Times article that quoted a Verizon whistleblower saying, "The phone is designed in such a way that you can almost never avoid getting $1.99 charged on the bill." The whistleblower claimed that "Every month, the 87 million customers will accidentally hit that key a few times a month. That's over $300 million a month in data revenue off a simple mistake," according to the complaint. Ms. Alcorn says she investigated her own bill after reading the Times story, "and learned that she had become a victim of those practices." Citing the Times article, the complaint adds: "They [Verizon] have started training us reps that too many data blocks are being put on accounts now; they're actually making us take classes called Alternatives to Data Blocks. They do not want all the blocks, because 40 percent of Verizon's revenue now comes from data use. I just know there are millions of people out there that don't even notice this $1.99 on the bill." Ms. Alcorn seeks disgorgement, an injunction, and class damages for violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. A copy of the Complaint in Alcorn v. Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless, Case No. 09-2-41650-8 SEA (Wash. Super. Ct., King Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/20/VerizonPhone.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: John Du Wors, Esq. Derek Linke, Esq. NEWMAN & NEWMAN, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP 505 Fifth Ave. S., Ste. 610 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 274-2800 COMPUTER SCIENCES: Lawsuit Over Stock Option Backdating Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Shirley Morefield vs. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al., Case No. 09-cv-1176 (D. Nev.), is pending, according to the company's Nov. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 2, 2009. On May 29, 2009, the class action lawsuit was filed in state court against the company and certain current and former officers and directors asserting claims for declarative and injunctive relief related to stock option backdating. The alleged factual basis for the claims is the same as that which was alleged in prior derivative actions. On June 30, 2009, the company removed the state court proceeding, Morefield v. Computer Sciences Corporation, Case No. A-09-591338- C (Clark Cty. Nev.) to federal court. The defendants deny the allegations in the Complaint. On July 29, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court, and that motion is now fully briefed and awaiting decision. The federal court has suspended further activity pending a ruling on the remand motion. Computer Sciences Corp. -- http://www.csc.com/-- is a player in the information technology and professional services industry. CSC offers an array of services to clients in the Global Commercial and government markets. Its service offerings include IT and business process outsourcing, and IT and professional services. CSC also provides business process outsourcing, managing key functions for clients, such as procurement and supply chain, call centers and customer relationship management, credit services, claims processing and logistics. IT and professional services include systems integration, consulting and other professional services. Systems integration encompasses designing, developing, implementing and integrating complete information systems. Consulting and professional services includes advising clients on the acquisition and utilization of IT and on business strategy, security, modeling, simulation, engineering, operations, change management and business process reengineering. COMPUTER SCIENCES: Plaintiffs' Appeal in ERISA Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- The appeal of the plaintiffs in the consolidated class action lawsuit captioned In Re Computer Sciences Corp. ERISA Litigation, Case No. CV 08-2398 (C.D. Calif.) (Otero, J.), against the summary judgment ruling entered in July 2009 remains pending, according to the company's Nov. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 2, 2009. On Aug. 15, 2006, a federal ERISA class action complaint in Quan, et al. v. CSC, et al., CV 06-3927 (E.D.N.Y.), made allegations of backdating stock options against the Company. On Sept. 21, 2006, a related ERISA class action complaint was filed in Gray, et al. v. CSC, et al., CV 06-5100 (E.D.N.Y.). The complaints named as defendants the company, the company's Retirement and Employee Benefits Plans Committee and various directors and officers, and alleged various violations of the ERISA statute. The two ERISA actions were consolidated and, on Feb. 28, 2007, plaintiffs filed an amended ERISA class action complaint. On Jan. 8, 2008, the consolidated proceeding was transferred to California. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and plaintiffs filed their memorandum in opposition to the motion. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for class certification, and defendants filed their memorandum in opposition to the motion on Aug. 11, 2008. On Sept. 2, 2008, Judge Otero issued orders denying defendants' motion to dismiss, and also denying plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Defendants answered the complaint and the parties conducted discovery. On Nov. 13, 2008, plaintiffs filed a new motion for class certification and the defendants filed a memorandum in opposition on Dec. 8, 2008. On Dec. 29, 2008, Judge Otero granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On Jan. 13, 2009, defendants filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pursuant to Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requesting that the Court of Appeals accept their appeal from the order granting class certification. Plaintiffs filed their opposition on Jan. 23, 2009. The Court of Appeals denied defendants' request for permission to appeal on March 12, 2009. Discovery closed on April 28, 2009. Defendants and plaintiffs each filed motions for summary judgment on May 4, 2009. Reply briefs were filed on May 22, 2009. On July 13, 2009, Judge Otero issued an order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants. On July 28, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief on Sept. 9, 2009. The brief of defendants-appellees was filed on Oct. 30, 2009. Computer Sciences Corp. -- http://www.csc.com/-- is a player in the information technology and professional services industry. CSC offers an array of services to clients in the Global Commercial and government markets. Its service offerings include IT and business process outsourcing, and IT and professional services. CSC also provides business process outsourcing, managing key functions for clients, such as procurement and supply chain, call centers and customer relationship management, credit services, claims processing and logistics. IT and professional services include systems integration, consulting and other professional services. Systems integration encompasses designing, developing, implementing and integrating complete information systems. Consulting and professional services includes advising clients on the acquisition and utilization of IT and on business strategy, security, modeling, simulation, engineering, operations, change management and business process reengineering. HARRAHS ENTERTAINMENT: Delaware Court Dismisses Murchison Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware has dismissed a purported class action lawsuit against Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., according to the company's Nov. 12, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. On Jan. 9, 2009, S. Blake Murchison and Willis Shaw filed a purported class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Civil Action No. 09-00020-SLR, against Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. and its board of directors, and Harrah's Operating Company, Inc. The lawsuit was amended on March 4, 2009, alleging that the bond exchange offer which closed on Dec. 24, 2008, wrongfully impaired the rights of bondholders. The amended complaint alleges, among others, breach of the bond indentures, violation of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, equitable rescission, and liability claims against the members of the board. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, declaratory relief that the alleged violations occurred, unspecified damages to the class, and attorneys' fees. On April 30, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Prior to responding to the motion to dismiss, the defendants stipulated to the plaintiff's request to dismiss the lawsuit, without prejudice, which the court entered on June 18, 2009. Both sides have reserved the right to request the court to award attorneys fees. Las Vegas, Nevada-based Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. -- http://www.harrahs.com/-- operates nearly 40 casinos across the United States, primarily under the Harrah's(R), Caesars(R) and Horseshoe(R) brand names; Harrah's also owns the London Clubs International family of casinos and the World Series of Poker(R). Private equity firms Apollo Global Management and TPG Capital LP acquired Harrah's in January for $31 billion. HARRAHS ENTERTAINMENT: Tribe Files Notice of Appeal --------------------------------------------------- The Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe has filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on the decision of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York's summary judgment in favor of Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. In April 2000, the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe granted Caesars the exclusive rights to develop a casino project in the State of New York. On April 26, 2000, certain individual members of the Tribe purported to commence a class action proceeding in a "Tribal Court" in Hogansburg, New York, against Caesars seeking to nullify Caesars' agreement with the Tribe. On March 20, 2001, the "Tribal Court" purported to render a default judgment against Caesars in the amount of $1,787 million. Prior to the company's acquisition of Caesars in June 2005, it was believed that this matter was settled pending execution of final documents and mutual releases. Although fully executed settlement documents were never provided, on March 31, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed litigation concerning the validity of the judgment, without prejudice, while retaining jurisdiction to reopen that litigation, if, within three months thereof, the settlement had not been completed. On June 22, 2007, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York against the company by certain trustees of the Catskill Litigation Trust alleging the Catskill Litigation Trust had been assigned the "Tribal Court" judgment and seeks to enforce it, with interest. According to a "Tribal Court" order, accrued interest through July 9, 2007, was approximately $1,014 million. On Sept. 28, 2009, the Court entered summary judgment against the Tribe and dismissed the action, ruling that although alternative grounds were presented in the motion, the subject matter of the action was asserted in a prior action and settled by and oral agreement to end that matter with prejudice. On Oct. 27, 2009, the Tribe filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The company intends to oppose the appeal, according to the company's Nov. 12, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. Las Vegas, Nevada-based Harrah's Entertainment, Inc. -- http://www.harrahs.com/-- operates nearly 40 casinos across the United States, primarily under the Harrah's(R), Caesars(R) and Horseshoe(R) brand names; Harrah's also owns the London Clubs International family of casinos and the World Series of Poker(R). Private equity firms Apollo Global Management and TPG Capital LP acquired Harrah's in January for $31 billion. HCA INC: Gets Final Settlement in "Nursing Understaffing" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- HCA, Inc., has reached a final settlement with the plaintiffs in a lawsuit alleging nursing understaffing in its hospitals, according to the company's Nov. 12, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. On April 10, 2006, a class action complaint was filed against the company in the District Court of Kansas alleging, among other matters, nurse understaffing at all of its hospitals, certain consumer protection act violations, negligence and unjust enrichment. The complaint is seeking, among other relief, declaratory relief and monetary damages, including disgorgement of profits of $12.250 billion. A motion to dismiss this action was granted on July 27, 2006, but the plaintiffs appealed this dismissal. While the appeal was pending, the Kansas Supreme Court for the first time construed the Kansas Consumer Protection Act to apply to the provision of medical services. Based on that new ruling, the 10th Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded the action for further consideration by the trial court. The company has reached a final settlement with the named plaintiffs in this action. Headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee, HCA, Inc. -- http://www.hcahealthcare.com/-- is the nation's leading provider of healthcare services. As of June 30, 2008, HCA operated 169 hospitals and 107 freestanding surgery centers, including eight hospitals and eight freestanding surgery centers operated through equity method joint ventures. JP MORGAN: Bear Stearns Investors' Motion to Consolidate Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Gray, Esq., of the Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. in New York City, informs investors of a ruling in the case Crowe v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM), as successor in interest to The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc., Case No. 09-CV-778 pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Court denied the plaintiffs in the Crowe case's motion not to have their case consolidated with the class action case on behalf of Bear, Stearns investors that is pending in the same court. The Court reasoned that there were factual and legal issues in common between the class action and the Crowe case and that adjudicating the cases together would be more efficient. The Court's order can be accessed at http://is.gd/52IQZfrom the Gray firm's Web site. The plaintiffs in Crowe are investors who sustained substantial losses in options on Bear, Stearns stock at the time of the collapse of Bear, Stearns during March 2008. The class action case asserts claims on behalf of all investors who acquired the equity securities (or options on same) of The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. (NYSE: BSC) between December 14, 2006, and March 14, 2008, inclusive. All Class members have the right to opt out of participating in the class action and file their own individual claims through their own individual attorneys in the event of any settlement in the class action. In addition, investors who acquired Bear, Stearns securities before December 14, 2006, and held same through March 2008, purchasers and holders of debt securities, and/or employees who held Bear, Stearns employee equity units at the time of Bear, Stearns' collapse, may be able to assert individual claims that are not included in the class action by filing their own individual lawsuits. The Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. has represented investors in several opt-out securities lawsuits. Research shows that plaintiffs who file opt-out lawsuits and pursue their own cases are generally faring much better than the reported 2.2 percent average recovery obtained for investors in class action settlements in 2006. For example, in the recent AOL Time Warner securities litigation, many opt-out plaintiffs obtained recoveries far in excess of what they would have obtained had they remained class members, including recoveries of between 16 and 24 times the amount that investors would have received through the class action case. Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. is not court-appointed lead counsel and does not represent the plaintiffs in the class action, and this news release has not been ordered or approved by the Court. Investors who wish to remain members of the Class but do not wish to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff need do nothing at the present time. Investors seeking more information about their legal options in connection with the collapse of Bear, Stearns may contact: Christopher J. Gray, Esq. Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. 460 Park Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 Telephone: (212) 838-3221 KADANT INC: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissal Order Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The appeal of the plaintiffs on the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts' decision dismissing the complaint against Kadant Inc. is still pending, according to the company's Nov. 12, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 3, 2009. The company has been named as a co-defendant, together with Kadant Composites LLC and another defendant, in a consumer class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Dec. 27, 2007 on behalf of a putative class of individuals who own GeoDeck(TM) decking or railing products manufactured by Composites LLC between April 2002 and October 2003. The complaint in this matter purports to assert, among other things, causes of action for unfair and deceptive trade practices, fraud, negligence, breach of warranty and unjust enrichment, and it seeks compensatory damages and punitive damages under various state consumer protection statutes. The District Court dismissed the complaint against all defendants in its entirety on Nov. 19, 2008. On March 3, 2009, the District Court denied the plaintiffs' post- judgment motions to vacate this order of dismissal and amend the complaint. The plaintiffs appealed the District Court's denial of these motions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. A hearing on the plaintiffs' appeal was held on Nov. 3, 2009 and a decision is pending. State Class Actions The company has been named as a co-defendant, together with Composites LLC and two other defendants, in several state class action complaints that are substantially similar to the complaint in another purported federal class action. To the company's knowledge, these complaints have been filed to date: -- on Oct. 1, 2009 in the First Judicial District Court, County of Santa Fe, State of New Mexico; -- on Oct. 7, 2009 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester; -- on Oct. 8, 2009 in the Superior Court, Middlesex County, Commonwealth of Massachusetts; -- on Oct. 15, 2009 in the Superior Court, Judicial District of Middlesex, State of Connecticut; and -- on Oct. 30, 2009 in the District Court, Boulder County, State of Colorado. These complaints, which are substantially identical, purport to assert, among other things, causes of action for unfair and deceptive trade practices, breach of the duty to warn, breach of warranty and unjust enrichment, seek compensatory damages for similarly situated consumers within those states, in estimated amounts of less than $5 million each. The attorneys for the plaintiffs in the state class action complaints, who also represent the plaintiffs in the federal class action, have indicated that they may file additional state class action complaints. Kadant Inc. -- http://www.kadant.com/-- is a supplier of equipment used in the global papermaking and paper recycling industries. The Company also manufactures granules made from papermaking byproducts. The Company's operations consist of one operating segment, Pulp and Papermaking Systems (Papermaking Systems), and two separate product lines reported in Other Businesses, which include Fiber-based Products and, until its sale in April 2007, Casting Products. Its Papermaking Systems segment develops, manufactures and markets equipment for the global papermaking and paper recycling industries. MATCH.COM: Class Action Lawsuit Moved from New York to Texas ------------------------------------------------------------ Jeff Bounds at the Dallas Business Journal reports that Match.com LLP has managed to get an East Coast class-action suit moved to the local area, although the online dating service still must defend itself against allegations in the litigation that it "lumps together profiles of current subscribers and canceled member and displays them as if they are they same," court documents say. U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald ruled that McGinn, et al. v. Match.com L.L.P., Case No. 09-cv-05328 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on June 9, 2009, should be tried in Dallas rather than New York because of a "forum selection clause" in the user agreement that Match.com members agree to when they sign up for the service. That forum selection clause specified said if a dispute arose, such case would be tried in Dallas or Collin County, court records say. Originally filed in New York, the litigation alleges that the "vast majority of Match.com members are canceled subscribers, or have never subscribed at all," court documents say. The suit also charges that if a Match.com subscriber writes to someone on the site, the company won't inform the subscriber in the event that the person they're writing can't read or respond to the e-mail. Among other things, the suit seeks a court order barring the company from engaging in "deceptive practices," along with unspecified damages. In a statement issued when the suit was filed, the company said that the lawsuit "is without merit, and we will defend it vigorously. Match.com is the first and one of the largest global online communities for singles looking to start meaningful relationship. We stand behind our product 100%." The Plaintiff is represented by: Norah Hart, Esq. TREUHAFT & ZAKARIN, L.L.P. 1011 Avenue of the Americas, 4th Floor New York, NY 10000 Telephone: (212) 725-6418 IAC/Interactive Corporation and Match.com L.L.P. are represented by: John R. Cuti, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 1633 Broadway New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 489-8230 MERIX CORP: Consolidated Complaint in Oregon in Discovery Phase --------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated class action complaint against Merix Corp. is currently under discovery after the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon partially granted the certification motion and certified a class, according to the company's Form 8-K filing dated Nov. 12, 2009, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Four purported class action complaints were filed against the company and certain of its executive officers and directors on June 17, 2004, June 24, 2004 and July 9, 2004. The complaints were consolidated in a single action entitled In re Merix Corporation Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. CV 04-826-MO, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. After the court granted the company's motion to dismiss without prejudice, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. That complaint alleged that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making certain inaccurate and misleading statements in the prospectus used in connection with the January 2004 public offering of approximately $103.4 million of the company's common stock. In September 2006, the Court dismissed that complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit. In April 2008, the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the second amended complaint. The company sought rehearing which was denied and rehearing en banc was also denied. The company obtained a stay of the mandate from the Ninth Circuit and filed a certiorari petition with the U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 22, 2008. On Dec. 15, 2008, the Supreme Court denied the certiorari petition and the case was remanded back to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. On May 15, 2009, the plaintiffs moved to certify a class of all investors who purchased in the public offering and who were damaged thereby. On Nov. 5, 2009, the court partially granted the certification motion and certified a class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired our common stock from an underwriter directly pursuant to the company's Jan. 29, 2004 offering, who held the stock through May 13, 2004, and who were damaged thereby. The case is currently in the discovery phase. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages. Merix Corporation -- http://www.merix.com/-- is a global manufacturing service provider of printed circuit boards (PCBs) for original equipment manufacturer (OEM) customers and their electronic manufacturing service (EMS) providers. The company's products include multi-layer rigid PCBs, which are the platforms used to interconnect microprocessors, integrated circuits and other components that are essential to the operation of electronic products and systems. The company's markets include automotive, defense and aerospace, communications, computing, industrial, networking, peripherals, and test end markets. It has manufacturing facilities in Huiyang and Huizhou, in the People's Republic of China. MERIX CORP: Faces Two Suits Resulting from Viasystems Merger ------------------------------------------------------------ Merix Corp. currently faces two putative class action lawsuits challenging its merger with Viasystems Group, Inc., according to the company's Form 8-K filing dated Nov. 12, 2009, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The company, its board of directors and Viasystems Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation are named as defendants in two putative class action lawsuits brought by alleged shareholders of the company challenging its proposed merger with Viasystems. The shareholder actions were both filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon, County of Multnomah. The actions are called: -- Asbestos Workers Philadelphia Pension Fund v. Merix Corporation, et al., filed Oct. 13, 2009, Case No. 0910-14399 and -- W. Donald Wybert v. Merix Corporation, et al., filed on or about Nov. 5, 2009, Case No. 0911-15521. Both shareholder actions generally allege, among other things, that each member of the company's board of directors breached fiduciary duties to the company and its shareholders by authorizing the sale of the company to Viasystems for consideration that does not maximize value to shareholders. The complaints also allege that the company and Viasystems aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly committed by the members of the company's board of directors. The shareholder actions seek equitable relief, including to enjoin the defendants from consummating the merger on the agreed-upon terms. Merix Corporation -- http://www.merix.com/-- is a global manufacturing service provider of printed circuit boards (PCBs) for original equipment manufacturer (OEM) customers and their electronic manufacturing service (EMS) providers. The company's products include multi-layer rigid PCBs, which are the platforms used to interconnect microprocessors, integrated circuits and other components that are essential to the operation of electronic products and systems. The company's markets include automotive, defense and aerospace, communications, computing, industrial, networking, peripherals, and test end markets. It has manufacturing facilities in Huiyang and Huizhou, in the People's Republic of China. OKLAHOMA: 10th Cir. Hears Debate About Foster Care Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Boczkiewicz at The Oklahoman reports that a critic of Oklahoma's foster child care system contends its reform will not be possible if an appeals court grants the state's request to decertify a class-action lawsuit against top child welfare officials. "You can't get system-wide relief (unless a pending lawsuit applies to all 10,000 foster care children)," children's advocate Marcia Lowry said Thursday after arguing the case at the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Ms. Lowry is an attorney for the national organization Children's Rights, based in New York City, which is leading the lawsuit against officials of the Oklahoma Commission for Human Services. The officials want the Denver-based court to remove class-action status for the lawsuit, which seeks an overhaul of the system, including increased staff. The lawsuit alleges the system operated by the Department of Human Services is so deficient it puts thousands of children at risk, including risk of death and injury. State officials argue the lawsuit should be limited to the six children who are named as plaintiffs. At issue is whether U. S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell in Tulsa erred in certifying the lawsuit as a class action on behalf of all the children in the system. The officials claim Frizzell erred in concluding the case meets strict legal standards required for judges to grant class-action status to lawsuits. The officials have contended in court filings the strategy of the plaintiffs' attorneys is to force the state into a settlement at a staggering cost to taxpayers. "Clearly, the litigation strategy of Children's Rights is to prosecute a class action whose defense becomes financially and logistically burdensome (that it) inevitably leads to the entry of a consent decree," the officials said. A three-judge panel of the appeals court, as typical, did not indicate when it will decide the state's challenge, nor indicate how the judges would rule, Mr. Boczkiewicz adds. SEOUL TRADING: All Kinds of Fraud Alleged at Grocery Chain ---------------------------------------------------------- June Williams at Courthouse News Service reports that an international grocery chain repackaged and sold expired food, used nail polish remover to erase expiration dates, sold food contaminated by mouse feces, dried food in parking lots in violation of health codes, and labeled foreign food as "made in the USA" a class action claims in King County Court. The six named plaintiff-customers say it was "common practice" for H Mart stores to return expired food to distributor Seoul Trading, where the expiration dates were removed, new dates were stamped, and the "reprocessed" old products were sent back to the stores. The plaintiffs say numerous customers became sick after eating "expired foods that were moldy, spoiled, and unfit for human consumption." H Mart specializes in imported Asian and Hispanic foods and has stores in 13 states and Canada. Operators of two local H-Marts, Ah Reum Mart and Han Ah Reum Market, are also named as defendants, in addition to H Mart Companies and Seoul Trading. The class seeks restitution, an injunction, costs and damages for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranty and consumer law violations. A copy of the Complaint in Lim, et al. v. Seoul Trading, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-2-41736-9 KNT (Wash. Super. Ct., King Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/20/AsianGrocery.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Karl Y. Park, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KARL PARK 1010 South 336th St., Suite 320 Federal Way, WA 98003 Telephone: 253-815-1400 U.S. HOME: $1.5 Mil. Settlement in Calif. Labor Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ A Stipulation and Settlement Agreement in connection with the class action styled Kenneth John Lodge, et al. vs. U.S. Home Systems, Inc. and U.S. Remodelers, Inc., Case No. CV07-05409 CAS, is pending approval by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On July 17, 2009, the company and its wholly owned subsidiary, U.S. Remodelers entered into a Settlement Agreement with Plaintiffs Kenneth John Lodge, Judson Lertzman, Barbara Galaro and Michael Hopkins, and their counsel, on behalf of themselves and each of the other class members in settlement of the class action lawsuit pending against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. The settlement, which is subject to, among other things, preliminary and final Court approval, will resolve all the claims in the Lawsuit. Without admitting any liability or wrongdoing of any kind, the company has agreed to the payment of $1.5 million to settle the Lawsuit plus up to $10,000 to pay costs associated with the administration of the settlement. A copy of the Settlement Agreement is available at http://tinyurl.com/lo4cpnfor free. The original complaint in this Lawsuit was filed by Plaintiffs (former employees of the company) on July 3, 2007 in the Los Angeles County Supreme Court. The complaint was subsequently amended on Aug. 3, 2007 and was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. A second amended complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court on Feb. 20, 2009. The Plaintiffs allege that the company failed to reimburse its California employees for certain expenses they incurred during their employment with the company, violated certain provisions of the California Business and Professions Code (prohibiting unfair business acts or practices) and failed to pay wages in violation of the California Labor Code. In the Lawsuit Plaintiffs seek damages, wages owed, injunctive relief, costs, attorney fees, punitive damages, interest, and penalties. The Plaintiffs asserted the claims on their behalf and a class of all others similarly situated. The parties have conducted a significant amount of motion practice during the prosecution of the Lawsuit, including the litigation over a motion to dismiss, motion to strike and multiple discovery motions. The parties have conducted extensive discovery and investigations of facts and law and have engaged in numerous personal and telephone conferences. The parties have concluded that based on the disputed factual and legal issues involved in the Lawsuit and the benefits to be received by the parties pursuant to the settlement of the Lawsuit, including avoiding incurring any further expenses and attorney fees, it is in the best interest of Plaintiffs, class members and the Company to settle the Lawsuit. According to the company's Nov. 12, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009, in order to facilitate the settlement, the company, solely for the purposes of the settlement, has consented to the conditional certification of the class, which are defined as any current or former employee of the company who worked in California during the period from July 3, 2003, up to and including the preliminary Court approval date (class period), and who is a member of any of two subclasses, the commission subclass and the expense subclass. U.S. Home Systems, Inc. -- http://www.ushomesystems.com/-- is engaged in the specialty product home improvement business. In its home improvement business, the company manufactures or procures, designs, sells and installs custom kitchen and bathroom cabinet refacing products and organizational storage systems for closets and garages. The company manufactures certain of its kitchen and bath cabinet refacing products at the Charles City, Virginia facility. U.S. HOMES: Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the ruling that the Second Amended Complaint against The Home Depot, Inc., be dismissed for failure to state a claim, according to the company's Nov. 12, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. In June 2007, a class action, uncertified, was filed by a home improvement customer of the The Home Depot against The Home Depot, Inc., Expo Designs Center, et al. in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, alleging certain unfair business acts and practices, violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and breach of contract. The case was subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The U.S. District Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Original Complaint. Plaintiffs, who are comprised of two home improvement customers of the company and The Home Depot, filed their First Amended Complaint in October 2007, which included the Company as a defendant. Plaintiffs subsequently filed their Second Amended Complaint against Defendants on Dec. 21, 2007, which contained basically the same allegations as the Original and First Amended Complaints. Plaintiffs assert the claims on their behalf and a class of all others similarly situated. Relief sought in the Second Amended Complaint included unspecified damages, and other equitable relief and attorney fees. On April 9, 2008, the U.S. District Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint and ordered Plaintiffs' Complaint dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On Oct. 20, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court's ruling that Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim. U.S. Home Systems, Inc. -- http://www.ushomesystems.com/-- is engaged in the specialty product home improvement business. In its home improvement business, the company manufactures or procures, designs, sells and installs custom kitchen and bathroom cabinet refacing products and organizational storage systems for closets and garages. The company manufactures certain of its kitchen and bath cabinet refacing products at the Charles City, Virginia facility. U.S. HOMES: Wants Ex-Employee Suit Removed to Northern Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Home Systems, Inc., wants the suit filed against a former employee removed from the Superior Court of the State of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, according to the company's Nov. 12, 2009, Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. In February 2009 a class action, as yet uncertified, was filed against the company in the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda, alleging certain violations of the California Labor Code, California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 16-2001 and California Business and Professions Code. This action was filed by a former employee. The Plaintiff asserts the claims on his behalf and a class of all others similarly situated. Relief sought in the complaint includes unspecified damages, injunctive and equitable relief, punitive damages, penalties (in addition to wages owed) and attorney fees. The company has filed a Notice of Removal with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to remove this lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. U.S. Home Systems, Inc. -- http://www.ushomesystems.com/-- is engaged in the specialty product home improvement business. In its home improvement business, the company manufactures or procures, designs, sells and installs custom kitchen and bathroom cabinet refacing products and organizational storage systems for closets and garages. The company manufactures certain of its kitchen and bath cabinet refacing products at the Charles City, Virginia facility. U.S. HOMES: FLSA Violations Suit Remains Pending in California -------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Home Systems, Inc., continues to defend a a class/collective action alleging certain violations of Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, This action was filed by an employee of the company. The Plaintiff asserts claims on his behalf and as a collective action on behalf of all individuals who were employed by the Company as installers in the United States, with the exception of California, since Feb. 24, 2006 and as a class action, as yet uncertified, on behalf of all individuals who were employed by the company as installers in the State of New Jersey since Feb. 24, 2007. Relief sought in the complaint includes injunctive and equitable relief, overtime wages, liquidated damages and penalties and attorneys fees. No further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 12, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. U.S. Home Systems, Inc. -- http://www.ushomesystems.com/-- is engaged in the specialty product home improvement business. In its home improvement business, the company manufactures or procures, designs, sells and installs custom kitchen and bathroom cabinet refacing products and organizational storage systems for closets and garages. The company manufactures certain of its kitchen and bath cabinet refacing products at the Charles City, Virginia facility. New Securities Fraud Cases CVS CAREMARK: Shareholder Complaint Filed in D. R.I. ---------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that CVS Caremark inflated its share price through false and misleading statements, a class action claims in Providence, R.I., Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Medoff v. CVS Caremark Corporation, et al., Case No. 09-cv-00554 (D. R.I.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/20/SCACVS.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: 631-367-7100 - and - Deborah R. Gross, Esq. Robert P. Frutkin, Esq. LAW OFFICES BERNARD M. GROSS, P.C. John Wanamaker Building, Suite 450 100 Penn Square East Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: 215-561-3600 - and - Barry J. Kusinitz, Esq. 155 South Main Street, Suite 405 Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: 401-831-4200 SUNPOWER CORP: Two Shareholder Complaint Filed in N.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that SunPower Corp. inflated its share price through false and misleading statements, and PriceWaterhouseCoopers helped, shareholders say in San Francisco Federal Court. The cases are: -- Plichta v. SunPower Corporation, et al., Case No. 09-cv-05473 (N.D. Calif.) (Breyer, J.), filed by: Catherine J. Kowalewski, Esq. Darren Jay Robbins, Esq. David C. Walton, Esq. COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP 655 W. Broadway, #1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619-231-1058 - and - Shawn A. Williams, Esq. COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415-288-4545 -- Cao v. SunPower Corporation, et al., Case No. 09-cv-05488 (N.D. Calif.) (Zimmerman, J.), filed by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 - and - Peter E. Borkon, Esq. Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 - and - Lewis S. Kahn, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 455-1400 - and - Kim Elaine Miller, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI LLC 12 East 41st Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 696-3730 THE PARK AVENUE: Shareholder Complaint Filed in N.Y. State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Shareholders accuse The Park Avenue of breach of fiduciary duties, usurpation of corporate opportunities and corporate waste, in New York County Court. ZALE CORP: Shareholder Complaint Filed in N.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Zale inflated its share price by failing to follow generally accepted accounting principles, shareholders say in Dallas Federal Court. The case is Lawyer v. Zale Corporation, Case No. 09-cv-02218 (N.D. Tex.) (Boyle, J.), filed by: Joe Kendall, Esq. Hamilton Lindley, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP LLP 3232 McKinney Ave., Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: 214-744-3000 ********* 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. Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda 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 * * *