CAR_Public/090521.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, May 21, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 99

                           Headlines

AKEENA SOLAR: Investor Files Securities Fraud Suit in California
ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Aug. 31 Hearing Set For HDCP Suit Settlement
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Calif. Judge Denies Dismissal Bid v. MDL
GREAT SOUTHERN: Faces AU$30M Investor Litigation in Australia
OLIVE GARDEN: Settles Ill. Lawsuit Alleging FACTA Violations

IMMUCOR INC: Faces N.J. Price-Fixing Lawsuit Over Blood Reagents
INTERNATIONAL CREATIVE: Canadian Files Rape Suit in California
LINCARE INC: California Appellate Court Revives Overtime Lawsuit
MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Amended Complaint Filed in Ariz. Lawsuit
NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: June 23 Hearing Set For Ohio Settlement

NATIONWIDE PROPERTY: Faces Policyholders' Litigation in Ohio
NAVISITE INC: Md. Court Give Final OK to $1.67M Suit Settlement
PEP BOYS: July 17, 2009 Hearing Set for "Berger" Suit Settlement
POPULAR INC: Investor Files Securities Fraud Litigation in P.R.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Certiorari Granted in "Romero" Suit in Feb.

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Discovery Ongoing in Suit for FLSA Violations
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: ETS Suit Still Stayed Pending "Scott" Appeal
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Faces Amended Complaint in "Cleary" Action
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Reports No Activity in "Jones" Suit in Mo.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Smith" Price Fixing Suit Still in Discovery

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still Faces "Stewart" Suit Over Cigarette Ad
SEQUENOM INC: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in California
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Judge Orders Revision of Investors' Lawsuit
YTB INT'L: June 1 Hearing Set For Ill. Suit by Former Customers


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

NORTEL CORP: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Lawsuit v. Former Execs
SEQUENOM INC: Charles Johnson Announces Securities Suit Filing


                           *********

AKEENA SOLAR: Investor Files Securities Fraud Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor in Akeena Solar, Inc. shares, on May 18, 2009,
filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against
Akeena Solar, Inc. over alleged violations of Federal Securities
Laws.

     According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that
Akeena Solar, Inc. and certain of its officers violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing between December 26,
2007 and March 13, 2008 materially false and misleading
statements regarding Akeena Solar's sales, financial performance
and condition.

     Then Akeena Solar made a series of negative disclosures to
the market, so the lawsuit: Akeena revealed that the credit-line
increase announced on Dec. 26, 2007, contained a cash collateral
requirement equaling the amount of the extension.

     Then Akeena Solar reported that its 4Q 2007 sales had
significantly missed the sales "backlog" Akeena confirmed
existed at the end of its 3Q 2007.

     And then on March 13, 2008, Akeena finally revealed that
actual losses incurred in its 4Q 2007, which had already ended
on Dec. 31, 2007, were significantly higher.  Its newly-
appointed Chief Financial Officer also revealed that his
predecessor had been booking as "backlog" every new installation
contract, regardless of whether the customer intended to take
delivery within six months or the status of the customer's
financing.  As a result of these disclosures, Akeena's common
stock, which had traded as high as $16.80 on Jan. 7, 2008, fell
to $6.15 per share on March 13, 2008.


ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Aug. 31 Hearing Set For HDCP Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
will hold a fairness hearing on Aug. 31, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. for
the proposed settlement in the matter, "In re ATI Tech. HDCP
Litigation, Case No. 5:06-CV-01303-JW."

The suit was filed against ATI Technologies, Inc. (now known as
ATI Technologies ULC), ATI Technologies Systems Corp., ATI
Research Silicon Valley Inc., and ATI Research, Inc.

The plaintiffs claim that certain graphics cards were marketed
as "HDCP ready," "HDCP compliant," or "HDCP capable," or
otherwise conforming to High-bandwidth Digital Content
Protection (HDCP) specifications for the transmission of HDCP
content, when they were not.

Initially, on February and March 2006, two consumer class-action
lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against ATI and three of its subsidiaries
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 23, 2009).

The complaint allege that ATI had misrepresented its graphics
cards as being "HDCP ready" and on that basis alleged violations
of state consumer protection statutes, breach of express and
implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust
enrichment.

On April 18, 2006, the court entered an order consolidating the
two actions.

On June 19, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint,
alleging violations of California's consumer protection laws,
breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment.

On June 21, 2006, a third consumer class-action lawsuit that was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee in May 2006, alleging claims that are substantially
the same was transferred to the Northern District of California.
On July 31, 2006, that case was also consolidated into the
consolidated action pending in the Northern District of
California, according to a Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission dated Jan. 9, 2009 by
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., the parent company of ATI
Technologies, Inc.

The settlement covers anyone who -- while residing in the United
States -- purchased for their own personal use and not for
resale an ATI graphics card (that means a card built by or for
ATI, not by or for another company such as Asus, Diamond,
Gigabyte, Palit, Sapphire, or VisionTek) from one of the
following series: Radeon(R) 9550; Radeon(R) 9800; Radeon(R)
x700; Radeon(R) x800; Radeon(R) x850; Radeon(R) x1300; Radeon(R)
x1600; Radeon(R) x1800; Radeon(R) x1900; All-in-Wonder(R) 9800;
All-in-Wonder(R) 2006; All-in-Wonder(R) x600; All-in-Wonder(R)
x800; All-in-Wonder(R) x1800; All-in-Wonder(R) x1900; or any
FireGL(R) or FireMV(R) series of graphics cards.  Those who will
qaulify for the settlement must have made their purchase during
the period from Jan. 1, 2003 to March 31, 2006.

For more details, contact:

          ATI HDCP Notice and Claims Administrator
          P.O. Box 6177
          Novato, CA 94948-6177
          Phone: 1-888-309-9567
          Web site: http://www.aticlassaction.com/

          KamberEdelson, LLC
          350 North LaSalle Street
          Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Phone: (312) 589-6370
          Fax: (312) 589-6378
          Web site: http://www.kamberedelson.com

               - and -

          Parisi & Havens LLP
          15233 Valleyheart Drive
          Sherman Oaks, California 91403
          Phone: (818) 990-1299
          Fax: (818) 501-7852
          Web site: http://www.parisihavens.com/


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Calif. Judge Denies Dismissal Bid v. MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The federal judge overseeing the multidistrict litigation
accusing Countrywide Financial Corp. of steering borrowers to
subprime mortgages in order to maximize profits, defrauding
borrowers and violating state competition law, has mostly
refused to dismiss a consolidated class-action complaint against
the lender, the Law360 reports.

On May 18, 2009, Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California denied most of
Countrywide's partial motion to dismiss the complaint, according
to the Law360 report.


GREAT SOUTHERN: Faces AU$30M Investor Litigation in Australia
-------------------------------------------------------------
Great Southern Ltd., the managed investment scheme company that
recently collapsed is facing a potential AU$30 million class-
action lawsuit, according to a Stock & Land report.

According to The Australian Financial Review, Dennis & Company
is representing 600 investors who invested an average of $50,000
in one of Great Southern's cattle schemes between 2006 and 2007.

Company principal Bruce Dennis told AFR that the investors had
had their interests compulsorily acquired and transferred into
shares.  At the same time, loans, many of which were provided by
Great Southern Finance, were called in.

"These investors are stuck with loans and no underlying assets,"
Mr. Dennis tells AFR.

Mr. Dennis stated that the potential lawsuit revolved around
representations by Great Southern, which told investors it had
the "financial wherewithal to keep the projects going" but at
the same time knew it had to convert the project into shares to
stay in business.


OLIVE GARDEN: Settles Ill. Lawsuit Alleging FACTA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Olive Garden, a restaurant concept owned and operated by Darden
Restaurants, Inc., is settling a federal lawsuit over credit
card privacy, Sandra Pedicini of The Associated Press reports.

The settlement has already received preliminary approval from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
and a final hearing is set for July, according to the AP report.

It stems from a Class-action lawsuit filed in 2007, which
accused Olive Garden of printing the last six digits of
customers' credit card numbers on receipts.  The limit under the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act is five, reports The
Associated Press.

The lead plaintiff in the case was Mary Dudzienski of Illinois,
who was represented by Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., Esq.

Diners who used debit or credit cards between Dec. 4, 2006, and
Aug. 10, 2007, are eligible for the settlement, The Associated
Press reported.

For more details, contact:

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr.
          Chicago, Illinois
          Phone: 1-866-890-4862 or (312) 440-0020
          Fax: (312) 440-4180
          Web site: http://www.attorneyzim.com/


IMMUCOR INC: Faces N.J. Price-Fixing Lawsuit Over Blood Reagents
----------------------------------------------------------------
Immucor, Inc., Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc., and Johnson &
Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc. are facing a purported class-
action lawsuit that accuses them of conspiring to fix prices on
blood reagents and related medical equipment, The Courthouse
News Service reports.

The suit, entitled, "Warren General Hospital, et al. v. Immucor,
Inc., Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson
Health Care Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:33-av-00001," was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on May
18, 2009.

A reagent is a substance used to detect, measure, examine or
produce other substances. The defendants sell "hundreds of
millions of dollars worth of blood reagents" every year in the
United States, according to the Courthouse News Service report.

The class period began on Jan. 1, 2000, according to the
complaint, which was filed by Lisa Rodriguez, Esq. of Trujillo
Rodriguez & Richards, reports the Courthouse News Service.

A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3d12

For more details, contact:

          Lisa J. Rodriguez, Esq. (lisa@trrlaw.com)
          Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards, LLC
          258 Kings Highway East
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Phone: 856.795.9002
          Fax: 856.795.9887


INTERNATIONAL CREATIVE: Canadian Files Rape Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
International Creative Management (ICM) faces a purported class-
action lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court, according
to celebrity website TMZ.com.

Claire Robinson, the former Miss British Columbia 2004, claims
in her lawsuit that the talent agency promised her stardom but
instead -- she says she became the victim of a sexual assault.

Ms. Robinson, who suing for unspecified damages, claims that ICM
"hip-pocketed" her, a term used when a senior agent takes an
inexperienced actress without credits under his wing.  The suit
claims the agency "sexually exploited the 'hip-pocketed'
actresses" they brought in, TMZ reports.

According to the suit, Ms. Robinson was "sexually battered in an
ICM limousine en route to a Paramount Studio event."  It goes on
..."Robinson was later raped by another co-conspirator."

Ms. Robinson's attorney Perry Wander tells TMZ, "This case was
filed as a class action because Ms. Robinson has since learned
that this scheme has ensnared other actresses who were 'hip-
pocketed' by ICM and sexually exploited."


LINCARE INC: California Appellate Court Revives Overtime Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A California appellate court recently revived, "Gomez v. Lincare
Inc.," an overtime class-action suit brought by on-call workers
of the in-home respiratory services provider, Tresa Baldas of
The National Law Journal reports.

In the suit, employees allege that they deserve compensation for
the time spent on call dealing with customer questions by phone,
as well as for time spent on call but not handling customer
inquiries, according to The National Law Journal report.


MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Amended Complaint Filed in Ariz. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A legal battle launched against Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. in
2008 has expanded with the filing of a consolidated amended
complaint, which merges proposed class-action claims from a slew
of investors that accuse the dermatological-drug maker and
several of its executives of overstating profits for more than
four years, the Law360 reports.

The latest version of the complaint was filed on May 18, 2009 in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, according
to the Law360 report.

In 2008, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed against the
company and certain officers of the company on behalf of
purchasers of Medicis' common stock during the period from Oct.
30, 2003 to Sept. 23, 2008, both dates inclusive (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 17, 2008).

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court, District of
Arizona for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results.  Specifically,
defendants overstated the Company's revenues and earnings by
failing to properly account for returns in accordance with
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).

The complaint specifically alleges that on Sept. 24, 2008, the
company announced that its Audit Committee concluded that the
company's financial statements for fiscal years 2003 through
2007 and the first and second quarters of 2008, would need to be
restated due to improper return reserve calculations.  Medicis
admitted that it had improperly "accrued returns at replacement
cost rather than deferring the gross sales price," and that it
would have to revise "its reserve calculations to defer the
gross sales value of the returned product."

On this news, Medicis' stock dropped $2.34 per share to close at
$15.58 per share, a one-day decline of 13%.  As a result of the
challenged statements Medicis' common stock traded at
artificially inflated prices throughout the class period,
resulting in damage to class members who had purchased at prices
inflated by defendants' materially false and misleading
statements.


NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: June 23 Hearing Set For Ohio Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio will
hold a fairness hearing on June 23, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. for the
proposed settlement in the matter, "In Re Nationwide Financial
Services Litigation, Case No. 2:08-cv-249."

Previously, the Class Action Reporter reported that Nationwide
Financial Services, Inc. is awaiting approval of a tentative
settlement in several purported class-action lawsuits brought by
Nationwide Financial Services Inc. shareholders against NFS;
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.; Nationwide Mutual Fire
Insurance Co.; Nationwide Corp.; and the directors of NFS (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 2, 2009).

The memorandum of understanding is still conditioned upon the
plaintiffs receiving satisfactory confirmatory discovery and
upon court approval of the proposed settlement.

The lawsuits arose following the announcement of the joint offer
by NMIC, NMFIC and Nationwide Corp. to acquire all of the
outstanding shares of NFS' Class A common stock.

The lawsuits are pending in multiple jurisdictions and allege
that the offer price was inadequate, that the process for
reviewing the offer was procedurally unfair and that the
defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to the holders
of the NFS Class A common stock.


On Aug. 6, 2008, NFS and NMIC, NMFIC and Nationwide Corp.
announced that they had entered into a definitive agreement for
the acquisition of all of the outstanding shares of NFS' Class A
common stock for $52.25 per share by Nationwide Corp, subject to
the satisfaction of specific closing conditions.

Simultaneously, the plaintiffs and defendants entered into a
memorandum of understanding for the settlement of these
lawsuits. The memorandum of understanding provides, among other
things, for the settlement of the lawsuits and release of the
defendants and, in exchange for the release and without
admitting any wrongdoing, defendant NMIC shall acknowledge that
the pending lawsuits were a factor, among others, that led it to
offer an increased share price in the transaction.

NMIC shall agree to pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and the
costs of notifying the class members of the settlement.

For more details, contact:

          Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq. (jgolan@barrack.com)
          Barrack, Rodos & Bacine
          3300 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215-963-0600
          Fax: 215-963-0838

               - and -

          NFS Notice Administrator
          c/o Administar Services Group, LLC
          P.O. Box 24389
          Jacksonville, FL 32241-4389
          Fax: (904) 807-3030
          e-mail: NFSNoticeAdministrator@AdministarLLC.com


NATIONWIDE PROPERTY: Faces Policyholders' Litigation in Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Co. faces a purported
class-action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio entitled, "Shannon Van Horn, et al. v.
Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Company, et al.,
Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-605."

The lawsuit is about whether Nationwide breached the contract
with its policyholders by prematurely terminating the car rental
benefits that it owed its policyholders when it makes an "offer"
to settle its automobile policyholders' total loss claims.

The plaintiffs assert that the insurance policy endorsements
that Nationwide issued to plaintiffs and the class do not permit
an early termination at the time that an "offer" to settle is
made.

The litigation covers anyone who was insured by Nationwide
Property between Oct. 2, 1993 and Feb. 10, 2009.

A copy of the complaint can be obtained free of charge at

              http://nationwideclassaction.com/

For more details, contact:

          Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
          Richard L. Kellner, Esq.
          Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, California 90017
          Phone: (213) 217-5000
          Fax: (213) 217-5010
          Web site: http://www.kbklawyers.com

          Austin Tighe, Esq.
          Feazell & Tighe LLP
          6300 Bridgepoint Parkway, Suite 220
          Austin, Texas 78730
          Phone: (512) 372-8100
          Fax: (512) 372-8140
          Web site: http://www.feazell-tighe.com

               - and -

          Alberto R. Nestico, Esq.
          Kisling, Nestico & Redick LLC
          3200 W. Market Street, Suite 300
          Akron, Ohio 44333
          Phone: (330) 869-9007
          Fax: (330) 869-9008
          Web site: http://www.knrlegal.com


NAVISITE INC: Md. Court Give Final OK to $1.67M Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland gave final
approval to the proposed $1.67 million settlement in the matter,
"Pam Kagan Marketing, Inc. v. Navisite, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:2007-cv-03094," Brendan Kearney of The Maryland Daily Record
reports.

On Nov. 17, 2007, NaviSite, Inc., pursuant to its integration
plans, closed the former Alabanza LLC data center in Baltimore,
Maryland, and moved all equipment to its data center in Andover,
Massachusetts.  This allegedly caused a service outage (Class
Action Reporter, June 27, 2008).

In that same month, the company was served notice of a plaintiff
seeking a class status for the customers affected by the service
outage.  The total damages claimed approximately $5.0 million.

In January 2008, the company was served notice of another
plaintiff seeking a class status for the customers affected by
the service outage.  The purported class includes Alabanza
direct customers and entities that purchased hosting services
from those direct customers.  The total damages claimed
approximate $10.0 million.

On May 21, 2008, the Court issued an order consolidating the two
cases in the federal district court in Maryland, according to
the company's June 23, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April
30, 2008.

The deal is between the Web-hosting company and more than 5,500
of its clients who experienced long service interruptions.  It
will actually cover business and personal Web site owners and
larger resellers of server space from all over the world.

For more details, contact:

          James L. Davidson, Esq. (jdavidson@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins LLP
          120 E. Palmetto Park Rd Ste 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432-4809
          Phone: 15617503000
          Fax: 15617503364

               - and -

          Patrick C. Smith, Esq. (psmith@powersfrost.com)
          Powers and Frost LLP
          502 Washington Ave Ste 200
          Nottingham Center
          Towson, MD 21204
          Phone: 14432799700
          Fax: 14432799704


PEP BOYS: July 17, 2009 Hearing Set for "Berger" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles will hold a fairness hearing on July 17, 2009 at 9:00
a.m. for the proposed settlement in the matter, "Steven Berger,
et al. v. Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack of California, Case No. BC
384171."

The hearing will be held in Department 39 of the Superior Court
for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Stanley Mosk
Courthouse, Department 39, located at 111 North Hill Street, Los
Angeles, California 90012.

On Jan. 23, 2008, plaintiff Steven Berger filed a lawsuit
against Pep Boys alleging that Pep Boys improperly collected
retail sales tax reimbursements on goods subject to mail-in
rebates that were funded by Pep Boys.  Plaintiff alleged that
this conduct violated California law.

Pep Boys, asserts that it remitted all sales tax reimbursements
collected at the point of sale to the California State Board of
Equalization.

The Court has not ruled, one way or the other, on the
correctness of plaintiff's claim.  Instead, both sides agreed to
a settlement in principle.

On April 21, 2009, the parties entered into a formal, written
Settlement Agreement, which is on file with the Court.

Under the settlement agreement, the court decided that everyone
who fits this description is a Class Member: All persons who,
from Jan. 23, 2005 through Aug. 31, 2008, (1) purchased a good
at a California Pep Boys' store that was at the time of purchase
the subject of a Pep Boys-funded mail-in rebate offer, (2) paid
sales tax reimbursement on the full purchase price of the good
at the point of sale, (3) properly submitted a rebate form, and
(4) received a rebate that did not include an additional amount
for the sales tax reimbursement collected on the face amount of
the rebate.

For more details, contact:

          2049 Century Park East
          Suite 2150
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3123
          Phone: (310) 461-1200
          Fax: (310) 461-1201
          Web site: http://www.kallawgroup.com

               - and -

          Settlement Administrator
          Phone: 1-800-737-2697
          Web site: http://www.bergerlawsuit.com/


POPULAR INC: Investor Files Securities Fraud Litigation in P.R.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor in Popular, Inc. (Public, NASDAQ:BPOP) has
filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on behalf
of purchasers of the securities of Popular, Inc. between January
23, 2008 and January 22, 2009 against Popular, Inc and certain
of its officers over alleged violations of Federal Securities
Laws.

     According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that
Popular, Inc and certain of its officers violated the Exchange
Act by failing to disclose between January 23, 2008 and January
22, 2009 material adverse facts about Popular's true financial
condition, business and prospects.  Then on January 22, 2009,
Popular announced its financial results for the fourth quarter
and year end of 2008, the period ended December 31, 2008.  For
the quarter, the Company reported a net loss of $702.9 million,
citing to a higher provision for loan losses, among other
things.  In response to this announcement, shares of Popular's
common stock fell $2.52 per share, or 50%, to close at $ 2.46
per share, on heavy trading volume.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Certiorari Granted in "Romero" Suit in Feb.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico, in February 2009,
granted the petition of writ of certiorari filed by Reynolds
American, Inc.'s subsidiary, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., in the
class-action suit styled, "Romero v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc."

The case was filed in April 2000 in District Court, Rio Arriba
County, New Mexico, against major U.S. cigarette manufacturers,
including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Brown & Williamson
Holdings, Inc., and parent companies of U.S. Cigarette
manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc.

The court granted class certification on May 14, 2003, in the
action, which seeks to recover an amount not to exceed $74,000
per class member in actual and punitive damages, exclusive of
interest and costs.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired to fix,
raise, advance and/or stabilize prices for cigarettes in the
State of New Mexico from at least as early as Jan. 1, 1998,
through the present.

On June 30, 2006, the court granted the defendants' motion for
summary judgment.

On Nov. 18, 2008, the New Mexico Court of Appeals reversed the
grant of summary judgment in favor of RJR Tobacco, B&W and
Philip Morris.

On Jan. 7, 2009, RJR Tobacco filed a petition of writ of
certiorari with the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico.

On Feb. 27, 2009, the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico
granted that petition, according to the company's May 1, 2009
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is a holding company.  It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco
and Conwood.  RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane,
Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co.,
LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC,
which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies.
The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.  The Conwood segment consists of the
Conwood companies and Lane.  RAI's wholly owned operating
subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All
Other.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Discovery Ongoing in Suit for FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
A collective action complaint against Reynolds American, Inc.
subsidiary, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., alleging violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is still in the discovery
phase.

On March 19, 2007, in "Marshall v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,"
the plaintiff filed a collective action complaint against RJR
Tobacco in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri.

The allegations include failure to keep accurate records of all
hours worked by RJR Tobacco's employees and failure to pay wages
and overtime compensation to non-exempt retail representatives.

The total number of current or former retail representatives
participating is 469, including those who have opted in the
Marshall case and subsequent lawsuits filed in New York and
California.

Two new cases alleging violations of the FLSA and other state
law wage and hour claims were filed in February 2008:

   -- Radcliffe v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., filed on Feb. 14,
      2008, in federal court in California, was served on May 9,
      2008; and

   -- Dinino v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., filed on Feb. 29,
      2008, in federal court in New York, served on April 18,
      2008.

The Dinino and Radcliffe matters have been transferred to the
Missouri court in conjunction with the already pending Marshall
case due to the similarity of issues to be resolved.  The
plaintiffs in the Dinino and Radcliffe matters failed to move
for class certification on the state law claims.

On Dec. 22, 2008, RJR Tobacco's motion for partial summary
judgment was granted.  The court ruled that the plaintiffs'
commutes from their homes to their first assignment of the day,
and their commutes from their last assignments of the day to
their homes, are non-compensable.

On Feb. 5, 2009, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration on this issue or, in the alternative,
plaintiffs' request for certification for interlocutory appeal.

The consolidated case is still in the discovery phase.  Two
mediation sessions were held in the first quarter of 2009, but
the parties were unable to reach a resolution, according to the
company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is a holding company.  It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco
and Conwood.  RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane,
Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co.,
LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC,
which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies.
The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.  The Conwood segment consists of the
Conwood companies and Lane.  RAI's wholly owned operating
subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All
Other.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: ETS Suit Still Stayed Pending "Scott" Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class-action suit styled, "Young v. American Tobacco Co.,
Inc.," which names Reynolds American, Inc.'s subsidiary, R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company, as a defendant, remains stayed pending
the outcome of the appeal in the case tagged "Scott v. American
Tobacco Co., Inc."

The ETS class-action lawsuit was filed against U.S. Cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson
Holdings, Inc., and parent companies of U.S. Cigarette
manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc.

The "Young" case filed in November 1997, in Circuit Court,
Orleans Parish, Louisiana, is an ETS class action on behalf of
all residents of Louisiana who, though not themselves cigarette
smokers, have been exposed to secondhand smoke from cigarettes
which were manufactured by the defendants, and who allegedly
suffered injury as a result of that exposure.

The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of
compensatory and punitive damages.

On Oct. 13, 2004, the trial court stayed this case pending the
outcome of the appeal in Scott v. American Tobacco Co., Inc.,
according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2009.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is a holding company.  It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco
and Conwood.  RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane,
Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co.,
LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC,
which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies.
The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.  The Conwood segment consists of the
Conwood companies and Lane.  RAI's wholly owned operating
subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All
Other.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Faces Amended Complaint in "Cleary" Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American, Inc.'s subsidiary, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
faces an amended complaint in the class-action lawsuit styled,
"Cleary v. Philip Morris, Inc."

In the case filed in June 1998, and pending in Circuit Court,
Cook County, Illinois, the plaintiffs filed their motion for
class certification on Dec. 21, 2001, in an action brought
against major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR
Tobacco and Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.

The case is brought on behalf of persons who have allegedly been
injured by:

   (1) the defendants' purported conspiracy pursuant to which
       defendants concealed material facts regarding the
       addictive nature of nicotine,

   (2) the defendants' alleged acts of targeting its advertising
       and marketing to minors, and

   (3) the defendants' claimed breach of the public right to
       defendants' compliance with the laws prohibiting the
       distribution of cigarettes to minors.

The plaintiffs request that the defendants be required to
disgorge all profits unjustly received through its sale of
cigarettes to plaintiffs and the class, which in no event will
be greater than $75,000 per each class member, inclusive of
punitive damages, interest and costs.

On March 27, 2006, the court dismissed count V, public nuisance,
and count VI, unjust enrichment.

On July 11, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 3, 2009, to
add a claim of unjust enrichment and to include in the class
individuals who smoked "light" cigarettes.  On March 13, 2009,
the defendants filed a notice of removal to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois. RJR Tobacco and B&W
answered the amended complaint on March 31, 2009.  The
plaintiffs filed a motion to remand back to the Circuit Court of
Cook County on April 13, 2009.

On April 17, 2009, plaintiffs in several pending "lights" cases
filed a motion before the Federal Panel on Multi-District
Litigation to transfer and consolidate eleven "lights" cases for
pretrial proceedings.  Among the cases sought to be consolidated
were Schwab and Cleary, as well as nine additional cases
currently pending against Philip Morris. Plaintiffs also
requested that the actions all be transferred to Judge Jack
Weinstein of the Eastern District of New York, according to the
company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is a holding company.  It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco
and Conwood.  RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane,
Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co.,
LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC,
which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies.
The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.  The Conwood segment consists of the
Conwood companies and Lane.  RAI's wholly owned operating
subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All
Other.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Reports No Activity in "Jones" Suit in Mo.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class-action lawsuit captioned, "Jones v. American Tobacco
Co., Inc.," which names several Reynolds American, Inc. entities
as defendants, is proceeding in the Circuit Court, Jackson
County, Missouri.

The case was originally filed in December 1998, in Circuit
Court, Jackson County, Missouri, the defendants removed the case
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri
on Feb. 16, 1999.

The action was brought against the major U.S. Cigarette
manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Brown
& Williamson Holdings, Inc., and parent companies of U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Holdings, Inc., on behalf of tobacco product users and
purchasers on behalf of all similarly situated Missouri
consumers.

The plaintiffs allege that their use of the defendants' tobacco
products has caused them to become addicted to nicotine.

The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of
compensatory and punitive damages.

The case was remanded to the Circuit Court on Feb. 17, 1999.

There has been limited activity in this case, according to the
company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is a holding company.  It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco
and Conwood.  RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane,
Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co.,
LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC,
which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies.
The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.  The Conwood segment consists of the
Conwood companies and Lane.  RAI's wholly owned operating
subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All
Other.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Smith" Price Fixing Suit Still in Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery continues in the class-action case styled, "Smith v.
Philip Morris Cos., Inc.," according to Reynolds American,
Inc.'s May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

The case was filed in February 2000, in the District Court,
Seward County, Kansas, against the major U.S. Cigarette
manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Brown
& Williamson Holdings, Inc., and parent companies of U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Holdings, Inc.

The court granted class certification on Nov. 15, 2001, in the
action seeking to recover an unspecified amount in actual and
punitive damages.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants participated in a
conspiracy to fix or maintain the price of cigarettes sold in
the United States.

The parties are currently engaged in discovery.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is a holding company.  It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco
and Conwood.  RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane,
Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co.,
LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC,
which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies.
The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.  The Conwood segment consists of the
Conwood companies and Lane.  RAI's wholly owned operating
subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All
Other.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Still Faces "Stewart" Suit Over Cigarette Ad
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class-action case styled, "Stewart v. RJR Tobacco," which
names Reynolds American, Inc.'s subsidiary, R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co., as a defendant, is still in a preliminary phase.

In December 2007, nine states (California, Connecticut,
Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and
Washington) sued RJR Tobacco claiming that an advertisement
published in a magazine the prior month violated the Master
Settlement Agreement's ban on the use of cartoons.  The states
asserted that the magazine's content adjacent to a Camel
gatefold advertisement included cartoon images prohibited by the
MSA and that certain images used in the Camel ad itself were
prohibited cartoons.

In Stewart v. RJR Tobacco, a class-action filed in California
state court against the magazine's publisher, Wenner Media, and
RJR Tobacco claiming the mention of bands in the magazine-
created content violated their right of publicity.  The
plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages.

The case is still in a preliminary phase, according to the
company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is a holding company.  It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco
and Conwood.  RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane,
Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co.,
LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC,
which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies.
The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.  The Conwood segment consists of the
Conwood companies and Lane.  RAI's wholly owned operating
subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All
Other.


SEQUENOM INC: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
     Sequenom, Inc. said that on April 30, 2009, a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California against the company.

     The complaint alleges violations of federal securities
laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.  The class period is
from June 4, 2008 through April 29, 2009.  Plaintiff seeks to
recover damages on behalf of the Class.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Judge Orders Revision of Investors' Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington rejected portions of a class-
action lawsuit brought by Washington Mutual investors, calling
it a "verbose and disordered" argument that failed to identify
specific claims of fraud against the failed bank's officers, The
Seattle Times reports.

The 470-page suit, notable for its citations from 89
"confidential witnesses," alleged that WaMu's officers and
directors, as well as investment banks involved in several
securities offerings, misrepresented the company's financial
results, secretly undermined its risk-management policies,
corrupted its appraisal process and abandoned appropriate
underwriting standards for home loans, according to the Seattle
Times report.

In a 33-page ruling issued on May 15, 2009, Judge Pechman, told
lawyers for the investor plaintiffs that they must revise and
resubmit their claims of securities fraud against former WaMu
chief executive Kerry Killinger, six other officers and the
company's board of directors, The Seattle Times reported.

According to the judge, the investors' filings "fail to organize
and identify the allegations supporting securities fraud as to
each defendant ... and appear to include numerous irrelevant
allegations."  Even after they followed up with a 150-page brief
and oral arguments, Judge Pechman added, "the court remains
mystified at (plaintiffs) counsel's failure to allege cohesive
claims," reports the Seattle Times.

Bradley S. Keller, Esq. of Byrnes & Keller LLP is the lead
attorney for the plaintiffs.  Rob Pfister, Esq. of Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett in Los Angeles is one of several attorneys
representing the former WaMu officers other than Mr. Killinger.

For more details, contact:

          Bradley S. Keller, Esq.
          Byrnes & Keller LLP
          1000 Second Avenue
          38th Floor
          Seattle, WA 98104-1094
          Phone: (206) 622-2000
          Fax: (206) 622-2522
          Web site: http://www.byrneskeller.com/


YTB INT'L: June 1 Hearing Set For Ill. Suit by Former Customers
---------------------------------------------------------------
A June 1, 2009 hearing is set for a motion that sought for the
dismissal of a purported class-action lawsuit filed against YTB
International, Inc. a.k.a. YourTravelBiz by former customers,
Elizabeth Donald of Belleville News Democrat reports.

Jonathan Quinn, Esq. an attorney for YourTravelBiz, of the Reed
Smith law firm in Chicago, said a hearing will be held June 1,
2009 in the class-action suit on a motion to dismiss, according
to the Belleville News Democrat report.

The class-action suit, filed last year on behalf of more than
1,000 people who participated in the YTB system, seeks more than
$100 million in damages, reports the Belleville News Democrat.

MSN Money previously reported that former agents of YTB filed a
the class-action lawsuit against the company, alleging it is an
illegal pyramid scheme (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 18, 2008).

MSN cites the company as saying in a filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that it intends to defend the
case vigorously.

The MSN report recounts that a suit was filed on Aug. 4, 2008,
by California Attorney General Jerry Brown Jr. against YTB and
the company's founders, Lloyd Tomer, Scott Tomer, Kim Sorensen
and Andrew Cauthen, for allegedly operating an illegal pyramid
scheme.  The lawsuit seeks $15 million in fines and restitution.

More than 90 people over the past three years have complained
about YourTravelBiz.com to the Better Business Bureau of eastern
Missouri and southern Illinois.  More than 40 of those
complaints were lodged this year, the BBB said.

Earlier this month, thousands of agents attended a national
convention in St. Louis, where they defended the company as
legitimate, MSN notes.

  
                   New Securities Fraud Cases

NORTEL CORP: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Lawsuit v. Former Execs
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of Nortel Corp. (NYSE:NTL) between May 2, 2008
and September 17, 2008, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

     Nortel is not named in this action as a defendant because
it and its core operating subsidiaries filed for bankruptcy
protection in January 2009.

     The complaint charges certain of Nortel's former executives
with violations of the Exchange Act.

     Nortel supplies end-to-end networking products and
solutions that help organizations enhance and simplify
communications.

     The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's true financial condition, business and prospects.

     Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed
to disclose the following adverse facts, among others:

       -- that demand for the Company's products was declining
          as carriers cut back their capital expenditures and
          other customers deferred purchase decisions;

       -- that the Company's financial results were materially
          overstated as the Company was failing to properly
          write down its goodwill;

       -- that the Company's restructuring was not meeting with
          success as the Company was struggling to cut costs and
          improve profitability; and

       -- as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
          reasonable basis for their positive statements about
          the Company, its business, operations, earnings and
          prospects.

     On September 17, 2008, Nortel issued a press release
announcing its "preliminary view on certain third quarter
results."  The Company also announced that it was engaging in a
"comprehensive review" of Nortel's business and that "planning"
was "underway for further restructuring and other cost reduction
initiatives."  In response to the Company's announcement, the
price of Nortel stock declined from $5.30 per share to $2.68, on
heavy trading volume.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Nortel securities during the Class Period.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before July 19, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Samuel H. Rudman
          David A. Rosenfel, Esq. (ddjr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900
          Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/nortelcorp/


SEQUENOM INC: Charles Johnson Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Charles H. Johnson & Associates announces that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California on behalf of purchasers
of Sequenom, Inc. (SQNM) publicly traded securities during the
period June 4, 2008 through April 29, 2009.

     The Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose
that Sequenom employees mishandled test data and results
regarding a Down syndrome test.  As a result of Defendants'
false and misleading statements, Sequenom stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a
high of $27.76 per share on September 24, 2008.  This inflated
stock price permitted Sequenom to raise $92 million in a
secondary stock offering in July 2008, acquire a diagnostic
company for fewer shares of Sequenom stock than would have been
necessary absent the inflation, and commence a tender offer for
another company in an all-stock transaction.

     On April 29, 2009, after the market closed, the Company
issued a press release announcing that the expected launch of
its Down syndrome test would be delayed due to the discovery by
Company officials of employee mishandling of research and
development test data and results.  As a result, the Company
could no longer rely on the previously announced test data and
results.  On this news, Sequenom's stock collapsed, dropping
more than $11 per share to as low as $3.23 per share, a one-day
decline of more than 75%, on volume of more than 85 million
shares.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before June 30, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Neal Eisenbraun, Esq. (cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com)
          Charles H. Johnson & Associates
          2599 Mississippi Street
          New Brighton, MN 55112
          Phone: (651) 633-5685


                            *********

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  * * *