/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090827.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, August 27, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 169 Headlines BEAR LAKE: Siskinds LLP Files Lawsuit Over Larder Lake Project COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Del. Judge Approves BofA Suit Settlement FACEBOOK INC: Faces Breach of Privacy Litigation in California GOOGLE INC: ULC Calls for Revisions to Book Search Settlement KAISER FOUNDATION: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Reimbursement Suit MANULIFE FINANCIAL: Sept. 8 Deadline is Lead Plaintiff Deadline SOLVAY PHARMACEUTICALS: Dec. 2 Hearing Set for Estratest Deal PROVIDE-COMMERCE: Faces Calif. Suit Over Phony "Rewards Program" STREAM ENERGY: Seeks Dismissal of Pyramid Scheme Litigation New Securities Fraud Cases DWS RREEF: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. PROSHARES TRUST: Howard Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing TRONOX INC: Bruce G. Murphy Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing ********* BEAR LAKE: Siskinds LLP Files Lawsuit Over Larder Lake Project -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Siskinds LLP commenced a proposed class- action suit against Bear Lake Gold, Ltd., and certain of its officers and directors. The class action seeks damages for investors as a result of the recent disclosure that Bear Lake Gold had become aware of serious material inconsistencies in its exploration data relating to its flagship Larder Lake gold mining project. Any investors who purchased securities of Bear Lake Gold Ltd. from July 18, 2006, to July 28, 2009, are encouraged to contact Scott Selig, Esq., of Siskinds at (800) 461-6166 extension 7824 by telephone, or scott.selig@siskinds.com by e- mail, for further information. Siskinds is particularly interested in speaking to investors who purchased securities of Bear Lake Gold Ltd. in the June 2009 or October 2008 private placements of Bear Lake Gold securities, which were underwritten by PI Financial, Primary Capital and Dundee Securities. The plaintiffs are represented by: Scott Selig, Esq. Siskinds LLP 680 Waterloo Street P.O. Box 2520 London, Ontario, Canada N6A 3V8 Phone: (519) 672-2121 Fax: (519) 672-6065 E-mail: scott.selig@siskinds.com COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Del. Judge Approves BofA Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The Delaware Chancery Court approved a settlement between Countrywide Financial Corp. and its shareholders, who alleged executives at the nation's former largest residential mortgage underwriter breached their fiduciary duty in connection with Bank of America Corp.'s $4 billion takeover of the company, Law360 reports. On Aug. 24, 2009, Vice Chancellor John Noble held that it was not unfair for the shareholders to settle the class action without monetary compensation and dismissed an objection by SRM Global, according to Law360. In April 2008, Countrywide Financial, its directors, and BofA, faced various class action suits relating to Countrywide's proposed merger with BofA. The suits were filed in the state courts of California and Delaware on behalf of a proposed class of Countrywide shareholders (Class Action Reporter, July 8, 2008). These lawsuits allege that the company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the company's shareholders by entering into the merger agreement with BofA and that BofA allegedly aided and abetted those alleged breaches. The lawsuits said BofA paid too little for Countrywide and shortchanged Countrywide shareholders. The terms of the settlement say Countrywide cure the problems with the deal by making additional disclosures to shareholders. The settlement also stipulates that the class-action lawsuit will be dropped. FACEBOOK INC: Faces Breach of Privacy Litigation in California -------------------------------------------------------------- Facebook, Inc., faces a purported class-action suit in the Orange County Superior Court for allegedly breaching the state's privacy laws, Rhett Pardon at XBIZ.com reports. The suit alleges that Facebook has violated California's privacy laws by spreading information to others in order to make money. It also alleges the company harvests data about its members without making it absolutely clear it indulges in those activities (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 20, 2009). According to the class-action complaint, Facebook invades the privacy of its customers and misappropriates people's images and personal information for marketing and commercial purposes, reports Mr. Pardon. The suit said Facebook knows its users don't want their personal information circulated around the web, yet its terms of use allow Facebook to retain user-posted data long after it has been taken off of the site. "Data collected from Facebook users is the key commercial asset that Facebook uses for market valuation, internal marketing purposes, and for licensing and direct sale of data to third parties," according to the complaint. The suit was filed by photographer Elisha Melkonian, who says Facebook permitted her photos to be downloaded, copied and distributed without her permission, despite numerous attempts to stop it, writes Mr. Pardon. In addition, according to the suit, Facebook users are "unwitting participant of Facebook tracking technologies and have had their purchase and/or other activities published to other Facebook users without their consent." The suit also said that Facebook now has commenced direct advertisements that include sexually oriented material to users through "social ads," which are paired up to persons designated as a user's friend, XBIZ.com reports. "The statement that Facebook does not sell your information is misleading and false," the suit said. "Facebook has misled users with policies that imply that users are in control of their personal data." Ms. Melkonian wants Facebook restrained from collecting or selling user data and from permitting downloading of copyrighted photos without permission. She also seeks class damages of $750 for every unauthorized use of names or photos, XBIZ.com reports. GOOGLE INC: ULC Calls for Revisions to Book Search Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- The Urban Libraries Council, the membership organization representing 140 major North American public library systems, is calling for revisions to the Google Book Search settlement that is now before the United States District Court in the Southern District of New York. In a statement submitted to the court this week, ULC says that it applauds the intent of the settlement, making millions of books available to the users of public libraries. The statement raises concerns, however, about the inadequacy of the proposed free public access service, the lack of protection for reader privacy, the failure to provide for no-fee fair use of copyright-protected material and the unrestrained possibility of monopolistic pricing. "The Google Book Search database is a major undertaking that will shape the future of books, libraries, research, publishing and learning. It is essential that the interests of the public be represented as this new model for the organization and distribution of intellectual content comes into use," said Susan Benton, ULC President and CEO. "As it stands, the proposed settlement's provisions for general public access and use fall far short. Public libraries have long pursued a major goal: the broadest possible access, at the lowest possible cost, to opportunities for learning and growth for all Americans. By storing and disseminating seven million books from the collections of our great research libraries, Google Book Search can help democratize our intellectual and cultural heritage. But without attending to these serious public needs, the settlement will only widen the gap between haves and have-nots." The proposed settlement is the result of a class action lawsuit brought by the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers against Google in 2005, claiming that the Google Book Scan project is a massive violation of the plaintiffs' copyrights. The settlement builds a comprehensive licensing agreement between Google and the plaintiffs, establishing new practices and standards that would be controlled by Google and a new private entity, the Book Rights Registry. ULC's statement to the court addresses four public issues: public access, reader privacy, fair use and monopoly. The settlement provides for free public access to the database through one designated computer terminal in each public library building in the United States. ULC believes that this provision is inadequate and unworkable, and that a system that allows free public access throughout library computer networks is needed. Reader privacy and confidentiality, a strong legal requirement in most states and a cherished public library value, have not been addressed by the settlement, according to ULC. A system that allows anonymous access to the database through library computers should be developed. Fair use of copyright-protected material, for non- commercial research and educational purposes, is a well- established feature of the American intellectual property system that ULC supports. The proposed settlement allows Google to impose per-page licensing charges for all printing from the database. ULC believes that limited free printing should be built into the settlement. Unregulated monopolistic pricing practices are a distinct possibility under the system created by the settlement, with Google and a new, privately controlled Book Rights Registry in charge. The public interest should be protected, ULC's statement maintains, by a public library presence in the membership of the Book Rights Registry. "This is a pivotal moment in the history of access to recorded information, not unlike the introduction of moveable type or the birth of the Internet," said Ms. Benton. "It's essential that we get it right by making the needed changes before the settlement is approved. The principles of the broadest possible access to knowledge must guide the next era in the information age." The Urban Libraries Council -- http://www.urbanlibraries.org/-- has worked since 1971 to strengthen the public library as an essential part of urban life. A membership organization of North America's leading public library systems and the corporations that serve them, ULC serves as a forum for its members, a thought-leader and a voice for the library community. ULC's programs are acclaimed for invigorating urban libraries and enriching the cities they serve. ULC is headquartered in Chicago. KAISER FOUNDATION: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. Reimbursement Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Kaiser Foundation Health Plan filed a motion seeking dismissal of a purported class-action lawsuit accusing the plan of not reimbursing policyholders for their co-payments after getting third-party settlements, and thus pocketing more money than it is actually owed, Courthouse News Service reports. The suit, Glaus v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Case No. 09-02232 (N.D. Calif.), was filed on May 20, 2009, by Nicole Glaus (Class Action Reporter, June 2, 2009). Ms. Glaus claims that Kaiser refused to credit her for the co-payment she made when she was treated for injuries from a car accident. She says Kaiser demanded reimbursement from the settlement from her personal injury action against the driver who rear-ended her. According to Ms. Glaus, Kaiser was required to reimburse her for her co-payment under terms of its own policy handbook, Courthouse News Service relates. "Kaiser is breaking its own rules by taking money they're not entitled to," the plaintiff's lead attorney, Daniel Feinberg, Esq., of Oakland. The proposed class, which Mr. Feinberg estimates in the thousands, asks that Kaiser be ordered to repay them for co- payments, and be enjoined from violating its own policies. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3d74 The plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Feinberg, Esq. Margaret Hasselman, Esq. Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson, PC 1330 Broadway, Suite 1800 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: 510-839-6824 Fax: 510-839-7839 E-mail: dfeinberg@lewisfeinberg.com mhasselman@lewisfeinberg.com - and - Aaron Kaufman, Esq. Scott Sumner, Esq. Hinton, Alfert & Sumner 1646 N. California Blvd., Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: 925-932-6006 Fax: 925-932-3412 E-mail: kaufman@hinton-law.com sumner@hinton-law.com MANULIFE FINANCIAL: Sept. 8 Deadline is Lead Plaintiff Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Roy Jacobs & Associates reminds purchasers of Manulife Financial Corp. securities between March 28, 2008, and June 22, 2009 have only until Sept. 8, 2009, to file for Lead Plaintiff. The class action for violation of the securities laws is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that Manulife made false and misleading statements regarding its ability to manage and control risk in its Segregated Fund Contracts business. In fact, contrary to the Company's own purported risk management strategy, Manulife applied no material hedging techniques to limit this risk during an economic downturn. Indeed, at the very time the risk management strategy was disclosed to the investing public, the world economic system was suffering huge negative shocks and the equity markets were highly volatile and risky. The complaint further alleges that contrary to its purported risk management strategy, Manulife built up a massive stock portfolio, which it chose to leave unhedged. This resulted in a huge decline in the funds available to guaranty the Segregated Fund Contracts obligations, forcing the Company to raise billions in capital. The plaintiffs are represented by: Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. Roy Jacobs & Associates 60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor New York, NY 10165 Phone: 212-867-1156 Fax: 212-504-8343 E-mail: rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com Web site: http://www.jacobsclasslaw.com/ SOLVAY PHARMACEUTICALS: Dec. 2 Hearing Set for Estratest Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Anthony J. Mohr of the Los Angeles County Superior Court will hold a fairness hearing on Dec. 2, 2009, at 10:00 a.m., to review the proposed settlement in a consolidated class- action lawsuits against Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., regarding the marketing of the hormone replacement therapy drugs Estratest and Estratest H.S. in the State of California. Two lawsuits, Alexander v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. BC 300364, and Howard v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. BC 325120, were filed against the drug company. The proposed settlement provides that Solvay will pay $30 million into a Settlement Fund which will be used to pay: -- claims for any person or Third Party Payor who paid any part of the cost of Estratest, purchased in California at any time since August 7, 1999, -- costs of administration, notice, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and -- any incentive awards to Class representatives approved by the court. Gilardi & Co. LLC, has established a claims processing Web site at http://www.estratestlitigation.com/ The plaintiffs are represented by: Henry H. Rossbacher, Esq. The Rossbacher Firm 811 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1650 Los Angeles, California 90017-2666 Phone: (213) 895-6500 Fax: (213) 895-6161 Web site: http://www.rossbacherlaw.com/ PROVIDE-COMMERCE: Faces Calif. Suit Over Phony "Rewards Program" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Provide-Commerce, Inc., the owner of Pro Flowers, Red Envelope and other Web sites, faces a purported class-action suit that accuses it of creating a phony "rewards program" to steal monthly payments from customers, Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports. The suit was filed in San Diego Superior Court by Josue Romero, and is docketed as Case No. 37-2009-00096492-CU-BT-CTL. It alleges that a "third party marketing partner," Regent Group, Inc. d/b/a Encore Marketing International, "fraudulently bills the credit and debit cards under the guise that Provide- Commerce's customers authorized the billings." Provide-Commerce sells high-end perishables through ProFlowers, Red Envelope, Cherry Moon Farms, Secret Spoon, and Sharri's Berries, according to the complaint. Provide allegedly has Encore charge customers' credit cards $14.95 a month for a rewards program that offers no rewards, Mr. Hull reports. The class claims the defendants enroll customers in the "EasySaver Rewards" program without their knowledge when they go to a Web site to redeem a coupon. Later, the alleged victims find that a $1.95 "activation fee" and a $14.95 monthly "membership fee" have been charged to their debit or credit card. But the class says the deceptive program "does not provide any savings benefits, products or services." Mr. Romero claims he bought flowers from ProFlowers on his debit card. He says Provide-Commerce routinely and fraudulently transmits its customers' credit and debit card information to a third part marketing partner, defendant Regent Group, who then fraudulently bills the credit and debit cards under the guise that Provide-Commerce's customers authorized the billings. The plaintiff seeks class damages for fraud, breach of contract, and false advertising, according to Mr. Hull. The plaintiffs are represented by: James Patterson, Esq. Harrison Patterson O'Connor & Kinkead LLP 402 W Broadway, 29th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-756-6990 Fax: 619-756-6991 Web site: http://www.hpolaw.com/ STREAM ENERGY: Seeks Dismissal of Pyramid Scheme Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------- Stream Energy filed a motion on Aug. 24, 2009, to dismiss a lawsuit that accuses the company of running a pyramid scheme, Elizabeth Souder at The Dallas Morning News reports. Last month, Scott Clearman, Esq., sued the company in federal court in Houston. Mr. Clearman said he was seeking class-action status for the suit against Stream, a multilevel marketing electricity retailer that requires sales associates to pay $329 to sell the product, according to Mr. Souder. The company filed the motion to dismiss with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas and said in a news release that the lawsuit is "carelessly drafted" and "replete with dozens of misstatements of material fact," Mr. Souder reports. Representing the plaintiffs are: Scott Monroe Clearman The Clearman Law Firm PLLC 815 Walker, Suite 1040 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713-223-7070 Fax: 713-223-7071 E-mail: scott@clearmanlaw.com New Securities Fraud Cases DWS RREEF: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that 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 common shares of DWS RREEF Real Estate Fund, Inc. (DWS RREEF I) or DWS RREEF Real Estate Fund II, Inc. (DWS RREEF II) between March 8, 2007 and November 7, 2008. The complaint charges DWS RREEF I and DWS RREEF II and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. DWS RREEF I and DWS RREEF II are closed-end, non-diversified, management investment companies. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the Funds issued reports that misrepresented the Funds' investments, leverage and exposure to the auction rate preferred securities market. Due to defendants' false and misleading statements, investors purchased the common stock of the Funds during the Class Period at artificially inflated prices and were damaged thereby. Subsequently, as a result of disclosures which caused investors to realize that distributions would cease, the Funds' prices dropped. The price per share of DWS RREEF I dropped from $3.45 per share on November 14, 2008 to $2.65 on November 18, 2008, and the price per share of DWS RREEF II dropped from $1.90 per share on November 14, 2008 to $1.42 per share on November 18, 2008. The Funds have never recovered and DWS RREEF I trades at less than $2 per share and DWS RREEF II trades at less than $0.60 per share. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of common shares of either of the Funds during the Class Period. The plaintiffs are represented by: Darren J. Robbins, Esq. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058 Fax: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: djr@csgrr.com Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/dwsrreef/ PROSHARES TRUST: Howard Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- The 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 UltraShort Financials ProShares fund (NYSE: SKF), 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 SKF 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 SKF Fund is one of ProShares' UltraShort ETFs. The SKF Fund seeks investment results that correspond to twice the inverse (-200%) daily performance of the Dow Jones U.S. Financials Index (DJFIX), which measures the performance of the financial services industry of the U.S. equity market. Accordingly, the SKF Fund is supposed to deliver double the inverse return of the DJFIX, which fell approximately 51.03 percent from January 2, 2008 through December 17, 2008, ostensibly creating a sizeable profit for investors who anticipated a decline in the U.S. financial services industry. In other words, the SKF Fund should have appreciated by 102.6 percent during this period. However, the SKF Fund actually fell approximately 1.06 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 SKF Fund is altogether defective as a directional investment play, failing to perform anywhere near investors' reasonable expectations. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose the following risks in the Registration Statement: -- inverse correlation between the SKF Fund and the DJFIX over time would only happen in the rarest of circumstances, and inadvertently if at all; -- the extent to which performance of the SKF Fund would inevitably diverge from the performance of the DJFIX -- i.e., the probability, if not certainty, of spectacular tracking error; -- the severe consequences of high market volatility on the SKF Fund's investment objective and performance; -- the severe consequences of inherent path dependency in periods of high market volatility on the SKF Fund's performance; -- the role the SKF Fund plays in increasing market volatility, particularly in the last hour of trading; -- the consequences of the SKF 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 SKF Fund causes dislocations in the stock market; -- the SKF Fund offers a seemingly straightforward way to obtain desired exposure, but such exposure is not attainable through the SKF 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. 13, 2009. The plaintiffs are represented by: 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/ TRONOX INC: Bruce G. Murphy Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Bruce G. Murphy announces that a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Tronox, Inc. The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, and certain of its officers. According to the complaint, defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a)] and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC [17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5]. The Complaint alleges that the Defendants fraudulently concealed Tronox's massive environmental liabilities and resulting financial problems causing massive losses to innocent investors while unjustly enriching themselves. Kerr-McGee spun-off Tronox into an independent entity in a two-step process. First, in November of 2005, Kerr-McGee generated $225 million in proceeds following the initial public offering of Tronox at the price of $14.00 per share and retained control of 56.7% of Tronox's outstanding common stock. Next, in March of 2006, Kerr-McGee distributed its remaining 56.7% stake in Tronox to shareholders as Class B shares by way of a dividend. The Complaint further alleges that defendants, at the time of the IPO, knowingly mislead and misrepresented investors by materially understating the scope of Tronox's environmental and tort liabilities. The Registration Statement, and the prospectus therein, contained information that was materially false, misleading and ignored the adverse conditions facing Tronox. As is explained in further detail in the Complaint, Tronox has put forth allegations in its bankruptcy action (Tronox, Inc. v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., et al.) that the Registration Statement was materially misleading and greatly understated the liabilities that Tronox was burdened with. The Defendants continually misled investors throughout the Class Period by making materially false statements and concealing the true nature of Tronox's liabilities in numerous press releases and SEC filings. On June 22, 2006, Anadarko made an offer seeking to acquire Kerr-McGee for $18 billion, which included $16.4 billion in cash. On August 10, 2006, the Kerr-McGee shareholders voted to approve the offer and Kerr-McGee became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Anadarko, and as a result, Anadarko became the successor-in-interest to Kerr-McGee. Eventually, the market was able to uncover what the Defendants were attempting to conceal, Tronox's environmental and tort liabilities were in far excess of what had been represented, and, as a result, Tronox was in financial ruin and would need to seek the protection of bankruptcy laws therefore rendering the stockholders' investments virtually worthless. As a result of the dissemination of the false and misleading statements set forth in the complaint, the market price of Tronox common stock was artificially inflated during the Class Period. In ignorance of the false and misleading nature of the statements described above, and the deceptive and manipulative devices and contrivances employed by said defendants, plaintiffs and the other members of the Class relied, to their detriment, on the integrity of the market price of Tronox common stock. Had plaintiffs and the other members of the Class known the truth, they would not have purchased said common stock, or would not have purchased them at the inflated prices that were paid. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Sept. 8, 2009. For more details, contact: Bruce G. Murphy, Esq. 265 Llwyds Lane Vero Beach, FL 32963 Phone: (828) 737-0500 E-mail: bgm@brucemurphy.biz ********* 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 * * *