CAR_Public/090210.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, February 10, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 28

                           Headlines

AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Awaits Ruling on Bids to Junk Buyout Suit
ALTRIA GROUP: Tenn. Court Dismisses Allegations in "Lights" Suit
CHASE BANK: Faces Calif. Litigation Over "Blank Check" Loans
COVIDIEN LTD: Tyco Still Faces Securities & ERISA Litigation
FRASER TIMBER: Faces Litigation in Maine Over Worker Lay Offs

KB HOME: "Bagley" ERISA Violations Suit Still Pending in Calif.
MITSUI & CO: Faces Employment Discrimination Suit in New York
MORGAN STANLEY: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated ERISA Suit Pending
MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend Subprime-Related Lawsuits
MORGAN STANLEY: "Frozen" Auction Rate Securities Lawsuit Pending

MORGAN STANLEY: N.Y. Suits Over Auction Rate Securities Pending
MORGAN STANLEY: Still Faces Calif. Securities Lawsuit by PERSM
MORGAN STANLEY: "Stratte-McClure" Complaint Pending in Calif.
OSHKOSH CORP: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suits in Wis.
PANDA RESTAURANT: Faces N.Y. Litigation Alleging FLSA Violations

QIMONDA NORTH: Faces Suit in Virgina Alleging WARN Violations
RBS WORLDPAY: Law Firms File Lawsuits Over 2008 Data Breach
WAL-MART STORES: Fcaes Antitrust Lawsuit in La. Over DVD Rentals

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

GOLDMAN SACHS: Bernstein Litowitz Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
LEVEL 3 COMMS: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing
LEVEL 3 COMMS: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Coughlin Stoia Files Calif. Stock Lawsuit


                           *********

AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Awaits Ruling on Bids to Junk Buyout Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the Oct. 22, 2008 hearing on the motions to
dismiss a consolidated lawsuit filed against Affiliated Computer
Services, Inc., over the attempted buyout of the company by
founder Darwin Deason and Cerberus Capital Management LP remains
pending.

Initially, several lawsuits were filed.  In general, the suits
allege claims related to breach of fiduciary duty, and are
seeking class action status (Class Action Reporter, May 5,
2008).

The plaintiffs in each case purport to be ACS stockholders
bringing a class action on behalf of all of the company's public
stockholders.

Each plaintiff alleges that the proposal presented to the
company by Mr. Deason and Cerberus on March 20, 2007, to acquire
the company's outstanding stock is unfair to shareholders
because the consideration offered in the proposal is alleged to
be inadequate and to have resulted from an unfair process.

According to a report by the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 13,
2008, six cases were filed before the Delaware Chancery Court:

    1. "Momentum Partners v. Darwin Deason, Lynn R. Blodgett,
       Joseph P. O'Neill, Frank A. Rossi, J. Livingston
       Kosberg, Robert B. Holland, Dennis McCuistion,
       Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., and Cerberus
       Capital Management, L.P., Civil Action No. 2814-VCL,"
       filed on March 20, 2007.

    2. "Mark Levy v. Darwin Deason, Lynn Blodgett, John
       Rexford, Joseph P. O'Neill, Frank A. Rossi, J.
       Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion, Affiliated
       Computer Services, Inc., and Cerberus Capital
       Management, L.P., Civil Action No. 2816-VCL," filed on
       March 21, 2007.

    3. "St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System v.
       Darwin Deason, Lynn Blodgett, Joseph P. O'Neill, Frank
       A. Rossi, J. Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion,
       Robert B. Holland, Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.,
       Citigroup Global Markets Inc., and Affiliated Computer
       Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 2821-VCL," filed on
       March 22, 2007.

    4. "Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement
       System v. Darwin Deason, Joseph P. O'Neill, Frank A.
       Rossi, J. Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion,
       Robert B. Holland, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.,
       and Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., Civil Action
       No. 2839-VCL," filed on March 26, 2007.

    5. "Edward R. Koller v. Darwin Deason, Frank A. Rossi, J.
       Livingston Kosberg, Robert B. Holland, Affiliated
       Computer Services, Inc., and Cerberus Capital
       Management, L.P., Civil Action No. 2908-VCL," filed on
       April 20, 2007.

    6. "Suzanne Sweeney Living Trust v. Darwin Deason, Lynn
       R. Blodgett, John H. Rexford, Joseph P. O'Neill, Frank
       A. Rossi, J. Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion,
       Robert B. Holland, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.,
       and Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., Civil Action
       No. 2915-VCL," filed on April 24, 2007.

On May 4, 2007, the six Delaware buy-out cases were consolidated
into one before the Delaware Chancery Court under the caption
"In Re Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Civil Action No. 2821-VCL."

Subsequently, on Oct. 30, 2007, Cerberus withdrew its offer to
acquire ACS.

On Nov. 2, 2007, a consolidated amended class action suit and
derivative complaint was filed by the plaintiffs, adding
allegations of breach of fiduciary duties related to the events
surrounding the resignation of the outside directors.

The plaintiffs seek equitable relief and recovery of unspecified
monetary damages sustained by the company.

On April 8, 2008, a Verified Consolidated Second Amended Class
and Derivative Action Complaint was filed alleging class and
derivative claims of breach of fiduciary duty against all
individual defendants and class and derivative for aiding and
abetting against Cerberus and Citigroup.

On May 23, 2008, all defendants, including ACS, filed their
respective motions to dismiss. All briefing on the motions to
dismiss is complete (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 9, 2008).

All briefing on the motions to dismiss is complete and the
hearing on the motions occurred on Oct. 22, 2008.

No further updates regarding the lawsuits were reported in the
company's Form 8-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission dated Jan. 29, 2009.

Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. -- http://www.acs-inc.com/--
provides business process outsourcing and information technology
services to commercial and government clients.


ALTRIA GROUP: Tenn. Court Dismisses Allegations in "Lights" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Davidson County, Tennessee dismissed the
class-action allegations in a lawsuit brought against Altria
Group, Inc. and Philip Morris USA alleging violations of state
consumer protection laws for using the terms "Lights" and
"Lowered Tar and Nicotine" on packages of Marlboro Lights
cigarettes, WELT ONLINE of Germany reports.

The state court dismissed the class-action allegations as being
barred by Tennessee consumer protection law, according to WELT
ONLINE.

WELT ONLINE reported that the plaintiff in the suit, captioned,
"McClure v. Altria Group, Inc.," alleged that Altria Group and
Philip Morris USA violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act
by using the terms "Lights" and "Lowered Tar and Nicotine" on
packages of Marlboro Lights cigarettes.

The plaintiff sought an unspecified amount of economic damages
on behalf of all residents of Tennessee who purchased Marlboro
Lights cigarettes at any time since 1971, reports WELT ONLINE.


CHASE BANK: Faces Calif. Litigation Over "Blank Check" Loans
------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Bank USA, N.A., the credit card brand of JPMorgan Chase &
Co., is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in California,
alleging it illegally changed the terms of "blank check" loans
for its credit card holders, Lauren Smiley of SF Weekly Blogs
reports.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on Jan. 26, 2009 by Bay Area resident
Diane M. Rooney and Riverside County man Michael E. Moore.

According to the suit, Chase offered its credit card customers
separate loans by sending them "blank checks," loans typically
not to exceed their credit card limit, which promise lower
interest rates -- from 2.99 percent to 4.99 percent APR -- than
credit card debt.  Customers were allegedly promised the lower
rate would stay in effect "for the life of the loan," reports SF
Weekly Blogs.

Yet beginning in November 2008, the suit states, the bank
notified customers that their check loans would now carry an
additional monthly "Service Charge-Finance Charge" and the
minimum monthly payment would be raised from 2 to 5 percent,
according to the SF Weekly Blogs.

Michael Sobol, Esq., the attorney on the case from San Francisco
firm Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein told SF Weekly Blogs,
"It looks to me they're trying to generate a lot of revenue to
come in greater amounts sooner."  He adds, "It strikes me as a
pretty heavy-handed instance of a company exercising its
superior market power and changing the terms on people at
variance with terms under which they took on the loan -- and we
think that's unfair."

The suit is "Moore et al v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., Case No. 3:09-
cv-00348-MMC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Maxine M. Chesney, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Michael W. Sobol, Esq. (msobol@lchb.com)
          Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP
          Embarcadero Center West
          275 Battery Street, 30th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3336
          Phone: 415-956-1000
          Fax: 415-956-1008


COVIDIEN LTD: Tyco Still Faces Securities & ERISA Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International continues to face class-action lawsuits
alleging violations of the federal securities laws and the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), according to
Covidien Ltd.'s Jan. 29, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec.
26, 2008.

Pursuant to the June 2007 Separation and Distribution Agreement
with Tyco International and Tyco Electronics, the company
assumed a portion of Tyco International's contingent and other
corporate liabilities.

Tyco International and certain of its former directors and
officers are named defendants in a number of class actions
alleging violations of the disclosure provisions of the federal
securities laws and also are named as defendants in several
ERISA class actions.

Tyco International is generally obligated to indemnify its
directors and officers and its former directors and officers who
are named as defendants in some or all of these matters to the
extent required by Bermuda law.

In addition, Tyco International's insurance carriers may decline
coverage, or Tyco International's coverage may be insufficient
to cover its expenses and liability, in some or all of these
matters.

The company's share of any losses resulting from an adverse
resolution of those matters is not estimable and may have a
material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial
condition or cash flows.

Covidien Ltd. -- http://www.covidien.com/-- is engaged in the
development, manufacture and sale of healthcare products for use
in clinical and home settings.  The company operates its
business through four segments: Medical Devices, which includes
the development, manufacture and sale of endomechanical
instruments, soft tissue repair products, energy devices,
oximetry and monitoring products, airway and ventilation
products, vascular devices, SharpSafety products, clinical care
products and other medical device products; Imaging Solutions,
which includes the development, manufacture and marketing of
radiopharmaceuticals and contrast products; Pharmaceutical
Products, which includes the development, manufacture and
distribution of dosage pharmaceuticals and active pharmaceutical
ingredients, and Medical Supplies, which includes the
development, manufacture and sale of nursing care products,
medical surgical products and original equipment manufacturer
products (OEM).


FRASER TIMBER: Faces Litigation in Maine Over Worker Lay Offs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fraser Timber, Inc. and Fraser Papers, Inc. are facing a
purported class-action suit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maine alleging that the company violated federal law
when it failed last month to give workers at its lumber mills 60
days' notice that they would be laid off, Judy Harrison of
Bangor Daily News reports.

The suit was filed by Alan Nason, 50, who worked at Fraser's
lumber mill in Masardis until he was terminated Jan. 2, 2009,
according to the complaint filed on Jan. 28, 2009.

Mr. Nason alleges that Fraser did not give employees 60 days'
written notice as required by the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act, Bangor Daily News reported.

The lawsuit is seeking class action status to cover all the
employees that Mr. Nason claims were laid off.  He is seeking
unpaid wages and benefits for the 60 days that Mr. Nason claims
he would have earned during the 60-day notice period, according
to Bangor Daily News.

The suit is "Nason v. Fraser Timber Limited et al., Case No.
1:09-cv-00034-JAW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maine, Judge John A. Woodcock, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Brett D. Baber, Esq. (bbaber@lanhamblackwell.com)
          Lanham Blackwell, P.A.
          470 Evergreen Woods
          Bangor, ME 04401
          Phone: 207-942-2898
          Fax: 207-945-6118


KB HOME: "Bagley" ERISA Violations Suit Still Pending in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit "Bagley et al., v. KB Home,
et al.," remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

On March 16, 2007, plaintiffs Reba Bagley and Scott Silver filed
an action against against the company, its directors, and
certain of its current and former officers under Section 502 of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. Section
1132.

On April 3, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding Tolan Beck and Rod Hughes as additional plaintiffs and
dismissing certain individuals as defendants.

All four plaintiffs claim to be former employees of KB Home who
participated in the KB Home 401(k) Savings Plan.  They allege on
behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly
situated that all defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to
plaintiffs and purported class members under ERISA by failing to
disclose information to and providing misleading information to
participants in the Plan about alleged prior stock option
backdating practices of the Company and by failing to remove the
Company's stock as an investment option under the Plan.

The plaintiffs allege that this breach of fiduciary duties
caused them to earn less on their Plan accounts than they would
have earned but for defendants' alleged breach.

They seek unspecified money damages and injunctive and other
equitable relief.

On May 16, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the suit
on the basis that the plaintiffs' allegations failed to state a
claim against the company.

The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the dismissal motion on
June 20, 2008.  The company filed its reply in support of the
motion in July and a hearing on the matter is scheduled for Aug.
4, 2008.

The hearing on the motion was held on Sept. 8, 2008.  On Oct. 6,
2008, the court issued its order.  The court denied the
company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of the duty to monitor and granted
the company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for
breach of the fiduciary duty of disclosure.  The court also
denied a separate motion to dismiss filed by the individual
defendants based on the standing of plaintiffs to sue.

The company filed its answer to the first amended complaint on
Nov. 5, 2008.

On Nov. 24, 2008, the court approved a stipulation to stay all
discovery and other proceedings through Feb. 6, 2009, in order
to allow the parties time to attempt to settle the plaintiffs'
claims through mediation, according to the company's Jan. 22,
2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2008.

The suit is "Bagley et al., v. KB Home, et al., Case No. 2:07-
cv-01754-GPS-SS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Judge George P. Schiavelli,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Stephen J Fearon, Jr., Esq. (stephen@sfclasslaw.com)
         Squitieri & Fearon LLP
         32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-421-6492

              - and -

         Stephen M. Fishback, Esq. (sfishback@kfjlegal.com)
         Keller Fishback and Jackson LLP
         18425 Burbank Boulevard Suite 610
         Tarzana, CA 91356-6918
         Phone: 818-342-7442
         Fax: 818-342-7616

Representing the defendants are:

         Marc T.G. Dworsky, Esq. (marc.dworsky@mto.com)
         Munger Tolles & Olson
         355 S. Grand Ave., 35th Fl.
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
         Phone: 213-683-9100

              - and -

         Michael M. Farhang, Esq. (mfarhang@gibsondunn.com)
         Gibson Dunn and Crutcher
         333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4600
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
         Phone: 213-229-7005


MITSUI & CO: Faces Employment Discrimination Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.), Inc., and Mitsui & Co., Limited of Tokyo
are facing a puported class-action suit in New York alleging
employment discrimination, Grant McCool of Reuters reports.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Suothern
District of New York on Feb. 5, 2009 by Andrew Van Etten, a
former senior director at Mitsui USA.  According to the suit Mr.
Van Etten who was "unlawfully terminated" by the company in
August 2006.

The suit claims that the Japanese trading house's USA unit
discriminated against non-Japanese and non-Asian employees and
dismissed Mr. Van Etten, 46, because of his age.  It states
thtat Mitsui discriminated against Mr. Van Etten "by denying him
the same terms and conditions of employment available to younger
employees" in violation of the Age Discrimination Employment Act
of 1967, according to the Reuters report.

The lawsuit said Mr. Van Etten, who was employed with the firm
from 1988 in New York until his dismissal, filed a charge of
discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
in June 2007 and the EEOC granted him the right to sue in
November last year.

According to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by
Reuters, "The employment policies and practices of Mitsui USA,
under direction of Mitsui Japan, have the effect and have been
undertaken with the purpose of denying promotional and
management opportunities, equal compensation and equal terms and
conditions of employment to qualified non-Japanese/non-Asians."

Mr. Van Etten's lawyer Kenneth Thompson told Reuters by
telephone that "because he spoke out they fired him on trumped
up charges.  They said that five years earlier there were
discrepancies in his expense reports even though the company
acknowledged he performed outstanding work for them."

The suit is "Andrew Van Etten v Mitsui & Company (USA) Inc and
Mitsuit & Company, Limited of Tokyo, Case No. 09-1071," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Suothern District of New York,
Judge Richard J. Sullivan, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Kenneth P. Thompson, Esq. (kthompson@twglaw.com)
          Thompson Wigdor & Gilly LLP
          85 Fifth Avenue
          5th Floor
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 257-6800
          Fax: (212) 257-6845


MORGAN STANLEY: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated ERISA Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint
styled In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation remains pending,
according to the company's Jan. 28, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission the fiscal year
ended Nov. 30, 2008.

Beginning in December 2007, several purported class action
complaints were filed in  the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York asserting claims on behalf of
participants in Morgan Stanley's 401(k) plan and employee stock
ownership plan against Morgan Stanley and other parties,
including certain present and former directors and officers,
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA).

The complaints relate in large part to subprime-related losses,
and allege, among other things, that Morgan Stanley's stock was
not a prudent investment and that risks associated with its
stock and its financial condition were not adequately disclosed.

On Feb. 11, 2008, all of the pending actions asserting claims
under ERISA related to Morgan Stanley's 401(k) and employee
stock ownership plan were consolidated in a single proceeding in
the SDNY, which is styled In re Morgan Stanley ERISA Litigation.

On July 25, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint,
which defendants have moved to dismiss.

The consolidated complaint in this action relates in large part
to Morgan Stanley's subprime and other mortgage related losses,
but also includes allegations regarding Morgan Stanley's
disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters.

Morgan Stanley -- http://www.morganstanley.com/-- is a global
financial services firm that, through its subsidiaries and
affiliates, provides its products and services to a group of
clients and customers, including corporations, governments,
financial institutions and individuals.  Morgan Stanley's
business segments include Institutional Securities, Global
Wealth Management Group and Asset Management.  The company
conducts its business from its headquarters in and around New
York City, its regional offices and branches throughout the U.S.
and its principal offices in London, Tokyo, Hong Kong and other
world financial centers.


MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend Subprime-Related Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley remains a named defendant in several putative
class-action suits brought under Sections 11 and 12 of the U.S.
Securities Act related to the company's role as a member of the
syndicates that underwrote offerings of securities and mortgage
pass-through certificates for certain entities that have been
exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related losses, according
to its Jan. 28, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2008.

These putative class-action suits include those related to:

       -- New Century Financial Corp., pending with the U.S.
          District Court for the Central District of California;

       -- Countrywide Financial Corp. and its affiliates, one
          consolidated lawsuit is pending with the U.S. District
          Court for the Central District of California and two
          other lawsuits are pending with the Superior Court of
          the State of California in Los Angeles;

       -- Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., pending with the U.S.
          District Court for the Southern District of New York;

       -- Wachovia Corp., pending with the U.S. District Court
          for the Eastern District of New York;

       -- Washington Mutual, Inc., pending with the U.S. States
          District Court for the Western District of Washington;
          and

       -- Fifth Third Bancorp, pending with the U.S. District
          Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Class Action
          Reporter, July 28, 2008).

On Dec. 3, 2008, the court in the case related to New Century,
which is styled In Re New Century, denied the underwriter
defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended consolidated
class action complaint.

On Dec. 8, 2008, the underwriter defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated class action complaint in the case
related to Washington Mutual, which is styled, "In Re Washington
Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation."

Morgan Stanley -- http://www.morganstanley.com/-- is a global
financial services firm that, through its subsidiaries and
affiliates, provides its products and services to a group of
clients and customers, including corporations, governments,
financial institutions and individuals.  Morgan Stanley's
business segments include Institutional Securities, Global
Wealth Management Group and Asset Management.  The company
conducts its business from its headquarters in and around New
York City, its regional offices and branches throughout the U.S.
and its principal offices in London, Tokyo, Hong Kong and other
world financial centers.


MORGAN STANLEY: "Frozen" Auction Rate Securities Lawsuit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley continues to face a purported class action
lawsuit in New York over auction rate securities that were
allegedly "frozen" by the company, according to its Jan. 28,
2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2008.

On May 28, 2008, a putative class action suit, entitled,
"Bartholomew v. Morgan Stanley et al.," was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York,
purportedly on behalf of individuals who allegedly had their
auction rate securities "frozen" by the company and who have
been damaged thereby.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company made
misrepresentations and omissions with respect to auction rate
securities and breached a fiduciary duty to the putative class
by failing to participate in auctions and asserts claims under
the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and state law.

The complaint seeks damages, disgorgement, attorneys' fees, and
a declaration that the Company's auction rate securities
transactions with the putative class members are void (Class
Action Reporter, July 28, 2008).

The suit is "Bartholomew v. Morgan Stanley et al., Case No.
1:08-cv-04910-AKH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Joel Paul Laitman, Esq. (jplaitman@aol.com)
         Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C.
         19 Fulton Street, Suite 406
         New York, NY 10038
         Phone: 212-964-0046
         Fax: 212-267-8137

              - and -

         Elizabeth Tripodi, Esq.
         (etripodi@finkelsteinthompson.com)
         Finkelstein Thompson LLP
         1050 30th Street NW
         Washington, DC 20007
         Phone: 202-337-8000
         Fax: 202-337-8090

Representing the defendants are:

         Gregory Arthur Markel, Esq. (greg.markel@cwt.com)
         Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
         One World Financial Center
         New York, NY 10281
         Phone: 212-504-6112
         Fax: 212-504-6666


MORGAN STANLEY: N.Y. Suits Over Auction Rate Securities Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley, along with certain of its subsidiaries,
continues to face a couple of purported class action lawsuits in
New York over auction rate securities that were acquired from
the company, according to its Jan. 28, 2009 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission the fiscal year
ended Nov. 30, 2008.

On March 25, 2008, a putative class action complaint, entitled,
"Miller v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated," was filed before
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
purportedly on behalf of persons who acquired auction rate
securities from the Company from March 25, 2003, through Feb.
13, 2008, and who were allegedly damaged thereby.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company
failed to disclose material facts with respect to auction rate
securities and thereby violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.

The complaint seeks damages, attorneys' fees, and rescission.

On March 31, 2008, a similar action, entitled, "Jamail v. Morgan
Stanley, et al.," was filed in the same court seeking damages,
attorneys' fees and equitable and injunctive relief (Class
Action Reporter, July 28, 2008).

Morgan Stanley -- http://www.morganstanley.com/-- is a global
financial services firm that, through its subsidiaries and
affiliates, provides its products and services to a group of
clients and customers, including corporations, governments,
financial institutions and individuals.  Morgan Stanley's
business segments include Institutional Securities, Global
Wealth Management Group and Asset Management.  The company
conducts its business from its headquarters in and around New
York City, its regional offices and branches throughout the U.S.
and its principal offices in London, Tokyo, Hong Kong and other
world financial centers.


MORGAN STANLEY: Still Faces Calif. Securities Lawsuit by PERSM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley continues to defend the purported class action
filed by the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi
against Morgan Stanley in the Central District of California.

On Dec. 2, 2008, a plaintiff filed a purported class action
against Morgan Stanley, certain present and former officers and
other defendants asserting claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15
of the Securities Act related to alleged false and misleading
statements in the registration statements and other offering
documents associated with fourteen trusts that issued mortgage
pass through certificates backed by residential mortgage loans
in 2006.

The lawsuit, which is styled, "Public Employees' Retirement
System of Mississippi v. Morgan Stanley, et al.," was filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California for Orange County.

On Dec. 31, 2008, the defendants removed the case to federal
court in the Central District of California.

No further details regarding the case were disclosed in the
company's Jan. 28, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2008.

Morgan Stanley -- http://www.morganstanley.com/-- is a global
financial services firm that, through its subsidiaries and
affiliates, provides its products and services to a group of
clients and customers, including corporations, governments,
financial institutions and individuals.  Morgan Stanley's
business segments include Institutional Securities, Global
Wealth Management Group and Asset Management.  The company
conducts its business from its headquarters in and around New
York City, its regional offices and branches throughout the U.S.
and its principal offices in London, Tokyo, Hong Kong and other
world financial centers.


MORGAN STANLEY: "Stratte-McClure" Complaint Pending in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint styled, "Joel Stratte-McClure, et al. v.
Morgan Stanley, et al.," is pending in the Central District of
California, according to the company's Jan. 28, 2009 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission the
fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2008.

On Feb. 12, 2008, a plaintiff filed a purported class-action
suit, which was amended on Nov. 24, 2008, naming Morgan Stanley
and certain present and former senior executives as defendants
and alleging claims for, among other things, violations of the
securities laws related in large part to Morgan Stanley's
subprime related losses.

Subject to certain exclusions, the amended complaint purports to
assert claims under the federal securities laws on behalf of a
purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares of
Morgan Stanley common stock during the period June 20, 2007 to
Dec. 19, 2007 and who suffered damages as a result of such
purchases.

The allegations in the amended complaint relate in large part to
Morgan Stanley's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but
also include allegations regarding Morgan Stanley's disclosures,
internal controls, accounting and other matters.

Morgan Stanley -- http://www.morganstanley.com/-- is a global
financial services firm that, through its subsidiaries and
affiliates, provides its products and services to a group of
clients and customers, including corporations, governments,
financial institutions and individuals.  Morgan Stanley's
business segments include Institutional Securities, Global
Wealth Management Group and Asset Management.  The company
conducts its business from its headquarters in and around New
York City, its regional offices and branches throughout the U.S.
and its principal offices in London, Tokyo, Hong Kong and other
world financial centers.


OSHKOSH CORP: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suits in Wis.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oshkosh Corp. continues to face several purported securities
fraud class-action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin, according to the company's
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
dated Jan. 29, 2009.

On Sept. 19, 2008, a purported shareholder of Oshkosh Corp.
filed a complaint, seeking certification of a class action filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
docketed as "Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. Oshkosh Corporation
and Robert G. Bohn."

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the company
violated the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
materially inadequate disclosures and material omissions leading
to the company's issuance of revised earnings guidance and
announcement of an impairment charge on June 26, 2008.

Since the initial lawsuit, other suits containing substantially
similar allegations were filed.

The suit is "Iron Workers Local No 25 Pension Fund v. Oshkosh
Corporation et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-00797-WEC," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge
William E. Callahan, Jr., presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Guri Ademi, Esq. (gademi@ademilaw.com)
          Ademi & O'Reilly LLP
          3620 E Layton Ave
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Phone: 414-482-8000
          Fax: 414-482-8001

               - and -

          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (drosenfeld@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          58 S. Service Rd Ste. 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173


PANDA RESTAURANT: Faces N.Y. Litigation Alleging FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. and Panda Express, Inc. are facing
a purported class-action lawsuit in New York alleging violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Allan Drury of The Journal News reported that the plaintiff,
Khan Kudo, of Orange County, claims that he was a general
manager at Panda's Palisades Center restaurant and that he
worked at least 50 hours a week without getting overtime.

The suit is "Kudo v. Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. et al., Case
No. 7:2009-cv-00712," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Judge Cathy Seibel, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Mary E. Brady Marzolla, Esq.
          Ferrick Lynch MacCartney, PLLC
          96 South Broadway
          South Nyack, NY 10960
          Phone: (845) 353-2000
          Fax: (845) 353-2789


QIMONDA NORTH: Faces Suit in Virgina Alleging WARN Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Qimonda North America Corp. and Qimonda Richmond LLC are facing
a purported class-action suit in Virginia alleging violations of
the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act,
Peter Bacque of the Richmond Times Dispatch.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virgina on Feb. 5, 2009 by Carl Jackson, a laid-off
Qimonda worker who is suing the Henrico County computer
chipmaker for two months' pay and benefits.

Jack A. Raisner, Esq., Mr. Jackson's attorney told the Richmond
Times Dispatch, "They didn't give advance notice to employees
before letting them go."  He adds, "We're alleging that's a
violation under the WARN Act."

Mr. Jackson filed suit on behalf of himself and other Qimonda
workers.  He alleged that he and others were not given the 60-
day written notice of their terminations, or 60 days' pay, that
the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification --
WARN -- Act requires, repots the Richmond Times Dispatch.

Court papers estimated the damages sought at $20 million but,
Mr. Raisner, a New York employment-rights lawyer told the
Richmond Times Dispatch, "it could be much less, it could be
much more," depending on the number of employees affected and
their actual wages and benefits.

Qimonda announced 1,500 layoffs -- including Mr. Jackson's, the
court papers said -- at its memory-chip plant in Sandston this
week, according to the Richmond Times Dispatch.

The suit asks for the unpaid wages, salaries, commissions,
bonuses, accrued holiday and vacation pay, and pension
contributions and benefits that the affected Qimonda employees
would have received for 60 days, as well as interest and legal
fees, the Richmond Times Dispatch reported.

The suit is "Jackson v. Qimonda North American Corp. et al.,
Case No. 3:09-cv-00060-RLW," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Virgina, Jugde Richard L. Williams,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Lisa Kim Newstein Lawrence, Esq.
          Lawrence & Associates
          701 E Franklin St
          PO Box 495
          Richmond, VA 23218-0495
          Phone: (804) 643-9343


RBS WORLDPAY: Law Firms File Lawsuits Over 2008 Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Three law firms filed a class-action lawsuit against payment
processor RBS Worldpay, following reports that an intrusion into
the company's network resulted in the brazen theft of $9 million
from ATMs in 49 cities worldwide, SecurityFocus reports.

According to a recent Fox News report, on Nov. 8, 2008, low-
level thieves -- known as "cashers" -- descended on more than
130 ATMs in Atlanta, Chicago, New York, Montreal, Moscow, Hong
Kong and 43 other cities and depleted 100 accounts of about $9
million.  At the same time, online criminals lifted the
restrictions on withdrawals that would have limited the losses
to $500 per card, the report stated.

RBS Worldpay, the U.S. payment processing arm of the Royal Bank
of Scotland, learned two days later that the financial
information used in the theft was stolen from its servers.  Not
until Dece. 23, 2008, two days before Christmas, did the company
notify its customers that the personal and financial details of
1.5 million cardholders and the social security numbers of 1.1
million workers had been compromised, according to the
SecurityFocus report.

"RBS was intimately familiar with industry-wide duties and
standards regarding data security," a copy of the lawsuit
obtained by SecurityFocus states.  "Ironically, as part of its
business, RBS offers data breach protection services to its
merchant clients."

SecurityFocus reported that the lawsuit against RBS Worldpay
involves law firms in Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Washington D.C.
It combines earlier individual suits filed by the firms on
behalf of their clients.


WAL-MART STORES: Fcaes Antitrust Lawsuit in La. Over DVD Rentals
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Netflix, Inc. are facing a purported
antitrust class-action suit in Louisiana alleging anti-trust
collusive behavior between the two at the time of Wal-Mart's
exit from the online video market in 2005, Jamie Anderson of The
Money Times reports.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana under the caption, "Hotard v. Netflix,
Inc. et al., Case No. 2:09-cv-01938-HGB-KWR."

The suit charged the two companies of improper negotiations,
thereby illegally benefiting themselves.  It contends that the
companies connived to create a cartel for online video rentals.

The plaintiff is seeking damages, injunctive relief and court
fees, according to The Money Times report.

The Money Times reporetd that according to the complaint, "This
antitrust class action arises out of a conspiracy among
defendants Netflix, Wal-Mart stores, and Walmart.com to divide
the markets for the sales and online rentals of DVDs in the
United States in order to avoid competition, monopolize, and
illegally restrain trade in at least the online DVD rental
market."

The suit is "Hotard v. Netflix, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:09-cv-
01938-HGB-KWR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana, Helen G. Berrigan, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Esq. (dbecnel@becnellaw.com)
          Becnel Law Firm, LLC (Reserve)
          106 W. Seventh St.
          P. O. Drawer H
          Reserve, LA 70084
          Phone: 985-536-1186


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

GOLDMAN SACHS: Bernstein Litowitz Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Fri., Feb. 6, 2009 -- NEW YORK, NY -- Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G") today announced that it filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of its client
Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System and similarly
situated purchasers of GS Mortgage Securities Corp. ("GS
Mortgage") Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates or Asset-Backed
Certificates (collectively, the "Certificates") pursuant and/or
traceable to the false and misleading Registration Statement and
Prospectus Supplements issued during 2006 (collectively, the
"Offering Documents").  The class includes purchasers of the
following Certificates: GSAMP Trust 2006-S2, Series 2006-S2;
GSAA Home Equity Trust 2006-3, Series 2006-3; and GSAA Home
Equity Trust 2006-2, Series 2006-2.

     The complaint alleges that on August 17, 2005, defendants
caused a Registration Statement to be filed with the SEC in
connection with and for the purpose of issuing billions of
dollars of Certificates.  The Certificates were issued pursuant
to the Prospectus Supplements, each of which was incorporated
into the Registration Statement.  The Certificates were
supported by pools of mortgage loans.

     According to the complaint, the Offering Documents included
false statements and/or omissions about:

       -- the underwriting standards used by the loan
          originators;

       -- the standards and guidelines used by GS Mortgage when
          evaluating and acquiring the loans;

       -- the appraisal standards used to value the properties
          collateralizing the loans, and the corresponding loan-
          to-value ratios of the loans;

       -- the credit enhancement supporting the loan
          securitization process; and

        -- the pre-established ratings assigned to each tranche
           of Certificates issued pursuant to the offering
           documents.

     Ultimately, the truth about the performance of the mortgage
loans that secured the Certificates began to be revealed to the
public, increasing the risk of the Certificates receiving less
cash flow in the future and the likelihood that investors would
not receive it on a timely basis.  The credit rating agencies
also began to put negative watch labels on the Certificates,
ultimately downgrading many.  As a result, the Certificates are
no longer marketable at prices near the price paid for them, and
the holders of the Certificates are exposed to much more risk
with respect to both the timing and absolute cash flow to be
received than the Offering Documents represented.

     The complaint alleges that GS Mortgage, certain of its
officers and directors and the issuers and underwriters of the
Certificates violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933.  Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of
all purchasers of the Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates or
Asset-backed Certificates listed above pursuant and/or traceable
to the Offering Documents (the "Class").

For more information, contact:

          David R. Stickney, Esq. (davids@blbglaw.com)
          Timothy A. DeLange, Esq. (timothyd@blbglaw.com)
          Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
          Phone: (858) 793-0070
          Web site: http://www.blbglaw.com


LEVEL 3 COMMS: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, Feb. 6, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Brualdi Law
Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has been commenced in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado on
behalf of purchasers of Level 3 Communications, Inc. ("Level 3"
or the "Company") (Nasdaq:LVLT) common stock during the period
between February 8, 2007 and October 23, 2007 (the "Class
Period") for violations of the federal securities laws.

     The complaint alleges that the representations contained in
Level 3's press releases, SEC filings, conference calls, and
presentations during the Class Period were materially false and
misleading when made because they failed to disclose that:

       -- the Company was experiencing problems integrating its
          numerous acquisitions;

       -- the Company's integration problems caused Level 3 to
          experience severe provisioning problems which were
          negatively impacting revenue growth; and

       -- as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
          reasonable basis for their positive statements about
          Level 3's business, operations and earnings prospects.

     On October 23, 2007, Level 3 issued a press release
announcing its financial results for the third quarter of 2007,
the period ending September 30, 2007.  For the quarter, the
Company reported consolidated revenue of $1.061 billion.  Level
3 further reported that its core communications services revenue
was negatively impacted by provisioning issues.  In response to
the announcements, the price of Level 3 stock declined from
$4.32 per share to $3.18 per share on October 24, 2007, on
extremely heavy trading volume.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact:

          Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com)
          The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, New York 10006
          Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602
          Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com


LEVEL 3 COMMS: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     BENSALEM, Pa., Feb. 6, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Law Offices
of Howard G. Smith, representing investors of Level 3
Communications, Inc. ("Level 3" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:LVLT),
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of a Class
consisting of all purchasers of the securities of Level 3
between February 8, 2007 and October 23, 2007, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

     The Complaint charges Level 3 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 Level 3's stock price to become artificially inflated,
inflicting damages on investors.

     Level 3 provides network and Internet services in North
America and Europe, including transport services, high speed
Internet protocol services, dedicated Internet access, virtual
private network services, colocation services and dark fiber
services.

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public
statements were false or materially misleading or failed to
disclose that, among other things:

       -- Level 3's efforts to integrate numerous companies it
          had acquired were not going well;

       -- the Company was experiencing an increase in service
          activation times, negatively impacting its service
          installation intervals and rate of revenue growth;

       -- challenges in the Company's service management
          processes were resulting in longer response times to
          resolve customers' network service issues;

       -- steps taken by the Company to remedy the problems were
          not working, and actually were making them worse; and

       -- as a result of the foregoing, the Company did not have
          adequate provisioning capability to convert its signed
          orders into revenue generating service.

     On October 23, 2007, Level 3 shocked the market when it
revealed that the Company was having extensive difficulties
integrating the systems and customer-service processes of the
numerous companies it had acquired.  In addition, Level 3
revised downward the Company's previously issued guidance for
fourth quarter 2007 and full year 2008.  On this news, shares of
Level 3 fell $1.04 per share, or approximately 24%, to close on
October 23, 2007 at $3.28 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


RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Coughlin Stoia Files Calif. Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP ("Coughlin
Stoia")  today announced that a class action has been commenced
on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Rigel")
(NASDAQ:RIGL) securities during the period between December 13,
2007 and October 27, 2008 (the "Class Period"), including all
persons who acquired the common stock of Rigel pursuant and/or
traceable to a false and misleading registration statement and
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued
in connection with the Company's February 2008 secondary
offering (the "Offering").

     The complaint charges Rigel, certain of its officers and
directors and the underwriters of the Offering with violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of
1933.  Rigel is a clinical-stage drug development company.

     The complaint alleges that Rigel was developing a new drug,
R788, for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.  On December
13, 2007, Rigel issued a press release, which was attached as an
exhibit to a Form 8-K filed with the SEC, and held a conference
call touting the positive summary results of a then-recently-
completed clinical trial of R788 in 189 patients in the U.S. and
Mexico (the "Study").  In response to the announcement of the
summary results of the Study, Rigel's common stock price more
than tripled in one day, from $8 per share to $25.95.

     On January 24, 2008, Rigel filed the Registration Statement
for its offering of common stock, which incorporated by
reference the December 13, 2007 Form 8-K.

     On February 6, 2008, Rigel consummated the Offering,
selling five million shares of common stock at a price of $27
per share for proceeds of $135 million.  Then, on October 27,
2008, Rigel presented the full results of the Study at a meeting
of the American College of Rheumatology and on an investor
conference call.  Those results contained adverse information
omitted from the Company's December 13, 2007 press release and
Form 8-K, as well as from the Registration Statement and
subsequent presentations.  When this adverse information about
the Study's results was finally disclosed, Rigel's stock price
plunged 38% in a single day, from $14.41 to $8.84.

     According to the complaint, the true facts which defendants
failed to disclose were:

       -- patients in Mexico had higher response rates in both
          the placebo and treated arms than the U.S. Patients,
          which may have contributed disproportionately to the
          overall reported benefit observed at the higher doses;

       -- R788 caused an increase in average blood pressure
          which could signal an increase in cardiovascular risk,
          the mechanism that caused the increase was not well
          understood and the increase in blood pressure could be
          a stumbling block for some pharmaceutical companies
          that were considering licensing the drug; and

       -- patients in the Study taking R788 experienced
          increased liver enzymes compared to patients taking
          the placebo.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Rigel securities during the Class Period and on
behalf of all persons who acquired the common stock of Rigel
pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued
in connection with the Offering (the "Class").  The plaintiff is
represented by Coughlin Stoia, which has expertise in
prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud.

For more details, contact:

          Darren Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
          Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/rigel/


                            *********

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 2009.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *