CAR_Public/091111.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, November 11, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 223
  
                            Headlines

3M CO: Status Conference in "Whitaker" Suit Set for November 17
3M CO: Plea to Transfer Venue in "Garcia" Suit Remains Pending
3M CO: Defending Suits Over Chemical Exposure at Alabama Plant
3M CO: Continues to Defend Against "Chemical Dumping" Lawsuit
3M CO: Washington Court Dismisses All Plaintiffs' Claims

ALEXANDER & BALDWIN: Court Dismisses Consolidated Civil Lawsuit
ALLIANT ENERGY: Trial in Pension Plan Suit Set for April 2010
BELFORD HIGH: Unaccredited School Sued for Issuing Fake Diplomas
BMC SOFTWARE: Court Gives Final Approval to Marimba Settlement
BMW FINANCIAL: Servicemember Sues for Refunds Under Auto Lease

BOK FINANCIAL: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Suit in Oklahoma
BRIDGEPORT PORT: Plaintiffs Estimate Damages at $8.7 Million
BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Shareholders Want More Money from Berkshire
CADENCE DESIGN: Wants Amended Complaint in California Dismissed
CALPINE CORP: Court Gives Preliminary Approval to Settlement

ELI LILLY: Zyprexa Lawsuits Remain Pending in U.S. and Canada
FIRST CHICAGO: Cook County Suits Complain About Excess Interest
FWM LABORATORIES: Accused of Unauthorized Resveratrol Billings
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Calif. Suit Alleges Airbag Systems Are Defective
JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued for WaMu's Role in Millennium Bank Scam

KINDER MORGAN: Court Okays Settlement in Royalty Interests Case
LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Bid for Rehearing of OOIDA Ruling Still Pending
M/I HOMES: Continues to Defend Former Employee's Suit in Florida
M/I HOMES: Homeowner's Suit in Ohio Remains Pending
MICROTUNE INC: Court Gives Final Approval to Global Settlement

MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Petition for Certiorari Remains Pending
MYLAN INC: Appeal in Lorazepam Price Hike Ruling Still Pending
MYLAN INC: Dey Continues to Defend Pricing Related Lawsuits
NCR CORP: Appeals Court's Decision in "Death Benefits" Suit
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Continues to Defend Suits Over Fuel Surcharges

NORTHERN TRUST: Continues to Face Amended ERISA Violations Suit
OKLAHOMA GAS: Continues to Defend Suit by Customers in Oklahoma
OKLAHOMA GAS: Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of Class Certification
SIGMA ALDRICH: Oral Arguments in Unit's Suit Set for Early 2010
SNAPNAMES.COM INC: Bidding Scandal Leads to Fla. State Court Suit

TOYOTA MOTOR: McCuneWright Files "Unintended Acceleration" Suit
TUESDAY MORNING: Still No Ruling on Decertification Appeal
TUESDAY MORNING: Lawsuit by Non-exempt Employees Remains Stayed
UNISOURCE ENERGY: Unit Continues to Face "Right of Way" Suit
XCEL ENERGY: To Appeal Appellate Court's Reversal Decision

                            *********

3M CO: Status Conference in "Whitaker" Suit Set for November 17
---------------------------------------------------------------
A status conference has been set for Nov. 17, 2009, on a
purported class action against 3M Co. alleging employment
discrimination, according to the company's Oct. 30, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

One current and one former employee of the company filed a
purported class action (the "Whitaker" lawsuit) in the District
Court of Ramsey County, Minnesota, in December 2004, seeking to
represent a class of all current and certain former salaried
employees employed by the company in Minnesota below a certain
salary grade who were age 46 or older at any time during the
applicable period to be determined by the Court.

The complaint alleges the plaintiffs suffered various forms of
employment discrimination on the basis of age in violation of the
Minnesota Human Rights Act and seeks injunctive relief,
unspecified compensatory damages (which they seek to treble under
the statute), including back and front pay, punitive damages
(limited by statute to $8,500 per claimant) and attorneys' fees.

In January 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to join four
additional named plaintiffs.

This motion was unopposed by the company and the four plaintiffs
were joined in the case, although one claim has been dismissed
following an individual settlement.

The class certification hearing was held in December 2007.

On April 11, 2008, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
certify the case as a class action and defined the class as all
persons who were 46 or older when employed by 3M in Minnesota in
a salaried exempt position below a certain salary grade at any
time on or after May 10, 2003, and who did not sign a document on
their last day of employment purporting to release claims arising
out of their employment with 3M.

On June 25, 2008, the Minnesota Court of Appeals granted the
company's petition for interlocutory review of the District
Court's decision granting class certification in the case.

On April 28, 2009, the Court of Appeals issued its decision,
reversing the District Court's class certification decision.

The Court of Appeals found that the District Court had not
required plaintiffs to meet the proper legal standards for
certification of a class under Minnesota law and had deferred
resolving certain factual disputes that were relevant to the
class certification requirements.

The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings in line with the evidentiary standards
defined in its opinion.

The company believes that the Court of Appeals correctly
determined the proper legal standards to apply to motions to
certify a class action, but the company also believes that
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in this case should be
denied as a matter of law.

Accordingly, on May 28, 2009, the company filed in the Minnesota
Supreme Court a Petition for Partial Review of the Decision of
the Court of Appeals.

On July 22, 2009, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied the
Petition.

3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology  
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services,
and electro and communications.


3M CO: Plea to Transfer Venue in "Garcia" Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Co.'s motion to transfer the venue of a purported class
action/collective action to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California remains pending, according to the
company's Oct. 30, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2009.

The company was served on May 7, 2009 with a purported class
action/collective action age discrimination lawsuit, which was
filed in United States District Court for the Northern District
of California, San Jose Division (the "Garcia lawsuit").

Five former and one current employee of the company are seeking
to represent all current and former salaried employees employed
by the company in the United States during the liability period,
which plaintiffs define as 2001 to the present.

In addition to the six named plaintiffs, 91 other current or
former employees have signed "opt-in" forms, seeking to join the
action.

The Garcia lawsuit expressly excludes those persons and those
claims encompassed within the proposed class and claims in the
Whitaker lawsuit.

The same counsel, joined by additional California counsel for the
Garcia lawsuit, represents the plaintiffs in both cases.

Plaintiffs claim that they and other similarly situated employees
suffered various forms of employment discrimination on the basis
of age in violation of the federal Age Discrimination in
Employment Act.

In regard to these claims, plaintiffs seek to represent "all
persons who were 46 or older when employed by 3M in the United
States in a salaried position below the level of director, or
salary grade 18, during the liability period."

Because federal law protects persons age 40 and older from age
discrimination, with respect to their claim of disparate impact
only, plaintiffs also propose an alternative definition of
similarly situated persons that would begin at age 40.

Plaintiffs allege that there are more than 6,000 current and
former employees who may potentially opt into the collective
action.

On behalf of this group, plaintiffs seek injunctive relief,
unspecified compensatory damages including back and front pay,
benefits, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees.

Certain of the plaintiffs' and putative class members' employment
terminated under circumstances in which they were eligible for
group severance plan benefits and in connection with those plans
they signed waivers of claims, including age discrimination
claims.

Plaintiffs claim the waivers of age discrimination claims were
invalid in various respects.

This subset of release-signing plaintiffs seeks a declaration
that the waivers of age discrimination claims are invalid, other
injunctive, but non-monetary, remedies, and attorneys' fees.

Plaintiffs allege that there are more than 2,000 current and
former employees who would comprise this declaratory judgment
class action.

On July 2, 2009, the company filed its Answer to the Garcia
lawsuit complaint and filed a motion to transfer the venue of the
lawsuit to the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota.

3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology  
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services,
and electro and communications.

      
3M CO: Defending Suits Over Chemical Exposure at Alabama Plant
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Co. continues defending purported class-action lawsuits
involving perfluorooctanyl chemistry exposure at or near the
company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility.

A former employee filed a purported class action lawsuit in 2002
in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama, involving
perfluorooctanyl chemistry, alleging that the plaintiffs suffered
fear, increased risk, subclinical injuries, and property damage
from exposure to perfluorooctanyl chemistry at or near the
company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility.

The Circuit Court in 2005 granted the company's motion to dismiss
the named plaintiff's personal injury-related claims on the basis
that such claims are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the
state's Workers Compensation Act.

The plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended complaint in November
2006, limiting the case to property damage claims on behalf of a
purported class of residents and property owners in the vicinity
of the Decatur plant.

Also in 2005, the judge in a second purported class action
lawsuit (filed by three residents of Morgan County, Alabama,
seeking unstated compensatory and punitive damages involving
alleged damage to their property from emissions of
perfluorooctanyl compounds from the company's Decatur, Alabama,
manufacturing facility that formerly manufactured those
compounds) granted the Company's motion to abate the case,
effectively putting the case on hold pending the resolution of
class certification issues in the action described above filed in
the same court in 2002.

Despite the stay, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking
damages for alleged personal injuries and property damage on
behalf of the named plaintiffs and the members of a purported
class.

No further action in the case is expected unless and until the
stay is lifted.

No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 30, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology  
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services,
and electro and communications.


3M CO: Continues to Defend Against "Chemical Dumping" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
3M Co. continues defending purported class-action lawsuits
involving perfluorochemicals released or dumped onto the
plaintiff's property, according to the company's Oct. 30, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

In February 2009, a resident of Franklin County, Alabama, filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Franklin
County seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief based
on the application by the Decatur wastewater treatment plant of
wastewater treatment sludge to farmland and grasslands in the
state that allegedly contain perflurooctanoic acid (PFOA),
perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and other perfluorochemicals.

The named defendants in the case include 3M, Dyneon LLC, Daikin
America, Inc., Synagro-WWT, Inc., Synagro South, LLC and
Biological Processors of America.

The named plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons
within the State of Alabama, Inc. who, within the past six years,
have had PFOA, PFOS and other perfluorochemicals released or
dumped onto their property by the defendants.

3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology  
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services,
and electro and communications.


3M CO: Washington Court Dismisses All Plaintiffs' Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Washington County dismissed all of the
plaintiffs' claims based on the unanimous jury verdict in favor
of the 3M Co. in a purported class action, according to the
company's Oct. 30, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2009.

Two residents of Washington County, Minnesota, filed in October
2004 a purported class action in the District Court of Washington
County on behalf of Washington County residents who have
allegedly suffered personal injuries and property damage from
alleged emissions from the former perfluorooctanyl production
facility at Cottage Grove, Minnesota, and from historic waste
disposal sites in the vicinity of that facility.

After the District Court granted the company's motion to dismiss
the claims for medical monitoring and public nuisance in April
2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding additional
allegations involving other perfluorinated compounds manufactured
by the Company, alleging additional legal theories in support of
their claims, adding four plaintiffs, and seeking relief based on
alleged contamination of the City of Oakdale municipal water
supply and certain private wells in the vicinity of Lake Elmo,
Minnesota.

In April 2006, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
adding two additional plaintiffs. The two original plaintiffs
thereafter dismissed their claims against the Company.

On June 19, 2007 the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
certify the litigation as a class action.

Thereafter, two of the remaining named plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed their claims.

In December 2008 and January 2009 the Court granted the company's
summary judgment motions dismissing all of the plaintiffs' claims
under the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act and
all claims for personal injury and emotional distress, but
allowed the plaintiffs to add a claim for punitive damages with
respect to their property damage claims.

In March 2009, the Court granted the company's summary judgment
motions seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs' private nuisance and
trespass to blood claims, but denied the company's summary
judgment motion with respect to the plaintiffs' negligence and
trespass to soil and water claims, and denied the Company's
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages.

Subsequent rulings by the Court in April 2009 limited the
plaintiffs to property damage claims based on negligence and
trespass, and punitive damages if plaintiffs prove their trespass
claim.

On June 17, 2009, after six weeks of trial, a Washington County
jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the company on all
remaining issues in the lawsuit.

The jury decided that the company was not negligent and had not
committed a trespass, and that plaintiffs had not suffered damage
to their properties.

The Court entered judgment on August 13, 2009 dismissing all of
the plaintiffs' claims based on the unanimous jury verdict in
favor of the company.

3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology  
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services,
and electro and communications.


ALEXANDER & BALDWIN: Court Dismisses Consolidated Civil Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
granted Alexander & Baldwin, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a
consolidated civil lawsuit, according to the company's Oct. 29,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

The company and Matson Navigation Company, Inc., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the company, were named as defendants in a
consolidated civil lawsuit purporting to be a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in
Seattle.

The lawsuit alleged violations of the antitrust laws and also
named as a defendant Horizon Lines, Inc., another domestic
carrier operating in the Hawaii and Guam trades.

On Aug. 18, 2009, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint.

The court granted plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint within
thirty days to allege claims consistent with the court's order.

The court subsequently extended plaintiffs' time to file an
amended complaint to May 10, 2010.

Founded in 1870, Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. is incorporated under
the laws of the State of Hawaii.  A&B operates in five segments
in three industries:  Transportation, Real Estate and
Agribusiness.


ALLIANT ENERGY: Trial in Pension Plan Suit Set for April 2010
-------------------------------------------------------------
The trial in a putative-class action lawsuit filed against
Alliant Energy Corp.'s Energy Cash Balance Pension Plan (Plan)
has been set for April 2010, according to the company's Oct. 30,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

In February 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Plan.

The complaint alleges that Plan participants who received a lump
sum distribution prior to their normal retirement age did not
receive the full benefit to which they were entitled in violation
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 because
the Plan applied an improper interest crediting rate to project
the cash balance account to their normal retirement age

The court has certified two subclasses of plaintiffs that in
aggregate include all persons vested or partially vested in the
Plan who received a lump sum distribution of the cash balance
formula benefit from Jan. 1, 1998 through Aug. 17, 2006
including:

     1) persons who received a lump sum distribution from
        Jan. 1, 1998 through Feb. 28, 2002; and

     2) persons who received a lump sum distribution from
        Feb. 29, 2002 through Aug. 17, 2006.  

Alliant Energy is contesting the case and the parties are
proceeding with discovery.

In September 2009, the plaintiffs submitted reports by their
expert witnesses that quantified the alleged underpayments owed
to plaintiffs between $24 million and $54 million, including
interest.  Alliant Energy disputes these amounts.

This matter is scheduled for non-binding mediation in the fourth
quarter of 2009.

Trial is scheduled for April 2010.

Alliant Energy Corp. -- http://www.alliantenergy.com-- is a
public utility holding company.  The Company has four primary
first tier subsidiaries of Alliant Energy are: Interstate Power
and Light Company (IPL), Wisconsin Power and Light Company
(WPL), Alliant Energy Resources, Inc. (Resources) and Alliant
Energy Corporate Services, Inc. (Corporate Services).


BELFORD HIGH: Unaccredited School Sued for Issuing Fake Diplomas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bridget Freeland at Courthouse News Service reports that an
online high school that falsely claims to be accredited charges
students $250 for fake diplomas, according to a RICO class action
in Detroit Federal Court. The class claims Belford High School
refuses to return tuition to students who realize they have been
duped.

The three named plaintiffs say Belford H.S. and nine other
defendants falsely claim to have accreditation from the
International Accrediting Agency for Online Universities -- a
defendant -- and the Universal Council for Online Education
Accreditation -- another defendant.

The IAAOU and UCOEA are either "utterly fictitious entities or
active participants in this fraud," the class says. Neither one
is recognized by the U.S. Department of Education, according to
the complaint.

The Texas-based online high school also falsely claims to have a
campus, as depicted on its Web site, and falsely claims to offer
"exciting and prestigious job prospects to its students," the
class says.

The three named plaintiffs say they found Belford while searching
for information online about high school diplomas and GED
programs. They say they passed Belford's purported "equivalency
test" and paid tuition, then received several documents in the
mail, including an illegitimate "diploma," signed by the school's
so-called officials.

Plaintiff Evelyn Reisdorff says her employer rejected the Belford
diploma, and when she contacted the Texas Department of
Education, it told her that Belford High School was a scam.

She says students who complain to Belford are told to "complete
numerous steps designed to discourage them from pursuing
refunds." Even after they complete those steps, Belford still
denies its students refunds, the class claims.

Belford University -- another defendant -- has been offering
bogus college programs and illegitimate college diplomas since at
least 2003, the suit adds.

The class wants all the defendants and their allegedly bogus
"accrediting" institutes, shut down, and more than $5 million in
damages for fraud, breach of contract, misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, RICO violations and civil conspiracy.

Also named as defendants are Education Services Provider Inc.;
Belford H.S. and Belford U "president" Melville P. Crowe; Belford
H.S. "superintendent" Dan Robertson; Belford H.S. "administration
head" Sydney Goldsmith; its "registrar" William J. McTiernan; and
"secretary of the school board" Ken Calvert.

A copy of the Complaint in McCluskey, et al. v. Belford High
School, et al., Case No. 09-cv-14345 (E.D. Mich.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/09/GEDs.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas H. Howlett, Esq.
          Dean M. Groogasian, Esq.
          THE GOOGASIAN FIRM, P.C.
          6895 Telegraph Road
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301-3138
          Telephone: 248-540-3333


BMC SOFTWARE: Court Gives Final Approval to Marimba Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
gave final approval of the settlement entered into by Marimba,
Inc., in a class action complaint alleging violations of the
federal securities laws, according to BMC Software, Inc.'s Oct.
30, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Marimba is the company's wholly-owned subsidiary acquired on July
15, 2004.

In 2001, a class action complaint alleging violations of the
federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York naming as defendants Marimba,
certain of Marimba's officers and directors, and certain
underwriters of Marimba's initial public offering.

An amended complaint was filed on April 19, 2002.

Marimba and certain of its officers and directors are named in
the suit pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on the basis
of an alleged failure to disclose the underwriters' alleged
compensation and manipulative practices in connection with
Marimba's initial public offering.  Similar complaints have been
filed against over 300 other issuers that have had initial public
offerings since 1998.

The individual officer and director defendants entered into
tolling agreements and, pursuant to a Court Order dated Oct. 9,
2002, were dismissed from the litigation without prejudice.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the Court granted a Motion to Dismiss the Rule
10b-5 claims against 116 defendants, including Marimba.

On June 30, 2003, the Marimba Board of Directors approved a
proposed partial settlement with the plaintiffs in this matter.

The settlement would have provided, among other things, a release
of Marimba and of the individual officer and director defendants
for the alleged wrongful conduct in the Amended Complaint in
exchange for a guarantee from Marimba's insurers regarding
recovery from the underwriter defendants and other non-monetary
consideration.

While the partial settlement was pending approval, the plaintiffs
continued to litigate against the underwriter defendants.

The district court directed that the litigation proceed within a
number of "focus cases" rather than in all of the 310 cases that
have been consolidated. The Marimba case is not one of these
focus cases.

On Oct. 13, 2004, the district court certified the focus cases as
class actions.

The underwriter defendants appealed that ruling, and on Dec. 5,
2006, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the
district court's class certification decision.

On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition
for rehearing.

In light of the Second Circuit opinion, liaison counsel for all
issuer defendants, including Marimba, informed the District Court
that the settlement could not be approved, because the defined
settlement class, like the litigation class, could not be
certified.

On June 25, 2007, the Court entered an order terminating the
settlement agreement.

On Aug. 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their second consolidated
amended class action complaints against the focus cases and on
Sept. 27, 2007, again moved for class certification.

On Nov. 12, 2007, certain of the defendants in the focus cases
moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended class action
complaints.

On March 26, 2008, the Court denied the motions to dismiss except
as to Section 11 claims raised by those plaintiffs who sold their
securities for a price in excess of the initial offering price
and those who purchased outside the previously certified class
period.

On Oct. 3, 2008, plaintiffs submitted a proposed order
withdrawing the class certification motion without prejudice.

On April 2, 2009, a stipulation and agreement of settlement
between the plaintiffs, issuer defendants and underwriter
defendants was submitted to the Court for preliminary approval.

This settlement requires no financial contribution from Marimba
or the company.

The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval
and preliminarily certified the settlement classes on June 10,
2009.

The settlement "fairness" hearing was held on Sept. 10, 2009.

The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for final approval of
the settlement and certified the settlement classes on Oct. 5,
2009.

The Court determined that the settlement is fair to the class
members, approved the settlement and dismissed, with prejudice,
the case against Marimba and its individual defendants.

BMC Software, Inc. -- http://www.bmc.com/-- is a software  
vendor.  The company provides system management, service
management and automation solutions primarily for large
enterprises.  Its portfolio of software solutions spans mainframe
and distributed systems, applications, databases and information
technology process management functions. BMC Software also
provides its customers with maintenance and support for its
products and perform services for software implementation,
integration, IT process design and re-engineering and education.  
The company is organized into two software business segments:
Enterprise Service Management (ESM) and Mainframe Service
Management (MSM). In June 2008, the Company completed the
acquisition of ITM Software.  In August 2009, the Company
acquired MQSoftware.  In October 2009, BMC Software, Inc.
announced the completion of its acquisition of Tideway Systems
Limited.


BMW FINANCIAL: Servicemember Sues for Refunds Under Auto Lease
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that BMW Financial Services
refused to issue refunds to lessees who are called to active duty
in the armed forces, a class-action claims in Camden, N.J.,
Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Venneman v. BMW Financial Services NA,
LLC, Case No. 09-cv-_____ (complaint filed as Doc. 3556 in Case
No. 33-av-00001) (D. N.J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/09/ArmedForces.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas T. Booth, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS T. BOOTH, JR., LLC
          129 W. Evesham Road
          Voorhees, NJ 08043
          Telephone: (856) 354-6060

               - and -  

          Michael J. DeBenedictis, Esq.
          DEBENEDICTIS & DEBENEDICTIS LLC
          20 Brace Road, Suite 350
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 795-2101


BOK FINANCIAL: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Suit in Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------------
BOSC, Inc., continues to be a defendant in a putative class
action as a result of underwriting SemGroup Energy Partners, LP's
Initial Public Offering, according to BOK Financial Corp.'s Oct.
30, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

BOSC is BOK Financial's subsidiary.

BOSC has been joined as a defendant in a putative class action
brought on behalf of unit holders of SemGroup Energy Partners, LP
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.

The lawsuit is brought pursuant to Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of
the Securities Act of 1933 against all of the underwriters of
issuances of partnership units in the Initial Public Offering in
July 2007 and in a Secondary Offering in January 2008.

BOSC underwrote $6.25 million of units in the Initial Public
Offering.  BOSC was not an underwriter in the Secondary Offering.

BOK Financial Corp. -- http://www.bokf.com/-- is a regional  
financial services company that provides commercial and consumer
banking, investment and trust services, mortgage origination and
servicing, and an electronic funds transfer network.  Holdings
include Bank of Albuquerque, N.A., Bank of Arizona, N.A., Bank of
Arkansas, N.A., Bank of Oklahoma, N.A., Bank of Texas, N.A.,
Colorado State Bank & Trust, N.A., Bank of Kansas City, N.A.,
BOSC, Inc., Cavanal Hill Investment  Management, Inc., the
TransFund electronic funds network, and Southwest Trust Company,  
N.A. Shares of BOK Financial are traded on the NASDAQ under the  
symbol BOKF.


BRIDGEPORT PORT: Plaintiffs Estimate Damages at $8.7 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas B. Scheffey at the Connecticut Law Tribine reports that
the number of plaintiffs in Desan, et al. v. Bridgeport Port
Authority, et al., Case No. 09-cv-1605 (D. Conn.), is increasing
daily as the plaintiffs' law firm signs up new clients, and that
the firm estimates class damages at $8.7 million for improperly
collected ferry fees since 1993.  

Mr. Scheffey's full report about how this lawsuit developed over
time is available at:

     http://www.ctlawtribune.com/getarticle.aspx?ID=35457

The Class Action Reporter provided coverage about the dispute on
Oct. 14, 2009.  

The Port Authority is represented by:

          Richard L. Rose, Esq.,
          Murtha Cullina LLP
          177 Broad Street
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (203) 653-5400

               - and -  

          Timothy F. Noelker, Esq.
          Thompson Coburn LLP
          One US Bank Plaza
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 552-6000


BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Shareholders Want More Money from Berkshire
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that railroad
shareholders and a pension plan challenged the Burlington
Northern Santa Fe's $26.3 billion sale to Berkshire Hathaway.
Both lawsuits in Texas state court say railroad directors engaged
in self-dealing and breached fiduciary duties by selling out too
cheaply to the company run by legendary investor Warren Buffett.
The named class-action plaintiff says he was incensed to hear Mr.
Buffett boast that he had put the deal together in "about 15
minutes."

Both suits seek declaratory and injunctive relief and rescission
and want Burlington Northern ordered to seek alternative suitors
before it can accept Mr. Buffett's bid.

The class action also seeks imposition of a constructive trust
upon any benefits the railroad directors received as a result of
wrongful conduct.

Class action plaintiff Jim Kinsey said was upset by the deal from
the moment he heard about it.  Media reports lauded Berkshire
Hathaway, saying the railroad had become much more efficient
during the recession and its economic outlook had improved.

Mr. Kinsey said he was disturbed by an interview Mr. Buffett gave
to CNBC's "Squawk Box" program, in which he boasted that he put
the deal together in "about 15 minutes" after his initial offer
for the railroad a week earlier.

In a transcript of the program available on the CNBC Web site,
Mr. Buffett said he met with Burlington Northern CEO Matt Rose
and other top managers while in Fort Worth in late October for
Berkshire Hathaway's board of directors meeting.
     
"I said to Matt, 'If you're ever looking for a permanent home for
BNSF, don't forget my phone number,' and he didn't throw me out
of the office," Mr. Buffett told CNBC.

The next day, while touring businesses Berkshire owns in Fort
Worth, Mr. Buffett had his assistant call Mr. Rose and "ask if he
would drop by the Ashton Hotel around 6 o'clock, when we were
getting back," Mr. Buffett said.  "When he dropped by, I made him
an offer.  He said he would take it to his board."

It was then Mr. Buffett said the deal-making had taken only 15
minutes.  He laughed as he paused to hear the reporter's next
question.
     
The deal, announced Nov. 3, is the biggest Berkshire Hathaway has
ever made, according to several media reports.
     
In his complaint, Mr. Kinsey said the speed with which it was
accepted suggested the board entered into it after "minor
deliberation and due diligence."
     
In his complaint in Tarrant County Court, Fort Worth, Kinsey says
that in the absence of an open and fair competitive bidding
process, the defendants would "reap disproportionate benefits to
the exclusion of obtaining the best reasonable shareholder
value."

Defendants in the class action include the railroad, CEO Matthew
Rose, and board members Alan Boeckmann, Donald Cook, Marc
Racicot, Roy Roberts, Marc Shapiro, Cynthia Telles, J.C. Watts
Jr., Robert West, Steven Whisler, and Edward Whitacre Jr.

A copy of the Complaint in Kinsey v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Corporation, et al., Cause No. 348 241465 09 (Tex. __ J. Dist.,
Tarrant Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/09/Buffett.pdf

Mr. Kinsey is represented by:

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          Hamilton Lindley, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP
          3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75204     
          Telephone: 214-744-3000

               - and -  

          Brain J. Robbins, Esq.
          S. Benjamin Rozwood, Esq.
          Ashley R. Palmer, Esq.
          Jay N. Razzouk, Esq.
          ROBBINS UMEDA LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-525-3990
     
In Delaware Chancery Court, the New Orleans pension fund claims
Buffett's move to buy the railroad - one of only six Class One
railroads in the nation, and one of only two moving containerized
goods from West Coast ports to America's heartland - is coercive
because shareholders weren't provided sufficient information to
make an informed decision about whether to tender their shares.
     
In addition, railroad directors agreed to a no-shop, no-talk
provision "before any price-maximizing process took place in a
blatant effort to ensure that controlling shareholder Berkshire
is their favored partner," the complaint states.
     
John Ambler, a spokesman for Burlington Northern, blasted the
filing of the pension fund's lawsuit. He told the Wall Street
Journal that "unfortunately it's become almost a universal
occurrence for certain law firms to file lawsuits of this type
around any corporate M&A activity."
     
Neither Buffett nor any of his lieutenants at Berkshire Hathaway
have commented on the lawsuits.
     However, perhaps anticipating that complaints would be
filed, Buffett told CNBC that to facilitate the deal he decided
to split Berkshire's "baby Class B share 50-for-1." Financial
analysts called the move extraordinary, because Buffett almost
never splits shares.
     "Yeah, I'm not big on stock splits," Buffett said during the
interview. "But by having this split, it enables anybody that has
as little as 1 share of Burlington Northern to opt for the tax-
free exchange, the 40 percent share. So those small shareholders
can have exactly the same availability that otherwise would only
have been available to a big shareholder."
     The main exchange of shares in the deal will be for Class A
Berkshire shares, which sell for around $100,000. These shares
are not being split.
     "It means anybody that had less than that amount of
[Burlington Northern stock] would not have the same choice as a
big shareholder did," Buffett said.
     Kinsey is represented by Joe Kendall and Hamilton Lindley of
the Kendall Law Group in Dallas.
     The Employees Retirement System of the City of New Orleans
is represented by David Scott with Scott & Scott LLP of
Colchester, Conn.  



CADENCE DESIGN: Wants Amended Complaint in California Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cadence Design Systems, Inc., intends to file a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint in a securities class-action complaint
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
according to the company's Oct. 30, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Oct. 3, 2009.

Three securities class-action complaints that allege violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, were filed on behalf of a purported class
of purchasers of the company's common stock.

The complaints are captioned:

   (1) "Hu v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc., Michael J. Fister,
       William Porter and Kevin S. Palatnik," filed on Oct. 29,
       2008;

   (2) "Vyas v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc., Michael J. Fister,
       and Kevin S. Palatnik," filed on Nov. 4, 2008; and

   (3) "Collins v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc., Michael J.
       Fister, John B. Shoven, Kevin S. Palatnik and William
       Porter," filed on Nov. 21, 2008.

The cases were filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California

On March 4, 2009, the District Court entered an order
consolidating these three complaints and captioning the
consolidated case "In re Cadence Design Systems, Inc. Securities
Litigation."  The District Court also named a lead plaintiff
andlead counsel for the consolidated litigation.

The lead plaintiff filed its consolidated amended complaint on
April 24, 2009, naming Cadence, Michael J. Fister, Kevin S.
Palatnik, William Porter and Kevin Bushby as defendants, and
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, and Rule 10b-5  promulgated thereunder, on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of Cadence's common stock who
traded Cadence's common stock between April 23, 2008 and Dec. 10,
2008, or the Alleged Class Period.

The amended complaint alleged that Cadence and the individual
defendants made statements during the Alleged Class Period
regarding Cadence's financial results that were false and
misleading because Cadence had recognized revenue that should
have been recognized in subsequent quarters.

The amended complaint requested certification of the action as a
class action, unspecified damages, interest and costs, and
unspecified equitable relief.

On June 8, 2009, the company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

On Sept. 11, 2009, the District Court held that the plaintiffs
had failed to allege a valid claim under the relevant legal
standards, and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

The District Court gave the plaintiffs leave to file another
amended complaint, and the plaintiffs did so on Oct. 13, 2009.

The amended complaint filed on Oct. 13, 2009, names the same
defendants.

Cadence Design Systems, Inc. -- http://www.cadence.com/--  
develops electronic design automation (EDA) software and
hardware.  The company licenses software, sells or leases
hardware technology, and provides design, methodology and
education services throughout the world to help manage and
accelerate electronics product development processes.  Its range
of products and services are used by the electronics companies to
design and develop complex integrated circuits (ICs) and
electronics systems.  The company offers its customers three
license types for its software: perpetual, term and subscription.


CALPINE CORP: Court Gives Preliminary Approval to Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Santa Clara County Superior Court, on Oct. 26, 2009, gave
preliminary approval to the class action settlement in the case
captioned Hawaii Structural Ironworkers Pension Fund v. Calpine,
et al., according to Calpine Corp.'s Oct. 29, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Defendants in the case are Calpine Corporation, Peter Cartwright,
Ann B. Curtis, John Wilson, Kenneth Derr, George Stathakis,
Credit Suisse First Boston LLC, Banc of America Securities LLC,
Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. and Goldman Sachs & Co.

The Hawaii Structural Ironworkers Pension Trust Fund alleges that
the prospectus and registration statement for an April 2002
offering of Calpine Corporation securities contained false or
misleading statements.

The action was temporarily stayed during Calpine Corporation's
Chapter 11 filing.

On Dec. 19, 2007, Calpine Corporation entered into an agreement
with the Hawaii Structural Ironworkers Pension Trust Fund to
allow the action to proceed to the extent there was insurance
coverage available to Calpine Corporation.

The parties attended mediation on June 1, 2009 and settlement
discussions continued thereafter.

On Oct. 12, 2009, the parties executed a Stipulation of
Settlement, which settled the matter for $43 million contingent
upon court approval.

Pursuant to the Dec. 19, 2007 agreement, Calpine Corporation's
portion of the settlement is to be satisfied solely from
applicable insurance coverage.

Preliminary approval of the class action settlement was granted
by Santa Clara Superior Court on Oct. 26, 2009.

A final approval hearing is expected to be scheduled in early
2010.

Founded in 1984, Calpine Corporation -- http://www.calpine.com/-
- is a major U.S. power company, currently capable of delivering
more than 24,000 megawatts of clean, cost-effective, reliable and
fuel-efficient electricity to customers and communities in 16
states in the United States and Canada.  Calpine (NYSE:CPN) owns,
leases and operates low-carbon, natural gas-fired and renewable
geothermal power plants. Using advanced technologies, Calpine
generates electricity in a reliable and environmentally
responsible manner for the customers and communities it serves.


ELI LILLY: Zyprexa Lawsuits Remain Pending in U.S. and Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Co. continues to face several purported class-
action lawsuits in the U.S. and Canada over the side effects and
marketing of Zyprexa, according to the company's Oct. 30, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

                         U.S. Lawsuits

In 2005, two lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York purporting to be nationwide
class action suits on behalf of all consumers and third-party
payors, excluding governmental entities, which have made or will
make payments for their members or insured patients being
prescribed Zyprexa.

These actions have now been consolidated into a single lawsuit,
which is brought under certain state consumer protection
statutes, the federal civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations statute, and common law theories, seeking a refund
of the cost of Zyprexa, treble damages, punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.

Two additional lawsuits were filed in the Eastern District of New
York in 2006 on similar grounds.

In 2007, The Pennsylvania Employees Trust Fund brought claims in
state court in Pennsylvania as insurer of Pennsylvania state
employees, who were prescribed Zyprexa on similar grounds as
described in the New York cases.

In general, these lawsuits allege that the company inadequately
tested for and warned about side effects of Zyprexa and
improperly promoted the drug.

In September 2008, the Hon. Jack B. Weinstein certified a class
consisting of third-party payors, excluding governmental entities
and individual consumers.  The company appealed the certification
order, and Judge Weinstein's order denying Eli Lilly's motion for
summary judgment, in September 2008.

The Pennsylvania case is set for trial in June 2010.

                       Canadian Lawsuits

In early 2005, the company was served with four lawsuits seeking
class action status in Canada on behalf of patients who took
Zyprexa.

One of these four lawsuits has been certified for residents of
Quebec, and a second has been certified in Ontario and includes
all Canadian residents, except for residents of Quebec and
British Columbia.

The allegations in the Canadian actions are similar to those in
the litigation pending in the U.S.

Eli Lilly and Co. -- http://www.lilly.com/-- discovers,  
develops, manufactures and sells products in one business
segment, pharmaceutical products.  The company also has an animal
health business segment.  It manufactures and distributes its
products through owned or leased facilities in the U.S., Puerto
Rico and 25 other countries.  Eli Lilly and company's products
are sold in approximately 135 countries.  The company also
conducts research to find products to treat diseases in animals
and to increase the efficiency of animal food production.  Its
principal products include Neurosciences products, Endocrinology
products, Oncology products, Cardiovascular products, Animal
health products and Other pharmaceuticals.


FIRST CHICAGO: Cook County Suits Complain About Excess Interest
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that First Chicago Bank & Trust
charges 101.4 percent of the interest it promises on loans, and
so do 11 other banks, according to 12 class actions in Cook
County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Palladinetti Properties & Development,
LLC v. First Chicago Bank & Trust, Case No. 2009L013231 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/09/Banks.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald C. Battaglia, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DONALD C. BATTAGLIA, LTD.
          3433 W. Sunset Avenue
          Waukeegan, IL 60087
          Telephone: 847-599-0100

               - and -  

          Lucas Fuksa, Esq.
          FUKSA KHORSHID
          70 W. Erie, 3rd Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          
               - and -  

          John Klytta, Esq.
          KLYTTA AND KLYTTA
          5680 N. Elston Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60646
          Telephone: 773-763-6565


FWM LABORATORIES: Accused of Unauthorized Resveratrol Billings
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that FWM Laboratories offers free
Resveratrol, to make people live longer, it says, then bills them
$87 a month without authorization, a class action claims in Miami
Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Simpson v. FWM Laboratories, Inc.,
Case No. 09-cv-61771 (S.D. Fla.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/09/CCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Andrew Meyer, Esq.
          Tamra Givens, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          One Tampa City Center, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: 813-223-5505

               - and -  

          Scott Wm. Weinstein, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          12800 University Dr., Suite 600
          Fort Myers, FL 33907-5349
          Telephone: 239-433-6880

               - and -  

          Alexander Wheeler, Esq.
          Jason P. Fowler, Esq.
          R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM
          42220 10th Street West, Suite 109
          Lancaster, CA 93534
          Telephone: 661-949-2595


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Calif. Suit Alleges Airbag Systems Are Defective
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Hyundai 2006 to 2009 models
have defective "occupant classification systems" that are
supposed to tell whether the front passenger's airbag should
deploy, a class action claims in Los Angeles Federal Court.  

A copy of the Complaint in Kearney, et ux. v. Hyundai Motor
Company, et al., Case No. 09-cv-01298 (C.D. Calif.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/09/Autos.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lee M. Gordon, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          700 South Flower St., Suite 2940
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: 213-330-7150

               - and -  

          Robert B. Carey, Esq.
          Amy M. Wilkins, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          11 West Jefferson St., Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85003
          Telephone: 602-840-5900


JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued for WaMu's Role in Millennium Bank Scam
------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that a class
action claims JPMorgan Chase conspired and aided and abetted a
Ponzi scam by letting its operators move and launder nearly $200
million through a Washington Mutual bank in Napa. Morgan Chase
bought WaMu after it imploded from bad bets on real estate.

Lead attorney Niall P. McCarthy, Esq., said in an interview with
Ms. Dinzeo that Washington Mutual knew about the investment scam.
McCarthy said Caribbean-based Millennium Bank offered his three
clients bogus "high-yield" certificates of deposit.  His client
Neerja Gursahaney bought a bum CD allegedly valued at $4 million,
Mr. McCarthy said.

"Their basic liability is that the management team in Napa branch
set up system that allowed the scheme to take place," Mr.
McCarthy said. He added that he was not sure if anyone outside
the Napa branch knew about the scheme.

Mr. McCarthy said the Napa branch received millions of dollars in
deposits through a remote banking system it had set up, allowing
Millennium Bank to transfer ten of millions to offshore bank
accounts.

Mr. McCarthy said there is no way Washington Mutual could not
have known that Millennium Bank was scamming its customers.
     
"They had to audit the business and do some inquiries to make
sure it was legitimate, and obviously the most minimal inquiry
would determine the investments were nonexistent," Mr. McCarthy
said.

According to the federal complaint, the SEC uncovered
Millennium's Ponzi scheme in March and froze its assets,
preventing the victims from suing Millennium as well.

"For many plaintiffs the loss was devastating, as it was the
majority of their life savings," Mr. McCarthy said.  "They feel
that anyone who facilitated the scheme should be held responsible
and they are very eager to proceed with the case."

"Right now there is a court order in place that keeps us from
suing (Millennium), because basically they're bankrupt," Mr.
McCarthy said.  "If that order is lifted we can add them as
defendants."

The class demands damages and restitution for fraud and
conversion.

A copy of the Complaint in Benson, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A., Case No. 09-cv-05272 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/09/WaMuPonzi.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Niall P. McCarthy, Esq.
          Anne Marie Murphy, Esq.
          Aron K. Liang, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: 650-697-6000

               - and -  

          Steven N. Berk, Esq.
          BERK LAW PLLC
          1225 15th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: 202-232-7550

               - and -  

          Keith L. Miller, Esq.
          Twenty One School Street
          Boston, MA 02106
          Telephone: 617-523-5803          


KINDER MORGAN: Court Okays Settlement in Royalty Interests Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 8th Judicial District Court, Union County New Mexico, gave
its final judgment approving the settlement in a purported class
action against Kinder Morgan CO2, according to Kinder Morgan
Energy Partners, L.P.'s Oct. 30, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2009.

The case is captioned J. Casper Heimann, Pecos Slope Royalty
Trust and Rio Petro LTD, individually and on behalf of all other
private royalty and overriding royalty owners in the Bravo Dome
Carbon Dioxide Unit, New Mexico similarly situated v. Kinder
Morgan CO2 Company, L.P., No. 04-26-CL.

The case involves a purported class action against Kinder Morgan
CO2 alleging that it has failed to pay the full royalty and
overriding royalty, collectively referred to as the royalty
interests, on the true and proper settlement value of compressed
carbon dioxide produced from the Bravo Dome Unit during the
period beginning Jan. 1, 2000.

The complaint purports to assert claims for violation of the New
Mexico Unfair Practices Act, constructive fraud, breach of
contract and of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
breach of the implied covenant to market, and claims for an
accounting, unjust enrichment, and injunctive relief.

The purported class is comprised of current and former owners,
during the period January 2000 to the present, who have private
property royalty interests burdening the oil and gas leases held
by the defendant, excluding the Commissioner of Public Lands, the
United States of America, and those private royalty interests
that are not unitized as part of the Bravo Dome Unit.

The case was tried to a jury in the trial court in September
2008.

The plaintiffs sought $6.8 million in actual damages as well as
punitive damages.

The jury returned a verdict finding that Kinder Morgan CO2 did
not breach the settlement agreement and did not breach the
claimed duty to market carbon dioxide.

The jury also found that Kinder Morgan CO2 breached a duty of
good faith and fair dealing and found compensatory damages of
$300,000 and punitive damages of $1.2 million.

On Oct. 16, 2008, the trial court entered judgment on the
verdict.

On Jan. 6, 2009, the district court entered orders vacating the
judgment and scheduling a new trial beginning on Oct. 19, 2009.

On Sept. 10, 2009, the parties signed a settlement agreement
providing for a payment of $3.2 million to the class, a new
royalty methodology pursuant to which future royalties will be
based on a price formula that is tied in part to published crude
oil prices, and a dismissal with prejudice of all claims.

On Oct. 22, 2009, the trial court entered final judgment
approving the settlement.

Houston-based Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. owns or
operates approximately 26,000 miles of pipelines and 150
terminals.  The company's pipelines transport more than two
million barrels per day of gasoline and other petroleum products,
and up to seven billion cubic feet per day of natural
gas. The company operates through four segments: Products
Pipelines, Natural Gas Pipelines, CO2 and Terminals.


LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Bid for Rehearing of OOIDA Ruling Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The petition for rehearing filed by each of the parties to
theclass-action lawsuit, "Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association Inc. et al. v. Landstar System Inc., et al., Case No.
3:02-cv-01005-HLA-MCR," is pending with the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit.

The putative class-action complaint was filed on Nov. 1, 2002, by
the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc., and
certain BCO Independent Contractors on behalf of independent
contractors who provide truck capacity to the company and its
subsidiaries under exclusive lease arrangements before the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida against the
company and certain of its subsidiaries.

The complaint was amended on April 7, 2005.  The Amended
Complaint alleged that certain aspects of the company's motor
carrier leases and related practices with its BCO Independent
Contractors violate certain federal leasing regulations and
sought injunctive relief, an unspecified amount of damages and
attorney's fees.

On Aug. 30, 2005, the District Court granted a motion by the
plaintiffs to certify the case as a class-action.

On Jan. 16, 2007, the District Court ordered the decertification
of the class of BCO Independent Contractors for purposes of
determining remedies.

Immediately thereafter, trial commenced for purposes of
determining what remedies, if any, would be awarded to the
remaining named BCO Independent Contractor Plaintiffs against
these Landstar subsidiaries:

        -- Landstar Inway, Inc.,
        -- Landstar Ligon, Inc., and
        -- Landstar Ranger, Inc.

On March 29, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiffs'
request for injunctive relief, entered a judgment in favor of the
defendants and issued written orders setting forth its rulings
related to the decertification of the class and the denial of the
plaintiffs' requests for damages and injunctive relief.

On March 29, 2007, the District Court denied the request by
Plaintiffs for injunctive relief, entered a judgment in favor of
the Defendants and issued written orders setting forth its
rulings related to the decertification of the plaintiff class and
other important elements of the Litigation relating to liability,
injunctive relief and monetary relief.

The Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit of certain of the District Court's rulings
in favor of the Defendants.  The Defendants asked the Appellate
Court to affirm such rulings and filed a cross-appeal with the
Appellate Court with respect to certain other rulings of the
District Court.

On Sept. 3, 2008, the Appellate Court issued its ruling, which,
among other things, affirmed the District Court's rulings that:

       -- the Defendants are not prohibited by the applicable
          federal leasing regulations from charging
          administrative or other fees to BCO Independent
          Contractors in connection with voluntary programs
          offered by the Defendants through which a BCO
          Independent Contractor may purchase discounted
          products and services for a charge that is deducted
          against the compensation payable to the BCO
          Independent Contractor (a "Charge-back Deduction"),

       -- the Plaintiffs are not entitled to restitution or
          disgorgement with respect to violations by Defendants
          of the applicable federal leasing regulations but
          instead may recover only actual damages, if any, which
          they sustained as a result of any such violations, and

       -- the claims of BCO Independent Contractors may not be
          handled on a class action basis for purposes of
          determining the amount of actual damages, if any, they
          sustained as a result of any violations.

Further, the analysis of the Appellate Court confirmed the
absence of any violations alleged by the Plaintiffs of the
federal leasing regulations with respect to the written terms of
all leases currently in use between the Defendants and BCO
Independent Contractors.

However, the ruling of the Appellate Court reversed the District
Court's rulings:

       -- that an old version of the lease formerly used by
          Defendants but not in use with any current BCO
          Independent Contractor complied with applicable
          disclosure requirements under the federal leasing
          regulations with respect to adjustments to
          compensation payable to BCO Independent Contractors on
          certain loads sourced from the U. S. Dept. of Defense,
          and

       -- that the Defendants had provided sufficient
          documentation to BCO Independent Contractors under the
          applicable federal leasing regulations relating to how
          the component elements of Charge-back Deductions were
          computed.

The Appellate Court then remanded the case to the District Court
to permit the Plaintiffs to seek injunctive relief with respect
to these violations of the federal leasing regulations and to
hold an evidentiary hearing to give the Named Plaintiffs an
opportunity to produce evidence of any damages they actually
sustained as a result of such violations.

Each of the parties to the Litigation has filed a petition with
the Appellate Court seeking rehearing of the Appellate Court's
ruling.

No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 30, 2009,
Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 26, 2009.

The suit is Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association Inc.
et al. v. Landstar System Inc., et al., Case No. 02-cv-01005
(Fla.) (Adams, J).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Daniel E. Cohen, Esq.
          Daniel R. Unumb, Esq.
          Paul D. Cullen, Esq.
          Mary Craine Lombardo, Esq.
          Joseph A. Black, Esq.
          Susan Van Bell, Esq.
          THE CULLEN LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1101 30th St., N.W., Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20007-3770
          Telephone: 202-944-8600

               - and -  

          Michael R. Freed, Esq.
          BRENNAN, MANNA & DIAMOND, PL
          Humana Centre Building
          76 S. Laura Street, Ste. 2110
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: 904-366-1500

Representing the defendants are:

          Daniel R. Barney, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT & HANSON, P.C.
          1850 M St., NW, Suite 280
          Washington, DC 20036-5804
          Telephone: 202-783-5485

               - and -  

          Timothy W. Wiseman, Esq.
          Robert L. Browning, Esq.
          Gregory M. Feary, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVEN, LIGHT & HANSON, P.C.
          10 W. Market St., Suite 1500
          Indianapolis, IN 46204-2968
          Phone: 317-637-1777
          Fax: 317-687-2414

               - and -

          Andrew Tysen Duva, Esq.
          Lawrence Joseph Hamilton, II, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT
          50 North Laura St., Suite 3900
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: 904-353-2000


M/I HOMES: Continues to Defend Former Employee's Suit in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
M/I Homes Inc. continues to defend a complaint filed by a former
employee.

On March 14, 2008, a former employee filed a complaint in the
U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, on behalf of
himself and those similarly situated, against M/I Homes, Inc.,
alleging that he and other construction superintendents were
misclassified as exempt and not paid overtime compensation under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and seeking equitable relief,
damages and attorneys' fees.

Six other individuals have filed consent forms in order to join
the action.

The company filed an answer on or about Aug. 21, 2008.

No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 30, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Based in Columbus, Ohio, M/I Homes Inc. (NYSE: MHO) --
http://www.mihomes.com/-- is a builder of single-family homes.   
The company's homes are marketed and sold under the trade names
M/I Homes and Showcase Homes.  The company has homebuilding
operations in Columbus and Cincinnati, Ohio; Chicago, Illinois;
Indianapolis, Indiana; Tampa and Orlando, Florida; Charlotte and
Raleigh, North Carolina; and the Virginia and Maryland suburbs of
Washington, D.C.


M/I HOMES: Homeowner's Suit in Ohio Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------
M/I Homes Inc. continues to defend a complaint filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

On March 5, 2009, a resident of Florida and an owner of one of
the company's homes filed a complaint on behalf of himself and
other similarly situated owners and residents of homes in the
United States or alternatively in Florida, against M/I Homes,
Inc., and certain other identified and unidentified
manufacturers, builders, and suppliers of drywall.

The plaintiff alleges that M/I Homes built his home with
defective drywall, manufactured by certain of the defendants,
that contains sulfur or other organic compounds capable of
harming the health of individuals and damaging metals.

The plaintiff alleges physical and economic damages and seeks
legal and equitable relief, medical monitoring and attorney's
fees.

The company filed a responsive pleading on or about April 30,
2009.

No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 30, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Based in Columbus, Ohio, M/I Homes Inc. (NYSE: MHO) --
http://www.mihomes.com/-- is a builder of single-family homes.   
The company's homes are marketed and sold under the trade names
M/I Homes and Showcase Homes.  The company has homebuilding
operations in Columbus and Cincinnati, Ohio; Chicago, Illinois;
Indianapolis, Indiana; Tampa and Orlando, Florida; Charlotte and
Raleigh, North Carolina; and the Virginia and Maryland suburbs of
Washington, D.C.


MICROTUNE INC: Court Gives Final Approval to Global Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
gave its final approval to the global settlement of the
consolidated complaint relating to Microtune, Inc.'s Initial
Public Offering, according to the company's Oct. 29, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Starting on July 11, 2001, multiple securities fraud class action
complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York naming as defendants several investment
banking firms that served as underwriters of the company's
initial public offering, and in one instance, naming Microtune
and several of its former officers.

The complaints were brought purportedly on behalf of all persons
who purchased the company's common stock from Aug. 4, 2000
through Dec. 6, 2000 and were consolidated into In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation (IPO cases), which includes
hundreds of other lawsuits filed in the Southern District of New
York, challenging over 300 other initial public offerings and
secondary offerings conducted in 1998, 1999 and 2000.

The consolidated complaint alleges liability on the grounds that
the registration statement for the company's initial public
offering did not disclose that:

     (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain of their
         customers to purchase shares in the offering in
         exchange for excess commissions paid to the
         underwriters, and

     (2) the underwriters had arranged for certain of their
         customers to purchase additional shares in the
         aftermarket at pre-determined prices to artificially
         inflate the market price of the company's shares.

On April 2, 2009, a new global settlement of the IPO cases was
submitted to the district court for its approval.

This settlement would not require Microtune or its affiliated
defendants to pay any money.

In June 2009, the court gave preliminary approval to the new
global settlement and then on Oct. 6, 2009 gave its final
approval to the global settlement.

Microtune, Inc. designs and markets receiver solutions for the
cable, automotive entertainment electronics and digital
television (DTV) markets.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Petition for Certiorari Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc.'s petition for certiorari with the United
States Supreme Court in the matter Williams, et al. v. Mohawk
Industries, Inc. Case No. 4:04-cv-00003-HLM, remains pending,
according to the company's Oct. 30, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 26, 2009.

Four plaintiffs filed a putative class action lawsuit in January
2004 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia (Rome Division), alleging that they are former and
current employees of the company and that the actions and conduct
of the company, including the employment of persons who are not
authorized to work in the United States, have damaged them and
the other members of the putative class by suppressing the wages
of the company's hourly employees in Georgia.

The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (a) treble
damages; (b) return of any allegedly unlawful profits; and (c)
attorney's fees and costs of litigation.

In February 2004, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint, which was denied by the District Court in April 2004.

Following appellate review of this decision, the case was
returned to the District Court for further proceedings.

On Dec. 18, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.

On March 3, 2008, the District Court denied the plaintiffs motion
for class certification.

The plaintiffs then appealed the decision to the United States
Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit on March 17, 2008.

On May 28, 2009, the Court of Appeals issued an order reversing
the District Court's decision and remanding the case back to the
District Court for further proceedings on the class certification
issue.

Discovery has been stayed at the District Court since the appeal.

In August 2009, the Company filed a petition for certiorari with
the United States Supreme Court.

The suit is Williams, et al. v. Mohawk Industries, Case No 04-cv-
00003 (N.D. Ga.) (Murphy, J.)

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Bobby Lee Cook, Esq.
         COOK & CONNELLY
         P.O. Box 370
         Summerville, GA 30747-0370
         Phone: 706-857-3421
         E-mail: LisaDodd@alltel.net

              - and -

         Ronan P. Doherty, Esq.
         John Earl Floyd, Esq.
         Nicole G. Iannarone, Esq.
         Joshua F. Thorpe, Esq.
         Bondurant Mixson & Elmore
         1201 West Peachtree St., N.W.
         3900 One Atlantic Ctr.
         Atlanta, GA 30309-3417
         Phone: 404-881-4100
         E-mail: doherty@bmelaw.com
                 floyd@bmelaw.com
                 iannarone@bmelaw.com
                 thorpe@bmelaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

         Steven Thomas Cottreau, Esq.
         Juan P. Morillo, Esq.
         Virginia A. Seitz, Esq.
         Sidley Austin Brown & Wood
         1501 K. St., NW
         Washington, DC 20005
         Phone: 202-736-8000
         E-mail: scottreau@sidley.com
                 jmorillo@sidley.com
                 vseitz@sidley.com

              - and -

         R. Carl Cannon, Esq.
         Rosemary C. Lumpkins, Esq.
         Constangy Brooks & Smith
         230 Peachtree St., N.W.
         2400 Peachtree Center Tower
         Atlanta, GA 30303-1557
         Phone: 404-525-8622
         E-mail: ccannon@constangy.com
                 rlumpkins@constangy.com


MYLAN INC: Appeal in Lorazepam Price Hike Ruling Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan Inc.'s appeal of the judgment in the lorazepam price
increase case, which was brought by four health insurers who
opted out of earlier class action settlements, remains pending.

On June 1, 2005, a jury verdict was rendered against the company,
Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., and co-defendants Cambrex Corporation
and Gyma Laboratories in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia in the amount of approximately $12.0 million, which
has been accrued for by the company.

The jury found that Mylan and its co-defendants willfully
violated Massachusetts, Minnesota and Illinois state antitrust
laws in connection with API supply agreements entered into
between the company and its API supplier (Cambrex) and broker
(Gyma) for two drugs, lorazepam and clorazepate, in 1997, and
subsequent price increases on these drugs in 1998.

The case was brought by four health insurers who opted out of
earlier class action settlements agreed to by the company in 2001
and represents the last remaining antitrust claims relating to
Mylan's 1998 price increases for lorazepam and clorazepate.

Following the verdict, the company filed a motion for judgment as
a matter of law, a motion for a new trial, a motion to dismiss
two of the insurers and a motion to reduce the verdict.

On Dec. 20, 2006, the company's motion for judgment as a matter
of law and motion for a new trial were denied and the remaining
motions were denied on Jan. 24, 2008.

In post-trial filings, the plaintiffs requested that the verdict
be trebled and that request was granted on Jan. 24, 2008.

On Feb. 6, 2008, a judgment was issued against Mylan and its co-
defendants in the total amount of approximately $69.0 million,
which, in the case of three of the plaintiffs, reflects trebling
of the compensatory damages in the original verdict
(approximately $11 million in total) and, in the case of the
fourth plaintiff, reflects their amount of the compensatory
damages in the original jury verdict plus doubling this
compensatory damage award as punitive damages assessed against
each of the defendants (approximately $58 million in total), some
or all of which may be subject to indemnification obligations by
the company.

Plaintiffs are also seeking an award of attorneys' fees and
litigation costs in unspecified amounts and prejudgment interest
of approximately $8.0 million.

The company and its co-defendants have appealed to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and intend to challenge the
verdict as legally erroneous on multiple grounds.

The appeals were held in abeyance pending a ruling on the motion
for prejudgment interest, which has been granted.

The company intends to contest this ruling along with the
liability finding and other damages awards as part of its pending
appeal, which will now proceed in the Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit.

In connection with the company's appeal of the lorazepam
judgment, the company submitted a surety bond underwritten by a
third-party insurance company in the amount of $74.5 million.

This surety bond is secured by a pledge of a $40.0 million cash
deposit (which is included as restricted cash on the company's
Consolidated Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2009) and an
irrevocable letter of credit for $34.5 million issued under the
Senior Credit Agreement.

No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 30, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Mylan Inc. -- http://www.mylan.com/-- and its subsidiaries  
comprise a global pharmaceutical company that develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets and distributes generic, brand and branded
generic pharmaceutical products and active pharmaceutical
ingredients (API).  Mylan has three segments: the
Generics Segment, the Matrix Segment and the Specialty Segment.  
Mylan markets more than 570 products to consumers in more than
140 countries.  Mylan's products cover an array of therapeutic
categories, and offer a range of dosage forms and delivery
systems, including oral solids, controlled-release, steriles,
injectables, topicals, liquids, transdermals, semi-solids and
high-potency products.

      
MYLAN INC: Dey Continues to Defend Pricing Related Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mylan Inc.'s specialty pharmaceutical business subsidiary, Dey
L.P., is currently a defendant in various pricing related
lawsuits, including several class-action cases brought by
consumers and third-party payors.

Dey is named as a defendant in lawsuits brought by the state
Attorney General's of Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois,
Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, South Carolina (on behalf
of the state and the state health plan), Utah and Wisconsin and
the city of New York and approximately 40 New York counties.

Dey is a defendant currently in lawsuits brought by the state
Attorney General's of Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois,
Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, as well as
the city of New York and approximately 40 New York counties.

Dey is also named as a defendant in several class actions brought
by consumers and third-party payors.

Dey has reached a settlement of these class actions, which has
been preliminarily approved by the court.

Additionally, a complaint was filed under seal by a plaintiff on
behalf of the United States of America against Dey in August
1997.

In August 2006, the Government filed its complaint-in-
intervention  and the case was unsealed in September 2006.

Dey's motion for partial summary judgment is pending.

These cases all generally allege that Dey falsely reported
certain price information concerning certain drugs marketed by
Dey.

The company has approximately $114.6 million recorded in other
liabilities related to the price-related litigation involving
Dey.

In conjunction with the acquisition of the former Merck Generics
business, Mylan is entitled to indemnification from Merck KGaA
under the Share Purchase Agreement. As a result, the Company has
recorded approximately $114.6 million in other assets.

No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 30, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Mylan Inc. -- http://www.mylan.com/-- and its subsidiaries  
comprise a global pharmaceutical company that develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets and distributes generic, brand and branded
generic pharmaceutical products and active pharmaceutical
ingredients (API).  Mylan has three segments: the
Generics Segment, the Matrix Segment and the Specialty Segment.  
Mylan markets more than 570 products to consumers in more than
140 countries.  Mylan's products cover an array of therapeutic
categories, and offer a range of dosage forms and delivery
systems, including oral solids, controlled-release, steriles,
injectables, topicals, liquids, transdermals, semi-solids and
high-potency products.


NCR CORP: Appeals Court's Decision in "Death Benefits" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
NCR Corp. has appealed the decision of the federal court in Ohio
granting motions for summary judgment against the company in two
companion class actions, according to the company's Oct. 30,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

In August 2009, a federal court in Ohio granted motions for
summary judgment against the company in two companion class
actions brought on behalf of certain unionized retirees, who
claimed that the company's 2003 decision to terminate certain
benefits payable on death violated collective bargaining
agreements and other rights.

The company has appealed the decision to the Sixth Circuit Court
of Appeals.

If affirmed on appeal, the decision will require the company to
restore the death benefit, at an approximate cost of $6 million,
which NCR recognized as other expense during the three months
ended Sept. 30, 2009.

NCR Corporation is a global technology company and leader in
automated teller machines, self-checkouts and other self- and
assisted-service solutions, serving customers in more than 100
countries.  NCR's software, hardware, consulting and support
services help organizations in retail, financial, entertainment,
travel, healthcare and other industries interact with consumers
across multiple channels.


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Continues to Defend Suits Over Fuel Surcharges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corp. continues to defend the consolidated
amended complaints filed in several putative class-action suits
against them that were consolidated in the District of Columbia.
In general, the lawsuits allege that the individual railroads
conspired in violation of U.S. antitrust laws.

As of Feb. 14, 2008, 18 antitrust class-action complaints have
been filed against Norfolk Southern and the other Class 1
railroads in various federal district courts regarding fuel
surcharges (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 20, 2008).

On Nov. 6, 2007, these actions were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia by the Judicial Panel
on Multi-district Litigation.  Consolidated amended class-action
complaints were then filed against Norfolk Southern and three
other railroads on April 15, 2008.

The complaints allege violations of federal antitrust laws and
other laws with regard to the railroads' fuel surcharge programs.

Motions to dismiss the consolidated complaints were filed by the
railroads on May 30, 2008, and discovery has been stayed pending
resolution of these motions (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 29,
2008).

A lawsuit containing similar allegations against NS and four
other major railroads that was filed on March 25, 2008, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff subject to a tolling agreement entered
into in August 2008.

No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 30, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Norfolk Southern Corp. -- http://www.nscorp.com/-- controls a
freight railroad, Norfolk Southern Railway Co.  Norfolk Southern
Railway Co. is primarily engaged in the rail transportation of
raw materials, intermediate products and finished goods
primarily in the southeast, east and Midwest and, via
interchange with rail carriers, to and from the rest of the U.S.
and parts of Canada.


NORTHERN TRUST: Continues to Face Amended ERISA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Trust Corp. continues to face an amended complaint in
the purported class-action lawsuit in Illinois, alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

On Oct. 15, 2008, a putative class-action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against the Corporation, the Northern Trust Employee Benefit
Administrative Committee, the Compensation and Benefits Committee
of the Board of Directors and certain officers and directors,
purportedly on behalf of participants in and beneficiaries of The
Northern Trust Company Thrift-Incentive Plan whose individual
accounts held shares of Corporation common stock at any time from
Oct. 19, 2007 to the present.

On Jan. 16, 2009, an amended complaint was filed in the putative
class action lawsuit.  The defendants named in the amended
complaint are the Corporation, the Bank, the Northern Trust
Employee Benefits Administrative Committee and its members, the
Northern Trust Employee Benefits Investment Committee and its
members, and certain other officers, including the present Chief
Executive Officer of the Corporation and the former Chief
Executive Officer of the Corporation, purportedly on behalf of
participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan whose individual
accounts held shares of Corporation common stock at any time from
Oct. 19, 2007 to Jan. 14, 2009.

The complaint purports to allege breaches of fiduciary duty in
violation of ERISA related to the Corporation's stock being
offered as an investment alternative for participants in the Plan
and seeks monetary damages.

No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 30, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

The suit is Patten v. Northern Trust Corp. et al., Case No. 08-
cv-05912 (N.D. Ill.) (Lefkow, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Edwin J. Mills, Esq.
          Stull, Stull & Brody
          6 East 45th Street
          Suite 500
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: (212)687-7230
          E-mail: ssbny@aol.com

Representing the defendants is:

          James Vincent Hart, Esq.
          Mayer Brown LLP
          71 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 782-0600
          E-mail: courtnotification@mayerbrown.com


OKLAHOMA GAS: Continues to Defend Suit by Customers in Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. continues to defend a putative
class action alleging that the company improperly charged sales
tax based on franchise fee charges paid by its customers,
according to the company's Oct. 30, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2009.

On June 19, 2006, two company customers brought a putative class
action, on behalf of all similarly situated customers, in the
District Court of Creek County, Oklahoma, challenging certain
charges on the Company's electric bills.

The plaintiffs claim that the company improperly charged sales
tax based on franchise fee charges paid by its customers.

The plaintiffs also challenge certain franchise fee charges,
contending that such fees are more than is allowed under Oklahoma
law.

The company's motion for summary judgment was denied by the trial
judge.

The company filed a writ of prohibition at the Oklahoma Supreme
Court asking the court to direct the trial court to dismiss the
class action suit.

In January 2007, the Oklahoma Supreme Court "arrested" the
District Court action until, and if, the propriety of the
complaint of billing practices is determined by the Oklahoma
Corporation Commission.

In September 2008, the plaintiffs filed an application with the
OCC asking the OCC to modify its order which authorized the
company to collect the challenged franchise fee charges.

A procedural schedule and notice requirements for the matter were
established by the OCC on Dec. 4, 2008.

On March 10, 2009, the Oklahoma Attorney General, the company,
OG&E Shareholders Association and the Staff of the Public Utility
Division of the OCC all filed briefs arguing that the application
should be dismissed.

A hearing on the motions to dismiss was held before an
administrative law judge on March 26, 2009.  
On June 30, 2009, the ALJ issued a report recommending that the
application be dismissed.

On July 9, 2009, the applicants filed a Notice of Appeal and a
hearing on this matter is scheduled for Nov. 5, 2009.

OGE Energy is the parent company of Oklahoma Gas and Electric
Company, which serves approximately 776,000 customers in a
service territory spanning 30,000 square miles in Oklahoma and
western Arkansas, and of Enogex LLC, a natural gas pipeline
business with principal operations in Oklahoma.


OKLAHOMA GAS: Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in class action petition involving OGE Energy filed a
motion for reconsideration on the District Court of Stevens
County, Kansas' denial of the class certification, according to
the Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co.'s Oct. 30, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On Sept. 24, 1999, various subsidiaries of OGE Energy were served
with a class action petition filed in the District Court of
Stevens County, Kansas by Quinque Operating Company and other
named plaintiffs alleging the mismeasurement of natural gas on
non-Federal lands.

On April 10, 2003, the court entered an order denying class
certification.

On May 12, 2003, the plaintiffs (now Will Price, Stixon
Petroleum, Inc., Thomas F. Boles and the Cooper Clark Foundation,
on behalf of themselves and other royalty interest owners) filed
a motion seeking to file an amended class action petition, and
the court granted the motion on July 28, 2003.

In its amended petition (the "Fourth Amended Petition"), the
company and Enogex Inc. were omitted from the case but two of OGE
Energy's subsidiary entities remained as defendants.

The plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Petition seeks class certification
and alleges that approximately 60 defendants, including two of
OGE Energy's subsidiary entities, have improperly measured the
volume of natural gas.

The Fourth Amended Petition asserts theories of civil conspiracy,
aiding and abetting, accounting and unjust enrichment.  In their
briefing on class certification, the plaintiffs seek to also
allege a claim for conversion.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorneys' fees,
costs and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.  The
plaintiffs also reserved the right to seek punitive damages.

Discovery was conducted on the class certification issues, and
the parties fully briefed these same issues.

A hearing on class certification issues was held April 1, 2005.

In May 2006, the court heard oral argument on a motion to
intervene filed by Colorado Consumers Legal Foundation, which is
claiming entitlement to participate in the putative class action.

The court has not yet ruled on the motion to intervene.

The class certification issues were briefed and argued by the
parties in 2005 and proposed findings of facts and conclusions of
law on class certification were filed in 2007.

On Sept. 18, 2009, the court entered its order denying class
certification.

On Oct. 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed for reconsideration of the
court's denial of class certification.

OGE Energy is the parent company of Oklahoma Gas and Electric
Company, which serves approximately 776,000 customers in a
service territory spanning 30,000 square miles in Oklahoma and
western Arkansas, and of Enogex LLC, a natural gas pipeline
business with principal operations in Oklahoma.


SIGMA ALDRICH: Oral Arguments in Unit's Suit Set for Early 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments has been set for early 2010 in a class action
complaint filed against a subsidiary of Sigma-Alrich Corp.,
according to the company's Oct. 30, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2009.

A class action complaint was filed against a subsidiary of the
company in the Montgomery County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas
related to a 2003 explosion in a column at the company's Isotec
facility in Miamisburg, Ohio.

The case was separated into these four phases:

     -- phase one - existence of liability,
     -- phase two - quantification of any compensatory damages,
     -- phase three - existence of any punitive damages and
     -- phase four - quantification of any punitive damages.

Class certification was granted to phases one, three and four,
but denied to phase two.

Compensatory damages for all plaintiffs must be established
before the case can proceed to the punitive damages phases.

The company has accepted responsibility for phase one, existence
of liability.

The case is currently in the compensatory damages phase, where,
because no class status exists, each plaintiff must individually
establish actual damages.

The initial phase two, compensatory damages trial for 31
plaintiffs was completed on April 27, 2007 with a jury verdict
establishing actual damages of approximately two hundred dollars
per plaintiff.

The plaintiffs filed an appeal staying further action on the case
until the appeal has been resolved.

The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed the jury's verdict on
compensatory damages.

The Ohio Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case pursuant to
the company's request with oral argument likely commencing in
early 2010.

Sigma-Aldrich Corp. -- http://www.sigma-aldrich.com/-- is a  
leading Life Science and High Technology company.  The company's
biochemical and organic chemical products and kits are used in
scientific research, including genomic and proteomic research,
biotechnology, pharmaceutical development, and as key components
in pharmaceutical, diagnostic and other high technology
manufacturing.  The company has customers in life science
companies, university and government institutions, hospitals and
in industry.  Over one million scientists and technologists use
our products. Sigma-Aldrich operates in 38 countries and has
7,800 employees providing excellent service worldwide.  The
company is committed to accelerating our Customers' success
through leadership in Life Science, High Technology and Service.


SNAPNAMES.COM INC: Bidding Scandal Leads to Fla. State Court Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DomNameWire.com reports that the first class auction against
Snapnames over a bidding scandal has been filed the Cueto Law
Group law firm, and filed in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court in
Florida.  The lead plaintiff is Carlos A. Cueto.  

"The domain name industry is the wild west of intellectual
property because it remains unregulated.  The online community
has been up in arms over what they feel has been an opaque system
that just begs for transparency. It is impossible to know whether
you are bidding against someone that isn't working or affiliated
with the company conducting the auction," said Santiago A. Cueto,
Esq., who represents the Plaintiff.  "Domain names are the last
frontier for the average person to stake their claim on some very
valuable property. The Defendants' conduct has made it harder for
people to do so and we intend to put a stop to this practice,
which we perceive as being a major concern in the industry," the
lawyer added.  

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Santiago A. Cueto, Esq.
          CUETO LAW GROUP LLC
          4000 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 470
          Coral Gables, FL 33146
          Telephone: 305.777.0377


TOYOTA MOTOR: McCuneWright Files "Unintended Acceleration" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Just-auto.com reports that the law firm of McCuneWright, LLP, has
filed a national class action lawsuit against Toyota Motor
Corporation on behalf of Toyota and Lexus owners who have
"experienced incidents of sudden unintended acceleration."

Toyota recently launched a recall in the U.S. following a deadly
crash in California believed to be the result of an accelerator
pedal that got trapped and stuck by a floor mat. It has also said
in a statement that "no defect exists in vehicles in which the
driver's floor mat is compatible with the vehicle and properly
secured."

However, the tragic accident sparked further speculation of an
electronic malfunction, which this class action relates to.

Los Angeles County residents Seong Bae Choi, the owner of a 2004
Camry and Chris Chan Park, who owns a 2008 FJ Cruiser, will
represent the class. Both say they have experienced multiple
instances of sudden unintended acceleration in their respective
vehicles.

The crash in Santee, California, that claimed four lives in
August raised the profile of the issue with the public, Toyota,
and federal regulators. California Highway Patrol Officer Mark
Saylor was at the wheel of a Lexus ES 350 sedan on Highway 125,
when the vehicle inexplicably accelerated to speeds exceeding 100
mph. According to a 911 call of the incident, Saylor was unable
to stop the Lexus before it crashed and burst into flames,
killing him, his wife, daughter and brother-in-law.

Lawyers for the class action claim that the evidence suggests
that the causes of uncontrolled acceleration events are likely
more complex than ill-fitting mats.

"For years, Toyota Motor Corporation has dismissed complaints of
sudden acceleration as being the driver's fault," said
McCuneWright attorney, David Wright.  "But neither driver error
nor floor mats can explain away many other frightening instances
of runaway Toyotas. Until the company acknowledges the real
problem and fixes it, we worry that other preventable injuries
and deaths will occur."

Toyota's first response should be immediate changes to their
control systems, so drivers can safely stop a sudden unintended
acceleration event, Wright said.

More than 1,000 owners of Toyota Motor Corp. vehicles have
reported sudden vehicle acceleration since 2001, and at least 19
people may have been killed in subsequent crashes into trees,
parked cars and other obstacles, a US newspaper reported Sunday.

The Los Angeles Times said it obtained the findings in an
independent review of records of accidents and drivers'
complaints involving Toyota and Lexus vehicles at the U.S.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and other
entities.

The paper quoted federal regulators as saying the vehicles of
both the Toyota and Lexus brands had been involved in accidents
which owners blamed on sudden and unintended acceleration at "far
more" frequency than vehicles of any other automaker.

It reported the NHTSA said its records show that a total of 15
people died in crashes related to possible sudden acceleration in
Toyota vehicles from the 2002 model year and newer, compared with
11 such deaths in vehicles made by all other automakers.


TUESDAY MORNING: Still No Ruling on Decertification Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday Morning Corp., continues to await a ruling on the appeal
of the plaintiffs on the Superior Court of California in and for
the County of Los Angeles' approval of the company's motion for
de-certification of the class.

During 2001 and 2002, the company was named as a defendant in
three complaints filed in the Superior Court of California in and
for the County of Los Angeles.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a statewide class made up of
some of the company's current and former employees, which they
claim are owed compensation for overtime wages, penalties and
interest.

The plaintiffs also sought attorney's fees and costs.

In October 2003, the company entered into a settlement agreement
with a sub-class of these plaintiffs consisting of managers-in-
training and management trainees which was paid in November 2005
with no material impact to the company's financial statements.


A store manager class was certified.

However, in August 2008, the company's motion for de-
certification of the class of store managers was granted, thereby
dismissing their class action claim.

The plaintiffs have appealed this ruling and oral argument has
taken place, but there has been no ruling.

No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 30, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Tuesday Morning Corporation -- http://www.tuesdaymorning.com/--  
is a closeout retailer of upscale home furnishings, housewares,
gifts and related items in the United States.  The company's
merchandise primarily consists of lamps, rugs, kitchen
accessories, small electronics, gourmet housewares, linens,
luggage, bedroom and bathroom accessories, toys, stationary and
silk plants, as well as crystal, collectibles and silver serving
pieces.


TUESDAY MORNING: Lawsuit by Non-exempt Employees Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed by hourly, non-exempt employees
against Tuesday Morning Corporation continues to remain stayed.

In December 2008, the lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of
California in and for the County of Los Angeles.

The plaintiffs allege claims covering meal and rest period
violations.

This case has been stayed pending the outcome of another case.

No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 30, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Tuesday Morning Corporation -- http://www.tuesdaymorning.com/--  
is a closeout retailer of upscale home furnishings, housewares,
gifts and related items in the United States.  The company's
merchandise primarily consists of lamps, rugs, kitchen
accessories, small electronics, gourmet housewares, linens,
luggage, bedroom and bathroom accessories, toys, stationary and
silk plants, as well as crystal, collectibles and silver serving
pieces.


UNISOURCE ENERGY: Unit Continues to Face "Right of Way" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Tucson Electric Power Co.'s motion to dismiss a putative class
action remains pending, according to Unisource Energy Corp.'s
Oct. 29, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Tucson Electric is the principal subsidiary of UniSource Energy.

Tucson Electric is a defendant in a putative class action filed
on Feb. 11, 2009, in the U.S. District Court in Albuquerque, New
Mexico by members of the Navajo Nation.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the rights of
ways for defendants' transmission lines on Navajo lands were
improperly granted and that the compensation paid for such rights
of way was inadequate.

The plaintiffs are requesting, among other things, that the
transmission lines on these lands be removed.

In June 2009, TEP and the other defendants filed motions to
dismiss the lawsuit on procedural grounds and in September 2009,
the plaintiffs filed responses.

UniSource Energy Corporation -- http://www.uns.com/-- is a  
holding company that conducts its operations through its
subsidiaries.  UniSource Energy owns Tucson Electric Power
Company (TEP), UniSource Energy Services, Inc. (UES), Millennium
Energy Holdings, Inc. (Millennium) and UniSource Energy
Development Company (UED).  The company conducts its business
through three segments: TEP, UNS Gas and UNS Electric. TEP is an
electric utility that provides electric service to the community
of Tucson, Arizona.  UES, through its two operating subsidiaries,
UNS Gas, Inc. (UNS Gas) and UNS Electric, Inc. (UNS Electric),
provides gas and electric service to 30 communities in Northern
and Southern Arizona.  UED developed and owns the Black Mountain
Generating Station (BMGS), a natural gas-fired combustion turbine
in Northern Arizona that, through a power sales agreement
provides energy to UNS Electric.


XCEL ENERGY: To Appeal Appellate Court's Reversal Decision
----------------------------------------------------------
Xcel Energy, Inc., intends to file a petition for rehearing on
the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's
reversing the decision of the U.S. District Court in the Southern
District of Mississippi.

In April 2006, the company received notice of a purported class
action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in the Southern
District of Mississippi.

The lawsuit names more than 45 oil, chemical and utility
companies, including Xcel Energy, as defendants and alleges that
defendants' CO2 emissions "were a proximate and direct cause of
the increase in the destructive capacity of Hurricane Katrina."

Plaintiffs allege in support of their claim, several legal
theories, including negligence and public and private nuisance
and seek damages related to the loss resulting from the
hurricane.

In August 2007, the court dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety
against all defendants on constitutional grounds.

In September 2007, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Oral arguments were presented to the Court of Appeals on Aug. 6,
2008.

Pursuant to the court's order of Sept. 26, 2008, re-argument was
held on Nov. 3, 2008.

On Oct. 16, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
reversed the district court decision, in part, concluding that
the plaintiffs pleaded sufficient facts to overcome the
constitutional challenges that formed the basis for dismissal by
the district court.

It is anticipated that Xcel Energy will file a petition for
rehearing or rehearing en banc, according to the company's Oct.
30, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

The suit is Comer vs. Xcel Energy Inc. et al.

Minnesota-based Xcel Energy, Inc. -- http://www.xcelenergy.com--  
is a holding company engaged in the utility business in the U.S.

                            *********

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  * * *