NTN CORP ORATION, NTN BEARING

CORP ORATION OF A MERICA, AM ERICAN NTN BEARING M ANUF ACTURING CORP ORATION, NTN DRIVESHAFT, INC., NTN-BOWER CORP ORATION, AND NTN-BCA CORP ORATION,

Pla int if fs , v. UN ITED STA TES,

De fe nd ant, and THE T IMK

EN COMP ANY, Def endant- Interve nor. Slip Op. 08-129 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Before: Tim othy C. Stanceu, Judge Court No. 08- 00329

OP IN ION AN D O RD ER [Granting motion of de fenda nt for lea ve to addr ess alleg ed ministerial er ror by issuing ame nded final re sults of an administrative re view of a n antidumping duty

order ] Dated: Nove mber 24, 2008 Ba k e r &Mc Ke nz ie , LLP ( Donald J. Unge r , Di an e A. Ma c Do na ld , and

J o s e p h W. LaF ra mb ois e ) f

or pla int if fs
. Ste war t &Ste war t ( Ge e rt D e Pr est , Te re nc e P. Ste war t , W ill iam A. Fe nn e ll , and Lane S. Hu re witz ) for

defe ndant-interve nor. Gregory D . Katsas , Assistant Attorney Gene ral, JeanneE. Davidson , Direc tor, Pa tri c ia M. Mc Carthy , Assistant Director , Commercial L itigation B ranc h, Civil Division, United St ates Depa rtment of Just ice (

L. M ish a Pre he im ); Deborah King , Offic e of Chief Counsel for Import Ad min istratio n, Un ite d St ate s D e pa rtme nt o f C omm e rc e , o f c ouns e l, f or de fe nd ant.Court No. 08- 00329 P age 2

Stanc e u, Judg e : Pla int if

fs ini tiate d th is a c tio n und e r 1 9 U .S. C. § 15 16 a (2 00 0) to c on te st the final re sults (“Fina l Results”) of an a dminist rative r eview of an antidumpingduty

order on ball bear ings a

nd parts ther eof f

rom Fr ance , Ger

many , I taly , J apan, a

nd the United King dom conducte d by

the International Trade Administration, United States Depar tment of Commerce (“Commerc e” or

the “De partment” ). Ball Bearings and Parts T hereof From Franc e, Ge rmany, Italy, Japan, and theUnited Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Admin. Revie ws and Re sc iss ion of R e v ie ws i n Par t , 73 Fe d. Reg . 52,823 (Sept. 11, 2008) (“ Fi na l R esu lts ”). De fe nd ant m ov e s f

or le ave to a llo w C omm e rc e to p ub lis h ame nd e d f ina l r e su lts that w ou ld incorpora te a c orre ction to what def endant de scribes a s a ministerial err or af fec ting the w eig hted
aver ag e dumpingmarg in that Comm erc e dete rmined to be a pplicable to exports by

plaintiff NTN Corporation (“NTN” ). De f. ’s M o t . fo r Leav e t o P u b l i s hAm
. Fi n al R es u l t s C o rr ec t i n g a Ministerial Error

(“D ef.’ s Mot.”). Plaintiffs oppose the motion on various g rounds. Pls.’ Resp. in Opp’n to the Gov’t’ s Mot. for L eave to Publi sh Am. Final Results Correc ting a Ministerial Error (“Pls.’ Opp’n” ). B eca

use allowingthe Depa

rtment to develop a

nd publish amended fina l results for the administrative re view will further the intent of Cong ress that ministerial er rors be promptly corr ecte d, will not prejudice a ny party , and will not cause undue dela y or expense, the court is g rantingdefe ndant’s motion. I. B ACKG ROUND In the Fina l Results, which pertain to a pe riod of re view fr om May 1, 2006 to April 30, 2007, Commerce de termined a weig hted ave rag e dumpingmarg in of 11.96% for NTN. Final Re su lts , 73 Fe d. Reg . at 52,825. Duringthe administrative re view, Commerce selec ted only one oth e r p ro du c e r/ e xpor

te r o f s ub je c t me rc ha

nd ise fr om Ja

pa n f or ind ivi du a l e xami natio n inCourt No. 08- 00329 P age 3

The seve n produce r/exporters not selec ted for individual examination were Aisin Seiki 1 Company , L td., Canon, Inc., Na chi-F ujikoshi C orp., Nippon Pillow Block Company L td., Sapporo Prec ision, I nc., Toyota Motor Corp./Toy ota Industries Corp., and Ya mazaki Mazak TradingCompany
. Ball Bearings and Parts T hereof From Franc e, Ge rmany, Italy, J apan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Admin. Rev iews and Rescission of Re v ie ws i n Par t , 73 Fe d. Reg . 52,823, 52,825 (Sept. 11, 2008). addition to NTN. Id . at 52,824. Commerce assig ned that produc er/e x porter, JTEKT Corporation (“JTEKT”), a

weig hted ave rag e dumpingmarg in of 8.03%. Id. at 52,824-25. Citing a limit ation
on its ava ila ble re so ur c e s, Comme rc e de c lin e d to re vie w s e ve n o the r Ja pa ne se produce r/exporters, to eac h of which Commerc e assig ned the r ate of 10.00%, the re sult of Commerce’ s calc ulating a simple avera g e of the rate s assig ned to the two re viewed r espondents. Id. The c orre ction Commerce pr oposes to make to the r ate f or NTN w ould also aff

ect the f inal 1 results applica

ble to the seve n other e x porters that Comm erc e did not selec t for individual examination. After the September

11, 2008 publication of the F inal Results, defenda nt-intervenor

The Timken Company

(“Timken” ) submitted to Com merc e, on September 16, 2008, minist eria l error comments alleg ing that Comm erc e had ma de an e rror in the calc ulation of the adjustment for NTN’s home -marke t packa g ing e x penses. De f.’s Mot. 2; Pls.’ Opp’n 5. NTN a cknowledg es that it rece ived those comments on September 17, 2008. Pls.’ Opp’n 5. Def endant a sserts that
ne ith e r N TNno r a

ny oth e r p art

y to t he a dmi nis tr ativ e re vie w p ro c e e din gsu bmi tte d a re ply to Timken’s comments. De f.’s Mot. 2. Plaintiffs init iated this action on September 25, 2008, challeng ing the Final Results on various g rounds. SeeCom pl. ¶ 3 . O n th e same da

y that th e y fi le d th e ir

summo ns and

c omp la int , plaintiffs moved for

a pre liminary

injunction under 19 U.S.C. § 1516a(c ) to preve nt theCourt No. 08- 00329 P age 4

liquidation of their entries a ffe cted by the administrative re view, a motion to which def endant consente d. SeeMo t. f

or Pr e lim . Inj. 1- 4; se e als o Stipul ation Reg ardingPrelim. I nj. 2. The consent motion was g rante d on September 30, 2008, r esulting in a n order under which def

endant is enjoined from liquidating entries of plaintiffs’ mer chandise . Orde r, Sep. 30, 2008. J TEKT a nd Koyo Corporation of U.S.A. a lso broug ht an ac tion contesting the Final Results by

filing a summons and complaint on September 24, 2008, a day prior to the initiation of this action. JTEKT Corp. v. United States , Court No. 08-00324. Additionally , Aisin Seiki Company , L td., one of the Japanese produce r/exporters not selec ted for individual examination by the Depa rtment, and Aisin Holding s America , Inc., filed a summons on October 10, 2008 a nd a complaint on Nove mber 10, 2008 c ontesting the Final Results. Aisin Seiki Co. v. United States , Court No. 08-00370. De fenda nt United States has filed pa rallel motions in those cases to issue
ame nd e d f

ina l r e su lts . T he mot ion s are no t op po se d b y the pa rt ie s to tho se pr oc e e din g s. II. D I S CUS S I ON In the antidumping statute, Congr ess provided, spe cifica lly with respec t to final results of administrative re views, that Commerce “shall establish proc edure s for the c orre ction of minist eria l error s in final deter minations withi n a re asonable time after the deter minations are iss ue d. ” 19 U. S.C. § 1 67 5( h) (2 00 0) . Apa ra lle l pr ov isi on

in t he statut e re qu ir e s Co mme rc e to pr omu lg ate min ist e ri a l e rr or c or re c tio n p ro c e dure s th at a

pp ly fo llo wi ngiss ua

nc e of fi na l le ssthan-fa ir-value deter

minations. See id. § 1 67 3d (e ) ( 20 00 ). B oth pr ov isi on s r e qu ir e Comme rc e to
ensure opportunities for intere sted parties to pre sent their views r eg ardingminist eria l error s. Id. §§ 16 73 d( e ), 16 75 (h ). Comme rc e ha s p ro mul g ate d p ro c e dura l r ule s im ple me nti ngbo th provisions. See 19 C.F.R. § 351.224 (2008).Court No. 08- 00329 P age 5

Th e min ist e ri a l e rr or

pr ov isi on s in

the statut e signif

y the imp or

tanc e Con g re ss atta c he d to Comme rc e ’s c or

re c tin gmin ist e ri a l e rr or s p ro mpt ly a ft e r i ssu anc e of

fi na l de te rm inatio ns in antidumping pr ocee dings. N ever theless, the cour

t may exercise its discre tion to dis allow issuance of

an ame nded fina l determination in an a ntidumping duty

investigation or review

in the specia l situation where, a s here , the published final dete rmination has bee n contested unde r 19 U.S.C. § 1516a and there fore is subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of International Trade
. See Zenith Elec

s. Corp. v. United States , 884 F.2d 556, 562 ( Fe d. Cir. 1989). Wer e the c ourt to do so by denying de fenda

nt’s motion, C ommerce could cor rec t any minist eria l error

that may have oc c ur

re d in the c a lc ulatio n o f t

he a dju stm e nt f

or NTN’ s d ome sti c pa c kin ge xpe ns e on ly afte r a r emand in this judicial review proce edingrathe r than through the g ener al ministerial err or
corr ection proc edure contemplated by 19 U.S.C. § 1675(h), under which ministerial err ors that
may e xist in a fi na l de te rm inatio n a

re to b e c or

re c te d “ wi thi n a

re a so na ble tim e .” 19 U. S.C. § 1 67 5( h) . T he qu e sti on

pr e se nte d b y

de fe nd ant’ s mo tio n, and

by pla int if fs ’ o pp os iti on

to i t, i s whether the commenc ement of this litigation provide s the court va lid reasons to for eclose the operation of the usual proc edure . In decidingthis question and ruling on de fenda nt’s motion, the
c ourt is guid e d b y

the g e ne ra l c on g re ssi on a l inte nt s ig nif ie d b y 19 U. S.C. § 1 67 5( h) but a lso is mindful of its obli g ations to prevent unf airne ss to any

party and to avoid unnec essar

y delay or expense. SeeUSCI T R. 1. Plainti ffs a rgue that def

endant’ s motion shoul d be denie d in the interests of judicial e conomy and fa irness to NTN. Pls.’ Opp’n 4. Pla int if fs a c kn ow le dg e in t

he ir c omp la int

that “ [t]he De pa

rtme nt m a de a

c le ri c a l e rr or

in calc ulating N TN’s home ma rket pa ckingcost adjustment.” Compl. ¶ 36. Def endant de sires that Commerce c orre ct the ca lculation of the pa ckingexpense adjustment at this tim e, conc erningCourt No. 08- 00329 P age 6

which a c lerica l error

orig inally

was a lleg ed by

defe ndant-interve nor Timken. De f.’s Mot. 1-3. Thus, all parties to this case appea r to ag ree that the pac king e x pense a djustment is i n need of some ty pe of r eca lculation. Deny ing de fenda

nt’s motion would have the ef fec t of delay

ing a ny
corr ection that mig ht be nec essar y until the Depar

tment issues remand r esults in response to a future c ourt order . In the eve nt of such dela y , cash de posit rates set ac cordingto the Final Results will be in ef

fec t but may

not be cor

rec t. I n addition, the rec alculation will aff ect the marg ins and deposit rate s of produc er/e x porters who are not parties to this case or to J TEKT Corp. and Aisin Seiki Co. , and wh os e e ntr ie s th e re fo re are no t su bje c t to an in

jun c tio n a g a ins t liq uid atio n. Al low ingc or

re c tio n o f t

he c a lc ulatio n e rr or

wi ll f ur the r t he c on g re ssi on a l pu

rp os e
un de rl ying19 U. S.C. § 1 67 5( h) by pr e ve nti ngliq

uid atio n o f e ntr ie s o f m e rc ha nd ise a c c or din gto
a mar g in affe cted by

an incor rec t calculation. The sec ond fac tor the cour t considers is proc edura l fairne ss to the parties to this case. The c ourt conc ludes that g rantingdefe ndant’s motion will not cause pre judice to any

party . Plaintiffs may

contest the amended f

inal deter mination the Depar

tment is prepar ed to publish and there by raise a ny issues relate d to the Depa rtment’s newcalc ulation of NTN’ s home-mar ket packingexpense adjustment. Def endant- intervenor

also will have the oppor

tunity to raise suc h iss ue s. The ne x t question is whether de lay of the progress of this ca se is an ade quate justification for de nying de fenda

nt’s motion. To some ex tent, delay ing c orre ction of an e rror

in the packing cost adjustment could expedite this procee ding by avoidingissuance of

amende d final re sults and avoidingthe nee d for pa

rties to amend their

pleading s. Howeve r, the potential de lay occa sioned by the g rantingof def

endant’ s motion wil l not be signific ant. Def endant only

rec ently , onCourt No. 08- 00329 P age 7

November

10, 2008, filed the a dminist rative r ecor d for this ca se. With further re spect to the question of possible delay , it cannot be known at this st ag e of the litigation whethe r the issues raised in this ca se other tha n the pac king e x pense a djustment iss ue will result in a re mand to the Depa rtment. In the eve nt that a re mand does not re sult from these other issues, a denia l of defe ndant’s motion might nec essitate a later re mand solely for the pur

pose of c orre ctingthe packingexpense adjustment calc ulation. Def endant infor

ms the court that Commerce is prepar ed to publish the amende d final results within seventee n cale ndar da y s of the cour

t’s Orde r and that it will supplement the
a dmi nis tr ativ e re c or d a s n e c e ssa ry wi thi n tw o d ay s o f p ub lic atio n o f t he ame nd e d f

ina l r e su lts in the Fe dera l Reg ister. Def .’s Submissi on as Orde red at the Nov. 18, 2008 Status Conferenc e 1-2. So that untoward dela

y does not result fr om the g rantingof def endant’ s motion, t he cour t’s Orde r provides that any

amende d final re sults that the Depar tment chooses to issue must be published in the Fe dera l Reg ister by Dec ember

15, 2008 and that the a dminist rative r ecor d must be supplemented two da

y s after that date, by

Dec ember

17, 2008. Absent truly

extraordinary circ umstances, the c ourt will not gra nt ext ensions of these time pe riods. Should C ommerce not publish amended fina l results by the orig inal or extended due date, any amende d final re sults that
are pu bli sh e d th e re a ft e r w ill be nu ll a nd vo id a s una

uth or ize d b y

the c ourt , a

nd thi s c a se wi ll pr oc e e d u po n th e re vie w o f t

he F ina l Re su lts
. Wit h respe ct to the costs of litigating this ca se, the c ourt’s g rantingof def endant’ s motion will necessitate the filing of pleading s directe d to the amende d final re sults. This would not
a p p e ar t o b e a c o mp l e x o r

b ur d e n s o m e t a s k
. T h e c o urti s g r an t i n gp l a i n t i f f , p ur s u an tt o U S C IT Rule 3(e) , leave to file an amended summons and, pursua nt to USC I T Rule 15(a) , leave to file anCourt No. 08- 00329 P age 8

The Court of International Trade , in circumstanc es similar to those of this case , g rante d 2 leave for the f

iling of a mended f inal results to corr ect a lleg ed ministerial er rors. Fede ral-Mogul Corp. v. United States , 16 CI T 975, 983, 809 F. Supp. 105, 112 (1992) . In that case , the Court of International Trade allowed pa rties to file ame nded plea dings. Id
. ame nd e d c omp la int , a

nd thu s p la int if

fs ne e d n ot i nc ur

an a dd iti on a l f

ili ngfe e a s p ro vid e d f

or in USCI T Rule 3(b). 2 Pla int if fs ra ise se ve ra l argume nts in o pp os ingde fe nd ant’ s mo tio n in a dd iti on to t he ir arguments conce rningjudicial economy and fa irness, which a

re a ddresse d above. Plaintiffs
argue , f ir st, that th e mot ion

is a c tua lly

a re qu e st f or a re mand to t he De pa rtme nt a nd that th is reque st is not s upported by an ade quate showingof nee d. Pls.’ Opp’n 1-2. The court doe s not view def endant’ s motion as a reque st for a r emand. The court would orde r a r emand of the Fina l R e s u l t s i f i tc o n c l u d e d , b a s e d

o na j u d i c i a l r e v i e wp r o c e e d i n gc o n d u c t e d a c c o r d i n gt o U S C IT Rule 56.2, or base d on the ar g uments the parties pr esente d conce rninga motion for a voluntar y
re mand , th at th e F ina l Re su lts a s p ub lis he d o n Se pte mbe r 1 1, 20 08 are no t in a c c or da nc e wi th l aw . P l ai n t i ff

s ’ a rgu m en tm i s ch ar ac t er i z es d ef en d an t ’s m o t i o n , wh i ch i n s t ea d o f s ee k i n g a voluntary rema nd of the Septembe r 11, 2008 F inal Results seeks leave for Commerc e to supplant the Fina l Results wit h amende d final re sults that would incorporate a minist eria l error

corr ection. Th e ame nd e d f

ina l r e su lts the n w ou ld b e c ome the fi na l a dmi nis tr ativ e de c isi on po te nti a lly subject to judicial revie w. Pla int if fs ’ s e c on d a

rgume nt i s th at th e g ov e rnme nt’ s mo tio n is pr e matur e in atte mpt ingto “cir cumvent the tra ditional prog ress of a case in the Court of International Trade ,” pointing out that the g overnme nt has not y et filed a n answe r to the complaint and that Comm erc e has not yet fi le d th e a dmi nis tr ativ e re c or d ( wh ic h w a s f ile d n ot l on ga ft e r p la int if fs fi le d th e ir

op po sit ion

toCourt No. 08- 00329 P age 9

the motion). Id . at 2. This argument is inconsistent with t he Court’s Rules, under which no
ans we r t o th e c omp la int

is f ile d in a c a se inv ok ingthe Court ’s jur isd ic tio n und e r 2 8 U .S. C. § 1581(c)
. SeeUSCI T R. 7(a) ( “The re sha ll be a complaint and, exc ept for an action described in 28 U.S.C. § 1581(

c) , an answ er . . . .” (empha sis added))
. Plaintiffs argue that def

endant’ s motion i s prematur e, vague, and la ckingin supporting le g a l and fa c tua l ana ly sis . Pl s. ’ O pp ’n 2- 3, 6. Pla int if

fs a sse rt that N TNc ann ot p ro pe rl y a sse ss any sug g ested c orre ction and that the c ourt, absent f acts be fore it, cannot assess whe ther the minist eria l error

has occ urre d (eve n though pla intiffs acknow ledg e that it has), whe ther the
corr ection is appropr iate, or whether the form of

the cor rec tion will t ruly

be ministerial. Id. at 2-3. Contrar

y to the premise of

this argument, the cour

t need not dec ide the mer its of the home-mar

ket pac king e x pense a djustment iss ue to rule on de fenda nt’s motion. NTN need not assess the mer its of this i ssue at this time beca use it will have the opportunity to do so after amende d final re sults are published and the administrative re cord is supplemente d as nec essar y . The mer its of the issue may be litigated alongwith the other issues pre sented for judicial revie w. Pla int if fs ’ r e ma ini ngargume nt i s th at th e c ourt sh ou ld d e ny

de fe nd ant’ s mo tio n b e c a us e the De pa rtme nt’ s o wn

a c tio ns in i mpl e me nti ngits “ fi ft e e n- da y ” po lic y re qu ir e d p la int if

fs to f ile this case pr emature ly , befor e the De partment ha d time to impl ement the ministerial er ror
corr ection. Id . at 6-7. Plaintiffs attac h signific ance to the Depa rtment’s announc ing in the F inal Re su lts its int e nti on

to i ssu e a sse ssm e nt a

nd liq uid atio n in str

uc tio ns to Unit e d St ate s Cu sto ms and B order

Protection (“CB P”) fifte en day s after publication of the F inal Results. Fi na l R esu lts , 73 Fe d. Reg . at 52,825.Court No. 08- 00329 P age 10

The c ourt is awar e that the De partment’s policy of issuing a ssessment and liquidation instructions to CBP withi n fiftee n day s of publication, and its related pra ctice of draf ting suc h instructions to allow imm ediate liquidation of a ffe cted e ntries, ca use par ties to file, on an
e xtre me ly tim e -s e ns iti ve ba sis , p le a din g s c on te sti ngfi na l de te rm inatio ns in a nti dumpi ngduty proce eding s, and motions for pre liminary injunctions (and in some ca ses tempora ry restra ining
or de rs ) t o p re ve nt l iqu idatio n o f a ff e c te d e ntr ie s. In th e c a se at ba r, pla int if fs fi le d th e ir
s u m m o n s , c o mp l a i n t , an d m o t i o nf o r a p r e l i m i n ar

y i n j un c t i o na g a i n s tl i qu i d at i o nf o urt e e nd ays
a ft e r p ub lic atio n o f t

he F ina l Re su lts . T he c ourt , in g ra nti ngde fe nd ant’ s mo tio n s ub je c t to conditions, as stated in this Opinion and Order , does not express approva l of the De partment’s “fifte en-da

y ” policy , which has not be en cha lleng ed in this case. It would appea r that Commerce’ s adoption of a more car efully -consider ed policy could bene fit aff

ecte d parties by avoidingcosts, burdens, a nd inconvenienc e. De nying de fenda nt’s motion could have the e ffe ct of e nc oura g ingthe De pa

rtme nt t o p ur su e su c h a

c ha ng e . N e ve rt

he le ss, the c ourt

de c lin e s to place the objective of

influencingan ag ency

policy that will affe ct future case s above
c on sid e ratio ns in t

he c a se no w b e fo re the c ourt . A s d isc us se d in thi s O pin ion

and Or de r, tho se
c on sid e ratio ns are the c on g re ssi on a l inte nt u nd e rl ying19 U. S.C. § 1 67 5( h) , f a ir ne ss t o a ll p art ie s, and avoida

nce of unnece ssary

delay and expense. III . C ONCL US I ON A ND O R D ER Th e c ourt c on c lud e s th at Co mme rc e sh ou ld b e pe rm itt e d to iss ue ame nd e d f ina l r e su lts in
acc ordanc e with this Opinion and Order . Acc ording ly , and in consider ation of all pape rs and proce eding s here in, it is here byCourt No. 08- 00329 P age 11

O R D ERED that D e fe nd ant’ s Mo tio n f or L e ave to P ub lis h A me nd e d F ina l Re su lts Correc ting a

Ministerial Error , as filed on Oc tober 1, 2008, be , and her eby is, GRANTED subjec t to the conditions set forth in this Opinion and Order ; it is further O R D ERED that Commerce is a uthorized to publi sh in the Fe dera l Reg ister, by no later than Dec ember

15, 2008, amende d final re sults in t he administrative r eview that is the subject of the Fe dera l Reg ister notice, Ball Bearings and Parts T hereof From Franc e, Ge rmany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: F inal Results of Anti dumping Duty Administrative Rev iews and Re sc iss ion of R e v ie ws i n Par t , 73 Fe d. Reg . 52,823 (Sept. 11, 2008), for the sole purpose of addre ssing a

possible cleric al er

ror in the c alculation of the adjustment for plaintiff N TN’s homemarke t packingexpenses; it is further O R D ERED that the Depa

rtment shall file, by

no later tha

n Dec ember

17, 2008, any documents re quired to complete the administrative re cord in c onformanc e with the ame nded fina l results; it is further O R D ERED that, as an e x erc ise of the c ourt’s jurisdiction over this proce eding , any ame nd e d f

ina l r e su lts dir e c te d to the a bo ve -d e sc ri be d a dmi nis tr ativ e re vie w that are pu bli sh e d in the Fe dera l Reg ister af

ter the or igina l or extended due date established by the cour t are here by decla red null and void; it is further O R D ERED that, i f a

me nd e d f ina l r e su lts are iss ue d, pla int if fs , p ur su ant t o U SCI T Ru le 3(e) , here by

are g rante d leave to file an amended summons and, pursua nt to USC I T Rule 15(a) , an ame nded complaint, by no later tha

n J anuar y 14, 2009; it is further O R D ERED that defe ndant-interve nor The T imken Company will maintain its status as defe ndant-interve nor, first orde red by the cour t on October

9, 2008, following the issuance of ame nd e d f

ina l r e su lts and

the fi lin gof

an ame nd e d s umm on s a

nd c omp la int

a s a uth or ize d b y

thi s Orde r; and it is further O R D ERED that the injunction entere d by the Court by

the orde r date d September 30, 2008 rema ins in effe ct ac cordingto the terms of that orde r.
/s/ Timot hy C. St ance u Timothy C. St ance u J u d g e Dated: November

24, 2008 New Y ork, Ne w York