CAR_Public/090812.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, August 12, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 158
  
                           Headlines

AURORA LAS ENCINAS: Faces Lawsuit for Compromising Patient Care
BANK OF AMERICA: Pays $55M to Settle Suit Over Retirement Funds
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Deal in Suit Over Rest & Meal Periods Pending
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Faces Suit Seeking Penalties for Unpaid Wages
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Settlement of Calif. Minimum Wage Suit Pending

BJ'S RESTAURANTS: To Defend Suit by Gift Card Holders in Calif.
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: To Defend Wage & Overtime Pay Violations Suit
CONSECO INC: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York Court
FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Texas
GOOGLE INC: Media Exchange Weighs-In on Google Book Case

METLIFE INC: American Dental Assoc. Appeal Order in Suit v. MLIC
METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend "Market Rate" Tenants Lawsuit
METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend Sales Practices Litigation
METLIFE INC: Contract Breach Suits v. Medical Providers Pending
METLIFE INC: Judgment Motion in Consolidated State Suit Pending

METLIFE INC: Motion to Remand Brokerage Antitrust Suit Pending
METLIFE INC: Sales Practices Suit in Canada Dismissed Last March
METLIFE INC: Summary Judgment Motion Pending in "Thomas" Suit
METLIFE INC: Trial in Demutualization Suit to Start on Sept. 8
NETBANK INC: Lead Plaintiff Named in Ga. Securities Fraud Case

NORTHERN TRUST: N.Y. Court Grants Dismissal Bid in ARS Lawsuit
REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Texas
RHODE ISLAND: Advocate Appeals Dismissal of Foster Care Lawsuit
RIGEL PHARMA: Bids in Consolidated Securities Suit Due in Sept.
TYCO INT'L: Settles Consolidated ERISA Litigation for $70.5M

UNITED STATES: D.C. Court Revives Suit Over Telephone Excise Tax
VALERO ENERGY: Faces Calif. Suit Alleging it Underpays Employees

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

CONSECO INC: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing
CONSECO INC: Kendall Law Group Announces Securities Suit Filing
FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Federman & Sherwood Announces Lawsuit Filing

FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Kendall Law Group Announces Stock Suit Filing
HURON CONSULTING: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing
PROSHARES ULTRASHORT: Howard G. Smith Announces Lawsuit Filing
REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Emerson Poynter Files Securities Fraud Suit

                           *********

AURORA LAS ENCINAS: Faces Lawsuit for Compromising Patient Care
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aurora Las Encinas Hospital, a psychiatric hospital in Pasadena,
California, is facing a purported class-action lawsuit from
former nurses, who are claiming that it violated labor laws and
compromised patient care.

The employees claim the private psychiatric facility was
severely understaffed, which comprised patient care.  The former
employees told Eyewitness News that they worked past their
shifts with no overtime pay to finish their work obligations.  
The plaintiffs also claim the hospital told workers not to spend
time studying for mandatory exams, to avoid paying them
overtime.  They also say the answers were provided for the
exams.  In addition, the former workers allege unsanitary
conditions for employees.

The plaintiffs say their goal is to improve the quality of care
at Las Encinas.

A full-text copy of the Complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior
Court (Case No. BC419340) is available at:

     http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2009-08/48529736.pdf


BANK OF AMERICA: Pays $55M to Settle Suit Over Retirement Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corp. agreed to pay $55 million to settle claims
of former employees of Countrywide Financial Corp., who
contended that the home lender breached its obligation to manage
their retirement funds prudently, E. Scott Reckard of The Los
Angeles Times reports.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs said in a federal court filing on
Aug. 7, 2009, that the proposed settlement of a class-action
lawsuit "represents an excellent recovery" for the former
employees.  Before legal fees, it would provide about $1,000 for
each of the 55,000 employees Countrywide had at its peak.

The mortgage lender was running out of cash when it agreed last
year to be acquired by Bank of America, which is facing claims
accusing Countrywide and its former officers and directors of
embracing a hugely risky lending strategy while contending
publicly that the company was well run, according to the LA
Times.

The deal also settles the employees' retirement-related claims
against more than two dozen former Countrywide board members and
executives, including Chief Executive Angelo R. Mozilo and
President Stanford L. Kurland, the newspaper reported.

U.S. District Judge John F. Walter of Los Angeles, who must
approve the settlement for it to become final, scheduled a
fairness hearing for Aug. 24, 2009, writes Mr. Reckard.  The
lawsuit is entitled Vincent Alvidres v. Countrywide Financial
Corp., Case No. 07-05810.  


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Deal in Suit Over Rest & Meal Periods Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a former employee's purported class action
lawsuit against BJ's Restaurants, Inc., is pending final
approval from the Orange County, California, Superior Court.

On Feb. 16, 2006, a former employee filed a lawsuit in Orange
County, California, Superior Court, Case Number 06CC00030, on
behalf of herself and allegedly other employees, for alleged
failure to provide rest periods and meal periods and violation
of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200.

The company has answered the complaint, denying the allegations
and raising various additional defenses.

The parties met for mediation on a non-binding basis.

In May 2008, the parties agreed to settle this matter subject to
final approval from the court.  The court has given preliminary
approval of the settlement, according to the company's Aug. 4,
2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

BJ's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.bjsbrewhouse.com/-- owned  
and operated 55 restaurants located in California, Oregon,
Colorado, Arizona, Texas and Nevada, as of Jan. 2, 2007.  A
licensee also operates one restaurant in Lahaina, Maui.  Each of
the Company's restaurants is operated either as a BJ's
Restaurant & Brewery that includes a brewery within the
restaurant, a BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse that receives the beer
BJ's sells from one of its breweries or an approved third-party
craft brewer of its recipe beers (contract brewer), or a BJ's
Pizza & Grill, which is a smaller format, full-service
restaurant.  The Company's menu features the BJ's signature
deep-dish pizza, its own handcrafted beers, as well as a
selection of appetizers, entrees, pastas, sandwiches, specialty
salads and desserts, including the Pizookie cookie.  The
Company's 12 BJ's Restaurant & Brewery restaurants feature in-
house brewing facilities, where BJ's handcrafted beers are
produced and sold.


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Faces Suit Seeking Penalties for Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Restaurants, Inc., intends to defend a class action
complaint filed on Feb. 4, 2009, by an employee, on behalf of
himself and allegedly other employees.

The class action complaint filed in Fresno County, California,
Superior Court, Case Number 09 CE CG 00374DRF, was served on the
company in the second quarter of 2009.

The complaint alleges causes of action for failure to pay wages
for on-call time, for violation of California Business and
Professional Code section 17200, and for penalties for unpaid
wages.

The complaint also seeks a constructive trust on money found
unlawfully acquired, an injunction against failure to pay wages,
restitution, interest, attorney's fees and costs.

The company has not yet responded to the complaint, according to
its Aug. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

BJ's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.bjsbrewhouse.com/-- owned  
and operated 55 restaurants located in California, Oregon,
Colorado, Arizona, Texas and Nevada, as of Jan. 2, 2007.  A
licensee also operates one restaurant in Lahaina, Maui.  Each of
the Company's restaurants is operated either as a BJ's
Restaurant & Brewery that includes a brewery within the
restaurant, a BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse that receives the beer
BJ's sells from one of its breweries or an approved third-party
craft brewer of its recipe beers (contract brewer), or a BJ's
Pizza & Grill, which is a smaller format, full-service
restaurant. The Company's menu features the BJ's signature deep-
dish pizza, its own handcrafted beers, as well as a selection of
appetizers, entrees, pastas, sandwiches, specialty salads and
desserts, including the Pizookie cookie.  The Company's 12 BJ's
Restaurant & Brewery restaurants feature in-house brewing
facilities, where BJ's handcrafted beers are produced and sold.


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Settlement of Calif. Minimum Wage Suit Pending  
----------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement of a class action complaint against BJ's
Restaurants, Inc., Case Number BC310146, is pending approval.  

On Feb. 5, 2004, a former employee of the company, on behalf of
herself, and allegedly other employees, filed a class action
complaint in Los Angeles County, California Superior Court, and
on March 16, 2004, filed an amended complaint, alleging causes
of action for: (1) failure to pay reporting time minimum pay;
(2) failure to allow meal breaks; (3) failure to allow rest
breaks; (4) waiting time penalties; (5) civil penalties; (6)
reimbursement for fraud and deceit; (7) punitive damages for
fraud and deceit; and, (8) disgorgement of illicit profits.

On June 28, 2004, the plaintiff stipulated to the dismissal of
her second, third, fourth and fifth causes of action.

During September 2004, the plaintiff stipulated to binding
arbitration of the action.

On March 2, 2008, and on March 19, 2008, one of Plaintiff's
attorneys filed a notice with the California Labor and Workforce
Development Agency, alleging failure to keep adequate pay
records and to pay Plaintiff minimum wage.

To the company's knowledge, the Agency has not responded to
either of these notices.  

The parties met for mediation on a non-binding basis.

In November 2008, the parties agreed to settle this matter
subject to approval from the arbitrator and/or the court,
according to the company's Aug. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009.

BJ's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.bjsbrewhouse.com/-- owned  
and operated 55 restaurants located in California, Oregon,
Colorado, Arizona, Texas and Nevada, as of Jan. 2, 2007.  A
licensee also operates one restaurant in Lahaina, Maui.  Each of
the Company's restaurants is operated either as a BJ's
Restaurant & Brewery that includes a brewery within the
restaurant, a BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse that receives the beer
BJ's sells from one of its breweries or an approved third-party
craft brewer of its recipe beers (contract brewer), or a BJ's
Pizza & Grill, which is a smaller format, full-service
restaurant. The Company's menu features the BJ's signature deep-
dish pizza, its own handcrafted beers, as well as a selection of
appetizers, entrees, pastas, sandwiches, specialty salads and
desserts, including the Pizookie cookie.  The Company's 12 BJ's
Restaurant & Brewery restaurants feature in-house brewing
facilities, where BJ's handcrafted beers are produced and sold.


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: To Defend Suit by Gift Card Holders in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Restaurants, Inc., intends to defend a class action
complaint filed by Robert Cho, an individual, on behalf of
himself and allegedly other recipients or holders in California
of the company's gift cards.

On July 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint
in Los Angeles County, California, Superior Court, Case Number
BC417923, alleging causes of action for unlawful and deceptive
trade practices and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, for failing to redeem or replace a gift card and deducting
a dormancy fee, for violation of California Business and
Professions Code Section 17200 and for declaratory relief.

The complaint seeks restitution, an injunction against the
alleged unfair practices, and attorneys' fees.

The company has not yet responded to the complaint, according to
its Aug. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

BJ's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.bjsbrewhouse.com/-- owned  
and operated 55 restaurants located in California, Oregon,
Colorado, Arizona, Texas and Nevada, as of Jan. 2, 2007.  A
licensee also operates one restaurant in Lahaina, Maui.  Each of
the Company's restaurants is operated either as a BJ's
Restaurant & Brewery that includes a brewery within the
restaurant, a BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse that receives the beer
BJ's sells from one of its breweries or an approved third-party
craft brewer of its recipe beers (contract brewer), or a BJ's
Pizza & Grill, which is a smaller format, full-service
restaurant. The Company's menu features the BJ's signature deep-
dish pizza, its own handcrafted beers, as well as a selection of
appetizers, entrees, pastas, sandwiches, specialty salads and
desserts, including the Pizookie cookie.  The Company's 12 BJ's
Restaurant & Brewery restaurants feature in-house brewing
facilities, where BJ's handcrafted beers are produced and sold.


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: To Defend Wage & Overtime Pay Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Restaurants, Inc., intends to defend a class action
complaint filed by an employee on behalf of himself and
allegedly other employees.

On April 6, 2009, an employee filed the class action complaint
in Orange County, California, Superior Court, Case Number 30-
2009, 00259460.

The complaint alleges causes of action for failure to pay
plaintiff and other alleged class members regular wages and
overtime pay, failure to maintain the designated wage scale and
secret payment of lower wages, the greater of actual damages or
penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, and
restitution of wages and injunction for violation of California
Business and Professions Code Section 17200.

The complaint also seeks interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

The company has not yet responded to the complaint, according to
its Aug. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

BJ's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.bjsbrewhouse.com/-- owned  
and operated 55 restaurants located in California, Oregon,
Colorado, Arizona, Texas and Nevada, as of Jan. 2, 2007.  A
licensee also operates one restaurant in Lahaina, Maui.  Each of
the Company's restaurants is operated either as a BJ's
Restaurant & Brewery that includes a brewery within the
restaurant, a BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse that receives the beer
BJ's sells from one of its breweries or an approved third-party
craft brewer of its recipe beers (contract brewer), or a BJ's
Pizza & Grill, which is a smaller format, full-service
restaurant. The Company's menu features the BJ's signature deep-
dish pizza, its own handcrafted beers, as well as a selection of
appetizers, entrees, pastas, sandwiches, specialty salads and
desserts, including the Pizookie cookie.  The Company's 12 BJ's
Restaurant & Brewery restaurants feature in-house brewing
facilities, where BJ's handcrafted beers are produced and sold.


CONSECO INC: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor in Conseco, Inc. (NYSE: CNO) has filed a
proposed securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of company common stock during the period
from August 4, 2005, to March 17, 2008 against Conseco, Inc.,
and others.

     Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional
investor (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 10, 2009).

     The complaint charges Conseco and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  

     Conseco, through its subsidiaries, engages in the
development, marketing, and administration of supplemental
health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance, and other
insurance products for senior and middle-income markets in the
United States.

     The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period,
defendants issued numerous statements regarding the Company's
financial performance.  As alleged in the complaint, these
statements were materially false and misleading because
defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the
following adverse facts, among others:

       -- that the Company was reporting materially inaccurate
          revenue figures;

       -- that the Company's reported financial results were
          materially misstated and did not present the true
          operating performance of the Company;

       -- that the Company's shareholders' equity was materially
          overstated during the Class Period, including the
          overstatement of shareholders' equity by $20.6 million
          at December 31, 2006; and

       -- as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
          reasonable basis for their positive statements about
          the Company, its corporate governance practices, its
          prospects and earnings growth.

     On March 17, 2008, the Company disclosed that it did not
maintain effective controls over the accounting and disclosure
of insurance policy benefits and the liabilities for insurance
products and that it would therefore be restating its financial
results for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2006, along
with affected Selected Consolidated Financial Data for 2003 and
2004, and quarterly financial information for 2006 and the first
three quarters of 2007.

     In response to this announcement, shares of the Company's
stock fell $1.30 per share, or 12.9%, from a close of $10.06 per
share on March 14, 2008, the last trading date before the
announcement, to close at $8.76 per share, on extremely heavy
trading volume.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Conseco common stock during the Class Period.

For more details, contact:

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


FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor in Flotek Industries, Inc. (NYSE:FTK) has filed
a proposed securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

     Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in Texas on behalf of purchasers
of the common stock of Flotek Industries between May 8, 2007 and
January 23, 2008, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Class Action Reporter, Aug.
11, 2009).

     The complaint charges Flotek and certain of its executives
with violations of the Exchange Act.  Flotek supplies drilling
and production related products and services to the energy and
mining industries in the United States and internationally.  The
Company operates in three segments: Chemicals and Logistics,
Drilling Products, and Artificial Lift.

     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:

       -- the Company was experiencing weakness in its Rocky
          Mountain sales region due to its decision to not cut
          prices to the level of its competitors;

       -- the Company's operating profit margins were being
          negatively impacted as customers increasingly opted to
          rent equipment instead of purchasing it;

       -- sales in the Company's chemicals division were
          declining due to a decrease in fracing activity; and

       -- as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive
          statements concerning the Company's guidance and
          prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis at all
          relevant times.

     On October 31, 2007, Flotek announced its financial results
for the third quarter of 2007, the period ended September 30,
2007.  That same day, the Company held a conference call with
investors and analysts, during which it was revealed, among
other things, that all three of the Company's segments were
negatively affected by lower gas prices in the Rocky Mountains.  
In response to this announcement, the price of Flotek common
stock fell $14.35 per share, or 28%, to close at $36.45 per
share, on November 29, 2007, on heavy trading volume.
Defendants, however, continued to conceal the full extent of the
problems at the Company.

     Then, on January 23, 2008, Flotek announced that the
Company was revising its previously announced guidance for the
year ending December 31, 2007.  In response to this
announcement, the price of Flotek common stock fell $7.60 per
share, or 30%, to close at $17.86 per share, on January 24,
2008, on heavy trading volume.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Flotek common stock during the Class Period.

For more details, contact:

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


GOOGLE INC: Media Exchange Weighs-In on Google Book Case
--------------------------------------------------------
     Judge Denny Chin, of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, has granted the Media
Exchange Company Inc.'s application to file a memorandum
commenting on the settlement (objection) or an amicus curiae
(friend of the court) brief to The Google Book Case.  The Order
was handed down July 23, 2009.

     "We are delighted that Judge Chin has understood our
concern about owner's rights being ignored in the proposed
settlement of the Google Book Case and will allow our voice to
be heard before he rules," said James M. Yates, Chairman of the
Board.  "We hope that the Media Exchange Company's brief will
cause the parties to the case to voluntarily revise their
settlement."  Mr. Yates added that he has formed a Facebook
group called "Search My Books" in order to solicit individual
book owner's comments about the settlement issue.

     The Google Book Case is a class action lawsuit filed by
book authors and publishers against Google Inc. arguing that its
Library Project involved "massive copyright infringement" by
creating digital copies of copyrighted works for commercial use.

     The Media Exchange Company Inc. is the operator of an
interactive beta web site based on a patent-pending technology
that makes it easier for owners of books, videos, and music to
enjoy their full rights of possession (The Digital Content
Exchange, found at thedce.com).  This owner-centric approach to
digital media contrasts with subscription-based models and
digital books with "strings attached."

     "If a properly-revised settlement is approved by the court,
one of the many benefits to book owners will be the ability to
perform a Google search of the complete contents of one's own
library," says Yates.

     The application to the court was drafted by R. Emmett
McAuliffe of Riezman Berger P.C.

A copy of the application and court order can be found at:
              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?4162

For more details, contact:

          R. Emmett McAuliffe
          7th Floor Bonhomme Place 7700 Bonhomme Avenue
          St. Louis, Missouri 63105
          Phone: 314-727-0101
          Telecopier: 314-727-6458
          E-mail: rem@riezmanberger.com
          Web site: http://www.riezmanbergerlaw.com


METLIFE INC: American Dental Assoc. Appeal Order in Suit v. MLIC
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the putative class action lawsuit entitled The
American Dental Association, et al. v. MetLife, Inc., et al.,
are appealing an order dated March 20, 2009, that dismissed
their lawsuit.

The American Dental Association and three individual providers
had sued the company, Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. and other non-
affiliated insurance companies in a putative class action
lawsuit.

The plaintiffs purported to represent a nationwide class of in-
network providers who alleged that their claims were being
wrongfully reduced by downcoding, bundling, and the improper use
and programming of software.

The complaint alleged federal racketeering and various state law
theories of liability.

On Feb. 10, 2009, the district court granted the company's
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint,
dismissing all of plaintiffs' claims except for breach of
contract claims.

Plaintiffs were provided with an opportunity to re-plead the
dismissed claims by Feb. 26, 2009.

Since plaintiffs never amended these claims, they were dismissed
with prejudice on March 2, 2009.  

By order dated March 20, 2009, the district court declined to
retain jurisdiction over the remaining breach of contract claims
and dismissed the lawsuit.  

On April 17, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from this
order, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter
ended June 30, 2009.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of
insurance and other financial services with operations
throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe,
and Asia Pacific.  Through its domestic and international
subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group
insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and
services to corporations and other institutions.  The company is
organized into five operating segments: Institutional,
Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well
as Corporate & Other.


METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend "Market Rate" Tenants Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc., continues to defend a putative class action
lawsuit styled Roberts, et al. v. Tishman Speyer Properties, et
al.

The lawsuit was filed by a putative class of "market rate"
tenants at Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village against
parties including Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company and
Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity Company.  This group of
tenants claim that the Company, and since the sale of the
properties, Tishman Speyer as current owner, improperly charged
market rents when only lower regulated rents were permitted.

The allegations are based on the impact of so-called J-51 tax
abatements.

The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief and damages for rent
overcharges.

In August 2007, the trial court granted the company's motion to
dismiss and dismissed the complaint in its entirety.

In March 2009, New York's intermediate appellate court reversed
the trial court's decision and held that apartments could not be
deregulated during the time that a building owner is receiving
J-51 tax abatements and reinstated the lawsuit.

Tishman Speyer and the company have been granted permission to
appeal this decision to the New York Court of Appeals, where the
company will continue to defend against the claims in this
lawsuit, according to its Aug. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended
June 30, 2009.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of
insurance and other financial services with operations
throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe,
and Asia Pacific.  Through its domestic and international
subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group
insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and
services to corporations and other institutions.  The company is
organized into five operating segments: Institutional,
Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well
as Corporate & Other.


METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend Sales Practices Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc., continues to defend claims in pending sales
practices litigation matters, according to the company's Aug. 4,
2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Over the past several years, the company has faced numerous
claims, including class action lawsuits, alleging improper
marketing or sales of individual life insurance policies,
annuities, mutual funds or other products.

Some of the current cases seek substantial damages, including
punitive and treble damages and attorneys' fees.

At June 30, 2009, there were approximately 130 sales practices
litigation matters pending against the company.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of
insurance and other financial services with operations
throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe,
and Asia Pacific.  Through its domestic and international
subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group
insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and
services to corporations and other institutions.  The company is
organized into five operating segments: Institutional,
Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well
as Corporate & Other.


METLIFE INC: Contract Breach Suits v. Medical Providers Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Putative nationwide class actions against Metropolitan Property
and Casualty Ins. Co. remain pending, according to MetLife,
Inc.'s Aug. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Two putative nationwide class actions, styled Shipley v. St.
Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. and Metropolitan Property and
Casualty Ins. Co. (Ill. Cir. Ct., Madison County, filed Feb. 26
and July 2, 2003), have been filed against Metropolitan Property
and Casualty Ins. Co. in Illinois.

One suit claims breach of contract and fraud due to the alleged
underpayment of medical claims arising from the use of a
purportedly biased provider fee pricing system.

The second suit currently alleges breach of contract arising
from the alleged use of preferred provider organizations to
reduce medical provider fees covered by the medical claims
portion of the insurance policy.

Motions for class certification have been filed and briefed in
both cases.

A third putative nationwide class action relating to the payment
of medical providers, Innovative Physical Therapy, Inc. v.
MetLife Auto & Home, et ano. (D. N.J., filed Nov. 12, 2007), was
filed against Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance
Company in federal court in New Jersey.

The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, and the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an order on
July 22, 2009, affirming the dismissal.

Simon v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Ins. Co. (W.D.
Okla., filed Sept. 23, 2008), a fourth putative nationwide class
action lawsuit relating to payment of medical providers, is
pending in federal court in Oklahoma.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of
insurance and other financial services with operations
throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe,
and Asia Pacific.  Through its domestic and international
subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group
insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and
services to corporations and other institutions.  The company is
organized into five operating segments: Institutional,
Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well
as Corporate & Other.


METLIFE INC: Judgment Motion in Consolidated State Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A summary judgment motion in the consolidated state court class
action styled Fiala, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et
al., is pending, according to MetLife, Inc.'s Aug. 4, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
quarter ended June 30, 2009.

The plaintiffs in the consolidated state court class action
(Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, filed March 17, 2000) seek compensatory
relief and punitive damages against MLIC, the company, and
individual directors.

The court has certified a litigation class of present and former
policyholders on plaintiffs' claim that defendants violated
section 7312 of the New York Insurance Law.

Pursuant to the court's order, plaintiffs have given notice to
the class of the pendency of this action.

Defendants' motion for summary judgment is pending.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of
insurance and other financial services with operations
throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe,
and Asia Pacific.  Through its domestic and international
subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group
insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and
services to corporations and other institutions.  The company is
organized into five operating segments: Institutional,
Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well
as Corporate & Other.


METLIFE INC: Motion to Remand Brokerage Antitrust Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' motion to remand the class action entitled In Re
Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litigation to state court in Florida is
pending, according to MetLife, Inc.'s Aug. 4, 2009 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
quarter ended June 30, 2009.

In this multi-district class action proceeding (MDL No. 1663;
Master Docket Nos. 04-5184 and 05-1079), plaintiffs' complaint
alleged that the company, MLIC, several non-affiliated insurance
companies and several insurance brokers violated the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and antitrust laws and
committed other misconduct in the context of providing insurance
to employee benefit plans and to persons who participate in such
employee benefit plans.

In August and September 2007 and January 2008, the court issued
orders granting defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice
the federal antitrust, the RICO, and the ERISA claims.

In February 2008, the court dismissed the remaining state law
claims on jurisdictional grounds.

Plaintiffs' appeal from the orders dismissing their RICO and
federal antitrust claims is pending with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

A putative class action alleging that the company and other non-
affiliated defendants violated state laws was transferred to the
District of New Jersey but was not consolidated with other
related actions.  Plaintiffs' motion to remand this action to
state court in Florida is pending.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of
insurance and other financial services with operations
throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe,
and Asia Pacific.  Through its domestic and international
subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group
insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and
services to corporations and other institutions.  The company is
organized into five operating segments: Institutional,
Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well
as Corporate & Other.


METLIFE INC: Sales Practices Suit in Canada Dismissed Last March
----------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action suit styled Jacynthe Evoy-Larouche v.
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., was dismissed in March 2009,
according to MetLife, Inc.'s Aug. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended
June 30, 2009.

This putative class action lawsuit involving sales practices
claims was filed against MLIC in the Quebec Superior Court in
March 1998.

Plaintiff alleged misrepresentations regarding dividends and
future payments for life insurance policies and sought
unspecified damages.

Pursuant to a judgment dated March 11, 2009, this lawsuit was
dismissed.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of
insurance and other financial services with operations
throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe,
and Asia Pacific.  Through its domestic and international
subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group
insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and
services to corporations and other institutions.  The company is
organized into five operating segments: Institutional,
Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well
as Corporate & Other.


METLIFE INC: Summary Judgment Motion Pending in "Thomas" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for summary judgment is pending in the class action
lawsuit captioned Thomas, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,
et al., according to MetLife, Inc.'s Aug. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
quarter ended June 30, 2009.

A putative class action complaint was filed against MLIC and
MetLife Securities, Inc.

Plaintiffs assert legal theories of violations of the federal
securities laws and violations of state laws with respect to the
sale of certain proprietary products by the company's agency
distribution group.

Plaintiffs seek rescission, compensatory damages, interest,
punitive damages and attorneys' fees and expenses.

In January and May 2008, the court issued orders granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss in part, dismissing all of
plaintiffs' claims except for claims under the Investment
Advisers Act.   

Defendants' motion to dismiss claims under the Investment
Advisers Act was denied.

In March 2009, the defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of
insurance and other financial services with operations
throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe,
and Asia Pacific.  Through its domestic and international
subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group
insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and
services to corporations and other institutions.  The company is
organized into five operating segments: Institutional,
Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well
as Corporate & Other.


METLIFE INC: Trial in Demutualization Suit to Start on Sept. 8
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action captioned In re MetLife
Demutualization Litigation, is set to begin on Sept. 8, 2009.  

In this class action against Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. and the
company, plaintiffs served a second consolidated amended
complaint in 2004.

Plaintiffs assert violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Plan,
claiming that the Policyholder Information Booklets failed to
disclose certain material facts and contained certain material
misstatements.

They seek rescission and compensatory damages.

By orders dated July 19, 2005, and Aug. 29, 2006, the federal
trial court certified a litigation class of present and former
policyholders.

Pursuant to the court's order, plaintiffs have given notice to
the class of the pendency of this action.

On March 30, 2009, the court denied MLIC's and the Holding
Company's motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs' motion for
partial summary judgment.

On July 17, 2009, the court entered an order setting the trial
to begin on Sept. 8, 2009, according to the company's Aug. 4,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2009.

MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of
insurance and other financial services with operations
throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe,
and Asia Pacific.  Through its domestic and international
subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance,
annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking
and other financial services to individuals, as well as group
insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and
services to corporations and other institutions.  The company is
organized into five operating segments: Institutional,
Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well
as Corporate & Other.


NETBANK INC: Lead Plaintiff Named in Ga. Securities Fraud Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Beverly B. Martin of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia has named a lead plaintiff in the
consolidated class-action suit captioned In Re NetBank, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:07-cv-02298-BBM, Law360
reports.

In a ruling issued on Aug. 7, 2009, the judge named NetBank
investor Robert A. Brown the lead plaintiff in the case, which
is alleging that former executives and directors of the online
financial institution defrauded investors by not disclosing
problems with its restructuring and accounting prior to the
bank's takeover by federal regulators and subsequent
liquidation, according to Law360.

In general, the lawsuit was brought on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired NetBank securities during the
period between May 1, 2006, and Sept. 17, 2007 (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 24, 2007).

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making
materially false and misleading statements to artificially
inflate the value of NetBank stock.

Specifically, it is alleged that the defendants repeatedly
represented, beginning in May 2006, that NetBank was
restructuring its operations to rid its strong core banking
business from high-risk non-conforming loan origination
operations and other business segments which detracted from the
performance of its core business.

Mr. Brown is represented by:

          Merrill G. Davidoff, Esq.
          Berger & Montague
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365
          Phone: 215-875-3000
          E-mail: mdavidoff@bm.net

               - and -

          Michael J. Gorby, Esq.
          Gorby Reeves & Peters
          Two Ravinia Drive, Suite 1500
          Atlanta, GA 30346-2104
          Phone: 404-239-1150
          E-mail: mgorby@gorbypeters.com

The defendants are represented by:

          Benjamin Aaron Lee, Esq.
          King & Spalding
          191 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30303-1763
          Phone: 404-572-2820
          E-mail: blee@kslaw.com


NORTHERN TRUST: N.Y. Court Grants Dismissal Bid in ARS Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Victor Marrero of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted a motion by Northern Trust
Securities, Inc., that sought dismissal of a putative class-
action lawsuit entitled Aimis Art Corporation v. Northern Trust
Securities, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-08057-VM, Law360
reports.

The lawsuit was filed on Sept. 17, 2008, by Aimis Art Corp. and
was brought on behalf of buyers of such securities from Northern
Trust from Sept. 16, 2003, through Feb. 13, 2008 (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 10, 2008).  

The suit accuses the financial holding company of failing to
alert investors of the risks associated with auction rate
securities.

Aimis Art is represented by:

          Jeffrey Philip Campisi, Esq.
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: 212-687-1980
          Fax: 212-687-1980
          E-mail: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Matthew L. Dameron, Esq.
          Stueve Siegel Hanson, L.L.P.
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Phone: (816)-714-7137
          Fax: (816)-714-7101
          E-mail: dameron@stuevesiegel.com

Northern Trust is represented by:

          David J. Bradford, Esq.
          Jenner & Block LLP
          330 North Wabash Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Phone: (312) 222-9350
          Fax: (312) 840-7375
          E-mail: dbradford@jenner.com


REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
     An investor filed a proposed securities fraud class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on behalf of all purchasers of Repros
Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: RPRX) common stock.

     Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has filed a class action
complaint, in the Southern District of Texas Houston Division,
against Repros Therapeutics and certain of its officers and
directors, on behalf of shareholders who purchased Repros common
stock between July 1, 2009, and August 3, 2009 (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 11, 2009).

     The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
issuing materially false and misleading press releases regarding
the success of clinical trials for its drug Proellex.  On August
3, 2009, Repros revealed that it was suspending Proellex
clinical trials based in a clinically significant increase in
liver enzymes among participants.  On that day, Repros stock
closed at $1.31, a 48% drop from a close of $2.53 the trading
day before.  This was a 73% drop from the close of $4.96 on July
1, 2009.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 6, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Eva Hromadkova, Esq.
          Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP
          Phone: 212-682-1818 or 800-497-8076
          E-mail: newcase@murrayfrank.com
          Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com


RHODE ISLAND: Advocate Appeals Dismissal of Foster Care Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Rhode Island child advocate is urging the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit to reinstate a lawsuit that seeks
an overhaul of the state's foster care system, The Associated
Press reports.

The lawsuit, which sought class-action status, alleged abuse and
neglect of foster children in Rhode Island.  The suit named 10
foster children as plaintiffs, and child advocate Jametta Alston
and Children's Rights, a national organization, had selected
several adults to represent their interests in court.

However, Judge Ronald Lagueux of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Rhode Island dismissed the suit in April.  He said
the adults selected as guardians didn't have close enough
relationships to the children, writes AP.

On Aug. 10, 2009, Ms. Alston and Children's Rights appealed the
ruling to the federals appeals court.  They argued that the
adults were qualified to act on the children's behalf, according
to AP.

                        Case Background

The suit was filed on June 28, 2007, seeking an injunction to
protect children.  It names as defendants DCYF and Rhode Island
Gov. Donald Carcieri (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 31, 2008).

The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to compel
Defendants -- the Governor of the State of Rhode Island, the
Secretary of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services,
and the Director of the Department of Children, Youth and
Families -- to meet their legal obligations to care for and
protect Rhode Island's abused and neglected children in state
custody by reforming the State's dysfunctional child welfare
system.

The suit is brought on behalf of all children who are or will be
in the legal custody of the Rhode Island Department of Children,
Youth and Families due to a report or suspicion of abuse or
neglect.

The plaintiffs raise the questions of:

     -- Whether Defendants fail to provide Plaintiff Children
        with safe, appropriate, and stable foster care
        placements, causing significant harm to their health and
        well-being;

     -- Whether Defendants fail to prevent the abuse or neglect
        of Plaintiff Children while in Defendants' custody,
        causing significant harm to their health and well-being;

     -- Whether Defendants fail to place Plaintiff Children in
        the least restrictive and most family-like settings
        suited to their needs, including by unnecessarily
        institutionalizing them, causing significant harm to
        their health and well-being;

     -- Whether Defendants fail to provide Plaintiff Children
        with legally required services necessary to keep them
        safe and properly cared for, and to prevent them from
        deteriorating physically, psychologically, or otherwise
        while in custody, as required by law and reasonable
        professional judgment, causing significant harm to their
        health and well-being;

     -- Whether Defendants unsafely return Plaintiff Children to
        caretakers who abuse or neglect them again, causing
        significant harm to their health and well-being;

     -- Whether Defendants unnecessarily move Plaintiff Children
        from placement to placement, causing significant harm to
        their health and well-being;

     -- Whether Defendants fail to provide Plaintiff Children
        and their families with reasonable decision-making as
        well as timely services necessary to ensure the safe and
        successful reunification of children with their families
        when appropriate, causing significant harm to their
        health and well-being;

     -- Whether Defendants fail to provide Plaintiff Children
        with timely and reasonable decision-making as well as
        services necessary to ensure that when Plaintiff
        Children cannot be reunited with their families safely,
        they are promptly filed for adoption and placed in
        permanent homes, causing significant harm to their
        health and well-being; and

     -- Whether Defendants fail to provide Plaintiff Children
        with the supports necessary to maintain family
        relationships where appropriate, including placing
        siblings together as well as providing parent and
        sibling visits, causing significant harm to their health
        and well-being.

As of January 2007, approximately 3,000 children were in the
legal custody of DCYF for foster care services due to reported
or substantiated allegations of abuse or neglect.

The suit is styled M., et al. v. Carcieri, et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-00241-L-LDA, and was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Rhode Island, the Honorable Ronald R.
Lagueux, presiding, with referral to Judge Lincoln D. Almond.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jametta O. Alston, Esq.
          Office of the Child Advocate
          272 West Exchange St., Suite 301
          Providence, RI 02903
          Phone: 401-222-6650
          Fax: 401-222-6652
          E-mail: jalston@doa.state.ri.us

               - and -

          John William Dineen, Esq.
          305 South Main Street
          Providence, RI 02903
          Phone: 401-223-2397
          Fax: 401-223-2399
          E-mail: jwdineen1@yahoo.com


RIGEL PHARMA: Bids in Consolidated Securities Suit Due in Sept.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Responsive pleadings or motions in a consolidated purported
securities class action lawsuit against Rigel Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., are due no later than Sept. 8, 2009.

On Feb. 6, 2009, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, naming as defendants the company and certain of
its officers, directors and underwriters for Rigel's February
2008 stock offering.  

An additional purported securities class action lawsuit
containing similar allegations was subsequently filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
Feb. 20, 2009.  

By order of the Court dated March 19, 2009, the two lawsuits
were consolidated into a single action.  

On April 7, 2009, Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT filed a
motion for appointment as lead plaintiff in the case, and for
appointment of its counsel as lead counsel.  

On June 9, 2009, the Court issued an order naming the Inter-
Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT as lead plaintiff and Coughlin Stoia
as lead counsel.

The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 24, 2009.  

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly
false and misleading statements made by the company related to
the results of the Phase 2a clinical trial of the company's
product candidate R788.

The plaintiffs seek damages, including rescission or rescissory
damages for purchasers in the stock offering, an award of its
costs and injunctive and/or equitable relief for purchasers of
our common stock during the period between Dec. 13, 2007 and
Feb. 9, 2009, including purchasers in the stock offering.

Any responsive pleadings or motions are due no later than Sept.
8, 2009, and a hearing on any motions to dismiss would likely
not occur until November 2009, according to the company's Aug.
4, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.

Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.rigel.com-- is a  
clinical-stage drug development company that discovers and
develops small molecule drugs for the treatment of inflammatory
and autoimmune diseases, cancer and viral diseases.  The
company's research focuses on intracellular signaling pathways
and related targets that are critical to disease mechanisms.  
Rigel has collaborations with pharmaceutical partners to develop
and market its product candidates.  The company has internal
product development programs in inflammatory and autoimmune
diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis and thrombocytopenia, and
cancer, as well as partnered product development programs
relating to asthma and cancer.


TYCO INT'L: Settles Consolidated ERISA Litigation for $70.5M
------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International, Ltd., agreed to pay $70.5 million to settle
allegations the company breached its fiduciary duties to Tyco
employees when larding retirement plans with company stock even
while a massive accounting fraud was taking place, Law360
reports.

On Aug. 10, 2009, the plaintiffs representing participants in
seven Tyco retirement plans asked Judge Paul J. Barbadoro of
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, where
the multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 1335; Master Docket No.
02-MD-1335-B) is pending, according to Law360.

Initially, Tyco and certain of its current and former employees,
officers and directors, have been named as defendants in eight
class actions brought under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 11, 2009).

Two of the actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Hampshire and the six remaining actions were
transferred to that Court by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation.

All eight actions have been consolidated in the District Court
in New Hampshire, according to the company's Feb. 3, 2009 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Dec. 26, 2008.

The consolidated complaint purports to bring claims on behalf of
the company's Retirement Savings and Investment Plans and the
participants therein and alleges that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties under ERISA by negligently
misrepresenting and negligently failing to disclose material
information concerning, among other things, the following:

     -- related-party transactions and executive compensation;

     -- the company's mergers and acquisitions and the
        accounting therefore, as well as allegedly undisclosed
        acquisitions; and

     -- misstatements of its financial results.

The complaint also asserts that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by allowing the Plans to invest in the
company's shares when it was not a prudent investment.

The complaints seek recovery of alleged plan losses arising from
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

On Aug. 15, 2006, the Court entered an order certifying a class
"consisting of all Participants in the Plans for whose
individual accounts the Plans purchased and/or held shares of
Tyco Stock Fund at any time from Aug. 12, 1998 to July 25,
2002."


UNITED STATES: D.C. Court Revives Suit Over Telephone Excise Tax
----------------------------------------------------------------
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia revived a lawsuit charging the Internal Revenue Service
with depriving taxpayers of billions of dollars in refunds on
long-distance telephone excise taxes, The Journal of Accountancy
reports.

On Aug. 7, 2009, the court decided 2-1 in favor of Milwaukee tax
consultant Neiland Cohen, who sued the IRS claiming that the
agency's procedures for giving taxpayers refunds on the now-
defunct tax were inadequate.

A lower court had thrown out the lawsuit, according to
Bloomberg.com, before the appeals court reinstated it.  Mr.
Cohen is seeking class-action status for the lawsuit.

The appellate court ruled in Neiland Cohen v. U.S., Docket No.
08-5088, that that taxpayers could challenge under the
Administrative Procedure Act the IRS' method of refunding long-
distance telephone excise taxes, reports the Journal of
Accountancy.

The court's opinion by Judge Janice Rogers Brown sharply
criticized the IRS' position as "mean," demonstrating "chutzpah"
and demanding "clairvoyance" of taxpayers.

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

              http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?416b


VALERO ENERGY: Faces Calif. Suit Alleging it Underpays Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Valero Energy Corporation (NYSE: VLO), one of the nation's
largest gas station operators, has been cheating thousands of
its hourly employees out of millions of dollars in overtime
wages for years charges a class action lawsuit filed by Sanford
Wittels & Heisler, LLP in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco).  The suit
describes how Valero - the 10th largest company on the Fortune
500 list -- underpays employees who work in its nearly 6,000
"Corner Stores," which sell gas and snacks to customers across
the U.S. under the brand names Valero, Diamond Shamrock,
Shamrock, Ultramar, Beacon, and Stop N Go.

     With revenues of $119 billion in 2008 and approximately
22,000 employees, Valero -- the largest oil refiner in North
America -- has cornered the convenience store market with "sweat
of the brow" labor practices.  The oil behemoth requires its
retail employees to work punishingly long overtime hours "off-
the-clock" without pay to keep thousands of Valero corner stores
open "round-the-clock" while the company earns massive profits.

     "To keep its gas pumps flowing, Valero virtually pumps
the lifeblood out of its workers who are expected to be on call
24-7, but are only paid for a fraction of the time they spend
working," said Steven L. Wittels of Sanford Wittels & Heisler,
LLP, one of the country's leading class action firms with
offices in San Francisco, New York and Washington, DC.  "This
class action aims to turn off this oil Goliath's unfair pay
practices."

     While the massive refining company depicts itself as
"refining" the way it does business and providing a worker-
friendly environment, the reality is shockingly different.  
"When it comes to its employees," adds Mr. Wittels, "the only
thing Valero has refined is how best to fleece its employees out
of their wages."

     Brought by three current and former California employees,
Dorothy McCarthy, Sarndra McKnight, and Janice Clifton, the
class and collection action seeks to represent thousands of
similarly underpaid Valero employees through the United States.

     "Even though the oil company knows full well that its
workers are virtually chained to the pumps," said Janette
Wipper, an attorney at Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP,
"management has failed to lessen their workload or pay them
mandatory overtime compensation as required by law."

     According to the Complaint, the monster energy retailer
fails to pay its corner store employees for mandatory "off-the-
clock" work, "on-call" time, or overtime wages for work in
excess of 40 hours a week and eight hours a day; fails to
provide its workers with mandatory meal periods and rest breaks;
and makes unlawful deductions from employees' earned wages.

     "Valero's wrongful practices violate federal and state wage
and hour laws," said plaintiffs' counsel Jeremy Heisler.  "We
are long past the era when workers were forced to eat their
bread by the sweat of their brow.  Not only must Valero's unfair
labor practices be stopped, but the hourly employees who have
been and continue to be exploited by these practices must be
promptly and appropriately compensated for all hours worked."

     "These unfair labor practices should have gone the way of
the horse and buggy," said plaintiffs' co-counsel, Michael Ram.
"Valero needs to wake up to the 21st Century: when you work, the
company's got to pay you -- simple as that."

     The named Plaintiffs Ms. McCarthy, Ms. McKnight, and Ms.
Clinton seek tens of thousands of dollars from Valero for each
worker who was underpaid in violation of the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act; the California Labor Code; and the California
Business and Professions Code.  The FLSA claims are brought on
behalf of all Valero non-exempt Corner Store workers, including
store managers and assistant managers, who worked at any Valero
retail store or Valero-operated brand name store in the nation.

     "Even though Valero's corner stores are open around the
clock, seven days a week, every day of the year, the company
assigns just one store manager to each corner store," said
plaintiff Ms. McCarthy.  "This makes every manager's work week
significantly longer than 40 hours, but we are not paid for
these additional hours, and we are not provided time for meals
or rest breaks.  The company's swept our complaints under the
rug for years.  This class action is the only hope we have of
being paid for the work we actually do and getting the breaks
we're entitled to."

     Plaintiffs' attorneys, Sanford Wittels & Heisler, estimate
the Company's liability at $100 million.  The class action suit
demands that Valero immediately pay all unpaid wages due the
plaintiffs and members of the class plus all damages permitted
by California and federal wage and hour laws, as well as stop
its unlawful pay practices.

For more details, contact:

          Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP
          100 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: (415) 391-6900
          Fax: (415) 391-6901
          Web site: http://www.nydclaw.com/


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CONSECO INC: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     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 purchasers of Conseco
Inc. (NYSE:CNO) common stock during the period between August 4,
2005 to March 17, 2008 for violations of the federal securities
laws.

     The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period,
defendants issued numerous statements regarding the Company's
financial performance.  As alleged in the complaint, these
statements were materially false and misleading because
defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the
following adverse facts, among others:

       -- that the Company was reporting materially inaccurate
          revenue figures;

       -- that the Company's reported financial results were
          materially misstated and did not present the true
          operating performance of the Company;

       -- that the Company's shareholders' equity was materially
          overstated during the Class Period, including the
          overstatement of shareholders' equity by $20.6 million
          at December 31, 2006; and

       -- as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
          reasonable basis for their positive statements about
          the Company, its corporate governance practices, its
          prospects and earnings growth.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 5, 2009.

For more details, contact:

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


CONSECO INC: Kendall Law Group Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Kendall Law Group, led by a former federal judge and former
U.S. Attorney, announced that a lawsuit has been filed against
Conseco, Inc. for investors who purchased stock that was
artificially inflated between August 4, 2005 and March 17, 2008.

     According to the complaint, filed in the Southern District
of New York, defendants issued numerous statements regarding the
Company's financial performance.  These statements were
materially false and misleading because defendants failed to
disclose that the Company was reporting materially inaccurate
revenue figures and that the Company's reported financial
results were materially misstated and did not present the true
operating performance of the company.  Also, the Company's
shareholder equity was materially overstated during the Class
Period, including the overstatement of shareholders' equity by
$20.6 million on December 31, 2006.  As a result of these
misstatements, defendants lacked reasonable basis for their
positive statements about the Company, its corporate governance
practices, its prospects and earnings growth.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 5, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Hamilton Lindley, Esq.
          Kendall Law Group
          3232 McKinney, Ste. 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Phone: (214) 744-3000 or (877) 744-3728
          Fax: (214) 744-3015
          E-mail: hlindley@kendalllawgroup.com
          Web site: http://www.kendalllawgroup.com


FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Dyer & Berens LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
on behalf of investors who purchased Flotek Industries, Inc.
NYSE: FTK) common stock between May 8, 2007 and January 23,
2008, inclusive.

     The complaint alleges that defendants made a series of
materially false or misleading statements about Flotek's
business, prospects and operations during the Class Period.

     Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants
misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse
facts:

       -- that the Company was experiencing weakness in its
          Rocky Mountain sales region due to its decision to not
          cut prices to the level of its competitors;

       -- that the Company's operating profit margins were being
          negatively impacted as customers increasingly opted to
          rent equipment instead of purchasing it;

       -- that sales in the Company's chemicals division were
          declining due to a decrease in fracing activity; and

       -- as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive
          statements concerning the Company's guidance and
          prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis at all
          relevant times.

     On January 23, 2008, the Company unexpectedly announced it
was revising its guidance downward for the year ending December
31, 2007.  In response, the price of Flotek common stock
plummeted 30% to close at $17.86 per share on January 24, 2008.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 6, 2009.

For more details, contact:

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


FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Federman & Sherwood Announces Lawsuit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     Federman & Sherwood Announces that on August 7, 2009, a
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas against Flotek
Industries, Inc. (NYSE: FTK).

     The complaint alleges violations of federal securities
laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price.  The class
period is from May 8, 2007 through January 23, 2008.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 6, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Phone: 405.235.1560
          Fax: 405.239.2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com/


FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
     The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas on behalf of those who purchased
the common stock of Flotek Industries, Inc. (NYSE: FTK) between
May 8, 2007 and January 23, 2008, inclusive.

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

       -- the Company was experiencing weakness in its Rocky
          Mountain sales region due to its decision to not cut
          prices to the level of its competitors;

       -- the Company's operating profit margins were being
          negatively impacted as customers increasingly opted to
          rent equipment instead of purchasing it;

       -- sales in the Company's chemicals division were
          declining due to a decrease in fracing activity; and

       -- as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive
          statements concerning the Company's guidance and
          prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis at all
          relevant times.

     On January 23, 2008, Flotek announced that the Company was
revising its previously announced guidance for the year ending
December 31, 2007.  On this news, Flotek fell $7.60 per share,
or 30%, to close at $17.86 per share, on January 24, 2008.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 6, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Wayne T. Boulton, Esq.
          Izard Nobel LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 215
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Phone: (800) 797-5499
          E-mail: firm@izardnobel.com
          Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com/flotek/


FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Kendall Law Group Announces Stock Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Kendall Law Group, led by a former federal judge and former
U.S. Attorney, announced that a lawsuit has been filed against
Flotek Industries, Inc. (NYSE: FTK) for investors who purchased
stock that was artificially inflated between May 8, 2007 and
January 23, 2008.

     According to the complaint, filed in the Southern District
of Texas, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the company's true financial condition, business and
prospects.  The company was experiencing weakness in its Rocky
Mountain sales region due to its decision not to cut prices to
the level of its competitors.  Also, the Company's operating
profit margins were being negatively impacted as customers
increasingly opted to rent equipment instead of purchasing it
and the Company's chemicals division was declining due to a
decrease in fracing activity.  As a result of the foregoing,
defendant's positive statements concerning the Company's
guidance and prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.

     On October 31, 2007, Flotek announced its financial results
for the third quarter of 2007.  That same day, the company held
a conference call with investors and analysts, during which it
was revealed that all three of the Company's segments were
negatively affected by lower gas prices in the Rocky Mountains.  
In response to this announcement, the price of Flotek common
stock fell $14.35 per share, or 28%, to close at $36.45 per
share, on November 29, 2007, on heavy trading volume.  In light
of the fall of their stock prices, Defendants continued to
conceal the full extent of the problems at the Company.  On
January 23, 2008, the Company announced that they were revising
the previously announced guidance for the year ending December
31, 2007.  In response to this announcement the price of Flotek
common stock fell $7.60 per share to close at $17.86 per share,
on January 24, 2008, on heavy trading volume.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 5, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Hamilton Lindley, Esq.
          Kendall Law Group
          3232 McKinney, Ste. 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Phone: (214) 744-3000 or (877) 744-3728
          Fax: (214) 744-3015
          E-mail: hlindley@kendalllawgroup.com
          Web site: http://www.kendalllawgroup.com


HURON CONSULTING: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of Huron
Consulting Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: HURN) common stock during the
period between Apr 27, 2006, through Jul 31, 2009 for violations
of the federal securities laws.

     The Complaint charges Huron and certain of its former
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.  
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants' public statements were false or misleading and
failed to disclose or indicate, among other things, that:

       -- shareholders of four businesses Huron acquired between
          2005 and 2007 redistributed portions of their
          acquisition-related payments among themselves and to
          certain Huron employees;

       -- as a result, the Company understated its non-cash
          compensation expenses;

       -- the Company's financial statements were not prepared
          in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
          Principles ("GAAP");

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

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

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 5, 2009.

For more details, contact:

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


PROSHARES ULTRASHORT: Howard G. Smith Announces Lawsuit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
     Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired shares in the
ProShares UltraShort Real Estate fund (NYSE: SRS), an exchange-
traded fund offered by ProShares Trust, pursuant or traceable to
ProShares' false and misleading Registration Statement,
Prospectuses, and Statements of Additional Information issued in
connection with the SRS Fund's shares.  The Class is seeking to
pursue remedies under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933.

     The complaint names ProShares; ProShare Advisors LLC, SEI
Investments Distribution Co., Michael L. Sapir, Louis M.
Mayberg, Russell S. Reynolds, III, Michael Wachs, and Simon D.
Collier, as defendants.  ProShares sells its Ultra and
UltraShort ETFs as "simple" directional plays.  As marketed by
ProShares, Ultra ETFs are designed to go up when markets go up;
UltraShort ETFs are designed to go up when markets go down.  The
SRS Fund is one of ProShares' UltraShort ETFs.  The SRS Fund
seeks investment results that correspond to twice the inverse (-
200%) daily performance of the Dow Jones U.S. Real Estate Index
(DJREI), which measures the performance of the real estate
sector of the U.S. equity market.  Accordingly, the SRS Fund is
supposed to deliver double the inverse return of the DJREI,
which fell approximately 39.2 percent from January 2, 2008
through December 17, 2008, ostensibly creating a profit for
investors who anticipated a decline in the U.S. real estate
market.  In other words, the SRS Fund should have appreciated by
78.4 percent during this period.  However, the SRS Fund actually
fell approximately 48.2 percent during this period -- the
antithesis of a directional play.

     The complaint alleges the Defendants violated the
Securities Act by failing to disclose that the SRS Fund is
altogether defective as a directional investment play.  
Defendants failed to disclose the following risks in the
Registration Statement:

       -- inverse correlation between the SRS Fund and the DJREI
          over time would only happen in the rarest of
          circumstances, and inadvertently if at all;

       -- the extent to which performance of the SRS Fund would
          inevitably diverge from the performance of the DJREI -
          i.e., the probability, if not certainty, of
          spectacular tracking error;

       -- the severe consequences of high market volatility on
          the SRS Fund's investment objective and performance;

       -- the severe consequences of inherent path dependency in
          periods of high market volatility on the SRS Fund's
          performance;

       -- the role the SRS Fund plays in increasing market
          volatility, particularly in the last hour of trading;

       -- the consequences of the SRS Fund's daily hedge
          adjustment always going in the same direction as the
          movement of the underlying index, notwithstanding that
          it is an inverse leveraged ETF;

       -- the SRS Fund causes dislocations in the stock market;

       -- the SRS Fund offers a seemingly straightforward way to
          obtain desired exposure, but such exposure is not
          attainable through the SRS Fund.

     No class has yet been certified in the above action.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 5, 2009.

For more details, contact:

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


REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Emerson Poynter Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     Emerson Poynter LLP, a national law firm with offices in
Little Rock, Arkansas and Houston, Texas, announces that it has
filed a class action complaint, against Repros Therapeutics,
Inc. (Nasdaq: RPRX) and certain of its officers and directors,
on behalf of shareholders who purchased Repros common stock
between July 1, 2009 and August 3, 2009.  This action was filed
in the Southern District of Texas Houston Division (4:09-cv-
02530).

     The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
issuing materially false and misleading press releases regarding
the success of clinical trials for its drug Proellex.  On August
3, 2009, Repros revealed that it was suspending Proellex
clinical trials based in a clinically significant increase in
liver enzymes among participants.  On that day, Repros stock
closed at $1.31, a 48% drop from a close of $2.53 the trading
day before.  This was a 73% drop from the close of $4.96 on July
1, 2009.

     A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 6, 2009.

For more information, contact:

          John G. Emerson, Esq
          Scott E. Poynter, Esq
          Emerson Poynter LLP
          500 President Clinton Ave, Suite 305
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Phone: 501.907.2555 or 800.663.9817
          Fax: 501.907.2556
          e-mail: epllp@emersonpoynter.com


                            *********

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

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

                            *********

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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, 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  * * *