CAR_Public/071220.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, December 20, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 252

                            Headlines


AMERICAN INT'L: Ruling on Bid to Certify Caremark Suit Pending
AMERICAN INT'L: Subsidiary Appeals Class Status of “Gunderson”
AMERICAN INT'L: Discovery Still Ongoing in N.Y. Securities Suit
AMERICAN INT'L: Discovery Still Ongoing in ERISA Litigation
AMERICAN INT'L: Calif. Court Junks Suit Over 21st Century Offer

AT&T MOBILITY: Customer Sues Over “Unauthorized” Phone Bills
AVVO.COM: Wash. Grants Motion to Dismiss Net Rating Service Suit
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces $253M Suit Over Hazards of Cell Sites
CHEMTURA CORP: Conn. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Securities Suit
FACEBOOK INC: Setles Calif. Lawsuit Over Recycled Phone Numbers

FARMERS & MERCHANTS: Investor Suit Settlement Granted Final OK
FAROUK SYSTEMS: Recalls Hairstyling Irons with Faulty Off Switch
FITNESS QUEST: Recalls Elliptical Trainers Due to Fall Hazard
ILLINOIS: Chicago Police Wrongfully Issued Thousands of Tickets
INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: Moves to Settle Cal. Securities Suit

INTERNATIONAL COAL: W.Va. Court Mulls Motion to Junk IPO Lawsuit
ITC DELTACOM: Reaches Settlement for Rights-of-Way Suit in Fla.
LIBERMAN BROADCASTING: Settles Labor-Related Lawsuits in Calif.
NATIONAL SECURITY: Units Face Suits in Hurricanes' Aftermath
NATURAL HEALTH: Motion to Dismiss Tex. Securities Suit Pending

MORGAN KEEGAN: Shareholders File Fraud Lawsuit Against Funds
OREGON: Multnomah County Sheriff Sued Over Strip Search Policy
PHYSICIAN'S CORP: Appeals Court Upholds Order Favoring Lloyd's
ROMI ENTERPRISES: Recalls SCUBA Regulators that can Malfunction
TJX COMPANIES: Settles Banks' Suit Over Cardholders' Info Theft
WASHINGTON: Asotin's Jail Booking Fee Policy Illegal, Suit Says


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

HOMEBANC CORP: Shalov Stone Files Securities Fraud Suit in Fla.
HOMEBANC CORP: Vianale & Vianale Files Fla. Securities Lawsuit
MORGAN STANLEY: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit
SECURITY CAPITAL: Zwerling Schachter Files Securities Fraud Suit
ULTA SALON: Bernard Gross Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ill.


                            *********  

AMERICAN INT'L: Ruling on Bid to Certify Caremark Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A state court in Alabama has yet to rule on a motion to certify
a purported class action filed against American International
Group, Inc. (AIG) and certain of its subsidiaries over a 1999
settlement of class and derivative litigation involving Caremark
Rx, Inc.

Initially, AIG and certain of its subsidiaries were named as
defendants in two putative class actions in state court in
Alabama that arise out of the 1999 settlement.

The plaintiffs in the second action have intervened in the first
action, and the second action has been dismissed.

An excess policy issued by a subsidiary of AIG with respect to
the 1999 litigation was expressly stated to be without limit of
liability.

In the current actions, plaintiffs allege that the judge
approving the 1999 settlement was misled as to the extent of
available insurance coverage and would not have approved the
settlement had he known of the existence and/or unlimited nature
of the excess policy.

They further allege that AIG, its subsidiaries, and Caremark are
liable for fraud and suppression for misrepresenting and/or
concealing the nature and extent of coverage.

In their complaint, plaintiffs request compensatory damages for
the 1999 class in the amount of $3.2 billion, plus punitive
damages.

AIG and its subsidiaries deny the allegations of fraud and
suppression and have asserted, inter alia, that information
concerning the excess policy was publicly disclosed months prior
to the approval of the settlement.

They further assert that the current claims are barred by the
statute of limitations and that plaintiffs assertions that the
statute was tolled cannot stand against the public disclosure of
the excess coverage.

Plaintiffs, in turn, have asserted that the disclosure was
insufficient to inform them of the nature of the coverage and
did not start the running of the statute of limitations.

The trial court is currently considering, under standards
mandated by the Alabama Supreme Court, whether a class action
can be certified and whether the defendants in the case brought
by the intervenors should be dismissed.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 7,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.

American International Group, Inc. (AIG) -- http://www.aig.com
-- is a holding company which, through its subsidiaries, is
engaged in a range of insurance and insurance-related activities
in the United States and abroad.  AIG's primary activities
include both General Insurance and Life Insurance & Retirement
Services operations.  Other significant activities include
Financial Services and Asset Management.  AIG's reportable
segments by product or service line are General Insurance, Life
Insurance & Retirement Services, Financial Services and Asset
Management.  AIG provides its products and services in more than
130 countries and jurisdictions.   


AMERICAN INT'L: Subsidiary Appeals Class Status of “Gunderson”
--------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of American International Group, Inc. (AIG) is
appealing a certification of a purported class action filed
against it in the 14th Judicial District Court for the State of
Louisiana.  It is further seeking an appeal of a jurisdictional
ruling.

Known as the Gunderson complaint, it accuses defendants of
failing to comply with certain provisions of the Louisiana Any
Willing Provider Act (Act) relating to discounts taken by
defendants on bills submitted by Louisiana medical providers and
hospitals that provided treatment or services to workers
compensation claimants.  It seeks monetary penalties and
injunctive relief.

On July 20, 2006, the court denied defendants motion for summary
judgment and granted plaintiffs partial motion for summary
judgment, holding that the AIG subsidiary was a group purchaser
and, therefore, potentially subject to liability under the Act.

On Nov. 28, 2006, the court issued an order certifying a class
of providers and hospitals.  

In an unrelated action also arising under the Act, a Louisiana
appellate court ruled that the district court lacked
jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims at issue.

In response, defendants in the Gunderson case filed an exception
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

On Jan. 19, 2007, the court denied the motion, holding that it
has jurisdiction over the putative class claims.  

The AIG subsidiary is appealing the class certification ruling
and is seeking an appeal from the jurisdictional ruling.  

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 7,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.

American International Group, Inc. (AIG) -- http://www.aig.com
-- is a holding company which, through its subsidiaries, is
engaged in a range of insurance and insurance-related activities
in the United States and abroad.  AIG's primary activities
include both General Insurance and Life Insurance & Retirement
Services operations.  Other significant activities include
Financial Services and Asset Management.  AIG's reportable
segments by product or service line are General Insurance, Life
Insurance & Retirement Services, Financial Services and Asset
Management.  AIG provides its products and services in more than
130 countries and jurisdictions.   


AMERICAN INT'L: Discovery Still Ongoing in N.Y. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fact and class discovery is currently ongoing in a consolidated
securities fraud class action filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York against American
International Group, Inc. (AIG).

Beginning in October 2004, a number of putative securities fraud
class actions were filed against AIG and consolidated as, “In re
American International Group, Inc. Securities Litigation.”

The lead plaintiff in the consolidated class action is a group
of public retirement systems and pension funds benefiting Ohio
state employees, suing on behalf of themselves and all
purchasers of AIGs publicly traded securities between October
28, 1999 and April 1, 2005.

The named defendants are AIG and a number of present and former
AIG officers and directors, as well as C.V. Starr & Co., Inc.,
Starr International Company, Inc., General Reinsurance Corp.,
and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, among others.

The lead plaintiff alleges, among other things, that AIG:

       -- concealed that it engaged in anti-competitive conduct
          through alleged payment of contingent commissions to
          brokers and participation in illegal bid-rigging;
   
       -- concealed that it used income smoothing products and
          other techniques to inflate its earnings;

       -- concealed that it marketed and sold income smoothing
          insurance products to other companies; and

       -- misled investors about the scope of government
          investigations.

In addition, the lead plaintiff alleges that AIGs former Chief
Executive Officer manipulated AIGs stock price.  

The lead plaintiff asserts claims for violations of Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Section 20A of the Exchange Act.
In April 2006, the court denied the defendants motions to
dismiss the second amended class action complaint.

In December 2006, a third amended class action complaint was
filed, which does not differ substantially from the prior
complaint.

Fact and class discovery is currently ongoing.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 7,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “In Re American International Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-08141-JES,” filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
John E. Sprizzo.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jason Samuel Cowart, Esq.
         Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
         100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: (212)-661-1100
         Fax: (212)-661-8665
         E-mail: jscowart@pomlaw.com

              - and -

         Thomas A. Dubbs, Esq.
         Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP
         100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-907-0700
         Fax: 212-818-0477
         E-mail: tdubbs@labaton.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Lewis E. Farberman, Esq.
         Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
         1285 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: (212)-373-3577
         Fax: (212)-492-0577
         E-mail: lfarberman@paulweiss.com

    
AMERICAN INT'L: Discovery Still Ongoing in ERISA Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated class action filed
against American International Group, Inc. (AIG) over
allegations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act
violations.

Between Nov. 30, 2004 and July 1, 2005, several ERISA actions
were filed on behalf of purported class of participants and
beneficiaries of three pension plans sponsored by AIG or its
subsidiaries.

A consolidated complaint filed on Sept. 26, 2005 alleges a class
period between Sept. 30, 2000 and May 31, 2005 and names as
defendants AIG, the members of AIGs Retirement Board and the
Administrative Boards of the plans at issue, and four present or
former members of AIGs Board of Directors.

The factual allegations in the complaint are essentially
identical to those in the securities actions.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated duties under ERISA by
allowing the plans to offer AIG stock as a permitted investment,
when defendants allegedly knew it was not a prudent investment,
and by failing to provide participants with accurate information
about AIG stock.

AIGs motion to dismiss was denied by order dated Dec. 12, 2006.
AIG filed an answer on Feb. 12, 2007, denying plaintiffs
allegations of wrongdoing and asserting affirmative defenses to
plaintiffs claims.

Discovery was consolidated with proceedings in the securities
actions and is ongoing.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 7,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.

American International Group, Inc. (AIG) -- http://www.aig.com
-- is a holding company which, through its subsidiaries, is
engaged in a range of insurance and insurance-related activities
in the United States and abroad.  AIG's primary activities
include both General Insurance and Life Insurance & Retirement
Services operations.  Other significant activities include
Financial Services and Asset Management.  AIG's reportable
segments by product or service line are General Insurance, Life
Insurance & Retirement Services, Financial Services and Asset
Management.  AIG provides its products and services in more than
130 countries and jurisdictions.  


AMERICAN INT'L: Calif. Court Junks Suit Over 21st Century Offer
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County dismissed a
consolidated class action against American International Group,
Inc. (AIG), at the request of the plaintiffs.

The suit is over AIG's Jan. 24, 2007 proposal to acquire the
remaining shares of 21st Century Insurance Group common stock,
which AIG does not yet own.

Shortly after the announcement in late January 2007 of AIG's
offer to acquire the outstanding shares of 21st Century not
already owned by AIG and its subsidiaries, two related class
actions were filed in the Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County, against AIG, 21st Century, and the individual
members of 21st Century's Board of Directors, two of whom are
current executive officers of AIG.

The actions were filed purportedly on behalf of the minority
shareholders of 21st Century and assert breaches of fiduciary
duty in connection with the AIG proposal.

The complaints alleged that the proposed per share price was
unfair and sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to
enjoin the consummation of the proposed transaction.

On May 23, 2007, a third action was filed alleging breaches of
fiduciary duty by the same defendants based upon their entering
into the merger agreement and taking steps to complete the
contemplated merger, and seeking injunctive relief comparable to
that sought in the first two complaints.  

All three actions were consolidated under the caption, “In re
21st Century Shareholder Litigation.”  

On Aug. 14, 2007, the court dismissed the action at the request
of the plaintiffs.

American International Group, Inc. (AIG) -- http://www.aig.com
-- is a holding company which, through its subsidiaries, is
engaged in a range of insurance and insurance-related activities
in the United States and abroad.  AIG's primary activities
include both General Insurance and Life Insurance & Retirement
Services operations.  Other significant activities include
Financial Services and Asset Management.  AIG's reportable
segments by product or service line are General Insurance, Life
Insurance & Retirement Services, Financial Services and Asset
Management.  AIG provides its products and services in more than
130 countries and jurisdictions.   


AT&T MOBILITY: Customer Sues Over “Unauthorized” Phone Bills
------------------------------------------------------------
Morris Fiddler, a citizen of Illinois, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, brought a
purported class action against:

     * AT&T Mobility, LLC,
     * M-Qube, Inc.,
     * Verisign, Inc.

seeking to stop defendants' alleged unlawful practice of
charging cellular telephone customers for products and services
the customers have not authorized.  The practice allegedly
resulted in defendants' unlawfully collecting money from
consumers statewide.  The suit seeks to obtain redress for all
persons injured by their conduct.

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and two
classes:

     (A) The "Carrier Class": a class consisting of all AT&T  
         wireless telephone subscribers in Illinois who suffered
         losses or damages as a result of AT&T billing for
         mobile content products and services not authorized by  
         the subscriber; provided, however, that the following
         are excluded from this proposed class: (i) the
         defendants, and (ii) any employee of a defendant.

     (B) The "Aggregator Class": a class consisting of all
         wireless telephone subscribers in Illinois who
         suffered losses or damages as a result of incurring         
         charges on their cellular telephone bills from or on  
         behalf of m-Qube and/or VeriSign not authorized by the
         subscriber; provided, however, that the following are
         excluded from the proposed class: (i) the defendants,
         and (ii) any employee of a defendant.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

(a) whether AT&T's conduct is in breach of contract, violates
    Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices   
    Act, and violates Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
    Business Practices Act.

Common questions for the Aggregator Class include:

(a) whether m-Qube and/or Verisign has unjustly received
    money belonging to plaintiff and the aggregator class
    and whether under principles of equity and good
    conscience, m-Qube should not be permitted to retain it;

(b) whether m-Qube and/or VeriSign tortiously interfered with
    contracts between Plaintiff and the Aggregator Class, on the   
    one hand, and their wireless carriers, on the other hand, by
    causing them tob e charged for products and services by
    their carrier that were unauthorized;

(c) whether m-Qube's and/or VeriSign's conduct violates Computer
    Tampering; and

(d) whether m-Qubes and VeriSigns's conduct violates Illinois
    Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

The plaintiff seek, among others, that the court;

     -- certify the case as a class action on behalf of the
        Classes and appoint Morris Fiddler Class Representative,
        and KamberEdelson, LLC as lead counsel;

     -- enter judgment against AT&T for all economic, monetary,
        actual, consequential, and compensatory damages caused
        by its conduct, and if its conduct is proved willful,
        award plaintiff and the Carrier Class exemplary damages

     -- enter judgement against m-Qube and VeriSign for all
        economic, monetary, actual, consequential, and
        compensatory damages caused by defendants' conduct, and
        if its conduct is proved willful, award plaintiff and
        the Aggregator Class exemplary damages; and

     -- enter judgment for injunctive, statutory and/or  
        declaratory relief as is necessary to protect the   
        interests of plaintiff and the classes.

AT&T Mobility does business as the New AT&T, formerly known as
Cingular Wireless.

The suit was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
County Department, Chancery Division.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Myles McGuire, Esq.
          John Blim, Esq.
          KamberEdelson, LLC
          53 West Jackson Boulevard
          Suite 1530
          Chicago, Illinois 60604
           Phone: (312) 569 6370


AVVO.COM: Wash. Grants Motion to Dismiss Net Rating Service Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
dismissed with prejudice a Class Action Complaint filed against
Avvo, Inc., a website that rates and profiles lawyers.

In June, Hagens Berman filed a proposed nationwide class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, on behalf of other attorneys claiming that Avvo.com
is unfair and highly deceptive (Class Action Reporter, June 18,
2007).

The suit alleges that the site launched by the creator of the
successful travel Web site Expedia violates unfair methods of
competition and deceptive acts in the conduct of commerce as
stated in the Washington Consumer Protection Act.

Avvo, which was launched on June 5, 2007, touts itself as a
resource for consumers looking to hire an attorney by grading
attorneys from one to 10 using a mathematical model based on
multiple -- but undisclosed -- sources of information. A low
score indicates that an attorney should be approached with
"extreme caution" while higher ratings denote "good" to "superb"
performance.

On June 28, online lawyer rating service Avvo asked a federal
judge to dismiss the class action (Class Action Reporter, July
5, 2007).

Avvo argues that its free attorney rating system is protected by
the First Amendment.  Its motion states that other disgruntled
lawyers have filed similar lawsuits in the past and that it
emerged from these that the Constitution does not exempt lawyers
from opinions and evaluations.  It also states that Avvo is an
opinion that is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be
subjected to claims under the Consumer Protection Act.

In its opinion, the court wrote, "Defendants assert that the
opinions expressed through the rating system (i.e., that
attorney X is a 3.5 and/or that an attorney with a higher rating
is better able to handle a particular case than an attorney with
a lower rating), are absolutely protected by the First Amendment
and cannot serve as the basis for liability under state law. The
court agrees."

"As I have said from the beginning, this was a case that never
should have been filed," said Mark Britton, Avvo CEO. "We are
gratified that the court agrees. We can now get back to serving
consumers rather than litigating with lawyers that want to stop
our service."

"This is a huge win for our First Amendment rights to express
our opinions as Americans," said Bruce E.H. Johnson, partner,
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, and Avvo's counsel. "Judge Lasnik's
well reasoned and thoughtful opinion confirms our view that
lawyers cannot exempt themselves from public scrutiny."

"Keep in mind that this case was initiated by a sanctioned
attorney that did not like having his recent misconduct brought
to light," added Mr. Britton. "But to provide consumers with the
information and guidance to help them choose the right lawyer,
sometimes we need to shine a flashlight into some dark places,
and we'll continue to do so as long as it benefits consumers."

Avvo offers free information and guidance to help consumers
choose the right attorney. A critical piece of guidance the
company provides is the Avvo Rating, which is Avvo's effort to
evaluate a lawyer's background, based on the information Avvo
knows about the lawyer. Avvo saves users hours of research time
because they have scoured state courts, bar associations and
lawyer websites to collect detailed information about every
licensed attorney in Arizona, California, District of Columbia,
Georgia, Illinois, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and
Washington. This data is enhanced by content provided directly
by lawyers and consumers, including client ratings and peer
endorsements. To date, thousands of consumers and attorneys have
provided client ratings, peer endorsements, and profile
information to Avvo.

Avvo recently enhanced its web site with "Avvo Answers," a free
legal questions-and-answers forum that provides personalized
answers to consumers' specific legal questions. "Avvo Answers"
is the only legal Q&A website where users can assess the
qualifications of every lawyer who answers a question -- through
their Avvo Rating and Avvo Profile -- and the quality of their
answer through votes from the community of Avvo users.

Plaintiffs in the case are John Henry Browne and Alan Wenokour.

For more information, contact:

          Steve Berman, Esq.
          Mark Firmani, Esq.
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLC
          Phone: (206) 623-7292 or (206) 443-9357
          E-mail: Steve@hbsslaw.com or Mark@firmani.com
          Web site: http://www.hbsslaw.com


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces $253M Suit Over Hazards of Cell Sites
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. said it was served with a purported class
action filed in the District Court of Tel Aviv by plaintiffs
claiming to be residing next to cell sites of Cellcom and two
other cellular operator defendants.  The sites were built in
violation of the law, according to the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants have created environmental
hazards by unlawfully building cell sites and therefore demand
that the defendants will compensate the public for damages
(other than personal damages, such as depreciation of property
and/or health related damages which are excluded from the
purported class action), demolish existing unlawfully built cell
sites and refrain from unlawfully building new cell sites.

If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the compensation
claimed from the defendants (without any allocation of this
amount among the defendants) is estimated by the plaintiffs to
be $253.35 million.

At this preliminary stage, the Company is unable to assess the
lawsuit's chances of success.

For more information, contact:

          Shiri Israeli
          Investor Relations Coordinator
          Phone: +972-52-998-9755
          E-mail: investors@cellcom.co.il

          - and -

          Ehud Helft
          Ed Job
          Investor Relations Contact
          CCGK Investor Relations
          Phone: +1-866-704-6710 (US) or +1-646-213-1914
          E-mail: ehud@gkir.com or ed.job@ccgir.com


CHEMTURA CORP: Conn. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has yet
to rule on Chemtura Corp.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated
securities class action filed against the company and certain of
its former officers and directors (Crompton Individual
Defendants), and certain former directors of the company's
predecessor Witco Corp.

Filed on July 20, 2004, the suit was brought by plaintiffs on
behalf of themselves and a class consisting of all purchasers or
acquirers of the company's stock between October 1998 and
October 2002.

The consolidated amended complaint principally alleges that the
company and the Crompton Individual Defendants caused the
company to issue false and misleading statements that violated
the federal securities laws by reporting inflated financial
results resulting from an alleged illegal, undisclosed price-
fixing conspiracy.

The putative class includes former Witco Corp. shareholders who
acquired their securities in the Crompton Corp.-Witco merger
pursuant to a registration statement that allegedly contained
misstated financial results.

The complaint asserts claims against the company and the
Crompton Individual Defendants under Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Plaintiffs also assert claims for control person liability under
Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 20 of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Crompton
Individual Defendants.

The complaint also asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty
against certain former directors of Witco Corp. for actions they
allegedly took as Witco Corp. directors in connection with the
Crompton-Witco merger.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The company and the Crompton Individual Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss on Sept. 17, 2004, which is now fully briefed
and pending.  The former directors of Witco Corp. filed a motion
to dismiss in February 2005, which is pending.

On July 22, 2005, the court granted a motion by the company and
the Crompton Individual Defendants to stay discovery in the
related Connecticut shareholder derivative lawsuit, pending
resolution of the motion to dismiss by the company and Crompton
Individual Defendants.

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 8,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “In Re Crompton Corp Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:03-cv-01293-EBB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut under Judge Ellen Bree Burns.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

        Nancy A. Kulesa, Jeffrey S. Nobel and Andrew M. Schatz
        Schatz & Nobel
        One Corporate Center, 20 Church St., Suite 1700
        Hartford, CT 06103
        Phone: 860-493-6292
        Fax: 860-493-6290
        E-mail: nancy@snlaw.net, jnobel@snlaw.net and
        firm@snlaw.net

Representing the defendants are:

         Bradford S. Babbitt, Esq.
         Robinson & Cole
         280 Trumbull St.
         Hartford, CT 06103-3597
         Phone: 860-275-8209
         Fax: 860-275-8299
         E-mail: bbabbitt@rc.com

         Andrew J. Frackman, Esq.
         O'Melveny & Myers, LLP
         7 Times Square
         New York, NY 10033
         Phone: 212-326-2000
         Fax: 212-326-2061
         E-mail: afrackman@omm.com

              - and -

         Thomas D. Goldberg, Esq.
         Day, Berry & Howard
         One Canterbury Green
         Stamford, CT 06901-2047
         Phone: 203-977-7383
         Fax: 203-977-7301
         E-mail: tdgoldberg@dbh.com


FACEBOOK INC: Setles Calif. Lawsuit Over Recycled Phone Numbers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Internet social network Facebook Inc. has settled a lawsuit over
alleged illegal profit from unauthorized text messages, the AP
WorldStream reports.

In October, a lawsuit seeking class-action status was filed
against Facebook in the U.S. District Court in San Jose,
California alleging it has profited from its members by sending
thousands of unauthorized text messages to mobile phone users
whose numbers previously belonged to other people (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 24, 2007).

Named plaintiff Lindsey Abrams -- a Patriot, Indiana, mother in
her mid-20s -- alleges she began receiving unsolicited text
messages apparently intended for an unidentified Facebook member
shortly after she received a new mobile number from Verizon
Communications Inc. in November 2006.

The messages included explicit language and unsettling remarks,
according to Ms. Abrams' civil complaint. She alleges she was
charged 10 cents per message and told she could not block the
Facebook texting without cutting off notes she wanted to
receive.

The lawsuit contends other consumers with recycled phone numbers
have been besieged with unsolicited Facebook text messages
containing party invitations and unwanted sexual advances.  The
lawsuit sought unspecified damages.

The recent settlement was announced by Ms. Abrams' attorneys.

According to the report, Facebook stipulated to the agreement in
court papers filed Dec. 14 in San Jose federal court.

Without admitting any wrongdoing, Facebook agreed to make it
easier for recipients of text messages to block future messages
originating from the social network.

Facebook also will work more closely with mobile phone carriers
to monitor the lists of recycled numbers and reduce the
frequency of unwanted text messages.

Facebook also agreed to pay the legal fees of Abrams' attorneys,
who work for KamberEdelson LLP in Chicago. The amount will be
determined by after court hearings next year.

A Facebook spokeswoman declined to comment.

The suit is “Abrams v. Facebook, Inc., Case Number:
5:2007cv05378,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, under Magistrate Judge Patricia
V. Trumbull.


FARMERS & MERCHANTS: Investor Suit Settlement Granted Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Orange conducted a hearing on December 17, 2007 on whether to
grant final approval to a proposed settlement of the class
action and derivative lawsuit brought by shareholder Marcus D.
Walker against certain present and former officers and/or
directors of Farmers & Merchants Bank of Long Beach and the Bank
as nominal defendant.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court indicated that it
would approve the Settlement and enter a formal order and
judgment dismissing with prejudice the litigation brought by
Marcus D. Walker in the next few days.

The Court's final approval and its entry of a judgment
dismissing with prejudice the litigation are conditions to the
effectiveness of the proposed Settlement and the transactions
contemplated thereby.

On December 6, 2007 the Bank's shareholders approved a proposal
authorizing the Bank to repurchase shares of the Bank's common
stock, which approval was also a condition to the effectiveness
of the proposed Settlement. Effectiveness of the proposed
Settlement and the transactions contemplated thereby remain
subject to other conditions, including, but not limited to, the
Court's judgment not being reversed or materially modified on
appeal.

As part of the settlement, the Bank would commence a tender
offer after the effective date of the proposed settlement
whereby the Bank would offer to purchase up to 14,720 shares of
its common stock at a price of $7,300 per share.

If the proposed Tender Offer does not proceed or close for any
reason other than as a result of the termination of the
settlement, then the Bank would instead commit to make
distributions to its shareholders in the aggregate amount of
$86,000,000 (including the amounts required to be used by the
Bank to repurchase shares from Marcus D. Walker and his related
and affiliated parties pursuant to the Standstill Agreement).

Farmers & Merchants Bank of Long Beach -- http://www.fmb.com--  
offers personal and business banking services in California. It
provides business banking products and services, such as
business checking accounts, money market accounts, investment
accounts, merchant card services, small business loans, real
estate and construction loans, commercial loans, church and
nonprofit loans; and personal banking services, including
personal checking accounts, personal money market accounts,
personal savings accounts, and personal and home loans. The bank
operates 20 branches in Long Beach and Orange County.

Farmers & Merchants Bank was founded in 1907 and is based in
Long Beach, California.


FAROUK SYSTEMS: Recalls Hairstyling Irons with Faulty Off Switch
----------------------------------------------------------------
Farouk Systems Inc., of Houston, Texas, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
5,700 WEE CHI Ceramic Hairstyling Irons.

The company said the iron's "off" switch was installed
incorrectly. When the iron is plugged in and switch is in the
"off" position, the iron remains "on," which could pose fire and
burn hazards.

No inncidents/injuries have been reported so far.

The recalled hairstyling iron is black and measures 9.5 inches
long. "CHI" is printed on the iron in red lettering. Date code
0306 or 0507 is embossed on the inside of the paddle.

The irons were made in South Korea and sold by professional
beauty supply distributors and beauty salons nationwide from
April 2006 through September 2007 for about $160.

Pictures of the recalled styling irons:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08124a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08124b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08124c.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the product immediately and
contact the firm to return the product for a full refund or
replacement iron. Farouk Systems is directly notifying all
distributors and retailers.

For additional information, contact Farouk Systems Inc. at (800)
237-9175 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or
visit http://www.farouk.com


FITNESS QUEST: Recalls Elliptical Trainers Due to Fall Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fitness Quest Inc., of Canton, Ohio, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
23,000 Eclipse 1175e Elliptical Trainers.

The company said the cranks that connect the foot platforms to
the rear wheel of the machine can break during exercise, posing
a fall hazard to consumers.

Fitness Quest has received about 190 reports of cranks breaking.
No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the Eclipse 1175e elliptical trainers. The
elliptical trainer is a cardiovascular exercise machine. The
machine has two foot platforms attached to a wheel at the rear
of the machine. Each machine has "1175e" stamped on an oval
decal located on the side of the wheel housing.

The trainers were made in China and sold at Sports Authority,
Modell, Dunhams, JC Penney stores and other retailers nationwide
from September 2006 to October 2007 for between $290 and $450.

To see picture of the recalled trainer:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08126.jpg

Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled elliptical
trainers immediately and contact Fitness Quest for a free
replacement elliptical machine or a credit towards the purchase
of another Fitness Quest exercise machine.

For additional information, contact Fitness Quest at (800) 321-
9236 between 8:30 am and 8 pm ET Monday through Friday, or visit
http://www.fitnessquest.com


ILLINOIS: Chicago Police Wrongfully Issued Thousands of Tickets
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Blake Horwitz said in a statement that a
class action will be filed against the City of Chicago, Mayor
Richard Daley, and various police officers.

Chicago police officers have been arresting and ticketing
thousands of innocent civilians for violating the cell phone ban  
-- which prohibits using a cell phone while driving -- to the
tune of millions of dollars accrued to City coffers, under a law
that has never been properly enacted, the statement said.

The law (625 ILCS 5/11207) requires the City to put up signs to
inform drivers that they may not speak on their cell phone while
they are driving. There are no signs. The City has certified
that it has failed to put up signs. Therefore, every single
arrest in this regard has been illegal. All money received by
the City through tickets that its officers have issued has been
illegally secured.

"The City is simply trying to earn more money given the absence
of a balanced budget," says police misconduct attorney, Blake
Horwitz.  Blake Horwitz, who has sued the City more then 100
times for police misconduct violations, points out that since
the cell phone ban was passed almost two years ago the city has
collected millions of dollars.

Drivers cited for violating the ban are fined $75, or up to $200
if the driver is involved in an accident. As of September 2007,
over 25,000 citations had been issued citing violations of the
Ordinance, representing an influx of revenue to the city of
nearly two million dollars

The suit will be filed by the Law Offices of Blake Horwitz, a
civil rights firm specializing in police misconduct.

For more information, contact:

          The Law Offices of Blake Horwitz
          Website: http://www.policewatchers.com'


INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: Moves to Settle Cal. Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a securities fraud class action filed against
Interlink Electronics, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, are working to settle the
matter.

Filed on Nov. 15, 2005, the suit, “Roger Brooks, et al. v.
Interlink Electronics, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-08133-PA-
SH,” was brought against the company and two of its current and
former officers.  

It alleges that between April 24, 2003 and Nov. 1, 2005, the
company and two of its current and former officers made false
and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information regarding the company's results of operations and
financial condition.  

The complaint also alleges violations of federal securities
laws, Sections 10 (b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a
series of material misrepresentations to the market which had
the effect of artificially inflating the market price.  It seeks
unspecified damages and legal expenses.

On Nov. 3, 2006, the court appointed new lead plaintiffs.  On
Jan. 16, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

The amended complaint also includes claims under the Securities
Act and the Exchange Act and seeks unspecified damages and legal
expenses.

On Feb. 22, 2007, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  On Sept. 26, 2007, the Court issued an order
granting defendants’ motion in part and denied it in part. The
Court gave plaintiffs 21 days to amend the complaint.

On Oct. 11, 2007, the parties filed a stipulation requesting
that the Court extend the deadline for the filing of an amended
complaint by sixty (60) days so that the parties could pursue
settlement discussions.  On Oct. 12, 2007, the Court signed the
parties’ stipulation.  

The suit is “Roger Brooks, et al. v. Interlink Electronics,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-08133-PA-SH,” filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California under
Judge Percy Anderson with referral to Judge Stephen J. Hillman.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Timothy J. Burke, Esq.
         Stull Stull and Brody
         10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
         Los Angeles, CA 90024
         Phone: 310-209-2468
         E-mail: service@ssbla.com

         Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
         Glancy Binkow and Goldberg
         1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150

              - and –

         Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.
         Roy L. Jacobs and Associates
         60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
         New York, NY 10165
         Phone: 212-867-1156

Representing the defendants is:

         Daniel S. Floyd, Esq.
         Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
         333 S. Grand Ave., 45th Fl.
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
         Phone: 213-229-7000
         E-mail: dfloyd@gibsondunn.com


INTERNATIONAL COAL: W.Va. Court Mulls Motion to Junk IPO Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss a purported
class action against International Coal Group, Inc., which is
accusing it of misleading investors about its operations when it
made an initial public offering of stock in late 2005.

On April 5, 2007 a class action was filed in the U.S. District
Court in the Southern District of West Virginia against the
company and certain of its officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that our registration statements filed in
connection with its initial public offering contained false and
misleading statements, and that investors relied upon those
securities filings and suffered damages as a result.

The court ordered certain plaintiffs to serve as lead plaintiffs
and lead counsel, and, as a result, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on Aug. 24, 2007.  

The company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Class Action
Complaint on Sept. 28, 2007, and that motion remains pending,
according to the company's Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The suit is “City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System, et
al. v. ICG, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00226,” filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
under Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr.

Representing plaintiffs are:

         Mark W. Carbone, Esq.
         Carbone & Blaydes
         2442 Kanawha Boulevard
         East Charleston, WV 25301
         Phone: 304/342-3650
         Fax: 304/342-3651
         E-mail: wvjustice@aol.com

         William S. Lerach, Esq.
         Matthew P. Montgomery, Esq.
         Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
         Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         Suite 1900, 655 West Broadway
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619/231-1058
         Fax: 619/231-7423

              - and -

         Steven F. White, Esq.
         Suite 908, 405 Capitol Street
         Charleston, WV 25301
         Phone: 304/720-1400
         Fax: 304/346-6731


ITC DELTACOM: Reaches Settlement for Rights-of-Way Suit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
ITC DeltaCom, Inc. reached a tentative settlement of a purported
class action in Florida that was filed by two local real
property owners, according to the company's Nov. 14, 2007 Form
10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.

The company uses the rights-of-way of Gulf Power Co. in Florida
for a portion of its integrated communications services network.

During 2000, Gulf Power Co. was sued in the Circuit Court of
Gadsden County, Florida, by two real property owners that claim
to represent a class of all real property owners over whose
property Gulf Power Co. has facilities that are used by third
parties.  

The real property owners have alleged that Gulf Power Co. does
not have the authority to permit the Company or other carriers
to transmit telecommunications services over the rights-of-way.

ITC DeltaCom was made a party to this litigation in August 2001.
Additional plaintiffs have been added through various amendments
to the complaint.

In November 2005, the trial court entered a declaratory judgment
for the plaintiffs.  In that decision, the court ruled that the
easements do not allow general telecommunications use and that
Gulf Power Co. did not have the right to apportion the easement
for general telecommunications purposes.  

Gulf Power Co. and the Company appealed the declaratory
judgment.

In October 2006, the Florida First District Court of Appeals
dismissed the appeal brought by Gulf Power Co. and the Company
on the basis that the trial court’s November 2005 ruling was not
a final order and therefore not yet subject to appeal.

In April 2007, the trial court entered an order certifying a
class for declaratory and injunctive relief of property owners
over whose property Gulf Power Co. owns an easement on which
Gulf Power Co. has allowed installation of fiber optic cable
that is used for purposes other than transmitting electricity
and Gulf Power Company’s own electricity-related internal
communications.

The trial court’s order also denied the motions filed by Gulf
Power Company and the Company to vacate the prior declaratory
judgment and for summary judgment and continued the plaintiffs’
motion for a permanent injunction, which would restrict the
Company’s ability to add new customers and services over the
disputed route.  

The parties have submitted a proposed settlement to the trial
court for approval that would allow for the Company’s continued
use of the fiber over the right-of-way; however, the Company
cannot provide any assurance as to whether the settlement will
be consummated as proposed due to the contingencies to which the
settlement is subject.

As proposed, the settlement would not result in a material
adverse effect upon the Company’s financial position or results
of operations.

ITC^Deltacom, Inc. -- http://www.deltacom.com-- is a provider  
of integrated communications services, primarily to businesses,
in the Southeastern U.S.  The Company provides voice and data
communications services, including local exchange, long-
distance, high-speed or broadband data communications, and
Internet access connectivity, and sells customer premise
equipment to the Company's end-user customers.


LIBERMAN BROADCASTING: Settles Labor-Related Lawsuits in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Liberman Broadcasting of California LLC (LBI Sub), an indirect
wholly owned subsidiary of LBI Media Holdings, Inc., settled  
two purported class actions alleging labor-related violations.

                        2005 Litigation

In June 2005, eight former employees of LBI Sub filed suit in
Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging claims on their own
behalf and also on behalf of a purported class of former and
current employees of LBI Sub.

The complaint alleged, among other things, wage and hour
violations relating to overtime pay, and wrongful termination
and unfair competition under the California Business and
Professions Code.

Plaintiffs sought to recover, among other relief, unspecified
general, treble and punitive damages, as well as profit
disgorgement, restitution and their attorneys’ fees.

                        2007 Litigation

In June 2007, two former employees of LBI Sub filed another suit
in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging claims on their
own behalf and also on behalf of a purported class of former and
current employees of LBI Sub.

The complaint alleged, among other things, violations of
California labor laws with respect to providing meal and rest
breaks.

Plaintiffs sought, among other relief, unspecified liquidated
and general damages, declaratory, equitable and injunctive
relief, and attorneys fees.

                           Settlement

On July 13, 2007, LBI Sub entered into a settlement agreement
with class action representatives to settle, subject to court
approval, all pending litigation.

While LBI Sub denies the allegations in both lawsuits, it has
agreed to the proposed settlement of both actions to avoid
significant legal fees, other expenses and management time that
would have to be devoted to the two litigation matters.

The settlement, which is subject to final documentation and
court approval, provides for a maximum settlement payment of
$825,000 (including attorneys’ fees and costs and administrative
fees).

In consideration of the settlement payment, the plaintiffs in
both cases agreed, upon final court approval, to dismiss the two
class actions with prejudice and to release all known and
unknown claims arising out of or relating to such claims.

The parties have agreed to cooperate to obtain the court’s
approval of the settlement.  The settlement will become
effective and binding only if approved by the court.

LBI Media Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.lbimedia.com/-- is a  
wholly owned subsidiary of Liberman Broadcasting, Inc.  The
Company and its wholly owned subsidiaries own and operate radio
and television stations in Los Angeles, California, Houston,
Texas and Dallas, Texas and a television station in San Diego,
California.  The Company operates in two segments: radio and
television.  


NATIONAL SECURITY: Units Face Suits in Hurricanes' Aftermath
------------------------------------------------------------
National Security Group, Inc.'s property & casualty subsidiaries
face a number of legal matters filed in the aftermath of
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in Mississippi, Louisiana, and
Alabama, according to the company's Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.

These actions include individual lawsuits and purported
statewide class actions, although to date no class has been
certified in any action.

These actions make a number of allegations of underpayment of
hurricane-related claims, including allegations that the flood
exclusion found in the Company’s subsidiaries’ policies, and in
certain actions other insurance companies’ policies, is either
ambiguous, unenforceable as unconscionable or contrary to public
policy, or inapplicable to the damage sustained.  

The various suits seek a variety of remedies, including actual
and/or punitive damages in unspecified amounts and/or
declaratory relief.  

Elba, Alabama-headquartered National Security Group, Inc. --
http://www.nationalsecuritygroup.com/-- is an insurance holding  
company.  The Company, through its property and casualty
subsidiaries, primarily writes personal lines coverage,
including dwelling fire and windstorm, homeowners, mobile
homeowners and personal non-standard automobile lines of
insurance in 11 states.  The Company, through its life insurance
subsidiary, offers a basic line of life, and health and accident
insurance products in six states.


NATURAL HEALTH: Motion to Dismiss Tex. Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Health Trends Corp. continues to seek a dismissal of a
securities fraud class action pending against it in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, according to
the company's Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2007.

On Sept. 11, 2006, The Rosen Law Firm P.A. filed a putative
class action purportedly on behalf of certain purchasers of the
company's common stock to recover damages caused by alleged
violations of federal securities laws.

The lawsuit names the company and certain current and former
officers and directors as defendants.  

On Dec. 20, 2006, the court granted an unopposed motion to
designate The Rosen Law Firm P.A. as lead counsel.  

On Feb. 20, 2007, the named plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint.  On April 23, 2007, the Company and the other
defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit.

On June 22, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a response in opposition
of the motions to dismiss.  

On July 23, 2007, the Company and the other defendants filed
replies to the plaintiffs’ opposition to the motions to dismiss.

The suit “Zagami v. Natural Health Trends Corp et al., Case No.
3:06-cv-01654,” is filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas under Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
         Hoeffner & Bilek
         1000 Louisiana St., Suite 1302
         Houston, TX 77002
         Phone: 713/227-7720
         Fax: 713/227-9404
         E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com
  
         Christopher S. Hinton, Esq.
         The Hinton Law Firm
         350 Fifth Ave., Suite 5508
         New York, NY 10118
         Phone: 646/723-3377
         Fax: 212/202-3827

              - and -

         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm
         350 Fifth Ave., Suite 5508
         New York, NY 10118
         Phone: 212/686-1060
         Fax: 214/202-3827


MORGAN KEEGAN: Shareholders File Fraud Lawsuit Against Funds
------------------------------------------------------------
Two shareholders of Regions Morgan Keegan Select Intermediate
Bond Fund and/or Regions Morgan Keegan Select High Income Fund
(the Funds) filed a securities fraud class action against the
Funds in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee on Dec. 6.

The action was brought on behalf of persons who purchased shares
of the Funds during the period December 6, 2004 through the
October 3, 2007 against the Funds’ investment adviser, officers
and directors and the other defendants for, inter alia, the
violation of the disclosure requirements of federal securities
laws and the federal Investment Company Act.

The suit was filed by Richard A. Atkinson, M.D. and Patricia B.
Atkinson on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated.

Plaintiff Richard A. Atkinson, M.D., a resident of the State of
Tennessee, invested approximately $43,000 in the Intermediate
Fund during the Class Period, as set forth in the accompanying
certification.

Plaintiff Patricia B. Atkinson, a resident of the State of
Tennessee, invested approximately $109,000 in the Intermediate
Fund during the Class Period, as set forth in the accompanying
certification.

The Funds and the defendants allegedly misrepresented or failed
to disclose material facts relating to:

     (i) the nature of the risk being assumed by an investment
         in the Funds,

    (ii) the illiquidity of certain securities in which the
         Funds invested,

   (iii) the extent to which the Funds’ portfolios contained
         securities that were illiquid or exhibited the
         characteristics of illiquid securities so that they
         were highly vulnerable to suddenly becoming unsalable
         at the prices at which they were being carried on the
         Funds’ records,

    (iv) the extent to which the Funds’ portfolios were subject
         to fair value procedures,

     (v) the extent to which the values of such securities, and,
         consequently, the net asset values (NAVs) of the Funds,
         were based on estimates of value and the uncertainty  
         inherent in such estimated values, and

    (vi) the concentration of investments in a single industry.

Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned attorneys, bring
this action upon personal knowledge as to themselves and their
own acts, upon the investigation conducted by and through
Plaintiffs’ counsel as to all other matters, including without
limitation, analysis of publicly available news articles and
reports, public filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, review of various web sites and Internet information
sources (including the Morgan Keegan Funds website), news
reports, press releases and other matters of public record,
prospectuses, Statements of Additional Information, annual
and semi-annual reports issued by and on behalf of the Funds,
sales materials, and upon information and belief.

The suit was filed against:

     -- Morgan Asset Management, Inc.;
     -- Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc.;
     -- Regions Financial Corporation;
     -- MK Holding, Inc.;
     -- Allen B. Morgan, Jr., former director and chairman;
     -- J. Kenneth Alderman, former director;
     -- Jack R. Blair, former director;
     -- Albert C. Johnson, former director;
     -- James Stillman R. McFadden, former director;
     -- W. Randall Pittman, former director;
     -- Mary S. Stone, former director;
     -- Archie W. Willis, III, former director;
     -- Brian B. Sullivan, President of the Funds and President  
        and Chief Investment Officer of Morgan Management;
     -- J. Thompson Weller, Treasurer of the Funds;
     -- Charles D. Maxwell, former secretary and Assistant     
        Treasurer of the Funds;
     -- Michele F. Wood, former Chief Compliance Officer of the
        Funds;
     -- James C. Kelsoe, Jr., former Senior Portfolio Manager of
        the Funds and of Morgan Management;
     -- David H. Tannehill, former Portfolio Manager of the  
        Funds and of Morgan Management; and
     -- PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, auditor

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the other members of the
class, seeks, among others, an order declaring this action to be
a proper class action; awarding Plaintiffs and the other members
of the class rescission or compensatory or rescissory damages;
awarding to plaintiffs and the other members of the class
prejudgment interest in the manner and at the maximum rate where
permitted by law; awarding to Plaintiffs and the other members
of the class costs and expenses of this litigation, including
reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, including experts’
fees and costs.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Jerome A. Broadhurst, Esq.
          Charles D. Reaves, Esq.
          Jerome A. Broadhurst, Esq.
          Apperson, Crump & Maxwell, PLC
          6000 Poplar Avenue, Suite 400
          Memphis, TN 38119-3972
          Phone: (901) 260-5133
          Fax: (901) 435-5133
          E-mail: creaves44@comcast.net
          jbroadhurst@appersoncrump.com

          Vernon J. Vander Weide, Esq.
          Thomas V. Seifert, Esq.
          Head, Seifert & Vander Weide, P.A.
          333 South Seventh Street, Suite 1140
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-2422
          Phone: 612-339-1601
          Fax: 612-339-3372
          E-mail: vvanderweide@hsvwlaw.com
                  tseifert@hsvwlaw.com

          Richard A. Lockridge, Esq.
          Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq.
          Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: 612-339-6900
          Fax: 612-339-0981
          E-mail: ralockridge@locklaw.com
                  gmfishbein@locklaw.com

          Carolyn G. Anderson, Esq.
          Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
          Zimmerman Reed, P.L.L.P.
          651 Nicollet Mall, Suite 501
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: 612-341-0400
          Fax: 612-341-0844
          E-mail: cga@zimmreed.com
                  tjb@zimmreed.com


OREGON: Multnomah County Sheriff Sued Over Strip Search Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Multnomah County Sheriff Bernie Giusto is facing a class action
over strip searches at the country detention center, Matt Davis
of The Portland Mercury reports.

The suit was filed by attorney Leonard Berman on behalf of Riley
Hinds, a former inmate at the Multnomah County Detention Center,
on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of others similarly
situated people.  The plaintiff alleges that his civil rights
were violated when he was strip searched after he was arrested
on a mistaken warrant for a purported probation violation on
July 24, 2006.

Mr. Berman contends that the county has a blanket policy of
strip searching inmates at the jail even for or misdemeanor or
violation charges where there is no reasonable suspicion to
believe an inmate is carrying a weapon or other contraband.  He
said that the blanket strip-search policy is unconstitutional.  
He is calling on anyone who has been strip searched at the jail
following a misdemeanor arrest over the last two years to join
in the case.


PHYSICIAN'S CORP: Appeals Court Upholds Order Favoring Lloyd's
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Third District Court of Appeal, in an opinion filed Nov. 28,
affirmed a trial court's order favoring Underwriters at Lloyd’s
over National Union Fire Insurance Co. in a suit seeking to
determine which insurer's policy covered a class action against
the Physician's Corp. of America.

This is a dispute between two insurers over a sizeable class
action settlement paid on behalf of the insured, Physician's
Corp., which was a Miami-based, publicly-traded health care
company. Both Lloyd’s and National Union had issued consecutive
liability policies covering PCA’s directors and officers.
Lloyd’s had issued primary and excess “claims-made” director-
and-officer policies to Physician's Corp. for the period of
April 7, 1996, to September 8, 1997. National Union’s policy
covered the period of September 8, 1997, to September 8, 2003.

The class action that eventually was settled was filed in
November of 1997, which fell within National Union’s coverage
period. National Union argues, however, that Lloyd’s should
respond for the loss because Lloyd’s was obligated to pay for
any “[l]oss resulting from any Claim first made during the
policy period for a Wrongful Act” and to reimburse Physician's
Corp. for any loss Physician's Corp. paid as indemnification “to
any Directors and Officers resulting from any Claim during the
policy period for a Wrongful Act.”

National Union had appealed a trial court's order denying its
motion for partial summary judgment and granting appellees
Underwriters at Lloyd's, London and Certain Insurance Companies'
cross-motion for summary judgment.  

In an opinion issued last month, the circuit court affirmed the
trial court's decision because National Union has failed to show
that Physician's Corp. of America provided Lloyd's with the
notice required under PCA's insurance contract with Lloyd's.


ROMI ENTERPRISES: Recalls SCUBA Regulators that can Malfunction
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROMI Enterprises, of San Leandro, Calif., in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
6,000 Oceanic and AERIS SCUBA Regulator First Stages.

The company said an internal component that seals air between
the high pressure first-stage and the intermediate pressure
second-stage can fail. This can result in uncontrolled flow of
air to the diver and pose a risk of serious injury or death.

ROMI has received two reports of units malfunctioning during
diving and six reports of units malfunctioning while being
tested by dealers prior to delivery to consumers. No injuries
reported.

Description and Models: The recall involves the following
regulator first stages:

(a) Oceanic Regulator First Stages

Model CDX5 Certain serial numbers from 30202856 through
51312641-and-Purchased from May 2006 through October 2007

Model FDX10 Certain serial numbers from 51408026 through
51411813-and-purchased from May 2006 through October 2007

Models CDX, DXi, DX3, DX4, and TDX5 All serial numbers -and-
Serviced from May 2006 through October 2007

(b) AERIS Regulator First Stages

Model AT400 Certain serial numbers from 30200036 through
51311560-and-Purchased from May 2006 through October 2007

Balanced Diaphragm All serial numbers -and - Serviced from May
2006 through October 2007

The model and serial numbers are stamped on the side of the body
or on the body's rubber covering.

The regulators were made in the United States and Taiwan.  The
items were either sold or repaired at authorized Oceanic and
AERIS retailers nationwide from May 2006 through October 2007.
The items sold for between $300 and $500.

To see pictures of the regulators:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08127a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08127b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08127c.jpg

Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
regulator first stages and take them to any authorized Oceanic
or AERIS dealer for a free replacement part.

For further information or to determine if your specific unit is
affected, contact ROMI toll-free at (888) 636-9390 between 8
a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday. Oceanic customers can
send an e-mail to service@oceanicusa.com or visit
http://www.oceanicworldwide.com.AERIS customers can send an e-
mail to info@diveaeris.com or visit http://www.diveaeris.com


TJX COMPANIES: Settles Banks' Suit Over Cardholders' Info Theft
---------------------------------------------------------------
The TJX Companies, Inc. has entered into a settlement agreement
with all but one of the seven banks and bankers associations
that sued TJX in a putative class action as a result of the
intrusion(s) into TJX's computer system.

As a result of the TJX data breach, which was first disclosed in
mid January, there have been dramatic costs to financial
institutions in the effort to protect cardholders.  The
Massachusetts Bankers Association filed the lawsuit to protect
customer privacy and data security for customer accounts (Class
Action Reporter, May 1, 2007).

The suit is centered on the fact that banks paid a heavy price
for TJX's security "negligence" in losses to fraudulent account
charges and massive card-reissuing campaigns following the
breach.

Under the recent agreement, the Massachusetts Bankers
Association, Connecticut Bankers Association and Maine
Association of Community Banks, along with Eagle Bank,
Saugusbank, and Collinsville Savings Society, will dismiss all
of their claims against TJX.

The Massachusetts Bankers Association represents 207 commercial,
savings and co-operative banks and savings and loan institutions
in Massachusetts and elsewhere in New England.

The Connecticut Bankers Association represents over 64 financial
institutions conducting banking operations in the State of
Connecticut and elsewhere in New England.

The Maine Association of Community Banks represents 23 Maine-
based financial institutions.

Carol Meyrowitz, President and Chief Executive Officer of The
TJX Companies, Inc., stated, "It has been almost one year since
TJX discovered that our computer system had been criminally
attacked. In that time, we have further strengthened our
security and achieved full compliance with the Payment Card
Industry Data Security Standards.

“We support the intent of these standards and continue to take
our responsibility to protect customer data seriously. However,
the TJX experience underscores broader challenges facing the
U.S. payment card system that require urgent action by
merchants, banks, payment card companies and associations, and
we look forward to greater cooperation in order to better serve
and protect customers."

As part of the agreement, the three bankers associations are
recommending that the Visa issuers among their 292 member banks
where appropriate accept the Alternative Recovery Offer provided
for in the agreement among Visa, TJX, and TJX's acquiring bank
announced on November 30, 2007.

The financial terms of the settlement were not disclosed, but
the amount paid by TJX primarily reimbursed the settling bankers
associations and banks for a negotiated portion of the expenses
they incurred in this case, excluding attorney's fees, and is
encompassed within the reserve previously taken in TJX's fiscal
2007 second quarter. Further, TJX has denied all wrongdoing. The
agreement follows the court's recent ruling denying the
plaintiffs' motion to represent a class of banks in this action.

That ruling is subject to a pending motion for reconsideration
and a possible appeal by the non-settling plaintiff bank.

The suit is "Massachusetts Bankers Association et al vs. TJX
Companies, Case No. 1:07-cv-10791-WGY," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, under Judge
William G. Young.

Representing plaintiffs is:

          James R. Byrne
          Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn LLP, CityPlace
          35th Floor, 185 Asylum Street
          Hartford, CT 06103-3488
          Phone: 860-725-6201
          Fax: 860-278-3802
          E-mail: jbyrne@tylercooper.com


WASHINGTON: Asotin's Jail Booking Fee Policy Illegal, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Asotin County is facing a purported class action for alleged
violations of three local residents' civil rights in relation to
the collection of the county's jail booking fee policy.

The collection of booking fees is allegedly illegal in that it
violates plaintiffs' established constitutional rights under the
Fourteenth Amendment not to be deprived of property without the
due process of law.

The suit was filed by lawyers for the Center for Justice on
behalf of Daniel K. Garrison, Christopher M. Roy and Frederick
D. Roy who have been residents of Asotin County.  The plaintiffs
were all assessed a booking fee of $50.00.  Subsequently,
Frederick Roy was released from Asotin County Jail and all
charges were dropped.  Upon Frederick Roy’s release his funds
were not returned, according to the suit.

The Defendant’s booking fee collection policy allegedly violates
plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution for several reasons:

     a) It does not provide each individual Plaintiff with
        adequate notice of the seizure and conversion of their
        property and their attendant rights;

     b) It does not provide an opportunity to object to the
        taking and conversion of their property, and to assert a
        reason, such as indigent status or exempt source of  
        funds, that may prevent the County from taking and
        converting their money;

     c) It does not provide any type of hearing prior to taking
        the property; and

     d) It impermissibly places the burden on each individual
        Plaintiff to get their money back.

Allegedly, Asotin County’s illegal seizure of money from each
individual Plaintiff and other class members proximately caused
special damages in the amount of money taken, pre-judgment
interest in an amount to be proven at trial, consequential
damages in an amount to be proven at trial, and nominal damages.

Each Plaintiff provisionally proposes the class definition:

All individuals who were assessed a booking fee and whose funds
have been converted to the County’s use under the Asotin County
Jail’s booking fee policy and RCW 70.48.390 without adequate
notice and/or hearing, in violation of their due process rights
under the law.

The plaintiffs are asking the court, among others, to certify
the case as a class action; establish the actual booking fees
incurred by Asotin County in the relevant period of time and
order the refund of all excess funds taken, with prejudgment
interest; award Plaintiffs and the class all special and general
damages resulting directly and proximately from Defendant’s
conduct; award Plaintiffs and the class all prejudgment and post
judgment interest as allowed by law.

The suit, docketed cv-07-392-JLQ, was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Washington.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          John D. Sklut, Esq.
          Jeffry K. Finer, Esq.
          Center for Justice
          35 W. Main, Suite 300
          Spokane, WA 99201
          Phone: (509) 835.5211
          Fax: (509) 835.3867
          E-mail: jsklut@cforjustice.org
                  jfiner@cforjustice.org


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


HOMEBANC CORP: Shalov Stone Files Securities Fraud Suit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP has filed a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of HomeBanc Corp.
(PINKSHEETS: HMBN) (PINKSHEETS: HMBNP) between September 26,
2005 and August 3, 2007.

The complaint alleges that the officers of HomeBanc -- Kevin D.
Race and Patrick S. Flood -- violated the federal securities
laws.

Beginning on September 26, 2005, HomeBanc sought to register 2
million shares of 10% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred
Stock.

On February 2, 2006, HomeBanc sold these preferred shares
through its underwriters, raising approximately $50 million. But
HomeBanc failed to disclose in its registration statement that
it was planning to sell its adjustable rate loans for cash, and
was buying lower-quality, higher-risk, residential mortgage-
backed securities.

Throughout the Class Period, HomeBanc misrepresented its risk of
loss due to interest rate fluctuations. HomeBanc was earning
less in interest on its assets than the amount it had to pay in
interest on its debts. As a result, HomeBanc had less cash
available to meet its business and operating needs.

HomeBanc, however, continued to tell investors that it had
sufficient cash to support its liquidity needs for at least a
year or more. But on August 7, 2007, HomeBanc filed for
bankruptcy.

Interested parties may move the court no later than January 29,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Christina Golden
          Sara Rosenberg
          Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP
          Telephone: (212) 239-4340
          Facsimile: (212) 239-4310
          Website: http://www.lawssb.com


HOMEBANC CORP: Vianale & Vianale Files Fla. Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Vianale & Vianale LLP filed a class action on
December 17, 2007 in U.S. District Court in the Southern
District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
HomeBanc Corp. ("HomeBanc") (PINKSHEETS: HMBN) between September
26, 2005 and August 3, 2007.

The complaint alleges that the officers of HomeBanc -- Kevin D.
Race and Patrick S. Flood -- violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

HomeBanc originated home mortgage loans through its retail
stores in Florida, Georgia, and North and South Carolina.

Beginning on September 26, 2005, HomeBanc sought to register 2
million shares of 10% Series A Cumulative Redeemable Preferred
Stock for sale to the public. On February 2, 2006, HomeBanc sold
these preferred shares through its underwriters, and raised
approximately $50 million. But HomeBanc failed to disclose in
its registration statement that it was then planning to sell its
adjustable rate loans for cash, and was buying lower-quality,
higher-risk, residential mortgage-backed securities.

Throughout the Class Period, HomeBanc misrepresented its risk of
loss due to interest rate fluctuations. HomeBanc was earning
less in interest on its assets than the amount it had to pay out
in interest on its debts. As a result, HomeBanc had less cash
available to meet its business and operating needs.

HomeBanc, however, continued to tell the public throughout the
Class Period that it had sufficient current cash balances and
cash flows from its operations to support its liquidity needs
for at least a year or more. Even as late as May 9, 2007,
HomeBanc told the public that it had enough cash "to support our
liquidity requirements for the foreseeable future." Just three
months later, HomeBanc's common and Series A Preferred shares
were delisted from the New York Stock Exchange. On August 7,
2007, HomeBanc filed for bankruptcy in Delaware where it is
incorporated. (Because of its bankruptcy, we have not named
HomeBanc as a defendant in this class action lawsuit.)

Interested parties may move the court no later than January 29,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq.
          Julie Prag Vianale, Esq.
          Vianale & Vianale LLP
          2499 Glades Road, Suite 112
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Phone: 888-657-9960 (Toll Free) or 561-392-4750


MORGAN STANLEY: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class actionin
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries of the
Morgan Stanley 401(K) Plan from December 1, 2005 to present,
whose accounts included investments in the stock of Morgan
Stanley (NYSE MS).

The lawsuit named as defendants Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley &
Co. Inc., certain officers and directors of Morgan Stanley & Co.
Inc., the Global Director of Human Resources of Morgan Stanley,
and the Investment Committee of the Morgan Stanley 401(K) Plan.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties owed to Plan participants and
beneficiaries under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. ss. 1000 et seq., by causing or permitting
the Plan to offer, purchase and hold the stock of Morgan
Stanley:

     (a) while such stock traded at artificially high prices due
         to, among other things, misinformation in the market
         concerning Morgan Stanley's business condition and
         operations; and

     (b) while Morgan Stanley exposed itself to the highly risky
         and tenuous subprime mortgage market.

For more information, contact:

          Michael Jaffe, Esq.
          Derek Behnke
          Wolf Haldenstein
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          Phone: 800-575-0735 or 212-545-4600
          E-mail: classmember@whafh.com
          Website: http://www.whafh.com


SECURITY CAPITAL: Zwerling Schachter Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP has filed a class action in
the United States District Court for Southern District of New
York on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the
common stock of Security Capital Assurance, Ltd. pursuant to the
Company's secondary stock offering on June 6, 2007 of more than
9.6 million shares at $31.00 per share.

Security Capital, through its subsidiaries, provides financial
guaranty insurance, reinsurance, and other credit enhancement
products to the public finance and structured finance markets in
the United States and internationally.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus filed
with the Securities & Exchange Commission in connection with the
secondary offering contained untrue statements of material facts
because they failed to disclose that:

     1) a substantial portion of the Company's credit portfolio
        related to sub-prime residential mortgage backed
        securities ("RMBS") and collateralized debt obligations
        ("CDOs") that had declined substantially in value;

     2) the Company's net loss reserves were inadequate in light
        of the Company's deteriorating credit portfolio;

     3) the Company's credit default swaps were not fairly
        valued at the time of the secondary offering; and

     4) as a result of the Company's imprudent underwriting,
        inadequate loss reserves and overvaluation of its credit
        default swaps, the Company's AAA credit rating was at
        risk of being downgraded.

As a result of these omissions, persons who purchased the
Company's common stock pursuant to the secondary offering paid
materially more than what the shares were worth.

Interested parties may move the court no later than February 5,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP
          Website: http://www.zsz.com


ULTA SALON: Bernard Gross Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. has commenced a class action
in the United States District Court, Northern District of
Illinois, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Ulta
Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrances, Inc. (ULTA) between October 25,
2007 and December 10, 2007, inclusive, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint charges ULTA and three of its officers with
violations of the Federal Securities Laws. ULTA operates retail
stores that sell cosmetics and related items. ULTA went public
on October 25, 2007, just nine days prior to the close of its
fiscal third quarter on November 3, 2007.

As alleged in the complaint, defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements in connection with the IPO concerning
ULTA's financial condition and the levels of its selling,
general and administrative expenses inventories.

On December 11, 2007, ULTA issued a press release disclosing the
results of its Third Quarter, admitting that its inventories and
SG&A expenses had risen dramatically in the Third Quarter. As a
result of this startling disclosure, the price of ULTA common
stock, which had been inflated by defendants'
misrepresentations, declined in value.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased the common stock of ULTA.

Interested parties may move the court no later than January 22,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

                  Susan R. Gross, Esq.
                  Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
                  Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
                  Phone: 866-561-3600 (toll free) or
                         215-561-3600
                  E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com or
                          debbie@bernardmgross.com
                  Website: http://www.bernardmgross.com


                           *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice
Mendoza, Editors.

Copyright 2007.  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  * * *