CAR_Public/091123.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, November 23, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 231
  
                            Headlines

21ST CENTURY: Court Sets Settlement Hearing for January 29
AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES: Notices of Appeal Filed in Appellate Court
ANTIGENICS INC: New York Court Gives Final Okay to Settlement
ASIAINFO HOLDINGS: Definitive Agreement Gets Court's Final Nod
BOTTOMLINE TECH: Court Gives Approval to Settlement Agreement

DENDREON CORP: Trial in Securities Suit Set for October 2010
EL PASO: Tenn. Supreme Court Mulling Appeal of Reversal Decision
IBASIS INC: Continues to Defend "Initial Public Offering" Suit
INTERNET CAPITAL: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement Pact
INTERSECTIONS INC: Wants Court to Dismiss "Telemarketing" Suit

JONES SODA: Briefing for Appeal to be Completed in Early 2010
LEAP WIRELESS: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Calif.
LIONBRIDGE TECH: Global Settlement Gets Court's Final Approval
MEDIACOM CAPITAL: Final Judgment on Jury Verdict Remains Pending
PACIFIC MERCANTILE: Continues to Defend TILA Suit in California

PRICELINE.COM INC: To Appeal Jury's Verdict in  San Antonio Suit
PRICELINE.COM INC: Parties in Rome Suit Conducting Discovery
PRICELINE.COM INC: Oral Arguments in Louisville Suit Finished
PRICELINE.COM INC: Court Denies Rehearing Plea in Nassau Suit
PRICELINE.COM INC: Parties in Gallup Suit Undergoing Discovery

PRICELINE.COM INC: Continues to Defend Lyndhurst Suit in N.J.
PRICELINE.COM INC: Discovery in Genesee Suit Currently Ongoing
PRICELINE.COM INC: Has Until Dec. 4 to Respond to Jefferson Suit
PRICELINE.COM INC: Has Until Dec. 14 to Respond to Lawrence Suit
QUEST SOFTWARE: Awaits Court's Approval for Settlement Agreement

SOURCEFORGE INC: Court Gives Final Approval to Global Settlement
THEGLOBE.COM: New York Court Gives Nod to Settlement Agreement
TREX CO: Awaiting Court's Final Approval of Settlement Agreement
US CONCRETE: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Suit Over "Breaks"
VALUECLICK INC: Reaches Settlement Agreement in Securities Suit

                            *********

21ST CENTURY: Court Sets Settlement Hearing for January 29
----------------------------------------------------------
A settlement hearing has been set for Jan. 29, 2010, to determine
whether the proposed settlement entered into by 21st Century
Holding Co., and plaintiffs in a consolidated securities class
action lawsuit, according to the company's Nov. 9, 2009, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

From July 27, 2007, to August 7, 2007, several securities class
action lawsuits were filed against the company and certain of its
executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased the Company's securities during the various class
periods specified in the complaints.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on behalf of the class
on Jan. 22, 2008.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to accurately project the
company's business and financial performance during the putative
class period. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
damages and claim violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  On March 18,
2008, a verified shareholder derivative complaint was filed
against certain current or former officers and directors of the
company in the District Court.

On Nov. 7, 2008, the District Court granted in part and denied in
part the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated class
complaint with leave to amend by Dec. 8, 2009 or the allegations
dismissed would be deemed dismissed with prejudice without
further order of the Court.

Lead plaintiffs did not seek to amend the consolidated complaint
and the defendants have answered.

On July 29, 2008, the District Court granted the defendant's
motion to dismiss the plaintiff's shareholder derivative
complaint without prejudice.  On Aug. 27, 2009, the derivative
plaintiff filed an amended shareholder derivative complaint.  On
March 30, 2009, following various motions by the parties, the
Court entered an order granting defendant's renewed motion to
stay the shareholder derivative action pending resolution of the
class action.

On Sept. 4, 2009, a stipulation of settlement was submitted to
the Court by lead plaintiffs, the derivative plaintiff and the
defendants, setting forth the terms of a settlement of the Class
Litigation and Derivative Litigation which proposes that a
payment of $2.4 million be made to the lead plaintiffs and the
derivative plaintiff.  The Stipulation of Settlement was
preliminarily approved by the Court on Oct. 19, 2009.  The
company expects that this settlement amount will be funded by its
directors and officers insurance.  

A settlement hearing will be held before the Court on Jan. 29,
2010, to determine whether the proposed settlement on the terms
and conditions provided for in the Stipulation  of Settlement  is
fair, just, reasonable and adequate to the  class, the  lead  
plaintiffs, the  derivative  plaintiff, and Defendants and should
be approved by the Court.

Headquartered in Lauderdale Lakes, Fla., 21st Century Holding
Company -- http://www.21stcenturyholding.com/-- is an insurance  
holding company, which, through its subsidiaries and contractual
relationships with the independent agents and general agents,
controls substantially all aspects of the insurance underwriting,
distribution and claims processes.  The company is authorized to
underwrite fire, allied lines, homeowners' property and casualty
insurance, commercial general liability insurance, commercial
multi peril, inland marine, personal automobile insurance and
commercial automobile insurance in various states with various
lines of authority through the wholly owned subsidiaries,
Federated National Insurance Company (Federated National) and
American Vehicle Insurance Company (American Vehicle).  21st
Century markets and distributes its own and third party insurers'
products and other services in Florida, through contractual
relationships with a network of approximately 1,500 independent
agents and a select number of general agents.


AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES: Notices of Appeal Filed in Appellate Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Notices of appeal of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York's opinion and order approving a settlement
agreement of a consolidated class action lawsuit against Akamai
Technologies, Inc., have been filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit, according to the company's Nov. 9, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Between July 2, 2001 and Nov. 7, 2001, purported class action
lawsuits seeking monetary damages were filed against the company
as well as against the underwriters of its Oct. 28, 1999 initial
public offering of common stock.

The complaints were filed allegedly on behalf of persons who
purchased the company's common stock during different time
periods, all beginning on Oct. 28, 1999 and ending on various
dates.

The complaints are similar and allege violations of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, primarily based on the allegation that
the underwriters received undisclosed compensation in connection
with the company's initial public offering.

On April 19, 2002, a single consolidated amended complaint was
filed, reiterating in one pleading the allegations contained in
the previously filed separate actions.

The consolidated amended complaint defines the alleged class
period as Oct. 28, 1999 through Dec. 6, 2000.

A Special Litigation Committee of the company's Board of
Directors authorized management to negotiate a settlement of the
pending claims substantially consistent with a Memorandum of
Understanding that was negotiated among class plaintiffs, all
issuer defendants and their insurers.

The parties negotiated a settlement that was subject to approval
by the District Court.

On Feb. 15, 2005, the Court issued an Opinion and Order
preliminarily approving the settlement, provided that the
defendants and plaintiffs agree to a modification narrowing the
scope of the bar order set forth in the original settlement
agreement.

On June 25, 2007, the District Court signed an order terminating
the settlement.

On Aug. 25, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for final
approval of a new proposed settlement (among plaintiffs, the
underwriter defendants, the issuer defendants and the insurers
for the issuer defendants), plan of distribution of the
settlement fund, and certification of the settlement classes.

On Oct. 5, 2009, the District Court issued an opinion and order
granting plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement,
approval of the plan of distribution of the settlement fund, and
certification of the settlement classes.

Notices of appeal of the District Court's Oct. 5, 2009 opinion
and order have been filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

Akamai Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.akamai.com/-- provides  
services for accelerating and improving the delivery of content
and applications over the Internet, from live and on-demand
streaming videos to conventional content on Websites, to tools
that help people transact business.  The company's solutions are
designed to help businesses, government agencies and other
enterprises.  It offers services and solutions for digital media
and software distribution and storage, content and application
delivery, application performance services and other specialized
Internet-based offerings.  In November 2008, Akamai completed its
acquisition of aCerno, Inc.


ANTIGENICS INC: New York Court Gives Final Okay to Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has
approved the global settlement of the litigation involving
Antigenics, Inc., according to the company's Nov. 9, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Antigenics, the company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
Garo H. Armen, Ph.D., and two investment banking firms that
served as underwriters in its initial public offering have been
named as defendants in a federal civil class action lawsuit.

Substantially similar actions were filed concerning the initial
public offerings for more than 300 different issuers, and the
cases were coordinated as In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 for pre-trial purposes.

The suit alleges that the brokerage arms of the investment
banking firms charged secret excessive commissions to certain of
their customers in return for allocations of our stock in the
offering. The suit also alleges that shares of the company's
stock were allocated to certain of the investment banking firms'
customers based upon agreements by such customers to purchase
additional shares of our stock in the secondary market.

Dr. Armen has been dismissed without prejudice from the lawsuit
pursuant to a stipulation.

In June 2004, a stipulation of settlement and release of claims
against the issuer defendants, including the company, was
submitted to the Court for approval.

The Court preliminarily approved the settlement in August 2005.

In December 2006, the appellate court overturned the
certification of classes in six test cases that were selected by
the underwriter defendants and plaintiffs in the coordinated
proceedings.

Class certification had been one of the conditions of the
settlement.

Accordingly, on June 25, 2007, the Court entered an order
terminating the proposed settlement based on a stipulation among
the parties to the settlement.

Plaintiffs have filed amended master allegations and amended
complaints and moved for class certification in the six test
cases, which the defendants in those cases have opposed.

On March 26, 2008, the Court largely denied the defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaints.  The parties have
reached a global settlement of the litigation.

Under the settlement, the insurers will pay the full amount of
settlement share allocated to the defendants, and the defendants
will bear no financial liability.

The company defendants, as well as the officer and director
defendants who were previously dismissed from the action pursuant
to tolling agreements, will receive complete dismissals from the
case.

On Oct. 5, 2009, the Court entered an order granting final
approval of the settlement.

Certain objectors are seeking to appeal.

Headquartered in New York City, Antigenics Inc. --
http://www.antigenics.com/-- is a biotechnology company focused  
on developing technologies and product candidates to treat
cancers and infectious diseases, primarily based on immunological
approaches.  The company's principal product candidate is
Oncophage (vitespen), a patient-specific therapeutic cancer
vaccine candidate that has been tested, or is being tested, in
several cancer indications.


ASIAINFO HOLDINGS: Definitive Agreement Gets Court's Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
The definitive agreement in entered into by Asiainfo Holdings,
Inc., and other defendants, with the plaintiffs in a securities
class action case obtained final approval from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the
company's Nov. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

In December 2001, a securities class action case was filed in New
York City against the company, certain of its officers and
directors and the underwriters of its initial public offering, or
IPO.

The lawsuit alleged violations of the U.S. federal securities
laws and was docketed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York as Hassan v. AsiaInfo Holdings, Inc., et al.

The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that the underwriters of
the company's IPO improperly required their customers to pay the
underwriters excessive commissions and to agree to buy additional
shares of our common stock in the aftermarket as conditions of
their purchasing shares in our IPO.

The lawsuit further claimed that the alleged practices of the
underwriters should have been disclosed in our IPO prospectus and
registration statement.  The suit seeks rescission of the
plaintiffs' alleged purchases of our common stock as well as
unspecified damages.

In addition to the case against the company, various other
plaintiffs have filed approximately 1,000 other, substantially
similar class action cases, or the IPO Allocation Cases, against
approximately 300 other publicly traded companies and their IPO
underwriters in New York City, which along with the case against
the company, have all been transferred to a single federal
district judge for purposes of case management.

In April of 2009, the company and most of the other issuer
defendants in the IPO Allocation Cases reached a definitive
agreement with the plaintiffs and the underwriter defendants to
settle the IPO Allocation Cases.

The agreement was filed with the court on April 2, 2009 and a
final approval was granted by the court on Oct. 6, 2009.

The final approval is subject to appeal until November 5, 2009.

If the settlement is approved, the company expects any damages
payable to the plaintiffs to be fully funded by our directors'
and officers' liability insurance policies.

Asiainfo Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.asiainfo.com/-- provides  
telecommunications software solutions and information technology
(IT) security products and services in China.  The company's
operations are organized into two divisions: AsiaInfo
Technologies (China) Inc. (AsiaInfo Technologies) and Lenovo-
AsiaInfo Technologies, Inc. (Lenovo-AsiaInfo).  AsiaInfo
Technologies encompasses the company's traditional
telecommunications business and provides software and solutions
to China's telecommunications carriers. Lenovo-AsiaInfo provides
IT security products and services.  During the year ended Dec.
31, 2008, approximately 83.7% of the company's total revenue was
contributed by AsiaInfo Technologies, while the remaining revenue
was contributed by Lenovo-AsiaInfo.  On April 9, 2008, the
company acquired Beijing AKS, which provides firewall software.


BOTTOMLINE TECH: Court Gives Approval to Settlement Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
Oct. 5, 2009, issued an opinion granting plaintiffs' motion for
final approval of the settlement in a class action complaint
against Bottomline Technologies Inc., according to the company's
Nov. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On Aug. 10, 2001, a class action complaint was filed against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York: Paul Cyrek v. Bottomline Technologies, Inc.; Daniel M.
McGurl; Robert A. Eberle; FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.;
Deutsche Banc Alex Brown Inc.; CIBC World Markets; and J.P.
Morgan Chase & Co.

A consolidated amended class action complaint, In re Bottomline
Technologies Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
was filed on April 20, 2002.

On Nov. 13, 2001, a class action complaint was filed against
Optio Software in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York: Kevin Dewey v. Optio Software,
Inc.; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.; Bear, Stearns
& Co., Inc.; Fleetboston Robertson Stephens, Inc.; Deutsche Bank
Securities, Inc.; Dain Rauscher Inc.; U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray,
Inc.; C. Wayne Cape; and F. Barron Hughes.

A consolidated amended class action complaint, In re Optio
Software, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, was
filed on April 22, 2002.

Optio Software was acquired by the company in April 2008.

The amended complaints filed in both the actions against the
company and Optio assert claims under Sections 11, 12(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The amended complaints assert, among other things, that the
descriptions in the company's and Optio's prospectuses for their
initial public offerings were materially false and misleading in
describing the compensation to be earned by the underwriters of
the offerings, and in not describing certain alleged arrangements
among underwriters and initial purchasers of the common stock
from the underwriters.  The amended complaints seek damages (or,
in the alternative, tender of the plaintiffs' and the class's
common stock and rescission of their purchases of the common
stock purchased in the initial public offering), costs,
attorneys' fees, experts' fees and other expenses.

In July 2002, the company and Optio joined in an omnibus motion
to dismiss, which challenged the legal sufficiency of plaintiffs'
claims.  The motion was filed on behalf of hundreds of issuer and
individual defendants named in similar lawsuits.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the court issued an order denying the motion to
dismiss as to Bottomline and denying in part the motion to
dismiss as to Optio.

In addition, in October 2002, Daniel M. McGurl, Robert A. Eberle,
C. Wayne Cape and F. Barron Hughes were dismissed from this case
without prejudice.  Both Bottomline and Optio authorized the
negotiation of a settlement of the pending claims, and the
parties negotiated a settlement, which was subject to approval by
the court.

On Aug. 31, 2005, the court issued an order preliminarily
approving the settlement.

On Dec. 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
overturned the District Court's certification of the class of
plaintiffs who are pursuing the claims that would be settled in
the settlement against the underwriter defendants.

Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc
with the Second Circuit on Jan. 5, 2007 in response to the Second
Circuit's decision.  On April 6, 2007, plaintiffs' Petition for
Rehearing of the Second Circuit's decision was denied.

On June 25, 2007, the District Court signed an order terminating
the settlement.

On Sept. 27, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification in certain designated "focus cases" in the District
Court.  That motion was withdrawn.

Neither Bottomline nor Optio's cases are part of the designated
focus case group.

On Nov. 13, 2007, the issuer defendants in the designated focus
cases filed a motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended
class action complaints that were filed in those cases.

On March 26, 2008, the District Court issued an Opinion and Order
denying, in large part, the motions to dismiss the amended
complaints in these focus cases.

On April 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of a new proposed settlement between plaintiffs, the
underwriter defendants, the issuer defendants and the insurers
for the issuer defendants.

On June 10, 2009, the Court issued an opinion preliminarily
approving the proposed settlement, and scheduling a settlement
fairness hearing for Sept. 10, 2009.

On August 25, 2009, the plaintiffs in the initial public offering
securities class action litigation against Bottomline and its
subsidiary Optio filed a motion for final approval of the
proposed settlement, approval of the plan of distribution of the
settlement fund, and certification of the settlement classes.

A settlement fairness hearing was held on Sept. 10, 2009.

On Oct. 5, 2009, the Court issued an opinion granting plaintiffs'
motion for final approval of the settlement, approval of the plan
of distribution of the settlement fund, and certification of the
settlement classes.

Bottomline Technologies Inc. -- http://www.bottomline.com/--  
provides collaborative payment, invoice and document automation
solutions to corporations, financial institutions and banks
around the world.  The company's solutions are used to
streamline, automate and manage processes involving payments,
invoicing, global cash management, supply chain finance and
transactional documents. Organizations trust these solutions to
meet their needs for cost reduction, competitive differentiation
and optimization of working capital.  Headquartered in the United
States, Bottomline also maintains offices in Europe and Asia-
Pacific.


DENDREON CORP: Trial in Securities Suit Set for October 2010
------------------------------------------------------------
The trial in a securities class action suit against Dendreon
Corp. has been set for October 18, 2010, according to the
company's Nov. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Beginning on May 24, 2007, four proposed securities class action
suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, on behalf of the Company's common stock,
purporting to state claims for securities law violations stemming
from the company's disclosures related to Provenge and the FDA's
actions regarding our BLA for Provenge.

The complaints seek compensatory damages, attorney's fees and
expenses.

On October 4, 2007, the Court consolidated these actions under
the caption McGuire v. Dendreon Corporation, et al., and
designated a lead plaintiff.

The lead plaintiff designated the complaint filed June 6, 2007 in
McGuire, et al. v. Dendreon Corporation, et al., as the operative
complaint.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the company and individual defendants jointly
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

By order dated April 18, 2008, the Court granted the motion to
dismiss the complaint, holding that plaintiffs failed to plead a
claim against the company or the individual defendants, and
allowing plaintiffs thirty days to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 2, 2008, naming
Dendreon, its chief executive officer, and a senior vice
president as defendants.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
July 2, 2008.

By order dated Dec. 5, 2008, the Court granted the motion to
dismiss the allegations against the company's chief executive
officer based on allegedly false or misleading statements and his
sale of Dendreon stock, and denied the remainder of the motion.

The Court gave plaintiffs permission to file an amended complaint
to reassert their allegations against the company's chief
executive officer, and plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint on Jan. 5, 2009.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
on Jan. 29, 2009.

On May 21, 2009, the Court issued an order granting in part, and
denying in part, defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint, and allowing leave to amend.

Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on June 8, 2009.

On June 29, 2009, defendants filed an answer to the third amended
complaint.

The parties have commenced discovery, and exchanged initial
disclosures on July 22, 2009.

Trial in this action has been set for October 18, 2010.

Dendreon Corporation -- http://www.dendreon.com/-- is a  
biotechnology company focused on the discovery, development and
commercialization of therapeutics that improve cancer treatment
options for patients.  Dendreon's most advanced product candidate
is Provenge (sipuleucel-T), an active cellular immunotherapy that
has completed two Phase III trials for the treatment of
asymptomatic, metastatic, androgen-independent prostate cancer.


EL PASO: Tenn. Supreme Court Mulling Appeal of Reversal Decision
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court of the Tennessee Court
of Appeals' decision in a purported class action lawsuit in which
El Paso Corp. is a defendant remains pending.

Beginning in 2003, several lawsuits were filed against El Paso
Marketing L.P. alleging that El Paso, EPM and other energy
companies conspired to manipulate the price of natural gas by
providing false price information to industry trade publications
that published gas indices.

One of these case is the purported class action lawsuits styled
Leggett, et al. v. Duke Energy Corporation, et al., filed in
Chancery Court of Tennessee in January 2005.  The suit was filed
on behalf of certain purchasers of natural gas.

The Leggett case was dismissed by the Tennessee state court, but
in October 2008, the Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed the
dismissal, remanding the matter to the trial court.

The decision has been appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court.

No further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 6, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

El Paso Corp. -- http://www.elpaso.com/-- is an energy company,  
which operates in the natural gas transmission and exploration
and production sectors of the energy industry.  The company owns
or has interests in North America's interstate pipeline system,
which has approximately 42,000 miles of pipe that connect North
America's producing basins to its consuming markets.  It also
provides approximately 230 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of storage
capacity and has a liquefied natural gas (LNG) receiving terminal
and related facilities in Elba Island, Georgia with 933 million
cubic feet (MMcf) of daily base load sendout capacity.  El Paso's
exploration and production business is focused on the exploration
for and the acquisition, development and production of natural
gas, oil and natural gas liquids (NGL) in the United States,
Brazil and Egypt.  The company operates in two business segments:
Pipelines, and Exploration and Production.  It also has Marketing
and Power segments.


IBASIS INC: Continues to Defend "Initial Public Offering" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
iBasis, Inc. continues to defend a class action pursuant to its
1999 Initial Public Offering.

In 2001, the company was served with several class action
complaints that were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the company and several of
its officers, directors, and former officers and directors, as
well as against the investment banking firms that underwrote the
company's Nov. 10, 1999 initial public offering of common stock
and its March 9, 2000 secondary offering of common stock.

The complaints were filed on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased our common stock between Nov. 10, 1999 and Dec. 6,
2000.

The complaints are similar to each other and to hundreds of other
complaints filed against other issuers and their underwriters,
and allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, primarily
based on the assertion that there was undisclosed compensation
received by the company's underwriters in connection with its
public offerings and that there were understandings with
customers to make purchases in the aftermarket.

In September 2001, the complaints were consolidated and allege
that the company's prospectuses failed to disclose these
arrangements.  The consolidated complaint seeks an unspecified
amount of monetary damages and other relief.

In October 2002, the individual defendants were dismissed from
the litigation by stipulation and without prejudice and subject
to an agreement to toll the running of time-based defenses.

In February 2003, the district court denied the company's motion
to dismiss.

iBasis, Inc. -- http://www.ibasis.com/-- is a wholesale carrier  
of international long distance telephone calls and a provider of
retail prepaid calling services and enhanced services for mobile
operators.  The company's operations consist of wholesale trading
business (Trading), in which it connects buyers and sellers of
international telecommunications services, and retail services
business (Retail).  In the Trading business, iBasis receives
voice traffic from buyers, originating telecommunications
carriers who are interconnected to its network via voice over
Internet protocol (VoIP) or traditional time division
multiplexing (TDM) connections, and it routes that traffic over
its network to sellers, local service providers and
telecommunications carriers in the destination countries with
whom the Company has established agreements to manage the
completion or termination of calls.  On April 1, 2008, iBasis
acquired certain assets from TDC, a telecommunications carrier in
Denmark.


INTERNET CAPITAL: Court Gives Final Approval to Settlement Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
gave its final approval of the proposed settlement entered into
by Internet Capital Group, Inc., in a consolidated suit,
according to the company's Nov. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2009.

In May and June 2001, certain of the company's present directors,
along with the company, certain of its former directors, certain
of its present and former officers and its underwriters, were
named as defendants in nine class action complaints.

The plaintiffs and the putative classes they seek to represent
include present and former stockholders of the company.

The complaints generally allege violations of Sections 11 and 12
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated under the Exchange Act, based on, among other things,
the dissemination of statements allegedly containing material
misstatements and/or omissions concerning the commissions
received by the underwriters of the initial public offering and
follow-on public offering of the company as well as failure to
disclose the existence of purported agreements by the
underwriters with some of the purchasers in these offerings to
buy additional shares of the company's stock subsequently in the
open market at pre-determined prices above the initial offering
prices.

The plaintiffs seek for themselves and the alleged class members
an award of damages and litigation costs and expenses.

The claims in these cases have been consolidated for pre-trial
purposes (together with claims against other issuers and
underwriters) before one judge in the Southern District of New
York federal court.

In April 2002, a consolidated, amended complaint was filed
against these defendants which generally alleges the same
violations and also refers to alleged misstatements or omissions
that relate to the recommendations regarding the company's stock
by analysts employed by the underwriters.

In June and July 2002, defendants, including the company
defendants, filed motions to dismiss plaintiffs' complaints on
numerous grounds.

The company's motion was denied in its entirety in an opinion
dated Feb. 19, 2003.

In July 2003, a committee of the company's Board of Directors
approved a proposed settlement with the plaintiffs in this
matter, which was preliminarily approved by the District Court
overseeing the litigation in February 2005.

A final fairness hearing on the settlement was held on April 24,
2006.

On Dec. 5, 2006, however, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed the certification of plaintiff classes in six actions
related to other issuers that had been designated as test cases
with respect to the non-settling defendants in those matters (the
"Focus Cases") and made other rulings that drew into question the
legal viability of the claims in the Focus Cases.

The Court of Appeals later rejected the plaintiffs' request that
it reconsider that decision.

As a result, on June 25, 2007, the District Court approved a
stipulation and order terminating the proposed settlement.

While the Court of Appeals decision did not automatically apply
to the case against the company, the defendants moved for, and
the Court granted, an order that would apply the decision to all
cases, including the consolidated action against the company.

On Aug. 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an amended "master"
complaint containing allegations purportedly common to all
defendants in all actions and filed amended complaints containing
specific allegations against the six issuer defendants in the
Focus Cases.

In addition, on Sept. 27, 2007, the plaintiffs again moved to
certify classes in each of the Focus Cases.

The defendants in the Focus Cases moved to dismiss the amended
complaints.

Rulings on both the motion to certify the Focus Cases as class
actions and to dismiss those cases remain outstanding.

The District Court has approved a stipulation extending the time
within which the plaintiffs must file amended pleadings
containing specific allegations against the other issuer
defendants, including the Company, and the time within which
those defendants must move, answer or otherwise respond to those
specific allegations.

On April 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of a proposed global settlement of all claims asserted
in the coordinated class action securities litigation on behalf
of the class plaintiffs in the respective actions against the
various issuer and underwriter defendants, including all claims
asserted against the company.

The motion further seeks certification of settlement classes as
to each action against the defendants, including the company.

The company has assented to the proposed settlement, which does
not require any monetary contribution from the company and would
be funded by various underwriter defendants and the defendants'
insurers.

On June 10, 2009, the District Court granted preliminary approval
to the proposed settlement and to the form of notice of the
proposed settlement to be provided to members of the proposed
settlement class.

The District Court scheduled a hearing for Sept. 10, 2009 to
determine whether to approve the proposed settlement.

The final hearing was held on Sept. 10, 2009.

On Oct. 5, 2009, the District Court granted final approval of the
proposed settlement, subject to the rights of the parties to
appeal the settlement within 30 days of such approval.

Pursuant to the terms of the approved settlement, the company is
not required to make any monetary contribution to fund the
required settlement payments, which are being funded by various
underwriter defendants and the defendants' insurers.

On or about Oct. 23, 2009, three members of the settlement class
who had been shareholders of an issuer other than the company
filed a petition seeking leave to appeal the District Court's
final approval to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on an
interlocutory basis.

No judicial ruling or action has been taken on the motion.

Internet Capital Group, Inc. -- http://www.internetcapital.com/-
- is focused on acquiring and building Internet software and
services companies.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the
company hold ownership interests in 14 companies that are
considered to be the partner companies.  The results for the
operation of the partner companies are reported in two business
segments: the core reporting segment and the other holdings
reporting segment.  The core reporting segment includes those
partner companies in which ICG's management takes a role in
providing direction and management assistance.  The other
holdings reporting segment includes partner companies over which
the Company have less influence, because they are public
companies and/or have a relatively small ownership stake in those
partner companies.


INTERSECTIONS INC: Wants Court to Dismiss "Telemarketing" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intersections Inc., along with other defendants, filed a motion
with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
to dismiss a putative class action complaint, according to the
company's Nov. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On Sept. 11, 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed
against:

     -- Intersections, Inc.,

     -- Intersections Insurance Services Inc.,

     -- Loeb Holding Corp.,

     -- Bank of America of America, NA,

     -- Banc of America Insurance Services, Inc.,

     -- American International Group, Inc.,

     -- National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA,
        and

     -- Global Contact Services, LLC.

The complaint alleges various claims based on telemarketing of an
accidental death and disability program.

The defendants each have filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's claims, and the motions are pending.

Intersections Inc. -- http://www.intersections.com/-- is a  
provider of branded and fully customized identity management
solutions.  The company also provides consumer-oriented insurance
and membership products through marketing partnerships with the
major mortgage services in the United States, as well as other
financial institutions through its subsidiary, Intersections
Insurance Services, Inc.  Additionally, through its majority
owned subsidiary Screening International LLC (SI or Screening
International), Intersections provides pre-employment background
screening services domestically and internationally in
partnership with Control Risks Group Limited of the United
Kingdom.  It offers consumers a variety of consumer protection
services and other consumer products and services primarily on a
subscription basis.  Through its subsidiary, Intersections
Insurance Services, Inc., it offers a portfolio of services,
which include consumer discounts on healthcare, home and auto
related expenses.


JONES SODA: Briefing for Appeal to be Completed in Early 2010
-------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing for the plaintiffs' appeal on the decision of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington entering
judgment in favor of Jones Soda Co., is scheduled to be completed
in early 2010, according to the company's Nov. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On Sept. 4, 2007, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the company, its then serving chief executive officer,
and its then serving chief financial officer, alleging claims
under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The case was entitled Saltzman v. Jones Soda Company, et al.,
Case No. 07-cv-1366-RSL, and purported to be brought on behalf of
a class of purchasers of the company's common stock during the
period March 9, 2007 to Aug. 2, 2007.

Six substantially similar complaints subsequently were filed in
the same court, some of which alleged claims on behalf of a class
of purchasers of the company's common stock during the period
Nov. 1, 2006 to Aug. 2, 2007.

Some of the subsequently filed complaints added as defendants
certain current and former directors and another former officer
of the company.

The complaints generally alleged violations of federal securities
laws based on, among other things, false and misleading
statements and omissions about our financial results and business
prospects.

The complaints sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, costs, and expenses.

On Oct. 26, 2007, these seven lawsuits were consolidated as a
single action entitled In re Jones Soda Company Securities
Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-1366-RSL.

On March 5, 2008, the Court appointed Robert Burrell lead
plaintiff in the consolidated securities case.

On May 5, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a First Amended
Consolidated Complaint, which purports to allege claims on behalf
of a class of purchasers of our common stock during the period of
Jan. 10, 2007, to May 1, 2008, against the company and Peter van
Stolk, its former Chief Executive Officer, former Chairman of the
Board, and former director.

The First Amended Consolidated Complaint generally alleges
violations of federal securities laws based on, among other
things, false and misleading statements and omissions about our
agreements with retailers, allocation of resources, and business
prospects.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
July 7, 2008.

After hearing oral argument on Feb. 3, 2009, the Court granted
the motion to dismiss in its entirety on Feb. 9, 2009.

Plaintiffs filed their motion for leave to amend their complaint
on March 25, 2009.  On June 22, 2009, the Court issued an order
denying plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend and dismissed the
case with prejudice.

On July 7, 2009, the Court entered judgment in favor of the
company and Mr. van Stolk.

On Aug. 5, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
Court's orders dismissing the complaint and denying plaintiffs'
motion for leave to amend, and the resulting July 7, 2009
judgment.

Briefing for the appeal is currently scheduled to be completed in
early 2010.

Jones Soda Co. -- http://www.myjones.com/-- develops, produces,  
markets and distributes a range of beverages, which includes
Jones Pure Cane Soda, a carbonated soft drink; Jones 24C, a water
beverage; Jones GABA, a tea juice blend; Jones Organics, a ready-
to-drink organic tea; Jones Naturals, a non-carbonated juice and
tea, and Whoop Ass Energy Drink, a citrus energy drink.  The
company sells and distributes its products primarily throughout
the United States and Canada through its network of independent
distributors, national retail accounts, as well as through
licensing and distribution arrangements. It also sells various
products online.  During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the
company discontinued the production of Jones Energy.


LEAP WIRELESS: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leap Wireless International, Inc., continues to defend purported
securities fraud class-action lawsuits before the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California.

The company and certain current and former officers and
directors, and its independent registered public accounting firm,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, were named as defendants in a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California which
consolidated several securities class action lawsuits initially
filed between September 2007 and January 2008.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants made false
and misleading statements about Leap's internal controls,
business and financial results, and customer count metrics.

The claims are based primarily on the Nov. 9, 2007 announcement
that the company was restating certain of its financial
statements and statements made in its August 7, 2007 second
quarter 2007 earnings release.

The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, a determination that the
alleged claims may be asserted on a class-wide  basis and
unspecified damages and attorney's fees and costs.

On Jan. 9, 2009, the federal court granted defendants' motions to
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.

On Feb. 23, 2009, defendants were served with an amended
complaint which does not name PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP or any
of Leap's outside directors.

The company and the remaining individual defendants have moved to
dismiss the amended complaint.

No further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 6 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Headquartered in San Diego, Calif., Leap Wireless International,
Inc. -- http://www.leapwireless.com/--provides wireless services  
in 29 states and holds licenses in 35 of the top 50 U.S. markets.  
Cricket offers customers a choice of unlimited voice, text, data
and mobile Web services.


LIONBRIDGE TECH: Global Settlement Gets Court's Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
gave its final approval to the global settlement entered by
Lionbridge Technologies, Inc., in a securities class action
lawsuit, according to the company's Nov. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On or about July 24, 2001, a purported securities class action
lawsuit captioned "Samet v. Lionbridge Technologies, Inc. et al."
(01-CV-6770) was filed against the company, certain of its
officers and directors, and certain underwriters involved in the
company's initial public offering.
The complaint in this action asserted, among other things, that
omissions regarding the underwriters' alleged conduct in
allocating shares in Lionbridge's initial public offering to the
underwriters' customers.  In March 2002, the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York entered an order dismissing
without prejudice the claims against Lionbridge and its officers
and directors (the case remained pending against the underwriter
defendants).

On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
naming as defendants not only the underwriter defendants but also
Lionbridge and certain of its officers and directors.

The amended complaint asserts claims under both the registration
and antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws relating
to, among other allegations, the underwriters' alleged conduct in
allocating shares in the company's initial public offering and
the disclosures contained in the company's registration
statement.

On July 15, 2002, the company, together with the other issuers
named as defendants in these coordinated proceedings, filed a
collective motion to dismiss the complaint on various legal
grounds common to all or most of the issuer defendants.  In
October 2002, the claims against officers and directors were
dismissed without prejudice.  In February 2003, the Court issued
its ruling on the motion to dismiss, ruling that the claims under
the antifraud provisions of the securities laws could proceed
against the Company and a majority of the other issuer
defendants.

In June 2003, Lionbridge elected to participate in a proposed
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation.  If
the proposed settlement had been approved by the Court, it would
have resulted in the dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in
the litigation against Lionbridge and against any other of the
issuer defendants who elected to participate in the proposed
settlement, together with the current or former officers and
directors of participating issuers who were named as individual
defendants.  This proposed issuer settlement was conditioned on,
among other things, a ruling by the District Court that the
claims against Lionbridge and against the other issuers who had
agreed to the settlement would be certified for class action
treatment for purposes of the proposed settlement, such that all
investors included in the proposed classes in these cases would
be bound by the terms of the settlement unless an investor opted
to be excluded from the settlement.

On December 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit issued a decision in In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation that six purported class action lawsuits
containing allegations substantially similar to those asserted
against the Company may not be certified as class actions due, in
part, to the Appeals Court's determination that individual issues
of reliance and knowledge would predominate over issues common to
the proposed classes.

On Jan. 8, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a petition seeking
rehearing en banc of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals'
decision.

On April 6, 2007 the Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs'
petition for rehearing of the Court's Dec. 5, 2006 ruling but
noted that the plaintiffs remained free to ask the District Court
to certify classes different from the ones originally proposed
which might meet the standards for class certification that the
Court of Appeals articulated in its Dec. 5, 2006 decision.

In light of the Court of Appeals' Dec. 5, 2006 decision regarding
certification of the plaintiffs' claims, the District Court
entered an order on June 25, 2007 terminating the proposed
settlement between the plaintiffs and the issuers, including
Lionbridge.

On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints in
the six focus cases.  The issuer defendants and the underwriter
defendants separately moved to dismiss the claims against them in
the amended complaints in the six focus cases.  On March 26,
2008, the District Court issued an order in which it denied in
substantial part the motions to dismiss the amended complaints in
the six focus cases.

On Feb. 25, 2009, the parties advised the District Court that
they have reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the
litigation in its entirety.  A stipulation of settlement was
filed with the District Court on April 2, 2009.

On June 9, 2009, the District Court preliminarily approved the
proposed global settlement.  Notice was provided to the class,
and a settlement fairness hearing, at which members of the class
had an opportunity to object to the proposed settlement, was held
on Sept. 10, 2009.

On Oct. 6, 2009, the District Court issued an order granting
final approval to the settlement.

Several objectors have since appealed the order approving the
settlement, however, and there can be no guarantee as to the
ultimate outcome of this pending lawsuit.

Lionbridge Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.lionbridge.com/-- is  
a provider of language, development and testing services that
enable clients to create, release, manage and maintain their
technology applications and Web content globally.  The company
operates in three segments: Global Language and Content (GLC),
Global Development and Testing (GDT) and Interpretation.  
Lionbridge GLC solutions enable the translation, localization and
worldwide multilingual release of clients' products, content and
related technical support, training materials, and sales and
marketing information.  Through its GDT solutions, Lionbridge
develops, re-engineers and optimizes information technology (IT)
applications and performs testing to ensure the performance of
clients' software, search engines, consumer technology products,
Websites and content.  Lionbridge provides interpretation
services for government and business organizations that require
experienced linguists to facilitate communication.


MEDIACOM CAPITAL: Final Judgment on Jury Verdict Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The final judgment of the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri,
on a jury rendered verdict in favor of Gary and Janice Ogg
against Mediacom Capital Corp., remains pending.

The company was named as a defendant in a putative class action,
captioned Gary Ogg and Janice Ogg v. Mediacom LLC, pending in the
Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, originally filed in April
2001.

The lawsuit alleges that the company, in areas where there was no
cable franchise failed to obtain permission from landowners to
place our fiber interconnection cable notwithstanding the
possession of agreements or permission from other third parties.

While the parties continue to contest liability, there also
remains a dispute as to the proper measure of damages.

Based on a report by their experts, the plaintiffs claim
compensatory damages of approximately $14.5 million.

Legal fees, prejudgment interest, potential punitive damages and
other costs could increase that estimate to approximately $26.0
million.

Before trial, the plaintiffs proposed an alternative damage
theory of $42.0 million in compensatory damages.

Notwithstanding the verdict in the trial described below, the
company remains unable to reasonably determine the amount of our
final liability in this lawsuit.  Prior to trial, the company's
experts estimated its liability to be within the range of
approximately $0.1 million to $2.3 million.  This estimate did
not include any estimate of damages for prejudgment interest,
attorneys' fees or punitive damages.

On March 9, 2009, a jury trial commenced solely for the claim of
Gary and Janice Ogg, the designated class representatives.

On March 18, 2009, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Gary
and Janice Ogg setting compensatory damages of $8,863 and
punitive damages of $35,000.

The Court did not enter a final judgment on this verdict and
therefore the amount of the verdict cannot at this time be
judicially collected.

No further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 6, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Mediacom Capital Corp. -- http://www.mediacomcc.com/-- is  
engaged in provision of products and services, including video
services, such as video-on-demand (VOD), high-definition
television (HD or HDTV) and digital video recorders (DVR); high-
speed data (HSD), also known as high-speed Internet access or
cable modem service; and phone service.  The company is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Mediacom Communications Corporation.  As of
Dec.31, 2007, it served approximately 604,000 basic subscribers,
240,000 digital video customers or digital customers, 299,000 HSD
customers and 79,000 phone customers.  The company offers several
programming packages, which include digital basic channels,
multichannel services, sports channels, digital music channels
and an interactive on-screen program guide, and access to its VOD
library.  Mediacom Online, Mediacom Phone, and Mediacom Business
Services are its other products and services.


PACIFIC MERCANTILE: Continues to Defend TILA Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Mercantile Bancorp continues to defend a class action
styled James Laliberte, et al. vs. Pacific Mercantile Bank filed
by two plaintiffs.

The suit was filed in May 2003 in the California Superior Court
for the County of Orange (Case No. 030007092).

The lawsuit was initially filed as an individual action by two
plaintiffs for alleged violations by the Bank of the Federal
Truth in Lending Act (the "TILA").  The two plaintiffs
subsequently amended their complaint on three occasions, between
November 2003 and May 2005, seeking to convert their individual
action into a class action suit and adding additional allegations
and seeking rescission of all loans made to the members of the
class and damages based on allegations of fraud in the inducement
of certain loans, unfair business practices and violations of
TILA.

In each case, the Bank filed demurs in which the Bank asserted
that the plaintiffs had failed to establish a legal basis for any
recovery and in each case the trial court sustained the Bank's
demurs and dismissed the plaintiffs' lawsuit.  Plaintiffs
subsequently appealed the trial court's rulings. In January 2007,
the appellate court, in a published decision, affirmed the trial
court's order dismissing the plaintiffs' suit, finding that
plaintiffs had no right to assert class-wide claims of
rescission.  Plaintiffs then appealed this decision to the U.S.
Supreme Court which, in May 2007, denied plaintiffs' petition for
review, effectively sustaining the appellate court's ruling.

Plaintiffs, abandoning their claims of fraud and unfair business
practices on the part of the Bank, then filed a motion with the
trial court for class certification limited to the TILA and
certain related statutory claims.

Following a hearing, in January 2008 the trial court denied the
motion for class certification, finding that plaintiffs had not
shown evidence that there were common questions of law or fact to
justify certifying a class and had been unable to introduce any
admissible evidence establishing that any statutory violations
had occurred during the relevant class period.

As a result of the trial court's ruling, the two named plaintiffs
were left only with individual claims for statutory damages under
TILA, which would not have been material in amount.

However, in April 2008, plaintiffs filed an appeal of the trial
court's denial of their motion for class certification on the
claims under TILA and certain other related statutory claims.

In April 2009 the appellate court issued an order certifying
plaintiff's class action with respect to the TILA claims and
remanded the case back to the trial court for further
proceedings.

As a result, although it has not yet done so, the trial court may
set a trial date to adjudicate those claims.

If the plaintiffs were to prevail in such a trial, they could
recover damages of up to, but not to exceed, $500,000 and their
attorneys' fees in an amount that would be determined by the
trial court.

No further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 9, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Pacific Mercantile Bancorp -- https://www.pmbank.com/ -- is a
California state chartered commercial bank.  The company owns all
of the stock of Pacific Mercantile Bank (Bank).  The capital
stock of the Bank is the company's principal asset and
substantially all of its business operations are conducted by the
Bank, which as a result, accounts for substantially all of its
revenues and income.  The Bank conducts a commercial banking
business in Orange, Los Angeles, San Bernardino and San Diego
counties in Southern California. The Bank is also a member of the
Federal Reserve System and its deposits are insured, to the
maximum extent permitted by law, by the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC).  As of Dec. 31, 2008, a total of
approximately 11,000 deposit accounts were being maintained at
the Bank by its customers, of which approximately 34% were
business customers.  The company operates eight full service
commercial banking offices (financial centers) and an Internet
banking branch.  


PRICELINE.COM INC: To Appeal Jury's Verdict in  San Antonio Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
priceline.com Inc., intends to file an appeal to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on the jury's verdict that the
company and the other defendant on-line travel companies in a
class action lawsuit control hotels under the local hotel
occupancy tax ordinances and are, therefore, responsible for
collecting and remitting local hotel occupancy taxes, according
to the company's Nov. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2009.

A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or
putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other
allegedly similarly situated cities and counties within the same
respective state against the company and other defendants,
including, but not in all cases:

     -- Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC, both of which are
        subsidiaries of the company,

     -- Hotels.com, L.P.;

     -- Hotels.com GP, LLC;

     -- Hotwire, Inc.;

     -- Cheaptickets, Inc.;

     -- Travelport, Inc. (f/k/a Cendant Travel Distribution
        Services Group, Inc.);

     -- Expedia, Inc.;

     -- Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com);

     -- Maupintour Holding LLC;

     -- Orbitz, Inc.;

     -- Orbitz, LLC;

     -- Site59.com, LLC;

     -- Travelocity.com, Inc.;

     -- Travelocity.com LP; and

     -- Travelnow.com, Inc.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts
to cover taxes under each ordinance.  Each complaint typically
seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by
law, attorneys' fees and other relief.

A class action lawsuit styled City of San Antonio, Texas v.
Hotels.com, L.P., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, brought
by the City of San Antonio on behalf of itself and a class of 172
Texas municipalities against the company and other on-line travel
companies.

On Oct. 30, 2009, priceline.com received a jury verdict in the
case.

The jury's verdict found that the company and the other on-line
travel companies that are defendants in the lawsuit control
hotels under the local hotel occupancy tax ordinances and are,
therefore, responsible for collecting and remitting local hotel
occupancy taxes.  The jury rejected the City of San Antonio's
claim for conversion - essentially, that the company and the
other on-line travel companies had collected a tax and "pocketed"
the tax dollars - and for punitive damages.

The court previously had granted plaintiffs' motion for partial
summary judgment on Sept. 28, 2009, on a number of defendants'
affirmative defenses, including laches, waiver, estoppel and
statute of limitations, but denied summary judgment on all
remaining issues.

The final amount of the judgment against the company has not been
determined.

The jury found that the company and its wholly-owned subsidiary,
Travelweb LLC, owed the City of San Antonio and the 172 Texas
municipalities that make up the class approximately $2.0 million
for historical damages through May of 2009.  In further
proceedings, the Court will determine, among other things,
whether the occupancy tax ordinance applies to the Company's
service fee and the amount of penalties, interest, and attorneys'
fees, which could be significant.

The company recorded a charge to general and administrative
expenses in the amount of $3.7 million related to this judgment
in the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009.

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online  
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Parties in Rome Suit Conducting Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter City of Rome, Georgia, et. al, v.
Hotels.com, L.P., et. al., are presently conducting discovery,
according to priceline.com Inc.'s Nov. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2009.

A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or
putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other
allegedly similarly situated cities and counties within the same
respective state against the company and other defendants,
including, but not in all cases:

     -- Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC, both of which are
        subsidiaries of the company, and

     -- Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC, both of which are
        subsidiaries of the company,

     -- Hotels.com, L.P.;

     -- Hotels.com GP, LLC;

     -- Hotwire, Inc.;

     -- Cheaptickets, Inc.;

     -- Travelport, Inc. (f/k/a Cendant Travel Distribution
        Services Group, Inc.);

     -- Expedia, Inc.;

     -- Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com);

     -- Maupintour Holding LLC;

     -- Orbitz, Inc.;

     -- Orbitz, LLC;

     -- Site59.com, LLC;

     -- Travelocity.com, Inc.;

     -- Travelocity.com LP; and

     -- Travelnow.com, Inc.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts
to cover taxes under each ordinance.  Each complaint typically
seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by
law, attorneys' fees and other relief.

In the matter City of Rome, Georgia, et. al, v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
et. al., the court, on July 10, 2009, lifted the stay it had
entered to require plaintiffs to pursue administrative remedies.  
In lifting the stay, the court relied on recent Georgia Supreme
Court rulings that the administrative process in Georgia can be
exhausted when a municipality issues a notice of assessment.

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online  
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Oral Arguments in Louisville Suit Finished
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument in the matter styled Louisville/Jefferson County
Metro Government v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., has finished and
the matter has been taken under submission by the court,
according to priceline.com Inc.'s Nov. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2009.

A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or
putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other
allegedly similarly situated cities and counties within the same
respective state against the company and other defendants,
including, but not in all cases:

     -- Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC, both of which are
        subsidiaries of the company,

     -- Hotels.com, L.P.;

     -- Hotels.com GP, LLC;

     -- Hotwire, Inc.;

     -- Cheaptickets, Inc.;

     -- Travelport, Inc. (f/k/a Cendant Travel Distribution
        Services Group, Inc.);

     -- Expedia, Inc.;

     -- Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com);

     -- Maupintour Holding LLC;

     -- Orbitz, Inc.;

     -- Orbitz, LLC;

     -- Site59.com, LLC;

     -- Travelocity.com, Inc.;

     -- Travelocity.com LP; and

     -- Travelnow.com, Inc.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts
to cover taxes under each ordinance.  Each complaint typically
seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by
law, attorneys' fees and other relief.

On Sept. 30, 2008, in the matter Louisville/Jefferson County
Metro Government v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al., the court granted
the defendants' motion for reconsideration of its prior order
denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the claims brought by
the Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government, and dismissed
all of that plaintiff's claims with prejudice.

Louisville had previously amended its complaint to drop all class
allegations.

The court also granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
claims brought by the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government.  
The court dismissed all claims against the defendants with
prejudice.

Both plaintiffs filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  

Briefing was completed on the appeal on May 11, 2009, and oral
argument took place on Oct. 14, 2009.

The matter was taken under submission by the court.

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online  
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Court Denies Rehearing Plea in Nassau Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has denied the
petition of the defendants for a rehearing in the matter styled
County of Nassau, New York v. Hotels.com, LP, et al., according
to priceline.com Inc.'s Nov. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2009.

A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or
putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other
allegedly similarly situated cities and counties within the same
respective state against the company and other defendants,
including, but not in all cases:

     -- Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC, both of which are
        subsidiaries of the company,

     -- Hotels.com, L.P.;

     -- Hotels.com GP, LLC;

     -- Hotwire, Inc.;

     -- Cheaptickets, Inc.;

     -- Travelport, Inc. (f/k/a Cendant Travel Distribution
        Services Group, Inc.);

     -- Expedia, Inc.;

     -- Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com);

     -- Maupintour Holding LLC;

     -- Orbitz, Inc.;

     -- Orbitz, LLC;

     -- Site59.com, LLC;

     -- Travelocity.com, Inc.;

     -- Travelocity.com LP; and

     -- Travelnow.com, Inc.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts
to cover taxes under each ordinance.  Each complaint typically
seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by
law, attorneys' fees and other relief.

On Aug. 17, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint for the County of Nassau's failure to
exhaust its mandatory administrative procedures for tax
collection.

On Sept. 12, 2007, the County of Nassau filed a notice of appeal
of that order.

On Aug. 11, 2009, the Second Circuit vacated the lower court's
order dismissing the complaint, and remanded with instructions to
consider whether the complaint meets specified jurisdictional
requirements.

On Sept. 10, 2009, the Second Circuit denied the defendants'
petition for rehearing.

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online  
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Parties in Gallup Suit Undergoing Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter City of Gallup, New Mexico v.
Hotels.com, L.P., et al., are presently conducting discovery,
according to priceline.com Inc.'s Nov. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2009.

A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or
putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other
allegedly similarly situated cities and counties within the same
respective state against the company and other defendants,
including, but not in all cases:

     -- Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC, both of which are
        subsidiaries of the company,

     -- Hotels.com, L.P.;

     -- Hotels.com GP, LLC;

     -- Hotwire, Inc.;

     -- Cheaptickets, Inc.;

     -- Travelport, Inc. (f/k/a Cendant Travel Distribution
        Services Group, Inc.);

     -- Expedia, Inc.;

     -- Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com);

     -- Maupintour Holding LLC;

     -- Orbitz, Inc.;

     -- Orbitz, LLC;

     -- Site59.com, LLC;

     -- Travelocity.com, Inc.;

     -- Travelocity.com LP; and

     -- Travelnow.com, Inc.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts
to cover taxes under each ordinance.  Each complaint typically
seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by
law, attorneys' fees and other relief.

On Jan. 8, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.

Briefing on plaintiffs' class certification motion was completed
on April 30, 2009.

Also on Jan. 8, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
amend the complaint.  The court granted that motion on Jan. 16,
2009.

On Feb. 2, 2009, defendants answered the First Amended Complaint.

On July 7, 2009 the court entered an order certifying a class.

On Aug. 27, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit entered an order denying defendants' petition to
appeal the order certifying a class.

On Sept. 22, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment.

Defendants' opposition to the motion for partial summary judgment
is due on Nov. 13, 2009.

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online  
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Continues to Defend Lyndhurst Suit in N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
priceline.com Inc. continues to defend the action styled The
Township of Lyndhurst, New Jersey v. priceline.com Incorporated,
et al., according to the company's Nov. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2009.

A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or
putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other
allegedly similarly situated cities and counties within the same
respective state against the company and other defendants,
including, but not in all cases:

     -- Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC, both of which are
        subsidiaries of the company,

     -- Hotels.com, L.P.;

     -- Hotels.com GP, LLC;

     -- Hotwire, Inc.;

     -- Cheaptickets, Inc.;

     -- Travelport, Inc. (f/k/a Cendant Travel Distribution
        Services Group, Inc.);

     -- Expedia, Inc.;

     -- Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com);

     -- Maupintour Holding LLC;

     -- Orbitz, Inc.;

     -- Orbitz, LLC;

     -- Site59.com, LLC;

     -- Travelocity.com, Inc.;

     -- Travelocity.com LP; and

     -- Travelnow.com, Inc.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts
to cover taxes under each ordinance.  Each complaint typically
seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by
law, attorneys' fees and other relief.

On March 18, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint
with prejudice on the grounds that plaintiff lacked standing to
bring its claims.

On April 9, 2009, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.

On July 6, 2009, plaintiff filed their appellate brief.

The defendants' answering brief was filed on Aug. 5, 2009, and
the Township's reply brief was filed on Aug. 19, 2009.

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online  
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Discovery in Genesee Suit Currently Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter County of Genesee, Mich., et al. v.
Hotels.com LP, et al., are presently conducting discovery,
according to priceline.com Inc.'s Nov. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2009.

A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or
putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other
allegedly similarly situated cities and counties within the same
respective state against the company and other defendants,
including, but not in all cases:

     -- Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC, both of which are
        subsidiaries of the company,

     -- Hotels.com, L.P.;

     -- Hotels.com GP, LLC;

     -- Hotwire, Inc.;

     -- Cheaptickets, Inc.;

     -- Travelport, Inc. (f/k/a Cendant Travel Distribution
        Services Group, Inc.);

     -- Expedia, Inc.;

     -- Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com);

     -- Maupintour Holding LLC;

     -- Orbitz, Inc.;

     -- Orbitz, LLC;

     -- Site59.com, LLC;

     -- Travelocity.com, Inc.;

     -- Travelocity.com LP; and

     -- Travelnow.com, Inc.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts
to cover taxes under each ordinance.  Each complaint typically
seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by
law, attorneys' fees and other relief.

On Aug. 31, 2009, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss
the complaint.

On Sept. 21, 2009, defendants answered the complaint.

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online  
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Has Until Dec. 4 to Respond to Jefferson Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants in the matter Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion
Commission, Jefferson County, AR, et al. v. Hotels.com, LP, et
al., have until Dec. 4, 2009 to respond to the complaint served
by the plaintiffs, according to priceline.com Inc.'s Nov. 9,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or
putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other
allegedly similarly situated cities and counties within the same
respective state against the company and other defendants,
including, but not in all cases:

     -- Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC, both of which are
        subsidiaries of the company,

     -- Hotels.com, L.P.;

     -- Hotels.com GP, LLC;

     -- Hotwire, Inc.;

     -- Cheaptickets, Inc.;

     -- Travelport, Inc. (f/k/a Cendant Travel Distribution
        Services Group, Inc.);

     -- Expedia, Inc.;

     -- Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com);

     -- Maupintour Holding LLC;

     -- Orbitz, Inc.;

     -- Orbitz, LLC;

     -- Site59.com, LLC;

     -- Travelocity.com, Inc.;

     -- Travelocity.com LP; and

     -- Travelnow.com, Inc.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts
to cover taxes under each ordinance.  Each complaint typically
seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by
law, attorneys' fees and other relief.

On Sept. 30, 2009, plaintiffs served the complaint.

Defendants' response to the complaint is due on Dec. 4, 2009.

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online  
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Has Until Dec. 14 to Respond to Lawrence Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants in the matter County of Lawrence v. Hotels.com,
L.P., et al., have until Dec. 14, 2009, to respond to the
complaint, according to priceline.com Inc.'s Nov. 9, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

according to the company's Nov. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2009.

A number of cities and counties have filed class actions or
putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other
allegedly similarly situated cities and counties within the same
respective state against the company and other defendants,
including, but not in all cases:

     -- Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC, both of which are
        subsidiaries of the company,

     -- Hotels.com, L.P.;

     -- Hotels.com GP, LLC;

     -- Hotwire, Inc.;

     -- Cheaptickets, Inc.;

     -- Travelport, Inc. (f/k/a Cendant Travel Distribution
        Services Group, Inc.);

     -- Expedia, Inc.;

     -- Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com);

     -- Maupintour Holding LLC;

     -- Orbitz, Inc.;

     -- Orbitz, LLC;

     -- Site59.com, LLC;

     -- Travelocity.com, Inc.;

     -- Travelocity.com LP; and

     -- Travelnow.com, Inc.

Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts
to cover taxes under each ordinance.  Each complaint typically
seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by
law, attorneys' fees and other relief.

On Sept. 9, 2009, the County of Lawrence, Pennsylvania filed a
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania.

priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online  
travel company that offers its customers a range of travel
services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals,
vacation packages, cruises and destination services.


QUEST SOFTWARE: Awaits Court's Approval for Settlement Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Software, Inc., is awaiting approval from the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California of a settlement
agreement in a purported shareholder class action, according to
the company's Nov. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2009.

In October 2006, a purported shareholder class action was filed
against Quest and certain of its current or former officers and
directors.

The plaintiff alleges that:

     (i) the company improperly backdated stock options,
         resulting in false or misleading disclosures
         concerning, among other things, Quest's financial
         condition and

    (ii) the individual defendants sold Quest stock while in
         possession of material nonpublic information resulting
         in damages to the putative plaintiff class, in
         violation of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
         promulgated thereunder.

On Sept. 8, 2009, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion to
certify the class.

Pursuant to a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement entered
into on Nov. 6, 2009, the company, the class representative and
certain current and former officers and directors of the Company,
agreed to settle the Options Class Action for a payment of $29.4
million.

The settlement agreement is subject to approval by the U.S.
District Court.

Quest Software, Inc. -- http://www.quest.com/-- designs,  
develops, markets, distributes and supports enterprise systems
management software products.  The company's primary portfolio of
software products includes software solutions grouped into four
categories: Application Management, Database Management, Windows
Management and Virtualization Management.  Quest markets and
sells its products and services worldwide primarily through its
direct sales organization, its telesales organization and via
indirect sales channels with a group of value added resellers
(VAR's) and distributors.  In September 2008, the company
acquired NetPro Computing, Inc.  In January 2008, it acquired
PassGo Technologies Limited (PassGo), a United Kingdom-based
company engaged in access and identity management solutions.


SOURCEFORGE 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 in the
litigation involving SourceForge, Inc., nka Geeknet, Inc.,
according to the company's Nov. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2009.

In January 2001, the company, two of its former officers, and
Credit Suisse First Boston, the lead underwriter in the company's
initial public offering, were named as defendants in a
shareholder lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, later consolidated and captioned
In re VA Software Corp. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, 01-CV-0242.  
The plaintiffs' class action suit seeks unspecified damages on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's common
stock from the time of the company's initial public offering in
December 1999 through December 2000.

Among other things, this complaint alleged that the prospectus
pursuant to which shares of common stock were sold in the
company's initial public offering contained certain false and
misleading statements or omissions regarding the practices of the
Underwriters with respect to their allocation of shares of common
stock in these offerings and their receipt of commissions from
customers related to such allocations.  Various plaintiffs have
filed actions asserting similar allegations concerning the
initial public offerings of approximately 300 other issuers.  
These various cases pending in the Southern District of New York
have been coordinated for pretrial proceedings as In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92.

In April 2002, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint
in the action against the company, alleging violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Defendants in the coordinated proceeding filed motions to
dismiss.  In October 2002, the company's officers were dismissed
from the case without prejudice pursuant to a stipulation.

On Feb. 19, 2003, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the motion to dismiss, but declined to dismiss the claims against
the company.

In June 2004, a stipulation of settlement and release of claims
against the issuer defendants, including the company, was
submitted to the Court for approval.

On Aug. 31, 2005, the Court preliminarily approved the
settlement.

In December 2006, the appellate court overturned the
certification of classes in the six test cases, which included
the company's case, that were selected by the underwriter
defendants and plaintiffs in the coordinated proceedings.

Because class certification was a condition of the settlement, it
was unlikely that the settlement would receive final Court
approval.  On June 25, 2007, the Court entered an order
terminating the proposed settlement based upon a stipulation
among the parties to the settlement.

Plaintiffs filed amended master allegations and amended
complaints and moved for class certification in the six focus
cases.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaints and opposed
class certification.  On March 26, 2008, the Court denied the
defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaints.

The parties have reached a global settlement of the litigation.

On Oct. 5, 2009, the Court entered an order certifying a
settlement class and granting final approval of the settlement.

Under the settlement, the insurers will pay the full amount of
settlement share allocated to the company, and the company will
bear no financial liability.  The company, as well as the officer
and director defendants who were previously dismissed from the
action pursuant to a stipulation, will receive complete
dismissals from the case.

A group of objectors has filed a petition requesting permission
to appeal the Court's Oct. 5, 2009 order certifying the
settlement class.

SourceForge, Inc. -- http://www.sourceforge.com/-- is a provider  
of Web properties that enable the creation, review, hosting and
distribution of online peer-produced content.  The company is
also an online seller of technology-themed retail products.  
Through its subsidiary, ThinkGeek, Inc., the Company sells
technology themed products.  The company operates in two
segments: Online Media and E-commerce.  Its Online Media segment
provides Web properties that serve as platforms for the creation,
review, hosting and distribution of online peer-produced content.  
Its E-commerce segment sells technology-themed retail products to
technology professionals and enthusiasts through its
ThinkGeek.com Website.


THEGLOBE.COM: New York Court Gives Nod to Settlement Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has
approved the settlement in a lawsuit involving theglobe.com,
inc., according to the company's Nov. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On and after Aug. 3, 2001 six putative shareholder class action
lawsuits were filed against the company, certain of its current
and former officers and directors (the "Individual Defendants"),
and several investment banks that were the underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering and secondary offering.  The
lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

A Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is now the operative
complaint, was filed in the Southern District of New York on
April 19, 2002.

The lawsuit purports to be a class action filed on behalf of
purchasers of the stock of the company during the period from
Nov. 12, 1998 through Dec. 6, 2000.

The purported class action alleges violations of Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b), Rule 10b-5
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to
allocate stock in the company's initial public offering and its
secondary offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive
and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to
make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-
determined prices.  Plaintiffs allege that the Prospectuses for
the company's initial public offering and its secondary offering
were false and misleading and in violation of the securities laws
because it did not disclose these arrangements. The action seeks
damages in an unspecified amount.

On Oct. 9, 2002, the Court dismissed the Individual Defendants
from the case without prejudice.

This dismissal disposed of the Section 15 and 20(a) control
person claims without prejudice.

At the Court's request, plaintiffs selected six "focus" cases,
which do not include the Company.  The Court indicated that its
decisions in the six focus cases are intended to provide strong
guidance for the parties in the remaining cases.  On Dec. 5,
2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a
decision by the District Court granting class certification in
the focus cases.

On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied a petition for
rehearing filed by plaintiffs, but noted that plaintiffs could
ask the District Court to certify more narrow classes than those
that were rejected.

The parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including
the company's, reached a settlement.  The insurers for the issuer
defendants in the coordinated cases will make the settlement
payment on behalf of the issuers, including theglobe.

On Oct. 5, 2009, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement.

The thirty day deadline to appeal the final approval order will
start to run when the judgment is filed.  The judgment has not
yet been filed.

A group of three objectors has filed a petition to the Second
Circuit seeking permission to appeal the District Court's final
approval order on the basis that the settlement class is broader
than the class previously rejected by the Second Circuit in its
Dec. 5, 2006 order vacating the District Court's order certifying
classes in the focus cases.

Plaintiffs have filed an opposition to the petition.  Two notices
of appeal to the Second Circuit have also been filed by different
groups of objectors.

theglobe.com, inc. -- http://www.theglobe.com/-- is a shell  
company.  As of Dec. 31, 2008, the company had no material
operations or assets.  As of Dec. 31, 2008, theglobe has no plans
to acquire or start-up any new businesses.  On Sept. 29, 2008,
the company sold the business and substantially all of the assets
of its Tralliance Corporation subsidiary to Tralliance Registry
Management.  theglobe received earn-out rights from Tralliance
Registry Management, which will constitute the only source of
future revenue for theglobe as a shell company.


TREX CO: Awaiting Court's Final Approval of Settlement Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trex Company, Inc., continues to await the final approval of the
Superior Court of California, Santa Cruz County of the settlement
agreement entered with plaintiffs Eric Ross and Bradley S.
Hureth, according to the company's Nov. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2009.

A class action case was commenced against the company by Eric
Ross and Bradley S. Hureth generally alleging certain product
defects in the company's products, and that the company has
failed to provide adequate remedies for defective products.

On Feb. 13, 2009, the company removed this case to the U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.

On Jan. 15, 2009, a purported class action case was commenced
against the company in the U.S. District Court, Western District
of Washington by Mark Okano making similar allegations.

The Okano case was subsequently transferred by the Washington
Court to the California Court as a related case to the
Ross/Hureth case.

On July 30, 2009, a settlement of the Ross/Hureth lawsuit was
preliminarily approved by the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

The hearing for final approval was held on Oct. 30, 2009.

Trex Company, Inc. -- http://www.trex.com/-- is a manufacturer  
of wood-alternative decking, railing, fencing products and trim
products, which are marketed under the brand name Trex.  The
company manufactures its products in a process that combines
waste wood fibers and reclaimed polyethylene.  Its decking,
railing and fencing products are provided in a selection of sizes
and lengths, and are also available with several finishes and
numerous colors.  The products are used primarily for residential
and commercial decking and railing.  Trex sells its products
through wholesale distribution and primarily to retail lumber
dealers, retail building material specialty builders and Home
Depot and Lowe's.


US CONCRETE: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Suit Over "Breaks"
--------------------------------------------------------------
US Concrete Inc.'s subsidiary, Central Concrete Supply Co., Inc.,
continues to defend a consolidated class action suit, according
to US Concrete's Nov. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2009.

Class actions were filed between April 6, 2007 and Sept. 27, 2007
on behalf of various Central Concrete ready-mixed concrete and
transport drivers, alleging primarily that Central, which is one
of the company's subsidiaries, failed to provide meal and rest
breaks as required under California law.

The company has have entered into settlements with one of the
classes and a number of individual drivers.

The other three classes have been consolidated and a single class
was certified on July 24, 2009.

U.S. Concrete, Inc. -- http://www.us-concrete.com/--  
manufactures ready-mixed concrete, precast concrete products and
concrete-related products in select markets in the United States.  
The company operates its business through its ready-mixed
concrete and concrete-related products segment, and its precast
products concrete segment.  As of March 12, 2009, the company had
132 fixed and 12 portable ready-mixed concrete plants, seven
precast concrete plants, one concrete block plant and seven
producing aggregates facilities (including 27 fixed ready-mixed
concrete plants and one masonry block plant operated by its 60%-
owned Michigan subsidiary).  The company operates in two business
segments: ready-mixed concrete and concrete-related products, and
precast concrete products.  In November 2008, the Company
acquired a ready-mixed concrete plant and related inventory in
Brooklyn, New York. In January 2008, the company acquired a
ready-mixed concrete operation in Staten Island, New York.


VALUECLICK INC: Reaches Settlement Agreement in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
ValueClick, Inc., has reached a final settlement in a
consolidated securities fraud class action lawsuit, according to
the company's Nov. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2009.

On Nov. 20, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California consolidated two purported securities
fraud class action lawsuits brought against the company, its
executive chairman and its former chief administrative officer.

The court appointed the combined funds of Laborers' International
Union of North America National (Industrial) Pension and the
LIUNA Staff & Affiliates Pension Fund (collectively, the "LIUNA
Funds") as lead plaintiffs.

In January 2008, the LIUNA Funds filed a consolidated complaint
alleging violations of certain federal securities laws based upon
the company's and the company's officers' alleged materially
false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
compliance with laws and standards applicable to its lead
generation business, among other things.

The company filed a motion to dismiss this matter in March 2008
and on Sept. 25, 2008, the Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss.

After having their first complaint dismissed by the Court, the
LIUNA Funds filed their First Amended Consolidated Complaint on
Nov. 24, 2008.

In the third quarter of 2009, the company reached a final
settlement in this matter that was not material to the Company's
consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash
flows.

ValueClick, Inc. -- http://www.valueclick.com/-- is an online  
marketing services company.  The company sells targeted and
measurable online advertising campaigns and programs for
advertisers and advertising agency customers, generating
qualified customer leads, online sales and increased brand
recognition on their behalf with large numbers of online
consumers.  The company's customers are primarily direct
marketers, brand advertisers and the advertising agencies that
service these groups.  The company operates in four business
segments: Media, Affiliate Marketing, Comparison Shopping &
Search, and Technology.  In October 2008, it announced the
divestiture of two assets: AdVault software suite of production,
financial, and offline media planning and buying solutions for
advertising agencies, to MediaBank, LLC, and the sale of its
inkjet e-commerce business.

                            *********

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  * * *