CAR_Public/081229.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, December 29, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 256

                            Headlines

ADVANCED MEDICAL: Faces Consumer Fraud, False Advertising Suit
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Caddo Parish Suit Over Rates Junked in Oct.
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: CERC Unit Faces Gas Mismeasurement Cases
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Complaint on APSC Jurisdiction Still Pending
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Still Faces 2 Gas Market Manipulation Cases

CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Still Faces Electricity Market Power Suits
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Rates Suit in Calcasieu Parish, La. Junked
COMCAST CORP: Faces Calif. Suit Over Renting of Descramblers
FISERV INC: Longtime Worker Files Overtime Wage Lawsuit in Pa.
MEDCO HEALTH: Appeals Ruling on Pharmacies' Suit Recommendation

MEDCO HEALTH: Consolidated Antitrust Suits Still Pending in Pa.
MEDCO HEALTH: Continues to Face Antitrust Lawsuit in California
MEDCO HEALTH: Fees Application in PolyMedica Merger Suit Pending
MEDCO HEALTH: Final Approval of ERISA Suits Deal Still Pending
NATIONAL CITY: Entwistle & Cappucci Files Suit Over 4.0% Notes

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Faces Lawsits Over WaMu Acquisition
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Fairmount Park' Suit Still Pending in Iowa
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Members Faces 401(k) Plans Suit in Iowa
TELIK INC: Settlement of N.Y. Consolidated Suit Approved in Oct.
WAL-MART STORES: Settles 63 Wage Violations Lawsuits Nationwide


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN CAPITAL: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
ATRICURE INC: Howard G. Smith Files Ohio Securities Fraud Suit
EMCORE CORP: Susman Heffner Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.M.
FAMILY MANAGEMENT: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit
GENERAL GROWTH: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Suit in Ill.

INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing
TREMONT GROUP: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
TREMONT GROUP: Wolf Haldenstein Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit


                           *********

ADVANCED MEDICAL: Faces Consumer Fraud, False Advertising Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Santa Ana, CA (PRWEB) Dec. 22, 2008 -- The Schmidt Firm,
LLP in Dallas, Texas announced today that Southern California-
based Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. ("AMO") was named as the
defendant in a consumer fraud and false advertising class-action
lawsuit.

     The case, "Maria Ruiz v. Advanced Medical Optics, et. Al,
Case No. #30-2008-00231301," was filed Monday in California
State Superior Court in Orange County.

     Maria Ruiz brought the complaint on her behalf and on
behalf of all California consumers who purchased AMO's Complete
Multipurpose Solution Easy Rub Formula ("Easy Rub"), a contact
lens cleaning and disinfection product.

     The class action complaint alleges that beginning around
August 2007, AMO launched the Easy Rub product as a replacement
for its Complete MoisturePlus contact lens solution, which the
company had been forced to recall on a global basis in May 2007.

     That recall followed a report by the Centers for Disease
Control linking Complete MoisturePlus to an outbreak of serious
corneal infections known as Acanthamoeba keratitis.

     AMO is currently facing several hundred products liability
cases and claims brought by consumers who developed the sight-
threatening disease after using Complete MoisturePlus.

     AMO advertised the Easy Rub formula as "new" and "unique"
when the product was introduced to the market in 2007.  However,
Ruiz' complaint alleges Easy Rub actually contains an old
formula which AMO has been using for years to manufacture a so-
called "private label" solution for retail giant Costco under
its Kirkland Signature brand.  The Kirkland product is
significantly less expensive than Easy Rub even though the
formulas are identical.  The complaint charges that AMO's
failure to disclose the origins of the Easy Rub formula and its
claim that the formula is "new" or "unique" constitutes false
and misleading advertising under California law.

     The complaint further alleges that marketing claims made by
AMO suggesting that Easy Rub provides "enhanced protection"
against Acanthamoeba infections are also false and misleading.

     The disinfectant ingredient contained in Easy Rub, the
lawsuit contends, is not effective against Acanthamoeba
organisms, and the complaint charges that AMO's marketing
"inappropriately give[s consumers and eye care professionals a
false sense of security regarding the risk of developing
Acanthamoeba infections."

     The class-action complaint seeks a variety of remedies
against AMO, including the return of money consumers used to
purchase Easy Rub, as well as changes to labeling and
advertising for the product.

     In addition to The Schmidt Firm, LLP the Plaintiff is
represented by Moore Labriola LLP and Robinson, Calcagnie &
Robinson LLP, both located in Newport Beach, California, along
with Moscone, Emblidge & Quadra, in San Francisco and Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, in California and New York.

For more details, contact:

          Robert H. Hilley, IV
          Schmidt & Clark, LLP
          Phone: 858-688-0923
          http://www.schmidtandclark.com


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Caddo Parish Suit Over Rates Junked in Oct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A state court in Caddo Parish, Louisiana, in October 2008,
dismissed the lawsuit filed against CenterPoint Energy, Inc.'s
indirect wholly owned subsidiary, CenterPoint Energy Resources
Corp. and certain of its subsidiaries (CERC).

In February 2003, a lawsuit was filed in state court in Caddo
Parish, Louisiana against CERC with respect to rates charged to
a purported class of certain consumers of natural gas and gas
service in the State of Louisiana.

At the time of the filing of the Caddo Parish case, the
plaintiffs filed petitions with the Louisiana Public Service
Commission (LPSC) relating to the same alleged rate overcharges.

The Caddo Parish suit was stayed pending the resolution of the
petitions filed with the LPSC.

A review by the LPSC related to the Caddo Parish litigation was
resolved without additional payment by CERC.

In October 2008, the court considering the Caddo Parish case
dismissed it pursuant to motions to dismiss, according to the
company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

CenterPoint Energy, Inc. -- www.CenterPointEnergy.com --
headquartered in Houston, Texas, is a domestic energy delivery
company that includes electric transmission & distribution,
natural gas distribution, competitive natural gas sales and
services, interstate pipelines, and field services operations.
The company serves more than five million metered customers
primarily in Arkansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Oklahoma, and Texas.  Assets total over $19 billion.  With about
8,600 employees, CenterPoint Energy and its predecessor
companies have been in business for more than 130 years.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: CERC Unit Faces Gas Mismeasurement Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc.'s indirect wholly owned subsidiary,
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. (CERC Corp.) and certain of
its subsidiaries, remain defendants in two mismeasurement
lawsuits brought against approximately 245 pipeline companies
and their affiliates pending in state court in Stevens County,
Kansas.

In one case (originally filed in May 1999 and amended four
times), the plaintiffs purport to represent a class of royalty
owners who allege that the defendants have engaged in systematic
mismeasurement of the volume of natural gas for more than 25
years.

The plaintiffs amended their petition in this suit in July 2003,
in response to an order from the judge denying certification of
the plaintiffs' alleged class.

In the amendment the plaintiffs dismissed their claims against
certain defendants (including two CERC Corp. subsidiaries),
limited the scope of the class of plaintiffs they purport to
represent and eliminated previously asserted claims based on
mismeasurement of the British thermal unit (Btu) content of the
gas.

The same plaintiffs then filed a second lawsuit, again as
representatives of a putative class of royalty owners, in which
they assert their claims that the defendants have engaged in
systematic mismeasurement of the Btu content of natural gas for
more than 25 years.

In both lawsuits, the plaintiffs seek compensatory damages,
along with statutory penalties, treble damages, interest, costs
and fees.

CERC believes that there has been no systematic mismeasurement
of gas and that the lawsuits are without merit, according to the
company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

CenterPoint Energy, Inc. -- www.CenterPointEnergy.com --
headquartered in Houston, Texas, is a domestic energy delivery
company that includes electric transmission & distribution,
natural gas distribution, competitive natural gas sales and
services, interstate pipelines, and field services operations.
The company serves more than five million metered customers
primarily in Arkansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Oklahoma, and Texas.  Assets total over $19 billion.  With about
8,600 employees, CenterPoint Energy and its predecessor
companies have been in business for more than 130 years.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Complaint on APSC Jurisdiction Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The complaint relating to the extent of the Arkansas Public
Service Commission (APSC)'s jurisdiction over the lawsuit by
certain CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. (CERC Corp.)
ratepayers in Texas and Arkansas in circuit court in Miller
County, Arkansas remains pending.

CERC Corp. is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of CenterPoint
Energy, Inc.

In October 2004, the lawsuit was filed by certain CERC
ratepayers in Texas and Arkansas in circuit court in Miller
County, Arkansas against the company, CERC Corp., EGMC,
CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission company (CEGT), CenterPoint
Energy Field Services (CEFS), CEPS, Mississippi River
Transmission Corp. (MRT) and other non-affiliated companies
alleging fraud, unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy with
respect to rates charged to certain consumers of natural gas in
Arkansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Texas.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs dropped CEGT and MRT as defendants.

Although the plaintiffs in the Miller County case sought class
certification, no class was certified.

In June 2007, the Arkansas Supreme Court determined that the
Arkansas claims were within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction
of the Arkansas Public Service Commission (APSC).

In response to that ruling, in August 2007 the Miller County
court stayed but refused to dismiss the Arkansas claims.

In February 2008, the Arkansas Supreme Court directed the Miller
County court to dismiss the entire case for lack of
jurisdiction.  The Miller County court subsequently dismissed
the case in accordance with the Arkansas Supreme Court's mandate
and all appellate deadlines have expired.

In June 2007, the company, CERC Corp., EGMC and other defendants
in the Miller County case filed a petition in a district court
in Travis County, Texas seeking a determination that the
Railroad Commission has exclusive original jurisdiction over the
Texas claims asserted in the Miller County case.  In October
2007, CEFS and CEPS joined the petition in the Travis County
case.

In October 2008, the district court ruled that the Railroad
Commission had exclusive original jurisdiction over the Texas
claims asserted against the company, CERC Corp., EGMC and the
other defendants in the Miller County case.  The time has not
yet run for an appeal of this ruling.

In August 2007, the Arkansas plaintiff in the Miller County
litigation initiated a complaint at the APSC seeking a decision
concerning the extent of the APSC's jurisdiction over the Miller
County case and an investigation into the merits of the
allegations asserted in his suit with respect to CERC.  That
complaint remains pending at the APSC, according to the
company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

CenterPoint Energy, Inc. -- www.CenterPointEnergy.com --
headquartered in Houston, Texas, is a domestic energy delivery
company that includes electric transmission & distribution,
natural gas distribution, competitive natural gas sales and
services, interstate pipelines, and field services operations.
The company serves more than five million metered customers
primarily in Arkansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Oklahoma, and Texas.  Assets total over $19 billion.  With about
8,600 employees, CenterPoint Energy and its predecessor
companies have been in business for more than 130 years.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Still Faces 2 Gas Market Manipulation Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc. remains a party in only two remaining
gas market manipulation cases, one pending in Nevada state court
in Clark County and one in federal district court in Nevada.

A large number of lawsuits were filed against numerous gas
market participants in a number of federal and western state
courts in connection with the operation of the natural gas
markets in 2000-2001.

The company's former affiliate, Reliant Energy, Inc. (RRI), was
a participant in gas trading in the California and Western
markets.

These lawsuits, many of which have been filed as class-action
suits, allege violations of state and federal antitrust laws.

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits are seeking a variety of forms
of relief, including recovery of compensatory damages (in some
cases in excess of $1 billion), a trebling of compensatory
damages, full consideration damages and attorneys' fees.

The company and/or Reliant Energy were named in approximately 30
of these lawsuits, which were instituted between 2003 and 2007.

In October 2006, RRI reached a settlement of 11 class action
natural gas cases pending in state court in California. The
court approved this settlement in June 2007.

In the other gas cases consolidated in state court in
California, the Court of Appeals found that the company was not
a successor to the liabilities of a subsidiary of RRI, and the
company was dismissed from these suits in April 2008.

In the Nevada federal litigation, three of the complaints were
dismissed based on defendants' filed rate doctrine defense, but
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed those dismissals and
remanded the cases back to the district court for further
proceedings.

In July 2008, the plaintiffs in four of the federal court cases
agreed to dismiss the company from those cases.  In August 2008,
the plaintiffs in five additional cases also agreed to dismiss
the company from those cases, but one of these plaintiffs has
moved to amend its complaint to add CenterPoint Energy Services,
Inc., a subsidiary of the company, as a defendant in that case.

The company believes it is not a proper defendant in the
remaining cases and will continue to pursue dismissal from those
cases, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2008.

CenterPoint Energy, Inc. -- www.CenterPointEnergy.com --
headquartered in Houston, Texas, is a domestic energy delivery
company that includes electric transmission & distribution,
natural gas distribution, competitive natural gas sales and
services, interstate pipelines, and field services operations.
The company serves more than five million metered customers
primarily in Arkansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Oklahoma, and Texas.  Assets total over $19 billion.  With about
8,600 employees, CenterPoint Energy and its predecessor
companies have been in business for more than 130 years.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Still Faces Electricity Market Power Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc. continues to face lawsuits filed in
connection with the operation of the California electricity
markets in 2000-2001.

A large number of these lawsuits were filed against numerous
market participants.

The company's former affiliate, Reliant Energy, Inc. (RRI), was
a participant in the California markets, owning generating
plants in the state and participating in both electricity and
natural gas trading in that state and in western power markets
generally.

The company was a defendant in approximately five of these
suits.

These lawsuits, many of which were filed as class actions, were
based on a number of legal theories, including violation of
state and federal antitrust laws, laws against unfair and
unlawful business practices, the federal Racketeer Influenced
Corrupt Organization Act, false claims statutes and similar
theories and breaches of contracts to supply power to
governmental entities.

In August 2005, RRI reached a settlement with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) enforcement staff, the states of
California, Washington and Oregon, California's three largest
investor-owned utilities, classes of consumers from California
and other western states, and a number of California city and
county government entities that resolves their claims against
RRI related to the operation of the electricity markets in
California and certain other western states in 2000-2001.

The settlement has been approved by the FERC, by the California
Public Utilities Commission and by the courts in which the
electricity class action cases were pending.

Two parties appealed the courts' approval of the settlement to
the California Court of Appeals, but that appeal was denied and
the deadline to appeal to the California Supreme Court has
passed.

A party in the FERC proceedings filed a motion for rehearing of
the FERC's order approving the settlement, which the FERC denied
in May 2006.  That party has filed for review of the FERC's
orders in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

According to its Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended Sept. 30,
2008, the company is not a party to the settlement, but may rely
on the settlement as a defense to any claims.

CenterPoint Energy, Inc. -- www.CenterPointEnergy.com --
headquartered in Houston, Texas, is a domestic energy delivery
company that includes electric transmission & distribution,
natural gas distribution, competitive natural gas sales and
services, interstate pipelines, and field services operations.
The company serves more than five million metered customers
primarily in Arkansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Oklahoma, and Texas.  Assets total over $19 billion.  With about
8,600 employees, CenterPoint Energy and its predecessor
companies have been in business for more than 130 years.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Rates Suit in Calcasieu Parish, La. Junked
--------------------------------------------------------------
A state court in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, in October 2008,
dismissed the lawsuit filed against CenterPoint Energy, Inc.'s
indirect wholly owned subsidiary, CenterPoint Energy Resources
Corp. and certain of its subsidiaries (CERC).

In February 2004, another suit was filed in state court in
Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana against CERC seeking to recover
alleged overcharges for gas or gas services allegedly provided
by CERC to a purported class of certain consumers of natural gas
and gas service without advance approval by the Louisiana Public
Service Commission (LPSC).

At the time of the filing of the Calcasieu Parish case, the
plaintiffs filed petitions with the LPSC relating to the same
alleged rate overcharges.

The Calcasieu Parish lawsuits were stayed pending the resolution
of the petitions filed with the LPSC.

In August 2007, the LPSC issued an order approving a Stipulated
Settlement in the review initiated by the plaintiffs in the
Calcasieu Parish litigation.

In the LPSC proceeding, CERC's gas purchases were reviewed back
to 1971.  The review concluded that CERC's gas costs were
"reasonable and prudent," but CERC agreed to credit to
jurisdictional customers approximately $920,000, including
interest, related to certain off-system sales.  The refund will
be completed in the fourth quarter of 2008.

According to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2008, in October 2008, the courts considering the
Calcasieu Parish case dismissed it pursuant to motions to
dismiss.

CenterPoint Energy, Inc. -- www.CenterPointEnergy.com --
headquartered in Houston, Texas, is a domestic energy delivery
company that includes electric transmission & distribution,
natural gas distribution, competitive natural gas sales and
services, interstate pipelines, and field services operations.
The company serves more than five million metered customers
primarily in Arkansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Oklahoma, and Texas.  Assets total over $19 billion.  With about
8,600 employees, CenterPoint Energy and its predecessor
companies have been in business for more than 130 years.


COMCAST CORP: Faces Calif. Suit Over Renting of Descramblers
------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corp. faces a potential class-action lawsuit challenging
the cable operator's practice of demanding consumers rent cable
descramblers rather than allowing subscribers to buy them
outright in order to view premium services such as HBO, Linda
Haugsted of Multichannel News reporrs.

The suit was filed on Nov. 25, 2008 in U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California, under the caption,
"Corralejo v. Comcast Corporation, Case No. 2:2008-cv-02863."

It was brought on behalf of Comcast Corp. customer Cheryl
Corralejo, alleging that the set-top rental practice represents
an "unlawful tying arrangement resulting in an impermissible
restraint of trade," according to Multichannel News.

In addition to violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the suit
alleges the practice violates business and professions codes.,
and has thus been filed on behalf of all California Comcast
customers who buy premium services.

The suit notes that premium video and the set-top descramblers
are two distinct products, yet the cable providers require that
the hardware be rented from cable companies, rather than
permitting consumers to purchase the set-top hardware in the
open market, reports Multichannel News.

According to the complaint, owing to such tying arrangements,
"In a matter of months, the rental fees that the class is
supposed to pay for the cable boxes ... greatly exceeds their
worth."

The charges add up quickly if a consumer has multiple sets in
the home hooked up to premium services, the suit notes.

Multichannel News reported that the lawsuit also duns Comcast
for touting the rental of cable boxes over the use of the
CableCARD, the latter of which is to take the place of set-top
hardware.  Even is a consumer decides to get a CableCARD to plug
into a digital set, that hardware must be rented from Comcast,
too, according to the suit.

The plaintiff is asking for compensatory and other damages,
attorney fees, court costs and interest, according to the
filings, obtained by Multichannel News.

Comcast attorneys asked for more time to answer the allegations,
a request that was granted on Dec. 17, 2008.  The company has
until Jan. 30, 2009 to file its response to the claims.


FISERV INC: Longtime Worker Files Overtime Wage Lawsuit in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fiserv, Inc. faces a purported class-action from a longtime
employee who is alleging that the company failed to pay her and
others overtime when it was required to do so under federal law,
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania by Jane Cahill, who worked for the
technology service company or its predecessors for 40 years in
Allegheny County.  Filed on Dec. 22, 2008, the suit is seeking
class-action status, and is captioned, "Cahill v. Fiserv, Inc.
Case No. 2:2008-cv-01738."

Ms. Cahill believes that there could be hundreds of people in
similar situations with the company, which employs 25,000
nationwide, reports The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

According to the complaint, obtained by The Pittsburgh Post-
Gazette, Fiserv paid Ms. Cahill a salary for a 40-hour work
week, even though, as a customer service representative, she
should have been paid hourly.  It estimates that she is owed
time-and-a-half for five to 10 hours of work for each week
dating back to Dec. 23, 2005.

Ms. Cahill was terminated from the company in July.  Her
attorney, Edward Feinstein, Esq. told Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
that Fiserv, whose headquarters is in Brookfield, Wisconsin,
moved some of its local operations to Florida, and she lost her
job.

For more details, contact:

          Edward J. Feinstein, Esq.
          Stember Feinstein Doyle & Payne, LLC
          1705 The Allegheny Building
          429 Forbes Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1622
          Phone: (412) 338-1445
          Fax: (888) 355-1735
          Web site: http://www.stemberfeinstein.com


MEDCO HEALTH: Appeals Ruling on Pharmacies' Suit Recommendation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Medco Health Solutions, Inc., is appealing U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Oklahoma's decision affirming the
recommendation by a court to deny its motion to stay, pending
arbitration, a suit filed by a class of Oklahoma pharmacies.

The suit was filed by Chelsea Family Pharmacy, PLLC in February
2006, and seeks to represent a class of Oklahoma pharmacies that
have contracted with the company within the last three years.
It alleges, among other things, that the company has contracted
with retail pharmacies at rates that are less than the
prevailing rates paid by ordinary consumers and has denied
consumers their choice of pharmacy by placing restrictions on
the plaintiff's ability to dispense pharmaceutical goods and
services.

The plaintiff asserts that the company's activities violate the
Oklahoma Third Party Prescription Act, and seeks, among other
things, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive
relief.

On April 12, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint and on June 12, 2006, filed a motion to stay the
action pending arbitration.

On Sept. 21, 2007, the Magistrate Judge of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma recommended that the
District Court deny Medco's request to stay the action pending
arbitration.  The Company objected to the Magistrate's Report
and Recommendation (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 26, 2008).

The district court affirmed the Sept. 21, 2007 recommendation in
July 2008.  Medco is appealing the District Court's decision,
according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 27, 2008.

The suit is "Chelsea Family Pharmacy, PLLC. v. Medco Health
Solutions, Inc., Case No. 4:06-cv-00118-TCK-SAJ," filed with the
U.S. District Court for the District of Oklahoma, Judge Terence
Kern presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Bradford D. Barron, Esq. (Bbarron@gbbfirm.com)
          Gibbon Barron & Barron, PA
          2 W. 6th St., Ste. 320
          Tulsa, OK 74119-1215
          Phone: 918-745-0687
          Fax: 9180745-0821

               - and -

          Bobby Leon Latham, Jr., Esq. (blatham@lswsl.com)
          Latham Stall Wagner Steele & Lehman, PC
          1800 S. Baltimore, Ste. 500
          Tulsa, OK 74119
          Phone: 918-382-7523
          Fax: 918-382-7541

Representing the defendants are:

          Mark Banner, Esq. (mbanner@hallestill.com)
          Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden & Nelson
          320 S. Boston, Ste. 400
          Tulsa, OK 74103-3708
          Phone: 918-594-0432
          Fax: 918-594-0505

               - and -

          John Briggs, Esq. (BriggsJ@howrey.com)
          Howrey, LLP
          1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
          Washington, DC 20004-2402
          Phone: 202-383-7015
          Fax: 202-318-8594


MEDCO HEALTH: Consolidated Antitrust Suits Still Pending in Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Medco Health Solutions, Inc., and Merck & Co. Inc., which
acquired the company in 1993, continue to face several class-
action lawsuits that were consolidated for pretrial purposes in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

                   Brady Enterprises Lawsuit

In August 2003, a lawsuit "Brady Enterprises, Inc., et al. v.
Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al." was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against
the company and Merck.

The plaintiffs, who seek to represent a national class of retail
pharmacies that had contracted with the company, allege that the
company has conspired with, acted as the common agent for, and
used the combined bargaining power of plan sponsors to restrain
competition in the market for the dispensing and sale of
prescription drugs.

The plaintiffs allege that, through the alleged conspiracy, the
company has engaged in various forms of anticompetitive conduct,
including, among other things, setting artificially low
reimbursement rates to such pharmacies.

The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act
and seek treble damages and injunctive relief.  The plaintiffs'
motion for class certification is currently pending.

                North Jackson Pharmacy Lawsuit

In October 2003, a lawsuit captioned "North Jackson Pharmacy,
Inc., et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al." was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
against Merck and the company.

In their Second Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs allege that:

     -- Merck and the company have engaged in price fixing and
        other unlawful concerted actions with others, including
        other Pharmacy Benefit Managers, to restrain trade in
        the dispensing and sale of prescription drugs to
        customers of retail pharmacies who participate in
        programs or plans that pay for all or part of the drugs
        dispensed; and

     -- Merck and the company have conspired with, acted as the
        common agent for, and used the combined bargaining power
        of plan sponsors to restrain competition in the market
        for the dispensing and sale of prescription drugs.

The plaintiffs allege that, through such concerted action, Merck
and the company have engaged in various forms of anticompetitive
conduct, including, among other things, setting reimbursement
rates to such pharmacies at unreasonably low levels.

The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act
and seek treble damages and injunctive relief.  The plaintiffs'
motion for class certification has been granted, but this matter
has been consolidated with other actions where class
certification remains an open issue.

                 Mike's Medical Center Lawsuit

In December 2005, a lawsuit captioned "Mike's Medical Center
Pharmacy, et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al." was
filed against the company and Merck in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all pharmacies and
pharmacists that had contracted with the company and California
pharmacies that had indirectly purchased prescription drugs from
Merck and make factual allegations similar to those in the
Alameda Drug Co. action.

The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act,
California antitrust law, and California law prohibiting unfair
business practices.  The plaintiffs demand, among other things,
treble damages, restitution, disgorgement of unlawfully obtained
profits, and injunctive relief.

In April 2006, the Brady plaintiffs filed a petition to transfer
and consolidate various antitrust actions against Pharmacy
Benefit Managers, including North Jackson, Brady, and Mike's
Medical Center before a single federal judge.

The actions are now consolidated for pretrial purposes in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The consolidated action is known as "In re Pharmacy Benefit
Managers Antitrust Litigation."

The plaintiffs' motion for class certification in certain
actions is currently pending before the multi-district
litigation court (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 26, 2008).

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 5,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008.

Medco Health Solutions Inc. -- http://www.medco.com/-- is a
pharmacy benefit manager.  The Company provides traditional and
specialty prescription drug benefit programs and services for
its clients, members of client-funded benefit plans or those
served by the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Program
(Medicare Part D), and individual patients.


MEDCO HEALTH: Continues to Face Antitrust Lawsuit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Medco Health Solutions, Inc., remains a defendant in a purported
antitrust class-action suit, "Alameda Drug Co., Inc., et al. v.
Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al.," that was filed against
the company and Merck & Co. with the Superior Court of
California.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit seek to represent a class of all
California pharmacies that had contracted with the company and
that had indirectly purchased prescription drugs from Merck.

They allege, among other things, that since the expiration of a
1995 consent injunction entered by the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, if not earlier, the company
has:

     -- failed to maintain an Open Formulary (as defined in the
        consent injunction), and

     -- failed to prevent nonpublic information received from
        competitors of Merck and the company from being
        disclosed to each other.

The complaint also copies verbatim many of the allegations in
the amended complaint-in-intervention filed by the U.S. Attorney
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The matters relate to:

     -- a consolidated action pending in the Eastern District of
        Pennsylvania.  The consolidated action included a
        government complaint-in-intervention filed in September
        2003 and two pending qui tam, or whistleblower,
        complaints filed in 2000.

        The complaints alleged violations of the False Claims
        Act and various other state statutes.  Additional legal
        claims were added in an amended complaint-in-
        intervention filed in December 2003, including a count
        alleging a violation of the Public Contracts Anti-
        Kickback Act.  This Consolidated Action has been settled
        for $137.5 million.

     -- a qui tam that remains under seal in the Eastern
        District of Pennsylvania.  The U.S. Attorney's Office
        had informed the company that the Complaint alleges
        violations of the federal False Claims Act, that the
        company and other defendants inflated manufacturers'
        "best price" to Medicare and Medicaid, and that the
        company and other defendants offered and paid kickbacks
        to third parties to induce the placement on formularies
        and promotion of certain drugs.  This matter has been
        settled for $9.5 million.

     -- an investigation that began with a letter the company
        received from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern
        District of Pennsylvania in January 2005 requesting
        information and representations regarding the company's
        Medicare Part B coordination of benefits recovery
        program.  This matter was settled for $8.0 million.

On Oct. 23, 2006, the company entered into settlement agreements
with the Department of Justice on these matters.

The plaintiffs further allege that, as a result of these alleged
practices, the company has been able to increase its market
share and artificially reduce the level of reimbursement to the
retail pharmacy class members, and that the prices of
prescription drugs from Merck and other pharmaceutical
manufacturers that do business with the company had been fixed
and raised above competitive levels.

The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of California
antitrust law and California law prohibiting unfair business
practices.

The plaintiffs demand, among other things, compensatory damages,
restitution, disgorgement of unlawfully obtained profits, and
injunctive relief.

In the complaint, the plaintiff further alleges, among other
things, that the company acts as a purchasing agent for its plan
sponsor customers, resulting in a system that serves to suppress
competition (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 26, 2008).

The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 5,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008.

Medco Health Solutions Inc. -- http://www.medco.com/-- is a
pharmacy benefit manager.  The Company provides traditional and
specialty prescription drug benefit programs and services for
its clients, members of client-funded benefit plans or those
served by the Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Program
(Medicare Part D), and individual patients.


MEDCO HEALTH: Fees Application in PolyMedica Merger Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' counsel's application for attorneys' fees and
expenses in the class acton lawsuit captioned, "Groen v.
PolyMedica Corp. et al.," remains pending, according to Medco
Health Solutions, Inc.'s Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 27, 2008.

The Superior Court of Massachusetts for Middlesex County
approved on a final basis the proposed settlement in a class-
action lawsuit against Medco Health Solutions, Inc., over a
merger agreement between the company and PolyMedica Corp.

Under the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated Aug.
27, 2007, PolyMedica shareholders received $53 in cash for each
outstanding share of PolyMedica common stock.  Medco funded the
transaction on Oct. 31, 2007, through a combination of $1
billion in bank borrowings from its existing $2 billion
revolving credit facility and cash on hand.

In August 2007, a putative stockholder class-action suit related
to the merger was filed by purported stockholders of PolyMedica
Corp. before the Superior Court of Massachusetts for Middlesex
County against, amongst others, the company and its affiliate,
MACQ Corp.

The lawsuit captioned, "Groen v. PolyMedica Corp. et al.,"
alleges, among other things, that the price agreed to in the
merger agreement was inadequate and unfair to the PolyMedica
stockholders and that the defendants breached their duties to
the stockholders and aided breaches of duty by other defendants
in negotiating and approving the merger agreement.

Shortly thereafter, two virtually identical lawsuits (only one
of which named the company as a defendant) were filed in the
same court.

The complaints allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty and
seek injunctive, declaratory and other equitable relief.

On Sept. 28, 2007, the parties to these actions reached an
agreement in principle to settle the dispute.  The settlement is
subject to, among other things, the execution of definitive
documentation and court approval.

The Middlesex County Superior Court approved the parties' Joint
Motion for Preliminary Approval of the settlement and at a
fairness hearing held on May 8, 2008, granted final approval of
the deal and dismissed the matters with prejudice on the merits
(Class Action Reporter, Aug. 4, 2008).

Medco Health Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.medco.com/-- is a
pharmacy benefit manager.  The Company provides traditional and
specialty prescription drug benefit programs and services for
its clients and members.  It provides pharmacy benefit
management (PBM) services through its national networks of
retail pharmacies and its own mail-order pharmacies, as well as
through its Specialty Pharmacy segment, Accredo Health Group.
During the fiscal year ended Dec. 29, 2007, it introduced the
Medco Therapeutic Resource Centers.  The Company's data center
links its mail-order pharmacy operations, including its call
center pharmacies and work-at-home sites, its Websites, and the
retail pharmacies in its networks.


MEDCO HEALTH: Final Approval of ERISA Suits Deal Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Final approval of the settlement of several purported class
action lawsuits against Medco Health Solutions, Inc., alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
remains pending.

Merck & Co., Inc., acquired Medco Health in 1993.

Prior to the spin-off of Medco Health, Merck and Medco Health
agreed to settle, on a class action basis, the series of ERISA
lawsuits against them.

Initially, in December 1997, a lawsuit captioned, "Gruer v.
Merck-Medco Managed Care, L.L.C.," was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Merck and Medco.

The suit alleges that Medco should be treated as a "fiduciary"
under the provisions of ERISA, and that Medco had breached
fiduciary obligations under ERISA in a variety of ways.

After the Gruer case was filed, a number of other cases were
filed before the same court asserting similar claims.

Merck, Medco Health and certain plaintiffs' counsel filed the
settlement agreement in the federal District Court in New York,
where cases commenced by a number of plaintiffs, including
participants in a number of pharmaceutical benefit plans for
which Medco Health is the pharmacy benefit manager, as well as
trustees of such plans, have been consolidated.

Medco Health and Merck agreed to the proposed settlement in
order to avoid the significant cost and distraction of prolonged
litigation.

The proposed class settlement has been agreed to by plaintiffs
in five of the cases filed against Medco Health and Merck.
Under the proposed settlement, Merck and Medco Health have
agreed to pay a total of $42.5 million, and Medco Health has
agreed to modify certain business practices or to continue
certain specified business practices for a period of five years.

The financial compensation is intended to benefit members of the
settlement class, which includes ERISA plans for which Medco
Health administered a pharmacy benefit at any time since Dec.
17, 1994.

The District Court held hearings to hear objections to the
fairness of the proposed settlement and approved the settlement
in 2004, but has not yet determined the number of class member
plans that have properly elected not to participate in the
settlement.

The settlement becomes final only if and when all appeals have
been resolved.

Certain class member plans have indicated that they will not
participate in the settlement.  Cases initiated by three such
plans and two individuals remain pending in the Southern
District of New York.

The plaintiffs in these cases have asserted claims based on
ERISA as well as other federal and state laws that are the same
as or similar to the claims that had been asserted by settling
class members in the Gruer Cases.  Merck and Medco Health are
named as defendants in these cases.

Three notices of appeal were filed and the appellate court heard
oral argument in May 2005.

On Dec. 8, 2005, the appellate court issued a decision vacating
the District Court's judgment and remanding the cases to the
District Court to allow the District Court to resolve certain
jurisdictional issues.  A hearing was held to address such
issues on Feb. 24, 2006.

The District Court issued a ruling on Aug. 10, 2006, resolving
such jurisdictional issues in favor of the settling plaintiffs.
The class members and the other party that had previously
appealed the District Court's judgment renewed their appeals.

On Oct. 4, 2007, the renewed appeals were affirmed in part and
vacated in part by the federal court of appeals. The appeals
court remanded the class settlement for further proceedings in
the District Court (Class Action Reporter, July 1, 2008).

A hearing on whether the revised settlement should be approved
took place in May 2008, and the Company is awaiting a decision
on whether the court will grant final approval, according to the
company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008.

Medco Health Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.medco.com/-- is a
pharmacy benefit manager.  The Company provides traditional and
specialty prescription drug benefit programs and services for
its clients and members.  It provides pharmacy benefit
management (PBM) services through its national networks of
retail pharmacies and its own mail-order pharmacies, as well as
through its Specialty Pharmacy segment, Accredo Health Group.
During the fiscal year ended Dec. 29, 2007, it introduced the
Medco Therapeutic Resource Centers.  The Company's data center
links its mail-order pharmacy operations, including its call
center pharmacies and work-at-home sites, its Websites, and the
retail pharmacies in its networks.


NATIONAL CITY: Entwistle & Cappucci Files Suit Over 4.0% Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Pursuant to Section 21(D)(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), Entwistle & Cappucci
LLP ("Entwistle & Cappucci") (http://www.entwistle-law.com),a
prominent New York law firm specializing in securities
litigation, hereby gives notice that it has filed a class action
complaint for violations of the federal securities laws against
National City Corporation ("National City" or the "Company"),
Peter E. Raskind, David A. Daberko and Jeffrey D. Kelly
("Defendants") in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The lawsuit is
brought on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
National City's 4.0% Convertible Senior Notes Due 2011 ("4.0%
Notes" or "Notes") from January 23, 2008 through and including
September 30, 2008 (the "Class Period").

     The complaint alleges that the Defendants misrepresented to
investors the quality of approximately $20 billion of National
City's residential real estate loans and the sufficiency of the
Company's reserves for the known risks of those loans.

     Such misrepresentations were contained in the Company's
quarterly and annual reports, filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, as well as the Prospectus Supplement, which
was issued to investors in connection with the offering
("Offering") of the 4.0% Notes on or about January 23, 2008.

     As alleged in the complaint, National City engaged in
undisclosed reckless lending practices, which consisted of,
among other practices, providing inherently high-risk loans to
non-creditworthy borrowers with minimal or no documentation of
income and little or no collateral on the property.  Despite
these reckless lending practices, Defendants represented prior
to and during the Class Period that the Company's residential
real estate loans were prime quality, conforming loans that were
made to borrowers in good credit standing, that National City
had a strong capital position and was positioned to absorb
probable losses inherent in the Company's loan portfolio.

     As a result of the Company's imprudent lending practices,
National City was ultimately forced to write-off billions of
dollars of defaulting residential real estate loans and became
the subject of regulatory scrutiny by the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency.

     Investors began to learn the truth about National City's
actual lending practices and financial condition on March 14,
2008, when a Bloomberg News article reported that Moody's had
downgraded National City's rating due to likely mortgage-related
losses and noted possible future downgrades.

     Upon this news, the price of the 4.0% Notes dropped $254.40
per Note, or 26%, from $981.30 per Note on March 13, 2008 to
$726.90 per Note on March 18, 2008.

     Subsequent to that announcement, a July 16, 2008 New York
Times article, entitled, "Seeing Bad Loans, Investors Flee From
Bank Shares," noted that despite the Company's $7 billion
capital raise in May 2008 and assurances that its Tier 1 capital
ratio ranked among the highest in its class, the Company had
lost nearly 90 percent of its value in the last year.

     Upon this announcement, the price of the 4.0% Notes dropped
an additional $164.50 per Note, or 21%, from $800.00 per Note on
July 9, 2008 to $635.50 per Note on July 17, 2008.

     Shortly thereafter, a September 26, 2008 Reuters article,
entitled "Wachovia, National City Shares Tumble on Bailout,
WaMu," reported a 40 percent drop in National City's common
stock upon investor concern regarding the Company's severe
mortgage losses as regulators seized Washington Mutual Inc.,
with analysts characterizing National City as a "mortgage
financing company at this point" and "likely either a candidate
for FDIC seizure," or "a candidate for a dilutive capital
raise."

     Upon this news, the price of the 4.0% Notes dropped an
additional $242.50 per Note, or 35%, from $695.00 per Note on
September 25, 2008 to $452.50 per Note on September 30, 2008.

     As a result of these and other corrective disclosures, the
price of the Company's 4.0% Notes fell a total of $607.70 per
Note, or 57%, from the initial Offering price of $1060.20 per
Note on January 29, 2008 to $452.50 per Note on September 30,
2008.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class
members.

For more details, contact:

          Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq.
          Entwistle & Cappucci LLP
          280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West
          New York, New York 10017
          Phone: (212) 894-7200


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Faces Lawsits Over WaMu Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------
Principal Financial Group, Inc. is facing two securities class-
action lawsuits over the company's purchase of the distributor,
investment advisor and assets of the relevant Washington Mutual,
Inc. (WaMu) mutual funds (the acquired business).

On Feb. 28, 2007, Luz Zapien filed a securities class action
against WaMu, the company and certain mutual fund-related
entities.

The complaint alleged that WaMu had inadequately disclosed an
alleged shelf-space arrangement that misled fund investors
during the putative class period.

The company was named in the complaint based on its December
2006 purchase of the acquired business.

This action was dismissed with prejudice on June 17, 2008.

The plaintiffs filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit on Sept. 11, 2008.

In addition, on Aug. 20, 2008, counsel for the Plaintiffs filed
a new class-action suit, "Robinson v. WM Trust I, et al.," in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
making the same allegations that were contained in Zapien.

On Sept. 26, 2008, the Robinson Plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Complaint, which dropped the WaMu defendants, added four
directors of the Principal Mutual Funds entity in their
individual capacity, and amended the putative class to include
"all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
shares, units or like interests in any of the WM Funds
(including through the reinvestment of Fund dividends) between
March 1, 2002, and Dec. 31, 2006, inclusive."

The Purchase Agreement of the acquired business contained an
indemnification provision from WaMu that the company believed
would have significantly limited its exposure in these lawsuits.
The bankruptcy filing by WaMu raises concerns as to the
availability of any indemnification protection for the company,
according to its Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended Sept. 30,
2008.

Principal Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.principal.com--
is a provider of retirement savings, investment and insurance
products and services with $311.1 billion in assets under
management (AUM) and approximately 19 million customers
worldwide as of Dec. 31, 2007.  The company's United States and
international operations concentrate primarily on asset
accumulation and asset management.  In addition, it offers a
range of individual and group life insurance, group health
insurance, individual and group disability insurance and group
dental and vision insurance.  It primarily focuses on small- and
medium-sized businesses, providing a range of retirement and
employee benefit solutions to meet the needs of the business,
the business owner and their employees.  It is also one provider
of non-medical insurance product solutions.  PFG operates in
four segments: U.S. Asset Accumulation, Global Asset Management,
International Asset Management and Accumulation, and Life and
Health Insurance.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Fairmount Park' Suit Still Pending in Iowa
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed by a trustee of Fairmount Park Inc. Retirement
Savings Plan against Principal Life Insurance Co., a member of
the Principal Financial Group, Inc., is pending in the Southern
District of Iowa.

On Nov. 8, 2006, the trustee filed a putative class-action suit
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
against Principal Life.

Principal Life's Motion to Transfer Venue was granted.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that Principal Life
breached its alleged fiduciary duties while performing services
to 401(k) plans by failing to disclose, or adequately disclose,
to employers or plan participants the fact that Principal Life
receives "revenue sharing fees from mutual funds that are
included in its pre-packaged 401(k) plans" and allegedly failed
to use the revenue to defray the expenses of the services
provided to the plans.

The plaintiff further alleges that these acts constitute
prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).

The plaintiff seeks to certify a class of all retirement plans
to which Principal Life was a service provider and for which
Principal Life received and retained "revenue sharing" fees from
mutual funds.

The plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief.

On Aug. 27, 2008, the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
was denied.

The plaintiff filed a petition seeking permission to appeal that
ruling.  The petition was denied on Oct. 28, 2008, according to
the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended Sept. 30,
2008.

Principal Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.principal.com--
is a provider of retirement savings, investment and insurance
products and services with $311.1 billion in assets under
management (AUM) and approximately 19 million customers
worldwide as of Dec. 31, 2007.  The company's United States and
international operations concentrate primarily on asset
accumulation and asset management.  In addition, it offers a
range of individual and group life insurance, group health
insurance, individual and group disability insurance and group
dental and vision insurance.  It primarily focuses on small- and
medium-sized businesses, providing a range of retirement and
employee benefit solutions to meet the needs of the business,
the business owner and their employees.  It is also one provider
of non-medical insurance product solutions.  PFG operates in
four segments: U.S. Asset Accumulation, Global Asset Management,
International Asset Management and Accumulation, and Life and
Health Insurance.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Members Faces 401(k) Plans Suit in Iowa
------------------------------------------------------------
Principal Life Insurance company and Princor Financial Services
Corporation, members of the Principal Financial Group, Inc., are
defending the first putative class-action lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

On Aug. 28, 2007, two plaintiffs filed two putative class-action
lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Iowa against Principal Life and Princor Financial.

One of the lawsuits alleges that the Principal Defendants
breached alleged fiduciary duties to participants in employer-
ponsored 401(k) plans who were retiring or leaving their
respective plans, including providing misleading information and
failing to act solely in the interests of the participants,
resulting in alleged violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA).

The plaintiffs dismissed the second suit, which was based upon
the same facts and alleged violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933, according to the
company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008.

Principal Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.principal.com--
is a provider of retirement savings, investment and insurance
products and services with $311.1 billion in assets under
management (AUM) and approximately 19 million customers
worldwide as of Dec. 31, 2007.  The company's United States and
international operations concentrate primarily on asset
accumulation and asset management.  In addition, it offers a
range of individual and group life insurance, group health
insurance, individual and group disability insurance and group
dental and vision insurance.  It primarily focuses on small- and
medium-sized businesses, providing a range of retirement and
employee benefit solutions to meet the needs of the business,
the business owner and their employees.  It is also one provider
of non-medical insurance product solutions.  PFG operates in
four segments: U.S. Asset Accumulation, Global Asset Management,
International Asset Management and Accumulation, and Life and
Health Insurance.


TELIK INC: Settlement of N.Y. Consolidated Suit Approved in Oct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York,
in October 2008, entered a final judgment approving the
settlement and resolving all class claims in a consolidated
amended complaint against Telik, Inc.

Beginning on June 6, 2007, a series of putative securities
class-action lawsuits were commenced in the U.S. District Courts
for the Southern District of New York and the Northern District
of California, naming as defendants Telik, Inc. and certain of
our current officers, one of whom is also a director.

The complaints filed in the Southern District of New York, which
were consolidated and amended in 2007, also name as defendants
the underwriters of the company's November 2003 and/or January
2005 stock offerings.

The plaintiffs in the Northern District of California
subsequently voluntarily dismissed their complaints without
prejudice.

The complaints alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933
and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of the
issuance of allegedly false and misleading statements about  the
company's business and prospects, including the efficacy, safety
and likelihood of success of the company's drug candidate
TELCYTA.  The allegations of the consolidated amended complaint
were similar, but more narrow than the original complaints.

The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and injunctive relief
on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock during the
period between March 27, 2003 and June 4, 2007, including
purchasers in the January 2005 stock offering.

According to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2008, in January 2008, the parties to the securities
class action reached an agreement in principle to settle the
claims, the settlement to be funded primarily by proceeds from
insurance.

Telik, Inc. -- http://www.telik.com-- is a biopharmaceutical
company working to discover, develop and commercialize small
molecule drugs to treat diseases.  The company discovered its
product candidates using its drug discovery technology, Target-
Related Affinity Profiling (TRAP).  As of December 31, 2007,
Telik has not obtained regulatory approval for the commercial
sale of any products, and has not received any revenue from the
commercial sale of products.  Telik discovered all of its
product candidates using its technology, TRAP.


WAL-MART STORES: Settles 63 Wage Violations Lawsuits Nationwide
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. reported that it had settled 63 class-
action lawsuits that accused it of wage violations for at least
$352 million but no more than $640 million, Michele Gershberg of
Reuters reports.

The settlements, pertaining to lawsuits filed in several U.S.
states, are subject to court approval.  Wal-Mart said it expects
a related after-tax charge from continuing operations in its
fiscal fourth quarter of about $250 million, or 6 cents per
share.

According to the retailer, many of the lawsuits had been filed
years ago and that the allegations did not reflect on how the
company treats its more than 1 million employees today.

As part of the of the settlement, the company agreed to use
electronic systems to stay compliant with its wage and hour
policies, and applicable law.

In a press statement, Wal-Mart general counsel Tom Mars said,
"Our policy is to pay associates for every hour worked and to
provide rest and meal breaks."

Reuters reported that the Wal-Mart statement quoted lead lawyers
representing plaintiffs as saying the settlements were fair and
valued the work of company employees.

A list of cases covered by the settlements was available at:

     http://walmartstores.com/factsnews/newsroom/8874.aspx













                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN CAPITAL: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland on behalf of those who purchased the
securities of American Capital Ltd. (NASDAQ: ACAS) ("American
Capital" or the "Company") between October 30, 2007 and November
7, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The Complaint charges that American Capital and certain of
its officers and directors violated federal securities laws.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the following:

       -- American Capital had far greater exposure to
          disruptions in the credit markets than disclosed;

       -- the Company planned to retain capital gains from its
          investments rather than distributing them to
          shareholders;

       -- American Capital would have to drastically alter its
          dividend policy;

       -- the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
          controls; and

       -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
          statements about its financial well-being, future
          business prospects and dividend payments were lacking
          in any reasonable basis.

     During the Class Period, investors were repeatedly assured
that dividend payments would continue, and that the Company was
in sound financial condition.

     However, on November 10, 2008, American Capital reported a
quarterly loss, suspended dividends, and stated that it would
retain capital gains from investments.  On this news, the
Company's shares fell $5.90 per share, or 42.85%, to close at
$7.87 per share.

For more details, contact:

          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Wayne T. Boulton, Esq.
          Izard Nobel LLP
          Phone: (800) 797-5499
          e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com
          Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com


ATRICURE INC: Howard G. Smith Files Ohio Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     BENSALEM, Pa., Dec 24, 2008 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) --
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, representing investors of
AtriCure, Inc. ("AtriCure" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:ATRC), has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of a Class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of AtriCure between May 10, 2007 and
October 31, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The Complaint charges AtriCure and certain of its executive
officers with violations of federal securities laws.  Among
other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's business, operations and
prospects, caused AtriCure's stock price to become artificially
inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

     AtriCure is a medical device company engaged in the
development, manufacture and sale of cardiac surgical ablation
systems designed to create precise lesions, or scars, in cardiac
tissue.

     The Complaint alleges that defendants fraudulently inflated
AtriCure's securities prices by improperly promoting its
products to physicians and improperly causing the filing of
false claims for reimbursement.

     On October 31, 2008 AtriCure shocked investors when the
Company revealed that it had received a letter from the U.S.
Department of Justice - Civil Division (the "DOJ") informing the
Company that the DOJ was conducting an investigation for
potential False Claims Act and common law violations relating to
the Company's surgical ablation devices.

     AtriCure further disclosed that, specifically the DOJ was
investigating the Company's marketing practices utilized in
connection with AtriCure's surgical ablation system to treat
atrial fibrillation, a specific use outside the federal Food and
Drug Administration's 510(k) clearance.

     Moreover, the Company revealed that the DOJ was
investigating whether AtriCure instructed hospitals to bill
Medicare for surgical ablation using incorrect billing codes. As
a result of this news, the Company's shares declined $2.53 per
share, or 39.41 percent, to close on November 3, 2008, at $3.89
per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com)
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
          Phone: (215)638-4847 or (888)638-4847
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com


EMCORE CORP: Susman Heffner Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.M.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     ALBUQUERQUE, N.M., Dec. 24, 2008 -- (Business Wire) Susman
Heffner & Hurst LLP has filed a class action on behalf of
shareholders who purchased Emcore Corporation ("Emcore" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: EMKR) common stock from June 12, 2007,
through March 17, 2008 (the "Class Period").  The case was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of New
Mexico.

     Emcore is a provider of compound semiconductor-based
components and subsystems for the broadband, fiber optic,
satellite, and terrestrial solar power markets, including
concentrating photovoltaic systems.

     The Complaint alleges that the Defendants issued numerous
materially false and misleading statements regarding Emcore's
financial condition, business prospects, and revenue
expectations during the Class Period.

     Specifically, it alleges that Emcore's public statements
regarding its order backlog were false and misleading because
they overstated the value of the order backlog in Emcore's
terrestrial solar energy division.  Those misstatements and
omissions, the Complaint alleges, resulted in an artificially
inflated price for Emcore's common stock during the Class
Period.

     On March 18, 2008, the price of Emcore's common stock
dropped over 23% on news that Emcore's largest customer, Green
and Gold Energy ("GGE"), which accounted for $78 million of
Emcore's $86 million backlog in terrestrial solar technology,
would not be able to afford those transactions.

For more details, contact:

          Matthew T. Hurst, Esq. (Mhurst@shhllp.com)
          Susman Heffner & Hurst LLP
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: 312-346-3466
          Fax: 312-346-2829


FAMILY MANAGEMENT: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Dec. 24, 2008 -- (Business Wire) Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
against defendants Family Management Corporation ("FMC"),
Seymour W. Zises ("Zises"), Andrea L. Tessler ("Tessler"),
Andover Associates LLC I ("Andover"), Beacon Associates LLC I
("Beacon"), Beacon Associates Management Corp., Beacon/Andover
Group, Maxam Absolute Return Fund, LP ("Maxam"), Maxam Capital
Management LLC, Fulvio & Associates, LLP, and John Does 1-100
(collectively, the "Defendants"), on behalf of all persons,
other than Defendants, who invested in the FM Low Volatility
Fund, L.P. (the "Fund") from April 8, 2008 until the present
(the "Class Period"), and derivatively on behalf of the nominal
defendant, FM Low Volatility Fund, L.P., to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
and common law claims, including breach of fiduciary duties.

     The case name is styled, "Newman v. Family Management
Corporation, et al., Case No. 08 civ. 11215."

     The Complaint asserts that during the Class Period,
unbeknownst to investors, Defendant FMC, general partner of the
Fund, concentrated more than half of the Fund's investment
capital with at least three funds of funds ("FOFs") -- Andover,
Beacon and Maxam -- that, in turn, all heavily invested in
entities managed by Bernard Madoff ("Madoff") or Madoff-related
entities.  Investors who entrusted their savings to FMC suffered
millions in damages as a result of Madoff's fraudulent scheme.

     This Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to perform
the necessary due diligence that they were being compensated to
perform as investment advisors, managers and fiduciaries.

     Defendants either knew or should have known that the Fund's
assets were employed as part of a massive Ponzi scheme
orchestrated by Madoff, or that Madoff otherwise reported
purported results that would have been impossible to achieve
under his split-strike conversion strategy, and took no steps in
a good faith effort to prevent or remedy that situation,
proximately causing millions of dollars of losses.

     Additionally, Defendants FMC, Zises and Tessler issued an
Offering Memorandum that was false and misleading because it
falsely stated that FMC would not invest more than 35% of the
Fund's net asset value with any one investment vehicle, but, in
reality, more than 60% of the Fund's assets were funneled
through three FOFs Defendants Andover, Beacon and Maxam and
invested in Madoff-related entities.

     The Offering Memorandum also falsely stated that FMC would:

       -- endeavor to verify the integrity of each manager of a
          FOF in which the Fund was invested;

       -- attempt to monitor the performance of each manager;
          and

       -- request detailed information regarding the historical
          performance and investment strategy of each of the
          selected investments for the Fund.

     Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, with no or inadequate
due diligence or oversight, abdicated their responsibilities and
entrusted the Fund's assets to Madoff-run investment vehicles.
Plaintiffs have alleged claims on behalf of the class for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, Rule
10b-5, as well as common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation
and breach of fiduciary duty claims.  Plaintiffs are also suing
derivatively on behalf of the Fund for breach of fiduciary duty,
gross negligence and mismanagement, and common law fraud.

For more details, contact:

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Gustavo Bruckner, Esq.
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          Phgone: 800-575-0735
          e-mail: classmember@whafh.com
          Web site: http://www.whafh.com


GENERAL GROWTH: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Suit in Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Dec. 24, 2008 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Pomerantz
Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP (www.pomerantzlaw.com)
("Pomerantz") has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, against General Growth Properties, Inc. ("General
Growth" or the "Company") (NYSE:GGP) and certain officers of the
Company.

     The class action, (08-CV-7069) was filed on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of General Growth between April
30, 2008 and October 26, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Sections
78j(b) and 78t(a)) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

     General Growth is a self-administered and self-managed real
estate investment trust, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.

     The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
Defendants made false and misleading statements or failed to
disclose material adverse facts about General Growth's business
and financial condition.

     The Complaint specifically alleges that Defendants failed
to disclose:

       -- that General Growth would not be able to refinance
          billions of dollars of debt that was coming due in
          late 2008 and early 2009;

       -- that this was a direct result of the Company's
          inability to access debt financing;

       -- that Company executives such as the CFO and
          President/COO had received loans from the CEO's family
          trust in violation of the Company's Code of Business
          Conduct and Ethics;

       -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls;
          and

       -- that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' Class
          Period statements about the Company lacked a
          reasonable basis.

For more details, contact:

          Teresa Webb, Esq. (tlwebb@pomlaw.com)
          Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
          Phone: (888) 476.6529


INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
     BENSALEM, Pa., Dec. 24, 2008 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Law
Offices of Howard G. Smith, representing investors of Integral
Systems, Inc. ("Integral Systems" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:ISYS), has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of
a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Integral Systems, between
April 28, 2008 and December 10, 2008, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

     The Complaint charges Integral Systems and certain of its
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's business, operations and
prospects caused Integral Systems' stock price to become
artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. Integral
Systems builds satellite ground systems and equipment for
command and control, integration and test, data processing, and
simulation.

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements were materially false and misleading.

     Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants' public
statements were false and misleading or failed to disclose or
indicate the following:

       -- that the Company improperly recognized revenue;

       -- that as a result, the Company misstated its financial
          results during the Class Period;

       -- that the Company's financial results were not prepared
          in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
          Principles;

       -- that the Company lacked adequate internal and
          financial controls; and

       -- as a result of the above, the Company's financial
          statements were materially false and misleading at all
          relevant times.

     On December 11, 2008, Integral Systems shocked investors
when it revealed that the unaudited financial statements of the
Company for the interim periods ended December 31, 2007, March
30, 2008 and June 30, 2008 should no longer be relied upon due
to an error in the accounting treatment for certain transactions
with respect to the timing of the recognition of revenue between
periods.

     The Company further disclosed that, as a result, the
Company would restate its previously filed financial statements
for those interim quarterly periods in fiscal year 2008.

     The Company estimated that the net impact of the
adjustments for the first three quarters of 2008 would result in
a decrease of approximately $10 million in revenues, a decrease
of approximately $3 million in gross profit, a decrease of
approximately $4 million in operating income, and a decrease of
approximately $0.13 in earnings per share.

     On this news, shares of Integral Systems declined $6.38 per
share, or 28.61%, to close on December 11, 2008 at $15.92 per
share, on unusually heavy volume.

For more details, contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com)
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
          Phone: (215)638-4847 or (888)638-4847
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com


TREMONT GROUP: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
     SEATTLE, Dec. 23, 2008 /PRNewswire/ -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP (http://www.hbsslawsecurities.com/tremont)filed a
class-action lawsuit in a United States District Court in New
York against Tremont Group Holdings (Tremont), its Rye
Investment Funds, Oppenheimer Acquisition Corporation,
OppenheimerFunds, which owns Tremont, Massachusetts Mutual Life
Insurance Company, a majority owner of OppenheimerFunds and KPMG
LLP, Tremont's auditor.

     The suit filed on behalf of individuals and groups that
invested capital with Tremont, alleges defendants grossly
neglected fiduciary duties by turning capital over to Bernard
Madoff Investment Securities (BMIS) that used the capital to run
a massive Ponzi scheme.

     The complaint claims that Tremont and other affiliated
entities failed to perform proper due diligence and failed to
vet, monitor, oversee, and safeguard Plaintiffs' investments,
before handing all of it over to Madoff.  As a result, Tremont
clients lost a total of $3.3 billion in assets, $3.1 billion
from the Rye Funds.

     Plaintiffs allege Tremont turned over virtually all capital
invested in its Rye Funds, estimated at $3.1 billion, to Madoff.
While relinquishing management to Madoff, Tremont continued to
receive management fees from clients.  The company provided
account statements and other documentation that made it appear
as though Tremont had active oversight of clients' capital.

     The Tremont lawsuit alleges the company unfairly,
unlawfully, and deceptively neglected and abandoned professional
oversight of capital by passing it on to Madoff without adequate
safeguards.  Madoff then used that capital to pay bogus returns
to other investors.

     In the weeks leading up to the collapse of the Madoff
scheme, Tremont aggressively sold new investments in the Rye
Funds, the suit alleges.  Tremont suggested to investors that
they had "better move and move quick" if they wanted a "chance"
to invest in the Rye Funds. The complaint claims Tremont
marketed the funds as providing more return for less risk.
Marketing materials allegedly portrayed year-to-date returns
from 1998 to 2008 ranging from eight percent to 16 percent.

     Tremont's auditing service, KPMG LLP, is also a defendant
in the lawsuit.  The complaint alleges KMPG failed to use due
care when auditing Tremont's financial reports for the Rye
Funds.

For more information, contact:

          Reed Kathrein
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
          1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA, 98101
          Phone: (510) 725-3000
          e-mail: Reed@hbsslaw.com
          Web site: http://www.hbsslawsecurities.com/cdns


TREMONT GROUP: Wolf Haldenstein Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Dec 22, 2008 -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, against
defendants Tremont Group Holdings Inc. ("Tremont"), Oppenheimer
Acquisition Corporation ("Oppenheimer"), Massachusetts Mutual
Life Insurance Co. ("Mass Mutual"), and Ernst & Young LLP
("Ernst & Young"), on behalf of all persons, other than
defendants, who invested in the American Masters Broad Market
Prime Fund (the "Fund") from January 1, 2003 until the present
(the "Class Period"), and derivatively on behalf of Nominal
Defendant American Masters Broad Market Prime Fund, L.P., to
recover damages caused by defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and common law and breaches of their fiduciary
duties.

     The case name is styled, "Finkelstein v. Tremont Group
Holdings Inc., et al., Case No. 08-civ-11141."

     The Complaint asserts that during the Class Period,
unbeknownst to investors, defendant Tremont, general partner of
the Fund, concentrated over half of its investment capital with
entities that participated in the massive, fraudulent scheme
perpetrated by Bernard Madoff ("Madoff").  Investors who
entrusted their savings to Tremont have suffered millions in
damages and are faced with financial ruin.

     This Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to perform
the necessary due diligence that they were being compensated to
perform as investment managers and fiduciaries.  Defendants
either knew or should have known that the Fund's assets were
employed as part of a massive Ponzi scheme and took no steps in
a good faith effort to prevent or remedy that situation,
proximately causing billions of dollars of losses and possible
complete collapse of the Fund.

     Additionally, Defendants issued an Offering Memorandum that
was false and misleading because it omitted to state that
Tremont had, with no or inadequate due diligence or oversight,
abdicated its responsibility and entrusted Fund assets to
Madoff-run investment vehicles.  Oppenheimer and Mass Mutual are
named defendants as controlling persons of the Fund, and Ernst
and Young is a named defendant as the Fund's auditor.

For more details, contact:

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Gustavo Bruckner, Esq.
          Martin Restituyo, Esq.
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          Phgone: 800-575-0735
          e-mail: classmember@whafh.com
          Web site: http://www.whafh.com



                            *********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter.  Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********

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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Stephanie T. Umacob, Gracele D.
Canilao, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2008.  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  * * *