/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120118.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, January 18, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 13 Headlines BANCO SANTANDER: Judge Sees Problems in Madoff Class Action CAREER EDUCATION: Sperling & Slater Files Class Action CHEMED CORP: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Ohio LEHMAN BROTHERS: Settles Securities MBS Class Action METLIFE INC: Sued in New York for Misleading Investors NETFLIX INC: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in California PLIMUS INC: Deceives Consumers in California, Class Suit Says RBS CITIZENS: Faces Overtime Class Action in Rhode Island REDBOX: Blind Individuals File Class Action Over Kiosks SUPERVALU INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over C&S Transaction SUPERVALU INC: Wisconsin Suit Remains Stayed Pending IOS Ruling VEOLIA ENVIRONNEMENT: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action WALGREEN'S: Attorneys Enter Appearance in Fraud Class Action ********* BANCO SANTANDER: Judge Sees Problems in Madoff Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Richard Vanderford, writing for Law360, reports that foreign investors suing Spain's Banco Santander SA for trusting money in Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme face serious difficulties bringing their proposed class action in a U.S. court, a New York federal judge warned on Jan. 12. "There are many serious problems that have been raised. I wouldn't take them lightly," U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin told lawyers for the plaintiffs, a group of entirely foreign-based investors. CAREER EDUCATION: Sperling & Slater Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Sperling & Slater on Jan. 13 disclosed that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of Career Education Corporation Shares during the period between January 1, 2009 and November 1, 2011. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from Jan. 13. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Paul Slater or Scott Hessell of Sperling & Slater at (312) 641-3200, or via e-mail at pes@sperling-law.com or shessell@sperling-law.com Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges CECO and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. CECO operates various "for-profit" educational programs and services. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following: (a) that CECO was materially overstating its retention rates and employment, or "placement" rates following graduation ("Placement Rates"); (b) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain its true Placement Rates; (c) that CECO failed disclose that the Company's purported Placement Rates were achieved through an improper course of conduct and a manipulative use of the term "employment"; (d) that these Placement Rates were being reported in violation of the Company's accreditation status and therefore, in violation of their Title IV funding requirements; and (e) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company and its prospects. On May 17, 2011, CECO announced that it had received a subpoena from the Attorney General of the State of New York. The subpoena requested documents pertaining to student employment outcomes and Placement Rates of graduates among other items in connection with the NYAG's investigation into whether the Company and certain of its schools complied with certain New York state consumer protection, securities, finance and other laws. On May 24, 2011, the Company confirmed the NYAG's investigation and disclosed the existence of the Subpoena in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC. As a result of these announcements, the price of CECO common stock dropped approximately 3% from $22.39 on May 17, 2011 to $21.69 on May 25, 2011. Purportedly in connection with the NYAG's investigation, on August 3, 2011, the Company reported that it had retained outside counsel (subsequently identified as Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP) to conduct an internal investigation to determine if the Placement Rates that CECO was reporting to various accreditation agencies were accurate. On November 1, 2011, the Company released preliminary results of the investigation in Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP ("Dewey Report"), which showed that many of CECO's schools had been artificially inflating the Placement Rates reported to accreditation agencies. In reaction to these announcements, the price of CECO common stock declined 15%, from $21.87 per share to $18.51 per share. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of CECO shares during the Class Period. Plaintiff is represented by Sperling & Slater which is on of the nation's preeminent litigation boutiques. Sperling & Slater is a Chicago-based litigation firm. The specializes in areas of complex business litigation, including securities, antitrust, bankruptcy and insolvency, and intellectual property. CHEMED CORP: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Ohio --------------------------------------------------- Business Courier reports that a law firm announced that it is commencing a class-action lawsuit that would include shareholders of Chemed Corp. The complaint stems from news that emerged Nov. 16 of a whistleblower lawsuit alleging that Chemed cheated Medicare. Chemed's stock fell $6.87 per share, or 11 percent, to close at $50.65 per share that day. San Diego-based Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd said it filed the litigation on behalf of an institutional investor in U.S. District Court in Cincinnati. The suit would include purchasers of Chemed common stock between Feb. 15, 2010, and Nov. 16, 2011. "Any member of the putative class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice," according to a news release from the law firm, "or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member." Cincinnati-based Chemed operates hospice provider Vitas Healthcare Corp. as well as Roto-Rooter, a plumbing and drain cleaning company. Given the whistleblower allegations and a U.S. Department of Justice investigation into fraudulent conduct by Vitas, the new law firm claims in the news release, "defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the company and its prospects." LEHMAN BROTHERS: Settles Securities MBS Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Bob Van Voris, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. agreed to pay $40 million to settle a securities-fraud class action over mortgage-backed securities. Lehman reached the settlement after 10 months of mediation with a group of union pension funds representing investors in 17 securities offerings, the plaintiffs said in court papers requesting approval of the agreement from a federal court in Manhattan. The settlement, which must be approved by the court before it can take effect, would resolve the investors' claims that Lehman disregarded underwriting standards for the securities, causing them to lose money. The pension funds said they believe there were hundreds or thousands of investors in the securities, which were sold for about $24.3 billion. Lehman, formerly the fourth-biggest investment bank, collapsed in 2008. Lehman filed for bankruptcy protection in New York listing $613 billion in debt. The case is In re Lehman Brothers Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, 08-cv-6762, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). METLIFE INC: Sued in New York for Misleading Investors ------------------------------------------------------ Michael K. Stanley, writing for LifeHealthPro, reports that a class action suit was filed on Jan 12, against MetLife Inc., with charges stemming from allegations that certain officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by knowingly making misleading statements pertaining to the company's financial obligations and therefore distorting the attractiveness of company stock. The class actions suit, which commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York seeks to recover damages for those who purchased MetLife common stock during the Class Period (February 2, 2010 - October 6, 2011). The suit is being handled by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd. The firm, which is experienced in dealing with cases involving defrauded investors, maintains that any purchasers of common stock within the Class Period are eligible to join the suit. Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller said, "I think institutional investors who purchased these shares during the period find this deeply troubling." Specifically the complaint deals with deceiving statements that were made by individual officers and directors pertaining to the company's future financial health in regards to its liability to policyholders, beneficiaries, and state authorities. On August 5, 2011, on the heels of a Form 10-Q filed with the SEC, the company announced that regulatory investigations into its death benefits practices potentially could result in a substantial escheatment to states coupled with administrative penalties. The stock price reacted by dropping by 11% the following day. On October 6, 2011, MetLife filed a Form 8-K with the SEC that acknowledged that the company would be hit with a $115 million after-tax charge to meet reserve requirements associated with their death benefits practice. The stock price then reacted by declining further until it hit $28.80 a share on October 7, 2011. MetLife spokesman John Calagna said "We believe all of our disclosures were appropriate." NETFLIX INC: Faces Securities Class Action Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------- City of Royal Oak Retirement System, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Netflix, Inc., Reed Hastings, David B. Wells, Theodore A. Sarandos, Leslie J. Kilgore and Neil D. Hunt, Case No. 3:12-cv-00225 (N.D. Calif., Case No. January 13, 2012) is a securities fraud class action brought on behalf of all persons, who purchased the common stock of Netflix between December 20, 2010, and October 24, 2011, for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff alleges that during the Class Period, the Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business practices and its contracts with content providers. Specifically, the Defendants concealed negative trends in Netflix's business, and as a result, Netflix's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of almost $300 per share on July 13, 2011, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff asserts that after Netflix revealed that it had lost a million subscribers upon its price increases becoming effective, Netflix stock collapsed nearly $40 per share to close at just under $170 per share on September 15, 2011. The Plaintiff is a shareholder of Netflix. Netflix offers subscription-based services for television shows and movies by mailing DVDs to subscribers' homes or via streaming to subscribers' televisions, computers and mobile devices. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Netflix. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Facsimile: (415) 288-4534 E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com - and - Darren J. Robbins, Esq. David C. Walton, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-3301 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com davew@rgrdlaw.com - and - Michael J. Vanoverbeke, Esq. Thomas C. Michaud, Esq. VANOVERBEKE MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C. 79 Alfred Street Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 578-1200 Facsimile: (313) 578-1201 E-mail: mvanoverbeke@vmtlaw.com tmichaud@vmtlaw.com PLIMUS INC: Deceives Consumers in California, Class Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Kimberly Yordy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Plimus, Inc., a California corporation and Great Hill Partners, LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability company, Case No. 3:12-cv-00229 (N.D. Calif., January 13, 2012) alleges that the Defendants, in conjunction with third parties, actively promote and profit from an array of Web sites that purport to offer unlimited access to downloadable digital goods, such as eBooks, movies, TV shows, and video games, all for a low one-time fee. For this one time fee, Ms. Yordy contends, Plimus represents that consumers will receive lifetime access to thousands of digital goods, but in reality, these Web sites do not offer products in the manner advertised. She asserts that the Defendants' marketing campaigns include the mass production of fabricated consumer reviews, testimonials, and fake blogs that are all intended to deceive consumers seeking a legitimate product and induce them to pay. Ms. Yordy is a resident of Minnesota. Plimus is a California corporation and does business throughout the United States of America. Plimus is a direct and wholly owned subsidiary of Great Hill, a Massachusetts limited liability company. Plimus facilitates both the affiliate marketing and payment processing for the Web sites, and aids in the creation of marketing campaigns, drives consumer Internet traffic, helps increase sales conversions, and accepts and processes payments for those Web sites, in exchange for a percentage based fee. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean P. Reis, Esq. EDELSON MCGUIRE LLP 30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 Telephone: (949) 459-2124 Facsimile: (949) 459-2123 E-mail: sreis@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Christopher L. Dore, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON MCGUIRE LLC 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com cdore@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com RBS CITIZENS: Faces Overtime Class Action in Rhode Island --------------------------------------------------------- On January 9, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed in the Federal District Court of Rhode Island to recover overtime wages for loan officers employed by RBS Citizens and its related entities, Citizens Bank, Charter One, and CCO Mortgage. According to the Complaint, RBS Citizens misclassified its loan officers across the country as exempt from overtime pay. The complaint further alleges that RBS Citizens pays its loan officers on a commission basis, but as of February 2012 will begin paying them on an hourly basis, including overtime pay. RBS Citizens is headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island and has bank branches under the Citizens Bank and Charter One brand names in Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Attorney Tim C. Selander of Nichols Kaster, PLLP stated, "We believe that these loan officers, regardless of their location, are entitled to overtime pay and that RBS violated the overtime laws by failing to pay them appropriately when they worked more than forty hours in a workweek. Our goal is to help them recover their overtime pay." The group is represented by: Tim C. Selander, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3281 E-mail: selander@nka.com - and - Brendan Donelon, Esq. DONELON, P.C. 802 Broadway, 7th Floor Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 221-7100 E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com - and - R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Peter Winebrake, Esq. THE WINEBRAKE LAW FIRM LLC Twining Office Center, Suite 211 715 Twining Road Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 - and - Charles S. Kirwan, Esq. CHARLES S. KIRWAN & ASSOCIATES 36 Park Place Pawtucket, RI 02860-4049 Telephone: (401) 272-6800 The name of the case is Ginter, et al. v. RBS Citizens, N.A. d/b/a Citizens Bank, Charter One, and CCO Mortgage, Court File No. 12- cv-8. Additional information about the case can be found at http://www.nka.comor by contacting Nichols Kaster, PLLP toll free at (877) 448-0492. REDBOX: Blind Individuals File Class Action Over Kiosks ------------------------------------------------------- Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that in the past few years, automated retail kiosks have put many DVD- rental stores out of business. This hasn't been a kind development for visually impaired individuals who now have less access to video store clerks to help get them movies. Now, in a new class action lawsuit in California, a group that advocates for the civil rights of blind individuals is suing Redbox for violating the Americans With Disabilities Act. According to the complaint filed on Jan. 12, Redbox is denying blind individuals equal access to goods and services. The plaintiffs say they enjoy films too, particularly dialogue- driven ones as well as movies where the action can be described by friends. But visually impaired individuals are increasingly troubled by the rise of touch-screen technology. Many banks have employed screen- reading ATMs, but Redbox, according to the lawsuit, "has chosen to rely on an exclusively visual interface." This has made it difficult for them to access DVD-rental kiosks. "Blind people must rely on sighted companions or strangers to assist them in renting and returning DVDs at Redbox kiosks," says the complaint. "Blind people must also disclose personal information, including their zip codes, to these other individuals in order to complete a rental at the Redbox kiosks." The lawsuit is being brought by the Lighthouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired. The group says that Redbox was informed of allegedly unlawful accessibility barriers in November, but that the defendant has failed to commit to accessible kiosks. The plaintiffs want an injunction to prohibit Redbox from violating the law and damages. SUPERVALU INC: Continues to Defend Suit Over C&S Transaction ------------------------------------------------------------ In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against SuperValu Inc. alleging that a 2003 transaction between the Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a conspiracy to restrain trade and allocate markets. In the 2003 transaction, the Company purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy proceedings and sold certain assets of the Company to C&S which were located in New England. Since December 2008, three other retailers have filed similar complaints in other jurisdictions. The cases have been consolidated and are proceeding in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaints allege that the conspiracy was concealed and continued through the use of non-compete and non-solicitation agreements and the closing down of the distribution facilities that the Company and C&S purchased from each other. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. The Company is vigorously defending these lawsuits. Separately from these civil lawsuits, on September 14, 2009, the United States Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") issued a subpoena to the Company requesting documents related to the C&S transaction as part of the FTC's investigation into whether the Company and C&S engaged in unfair methods of competition. The Company cooperated with the FTC. On March 18, 2011, the FTC notified the Company that it had determined that no additional action was warranted by the FTC and that it had closed its investigation. No further updates were reported in the Company's January 12, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 3, 2011. SUPERVALU INC: Wisconsin Suit Remains Stayed Pending IOS Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- In September 2008, a class action complaint was filed against SuperValu Inc., as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC ("IOS"), Inmar, Inc., Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc., Carolina Coupon Clearing, Inc. and Carolina Services, in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing services company who allege on behalf of a purported class that the Company and the other defendants (i) conspired to restrict the markets for coupon processing services under the Sherman Act and (ii) were part of an illegal enterprise to defraud the plaintiffs under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit, however all proceedings have been stayed in the case pending the result of the criminal prosecution of certain former officers of IOS. Although this lawsuit is subject to the uncertainties inherent in the litigation process, based on the information presently available to the Company, management does not expect that the ultimate resolution of this lawsuit will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. No further updates were reported in the Company's January 12, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 3, 2011. VEOLIA ENVIRONNEMENT: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a federal securities class action (12 Civ. 0312) in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased American Depositary Shares of Veolia Environnement S.A between April 27, 2007, and August 3, 2011 inclusive. This class action is brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Veolia securities during the Class Period, you have until February 27, 2012 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. A copy of the complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Rachelle R. Boyle at rrboyle@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x350. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address and telephone number. Veolia operates utility and public transportation businesses. The Company supplies drinking water, provides waste management services, manages and maintains heating and air conditioning systems, and operates rail and road passenger transportation systems. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was materially overstating its financial results by engaging in improper accounting practices; (2) the Company failed to timely record an impairment charge for its Transport business in Morocco, Environmental Services businesses in Egypt, Marine Services business in the United States, and for Southern Europe; (3) the Company's revenues were being adversely affected by the renewal of some of its major concession contracts; (4) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On August 4, 2011, the Company announced financial results for the period ended June 30, 2011. In addition, the Company reported operating income of EUR252.2 million, compared to EUR1,100.7 million in the prior year for the same period, due to "non- recurring write-downs amounting to EUR686 million (principally in Italy, Morocco and the United States)." Further, the Company disclosed that it had identified accounting fraud in its Marine Services business whereby earnings for periods from 2007 through 2010 were inflated by at least EUR152 million. On these revelations, Veolia ADS declined $4.66 or more than 22%, to close at $16.10 on August 4, 2011. The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- specializes in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. It has offices in New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. WALGREEN'S: Attorneys Enter Appearance in Fraud Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Christina Stueve, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports that attorneys Matthew Jacober, Jaimie Thompson and Brian Fries of the St. Louis law firm Lathrop & Gage on Jan. 6 entered their appearances on behalf of Walgreen's, which is accused of overcharging customers for medical records in a class action suit filed last month in St. Clair County. Walgreen's also requested that it have until Feb. 20 to file a responsive pleading. And, according to court documents, plaintiff's attorneys have consented to the extension. Raymond Griggs filed the complaint Dec. 14, claiming Walgreens charged him a flat fee of $55 for copies of his medical records, which he says was exorbitant and violated state law. The suit says that companies are permitted by law to charge $24.81 in handling charges, $0.93 per page for the first 25 pages, $0.62 per page for the next 25 pages and $0.31 for more than 50 pages. Mr. Griggs claims that Walgreens attempted to conceal its fraud by stating its fees in an ambiguous manner. His complaint says Walgreens violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud, Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Mr. Griggs also alleges common law fraud and unjust enrichment. Mr. Griggs seeks a determination that his class action complaint is valid, plus pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, exemplary, treble and punitive damages, costs, the restitution of all fees he and other plaintiffs paid to Walgreens and other relief the court deems just. St. Clair County Circuit Court case number: 11-L-685. Walgreen's is represented by: Matthew Jacober, Esq. Jaimie Thompson, Esq. LATHROP & GAGE LLP 7701 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 500 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 613-2800 E-mail: mjacober@lathropgage.com jlthompson@lathropgage.com - and - Brian Fries, Esq. LATHROP & GAGE LLP Kansas City 2345 Grand Blvd., Suite 2200 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 292-2000 E-mail: bfries@lathropgage.com Mr. Griggs and the proposed class are represented by: Corey D. Sullivan, Esq. John J. Carey, Esq. Francis J. "Casey" Flynn Jr., Esq. Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq. 8235 Forsyth Ste 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 725-7700 ********* 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. Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2012. 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 Peter Chapman at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *