CAR_Public/090914.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, September 14, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 181
  
                            Headlines

COOPER COS: Feb. 2010 Trial Set for Consolidated Securities Suit
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Sued in N.D. Calif. for Improper Image Use
FREDDIE MAC: Sued for Not Identifying True Mortgage Owners
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Jan. 2010 Status Hearing Set for Calif. Suit
HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Smart Chips" Suits Remain Pending in Canada

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Motion for Certification of "Baggett" Pending
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Nov. 13 Status Trial Set for Consolidated Suit
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Jan. 2010 Status Trial Set for "Rich" Lawsuit
HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Skold" Appeal to Denied Certification Pending
HEWLETT-PACKARD: EDS Faces Labor-Related Lawsuits in New York

HEWLETT-PACKARD: EDS Faces Labor-Related Lawsuits in California
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Suit in Ga. Over Misclassified Employees
HARRIS CORP: Defends Consolidated Federal Securities Action
HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Bid to Junk Amended "Sewell" Suit Pending
HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Settlement of Securities Suit Pending

IPO LITIGATION: $195 Million Fee Request Draws Fire -- Update
KAISER FOUNDATION: N.D. Calif. Dismisses Co-Payment Refund Suit
NASHVILLE, TENN: Sued by 18 Black Workers for Racial Harassment
NISSAN MOTOR: Suit Claims 2004 Nissan Titan Brakes Are Defective
ONEWEST BANK: Sued For Withdrawing Loan Modification Offers

SEPRACOR: Dainippon Purchase Price Challenged in Delaware Suit
VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Stockholders Suit Pending in Tel-Aviv, Israel
VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Oct. 2009 Mediation Set for Securities Suit

                            *********

COOPER COS: Feb. 2010 Trial Set for Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Feb. 17, 2010 trial has been set for a consolidated securities
fraud class action filed against The Cooper Cos., Inc., in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

On Feb. 15, 2006, Alvin L. Levine filed a putative securities
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, Case No. SACV-06-169 CJC, against:

     -- the company;

     -- A. Thomas Bender, its chairman of the board, president
        and chief executive officer and a director;

     -- Robert S. Weiss, its executive vice president, chief
        operating officer and a director; and

     -- John D. Fruth, a director.

Shortly after the filing of the Levine lawsuit, two similar
putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Case Nos. SACV-06-
306 CJC and SACV-06-331 CJC.

On May 19, 2006, the Court consolidated all three actions under
the heading, "In re Cooper Companies, Inc. Securities
Litigation," and selected a lead plaintiff and lead counsel
pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4.

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on July 31,
2006.  The consolidated complaint was filed on behalf of all
purchasers of the Company's securities between July 28, 2004,
and Dec. 12, 2005, including persons who received Company
securities in exchange for their shares of Ocular in the January
2005 merger pursuant to which the Company acquired Ocular.

In addition to the Company, Messrs. Bender, Weiss, and Fruth,
the consolidated complaint names as defendants several of the
Company's other current officers and directors and one former
officer.

On July 13, 2007, the Court granted Cooper's motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint and granted the lead plaintiff leave
to amend to attempt to state a valid claim.

                 Amended Consolidated Complaint

On Aug. 9, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
consolidated complaint.  As before, the amended consolidated
complaint was filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
securities between July 28, 2004, and Dec. 12, 2005, including
persons who received Company securities in exchange for their
shares of Ocular in the January 2005 merger pursuant to which
the Company acquired Ocular.

In addition to the Company, the amended consolidated complaint
names as defendants Messrs. Bender, Weiss, Fruth, Steven M.
Neil, the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer, and Gregory A. Fryling, CooperVision's former President
and Chief Operating Officer.

The amended consolidated complaint purports to allege violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 by, among other things, contending that the
defendants made misstatements concerning the Biomedics product
line, sales force integration following the merger with Ocular,
the impact of silicone hydrogel lenses and financial
projections.

The amended consolidated complaint also alleges that the Company
improperly accounted for assets acquired in the Ocular merger by
improperly allocating $100 million of acquired customer
relationships and manufacturing technology to goodwill (which is
not amortized against earnings) instead of to intangible assets
other than goodwill (which are amortized against earnings), that
the Company lacked appropriate internal controls and issued
false and misleading Sarbanes-Oxley Act certifications.

On Sept. 5, 2007, the Company and the individual defendants
moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint.

On Oct. 23, 2007, the Court granted in-part and denied in-part
Cooper and the individual defendants motion to dismiss.

The Court dismissed the claims relating to the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act certifications and the Company's accounting of assets
acquired in the Ocular merger.

The Court denied the motion as to the claims related to alleged
false statements concerning the Biomedics (R) product line, sales
force integration, the impact of silicone hydrogel lenses and the
Company's financial projections.

On Nov. 28, 2007, the Court also dismissed all claims against
Mr. Fruth with leave to amend.

Plaintiff did not amend their consolidated amended complaint
within the time permitted by the Court.

On Dec. 3, 2007, the Company and Messrs. Bender, Weiss, Neil and
Fryling answered the amended consolidated complaint.

On April 8, 2008, the Court granted a motion by Mr. Neil for
judgment on the pleadings as to him.  A Feb. 17, 2010, trial
date has been set and discovery has commenced.

On Jan. 6, 2009, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  The certified class consists of those persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired Cooper common stock between
July 28, 2004 and Nov. 21, 2005.

The company intends to defend this matter vigorously, according
to its Sept. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2009

The suit is In re Cooper Companies Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 06-cv-00169 (C.D. Calif.) (Block, J.)

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         X. Jay Alvarez, Esq.
         Rudman and Robbins
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-231-1058

              - and -

         Michiyo Michelle Furukawa, Esq.
         Stull Stull and Brody
         10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2350
         Los Angeles, CA 90024
         Phone: 310-209-2468
         E-mail: mfurukawa@ssbla.com

              - and -

         Eben O. McNair, Esq.
         Schwarzwald and McNair, 1330 East
         Ninth Street, 616 Penton Media Building
         Cleveland, OH 44114-1503
         Phone: 216-566-1600

Representing the defendants is:

         Charles W. Cox, II, Esq.
         Latham and Watkins
         633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007
         Phone: 213-485-1234
         E-mail: chuck.cox@lw.com


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Sued in N.D. Calif. for Improper Image Use
------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that the NCAA and
video game developer Electronic Arts misappropriate the images of
college athletes to sell sports games, students claim in a
federal class action.

The class claims Electronic Arts collaborated with the National
Collegiate Athletic Association to use players' images without
their permission in Electronic Arts' NCAA Football, NCAA
Basketball and NCAA March Madness video game franchises.

Lead plaintiff and former University of North Carolina football
player Bryon Bishop says EA's NCAA Football 2008 and 2009 games
include a player that wears his jersey number 76, and looks
exactly like him, omitting nothing but his name.

Mr. Bishop says, "the initial omission of players' names is of
little consequence because EA has facilitated the simple upload
of actual player names for all virtual players" through a design
feature called "EA Locker."  With EA Locker, customers can upload
college athlete rosters while logged onto the EA game.

The Collegiate Licensing Company is also named as a defendant.

According to the complaint, Collegiate Licensing Company
president Pat Battle in 2004 sought reduced restrictions on
licensing of player images, saying consumers demand realistic
games, including complete replicas of players' likenesses.

"'A failure to keep up with technology and take full advantage of
from a consumer standpoint may take the NCAA [video game] title
less valuable,'" Mr. Battle said according to the complaint.

The class demands that all infringing video games that be seized
and destroyed and that they be given all profits earned by the
sale of these games, in addition to actual, statutory and
punitive damages.

A copy of the complaint in Bishop v. Electronic Arts, Inc., et
al., Case No. 09-cv-4128 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/10/NCAA.pdf

Mr. Bishop is represented by:

David H. Weinstain, Esq.
          Steven A. Asher, Esq.
          Mindee J. Reuben, Esq.
          Jeremy S. Spiegel, Esq.
          WEINSTAIN KIRCHENOFF & ASHER LLC
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone (215) 545-7200
          
               - and -
          
          Joseph C. Cohn, Esq.
          Robert J. LaRocca, Esq.
          KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone (215) 238-1700
          
               - and -
          
          Gerald J. Rodos, Esq.
          Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          3300 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19130
          Telephone (215) 963-0600
          
               - and -
          
          Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
          Donald S. Perelman, Esq.
          FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2800
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone (215) 567-6565
          
               - and -
          
          Howard J. Sedran, Esq.
          Austin B. Cohen, Esq.
          LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone (215) 592-1500
     

FREDDIE MAC: Sued for Not Identifying True Mortgage Owners
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corp. sent foreclosure notices that that failed to identify the
true secured parties that own the mortgages, a class action
claims in Baltimore City Court.

A copy of the complaint in Remington v. Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corp., Case No. 24-C-09-005777 (Md. Cir. Ct., Baltimore
City), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/09/HomeMorts.pdf
     

Wanda Remington, the named plaintiff, is represented by:

          Scott C. Borison, Esq.
          Legg Law Firm, LLC
          5500 Buckeystown Pike
          Frederick, MD 21703
          Telephone (301) 620-1016

               - and -

          Phillip Robinson, Esq.
          Anthony DePastina, Esq.
          CIVIL JUSTICE, INC.
          520 West Fayette Street, Suite 410
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone (410) 706-0174


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Jan. 2010 Status Hearing Set for Calif. Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Jan. 8, 2010 class certification hearing is scheduled for a
purported class-action lawsuit in California over Hewlett-Packard
Co.'s use of "smart chips" in its inkjet printer cartridge.

The suits claim that the "smart chips" erroneously signal to the
customer that certain inkjet printer cartridges need to be
replaced before they are really empty, and include an expiration
date that is allegedly not documented in marketing materials
provided to consumers.  Some of these lawsuits have been
dismissed by without prejudice by the plaintiffs.

                    Blennis Litigation

On Jan. 17, 2007, the purported class-action lawsuit, entitled
"Blennis v. HP," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California with allegations substantially
the same as those consolidated in "In re Inkjet Printer
Litigation, Case No. 5:05-cv-03580-JF."

The plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, damages
(including enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest,
costs, and attorneys' fees, according to the company's Sept. 4,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2009.

The suit is Blennis et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Case No.
07-cv-00333 (N.D. Calif.) (Fogel, J.)

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
          Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-217-5000
          Fax: 213-217-5010
          E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com

Representing the defendants is:

          Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq.
          Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Phone: 213-229-7000
          E-mail: sliversidge@gibsondunn.com


HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Smart Chips" Suits Remain Pending in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. continues to face four purported class-
action lawsuits over its use of "smart chips" in its inkjet
printer cartridge, according to the company's Sept. 4, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended July 31, 2009.

The suits claim that the "smart chips" erroneously signal to the
customer that certain inkjet printer cartridges need to be
replaced before they are really empty, and include an expiration
date that is allegedly not documented in marketing materials
provided to consumers.  Some of these lawsuits have been
dismissed by without prejudice by the plaintiffs.

Substantially similar allegations have been made against HP and
its subsidiary, Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co., in four Canadian
class actions, one commenced in British Columbia in February
2006, two commenced in Quebec in April 2006 and May 2006,
respectively, and one commenced in Ontario in June 2006, all
seeking class certification, restitution, declaratory relief,
injunctive relief and unspecified statutory, compensatory and
punitive damages.

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a provider of
products, technologies, software, solutions and services to
individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses and
large enterprises, including in the public and education
sectors.  HP's offerings span personal computing and other
access devices; imaging and printing-related products and
services; enterprise information technology infrastructure,
including enterprise storage and server technology and software
that optimizes business technology investments, and multi-vendor
customer services, including technology support and maintenance,
consulting and integration and outsourcing services.  During the
fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2007 (fiscal 2007), its operations
were organized into seven business segments: Enterprise Storage
and Servers (ESS), HP Services (HPS), HP Software, the Personal
Systems Group (PSG), the Imaging and Printing Group (IPG), HP
Financial Services (HPFS) and Corporate Investments.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Motion for Certification of "Baggett" Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The motion for class certification of a suit in California that
contains allegations that Hewlett-Packard Co. employs a
technology in its LaserJet color printers whereby the printing
process shuts down prematurely, preventing customers from using
the toner that is stranded in the cartridge remains pending.

On June 6, 2007, a separate consumer class action captioned,
"Baggett v. HP," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.

The plaintiffs allege that HP fails to disclose to consumers
that they will be unable to utilize the toner remaining in the
cartridge after the printer shuts down.

The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class of
purchasers of all HP LaserJet color printers and seeks
unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees and costs.

The plaintiffs' motion for class certification and HP's motion
for summary judgment are pending before the court, according to
the company's Sept. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2009.

The suit is Kelsea Baggett v. Hewlett-Packard Company et al.,
Case No. 07-cv-00667 (C.D. Calif.) (Guilford, J.)

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
         Kabateck Brown Kellner
         644 South Figueroa Street
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Phone: 213-217-5000
         E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com

              - and -

         Darren T Kaplan, Esq.
         Chitwood Harley Harnes
         1230 Peachtree Street, Suite 2300
         Atlanta, GA 30309
         Phone: 404-873-3900
         E-mail: dkaplan@chitwoodlaw.com

Representing the defendant are:

         Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq.
         Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
         333 South Grand Avenue
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
         Phone: 213-229-7000
         E-mail: sliversidge@gibsondunn.com

              - and -

         Robert Particelli, Esq.
         Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
         1701 Market Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Phone: 215-963-5000
         Fax: 215-963-5001
         E-mail: rparticelli@morganlewis.com


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Nov. 13 Status Trial Set for Consolidated Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 13, 2009 hearing has been set for a motion for class
certification in a lawsuit entitled "In re: HP Inkjet Printer
Litigation, Case No. 5:05-cv-03580-JF," which was filed against
Hewlett-Packard Co. over its use of "smart chips" in its inkjet
printer cartridges.

The purported class-action lawsuit is pending before the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, according
to the company's Sept. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2009.

In general, the consolidated suit claims that the "smart chips"
erroneously signal to the customer that certain inkjet printer
cartridges need to be replaced before they are really empty, and
include an expiration date that is allegedly not documented in
marketing materials provided to consumers.

                        Feder Litigation

The suit, "Feder v. HP (formerly Tyler v. HP)," was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
June 16, 2005, asserting breach of express and implied warranty,
unjust enrichment, violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act
and deceptive advertising and unfair business practices in
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.

Among other things, the plaintiffs alleged that HP employed a
"smart chip" in certain inkjet printing products in order to
register ink depletion prematurely and to render the cartridge
unusable through a built-in expiration date that is hidden, not
documented in marketing materials to consumers, or both.

The plaintiffs also contend that consumers received false ink
depletion warnings and that the smart chip limits the ability of
consumers to use the cartridge to its full capacity or to choose
competitive products.

                        Ciolino Litigation

On Sept. 6, 2005, a lawsuit captioned, "Ciolino v. HP," was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

                          Consolidation

The allegations in the Ciolino case are substantively identical
to those in "Feder," and the two cases have been formally
consolidated in a single proceeding in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under the caption, "In
re HP Inkjet Printer Litigation."

On Jan. 4, 2008, the court heard plaintiffs' motions for class
certification and to add a class representative and HP's motion
for summary judgment.  On July 25, 2008, the court denied all
three motions.

On March 30, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for
class certification.

The suit is In re: HP Inkjet Printer Litigation, Case No. 05-
cv-03580 (N.D. Calif.) (Fogel, J.)

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Bruce Lee Simon, Esq.
         Cotchett Pitre & Simon
         S.F. Airport Office Center, 840 Malcolm Road, Ste. 200
         Burlingame, CA 94010
         Phone: 650-697-6000
         Fax: 650-692-3606
         E-mail: bsimon@cpsmlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Sally J. Berens, Esq.
         Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP
         1881 Page Mill Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94304
         Phone: 650-849-5300
         Fax: 650-849-5333
         E-mail: sberens@gibsondunn.com

      
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Jan. 2010 Status Trial Set for "Rich" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Jan. 8, 2010 class certification hearing is scheduled for a
purported class-action suit filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California against Hewlett-Packard
Co.

The suit is "Rich v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Case No. 5:06-cv-
03361-JF," which is a consumer class action filed against the
company on May 22, 2006.

It alleges that HP designed its color inkjet printers to
unnecessarily use color ink in addition to black ink when
printing black and white images and text.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of
a nationwide class.

The Court has granted HP's motion to dismiss several of the
plaintiffs' claims, and HP answered the remaining claims in
February 2007.

The Court set a deadline of Jan. 23, 2009, by which plaintiffs
need to file a motion for class certification, according to the
company's Sept. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2009.

The suit is Rich v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Case No.
06-cv-03361 (N.D. Calif.) (Fogel, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
         Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP
         644 South Figueroa Street
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: 213/217-5000
         Fax: 213/217-5010
         E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com

              - and -

         Stephen Michael Garcia, Esq.
         Garcia Law Firm
         Suite 1950
         One World Trade Center
         Long Beach, CA 90831
         Phone: 562-216-5270
         E-mail: jmobley@lawgarcia.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Christopher Chorba, Esq.
         Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
         333 South Grand Avenue
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Phone: 213-229-7000
         Fax: 213-229-7520
         E-mail: cchorba@gibsondunn.com


HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Skold" Appeal to Denied Certification Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal to the decision that denied the class
certification motion in a lawsuit against Hewlett-Packard Co. in
California with regards to the performance of Intel Corp.'s
Pentium 4 processor remain pending.

The suit, "Skold, et al. v. Intel Corp. and Hewlett Packard
Co.," generally alleges that the company along with Intel,
misled the public by suppressing and concealing the alleged
material fact that systems that use the Pentium 4 processor are
less powerful and slower than systems using the Pentium III
processor and processors made by a competitor of Intel.

The company was joined to the lawsuit on June 14, 2004.  It was
initially filed in state court in Alameda County, California,
based upon factual allegations similar to those in the Illinois
cases.

The plaintiffs in the Skold matter seek unspecified damages,
restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and certification of a
nationwide class.

The Skold case has since been transferred to state court in
Santa Clara County, California.

The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on March 27, 2008, but granted plaintiffs' leave
to file a new motion for class certification.

On Feb. 27, 2009, the court denied without prejudice plaintiffs'
motion for nationwide class certification for a third time.  The
plaintiffs have appealed the court's decision, according to the
company's Sept. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2009.

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a provider of
products, technologies, software, solutions and services to
individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses and
large enterprises, including in the public and education
sectors.  HP's offerings span personal computing and other
access devices; imaging and printing-related products and
services; enterprise information technology infrastructure,
including enterprise storage and server technology and software
that optimizes business technology investments, and multi-vendor
customer services, including technology support and maintenance,
consulting and integration and outsourcing services.  During the
fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2007 (fiscal 2007), its operations
were organized into seven business segments: Enterprise Storage
and Servers (ESS), HP Services (HPS), HP Software, the Personal
Systems Group (PSG), the Imaging and Printing Group (IPG), HP
Financial Services (HPFS) and Corporate Investments.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: EDS Faces Labor-Related Lawsuits in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co.'s subsidiary, Electronic Data Systems
Corporation, faces several purported class actions alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and/or the California
Labor Code.

The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other
damages based on allegations that various employees of EDS or HP
have been misclassified as exempt employees under the FLSA and/or
the California Labor Code.

Cunningham and Cunningham, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems
Corporation is a purported action filed on May 10, 2006, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York claiming
that current and former EDS employees involved in installing
and/or maintaining computer software and hardware were
misclassified as exempt employees.

Two other purported class actions, Steavens, et al. v. Electronic
Data Systems Corporation, filed on Oct. 23, 2007, and Azar v.
Electronic Data Systems Corporation, filed on Feb. 20, 2009, are
also pending in the same court alleging similar facts, according
to the company's Sept. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31,
2009.

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a provider of
products, technologies, software, solutions and services to
individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses and
large enterprises, including in the public and education
sectors.  HP's offerings span personal computing and other
access devices; imaging and printing-related products and
services; enterprise information technology infrastructure,
including enterprise storage and server technology and software
that optimizes business technology investments, and multi-vendor
customer services, including technology support and maintenance,
consulting and integration and outsourcing services.  During the
fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2007 (fiscal 2007), its operations
were organized into seven business segments: Enterprise Storage
and Servers (ESS), HP Services (HPS), HP Software, the Personal
Systems Group (PSG), the Imaging and Printing Group (IPG), HP
Financial Services (HPFS) and Corporate Investments.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: EDS Faces Labor-Related Lawsuits in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co.'s subsidiary, Electronic Data Systems
Corporation, faces several purported class actions alleging labor
related violations in California.

The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other
damages based on allegations that various employees of EDS or HP
have been misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and/or the California Labor Code.

Heffelfinger, et al v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation is a
class action filed in November 2006, in California Superior
Court, claiming that certain EDS information technology workers
in California were misclassified exempt employees.  

The case was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, which, on Jan. 7, 2008,
certified a class of information technology workers in
California.  

On June 6, 2008, the court granted the defendant's motion for
summary judgment.

The plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal with the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Three other purported class actions originally filed in
California Superior Court, Jameson, et al. v. Electronic Data
Systems Corporation, which was filed on July 16, 2008, Karlbom,
et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, which was filed on
March 16, 2009, and George, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems
Corporation, which was filed on April 2, 2009, are pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Central or Southern District of
California.

The lawsuits allege similar facts, according to the company's
Sept. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2009.

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a provider of
products, technologies, software, solutions and services to
individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses and
large enterprises, including in the public and education
sectors.  HP's offerings span personal computing and other
access devices; imaging and printing-related products and
services; enterprise information technology infrastructure,
including enterprise storage and server technology and software
that optimizes business technology investments, and multi-vendor
customer services, including technology support and maintenance,
consulting and integration and outsourcing services.  During the
fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2007 (fiscal 2007), its operations
were organized into seven business segments: Enterprise Storage
and Servers (ESS), HP Services (HPS), HP Software, the Personal
Systems Group (PSG), the Imaging and Printing Group (IPG), HP
Financial Services (HPFS) and Corporate Investments.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Suit in Ga. Over Misclassified Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. faces a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division, alleging that HP misclassified various employees as
exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California
Labor Code.

Mathias, et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported class
action filed on Aug. 21, 2009.

The suit claims that certain HP presales technical consulting
employees were misclassified as exempt employees, according to
Hewlett-Packard Co.'s Sept. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 31, 2009.

Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a provider of
products, technologies, software, solutions and services to
individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses and
large enterprises, including in the public and education
sectors.  HP's offerings span personal computing and other
access devices; imaging and printing-related products and
services; enterprise information technology infrastructure,
including enterprise storage and server technology and software
that optimizes business technology investments, and multi-vendor
customer services, including technology support and maintenance,
consulting and integration and outsourcing services.  During the
fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2007 (fiscal 2007), its operations
were organized into seven business segments: Enterprise Storage
and Servers (ESS), HP Services (HPS), HP Software, the Personal
Systems Group (PSG), the Imaging and Printing Group (IPG), HP
Financial Services (HPFS) and Corporate Investments.


HARRIS CORP: Defends Consolidated Federal Securities Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Harris Corporation's former subsidiary, Harris Stratex Networks,
Inc., intends to defend a consolidated federal securities class
action complaint, according to its Sept. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended July 3, 2009.

HSTX and certain of its current and former officers and
directors, including certain current Harris officers, were named
as defendants in a federal securities class action complaint
filed on Sept. 15, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware by plaintiff Norfolk County Retirement
System on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of HSTX
securities from Jan. 29, 2007, to July 30, 2008, including
shareholders of Stratex Networks, Inc. who exchanged shares of
Stratex for shares of HSTX as part of the combination between
Stratex and the company's former Microwave Communications
Division to form HSTX.

Similar complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware on Oct. 6, 2008, and October 30, 2008. The
complaints were consolidated in a slightly expanded complaint
filed on July 29, 2009 that adds Harris Corporation and Ernst &
Young LLP as defendants.

This action relates to public disclosures made by HSTX on Jan.
30, 2007, and July 30, 2008, which included the restatement of
HSTX's financial statements for the first three fiscal quarters
of its fiscal 2008 (the quarters ended March 28, 2008, Dec. 28,
2007 and Sept. 28, 2007) and for its fiscal years ended June 29,
2007, June 30, 2006 and July 1, 2005 due to accounting errors.

The actions were consolidated on June 5, 2009, and a consolidated
class action complaint was filed on July 29, 2009.

The consolidated complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b)
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and of Rule 10b-5  
promulgated thereunder, as well as violations of Section 11 and
Section 15 of the Securities Act, and seeks, among other relief,
determinations that the action is a proper class action,
unspecified compensatory damages and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs.

Harris Corporation -- http://www.harris.com/-- together with its  
subsidiaries, is an international communications and information
technology (IT) company serving government and commercial markets
in more than 150 countries.  The company is focused on developing
assured communications products, systems and services for global
markets, including radio frequency (RF) communications,
government communications and broadcast communications.  The
company is organized in three segments: RF Communications
segment, Government Communications Systems segment and Broadcast
Communications segment.


HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Bid to Junk Amended "Sewell" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint in a purported class action suit, Randolph
Sewell, et al., v. D'Allesandro & Woodyard, et al., is pending.

A subsidiary of the company has been named as a defendant in the
purported class-action suit filed on May 30, 2007, in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleging
violations of the federal securities acts, among other
allegations, in connection with the sale of some of the
subsidiary's homes in Fort Myers, Florida.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Oct. 19, 2007.

Plaintiffs sought to represent a class of certain home
purchasers in southwestern Florida and sought damages,
rescission of certain purchase agreements, restitution of out-
of-pocket expenses, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The company's subsidiary filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended
complaint on Dec. 14, 2007.

Following oral argument on the motion in September 2008, the
court dismissed the amended complaint with leave for plaintiffs
to amend.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on Oct. 31, 2008.

The company has filed a Motion to Dismiss this second amended
complaint.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of certain home purchasers
in southwestern Florida and seek damages, rescission of certain
purchase agreements, restitution of out-of-pocket expenses, and
attorneys' fees and costs, according to the company's Sept. 4,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2009.

Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. -- http://www.khov.com/-- designs,
constructs, markets and sells single-family detached homes,
attached townhomes and condominiums, mid-rise and high-rise
condominiums, urban infill and active adult homes in planned
residential developments.


HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Settlement of Securities Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a consolidated securities fraud class action
suit against Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. is pending approval by
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The class-action complaint was originally filed against the
company, Chief Executive Officer and President Ara K. Hovnanian,
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer J. Larry
Sorsby and a former officer of a Company subsidiary with the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Sept.
14, 2007, accusing Mr. Sorsby of inflating the home builder's
share price through false and misleading statements.

Named plaintiff, and later court-appointed lead plaintiff,
Herbert Mankofsky, brought this securities class action on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of Hovnanian between Dec. 8, 2005, and Aug. 13,
2007.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Act
of 1934.  It also alleges that during the class period, the
defendants issued a materially false and misleading statements
regarding the company's business and prospects.

According to the suit, as a result of these misleading
statements, Hovnanian stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the class period, reaching a high of $54.29 per
share in Jan. 2006.

However, as a direct result of the market learning of
defendants' wrongdoing, the price of Hovnanian shares declined
and the plaintiff and the class suffered a loss on their
investment in Hovnanian.

The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:

     (a) whether the 1934 Act was violated by defendant;

     (b) whether the defendant omitted and misrepresented
         material facts;

     (c) whether defendant's statements omitted material facts
         necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
         circumstances under which they were made, not
         misleading;

     (d) whether defendant knew or deliberately disregarded that
         his statements were false and misleading;

     (e) whether the price of Hovnanian common stock was
         artificially inflated; and

     (f) the extent of damage sustained by class members and the
         appropriate measure of damages.

The plaintiff prays for judgment:

     -- declaring this action to be a proper class action
        pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23;

     -- awarding plaintiff and the members of the class,
        damages, including interest;

     -- awarding plaintiff reasonable costs and attorney's fees;
        and

     -- awarding such equitable/injunctive or other relief as
        the court may deem just and proper.

On Feb. 19, 2008, the action was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

On March 10, 2008, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
captioned, "In re Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. Securities
Litigation," alleging that the defendants made false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
future prospects with respect to the Company's acquisition and
operation of First Home Builders of Florida in violation of
federal securities laws.

The company filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on
July 14, 2008.  On Sept. 11, 2008, plaintiff filed his
opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.  The company filed its
reply brief on Oct. 28, 2008.

In March 2009, the parties agreed that the Motion to Dismiss
would be withdrawn and that the Plaintiffs would file a second
amended complaint.

The company's insurance carrier has agreed to provide coverage
for the case under the company's insurance policy, therefore the
maximum exposure to the company is the deductible, which has
already been incurred and expensed as defense costs.  

The matter has been resolved, pending court approval, with no
further payments from the company, according to its Sept. 4,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2009.

The suit is "In re Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. Securities
Litigation," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey, Judge Susan D. Wigenton.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         William C. Cagney, Esq.
         Windels, Marx, Lane & Mittendorf, LLP
         120 Albany Street Plaza
         New Brunswick, NJ 08901
         Phone: (732) 846-7600
         E-mail: wcagney@windelsmarx.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Douglas Scott Eakeley, Esq.
         Lowenstein Sandler P.C.
         65 Livingston Ave.
         Roseland, NJ 07068-1791
         Phone: (973) 597-2500
         E-mail: deakeley@lowenstein.com


IPO LITIGATION: $195 Million Fee Request Draws Fire -- Update
-------------------------------------------------------------
A report in the Fri., Sept. 11, 2009, edition of the Class Action
Reporter related that the $195 million fee request by plaintiffs  
attorneys who achieved a $586 million settlement in In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. MC-21-92
(S.D.N.Y.), drew an objection that argues the request was
"outrageous" and "a fee of 33.33 percent is not permissible in a
mega-fund case like this."

A copy of that objection is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/09/Class%20objection.pdf

The Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin is scheduled to hold a hearing
Thursday to give final approval to the settlement and pass
judgment on the fee request by Bernstein Liebhard, Milberg LLP
and other plaintiffs firms.

The four lawyers representing the objecting class members are:

Edward F. Siegel, Esq.
          Edward F. Siegel Co. L.P.A.
          27600 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 340
          Cleveland, OH 44122
          Telephone (216) 831-3424
          
               - and -
          
          Edward W. Cochran, Esq.
          State Bar of Ohio No. 0032942
          20030 Marchmont Road
          Shaker Heights, OH 44122
          Telephone (216) 751-5546
          
               - and -
          
          Stuart C. Yoes, Esq.
          THE YOES LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
          Texas State Bank Building
          3535 Calder Avenue, Suite 235
          P. O. Drawer 7584
          Beaumont, TX 77726-7584
          Telephone (409) 833-2352
          
               - and -
          
          Scott W. Browne, Esq.
          BROWNE & BROWNE, L.L.P.
          2380 Eastex Freeway
          Beaumont, TX 77703
          Telephone (409) 898-2123
          

KAISER FOUNDATION: N.D. Calif. Dismisses Co-Payment Refund Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo At Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge dismissed on procedural grounds and without prejudice a
class action that claimed Kaiser cheats policyholders by refusing
to reimburse them for copayments.

U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney did not address that issue in
her ruling, but found that the named plaintiff had failed to
exhaust her administrative remedies.

Nicole Glaus claimed Kaiser refused to credit her for two co-
payments, totaling $20, that she made when she was treated for
injuries from a car accident.

Ms. Glaus says Kaiser was required to reimburse her under terms
of its own policy handbook, but that Kaiser demanded
reimbursement from the settlement from her personal injury action
against the driver who rear-ended her.
     
In her opposition to Kaiser's motion to dismiss on procedural
grounds, Ms. Glaus acknowledged that she did not submit a
grievance with Kaiser.

Judge Chesney found that Glaus was required to exhaust her
administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit.

A copy of the dismissal order is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/09/Kaiserdismissed.pdf

Previous reports about Glaus v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan,
Case No. 09-02232 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action
Reporter on June 2, 2009, and Aug. 27, 2009.  


NASHVILLE, TENN: Sued by 18 Black Workers for Racial Harassment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action,
18 black employees say the Metropolitan Government of Nashville
and Davidson County and Nashville Electric Services subjected
them to systematic racial harassment, including "a hangman's
noose around the neck of a dark-skinned training dummy . . .
during the controversy surrounding the 'Jena Six' case regarding
hangman's nooses being used to intimidate African-American school
children in Louisiana."

The plaintiffs say they were subjected to a welter of other
threats and harassment. Two say a foreman told them, "During
Black History Month where I come from, we hang people!"

One says her car was vandalized after he complained of the
hangman's noose.

Several complain of repeated, vile racial slurs, retaliation,
refusal to promote black employees, and other problems.  They
demand lost wages, punitive damages and an injunction.

A copy of the complaint in Gooch, et al. v. Metropolitan
Government of Nashville, Davidson County, Tennessee and Nashville
Electric Servicec, Case No. 09-cv-00826 (M.D. Tenn.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/10/Nashville.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Byron R. Perkins, Esq.
          THE COCHRAN FIRM
          505 North 20th Street, Suite 285
          Birmingham, AL 35203

               - and -

          Jonathan E. Richardson, Esq.
          SMITH & HIRSCH PLC
          3250 Dickerson Pike, Suite 121
          Nashville, TN 37207
          Telephone (615) 242-5003


NISSAN MOTOR: Suit Claims 2004 Nissan Titan Brakes Are Defective
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Nissan 2004 Titans have
defective brakes and the company refuses to back up its warranty,
a class action claims in Somerset County Court, N.J.

A copy of the Complaint in Daum v. Nissan Motor Corp, USA, Docket
No. V-1598-09 (N.J. Super. Ct., Somerset Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/10/Autos.pdf

Frank Baum, the named plaintiff, is represented by:

          Howard A. Gutman, Esq.
          230 Route 206, Suite 307
          Flanders, NJ 07836
          Telephone (973) 598-1980


ONEWEST BANK: Sued For Withdrawing Loan Modification Offers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that OneWest Bank, of Pasadena,
Calif., notified thousands of distressed homebuyers they were
eligible for loan modifications, then withdrew the offer, leaving
them facing foreclosure, a class action claims in Baltimore City
Court.

A copy of the complaint in Little v. OneWest Bank, FSB, Case No.
24-C-005774 (Md. Cir. Ct., Baltimore City), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/09/BanksOneWest.pdf

Steven and Sharon Little, the named plaintiffs, are represented
by:

          Karl-Henri Gauvin, Esq.
          THE GAUVIN LAW FIRM
          400 East Pratt Street, Suite 800
          Baltimore, MD 21202

               - and -

          Phillip Robinson, Esq.
          Anthony DePastina, Esq.
          CIVIL JUSTICE, INC.
          520 West Fayette Street, Suite 410
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone (410) 706-0174


SEPRACOR: Dainippon Purchase Price Challenged in Delaware Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Sepracor shareholders say
the company is selling itself too cheaply to Dainippon Sumitomo
Pharma Co. -- for $23 a share or $2.5 billion -- in Delaware
Chancery Court.

A copy of the complaint in Stationary Engineers Local 39 Pension
Trust Fund v. Sepracor, Inc., et al., Case No. 4871 (Del. Ch.
Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/09/SCASepracor.pdf

The Pension Fund is represented by:

          Norman M. Monhait, Esq.
          Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
          Citizens Bank Center, Suite 1401
          919 Market Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801

               - and -

          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Ave., 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017

               - and -

          Saxena White P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          

VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Stockholders Suit Pending in Tel-Aviv, Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------
VeriFone Holdings, Inc., continues to face a purported
stockholders' class-action lawsuit in Tel-Aviv, Israel, over the
publication of erroneous financial reports.

On Jan. 27, 2008, a class-action complaint was filed against the
company in the Central District Court in Tel Aviv, Israel, on
behalf of purchasers of the company's stock on the Tel Aviv
Stock Exchange.  The complaint seeks compensation for damages
allegedly incurred by the class of plaintiffs due to the
publication of erroneous financial reports.

On May 25, 2008, the court held a hearing on the company's
motion to dismiss or stay the proceedings, after which the court
requested that the plaintiff and the company submit additional
information to the Court with respect to the applicability of
Israeli law to dually registered companies.  This additional
information was submitted to the court in June 2008 and the
parties currently awaiting the court's ruling on this issue.

On Sept. 11, 2008, the Israeli District Court ruled in the
company's favor, holding that U.S. law would apply in
determining its liability.

On Oct. 7, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to appeal
the District Court's ruling to the Israeli Supreme Court.

The company's response to plaintiffs' appeal motion was filed on
Jan. 18, 2009.

Because the company's motion to stay will depend upon the
Supreme Court's ruling, the District Court has stayed its
proceedings until the Supreme Court rules on plaintiffs' motion
for leave to appeal, according to the company's Sept. 4, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 31, 2009.

VeriFone Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.verifone.com/-- is a
global provider of technology that enables electronic payment
transactions and value-added services at the point of sale.  The
company's system solutions consist of point of sale electronic
payment devices that run the company's and third-party operating
systems, security and encryption software and certified payment
software, as well as third party, value-added applications.
VeriFone Holdings' system solutions process a range of payment
types, including signature and PIN-based (personal
identification number) debit cards, credit cards,
contactless/radio frequency identification, cards, smart cards,
pre-paid gift and other stored-value cards, electronic bill
payment, check authorization and conversion, signature capture
and electronic benefits transfer.  The company's electronic
payment systems are available in several distinctive modular
configurations, offering customers flexibility to support a
variety of connectivity options.


VERIFONE HOLDINGS: Oct. 2009 Mediation Set for Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
An October 2009 mediation conference for the consolidated
securities fraud class-action lawsuit against VeriFone Holdings
Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

On or after Dec. 4, 2007, several securities class-action claims
were filed against the company and certain of the company's
officers.  The various complaints specify different class
periods, with the longest proposed class period being Aug. 31,
2006, through Dec. 3, 2007.

The lawsuits have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under the caption "In re
VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-6140
MHP."

On March 17, 2008, the court held a hearing on the plaintiffs'
motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel and
in May 2008, the court requested additional briefing on these
matters, which was submitted in June 2008.

Each of the consolidated actions allege, among other things,
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, based on
allegations that the company and the individual defendants made
false or misleading public statements regarding the company's
business and operations during the putative class periods, and
seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 9, 2008).

On Aug. 22, 2008, the Court appointed plaintiff National
Elevator Fund lead plaintiff and its attorneys lead counsel.

Plaintiff filed its consolidated amended class action complaint
on Oct. 31, 2008, and the company filed its motion to dismiss on
Dec. 31, 2008.

The consolidated amended complaint asserts claims under the
Securities Exchange Act Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A and
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 for securities
fraud and control person liability against the company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors, based
on allegations that the company and the individual defendants
made false or misleading public statements regarding its
business and operations during the putative class periods and
seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

The Court granted the company's motion on May 26, 2009, and
dismissed the consolidated amended class action complaint with
leave to amend within 30 days of the ruling.  The company's
answer or responsive motion is due within 30 days of the filing
of a second amended class action complaint.

The parties have scheduled a mediation conference for October
2009, and have agreed to stay the proceedings pending the outcome
of the mediation.  Discovery has not yet commenced and is not
expected to do so until after the filing of a second amended
class action complaint, the filing by the company of a motion to
dismiss the second amended class action complaint, and a ruling
on the motion to dismiss, according to its Sept. 4, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended July 31, 2009.

The suit is "In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 07-6140 MHP," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Marilyn H.
Patel, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
         Girard Gibbs LLP
         601 California Street, Suite 1400
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Phone: 415-981-4800
         Fax: 415-981-4846
         E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com

              - and -

         Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
         Johnson Bottini, LLP
         655 W. Broadway, Suite 1400
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone: 619-230-0063
         Fax: 619-233-5535
         E-mail: frankb@johnsonbottini.com

              - and -

         Eli Greenstein, Esq.
         Coughlin Stoia Gellar Rudman & Robbins LLP
         100 Pine Street, Suite 2600
         San Francisco, CA 94111
         Phone: 415-288-4545
         Fax: 415-288-4534
         E-mail: Elig@csgrr.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Michael Howard Steinberg, Esq.
         Sullivan & Cromwell
         1888 Century Park East
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: 310-712-6600
         Fax: 310-712-8800
         E-mail: steinbergm@sullcrom.com


                            *********

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.  Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda 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  * * *