CHICAGO COMPANY CHARGED BY SEC OF DEFRAUDING INVESTORS OF $20 MILLION

The following is an excerpt from the SEC website: On October 11, 2011, the SEC filed a civil enforcement action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Gregory E. Webb and InfrAegis, Inc. Webb, a 64-year-old resident of Arlington Heights, Illinois, is the Chairman, CEO, and President of InfrAegis. InfrAegis is a company based in the Chicago suburb of Elk Grove Village, Illinois and purports to make products for the homeland security market. The SEC’s Complaint charges Webb and InfrAegis with conducting a fraudulent, unregistered offering of InfrAegis stock that raised over $20 million from hundreds of investors across the country. The SEC’s Complaint alleges that, throughout the offering, in written offering materials provided to investors, Webb and InfrAegis made false and misleading claims about InfrAegis’ commercial success, including the existence of contracts for the sale of InfrAegis’ products. For example, according to the SEC’s Complaint, Webb and InfrAegis made false and misleading statements to investors about the existence of lucrative contracts with the City of Chicago and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority that would result in billions of dollars in revenue for InfrAegis. The SEC also alleges that Webb and InfrAegis made false and misleading claims about the purported sale of a partial stake in InfrAegis for $8.7 billion, which they told investors would result in 3800% to 4000% returns on their investments. According to the Complaint, Webb personally solicited investors during conference calls in which he repeated these false and misleading claims. Based on their conduct, the SEC alleges that Webb and InfrAegis violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The SEC’s Complaint seeks a permanent injunction and disgorgement, plus prejudgment interest, against Webb and InfrAegis and a civil penalty against Webb.”

ALLEGED FAMILY INSIDER TRADING SCHEME IN AON HEWITT ASSOCIATES MERGER

October 11, 2011 MERGER AND AN ALLEGED INSIDE TRADING SCHEME IN HEWITT ASSOCIATES STOCK The following is an excerpt from the SEC website: “The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed a civil injunctive action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois charging M. Jason Hanold, a former managing director at an executive search firm in Chicago, with illegal insider trading in Hewitt Associates stock in advance of the July 12, 2010 public announcement of a merger agreement between Aon and Hewitt Associates. The SEC alleges that on July 7, Hanold bought shares of Hewitt Associates stock after learning of the impending merger from his wife, who was an executive at Aon at the time. He did so despite requests from his wife that he keep this nonpublic information confidential. According to the SEC’s complaint, Hanold’s wife learned on or about July 6, 2010 that Aon and Hewitt Associates had reached a merger agreement and that a public announcement was imminent. Hanold’s wife shared this information with Hanold in a telephone call that evening. Shortly after the call ended, Hanold’s wife sent him two emails in which she requested that he not share this information. Hanold replied, “I won’t, no need. I only wish we bought their stock!!!” The next day, July 7, 2010, Hanold purchased 831 shares of Hewitt Associate’s stock in advance of the July 12, 2010 public announcement of the agreement between Hewitt Associates and Aon. The announcement caused Hewitt Associates’ stock price to increase by more than 32%. Hanold sold all of his shares on July 12, 2010 for a profit of $10,241. Without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, except as to jurisdiction, Hanold has consented to entry of a final judgment that permanently enjoins him from violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Hanold has also consented to pay $20,766 in disgorgement, prejudgment interest and civil penalties. The settlement is subject to approval by the court. James G. O’Keefe conducted the SEC’s investigation in this matter. The Commission acknowledges the assistance of FINRA in this investigation.”

SPEECH BY MARY SCHAPIRO AT OCTOBER 12, 2011 OPEN MEETING OF THE SEC

The following excerpt is from the SEC website: SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Washington, D.C. October 12, 2011 "Good morning. This is an open meeting of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on October 12, 2011. The Commission today will consider two proposals stemming from the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. First, we will consider whether to propose a rule to implement Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act — or what we commonly refer to as the Volcker Rule. Second, we will consider whether to propose new rules that would set out the registration process for security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants. I would like to thank the U.K. Financial Services Authority and its technical staff as well as the Commission’s technical staff for making it possible for me to participate in this open meeting from London. Although I do not know if this is a first for the Commission, it certainly is a first for me, and I appreciate the effort that has gone into facilitating this transatlantic open meeting to propose these important Dodd-Frank Act rulemakings. * * * We begin with the proposal to implement the Volcker Rule, which generally prohibits certain banking entities from engaging in proprietary trading or sponsoring or investing in a hedge fund or private equity fund. The statute is intended to curb the proprietary interests of commercial banks and their affiliates in order to protect taxpayers and consumers by prohibiting insured depository institutions from engaging in risky proprietary trading. Section 619 is a key component of the Dodd-Frank legislation. Its implementation would be a step forward in reducing conflicts of interests between the self-interests of banking entities and the interests of their customers. The statute is aimed at constraining banking entities’ proprietary trading, protecting the provision of essential financial services and promoting the stability of the U.S. financial system. In drafting this proposal, the Commission worked with our fellow regulators to ensure the rule will be applied consistently across institutions. Indeed, today’s rule is being proposed jointly with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and eventually the CFTC. This has been an extensive undertaking. Throughout the process of formulating this proposal, the SEC staff worked actively and continuously with the staffs of our fellow regulators in this collaborative effort, marked by more than a year of weekly, if not more frequent, interagency staff conference calls, interagency meetings, and shared drafting. The dedication and collective efforts of this interagency team deserve our thanks. Under the proposed rule, certain banking entities generally would be prohibited from engaging in proprietary trading. This includes banks, bank holding companies and their affiliates — as well as the U.S. operations of foreign banks and bank holding companies and their affiliates, including affiliated broker-dealers and investment advisers. In addition, the proposed rule prevents these entities from circumventing this proprietary trading prohibition in that it restricts these entities from sponsoring or investing in hedge funds or private equity funds. At the same time, the proposed rule — as required by the Dodd-Frank Act — permits certain activities necessary for capital raising and the healthy functioning of our securities markets. These include such things as market-making related activities, risk-mitigating hedging, and underwriting. These otherwise permitted activities are not permitted, however, if they involve material conflicts of interest, high-risk assets or trading strategies, or if they threaten the safety and soundness of banking institutions or U.S. financial stability. Although the proposed rule broadly captures all securities and security-based swap dealer accounts, the proposal seeks to strike an appropriate balance between prohibiting proprietary trading and continuing to permit activities that are consistent with normal course market making, risk-mitigating hedging and underwriting. In addition, the proposed rule implements the Dodd-Frank Act’s prohibition on, as principal, directly or indirectly acquiring and retaining an ownership interest in, or having certain relationships with, a hedge fund or private equity fund. In developing this proposal, we have considered comments received in response to the Financial Stability Oversight Council’s (FSOC) January 2011 study formalizing the FSOC’s findings and recommendations for implementing Section 619, as well as additional comments we have received. That said, we believe it is important to gain additional information, including empirical data, about the potential impacts the proposed rule will have. We ask a number of questions about such impacts in the proposal, and we look forward to receiving comments. Before I turn to David Blass of the Division of Trading and Markets to provide a detailed discussion about the staff’s recommendation, I would like to thank Gregg Berman, David Blass, Catherine McGuire, Josephine Tao, Liz Sandoe, David Bloom, Anthony Kelly, Angela Moudy, Daniel Staroselsky, and Nathaniel Stankard from the Division of Trading and Markets for their incredibly hard work on this. In addition, I would like to thank Robert Plaze, Daniel Kahl, Tram Nguyen, Michael Spratt, and Parisa Haghshenas from the Division of Investment Management for their long hours and hard work devoted to preparing the recommendation before us. I also would like to thank their colleagues in the Division of Corporation Finance: Paula Dubberly, Amy Starr, Katherine Hsu, John Harrington, and David Beaning. In the Division of Enforcement: Charlotte Buford and Jason Anthony. In the Office of the General Counsel: Meridith Mitchell, Lori Price, Paula Jenson, Sara Cortes, and Jill Felker. And in the Division of Risk, Strategy, and Financial Innovation: Jennifer Marrietta-Westberg, Adam Yonce, Chuck Dale, and Rick Bookstaber. In addition, I would like to thank our colleagues at the Board, the CFTC, the FDIC, the OCC, and the Department of the Treasury for their collegiality and thoughtful input in working with our staff to develop the proposal before us. And finally, of course, I would like to thank my colleagues on the Commission and their counsels for their work and comments on the proposal. I will now ask David to provide us with additional details about the staff’s recommendations.”

SEC COMMISSIONER AGUILAR SPEAKS ON SECURITY-BASED SWAPS

The following is an excerpt from the SEC website: “SEC Open Meeting Washington, D.C. October 12, 2011 In light of the critical role played by unregulated derivatives in the financial crisis of 2008, Congress created a comprehensive regulatory regime for derivatives in Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act designed to promote, among other things, the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system. However, this regulatory regime cannot go into effect until the primary regulators promulgate and adopt rules that implement this regime. One component of these Title VII reforms is the requirement that security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants register and be overseen by the Commission. Today, we consider proposed rules that would implement this provision of Title VII by requiring these entities to register with the Commission. As always, I welcome public comment on today’s proposal. Currently, the proposed rules require a knowledgeable senior officer to certify that the entity applying for registration has the operational, financial, and compliance capabilities to conduct its security-based swaps business. As we move to adopt these rules, I am particularly interested in comments addressing the most effective way to ensure that SBS entities have the capabilities required to fulfill the crucial roles they occupy. I will vote to support this proposal, and I join my colleagues in thanking the staff for their work.”

ALLEGED STOCK PRICE INFLATION TRANSACTIONS LEAD TO FRAUD CHARGES AGAINST CORP. EXECUTIVES

October 6, 2011 The following is an excerpt from the SEC website: “The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed fraud charges against two former sales executives with Mountain View, Calif. medical equipment company Hansen Medical, Inc., alleging they orchestrated fraudulent transactions to inflate the company’s reported revenues. In a separate proceeding, the SEC also filed settled charges against Hansen Medical for providing misleading financial information to public investors. The SEC’s complaint, filed in federal district court in San Francisco, alleges that Christopher Sells, Hansen Medical’s former Vice President of Commercial Operations, and Timothy Murawski, a former Vice President of Sales who reported to Sells, participated in multiple improper sales transactions in 2008 and 2009. The SEC alleges the individuals engaged in the scheme as Hansen Medical underwent efforts to raise additional capital from investors. According to the SEC’s complaint, on multiple occasions Sells of Dallas, Tex., and Murawski of Lake Zurich, Ill., schemed to have Hansen Medical personnel temporarily install the company’s robotic catheter system at a customer site before the customer was ready for it so that Hansen Medical could record the product sale. Hansen Medical personnel would then immediately dismantle the equipment and put it in storage until months later, when they would return to reinstall the equipment. The SEC further alleges that, in a sales transaction in the final days of December 2008, Sells and Murawski instructed Hansen Medical personnel to forge a customer signature on certain required documents to allow the company to record the revenue that quarter. According to the SEC, Sells and Murawski’s schemes were intended to circumvent revenue recognition rules and to fool Hansen Medical’s finance personnel and auditors into believing that the sales had been completed and revenue could be recorded. The SEC’s complaint charges Sells and Murawski with violations of Sections 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Securities Act, and Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, and Rules 10b-5 and 13b2-1 thereunder, aiding and abetting violations of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder. The SEC also charges Sells with violations of Rules 13b2-2 under the Exchange Act. The SEC seeks permanent injunctions and financial penalties against Sells and Murawski, and also seeks to bar Sells from serving as an officer or director of a public company. In a separate administrative proceeding, Hansen Medical consented (without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings) to the entry of a Order that requires that Hansen Medical to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act, and Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder. In considering whether to accept Hansen Medical's settlement offer, the Commission took into consideration Hansen Medical’s cooperation with the Commission’s investigation and its remedial efforts once the fraud came to light.”

REMARKS MADE AT BETTER INVESTING NATIONAL CONVENTION

The following excerpt is from the SEC website: "Speech by SEC Staff: by by Lori J. Schock Director, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Covington, Kentucky September 17, 2011 I. Introduction I would like to begin by thanking BetterInvesting for inviting me to speak with you today. As I begin, I must remind you that my remarks expressed here are my own views, and not necessarily those of the Commission or its staff.1 I’d like to begin my talk today with an overview of how the Commission’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy (OIEA) helps empower individual investors throughout the United States. I will follow that discussion with a brief summary of the financial reform bill that Congress passed last year, followed by discussion of the recent work that the Commission is doing in connection with that legislation. I’ll leave a few minutes for questions at the end, if there are any. II. Overview of OIEA OIEA’s mission is to provide individual investors with the information they need to make sound decisions concerning investments in the securities markets. OIEA administers three primary programs to promote this mission: conducting educational outreach to individual investors; assisting individual investors with complaints and inquiries about the securities markets; and providing the Commission and Commission staff with input from the perspective of the individual investor. III. Investor Outreach and Education OIEA administers the SEC’s nationwide investor education program. In addition to participation in numerous financial literacy and investor education events throughout the year, this program includes Investor.gov, print publications, Investor Alerts and Bulletins, and numerous partnerships with outside organizations. Investor.gov In March 2011, the SEC re-launched Investor.gov, its first-ever Web site devoted exclusively to investor education, to make it easier for people to get objective information on investing wisely and avoiding fraud. The updated site contains a new design and additional information in an even more user-friendly format. By visiting Investor.gov, individuals can access unbiased information on a variety of investing topics, including researching investments and investment professionals, understanding fees, and avoiding fraud. Most of the content on the site is written at an 8 th grade reading level, including the “Investing Basics” section, which explains common retail investment products in plain language. Investor.gov also offers helpful tools and materials targeted to specific groups, such as members of the military, teachers, and retirees. The site will be further enhanced with videos, interactive quizzes, and additional investor education resources in the coming months. In addition, we are working with the Department of Treasury to ensure that key resources from Investor.gov are included in relevant sections of the Financial Literacy and Education Commission’s financial education web site, MyMoney.gov. Print Publications Like our online materials, our print publications are directed at helping individuals make wise investment choices and avoid fraud. We emphasize factors everyone should consider before they invest, and explain important questions to which they should get answers before investing. All of our materials are available free of charge and not copyrighted, so that the widest possible dissemination is encouraged. We offer our most popular brochures in both English and Spanish, including publications focused on mutual funds and variable annuities. Our most recent publication is a primer to help students get started on a long-term financial goal. The SEC’s Saving and Investing for Students booklet explains different types of financial products, the realities of risk, and other key information for students. Individuals can order free copies of Saving and Investing for Students or any SEC print publication by calling (888) 878-3256 or visiting Investor.gov. Individuals can also receive SEC brochures by ordering the Financial Literacy and Education Commission’s MyMoney toolkit. Additionally, we have developed a series of 14 information sheets including such topics as Asset Allocation, Target Date Funds, Ponzi Schemes and Affinity Fraud. Investor Alerts and Bulletins Another way we reach out to individual investors is through our Investor Alerts and Bulletins program. Investor Alerts and Investor Bulletins are short articles written to inform the investing public about topical issues. Investor Bulletins provide individual investors with important information regarding various investment-related topics; through our Investor Alerts, OIEA warns investors about potentially questionable activity that the Commission’s staff has been made aware of, including through investor complaints and inquiries. In the past year we have published over 25 different pieces on a variety of subjects, including Forex trading, reverse mergers, municipal securities, stock trading basics, life settlements , and a number of new SEC rules. Recent Investor Alerts have covered Cobell Indian Settlement Payout investment scams, pre-IPO investment fraud, BP payout investment scams, and fake securities-related websites. Moreover, we have issued a number of joint alerts, including on target date funds with the Department of Labor and on structured notes with principal protection with FINRA. OIEA publishes Investor Alerts and Bulletins on the SEC’s website, SEC.gov, as well as on Investor.gov. We also disseminate them out through a variety of other channels, including a designated RSS feed, Gov.delivery, press releases, and our Twitter account, @SEC_Investor_Ed. In that light, and especially given potential constraints on resources, we plan to continue to explore the possible utilization other social media tools to reach more individual investors with limited additional cost. IV. OIEA’s Investor Assistance Program OIEA’s Office of Investor Assistance responds to questions, complaints, and suggestions from members of the public. The Office handles investment-related complaints and questions from tens of thousands of individual investors and others every year. Investors contact OIEA’s Investor Assistance Office seeking information about the securities markets, securities laws and regulations, investment products, and financial professionals. Investors also submit complaints involving brokers, investment advisers, transfer agents, mutual funds and other companies that issue securities. V. Overview of Dodd-Frank As you may know, the Dodd-frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, also known as the “Dodd-Frank Act,” was signed into law by President Obama in July 2010. This enormous law has 16 sections, and requires regulators to issue more than 20 studies and more than 100 rules. These requirements are split among banking regulators, the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, with a large majority of the work falling on the SEC. Accordingly, we have and will continue to be very busy complying with the requirements of the new law. Providing an overview of all the provisions of the new law could take us sometime. Instead, I plan to focus on some of the studies and rules that the SEC is required to complete under the law which will have a significant impact on individual investors. VI. Dodd-Frank Studies and Rulemakings The Dodd-Frank Act requires the SEC’s staff to complete a number of studies and rulemakings regarding issues that are important to individual investors. Financial Literacy Study One of the studies currently being worked on by the Commission involves an assessment of financial literacy among retail investors and subgroups of retail investors. In this study, we will examine and identify: The existing level of financial literacy among retail investors; Methods to improve the timing, content, and format of disclosures to investors with respect to financial intermediaries, investment products, and investment services; Methods to increase the transparency of expenses and conflicts of interest in transactions involving investment services and products; and The most effective existing private and public efforts to educate investors. As part of this financial literacy study, the SEC currently is conducting investor testing to examine the effectiveness of SEC-mandated disclosure documents, specifically, the Form 10-K annual report and the mutual fund shareholder report, in communicating useful information to individual investors. This testing is designed to gather feedback from investors in order to determine how these disclosure materials could more effectively communicate information to individual investors. We plan to deliver the results of this study in a final report to Congress by July 2012. BD and IA Registration Information Access Study Another Dodd-Frank Act study, which we recently completed, examines investor access to information about investment professionals. Currently, investors who want to investigate their broker or advisor online have to use two separate databases. For brokers and brokerage firms, the information is available through BrokerCheck, which is owned and operated by FINRA, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the self-regulatory organization for broker-dealers. For investment advisers and advisory firms, the information is available online through the Investment Adviser Public Disclosure system, or IAPD, which FINRA operates on behalf of the Commission. Most brokers, advisers and firms are either in one system or the other, but not both. At present, there is no crossover or link between the two systems, so investors have to know where to start — with BrokerCheck for brokers and brokerage firms, or with IAPD for advisers and advisory firms. This study analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of centralizing access to the information in these two databases. Additionally, the study also examines and identifies ways to make these databases more accessible and useful for investors. Based on our staff’s analysis of these two databases, the primary recommendations of the study include: Unifying FINRA’s BrokerCheck and the SEC’s Investment Adviser Public Disclosure (“IAPD”) database search results; Adding a ZIP code search function to BrokerCheck and IAPD; and Adding educational content to BrokerCheck and IAPD. In addition, the study recommends that our staff and FINRA continue to analyze the feasibility and advisability of expanding BrokerCheck to include information currently available in the Central Registration Depository (the securities industry online registration and licensing database developed by FINRA in consultation with the states), as well as the method and format of publishing that registration information. Say-on-Pay and Golden Parachute Votes The Dodd-Frank Act requires the SEC to establish new rules regarding shareholder approval of executive compensation and “golden parachute” compensation. On January 25, 2011, the SEC adopted new rules that require public companies subject to the Commission’s proxy rules to provide their shareholders with separate advisory votes on: The compensation of the most highly compensated executives, generally known as “Say-on-Pay” votes; The frequency of Say-on-Pay votes – every one, two or three years; and The compensation arrangements and understandings with those executive officers in connection with an acquisition or merger, known as “golden parachute” arrangements. In addition to the advisory vote on “golden parachute” arrangements, the new rules require companies to disclose, in narrative and tabular form, any agreements with executive officers regarding compensation related to the acquisition or merger. All public companies subject to the proxy rules, except smaller ones, must hold Say-on-Pay and frequency votes at shareholder meetings starting on January 21, 2011. Smaller public companies – those companies with a $75 million public float or less – are not required to hold these votes until January 21, 2013. All companies subject to the proxy rules are required to comply with the “golden parachute” vote and disclosure requirements for any proxy statement submitted on or after April 25, 2011. VII. Whistleblower Program In addition to new rules and regulations, the Dodd-Frank Act creates a powerful new tool to assist the SEC in the investigation and prosecution of violations of the federal securities laws. The Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the SEC to establish a new whistleblower program. This whistleblower program allows the SEC to pay awards to individuals who provide the Commission with high-quality tips that lead to successful SEC enforcement actions and certain related actions. This provision of the Dodd-Frank Act substantially expands the Commission’s authority to compensate individuals who provide the SEC with information about violations of federal securities law. Prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission’s bounty program was limited to insider trading cases, and the amount of the award was capped at 10 percent of the penalties collected in the action. Under this new whistleblower program, the SEC will pay awards to individuals who voluntarily provide the Commission with original information that leads to a successful SEC enforcement action which results in monetary sanctions exceeding $1 million. The amount the SEC may award individuals ranges from 10 to 30 percent of the total monetary sanctions collected in the Commission’s enforcement action or any related action such as in a criminal case. The SEC determines the specific amount awarded on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration factors such as the importance of the information and the degree of assistance provided. The Commission has adopted rules detailing the procedures potential whistleblowers would need to follow to qualify for award. In addition, the Commission has established a new Office of the Whistleblower that will work with whistleblowers, handle their tips and complaints, and help the Commission determine the awards for each eligible whistleblower. The initial staffing of this new office has been completed and the Investor Protection Fund, which will be used to pay awards to eligible whistleblower, has been fully funded. Lastly, in order to better protect potential whistleblowers, the Dodd-Frank Act expressly prohibits retaliation by employers against whistleblowers and provides them with a private cause of action in the event that they are discharged or discriminated against by their employers. VIII. The Investor Advocate and Investor Advisory Committee The Dodd-Frank Act also established an Office of the Investor Advocate within the Commission. The Investor Advocate will report directly to the SEC Chairman and be responsible for: Assisting retail investors in resolving significant problems they may have with the Commission or SROs; Identifying areas in which investors would benefit from changes in Commission regulations or SRO rules; Analyzing the potential impact on investors of proposed Commission regulations and SRO rules; and Identifying problems that investors have with financial services providers. This office will also have an “Ombudsman” appointed by the Investor Advocate who will act as a liaison between the Commission and investors. Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act mandates the creation of a new “Investor Advisory Committee” composed of the Investor Advocate, state regulators, and representatives of a broad cross-section of the investing public. This committee will meet at least twice a year to advise and consult with the Commission on investor protection issues and related regulatory matters. The Commission plans to establish both the Office of Investor Advocate and the Investor Advisory Committee sometime in the near future. IX. Conclusion I hope I’ve given you a little insight into what the SEC has been doing and will be doing in the months ahead. And now I’d be happy to take your questions. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 The Securities and Exchange Commission, as a matter of policy, disclaims responsibility for any private publication or statement by any of its employees. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission or the author’s colleagues upon the staff of the Commission."