LAW BLOG NEWSLETTER
from The Wall Street Journal Online
March 29, 2009 -- 6:30 p.m.
___________________________________
TODAY'S POSTS
- Sarah Palin: 'Too Much Smarts to Hitch Her Wagon to a Mule...'
- Dennis Kucinich and Willie Nelson Sent On The Road Again
- 'Bitter Lawyer' Talks Wine and the Law With Critic Robert Parker
- Good Faith, Bad Faith? Sizing Up the Big Lyondell Decision
- DeGuerin on Stanford: 'This is Not a Ponzi Scheme'
- What Did Mr. Cole See at AIG?
- Looking for Used Chairs and Cheap Microwaves? Dreier LLP's Got Em!
- In Jet City, Allegations of Fast Deals and Fast Cars
- Casino Company Decides to Play Hardball With Milberg
***
Sarah Palin: 'Too Much Smarts to Hitch Her Wagon to a Mule...'
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, in need of a new Attorney General, tapped her former campaign chairman and attorney, Wayne Anthony Ross.
He replaces Talis Colberg, who resigned Feb. 10 citing a "harsh political climate" after some claimed he tried to derail an state investigation of Palin's role in "Troopergate." (Palin, the 2008 Republican VP nominee, was investigated for allegedly pressuring the state's public safety commissioner to fire a state trooper involved in a bitter divorce with Palin's sister. Legislators in Alaska accused Colberg of trying to protect Palin by quashing subpoenas of state employees in connection with the investigation, according to this report on Legal Newsline.)
Ross (Marquette Law) is one of those outsized personalities, best suited to the wide-open spaces of Texas or Alaska. According to this story in the Anchorage Daily News, Ross, a lifelong Catholic, is anti-death penalty and anti-abortion. He's a founding member of Alaska Right to Life and has been knighted by the Vatican. "I feel I have a good relationship with the good Lord (but) if I could overturn Roe vs. Wade, I figure I got my ticket," he once told a reporter.
A director of the National Rifle Association, Ross's hero is Theodore Roosevelt - he used to list his political affiliation as "one of the last of the Teddy Roosevelt BullMooser's." The Anchorage Daily News says his red Hummer has a personalized license tag that says "WAR."
According to the Daily News, Ross became friends with Palin during the 2002 election, when he was running in the Republican primary for governor and Palin was a candidate for lieutenant governor. He remembers putting out feelers about whether they might run as a team. "She had too much smarts to hitch her wagon to a mule that wasn't going to go anywhere," Ross joked.
Palin didn't win that time but was appointed to the state Oil and Gas Commission. When she pursued an ethics case against fellow commissioner Randy Ruedrich, chairman of the Alaska Republican Party, Ross was her attorney.
Ross will still have to be confirmed by the state legislature. This report by KTVA says the hearing may have some fireworks.
Photo:AP
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/03/27/sarah-palin-too-much-smarts-to-hitch-her-wagon-to-a-mule#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
Dennis Kucinich and Willie Nelson Sent On The Road Again
The powerhouse litigation tandem of Congressman Dennis Kucinich and Willie Nelson has suffered a setback at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The court on Tuesday rejected the duo's First Amendment suit against the Texas Democratic Party.
Here's the opinion, which lays out the back story. The Texas Democratic Party requires presidential candidates to execute a loyalty oath if they want their names added to the party's primary ballot. The candidate must swear to "fully support the Democratic nominee for president whoever that shall be." But Kucinich declined the oath, stating he could not agree to support a nominee who employed war as an instrument of foreign policy.
The party kept Kucinich off the ballot, so he fired back with a suit claiming his free-speech rights had been violated. Nelson, a political backer, jumped on board.
After losses in lower courts, Kucinich/Nelson were sent on the road again by the Fifth Cir., which held that the oath is constitutional. "How a candidate complies with the oath is up to him," the majority reasoned. A candidate, for example, could support the nominee, but still "criticize some of the nominee's positions." Also, the court pointed out, "the oath is legally unenforceable, [since a candidate] may repudiate it, at the risk of losing party member's support."
That last argument strikes us ─ constitutional lightweights, though we may be ─ as sort of strange. Don't worry about any constitutional problems, the court seems to say, the oath is not worth the paper it's written on.
The particulars of when and how Sir Willie got involved in the suit are unclear, but here's a You Tube clip of the country legend performing at a Kucinich campaign stop. Nelson tells the audience he favors Kucinich, because of his pro-farmer and anti-Iraq stands.
But we have to imagine that Willie, a renowned herbivore, also favors Kucinich's call to decriminalize pot. Here's an excerpt from a Kucinich speech on the topic:
"Most marijuana users do so responsibly, in a safe, recreational context. These people lead normal, productive lives - pursuing careers, raising families, and participating in civic life."
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/03/27/dennis-kucinich-and-willie-nelson-sent-on-the-road-again#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
'Bitter Lawyer' Talks Wine and the Law With Critic Robert Parker
When it comes to wine, we largely plead ignorance. We couldn't tell a $100 Cabernet from an $8 Malbec if our life depended on it. (Heck, we actually just learned the word "Malbec" about 20 minutes ago).
But one thing we did know about wine prior to this morning is that Robert Parker is a famous wine critic with a law degree. We learned a lot more, however, after reading this surprisingly interesting Q&A with Parker, assembled by the folks over at Bitter Lawyer.
It's a really good read. We were especially taken with Parker's discussion of his days practicing law, and how he managed to transition out of it. (We also really want to be wherever Parker was when this strange and vaguely hallucinatory picture of him was taken. Ah, to be floating over a vineyard at sunset with a hearty glass of Malbec mere inches from your mouth.)
A couple good excerpts:
What kind of law did you practice?
Between 1973 and 1983, I practiced as a corporate banking lawyer, specializing in the Uniform Commercial Code and Bankruptcy Law. In 1983, I retired fully from the practice of law. I worked that entire time for the Farm Credit Banks of Baltimore. This was primarily an agriculture bankruptcy and uniform commercial code law practice.
Did you like being a lawyer?
I never felt totally comfortable as a lawyer, and my primary interest, even prior to law school, was the study of wine and how compelling this beverage could be. . . . Law school deserves a great deal of credit for the success I have enjoyed in the field of wine. The difficulty of the studies, the discipline required, the deductive way of thinking, and the comprehensive, detailed, meticulous research required of a lawyer have all been applied over the last thirty years in evaluating and studying wine.
In addition, the 50-100 point scoring system for which I have become so well known was used at the University of Maryland Law School. . . .
How did you transition from law to wine?
I was never quite sure how to make a living by writing about wine full time. When I launched my guide, The Wine Advocate, in 1978, most wine writers were actually part of the wine trade, or existed because of the largesse of the wine trade. The idea of an independent publication with no advertising and working separate and apart from the wine trade seemed somewhat far-fetched. I began by mailing out 2,000 free copies of the first issue to wine retailers in the Baltimore and Washington, DC areas, began receiving paid subscriptions, and slowly but surely gained credibility.
There's a lot more to the article, including these awesome lines:
When I am tasting professionally and visiting wine estates throughout the world, I am very focused on spitting, not swallowing, and I am able to maintain a razor-sharp mentality. I can easily turn off the analytical faculties and just enjoy the wine for its pleasurable, hedonistic qualities. We're going to drop a little knowledge on you at this point, LB Readers. Once upon a time, boxed wine was reserved solely for hobos and sorority mixers. Not anymore. Click here for a recent Esquire article on the best of the new boxed generation.
Photo: Bitter Lawyer
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/03/27/bitter-lawyer-talks-wine-and-the-law-with-critic-robert-parker#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
Good Faith, Bad Faith? Sizing Up the Big Lyondell Decision
Corporations professors got some more pages to stick in the next edition of their casebook when the Delaware Supremes issued their long-awaited ruling in Ryan v. Lyondell on Thursday. Click here for the opinion, which seems poised to change the landscape for evaluating what boards of directors are required to when sizing up a merger proposal.
The court reversed a ruling from the Vice Chancellor John Noble and granted summary judgment to Lyondell's directors, finding that they acted in good faith last year when they accepted a merger offer of $48 per share from Basell AF, a Dutch chemical business. Click here for commentary from BYU professor Gordon Smith at the Conglomerate Blog, here for a take from UCLA's Stephen Bainbridge, here for another take from Creighton's Eric Chiappinelli; and here for a nice writeup from AmLaw Daily's Alison Frankel.
The plaintiffs in the case, a group of disgruntled shareholders, had been looking not to break up the merger - the merger was completed at the end of 2008 and the U.S. arm of the merged entity has already filed for bankruptcy - but for monetary damages suffered as a result of the merger.
Here's the backstory: Dan Smith, Lyondell's chairman and CEO, first found out about Basell's interest in an acquisition back in April of 2006. But neither Smith nor Lyondell's board did much with Basell's overture until several months later, at which time Basell presented to the company a take-it-or-leave it offer that, Basell insisted, had to be answered within a week. At that time, Smith and the Lyondell board did the best they could to research the offer within the short time window, and ultimately accepted the offer.
A small group of shareholders sued in both Texas and Delaware, claiming that the Lyondell board violated its duty to shareholders by not doing enough to research the deal after Basell's first overture and then by accepting the deal too quickly once the deadline was imposed. The Texas court ruled the merger could go forward, but the shareholders pressed their lawsuit for damages in the Delaware courts.
The Delaware trial court - the Court of Chancery - granted summary judgment for both Lyondell and Basell, but didn't grant summary judgment for the Lyondell directors, holding instead that couldn't conclude, on the limited record before him, that the directors "acted appropriately under the circumstances of this case" and that an "unexplained inaction" - the two months in which the company did very little - allowed an inference that the directors may have shirked their fiduciary duties.
The directors, represented by Richards, Layton & Finger's Dan Dresibach and Tom Beck, with an assist from Skadden's Ed Welch and Ed Micheletti (representing Lyondell) appealed the denial of summary judgment to the Delaware Supreme Court.
The long and the short? The directors are off the hook. According to Pace University Law Professor Andrew Lund, the decision was notable for a couple of reasons. First, the court held that the duties put forth in the famed 1986 Revlon decision, did not apply to the Lyondell board during the two month period of relative inactivity. "The problem with the trial court's analysis," reads the opinion, "is that Revlon duties do not arise simply when a company is 'in play.' The duty to seek the best available price applies only when a company embarks on a transaction . . . that will result in a change of control." In other words, Revlon kicks in when a board starts a negotiation to sell the company.
Okay, so what about the week-long period after hearing about the offer? Did the directors fail in their duty of good faith to the shareholders? Lund points to a pivotal section late in the opinion in which the court explains: "Only if [the directors] knowingly and completely failed to undertake their responsibilities would they breach their duty of loyalty. The trial court approached the record from the wrong perspective. Instead of questioning whether disinterested, independent directors did everything that they (arguably) should have done to obtain the best sale price, the inquiry should have been whether those directors utterly failed to attempt to obtain the best sale price."
Lund explains that given this language, it's going to be hard for shareholders going forward to make "good faith" claims against corporate boards in such circumstances. "It all but eviscerates the ability to bring such a claim."
Lund also says that the court didn't need to go this far; it could have just made its Revlon ruling as it pertained to the two month period, and sent the case back to the Chancery court to apply the Revlon analysis to the one-week period. "But the court swung for the fences," says Lund, by articulating this new "good faith" standard, particularly the "completely" and "utterly" adverbs. "It's not going to make the plaintiffs' bar very happy."
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/03/27/good-faith-bad-faith-sizing-up-the-big-lyondell-decision#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
DeGuerin on Stanford: 'This is Not a Ponzi Scheme'
If and when alleged fraudster R. Allen Stanford frees up some money for his legal defense, it looks like some of it will make its way into the pocket of Dick DeGuerin, a celebrated Houston criminal defense lawyer whose clients have included Branch Davidian leader David Koresh, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and, more recently, U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent.
According to recent news accounts, Stanford and DeGuerin have been in touch, and are looking for a way to partner up. "It's a matter of having been engaged and not retained," said DeGuerin to the Chron.
The SEC has charged Stanford with effectively running an $8 billion Ponzi scheme. Stanford has not been criminally charged.
DeGuerin, whose Web site claims that he handles all types of cases, "from the large and complex felonies to misdemeanors," came out swinging at a recent interview with Business Week.
"This is not a Ponzi scheme," DeGuerin told the magazine. "The SEC is using Stanford as a distraction from its failures in Madoff. This is not Madoff." DeGuerin added: "There are hard assets for every dollar invested" with Stanford's offshore bank in Antigua, says DeGuerin. "The losses in the Stanford case are right in line with the stock market."
The SEC, in its civil complaint, alleged that Stanford took at least $1.6 billion in personal loans from his offshore bank and deceived investors about the assets the bank was investing in. The SEC alleges the high yields on the certificates of deposit sold by Stanford International Bank were deceptive and unsustainable.
"We'll let the complaint speak for itself," SEC spokesman John Nester told Business Week.
Thing is, whether DeGuerin is allowed to fully unleash his lawyerly powers depends in no small part on whether he can get a federal judge to unfreeze some of Stanford's reported $2.2 billion in assets. Click here for an earlier Law Blog post on Stanford's difficulty in hiring a lawyer.
The aggressive tack being taken by DeGuerin is not uncharacteristic. Houston attorney Philip Hilder, a former federal prosecutor and criminal defense lawyer, told Business Week: "Dick is very aggressive and thorough, and he will make the government work."
Meanwhile, Stanford's top deputy, Jim Davis, the company's former chief financial officer, is now cooperating with authorities, according to his lawyer, David Finn. It could bode ill for Stanford himself.
DeGuerin, however, seemed unconcerned. Said DeGuerin to Business Week: "If he tells the truth, it doesn't concern us."
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/03/27/deguerin-on-stanford-this-is-not-a-ponzi-scheme#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
What Did Mr. Cole See at AIG?
Government oversight officials still looking for answers to what happened at AIG could look to a government-appointed attorney who has been on site and inside AIG board-committee meetings for the past four years. His name is James Cole, and he's a partner in Bryan Cave's D.C. office. Click here for the WSJ story, from the erstwhile Law Blogger, Peter Lattman.
AIG has paid lawyer James Cole and Bryan Cave about $20 million to oversee business practices at AIG, say people familiar with the matter. He was put inside AIG as a monitor as part of a $126 million settlement struck in November 2004 between AIG and the Justice Department and Securities and Exchange Commission. Click here for the WSJ's story on that deal, which primarily related to three transactions AIG entered into with Pittsburgh-based PNC Financial Services Group Inc.
As part of the settlement, the Justice Department agreed not to pursue criminal charges against the company in exchange for implementing reforms and the review of certain financial transactions by Cole.
But there are a few rubs here. For starters, Cole wasn't assigned to examine many of the issues at the heart of AIG's near collapse, such as credit-default swaps or retention bonuses. And Cole's reports on the company's progress, periodically delivered to federal regulators since 2005, aren't public.
The government might have something to glean from his work, though. He was involved in top-level board-committee meetings and general corporate oversight, which gave U.S. officials a direct line into goings-on at the insurer prior to its near collapse last year.
His original assignment, which began in January 2005, was to investigate financial transactions dating back to 2000 in which AIG helped companies smooth earnings. Some of those transactions were structured by the insurer's financial-products group, the unit that would later write billions of dollars in credit-default-swap contracts that ultimately went bad.
His responsibilities broadened in November 2006, after a separate settlement with the SEC and New York state authorities. In that case, AIG paid $1.6 billion to resolve an inquiry into accounting irregularities and bid-rigging allegations. That agreement called for Cole to examine AIG's controls on financial reporting as well as oversight over corporate governance in areas such as compliance.
Cole attended AIG board-committee meetings, including at least two audit-committee meetings during February 2008 in which the board discussed a finding by its auditors that there was "material weakness" in AIG's accounting systems, according to board minutes.
But as far as what Cole saw, he's not divulging much at all. "The scope of my work is set out in the several court-settlement documents under which I was appointed," Mr. Cole said. "These documents also prohibit me from making a public comment on that work."
An AIG spokesman declined to comment, as did spokesmen for the SEC and Justice Department.
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/03/27/what-did-mr-cole-see-at-aig#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
Looking for Used Chairs and Cheap Microwaves? Dreier LLP's Got Em!
Anyone who happened to be in New York yesterday and was looking to round out his or her offices with some well-appointed furniture on the cheap, Dreier LLP's former digs were the place to be. That's where auctioneer Barton Hyte sold off a bunch of the firm's possessions - as the New York Law Journal put it, "everything from mugs and pens with the firm's logo to a Herman Miller Eames chair." Click here for the NYLJ story; here, here and here for recent LB coverage on the Dreier situation.
Thursday's sale came less than four months after the firm's founder and sole equity partner, Marc Dreier, was arrested at LaGuardia Airport after being charged in Toronto with impersonating an employee of the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan. According to the latest indictment, the attorney stands accused of peddling almost $700 million in notes to 13 different hedge funds and three individuals.
According to the NYLJ story, about 70 bidders attended the auction, some of whom knew little about the Dreier backstory.
Some items up for grabs reportedly sold at bargain-basement prices, including a walnut bookcase for $50, a tan ultra-suede sofa for $275, 13 knoll task chairs at $225 a piece, and a white microwave oven for $25. Even the Eames chair sold at the relatively cheap price of $1,250.
"I feel like I've been shot by a bullet," Hyte joked as he sold a five-drawer lateral file for $100.
At one point, an ex-Dreier employee who did not want to give his name shouted, "They just sold my office for a hundred bucks."
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/03/27/looking-for-used-chairs-and-cheap-microwaves-dreier-llps-got-em#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
In Jet City, Allegations of Fast Deals and Fast Cars
The latest in the onslaught of local prosecutions of mortgage fraud today comes from Seattle where a grand jury has returned a 40-count indictment against seven people alleging they conspired to commit mortgage, bank and wire fraud totaling more than $47 million. Click here for the indictment; here for the story from the Seattle Times; here for a post from last September on mortgage-fraud prosecutions.
According to the Seattle Times story, the seven conspired to fraudulently purchase dozens of homes in Seattle and its tony eastern suburbs at inflated prices. They allegedly got loans using phony buyers.
The Times explains:
"The charges allege they would obtain loans using 'straw buyers' - people who had no intention of living in the home but allowed their identities and credit to be used for a fee - and sometimes using unwitting applicants convinced they could make a buck by buying a home and then immediately reselling it. 'The defendants . . . caused the loan application for the straw buyers and otherwise unqualified buyers to be prepared based upon fraudulent representations related to gross income, employment status, assets and liabilities, and whether the property would be used as a primary residence,' the indictment says."
The defendants then allegedly pocketed the some of the loan proceeds from the escrow accounts to buy two 2004 Lamborghini Gallardo sports cars (one of which is pictured) (recently named the Robb Report's Car of the Year, it seems), among other items.
The indictment comes on the heels of a racketeering lawsuit filed in federal court in Seattle by ING Bank, the nation's second-largest thrift, alleging a criminal conspiracy by an escrow agent, a mortgage broker and 10 couples to defraud the bank of at least $6 million through falsified mortgages.
In that suit, the bank says David and Alla Sobol, two of the defendants in the federal indictment in Seattle, formed a family limited partnership to keep fraudulently gained fees out of creditors' reach.
Attorneys for the men say the Russian-speaking immigrants are victims.
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/03/26/in-jet-city-allegations-of-fast-deals-and-fast-cars#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
Casino Company Decides to Play Hardball With Milberg
Vestiges of the old Milberg criminal prosecution are back in the news. Lakes Entertainment, a casino company, has filed a fraud and RICO suit against Milberg in Minnesota federal court. Click here for a copy of the complaint.
The suit involves the law firm's use of John Torkelsen, one of its former go-to experts on damages, who pleaded guilty last year in the Milberg criminal case to perjury for failing to disclose that Milberg paid him on a contingency fee basis. Torkelsen got paid only if Milberg recovered damages in cases in which he served as an expert; a conflict, according to prosecutors, because it gave Torkelsen an incentive to trump up damages. Here's a WSJ Law Blog piece on Torkelsen.
Lakes Entertainment claims that Torkelsen was paid on a contingency basis in a 1997 Milberg securities case in which Torkelsen estimated that a predecessor to Lakes Entertainment had caused $165 million in damages. That damages estimate played a role in the securities suit settling for $18 million, according to the suit. Now, Lakes wants that money back. Here's a report from the American Lawyer's Ben Hallman about the suit against Milberg.
Torkelsen once was one of the top damages experts in the securities-fraud field, used by many class-action firms. Milberg lawyers have said Torkelsen once hosted a party in his hometown of Princeton, N.J., that featured a live performance by Aretha Franklin. Guests were transported to the party in limousines, according to lawyers who attended the party. Click here for an earlier WSJ story on Torkelsen.
Milberg told American Lawyer: "This company's claim that our former West Coast partners 'extorted' settlement of a securities case in early 2000 is absurd on its face and will be vigorously defended." [End of post]
See and Post Comments: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/03/26/casino-company-decides-to-play-hardball-with-milberg#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB&reflink=djemWLB
***
___________________________________
LAW VIDEO
Matthew Gluck, a partner at Milberg LLP, tells Kelsey Hubbard how his firm hopes to help victims of Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme get compensated.
http://online.wsj.com/video/what-madoff-victims-can-expect/87A19AE4-927F-4852-A1BF-9B8E59A20EF8.html#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB
___________________________________
TOP LAW NEWS
One Texas resident's effort to move a polling station has prompted a Supreme Court case that could bring the biggest change in election law since the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123820648702763441.html#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB
* * *
One Texas resident's effort to move a polling station has prompted a Supreme Court case that could bring the biggest change in election law since the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123820648702763441.html#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB
* * *
Cuomo is shifting his AIG probe from bonus payments to the expertise needed to unwind swaps deals at the insurer's financial-products unit.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123808477010749145.html#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB
* * *
Investors who say they lost money in an alleged Ponzi scheme perpetuated by Agape World have filed a lawsuit against Bank of America and several futures brokerage firms.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123818080821159481.html#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB
* * *
Nvidia escalated a legal battle with Intel, filing a countersuit that accuses the giant chip maker of deliberately trying to hobble a competitor. - Big Hopes for New Intel Chip
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123810244681351655.html#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB
* * *
Bristol-Myers Squibb agreed to pay $2.1 million to settle a probe into the company's negotiations to delay the launch of a generic version of Plavix.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123810826101752515.html#mod=djemWEB&reflink=djemWEB
___________________________________
ADVERTISEMENT
Take Advantage of Online Journal Research and Tools!
Utilize our valuable research and tools for important business,
investing and financial planning decisions. Our research includes
quotes and up-to-date information on nearly 30,000 companies as well
as an article archive and extensive market data.
http://online.wsj.com/advanced_search?mod=emtdfix
Contact WSJ's Law Blog at lawblog@wsj.com
__________________________________
ONLINE JOURNAL E-MAIL CENTER
TO UNSUBSCRIBE DIRECTLY from this list, go to:
http://setup.wsj.com/EmailSubMgr/do/delete?addr=ignoble.experiment%40ARCONATI.US&id=145
Your request will take effect within 48 hours.
TO VIEW OR CHANGE any of your e-mail settings, go to the E-Mail Setup Center:
http://online.wsj.com/email
You are currently subscribed as ignoble.experiment@ARCONATI.US
FOR FURTHER ASSISTANCE, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-369-2834
or 1-609-514-0870 between the hours of 7 am - 10 pm Monday - Friday and 8 am - 3 pm Saturday or e-mail onlinejournal@wsj.com.
___________________________________
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Policy -
http://online.wsj.com/public/privacy_policy
Contact Us -
http://online.wsj.com/public/contact_us
No comments:
Post a Comment
Keep a civil tongue.