CAR_Public/090317.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, March 17, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 52

                           Headlines

ARRIS GROUP: Contests C-COR Ex-Employees' Suit for Overtime Pay
BIG 5: Plaintiffs May Appeal Dismissal of "Gonzalez" Litigation
BIG 5: "Zimerman" Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of Suit in Calif.
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Appeals to Dismissed "Taylor" Suits Pending
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Defending "Searcy" Nationwide Suit v. eFunds

FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Faces Lawsuit Alleging WARN Violations
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Case
MICROSOFT CORP: Opposes Reinstating Class Status to Kelley Suit
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Amended Overtime Complaint Pending in N.J.
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Amended Consolidated Suit in N.J.

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Ruling on Bid in "Saunders" Still Pending
SCHERING-PLOUGH CORP: June 1 Hearing Set for $165M Settlement
SKYBUS AIRLINES: Settles WARN Violations Suit by Former Workers
TOMATO PROCESSORS: Calif. Court Consolidates Antitrust Lawsuits
UNITED ONLINE: Settlement in NetZero Suit Finalized on Jan. 5

WELLS FARGO: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit Over Mortgages
WILLIS GROUP: Defends Suits Over Employee Benefits & Insurance
WILLIS GROUP: Discovery Continues in Gender Discrimination Case


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CORUS BANKSHARES: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing
INTREPID POTASH: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
OPPENHEIMER ROCHESTER: Milberg LLP Announces Stock Suit Filing
PERRIGO CO: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Izard Nobel Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing


                           *********

ARRIS GROUP: Contests C-COR Ex-Employees' Suit for Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARRIS Group, Inc. is actively contesting the class-action suit
filed by sixteen former employees of a former subsidiary of C-
COR, Inc., according to the company's Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.  The company acquired C-COR in
late 2008.

In February 2008, a Fair Labor Standards Act suit was filed
against the former subsidiary of C-COR and C-COR alleging that
the plaintiffs were not properly paid for overtime.

The suit was filed as a class action and the proposed class
could include 1,000 cable installers and field technicians.

ARRIS Group, Inc. -- http://www.arrisi.com/-- is a global
communications technology company specializing in integrated
broadband network solutions that include products, systems and
software for content and operations management, and professional
services.  It develops, manufactures and supplies cable
telephony, video and high-speed data equipment.  In addition, it
is a supplier of infrastructure products used by cable system
operators to build-out and maintain Hybrid Fiber-Coaxial (HFC)
networks.  It provides products and equipments to cable system
operators and multiple systems operators (MSOs).  Its products
allow MSOs and other broadband service providers to deliver a
range of integrated voice, video and high-speed data services to
their subscribers.


BIG 5: Plaintiffs May Appeal Dismissal of "Gonzalez" Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of the purported class-action lawsuit entitled,
"Michele Gonzalez v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al.,"
may still be appealed by the plaintiff, according to the
company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 28, 2008.

On May 31, 2008, the company was served with a complaint filed
before the California Superior Court in the County of San Diego,
entitled "Michele Gonzalez v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation,
et al., Case No. 37-2008-00083307-CU-BT-CTL."

This suit alleges violations of the California Civil Code and
California Business and Professions Code and invasion of
privacy.

The complaint was brought as a purported class action on behalf
of persons who made purchases at the company's stores in
California using credit cards and were requested to provide
their zip codes.

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that customers making
purchases with credit cards at the company's stores in
California were improperly requested to provide their zip code
at the time of such purchases.

The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the class members, statutory
penalties, injunctive relief to require the company to
discontinue the allegedly improper conduct and attorneys' fees
and costs.

The plaintiff also seeks, on behalf of the class members,
general damages, special damages, exemplary or punitive damages,
and disgorgement of profits.

On Oct. 7, 2008, the California Superior Court in the County of
San Diego dismissed the Gonzalez case with prejudice.

On Feb. 20, 2009, the same court denied plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration of such dismissal.  The dismissal may still be
appealed by the plaintiff in that case, according to the
company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 28, 2008.

Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp. -- http://www.big5sportinggoods.com/
-- is a sporting goods retailer in the U.S., operating 381
stores in 11 states under the Big 5 Sporting Goods name at Dec.
28, 2008.


BIG 5: "Zimerman" Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the purported class-action suit, "Adi Zimerman
v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al.," is appealing the
dismissal of the case against Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp.

On Jan. 17, 2008, the company was served with a complaint filed
before the California Superior Court in the County of Los
Angeles, entitled, "Adi Zimerman v. Big 5 Sporting Goods
Corporation, et al., Case No. BC383834."

The complaint was brought as a purported class-action lawsuit on
behalf of persons who made purchases at the company's stores in
California using credit cards and were requested to provide
their zip codes.

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that customers making
purchases with credit cards at the company's stores in
California were improperly requested to provide their zip code
at the time of such purchases.

The plaintiff seeks, on behalf of the class members, statutory
penalties, injunctive relief to require the company to
discontinue the allegedly improper conduct and attorneys' fees
and costs.

On Dec. 9, 2008, the California Superior Court in the County of
Los Angeles dismissed the Zimerman case with prejudice.

On Feb. 3, 2009, the plaintiff in the Zimerman case filed a
Notice of Appeal of the dismissal, according to the company's
Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 28, 2008.

Big 5 Sporting Goods Corp. -- http://www.big5sportinggoods.com/
-- is a sporting goods retailer in the U.S., operating 381
stores in 11 states under the Big 5 Sporting Goods name at Dec.
28, 2008.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Appeals to Dismissed "Taylor" Suits Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeals to the dismissal of two class-action
complaints styled, "Sharon Taylor, et al. v. Biometric Access
Company et al.," and "Sharon Taylor, et al. v. Acxiom et al.,"
remain pending, according to Fidelity National Information
Services, Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

A putative class-action lawsuit styled, "Richard Fresco, et al.
v. Automotive Directions, Inc. et al.," was filed against eFunds
and seven other non-related parties in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida.

eFunds Corp. and its subsidiaries were acquired by the company
on Sept. 12, 2007.

The complaint alleged that eFunds purchased motor vehicle
records that were used for marketing and other purposes that are
not permitted under the Federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act
("DPPA").

The plaintiffs sought statutory damages, plus costs, attorney's
fees and injunctive relief.

eFunds and five of the other seven defendants settled the case
with the plaintiffs.  That settlement was approved by the court
over the objection of a group of Texas drivers and motor vehicle
record holders.

The plaintiffs have since moved to amend the court's order
approving the settlement in order to seek a greater attorneys'
fee award and to recover supplemental costs.

In the meantime, the objectors filed two class action complaints
styled, "Sharon Taylor, et al. v. Biometric Access Company et
al.," and "Sharon Taylor, et al. v. Acxiom et al." in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging
similar violations of the DPPA.

The Acxiom action was filed against the company's ChexSystems,
Inc. subsidiary, while the Biometric suit was filed against the
company's Certegy Check Services, Inc. subsidiary.  The judge
recused himself in the action against Certegy because he was a
potential member of the class.  The lawsuit was then assigned to
a new judge and Certegy filed a motion to dismiss.  The court
granted Certegy's motion to dismiss with prejudice in the third
quarter of 2008.

The company was formerly known as Certegy Inc.

ChexSystems filed a motion to dismiss or stay its action based
upon the earlier settlement and the Court granted the motion to
stay pending resolution of the Florida case.  The court
dismissed the ChexSystems' lawsuit with prejudice against the
remaining defendants in the third quarter of 2008.

The plaintiffs moved the court to amend the dismissal to exclude
defendants that were parties to the Florida settlement.  That
motion was granted.  The plaintiffs then appealed the dismissal.
The plaintiffs' appeals of the dismissals in both lawsuits are
pending.

Jacksonville, Fla.-based Fidelity National Information Services,
Inc. -- http://www.fidelityinfoservices.com/-- is a provider of
core processing services, card issuer and transaction processing
and mortgage-related services to financial institutions,
mortgage lenders, and servicers.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Defending "Searcy" Nationwide Suit v. eFunds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. is defending the
nationwide putative class-action suit styled, "Searcy, Gladys v.
eFunds Corporation," according to the company's Feb. 27, 2009
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

eFunds Corp. and its subsidiaries were acquired by the company
on Sept. 12, 2007.

The nationwide putative class-action lawsuit was originally
filed against eFunds Corporation and its affiliate Deposit
Payment Protection Services, Inc. during the first quarter of
2008.

The complaint alleges willful violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act ("FCRA") in connection with the operation of the
Shared Check Authorization Network ("SCAN").

Plaintiff's principal allegation is that consumers did not
receive appropriate disclosures pursuant to Section 1681g of the
FCRA because the disclosures did not include:

   (i) all information in the consumer's file at the time of the
       request;

  (ii) the source of the information in the consumer's file;
       and/or

(iii) the names of any persons who requested information
       related to the consumer's check writing history during
       the prior year.

Jacksonville, Fla.-based Fidelity National Information Services,
Inc. -- http://www.fidelityinfoservices.com/-- is a provider of
core processing services, card issuer and transaction processing
and mortgage-related services to financial institutions,
mortgage lenders, and servicers.


FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Faces Lawsuit Alleging WARN Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
     PHILADELPHIA, March 13 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Klehr,
Harrison, Harvey, Branzburg & Ellers, LLP and Berger & Montague,
P.C. have filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California,
"Justice v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., Civil Action No. 6:09-
ap-01108-BB," on behalf of over 700 employees who were laid off
by Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. on Monday, March 9, 2009 without
receiving any notice.

     Fleetwood filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on
Tuesday, March 10, 2009 in Riverside, California.

     The lawsuit claims that Fleetwood violated the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the "WARN Act")
which provides that employers must give sixty days notice to
employers prior to a plant closing or mass layoff. The lawsuit
seeks sixty days wages and benefits in lieu of the notice.

     The lead plaintiffs, Sandra Justice and Alicia Rice, were
employed at Fleetwood's plant in Edgerton, Ohio that constructed
travel trailers. Fleetwood stated in its bankruptcy filing that
it will continue to make motor coaches and manufactured homes
but is permanently shutting down at least three manufacturing
plants and two service facilities.

     "Fleetwood appears to have engaged in a blatant violation
of the WARN Act by failing to provide its employees sixty days
advance notice of these plant closings and mass layoffs, and
workers who are terminated without notice do not have time to
search for new employment.  For those living paycheck to
paycheck, such notice is crucial to the ability to find
substitute work and to support their families," said Shanon
Carson of Berger & Montague, P.C., one of the attorneys for the
plaintiffs.  Co-counsel for the plaintiffs, Charles A. Ercole of
Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, Branzburg & Ellers, LLP, states, "We
repeatedly see employers ignoring the WARN Act. The employees
are the last ones to know and that is exactly what the WARN Act
was meant to prevent."

For more details, contact:

          Shanon Carson (scarson@bm.net)
          Phone: (215) 875-4656
          Web site: http://www.bergermontague.com

               - and -

          Chuck A. Ercole (cercole@klehr.com)
          Phone: (215) 568-6060 or (215) 569-4282
          Web site: http://www.klehr.com


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Andrew J. Gilford filed the order in U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California to throw out a putative
class-action lawsuit alleging securities law violations by Impac
Mortgage Holdings, Inc., Law360 reports.

The suit is in connection with the company's offering of
nontraditional, or so-called Alt-A, mortgage products, finding
that the plaintiffs failed - after repeated attempts - to
adequately plead their case, according to the Law360 report.


MICROSOFT CORP: Opposes Reinstating Class Status to Kelley Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corp. is opposing an attempt to reinstate class-action
status to an ongoing lawsuit over Windows Vista entitled,
"Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00475-MJP,"
Elizabeth Montalbano of IDG News Service.

In court papers filed last week in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, Microsoft asked the court
not to reconsider applying class-action status to the suit
because people knew exactly which version of Vista they would
receive through a coupon program called Express Upgrade
Guarantee.  The program allowed customers to buy PCs with
Windows XP installed on them but then had to upgrade to Vista
when the OS was released, according to the IDG News Service
report.

Microsoft also said that the plaintiffs took too long to ask for
a narrowing of the class, even based on "theories known to them
for more than a year," according to court papers obtained by IDG
News Service.

Joseph Tartakoff of the Seattle Post Intelligencer previously
reported that the plaintiffs in a recently decertified class-
action lawsuit against Microsoft Corp. for the alleged deceptive
promotion of its flagship software, Windows Vista, have asked
Judge Marsha Pechman to reinstate the class-action status of the
case, under a narrower scope (Class Action Reporter, March 3,
2009).

In recent filing, plaintiffs asked Judge Pechman of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington to certify
a class-action under two more narrowed criteria.

Initially, the class included anyone who bought Windows Vista
Capable PCs.  Now plaintiffs are asking the judge to certify the
class based on two subgroups: Those who participated in a Vista
upgrade program and those who purchased Vista Capable PCs that
could not support a specific driver, which plaintiffs say is
essential to run Vista.

The motion for narrowed class certification is under seal, but
it is described in another filing.  A copy of the motion is
available at http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3a00.

John Letzing of MarketWatch previously reported that the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington
decertified the class-action lawsuit filed against Microsoft
Corp. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 20, 2009).

In an order filed on Feb. 17, 2009, Judge Marsha Pechman wrote
that, "At this juncture, the Court believes the most appropriate
remedy for Plaintiffs' failure to present evidence suggesting
class-wide causation is decertification."  Judge Pechman
specifically cited a lack of evidence for a "class-wide price
inflation theory" put forward by the plaintiffs, according to
the MarketWatch report.

Judge Pechman allowed the lawsuit to proceed, because Microsoft
has not "demonstrated that no material issue of fact exists for
Plaintiffs' individual claims."  In essence, the ruling forces
plaintiffs to pursue their cases individually, reports
MarketWatch.

                         Case Background

Previously, Joseph Tartakoff of seattlepi.com reported that
Microsoft Corp. sought for the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims
in a class-action lawsuit, which revolves around the company's
marketing before the debut of its Windows Vista operating system
in early 2007 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 24, 2008).

The suit, captioned, "Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-
cv-00475-MJP," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 8,
2008).

In early 2006, Microsoft executives approved a plan allowing PC
makers to designate computers as "Vista Capable" even if they
would only be able to run the most basic version of Vista,
called "Vista Home Basic," according to seattlepi.com.

The plaintiffs in the case claim that through the "Vista
Capable" program Microsoft violated the Washington Consumer
Protection Act and unjustly enriched itself because the false
designation drove up demand for personal computers and,
therefore, prices, reports seattlepi.com.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 25, 2008, Judge
Marsha Pechman granted class-action status to the lawsuit filed
against Microsoft over allegations that the company unjustly
enriched itself by promoting PCs as "Windows Vista Capable" even
if they are not.  The slogan was emblazoned on PCs during the
2006 holiday shopping season as part of a campaign by Microsoft
to maintain sales of Windows XP computers after the launch of
Windows Vista was delayed, according to the CAR report.

However, according to seattlepi.com, Judge Pechman dismissed
plaintiffs' claim that Microsoft had deceived consumers into
buying PCs they would not otherwise have bought.  She instead
allowed them to argue that Microsoft had illegally driven up
prices.

A subsequent CAR report on March 13, 2008, stated that Microsoft
appealed against the court's decision affording class action
status to the Vista lawsuit.  However, in a brief order dated
April 21, 2008, the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit rejected Microsoft's request to overturn Judge Pechman's
decision.

In motions that the company filed with court on Nov. 20, 2008,
the company rebuts the claims and asks the judge to decertify
the class.  "Because it is clear that Plaintiffs cannot prove
any element of their 'price inflation' theory, Microsoft moves
for summary judgment," the company's filing reads.

In the filing, which was obtained by seattlepi.com, Microsoft
dismissed the plaintiffs' underlying argument that the most
basic version of Vista was not Vista because it lacked certain
features, including the Aero interface.

Microsoft's attorneys wrote, "The fact that Windows Vista Home
Basic lacks some features available in premium editions of
Windows Vista (as Microsoft always disclosed) shows only that
Microsoft properly markets Windows Vista Home Basic as a
distinct budget edition."  They re-iterated, "Windows Vista Home
Basic falls well within the Windows Vista family as a technical
matter."

In addition, Microsoft lawyers said that plaintiffs -- who have
calculated how much money Microsoft generated from the sales of
its operating systems on Vista Capable PCs -- had not shown that
that revenue was attributable to increased sales of the PCs
because of the program, reports seattlepi.com.

The suit is "Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00475-
MJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Washington, Judge Marsha J. Pechman, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Gordon Tilden Thomas & Cordell, LLP
          1001 4th Ave., Ste. 4000, Seattle, WA 98154
          Phone: 206-467-6477
          Fax: 206-467-6292
          Web site: http://www.gordontilden.com/
          e-mail: office@gordontilden.com


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Amended Overtime Complaint Pending in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint in the class-action lawsuit, entitled,
"Bouder v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance
Company of America, Case No. 2:2006-cv-04359" is pending,
according to the company's Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit, filed in October 2006, is claiming that the company
failed to pay overtime to insurance agents who were registered
representatives in violation of federal and state law, and that
improper deductions were made from these agents' wages in
violation of state law.

In March 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
conditionally certify a nationwide class.

The suit is "Bouder v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential
Insurance Company of America, Case No. 2:2006-cv-04359," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge
Dennis M. Cavanaugh, presiding. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 21,
2008)

In January 2009, an amended complaint was filed in the
consolidated matter which adds wage claims based on the laws of
13 additional states.

Newark, N.J.-based Prudential Financial, Inc. is a financial
services company with operations in United States, Asia, Europe
and Latin America. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, it
offers an array of financial products and services, including
life insurance, annuities, mutual funds, pension and retirement-
related services and administration, investment management, real
estate brokerage and relocation services, and, through a joint
venture, retail securities brokerage services.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Amended Consolidated Suit in N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in a consolidated purported
class-action lawsuit against Prudential Financial, Inc., and
Prudential Insurance Co. in California in connection with
overtime pay and benefits in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

In March 2008, a purported nationwide class-action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.  The suit, captioned "Wang v. Prudential Financial,
Inc. and Prudential Insurance, Case No. 3:08-cv-00526-LAB-NLS,"
was filed on behalf of agents who sold the company's financial
products.

The complaint alleges claims that the company failed to pay
overtime and provide other benefits in violation of state and
federal law and seeks compensatory and punitive damages in
unspecified amounts.

The suit is "Wang v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential
Insurance, Case No. 3:08-cv-00526-LAB-NLS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California, Judge
Larry Alan Burns, presiding. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15,
2008)

In September 2008, the Wang litigation was transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and
consolidated with the suit, entitled, "Bouder v. Prudential
Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance Company of America,
Case No. 2:2006-cv-04359." (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 21,
2008)

In January 2009, an amended complaint was filed in the
consolidated matter which adds wage claims based on the laws of
13 additional states, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2009
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Newark, N.J.-based Prudential Financial, Inc. is a financial
services company with operations in United States, Asia, Europe
and Latin America. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, it
offers an array of financial products and services, including
life insurance, annuities, mutual funds, pension and retirement-
related services and administration, investment management, real
estate brokerage and relocation services, and, through a joint
venture, retail securities brokerage services.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Ruling on Bid in "Saunders" Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has yet to
rule on motions filed by both parties in a purported class-
action suit "Saunders v. Putnam American Government Income Fund,
et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-00560-JFM," according to Prudential
Financial, Inc.'s Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit was one of several consolidated under the multi-
district proceeding entitled, "In re: Mutual Funds Investment
Litigation, MDL-1586, Master Docket Nos. 04-md-15861, 04-md-
15862, 04-md-15863, and 04-md-15864."

In July 2006, in "Saunders," the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland had granted the plaintiffs leave to refile
their federal securities law claims against and Prudential
Securities, Inc.

In August 2006, the second amended complaint was filed alleging
federal securities law claims on behalf of a purported
nationwide class of mutual fund investors seeking compensatory
and punitive damages in unspecified amounts.

In July 2008, the company moved for summary judgment and the
plaintiffs moved for class certification in "Saunders."

No further updates were provided by the company in its latest
Quarterly Report on Form 10-K dated Feb. 26, 2009.

The suit is "Saunders v. Putnam American Government Income Fund,
et al.,, Case No. 1:04-cv-00560-JFM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland, Judge J. Frederick Motz,
presiding. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 15, 2008)

Newark, N.J.-based Prudential Financial, Inc. is a financial
services company with operations in United States, Asia, Europe
and Latin America.  Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, it
offers an array of financial products and services, including
life insurance, annuities, mutual funds, pension and retirement-
related services and administration, investment management, real
estate brokerage and relocation services, and, through a joint
venture, retail securities brokerage services.


SCHERING-PLOUGH CORP: June 1 Hearing Set for $165M Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey will hold
a fairness hearing at 2:00 p.m. on June 1, 2009 for the proposed
$165,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In re Schering-Plough
Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:01-cv-829,"

The hearing will be held at the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, located at the Frank R. Lautenberg U.S.
Post Office & Courthouse Bldg., 50 Walnut Street, Newark, New
Jersey 07101 in the Courtroom of the Honorable Katharine S.
Hayden, U.S.D.J.

Following Schering-Plough's announcement that the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) had been conducting inspections of its
manufacturing facilities in New Jersey and Puerto Rico and had
issued reports citing deficiencies concerning compliance with
current Good Manufacturing Practices, several lawsuits were
filed against the Company and certain named officers (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 6, 2008).

These lawsuits allege that the defendants violated the federal
securities law by allegedly failing to disclose material
information and making material misstatements.

Specifically, they allege that Schering-Plough failed to
disclose an alleged serious risk that a new drug application for
CLARINEX would be delayed as a result of these manufacturing
issues, and they allege that the Company failed to disclose the
alleged depth and severity of its manufacturing issues.

These complaints were consolidated into one action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed on Oct. 11, 2001,
purporting to represent a class of shareholders who purchased
shares of Schering-Plough stock from May 9, 2000 through Feb.
15, 2001.

The complaint seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the class.

For more details, contact:

          In re Schering-Plough Corp. Securities Litigation
          c/o Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Phone: 1-877-451-2127
          Web site: http://www.hrsclaimsadministration.com/


SKYBUS AIRLINES: Settles WARN Violations Suit by Former Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Skybus Airlines has agreed to settle a class-action suit filed
by former employees who say they weren't properly told of the
airline's plan to shut down in 2008, The Associated Press
reports.

Attorney James Huggett, who represents the employees, tells The
Associated Press that the amount of the settlement will likely
be disclosed in an upcoming court filing.  He also says the
agreement must be approved in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware.

The Associated Press previously reported that former employees
of Skybus Airlines filed a class-action lawsuit against the
company with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware on April 15, 2008, saying they were not properly told
of the airline's plan to shut down operations (Class Action
Reporter, April 21, 2008).

According to the lawsuit, Skybus violated the federal Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, which requires
companies to notify employees at least 60 days in advance of any
mass layoffs.

AP says that in a court filing dated April 4 -- the last day
Skybus was in operation -- the Columbus-based airline said it
planned to lay off 450 employees in several phases, with the
majority losing their jobs as of April 7.  Of those, 365 were
based in Columbus, with the remainder in Greensboro, N.C.

Former Skybus Chief Executive Officer Mike Hodge told The
Columbus Dispatch that the company believes it complied with the
law.  He cited a section of the WARN Act that grants an
exception to companies that are actively seeking capital or
business that, if obtained, would have allowed those companies
to avoid or postpone a shutdown.

Passed by Congress in 1988, the WARN Act was intended to protect
workers and their families, the report explains.  The law says
employees who don't receive proper notice of plant closings or
layoffs are entitled to 60 days pay.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are seeking unpaid wages, bonuses,
retirement benefits and holiday pay that they would have
received during the 60-day period.

AP recounts that Skybus declared bankruptcy less than a year
after beginning service.  The low-cost carrier was known for its
$10 fares and a la carte, pay-per-service flying.  Like other
airlines, it struggled with rising fuel prices and a slowing
economy.


TOMATO PROCESSORS: Calif. Court Consolidates Antitrust Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Morris C. England Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California has consolidated four putative
class-action suits over alleged anti-competitive conduct in the
processed tomato market for pretrial purposes, Law360 reports

However, in an order handed down on March 11, 2009, the judge
deferred a decision on complete consolidation until more
information is available, and held that a fifth case was
distinct enough to make consolidation inappropriate, according
to the Law360 report.


UNITED ONLINE: Settlement in NetZero Suit Finalized on Jan. 5
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement in the consolidated consumer fraud class-action
lawsuit filed against NetZero, a brand name of United Online,
Inc., became final on Jan. 5, 2009.

On March 6, 2006, Anthony Piercy filed a purported consumer
class-action lawsuit before the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, against NetZero, claiming
that NetZero continues to charge consumers fees after they
cancel their Internet access account.

On July 27, 2006, Donald E. Ewart filed another purported
consumer class action suit in the Superior Court of the State
ofCalifornia, County of Los Angeles, against NetZero containing
substantially similar allegations as the "Piercy" case.

The plaintiffs in both cases sought injunctive and declaratory
relief and damages.  NetZero filed a response to both lawsuits
denying the material allegations of the complaints.

Both Mr. Piercy and Mr. Ewart subsequently withdrew from the
actions as class representatives.  Then, on March 16, 2007,
Barbara Rasnake, Robert Du Verger, and Peter Chrisler were
substituted as purported class representatives.

On May 25, 2007, the court consolidated the two cases under the
caption, "Rasnake v. NetZero, Inc., Case No. BC348461."

On July 13, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class-action complaint at which time Peter Chrisler was also
substituted as a purported class representative.

A settlement agreement has been entered into by all parties in
this case and the settlement became final on Jan. 5, 2009,
according to the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

United Online, Inc. -- http://www.unitedonline.net/-- is a
provider of consumer Internet and media services through a
number of brands, including NetZero, Juno, Classmates and
MyPoints.


WELLS FARGO: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit Over Mortgages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Co. and HSBC face a purported class-action suit
filed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People (NAACP), claiming racial discrimination in mortgages,
KABC reports.

The civil rights group says that two major lenders forced black
homebuyers into risky subprime loans, even when they had the
same qualifications as white applicants, according to the KABC
report.

According to the lawsuits, African Americans are three and a
half times more likely than white borrowers to be put into a
subprime mortgage.  White borrowers are six times less likely to
get a subprime rate when refinancing, reports KABC.

KABC reported that Los Angeles attorney Brian Kabateck, Esq., of
Kabateck Kellner, LLP is representing the NAACP in the lawsuits.

For more details, contact:

          Kabateck Kellner, LLP
          Engine Company No. 28 Building
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213.217.5000
          Fax: 213.217.5010
          e-mail: info@kbklawyers.com
          Web site: http://www.kbklawyers.com/


WILLIS GROUP: Defends Suits Over Employee Benefits & Insurance
--------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. intends to continue to defend
against the purported class actions filed against the company
and its newly acquired Hilb, Rogal & Hobbs Company (HRH),
according to its Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.

Since August 2004, the company and HRH (along with various other
brokers and insurers) have been named as defendants in purported
class-action suits in various courts across the United States.

All of these actions have been consolidated or are in the
process of being consolidated into a single action in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey ("MDL").

There are two amended complaints within the MDL, one that
addresses employee benefits ("EB Complaint") and one that
addresses all other lines of insurance ("Commercial Complaint").

HRH was a named defendant in the EB Complaint, but has since
been voluntarily dismissed.  HRH is a named defendant in the
Commercial Complaint.  The company is a named defendant in both
MDL Complaints.

The EB Complaint and the Commercial Complaint seek monetary
damages, including punitive damages, and equitable relief and
make allegations regarding the practices and conduct that have
been the subject of the investigation of state attorneys general
and insurance commissioners, including allegations that the
brokers have breached their duties to their clients by entering
into contingent compensation agreements with either no
disclosure or limited disclosure to clients and participated in
other improper activities.

The Complaints also allege the existence of a conspiracy among
insurance carriers and brokers and allege violations of federal
antitrust laws, the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) statute and the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").

In separate decisions issued in August and September 2007, the
antitrust and RICO claims were dismissed with prejudice and the
state claims were dismissed without prejudice from both
Complaints.

Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal regarding these
dismissal rulings and oral arguments on this appeal are
scheduled to be heard in April 2009.

In January 2008, the Judge dismissed the ERISA claims with
prejudice from the EB Complaint.

Additional actions could be brought in the future by individual
policyholders.

Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.willis.com/-- is the
ultimate holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA I
Limited and subsidiaries) from the U.K. to Bermuda.  The company
provides a range of insurance brokerage and risk management
consulting services to worldwide clients.  It provides
specialized risk management advisory and other services on a
global basis to clients in various industries, including the
aerospace, marine, construction and energy industries.


WILLIS GROUP: Discovery Continues in Gender Discrimination Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in a purported class-action suit against Willis Group
Holdings, Ltd., filed by a former female employee, alleging
gender discrimination, is ongoing.

The suit was brought on behalf of an alleged nationwide class of
present and former female employees alleging that the company
discriminated against them on the basis of their gender and
seeking injunctive relief, money damages, attorneys' fees and
costs.  The suit proposes a class period of 1998 to the time of
trial.

The company's motion to dismiss this suit was denied and the
Court did not grant the Company permission to immediately file
an appeal from the denial of its motion to dismiss.

The suit was recently amended to include two additional
plaintiffs.  The parties are still in the discovery phase of the
litigation, according to its Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2008.

Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.willis.com/-- is the
ultimate holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA I
Limited and subsidiaries) from the U.K. to Bermuda.  The company
provides a range of insurance brokerage and risk management
consulting services to worldwide clients.  It provides
specialized risk management advisory and other services on a
global basis to clients in various industries, including the
aerospace, marine, construction and energy industries.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CORUS BANKSHARES: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Updated 2:39 p.m. ET March 13, 2009 -- MarketWire --
HARTFORD, CT - 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 Northern District of Illinois on behalf of those
who purchased the common stock of Corus Bankshares, Inc.
("Corus" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CORS) between January 25,
2008 and January 30, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period").

     The Complaint charges that Corus and its Chief Executive
Officer violated federal securities laws by issuing materially
false statements.

     Specifically, defendants failed to disclose:

       -- that Corus was failing to recognize losses on its
          condominium loans in accordance with generally
          accepted accounting principles ("GAAP");

       -- that Corus and/or its affiliates were purchasing
          condominiums in developments Corus had financed in an
          attempt to:

               -- inflate the appraised values of condominiums
                  to delay having to recognize losses on
                  financing for such condominiums;

               -- inflate developers' sales figures to increase
                  the likelihood of successful future sales; and

               -- create the illusion of successful sales
                  histories in order to inflate appraisal values
                  for the condominiums to ensure inflated future
                  prices for the condominiums; and

       -- Corus was involved in detailed and in-depth
          negotiations with the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
          and the Office of the Comptroller of Currency
          regarding its deteriorating pool of condominium loans.

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/corusbankshares/


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, March 13, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) -- The
Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. ("Heartland" or the "Company")
(NYSE:HPY), between August 5, 2008 and February 23, 2009,
inclusive (the "Class Period") for violations of the federal
securities laws.

     The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations and prospects.

     Specifically, defendants misrepresented or failed to
disclose:

       -- that the Company's safety and security measures
          designed to protect consumers' financial records and
          data from security breaches were inadequate and
          ineffective;

       -- that the Company's payment processing system had been
          infected with malware as early as May 2008;

       -- that defendants were made aware of a potential breach
          of Heartland's payment processing network;

       -- that, as a result of the above, the Company faced
          liabilities associated with the breach and increasing
          costs associated with implementing appropriate
          security measures;

       -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company was at
          risk of losing customers; and

       -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls.

     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


INTREPID POTASH: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
     DENVER, March 14, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Denver-Based
Dyer & Berens LLP (www.DyerBerens.com) announced that it has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado on behalf of all persons and
entities that purchased the securities of Intrepid Potash, Inc.
("IPI" or the "Company") (NYSE:IPI) in or traceable to the
Company's April 21, 2008 Initial Public Offering ("IPO").  The
complaint charges IPI and certain of its senior officers with
violations of the federal securities laws.

     The complaint asserts that the Company's Registration
Statement and Prospectus were materially false and misleading
because, at the time of the IPO, defendant Patrick L. Avery did
not possess the claimed academic credentials.  Mr. Avery, who
served as the Company's President and Chief Operating Officer,
did not receive a B.A. degree from the University of Colorado.
Nor did Avery receive an M.S. degree from Loyola Marymount
University.  After the market closed on February 11, 2009, IPI
issued a press release which disclosed that Mr. Avery was
resigning, and confirmed that the statements contained in the
Company's Registration Statement about his educational
qualifications were false and that the "misrepresentation of his
academic credentials was a violation under the Company's Code of
Business Conduct."  As a result of defendants' false and
misleading statements, IPI stock traded at artificially inflated
prices.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of IPI
investors.

For more details, contact:

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. (jeff@dyerberens.com)
          682 Grant Street
          Denver, CO 80203
          Dyer & Berens LLP
          Phone: (888) 300-3362 or (303) 861-1764
          Web site: http://www.DyerBerens.com


OPPENHEIMER ROCHESTER: Milberg LLP Announces Stock Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Updated 7:50 p.m. ET March 13, 2009 -- NEW YORK, N.Y. - The
law firm of Milberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado on
behalf of all persons who purchased Class A and/or Class B
and/or Class C shares of the Oppenheimer Rochester National
Municipals fund (the "Fund") (NASDAQ: ORNAX) (NASDAQ: ORNBX)
(NASDAQ: ORNCX) during the period from March 13, 2006 to October
21, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The action is
captioned, "Bock v. Oppenheimer Rochester National Municipals,
OppenheimerFunds, Inc. et al. (D. Colo.)."

     The complaint charges OppenheimerFunds, Inc.,
OppenheimerFunds Distributor, Inc., the Fund and certain of its
trustees and officers with violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, which prohibits materially
false and misleading statements in registration statements and
prospectuses of the kind used to sell shares in the Fund. The
Fund invests primarily in municipal securities.

     According to the complaint, during the Class Period the
Fund failed to disclose risk factors associated with the Fund's
investments, including, but not limited to, the Fund's
overconcentration of investments in illiquid securities in
violation of its cap of 15% by investing in illiquid tobacco
bonds and ordinary municipal bonds/notes that could turn
illiquid quickly.

     According to the Fund's registration statements and
prospectuses, the Fund would invest no more than 15% of its
assets in illiquid securities, which are securities that do not
trade in an active market and are riskier because the fund may
not be able to sell the securities at the desired price, if at
all.  Related to this representation, the Fund stated that its
manager, OppenheimerFunds, would monitor the holdings of
illiquid securities on an ongoing basis to determine whether to
sell any holdings to maintain adequate liquidity.  The complaint
alleges that contrary to its representations, the Fund invested
25% of its holdings in illiquid tobacco bonds.  In addition, the
Fund failed to disclose in its Registration Statements that the
market for the other municipal bonds/notes that the Fund
invested in could become illiquid based on price volatility,
which could cause the percentage of its illiquid securities to
increase significantly and quickly, as in fact happened.

     In or around October 2008, the Fund filed a prospectus
supplement alerting investors of the true liquidity risks of its
investments -- the same risks that existed in 2006, 2007 and
throughout 2008.  By October 2008, however, those risks had
already manifested, dealing substantial losses to investors.

     During the Class Period, the Fund lost approximately 60% of
its net asset value. The Fund was crowned "the biggest loser in
its category last year [2008]" by fund analyst Morningstar Inc.,
as reported in a January 29, 2009 article by Thomson Reuters
PLC, after losing 49% of its value in 2008 due to, among other
reasons, its investments in tobacco bonds.

For more details, contact:

          Andrei Rado, Esq.
          Ann Marie Vu, Esq.
          Milberg LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Fl.
          New York, NY 10119-0165
          Phone: (800) 320-5081
          e-mail: contactus@milberg.com
          Web site: http://www.milberg.com/


PERRIGO CO: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Updated 6:00 p.m. ET March 13, 2009 -- NEW YORK, March 13,
2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announces
that a lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those
who purchased the common stock of Perrigo Company ("Perrigo" or
the "Company") (Nasdaq:PRGO) between November 6, 2008 and
February 2, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period") for violations
of the federal securities laws.

     The Complaint charges that Perrigo and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
issuing materially false statements regarding the Company's
exposure to at least $18 million of Auction Rate Securities
("ARS").

     In January and February of 2008, auctions of ARS began to
fail, limiting the ability of holders to sell these securities.
Nevertheless, Perrigo had a reasonable expectation of redeeming
its $18 million in ARS until September 15, 2008 when Lehman
Brothers Holdings, Inc. ("Lehman"), the bank that underwrote and
sold the ARS to Perrigo, declared bankruptcy.

     On November 6, 2008, the beginning of the Class Period,
defendants reported the "fair value" of Perrigo's ARS as
$14,500,000, but concealed the impact of Lehman's bankruptcy on
Perrigo's ARS.  Then on February 3, 2009, defendants disclosed
that Lehman had underwritten and sold the ARS to Perrigo and
that the Company was writing off the entire value of its ARS,
wiping out over a third of Perrigo's earnings.  On this news,
Perrigo's stock price fell 18%.

     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


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Izard Nobel Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Updated 4:11 p.m. ET March 13, 2009 -- MarketWire --
HARTFORD, Conn. - 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 New Jersey on behalf of those who
acquired depositary shares of Prudential Financial, Inc.
("Prudential" or the "Company") 9% Junior Subordinated Notes
(NYSE: PHR) pursuant and/or traceable to a registration
statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration
Statement") issued in connection with Prudential's June 2008
initial public offering of the Securities (the "Offering").

     The Complaint charges that Prudential and certain of its
officers, directors, offering underwriters and its auditor
violated federal securities laws.

     Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants issued
a materially false and misleading Registration Statement in
connection with the Offering.

     According to the complaint, the true facts which were
omitted from the Registration Statement were:

       -- the Company's asset-backed securities collateralized
          with subprime mortgages were impaired to a greater
          extent than the Company had disclosed;

       -- the Company's goodwill associated with certain of its
          subsidiaries was impaired to a greater extent than
          Prudential had disclosed;

       -- defendants failed to properly record losses for
          impaired assets; and

       -- the Company's internal controls were inadequate to
          prevent the Company from improperly reporting its
          impaired assets.

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/prudentialfinancial/


                            *********

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  * * *