/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/091203.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, December 3, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 239 Headlines AK STEEL: Retirees Win $51 Million Pension Benefit Class Action ANESIVA INC: "Gluck" Suit Undergoing Confirmatory Discovery CIT GROUP: Still Faces Consolidated Amended Complaint in SDNY CIT GROUP: Faces Derivative Action on $3 Billion Facility CIT GROUP: SLX Reaches Pact to Resolve Claims in Various Suits CITY OF FARGO: Paying $1.5 Million to Settle Traffic Fine Lawsuit E.T. BROWNE: Epiq Systems Begins Notice & Claim Filing Process EPL INTERMEDIATE: Class Certification Hearing Set for Dec. 3 EPL INTERMEDIATE: Finalizing Settlement Agreement in "Santana" EPL INTERMEDIATE: "Amezcua" Labor Violations Suit Still Pending EPL INTERMEDIATE: Calif. Labor Breach Suit Settlement Pending EPL INTERMEDIATE: In Settlement Talks with "Penaloza" Plaintiffs FRONTIER FINANCIAL: Wash. Merger Lawsuit Dismissed with Prejudice KEN DENTON: South African Group Mulls Suing Alleged Slumlord NATIONAL BEEF: Unit Defends Lawsuits Over Tannery in Missouri NORTEL NETWORKS: Suits Against Executives Remains Stayed in N.Y. NORTEL NETWORKS: Tenn. Suit is Ordered Administratively Closed NORTEL NETWORKS: PBA Violations Lawsuit in Canada Remains Stayed OVERSEAS SHIPHOLDING: Settles Two American Shareholder Lawsuits OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Files Notice of Appeal on Court's Ruling OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Suit Over "Facebook Beacon" Pending in Calif. SAN FRANCISCO: Agrees to Spend $4 Mil. Per Year on Sidewalks UNITED PARCEL: Class Certified in Alabama Over-Billing Case VERIZON COMMS: Idearc Retirees File Pension Suit in N.D. Tex. ********* AK STEEL: Retirees Win $51 Million Pension Benefit Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- LawyersAndSettlements.com reports that retired AK Steel workers finally won their eight-year old pension benefits class action and got some money last week. The settlement totalled $51 million and will be distributed among 1,000 retirees. The suit alleged that the company had miscalculated the employees lump sum payments. The plaintiffs won their case in 2006, but it then went to an appeals court, where the decision was upheld. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 14, 2009, the proceeding before the trial court is Bailey, et al. v. AK Steel Corp., Case No. 06-cv-00468 (S.D. Ohio.) (Barrett, J.). ANESIVA INC: "Gluck" Suit Undergoing Confirmatory Discovery ----------------------------------------------------------- The parties in a derivative complaint are now in the process of confirmatory discovery, according to Anesiva, Inc.'s Nov. 16, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. On March 19, 2009, Sheryl Gluck, an alleged stockholder, filed a derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, purportedly on behalf of Anesiva, named as a nominal defendant, against Anesiva's chief executive officer, certain members of Anesiva's board of directors and certain stockholders of Anesiva affiliated with the directors relating to the Investor Agreement with the Investors. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing Anesiva to enter into the Investor Agreement. On Sept. 8, 2009, an amended complaint was filed, which also alleges, among other things (including allegations relating to the Investor Agreement), that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders of Anesiva in connection with the proposed merger of Arca Acquisition Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Anesiva, and Arcion Therapeutics, Inc., pursuant to that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated Aug. 4, 2009, among Anesiva, Arca and Arcion and, with respect to only Articles V and IX of the agreement, each of the Arcion stockholders listed on Schedule I thereto. The amended complaint adds, among others, Arcion as a defendant to the suit. The amended complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the defendants from completing the Merger as currently contemplated. The amended complaint is styled both as a derivative suit and as a class action and seeks, in addition to the injunctive relief noted, damages to certain of the Anesiva stockholders based on a theory that the purchase price offered to such stockholders is less than the value of their shares. Anesiva and Plaintiff Gluck have since agreed upon a tentative settlement. Anesiva, Inc. -- http://www.anesiva.com/-- is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of therapeutic treatments for pain management. Its portfolio includes two products. Adlea, a long-acting, site- specific, non-opioid analgesic, is being developed for moderate to severe pain, and has completed multiple Phase II trials in post-surgical, musculoskeletal and neuropathic pain and Phase III trials in bunionectomy and total knee arthroplasty (TKA, or total knee replacement surgery). The company is initially pursuing an indication for Adlea for the management of acute pain associated with orthopedic surgeries. Zingo (lidocaine hydrochloride monohydrate) powder intradermal injection system, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in August 2007, to reduce the pain associated with peripheral intravenous (IV) insertions or blood draws in children 3 to 18 years of age. Zingo was approved in January 2009, to reduce the pain associated with blood draws in adults. CIT GROUP: Still Faces Consolidated Amended Complaint in SDNY ------------------------------------------------------------- CIT Group Inc. continues to face a consolidated amended complaint alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the company's Nov. 16, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. In July and August 2008, putative class action lawsuits were filed against CIT, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer. In August 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the New York District Court by a holder of CIT-PrZ equity units against CIT, its CEO, CFO, former Executive Vice President and Controller and members of its Board of Directors. In May 2009, the Court consolidated these three shareholder actions into a single action and appointed Pensioenfonds Horeca & Catering as Lead Plaintiff to represent the proposed class, which consists of all acquirers of CIT securities from Dec. 12, 2006 through March 5, 2008, who allegedly were damaged, including acquirers of CIT-PrZ preferred stock pursuant to the Oct. 17, 2007 offering of such preferred stock. In July 2009, the Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. Specifically, it is alleged that the company, its CEO, CFO, former Executive Vice President and Controller, and a former Vice Chairman violated Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act by allegedly making false and misleading statements and omissions regarding CIT's subprime home lending and student lending businesses. The allegations relating to the company's student lending businesses are based upon the assertion that the company failed to account in its financial statements or, in the case of the preferred stockholders, its registration statement and prospectus, for private loans to students of a helicopter pilot training school, which it is alleged were highly unlikely to be repaid and should have been written off. The allegations relating to the company's home lending business are based on the assertion that the company failed to fully disclose the risks in the Company's portfolio of subprime mortgage loans. It also is alleged that its CEO, CFO, former Executive Vice President and Controller and a former Vice Chairman violated Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act as controlling persons of the company. The lead Plaintiff also alleges that the Company, its CEO, CFO, and former Executive Vice President and Controller and those Directors of the company who signed the registration statement in connection with the October 2007 CIT-PrZ preferred offering violated Sections 11 and/or 12 of the 1933 Act by making false and misleading statements concerning the company's student lending business. It also is alleged that its CEO and CFO, as well as the Directors who signed the registration statement, violated Section 15 of the 1933 Act as controlling persons of the company. In September 2008, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the New York District Court on behalf of CIT against its CEO and members of its Board of Directors, alleging defendants breached their fiduciary duties to CIT and abused the trust placed in them by wasting, diverting and misappropriating CIT's corporate assets. Also in September 2008, a similar purported shareholder derivative action was filed in New York County Supreme Court against CIT's CEO, CFO and members of its Board of Directors. On Oct. 10, 2009, the derivative shareholder plaintiffs served their amended derivative complaint, generally alleging that certain CIT directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties to CIT and its shareholders and unjustly enriched themselves by taking compensation and causing CIT to engage in risky subprime and student lending businesses and failing to disclose this "high- risk" activity to shareholders. In addition to certain current and former CIT directors, the amended derivative complaint names as defendants, CIT's CEO, CFO, former Executive Vice President and Controller, and a former Vice Chairman. In these shareholder and derivative lawsuits, plaintiffs seek, among other relief, unspecified damages and interest. CIT Group Inc. -- http://www.cit.com/-- is a bank holding company with more than $60 billion in finance and leasing assets that provides financial products and advisory services to small and middle market businesses. Operating in more than 50 countries across 30 industries, CIT provides an unparalleled combination of relationship, intellectual and financial capital to its customers worldwide. CIT maintains leadership positions in small business and middle market lending, retail finance, aerospace, equipment and rail leasing, and vendor finance. Founded in 1908 and headquartered in New York City, CIT is a member of the Fortune 500. CIT GROUP: Faces Derivative Action on $3 Billion Facility --------------------------------------------------------- CIT Group Inc. faces a derivative action in connection with the $3 billion financing facility entered into by the company in July 2009, according to the company's Nov. 16, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. In September 2009, three noteholders filed a derivative action in the Delaware Chancery Court against the directors of CIT Group Funding Company of Delaware, LLC, alleging that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to CIT Funding by allowing CIT Funding to guaranty and grant liens upon its assets in connection with the $3 billion financing facility entered into by the company in July 2009. On the same date, a group of noteholders, including the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action, commenced an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against CIT Funding and many of the lenders involved in the Funding Facility. Plaintiffs brought the action on behalf of themselves and a purported class of all holders or owners of notes issued by CIT Funding. Plaintiffs assert the Funding Facility constituted a fraudulent transfer under New York law, and accordingly should be annulled. Plaintiffs also allege that additional claims against the defendants and others may exist in the event of a bankruptcy filing by CIT Group Inc. and/or any of its affiliates. The parties have reached an agreement in principle pursuant to which these actions will be dismissed with prejudice following the effective date of the company's Amended Plan of Reorganization. CIT Group Inc. -- http://www.cit.com/-- is a bank holding company with more than $60 billion in finance and leasing assets that provides financial products and advisory services to small and middle market businesses. Operating in more than 50 countries across 30 industries, CIT provides an unparalleled combination of relationship, intellectual and financial capital to its customers worldwide. CIT maintains leadership positions in small business and middle market lending, retail finance, aerospace, equipment and rail leasing, and vendor finance. Founded in 1908 and headquartered in New York City, CIT is a member of the Fortune 500. CIT GROUP: SLX Reaches Pact to Resolve Claims in Various Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Student Loan Xpress, Inc., a subsidiary of CIT Group Inc., reached an agreement to resolve claims in putative class action lawsuits and collective actions, according to the company's Nov. 16, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. In February 2008, a helicopter pilot training school filed for bankruptcy and ceased operating. SLX, who is engaged in the student lending business, had originated private (non-government guaranteed) loans to approximately 2,600 students of the Pilot School, which totaled approximately $196.8 million in principal and accrued interest, SLX ceased originating new loans to students of this school in September 2007, but a majority of SLX's student borrowers had not completed their training when the school ceased operations. After the Pilot School filed for bankruptcy and ceased operations, SLX voluntarily placed those students who were attending school at the time of the closure "in grace" such that no payments under their loans have been required to be made and no interest on their loans have been accruing. Multiple lawsuits, including putative class action lawsuits and collective actions, have been filed against SLX and other lenders alleging, among other things, violations of state consumer protection laws. SLX participated in a mediation with several class counsels and the parties have reached an agreement to resolve the students' claims against SLX, which agreement was submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida for approval on Oct. 27, 2009. Upon preliminary approval of the settlement by the Court and after giving notice to the students, the students will have the right to opt out of the class settlement. Based on the assumption that no students will opt out of the class settlement and the Court will overrule any objections and finally approve the settlement, CIT expects to charge off approximately $120 million in the fourth quarter which has been fully reserved. SLX also completed a settlement of a mass action commenced by students in Georgia, which is binding upon 37 SLX borrowers. The Attorneys General of several states also engaged in a review of the impact of the Pilot School's closure on the student borrowers and any possible role of SLX. SLX cooperated in the review and has reached agreement with twelve state Attorneys General, pursuant to which, among other things, the Attorneys General support the class settlement SLX has filed with the court. CIT Group Inc. -- http://www.cit.com/-- is a bank holding company with more than $60 billion in finance and leasing assets that provides financial products and advisory services to small and middle market businesses. Operating in more than 50 countries across 30 industries, CIT provides an unparalleled combination of relationship, intellectual and financial capital to its customers worldwide. CIT maintains leadership positions in small business and middle market lending, retail finance, aerospace, equipment and rail leasing, and vendor finance. Founded in 1908 and headquartered in New York City, CIT is a member of the Fortune 500. CITY OF FARGO: Paying $1.5 Million to Settle Traffic Fine Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kristen Daum at INFORUM reports that a federal court judge approved a million-dollar settlement Monday afternoon for a class-action lawsuit against the city of Fargo over excessive traffic fines. As part of the settlement in Sauby v. City of Fargo, Case No. 07-cv-00010 (D. N.D.), the city agreed to pay up to $1.5 million for eligible claims that were sent in by early November. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit contended that Fargo's traffic fines illegally exceed those in North Dakota's Century Code. According to documents filed in U.S. District Court earlier this month, at least 13,900 eligible claims amount to more than $1 million that the city will pay. Fargo city attorney Erik Johnson said the city's payments should be sent out within 2 to 3 months. The Class Action Reporter covered the Court's preliminary settlement of this matter on July 3, 2009. E.T. BROWNE: Epiq Systems Begins Notice & Claim Filing Process -------------------------------------------------------------- A notice program authorized by the Los Angeles County Superior Court began this week to alert those who purchased certain Palmer's brand Cocoa Butter for Stretch Marks products from April 3, 2003, through September 30, 2009, about a proposed settlement with E.T. Browne Drug Company, Inc. The notice is a result of the Court certifying for settlement purposes only, on November 24, 2009, a plaintiff class in a lawsuit alleging that E.T. Browne made misleading or false statements about certain Palmer's Brand Coca Butter for Stretch Marks products. The lawsuit, Mary Fallon, et al. v. E.T. Browne Drug Company, Inc., Case No. BC 411117 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.), claims Defendant made false and misleading statements in its labeling and advertising of Defendant's Palmer's brand Cocoa Butter Formula Massage Lotion for Stretch Marks, Cocoa Butter Formula Massage Cream for Stretch Marks, Organics Cocoa Butter Massage Lotion for Stretch Marks, Organics Cocoa Butter Massage Cream for Stretch Marks, and Organics Cocoa Butter Tummy Butter for Stretch Marks. The settlement includes only those five Palmer's Products. The Settlement does not mean that Defendant did anything wrong, and the Court has not decided that Defendant did anything wrong. Indeed, Defendant has denied any wrongdoing whatsoever, and is settling the case only to avoid the expense and inconvenience of litigation. All Class Members can submit claims online at: http://www.PalmersSettlement.com/ or via U.S. mail. Each Class Member who makes a claim will be sent a check, via U.S. Mail, in the amount of $1.25 for each bottle of the Palmer's Products purchased during the Class Period, up to a maximum of four bottles. Class Members are not required to submit receipts, but are required to submit a Declaration included in the Claim Form saying that they purchased the product. Notices informing Class members about their legal rights are appearing in U.S.A. Today, on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/PalmersSettlement and on 30 internet websites during the period December 1, 2009, through January 1, 2009 leading up to the Final Approval Hearing on February 25, 2009. The Court has preliminarily appointed the law firm of Milstein, Adelman, & Kreger, LLP to represent the Class as Plaintiffs' Lead Class Counsel. Epiq Systems, Inc., is providing noticing and claim processing services. In addition to submitting a claim form to ask for payment, Class members can ask to be excluded from, or object to, the settlement. Claim forms must be postmarked no later than February 4, 2009. The deadline for exclusions and objections is February 4, 2009. A toll-free number, 1-888-643-2168, has been established in this case along with a website at http://www.PalmersSettlement.com/ where notices, claim forms, the settlement agreement, and the Court's preliminary approval order may be obtained. Those affected also may write to: Palmer's Settlement Administrator PO Box 4277 Portland, OR 97208-4277 EPL INTERMEDIATE: Class Certification Hearing Set for Dec. 3 ------------------------------------------------------------ A hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in a purported class-action lawsuit against EPL Intermediate, Inc., is scheduled on Dec. 3, 2009, according to the company's Nov. 16, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. EPL Intermediate, Inc. continues to defend a purported class- action lawsuit against the company in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. On or about April 16, 2004, former managers Haroldo Elias, Marco Ramirez and Javier Rivera filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against EPL on behalf of all putative class members composed of former and current general managers and restaurant managers from April 2000 to present. The suit alleges certain violations of California labor laws, including alleged improper classification of general managers and restaurant managers as exempt employees. The requested remedies include compensatory damages for unpaid wages, interest, certain statutory penalties, disgorgement of alleged profits, punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs as well as certain injunctive relief. The court has lifted the stay on the class action pursuant to a recent California Supreme Court decision. The matter is now proceeding in Superior Court, and the parties are conducting limited discovery on the issue of class certification. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is expected to be filed in April 2009, and briefing completed. The hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was set for Sept. 18, 2009. Costa Mesa, Calif.-based EPL Intermediate, Inc., through its wholly owned subsidiary El Pollo Loco, Inc., operates a restaurant system specializing in flame-grilled chicken. As of Dec. 31, 2008, its restaurant system consisted of 165 company- operated and 248 franchised restaurants located primarily in California, with additional restaurants in Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington. In 2008, it opened 9 new company-operated restaurants and 21 franchised restaurants. EPL INTERMEDIATE: Finalizing Settlement Agreement in "Santana" -------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in a purported class-action suit filed on behalf of all assistant shift managers against EPL Holdings, Inc. are finalizing a settlement agreement. In April 2007, Dora Santana filed a purported class action in state court in Los Angeles County on behalf of all "Assistant Shift Managers." Plaintiff alleges wage and hour violations including working off the clock, failure to pay overtime, and meal break violations on behalf of the purported class, currently defined as all Assistant Managers from April 2003 to present. Written discovery is completed on the limited issue of class certification. The Court has ordered that plaintiffs file their motion for class certification no later than Aug. 15, 2009. The parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter and are in the process of finalizing that agreement. In the second quarter of 2009, the company accrued the estimated settlement expense of $900,000, according to the company's Nov. 16, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. Costa Mesa, Calif.-based EPL Intermediate, Inc., through its wholly owned subsidiary El Pollo Loco, Inc., operates a restaurant system specializing in flame-grilled chicken. As of Dec. 31, 2008, its restaurant system consisted of 165 company- operated and 248 franchised restaurants located primarily in California, with additional restaurants in Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington. In 2008, it opened 9 new company-operated restaurants and 21 franchised restaurants. EPL INTERMEDIATE: "Amezcua" Labor Violations Suit Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Salvador Amezcua's purported class-action lawsuit against EPL Intermediate, Inc. is pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. On Oct. 18, 2005, Salvador Amezcua, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed a purported class-action complaint against EPL. Carlos Olvera replaced Mr. Amezcua as the named class representative on Aug. 16, 2006. This action alleges certain violations of California labor laws and the California Business and Professions Code, based on, among other things, failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal periods, unlawful deductions from earnings and unfair competition. Plaintiffs' requested remedies include compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The court denied EPL's motion to compel arbitration, and the company has appealed that decision. The Court of Appeal issued its ruling on April 27, 2009, affirming the trial court ruling on the arbitration issue. No further developments of this case were reported in the company's Nov. 16, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. Costa Mesa, Calif.-based EPL Intermediate, Inc., through its wholly owned subsidiary El Pollo Loco, Inc., operates a restaurant system specializing in flame-grilled chicken. As of Dec. 31, 2008, its restaurant system consisted of 165 company- operated and 248 franchised restaurants located primarily in California, with additional restaurants in Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington. In 2008, it opened 9 new company-operated restaurants and 21 franchised restaurants. EPL INTERMEDIATE: Calif. Labor Breach Suit Settlement Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- The settlement of a purported class-action suit filed by a former assistant manager of EPL Intermediate, Inc., against the company is pending California court approval. On May 30, 2008, former assistant manager Jeannette Delgado filed a purported class-action lawsuit on behalf of all hourly (i.e. non-exempt) employees of EPL in state court in Los Angeles County alleging violations of certain California labor laws and the California Business and Professions Code including failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal periods and rest periods and unfair business practices. By statute, the purported class extends back four years to May 30, 2004. The plaintiff's requested remedies include compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. This lawsuit was served on the company in early September 2008. The parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter and executed a Memorandum of Understanding in June 2009. The class-wide settlement requires Court approval, and it is expected that administration of the settlement can be completed by year end. In the second quarter of 2009, the company accrued the estimated settlement expense of $1.5 million, according to the company's Nov. 16, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. Costa Mesa, Calif.-based EPL Intermediate, Inc., through its wholly owned subsidiary El Pollo Loco, Inc., operates a restaurant system specializing in flame-grilled chicken. As of Dec. 31, 2008, its restaurant system consisted of 165 company- operated and 248 franchised restaurants located primarily in California, with additional restaurants in Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington. In 2008, it opened 9 new company-operated restaurants and 21 franchised restaurants. EPL INTERMEDIATE: In Settlement Talks with "Penaloza" Plaintiffs ---------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in a purported class action filed on behalf of all non-exempt employees against EPL Intermediate, Inc., are engaged in settlement negotiations. On May 26, 2009, in Superior Court in Orange County, California, Martin Penaloza, a former Assistant Manager, filed the action on behalf of all non-exempt employees. The claims, requested remedies, and potential class in this case overlap those in the Delgado and Santana cases. The settlement of this matter is included in the settlement of the Delgado and Santana lawsuits. No further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 16, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. Costa Mesa, Calif.-based EPL Intermediate, Inc., through its wholly owned subsidiary El Pollo Loco, Inc., operates a restaurant system specializing in flame-grilled chicken. As of Dec. 31, 2008, its restaurant system consisted of 165 company- operated and 248 franchised restaurants located primarily in California, with additional restaurants in Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington. In 2008, it opened 9 new company-operated restaurants and 21 franchised restaurants. FRONTIER FINANCIAL: Wash. Merger Lawsuit Dismissed with Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- Frontier Financial Corporation (NASDAQ: FTBK), the parent company of Frontier Bank, says that the putative shareholders' class action lawsuit that was filed in the Superior Court of Washington, Snohomish County, on August 20, 2009, against Frontier, its directors and SP Acquisition Holdings, Inc., was dismissed with prejudice on November 24, 2009. As reported on Sept. 24, 2009, in the Class Action Reporter, the litigation challenged Frontier's merger transaction with SP Acquisition Holdings, Inc., and was brought by Charles C. Hilton, an alleged shareholder, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated. Frontier Financial Corporation -- http://www.frontierbank.com/-- is a Washington-based financial holding company, providing financial services through its commercial bank subsidiary, Frontier Bank, since 1978. Frontier Bank offers a wide range of banking and financial services to businesses and individuals in its market area, including trust, cash management, and investment and insurance products. Frontier operates 47 offices in Clallam, Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Pierce, Skagit, Snohomish, Thurston, Whatcom counties in Washington and 3 offices in Oregon. KEN DENTON: South African Group Mulls Suing Alleged Slumlord ------------------------------------------------------------ Brian Hayward at the Weekend Post reports that outraged citizens of Nelson Mandela Bay are gearing up to launch a massive class action against the municipality in a bid to get it to force Irish "slumlord" Ken Denton to repair his decaying and derelict properties in the city's historical heart. Some of the city's top legal minds have already been consulted and a campaign to raise R150000 to start the class action will be launched shortly, according to members of the Save Our City (SOC) organisation, established earlier this year to gather support for the protection of historical buildings. Having bought more than 400 properties around the Bay since his arrival in the city from Dublin in the late 1990s, Mr. Denton has often been accused of creating an "inner-city slum" by residents, business leaders and visitors who have visited some of the derelict national monuments which he owns. Mr. Hayward's complete report is available at: http://www.weekendpost.co.za/article.aspx?id=503797 NATIONAL BEEF: Unit Defends Lawsuits Over Tannery in Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------- National Beef Packing Company, LLC's wholly-owned subsidiary, National Beef Leathers, LLC, defends eleven lawsuits involving NBL's tannery located in St. Joseph, Missouri, according to the company's Nov. 16, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 29, 2009. NBL purchased the assets of the tannery from Prime Tanning Corp. in March 2009. The lawsuits are pending in the Circuit Courts of Buchanan County, Clinton County and DeKalb County, Missouri and in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri and were filed between April 22, 2009 and Aug. 21, 2009. The lawsuits allege that Prime and NBL spread wastewater sludge containing hexavalent chromium in four counties in northwest Missouri. The lawsuits currently include nine actions filed by individuals and two purported class actions. The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages for wrongful death, personal injury, pain and suffering, economic damages, punitive damages, diminished property values and medical monitoring. National Beef Packing Company, LLC -- http://www.nationalbeef.com/-- is a beef processing company in the United States. The company processes packages and delivers fresh beef for sale to customers in the United States and international markets. The products include boxed beef and beef by-products, such as hides and offal. In addition, National Beef sells beef products including branded boxed beef, case- ready beef, chilled and frozen export beef and portion control beef. The company markets its products to retailers, distributors, food service providers, further processors, and the United States military. It has the ability to process approximately 14,000 head per day in its beef processing facilities. The company reports in two business segments: Core Beef and Other. NORTEL NETWORKS: Suits Against Executives Remains Stayed in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A Securities Class Action Claim against Nortel Networks Ltd.'s former Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer remains stayed, according to the company's Nov. 16, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. On May 18, 2009, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging violations of federal securities law between the period of May 2, 2008 through Sept. 17, 2008, against Mike Zafirovski (Nortel's former President and CEO) and Pavi Binning (Nortel's Executive Vice President, CFO and Chief Restructuring Officer). Although Nortel is not a named defendant, this lawsuit has been stayed as a result of the Creditor Protection Proceedings. Nortel Networks Ltd. -- http://www.nortel.com/-- is a global supplier of networking solutions serving both service provider and enterprise customers. It supplies end-to-end networking products and solutions that help organizations enhance and simplify communications. These organizations range from small businesses to multi-national corporations involved in all aspects of commercial and industrial activity, and from federal, state and local government agencies and the military to cable operators, wireline and wireless telecommunications service providers, and Internet service providers. Nortel's networking solutions include hardware and software products and services. It designs, develops, engineers, markets, sells, supplies, licenses, installs, services and supports these networking solutions worldwide. Nortel operates in four segments: Carrier Networks (CN), Enterprise Solutions (ES), Metro Ethernet Networks (MEN) and Global Services (GS). NORTEL NETWORKS: Tenn. Suit is Ordered Administratively Closed -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee has ordered that the consolidated purported class action lawsuit against Nortel Networks Ltd. is administratively closed, according to the company's Nov. 16, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. Beginning in December 2001, Nortel, together with certain of its then-current and former directors, officers and employees, were named as a defendant in several purported class action lawsuits pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Securities Act of 1974. These lawsuits have been consolidated into a single proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. This lawsuit is on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the Nortel Long-Term Investment Plan, who held shares of the Nortel Networks Stock Fund during the class period, which has yet to be determined by the court. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, material misrepresentations and omissions to induce participants and beneficiaries to continue to invest in and maintain investments in NNC common shares through the investment plan. The court has not yet ruled as to whether the plaintiff's proposed class action should be certified. As a result of the Creditor Protection Proceedings, on Sept. 25, 2009, the district court ordered the case administratively closed. Nortel Networks Ltd. -- http://www.nortel.com/-- is a global supplier of networking solutions serving both service provider and enterprise customers. It supplies end-to-end networking products and solutions that help organizations enhance and simplify communications. These organizations range from small businesses to multi-national corporations involved in all aspects of commercial and industrial activity, and from federal, state and local government agencies and the military to cable operators, wireline and wireless telecommunications service providers, and Internet service providers. Nortel's networking solutions include hardware and software products and services. It designs, develops, engineers, markets, sells, supplies, licenses, installs, services and supports these networking solutions worldwide. Nortel operates in four segments: Carrier Networks (CN), Enterprise Solutions (ES), Metro Ethernet Networks (MEN) and Global Services (GS). NORTEL NETWORKS: PBA Violations Lawsuit in Canada Remains Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class action lawsuit against Nortel Networks Ltd. and its parent company Nortel Networks Corp. remains stayed, according to the company's Nov. 16, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. On June 24, 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Nortel and NNC in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Ottawa, Canada alleging, among other things, that certain recent changes related to Nortel's pension plan did not comply with the Pension Benefits Act (Ontario) or common law notification requirements. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and equitable relief, and unspecified monetary damages. As a result of the Creditor Protection Proceedings, this lawsuit has been stayed. Nortel Networks Ltd. -- http://www.nortel.com/-- is a global supplier of networking solutions serving both service provider and enterprise customers. It supplies end-to-end networking products and solutions that help organizations enhance and simplify communications. These organizations range from small businesses to multi-national corporations involved in all aspects of commercial and industrial activity, and from federal, state and local government agencies and the military to cable operators, wireline and wireless telecommunications service providers, and Internet service providers. Nortel's networking solutions include hardware and software products and services. It designs, develops, engineers, markets, sells, supplies, licenses, installs, services and supports these networking solutions worldwide. Nortel operates in four segments: Carrier Networks (CN), Enterprise Solutions (ES), Metro Ethernet Networks (MEN) and Global Services (GS). OVERSEAS SHIPHOLDING: Settles Two American Shareholder Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Rajesh Joshi at Lloyd's List reports that Overseas Shipholding Group has reached a tentative settlement with two groups of shareholders which had brought class action lawsuits designed to derail the privatisation processes of the company's US-flag spin- off OSG America. The revelation, made in a US regulatory filing at the weekend, is silent on the status of a third class action lawsuit, Mr. Joshi reports. OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Files Notice of Appeal on Court's Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------- Overstock.com, Inc. has filed a Notice of Appeal on the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York's ruling denying approval of its motion to dismiss a class-action lawsuit filed by the nominative plaintiff, Cynthia Hines, according to its Nov. 16, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. On March 10, 2009 the company was sued in the class-action filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York. Ms. Hines alleges the company failed to properly disclose its returns policy to her and that it improperly imposed a "restocking" charge on her return of a vacuum cleaner. The nominative plaintiff on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, seeks damages under claims for breach of contract, common law fraud and New York consumer fraud laws. The company filed a motion to dismiss based upon assertions that the company's agreement with its customers requires all such actions to be arbitrated in Salt Lake City, Utah. Alternatively, the company asked that the case be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, so that arbitration may be compelled in that district. On Sept. 8, 2009 the motion to dismiss was denied, the court stating that the company's browsewrap agreement was insufficient under New York law to establish an agreement with the customer to arbitrate disputes in Utah. On Oct. 8, 2009, the Company has filed a Notice of Appeal of the court's ruling. Overstock.com, Inc. -- http://www.overstock.com/-- is an online closeout retailer offering discount brand name merchandise, including bed-and-bath goods, home decor, kitchenware, watches, jewelry, electronics and computers, sporting goods, apparel, and designer accessories, among other products. The company also sells books, magazines, compact disc (CD), digital versatile disc (DVD), and video games (BMMG). In addition, it operates as a section on its Website, an online auction site, a marketplace for the buying and selling of goods and services, as well as, the section on its Website for listing cars and real estate for sale. The company utilizes the Internet to aggregate the fragmented supply and demand and create a market for liquidation merchandise. It focuses on providing a one-stop discount shopping destination for products and services sold through the Internet. The company's shopping business includes direct business and a fulfillment partner business. OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Suit Over "Facebook Beacon" Pending in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Overstock.com, Inc. continues to face a class-action lawsuit styled, "Sean Lane et al. v. Facebook Inc. et al., Case No. C08 03845," in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, according to its Nov. 16, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. On Aug. 12, 2008, the company along with 7 other defendants, was sued by Sean Lane, and 17 other individuals, on their own behalf and for others similarly in a class action suit, alleging violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Video Privacy Protection Act, and California' Consumer legal Remedies Act and Computer Crime Law. The complaint relates to the company's use of a product known as Facebook Beacon, created and provided to the company by Facebook, Inc. Facebook Beacon provided the means for Facebook users to share purchasing data among their Facebook friends. The plaintiffs and defendants, including the company, have stipulated to an extension in the time for answering the complaint, while the parties engage in a mediation of the dispute. The company has not responded to the Complaint. The company has notified Facebook, Inc. of its indemnification obligations under the contract by which the company obtained and deployed Facebook Beacon. The parties have entered stipulation specifying the party defendants need not answer the complaint while the parties discuss resolution alternatives. The Plaintiff and Facebook proposed a stipulated resolution to the court for approval, which would resolve the case without requirement of financial contribution from the company. A third party has intervened to block the approval. Representing the plaintiffs is: Alan Himmelfarb, Esq. KAMBEREDELSON, LLC 2757 Leonis Blvd. Vernon, CA 90058-2304 Phone: 323-585-8696 E-mail: ahimmelfarb@kamberedelson.com Overstock.com, Inc. -- http://www.overstock.com/-- is an online closeout retailer offering discount brand name merchandise, including bed-and-bath goods, home decor, kitchenware, watches, jewelry, electronics and computers, sporting goods, apparel, and designer accessories, among other products. The company also sells books, magazines, compact disc (CD), digital versatile disc (DVD), and video games (BMMG). In addition, it operates as a section on its Website, an online auction site, a marketplace for the buying and selling of goods and services, as well as, the section on its Website for listing cars and real estate for sale. The company utilizes the Internet to aggregate the fragmented supply and demand and create a market for liquidation merchandise. It focuses on providing a one-stop discount shopping destination for products and services sold through the Internet. The company's shopping business includes direct business and a fulfillment partner business. SAN FRANCISCO: Agrees to Spend $4 Mil. Per Year on Sidewalks ------------------------------------------------------------ ATTENTION: PERSONS WITH MOBILITY IMPAIRMENTS WHO USE PUBLIC SIDEWALKS IN SAN FRANCISCO Settlement of Disability Access Class Action Lawsuit The Parties have reached a proposed settlement of King v. City and County of San Francisco, a class action lawsuit on behalf of residents and visitors to San Francisco with mobility impairments. According to the settlement, the City has agreed to continue to spend a minimum of $4 million annually on curb ramp construction. If a class member wishes to preserve the right to sue the City for individual statutory damages, the class member may do so by notifying the court. Any written objections to the proposed settlement are due in court by February 26, 2010. The court will hold a hearing on March 26, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. to address any objections. Additional information and a detailed summary of the proposed settlement terms are available at: http://www.sfgov.org/site/mod_index.asp. or contact the attorneys for the class plaintiffs: Keith Daniel Cable, Esq. CABLE LAW OFFICE 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100 Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone: (916) 608-7995 E-mail: cablelaw@yahoo.com UNITED PARCEL: Class Certified in Alabama Over-Billing Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Roy L. Williams at The Birmingham News reports that a Birmingham federal judge gave class action status to a lawsuit filed by an Alabama-based auto parts distributor accusing shipping giant United Parcel Service of over-billing customers -- a charge the company denies. The decision by U.S. District Judge Inge Johnson in Barber Auto Sales, Inc. v. United Parcel Service Co., Inc., Case No. 06-cv- 04686 (N.D. Ala.), means more than one million individuals and companies alleging breach of contract by UPS could join the suit, said: Peter A. Grammas, Esq. Lowe & Grammas LLP Liberty Park 1952 Urban Center Pkwy. Birmingham, AL 35242-2594 Telephone: 205-380-2400 who represents plaintiff Barber Auto Sales Inc. The case was filed in November 2006 and centers on Barber's charge that Atlanta-based UPS has overcharged the firm and others through so-called "shipping charge corrections" that it bills after items have been shipped. Barber says it has used UPS for years to ship auto parts across the country. In an interview, Mr. Grammas told Mr. Williams that the "corrections" apply to customers who use UPS-supplied software that calculates what it costs to ship packages. According to UPS' Web site, the company says it re serves the right to make adjustments to shipping invoices. Once it checks packages delivered, UPS often makes adjustments to the price and bills clients such as Barber Auto Sales, Mr. Grammas said. "We are alleging that UPS engages in improper billing," he said. UPS spokeswoman Susan Rosenberg denied the lawsuit's claims. She said the company, which ships goods to 200 countries, plans to appeal the judge's ruling giving the case class action status. "It (the decision) was a procedural ruling and does not relate to the actual merits of the case," she said. "UPS' measuring devices are accurate and we look forward to proving that at trial." In her Nov. 17 ruling, Judge Johnson denied a motion by UPS seeking to block class-action status. UPS received a partial victory when the judge sided with the shipping company that Barber can challenge only billing adjustments for an 18-month period prior to when it filed the lawsuit, citing a contract between the two parties. According to the suit, Barber presented evidence that UPS was aware of widespread complaints regarding the accuracy of its charges. The suit says Barber, after complaining, received a credit from UPS for nearly $3,500 of the $4,679.01 in billing adjustment invoices it received after shipments were delivered over a period between May 1, 2005, and Nov. 30, 2006. In an e-mail cited in the lawsuit, a UPS regional coordinator was informed by a finance manager for the shipping company that one customer was credited $1,502 due to erroneous charges. Mr. Grammas said the case is now in the discovery period and could go to trial within a year. He said it is unclear how much money Barber and others involved in the class action could have lost due to the price adjustments practice. "With potentially one million individuals and businesses involved in the class-action, it could add up to a substantial amount," Mr. Grammas said. Other counsel of record for Barber Auto are: E. Clayton Lowe, Jr., Esq. LOWE & GRAMMAS LLP 1952 Urban Center Parkway Vestavia Hills, AL 35242 Telephone: 205-380-2400 - and - Brian M. Clark, Esq. Dennis G. Pantazis, Esq. WIGGINS CHILDS QUINN & PANTAZIS The Kress Building 301 19th Street, North Birmingham, AL 35203-3204 Telephone: 205-314-0500 - and - James M. Corder, Jr., Esq. ALEXANDER CORDER PLUNK & SHELLY, PC PO Box 1129 Athens, AL 35612 Telephone: 256-232-1130 - and - Nicholas B. Roth, Esq. EYSTER KEY TUBB ROTH MIDDLETON & ADAMS LLP 402 E. Moulton Street PO Box 1607 Decatur, AL 35602 Telephone: 256-353-6761 UPS is represented by: Barry Goheen, Esq. Sidney S. Haskins, II, Esq. Paul J. Murphy, Esq. Anthony Ventry, III, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1180 Peachtree Street NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: 404-572-4618 - and - Natasha L. Wilson, Esq. GREENBERG TAURIG 3290 Northside Parkway, Suite 400 Atlanta, GA 30327 Telephone: 678-553-2182 - and - Jeffrey P. Leonard, Esq. HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC 2224 First Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: 205-326-3336 - and - Terrence W. McCarthy, Esq. Jere F. White, Jr., Esq. LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN & WHITE LLC The Clark Building 400 20th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: 205-581-0700 VERIZON COMMS: Idearc Retirees File Pension Suit in N.D. Tex. ------------------------------------------------------------- Telephone company retirees have filed a complaint for proposed class action relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) charging that they and over two thousand others were involuntarily switched in November 2006, post-retirement, from the financially secure Verizon Communication Inc. (NYSE: VZ) pension plans to pension plans sponsored by a newly spun-off company, Idearc Inc. (PINKSHEETS: IDARQ). Less than 2 years after Verizon transferred the retirees, Idearc encountered financial problems and began cutting back various earned retiree benefits. These benefit reductions were not experienced by retirees remaining in Verizon's pension plans. In March 2009, Idearc filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. In mid-November, 2006, after each Plaintiff had been retired for at least ten years, they together with more than 2,000 others were involuntarily reclassified and switched into pension plans run by Idearc. All three Plaintiffs were fully vested in the Verizon pension plans with rights to continued payment of monthly annuities and other Verizon welfare benefits. No party received any Plaintiff's consent to be switched over to Idearc's pension plans. From the point of the spin off, concluded on November 17, 2006, Verizon treated the retirees' rights to the usual Verizon retiree benefits as being terminated. Plaintiff Philip A. Murphy, former President of CWA Local No. 1301, a resident of Mills, MA, retired from a predecessor of Verizon in 1996. Plaintiff Sandra R. Noe of Ipswich, MA and Plaintiff Claire M. Palmer of West Newton, MA both retired from predecessors of Verizon in 1995 and had for years been participants in Verizon pension plans. None of the Plaintiffs had actually ever worked for Idearc. When retirees tried to administratively challenge their involuntary transfer to Idearc and its pension plans, without going to court, the respondent companies stonewalled and missed mandated deadlines to respond to the retirees' internal claims. The retirees' proposed class-wide administrative claim sought to remedy the mistreatment accorded to both non-management and management retirees who have suffered tremendous losses not suffered by their fellow retirees who were not transferred to Idearc. The respondents refused to treat Plaintiffs' internal claims as class-wide claims. Therefore, Plaintiffs filed a proposed class action on November 25, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The Complaint filed in Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-2262 charges pension plan administrators with numerous ERISA violations including: -- Failure to provide requested plan documents; -- Breach of fiduciary duty for refusal to disclose pension related plan information; -- Breach of fiduciary duty for failure to comply with pension plan document rules; -- Various other ERISA violations justifying court ordered declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief; -- Unlawful refusal to make payment of Verizon pension plan benefits; and -- Unlawful interference with retirees' rights to receive Verizon retiree pension and welfare benefits. The Federal Complaint states that when Verizon transferred hundreds of millions of dollars in surplus pension assets to Idearc in November 2006, no pension plan language identified and traced the transferred monies to actual liabilities owed to particular plan participants for the payment of pension benefits. When Verizon conducted the transfer, there were no existing plan terms giving the plan sponsor or any other entity the authority to change the status of the retirees. "What Verizon did to these retirees is disgraceful," said C. William Jones, who heads the Association of BellTel Retirees Inc., (www.belltelretirees.org) a retiree activist organization. "They are ducking a fiduciary responsibility to employees who gave decades of service and earned these benefits. These pension funds were set aside over the years for the benefit of employees who worked 20, 30 or more years and earned their pensions over their careers. It is reprehensible to refuse to provide plan documents so retirees can make informed judgments on the state of their pension plan and other benefits which they earned during their working years." The Complaint asks that all retirees who were transferred to Idearc be put back into Verizon's pension and welfare benefit plans. It also asks that Verizon's and Idearc's pension plan administrators be order to pay a daily penalty for failure to timely provide requested records. A copy of the 34-page Complaint in Murphy, et al. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-02262 (N.D. Tex.), is available at: http://www.belltelretirees.org/images/stories/docket_01_-_complaint.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Curtis L. Kennedy, Esq. 8405 E. Princeton Avenue Denver, Colorado 80237-1741 Telephone: 303-770-0440 E-mail: CurtisLKennedy@aol.com - and - Robert E. Goodman, Jr., Esq. FRANCIS GOODMAN PLLC 8750 North Central Expressway, Suite 1000 Dallas, Texas 75231 Telephone: 214-368-1765 E-mail: rgoodman@francisgoodman.com rgdallas@flash.net ********* 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 * * *