/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/091229.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, December 29, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 255 Headlines AMERICAN BUSINESS LENDING: No Activity in Fax Case Since May 2008 BUSINESS COMPUTER TRAINING: Portland Judge to Approve Settlement FEDEX CORP: "Wiegele" Wage-and-Hour Suit v. FedEx Ground Ongoing FEDEX CORP: Still Faces FLSA Claims in "Tidd" Wage-and-Hour Suit FEDEX CORP: Express Continues to Face "Bibo" Wage-and-Hour Suit FEDEX CORP: FedEx Freight Faces "Taylor" Wage-and-Hour Lawsuit FEDEX CORP: "Anfinson" Suit v. FedEx Ground Pending in Wash. HEWLETT PACKARD: Continues to Face Inkjet Suit in Calif. HEWLETT PACKARD: Blennis Certification Hearing Set for April 23 HEWLETT PACKARD: Four Suits in Canada over "Smart Chips" Pending HEWLETT PACKARD: "Bagget" Plaintiff's Appeal Remains Pending HEWLETT PACKARD: "Rich" Certification Hearing Set for Feb. 5 HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Skold" Appeal to Denied Certification Pending HEWLETT-PACKARD: EDS Faces Labor-Related Lawsuits in New York HEWLETT-PACKARD: EDS Faces Labor-Related Lawsuits in California HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Suit in Ga. Over Misclassified Employees REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA: Appeal on Class Certification Pending ********* AMERICAN BUSINESS LENDING: No Activity in Fax Case Since May 2008 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amelia Flood at The Madison St. Clair Record reports that there have been no filings since May in a 2008 class action over faxed advertisements brought by an electric company that has several similar cases pending in Madison and St. Clair counties. The last action in Locklear Electric v. American Business Lending was in May when Madison County Circuit Judge Andy Matoesian continued a case management conference due to the lack of entered appearances on behalf of defendants. There have been no filings from either side since. No attorney has filed an appearance on behalf of either defendant, which also includes Christopher Parks. Locklear Electric of Wood River claims that the defendants violated both the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act as well as the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited advertisements over the company's fax lines. The suit seeks damages of at least $75,000. At the time of its filing, it was the fifth class action Locklear Electric had filed over the violations. Locklear Electric has filed several other class actions over the same alleged violations against other businesses and individuals in both Madison and St. Clair counties. One of the 2009 Madison class actions was removed to federal court. The other is pending before Madison County Circuit Judge Dennis Ruth. In St. Clair County, one case against Florissant Injury and Pain Relief Center remains before St. Clair County Circuit Judge Robert LeChien. Larry Darr represents Locklear in the 2008 class action suit. The other cases filed in 2009 were filed for Locklear by Robert Sprague. The 2008 class action is Madison case number 08-L-1131. The 2009 Madison cases are case numbers 09-L-605 and 09-L-606. The former was removed and the later remains pending. The 2009 St. Clair case is St. Clair case number 09-L-454. BUSINESS COMPUTER TRAINING: Portland Judge to Approve Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a Multnomah County judge said last week he will OK the settlement of a lawsuit against a now- defunct computer trade school, allowing students to get at least some of their tuition money back. The deal provides $200,000 to students who have yet to file claims against Business Computer Training Institute, The Oregonian newspaper reported. The action also clears the way for a $3 million, out-of-court settlement that resolves five separate lawsuits filed against BCTI. The money, with attorney fees subtracted, will be divided by more than 300 former students who joined lawsuits. The former students accused BCTI of fraud and unfair business practices, saying the school failed to deliver the education and job prospects it promised. BCTI closed its Beaverton and Salem campuses in 2005, shortly after Oregon regulators put the school on probation. In 2007, the school's insurers paid $13.25 million to settle claims by students in Washington state, where BCTI is based and operated five campuses. The school recruited students outside welfare and unemployment offices while promising training and high-paying jobs in computer fields. Students say they received substandard training and got low-paying jobs at fast-food restaurants, retailers, convenience stores and telemarketing firms. Of the $200,000 being set aside for ex-students who have not yet filed claims, about $65,000 will go toward attorney fees and costs. If 50 former students step forward, each would get about $2,700, according to court records. For many, that won't be enough to cover the $10,000 to $20,000 in federal and private student loans they took out to attend the school. BCTI's closure prompted Washington state lawmakers to strengthen requirements on for-profit vocational schools. FEDEX CORP: "Wiegele" Wage-and-Hour Suit v. FedEx Ground Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- One of FedEx Corporation's business segments, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., continues to face a wage-and-hour class action case styled Wiegele v. FedEx Ground. In February 2008, the Wiegele wage-and-hour case was certified as a class action by a California federal court, and in April 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the company's petition to review the class certification ruling. The plaintiffs in Wiegele represent a class of FedEx Ground sort managers and dock service managers in California from May 10, 2002 to the present. The plaintiffs allege that FedEx Ground has misclassified the managers as exempt from the overtime requirements of California wage-and-hour laws and is correspondingly liable for failing to pay them overtime compensation and provide them with rest and meal breaks. Subject to court approval, the plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss the sort managers, leaving only the dock service managers in the class. No further updates were reported in the company's Dec. 18, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2009. FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of transportation, e-commerce and business services through companies that compete collectively, operate independently and manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand. These companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small- package ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight Corp., is a provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services through its FedEx Freight business (regional next-day and second-day and interregional LTL freight services) and its FedEx National LTL business (long-haul LTL freight services), and FedEx Services, FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides sales, marketing and information technology support, as well as customer service support through FedEx Customer Information Services, Inc. FEDEX CORP: Still Faces FLSA Claims in "Tidd" Wage-and-Hour Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., one of FedEx Corporation's business segments, continues to face a class claim under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. In September 2008, in another one of these wage-and-hour cases, "Tidd v. Adecco USA, Kelly Services and FedEx Ground," a Massachusetts federal court conditionally certified a class limited to individuals who were employed by two temporary employment agencies and who worked as temporary pick-up-and- delivery drivers for FedEx Ground in the New England region within the past three years. Potential claimants must voluntarily "opt in" to the lawsuit in order to be considered part of the class. In addition, in the same opinion, the court granted summary judgment in favor of FedEx Ground with respect to the plaintiffs' claims for unpaid overtime wages. Accordingly, as to FedEx Ground, the conditionally certified class of plaintiffs is now limited to a claim of failure to pay regular wages due under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. No further updates were reported in the company's Dec. 18, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2009. FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of transportation, e-commerce and business services through companies that compete collectively, operate independently and manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand. These companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small- package ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight Corp., is a provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services through its FedEx Freight business (regional next-day and second-day and interregional LTL freight services) and its FedEx National LTL business (long-haul LTL freight services), and FedEx Services, FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides sales, marketing and information technology support, as well as customer service support through FedEx Customer Information Services, Inc. FEDEX CORP: Express Continues to Face "Bibo" Wage-and-Hour Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- A business segment of FedEx Corporation, Federal Express Corporation continues to face the wage-and-hour case, Bibo v. FedEx Express. In April 2009, a California federal court granted class certification in the wage-and-hour case, certifying several subclasses of FedEx Express couriers in California from April 14, 2006 (the date of the settlement of the Foster class action) to the present. The plaintiffs allege that FedEx Express violated California wage-and-hour laws after the date of the Foster settlement. In particular, the plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they were forced to work "off the clock" and were not provided with required meal breaks or split-shift premiums. The company asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to accept a discretionary appeal of the class certification order, but the court refused to accept it at this time, according to the company's Dec. 18, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2009. FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of transportation, e-commerce and business services through companies that compete collectively, operate independently and manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand. These companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small- package ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight Corp., is a provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services through its FedEx Freight business (regional next-day and second-day and interregional LTL freight services) and its FedEx National LTL business (long-haul LTL freight services), and FedEx Services, FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides sales, marketing and information technology support, as well as customer service support through FedEx Customer Information Services, Inc. FEDEX CORP: FedEx Freight Faces "Taylor" Wage-and-Hour Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- One of FedEx Corporation's subsidiaries, FedEx Freight Corporation, faces a purported class action suit over alleged violation of California wage and hour laws, Taylor v. FedEx Freight, according to the company's Dec. 18, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2009. In September 2009, in the wage-and-hour case, a California state court granted class certification, certifying a class of all current and former drivers employed by FedEx Freight in California who performed line haul services since June 2003. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they were forced to work "off the clock" and were not provided with required rest or meal breaks. FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of transportation, e-commerce and business services through companies that compete collectively, operate independently and manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand. These companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small- package ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight Corp., is a provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services through its FedEx Freight business (regional next-day and second-day and interregional LTL freight services) and its FedEx National LTL business (long-haul LTL freight services), and FedEx Services, FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides sales, marketing and information technology support, as well as customer service support through FedEx Customer Information Services, Inc. FEDEX CORP: "Anfinson" Suit v. FedEx Ground Pending in Wash. ------------------------------------------------------------ One of FedEx Corporation's business segments, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., continues to face a contractor-model lawsuit, Anfinson v. FedEx Ground. In January 2008, the Anfinson suit was certified as a class action by a Washington state court. The lawsuit is not part of the multidistrict litigation. The plaintiffs in Anfinson represent a class of FedEx Ground single-route, pickup-and-delivery owner-operators in Washington from Dec. 21, 2001 through Dec. 31, 2005, and allege that the class members should be reimbursed as employees for their uniform expenses and should receive overtime pay. In March 2009, a jury trial in the Anfinson case was held, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of FedEx Ground, finding that all 320 class members were independent contractors, not employees. The plaintiffs have appealed the verdict. The other contractor-model lawsuits that are not part of the multidistrict litigation are not as far along procedurally as Anfinson and all but one of the lawsuits are currently stayed pending further developments in the multidistrict litigation, according to the company's Sept. 18, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2009. No further updates were reported in the company's Dec. 18, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2009. FedEx Corp. -- http://www.fedex.com/-- provides a portfolio of transportation, e-commerce and business services through companies that compete collectively, operate independently and manage collaboratively, under the respected FedEx brand. These companies are included in four segments: FedEx Express, Federal Express Corp., is an express transportation company, offering time-certain delivery within 1 to 3 business days; FedEx Ground, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., is a provider of small- package ground delivery service; FedEx Freight, FedEx Freight Corp., is a provider of less-than-truckload (LTL) freight services through its FedEx Freight business (regional next-day and second-day and interregional LTL freight services) and its FedEx National LTL business (long-haul LTL freight services), and FedEx Services, FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. provides sales, marketing and information technology support, as well as customer service support through FedEx Customer Information Services, Inc. HEWLETT PACKARD: Continues to Face Inkjet Suit in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Co. continues to defend a consolidated lawsuit captioned In re HP Inkjet Printer Litigation, according to the company's Dec. 17, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2009. The hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the consolidated lawsuit against Hewlett-Packard Co. captioned In re HP Inkjet Printer Litigation, is set for Jan. 8, 2010, according to the company's Dec. 17, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2009. The lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuits alleges breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment, deceptive advertising and unfair business practices where the plaintiffs have alleged, among other things, that HP employed a "smart chip" in certain inkjet printing products in order to register ink depletion prematurely and to render the cartridge unusable through a built-in expiration date that is hidden, not documented in marketing materials to consumers, or both. The plaintiffs have also contended that consumers received false ink depletion warnings and that the smart chip limits the ability of consumers to use the cartridge to its full capacity or to choose competitive products. The plaintiffs are seeking class certification, restitution, damages (including enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. On Jan. 4, 2008, the court heard plaintiffs' motions for class certification and to add a class representative and HP's motion for summary judgment. On July 25, 2008, the court denied all three motions. On March 30, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification. A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification is scheduled for Jan. 8, 2010. Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large enterprises, including customers in the government, health and education sectors. The company's offerings span multi-vendor customer services, including infrastructure technology and business process outsourcing, technology support and maintenance, application development and support services, and consulting and integration services; enterprise information technology infrastructure, including enterprise storage and server technology, networking products and resources, and software that optimizes business technology investments; personal computing and other access devices, and imaging and printing- related products and services. HEWLETT PACKARD: Blennis Certification Hearing Set for April 23 --------------------------------------------------------------- A class certification hearing in a suit against Hewlett-Packard Co. styled Blennis v. HP, is scheduled for April 23, 2010, according to the company's Dec. 17, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2009. The lawsuit was filed on Jan. 17, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California where the plaintiffs are seeking class certification, restitution, damages (including enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. The lawsuits alleges breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment, deceptive advertising and unfair business practices where the plaintiffs have alleged, among other things, that HP employed a "smart chip" in certain inkjet printing products in order to register ink depletion prematurely and to render the cartridge unusable through a built-in expiration date that is hidden, not documented in marketing materials to consumers, or both. The plaintiffs have also contended that consumers received false ink depletion warnings and that the smart chip limits the ability of consumers to use the cartridge to its full capacity or to choose competitive products. A class certification hearing is scheduled for April 23, 2010. Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large enterprises, including customers in the government, health and education sectors. The company's offerings span multi-vendor customer services, including infrastructure technology and business process outsourcing, technology support and maintenance, application development and support services, and consulting and integration services; enterprise information technology infrastructure, including enterprise storage and server technology, networking products and resources, and software that optimizes business technology investments; personal computing and other access devices, and imaging and printing- related products and services. HEWLETT PACKARD: Four Suits in Canada over "Smart Chips" Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Co. continues to face four purported class-action lawsuits over its use of "smart chips" in its inkjet printer cartridge, according to the company's Dec. 17, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2009. The four class actions against HP and its subsidiary, Hewlett- Packard (Canada) Co., pending in Canada are: -- one commenced in British Columbia in February 2006, -- two commenced in Quebec in April 2006 and May 2006, respectively, and -- one commenced in Ontario in June 2006, where the plaintiffs are seeking class certification, restitution, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and unspecified statutory, compensatory and punitive damages. The lawsuits alleges breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment, deceptive advertising and unfair business practices where the plaintiffs have alleged, among other things, that HP employed a "smart chip" in certain inkjet printing products in order to register ink depletion prematurely and to render the cartridge unusable through a built-in expiration date that is hidden, not documented in marketing materials to consumers, or both. The plaintiffs have also contended that consumers received false ink depletion warnings and that the smart chip limits the ability of consumers to use the cartridge to its full capacity or to choose competitive products. A class authorization hearing for one of the cases pending in Quebec was tentatively scheduled for December 10, 2009; that hearing has been postponed and no new date has been set by the court. Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large enterprises, including customers in the government, health and education sectors. The company's offerings span multi-vendor customer services, including infrastructure technology and business process outsourcing, technology support and maintenance, application development and support services, and consulting and integration services; enterprise information technology infrastructure, including enterprise storage and server technology, networking products and resources, and software that optimizes business technology investments; personal computing and other access devices, and imaging and printing- related products and services. HEWLETT PACKARD: "Bagget" Plaintiff's Appeal Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ The plaintiff's appeal of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California's summary judgment ruling in the matter Kelsea Baggett v. Hewlett-Packard Company et al., remains pending, according to the company's Dec. 17, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2009. The suit is a consumer class action filed against HP on June 6, 2007 alleging that HP employs a technology in its LaserJet color printers whereby the printing process shuts down prematurely, thus preventing customers from using the toner that is allegedly left in the cartridge. The plaintiffs also allege that HP fails to disclose to consumers that they will be unable to utilize the toner remaining in the cartridge after the printer shuts down. The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide class of purchasers of all HP LaserJet color printers and seeks unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs. On Sept. 29, 2009, the court granted HP's motion for summary judgment against the named plaintiff and denied plaintiff's motion for class certification as moot. On Nov. 3, 2009, the court entered judgment against the named plaintiff. On Nov. 17, 2009, plaintiff filed an appeal of the court's summary judgment ruling with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The suit is Kelsea Baggett v. Hewlett-Packard Company et al., Case No. 07-cv-00667 (C.D. Calif.) (Guilford, J.) Representing the plaintiffs are: Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. KABATECK BROWN KELLNER 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-217-5000 E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com - and - Darren T Kaplan, Esq. CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES 1230 Peachtree Street, Suite 2300 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-873-3900 E-mail: dkaplan@chitwoodlaw.com Representing the defendant are: Samuel G. Liversidge, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Phone: 213-229-7000 E-mail: sliversidge@gibsondunn.com - and - Robert Particelli, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-963-5000 Fax: 215-963-5001 E-mail: rparticelli@morganlewis.com HEWLETT PACKARD: "Rich" Certification Hearing Set for Feb. 5 ------------------------------------------------------------ A Feb. 5, 2010 class certification hearing is scheduled for a purported class-action suit filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Hewlett-Packard Co., according to the company's Dec. 17, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2009. It alleges that HP designed its color inkjet printers to unnecessarily use color ink in addition to black ink when printing black and white images and text. The plaintiffs seek injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of a nationwide class. The Court has granted HP's motion to dismiss several of the plaintiffs' claims, and HP answered the remaining claims in February 2007. A class certification hearing is scheduled for February 5, 2010. The suit is Rich v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Case No. 06-cv-03361 (N.D. Calif.) (Fogel, J.). Representing the plaintiffs is: Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. KABATECK BROWN KELLNER, LLP 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213/217-5000 Fax: 213/217-5010 E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com - and - Stephen Michael Garcia, Esq. GARCIA LAW FIRM One World Trade Center, Suite 1950 Long Beach, CA 90831 Phone: 562-216-5270 E-mail: jmobley@lawgarcia.com Representing the defendants is: Christopher Chorba, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-229-7000 Fax: 213-229-7520 E-mail: cchorba@gibsondunn.com HEWLETT-PACKARD: "Skold" Appeal to Denied Certification Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs' appeal to the decision that denied the class certification motion in a lawsuit against Hewlett-Packard Co. in California with regards to the performance of Intel Corp.'s Pentium 4 processor remain pending. The suit, "Skold, et al. v. Intel Corp. and Hewlett Packard Co.," generally alleges that the company along with Intel, misled the public by suppressing and concealing the alleged material fact that systems that use the Pentium 4 processor are less powerful and slower than systems using the Pentium III processor and processors made by a competitor of Intel. The company was joined to the lawsuit on June 14, 2004. It was initially filed in state court in Alameda County, California, based upon factual allegations similar to those in the Illinois cases. The plaintiffs in the Skold matter seek unspecified damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and certification of a nationwide class. The Skold case has since been transferred to state court in Santa Clara County, California. The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification on March 27, 2008, but granted plaintiffs' leave to file a new motion for class certification. On Feb. 27, 2009, the court denied without prejudice plaintiffs' motion for nationwide class certification for a third time. The plaintiffs have appealed the court's decision No further updates were reported in the company's Dec. 17, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2009. Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large enterprises, including customers in the government, health and education sectors. The company's offerings span multi-vendor customer services, including infrastructure technology and business process outsourcing, technology support and maintenance, application development and support services, and consulting and integration services; enterprise information technology infrastructure, including enterprise storage and server technology, networking products and resources, and software that optimizes business technology investments; personal computing and other access devices, and imaging and printing- related products and services. HEWLETT-PACKARD: EDS Faces Labor-Related Lawsuits in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Co.'s subsidiary, Electronic Data Systems Corporation, faces several purported class actions alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and/or the California Labor Code. The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other damages based on allegations that various employees of EDS or HP have been misclassified as exempt employees under the FLSA and/or the California Labor Code. Cunningham and Cunningham, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation is a purported action filed on May 10, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York claiming that current and former EDS employees involved in installing and/or maintaining computer software and hardware were misclassified as exempt employees. Two other purported class actions, Steavens, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, filed on Oct. 23, 2007, and Azar v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, filed on Feb. 20, 2009, are also pending in the same court alleging similar facts. No further updates were reported in the company's Dec. 17, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2009. Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large enterprises, including customers in the government, health and education sectors. The company's offerings span multi-vendor customer services, including infrastructure technology and business process outsourcing, technology support and maintenance, application development and support services, and consulting and integration services; enterprise information technology infrastructure, including enterprise storage and server technology, networking products and resources, and software that optimizes business technology investments; personal computing and other access devices, and imaging and printing- related products and services. HEWLETT-PACKARD: EDS Faces Labor-Related Lawsuits in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Co.'s subsidiary, Electronic Data Systems Corporation, faces several purported class actions alleging labor related violations in California. The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other damages based on allegations that various employees of EDS or HP have been misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and/or the California Labor Code. Heffelfinger, et al v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation is a class action filed in November 2006, in California Superior Court, claiming that certain EDS information technology workers in California were misclassified exempt employees. The case was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, which, on Jan. 7, 2008, certified a class of information technology workers in California. On June 6, 2008, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Three other purported class actions originally filed in California Superior Court, Jameson, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, which was filed on July 16, 2008, Karlbom, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, which was filed on March 16, 2009, and George, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, which was filed on April 2, 2009, are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central or Southern District of California. The lawsuits allege similar facts No further updates were reported in the company's Dec. 17, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2009. Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large enterprises, including customers in the government, health and education sectors. The company's offerings span multi-vendor customer services, including infrastructure technology and business process outsourcing, technology support and maintenance, application development and support services, and consulting and integration services; enterprise information technology infrastructure, including enterprise storage and server technology, networking products and resources, and software that optimizes business technology investments; personal computing and other access devices, and imaging and printing- related products and services. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Suit in Ga. Over Misclassified Employees --------------------------------------------------------------- Hewlett-Packard Co. faces a purported collective action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, alleging that HP misclassified various employees as exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code. Mathias, et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported class action filed on Aug. 21, 2009. The suit claims that certain HP presales technical consulting employees were misclassified as exempt employees No further developments were reported in the company's Dec. 17, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2009. Hewlett-Packard Co. -- http://www.hp.com/-- is a global provider of products, technologies, software, solutions and services to individual consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) and large enterprises, including customers in the government, health and education sectors. The company's offerings span multi-vendor customer services, including infrastructure technology and business process outsourcing, technology support and maintenance, application development and support services, and consulting and integration services; enterprise information technology infrastructure, including enterprise storage and server technology, networking products and resources, and software that optimizes business technology investments; personal computing and other access devices, and imaging and printing- related products and services. REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA: Appeal on Class Certification Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ The appeal of the Republic of Argentina on the class judgments for eight cases totaling approximately $2.2 billion remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, according to its Dec. 16, 2009, Form 18-K/A filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 20008. On Jan. 9, 2009, the Hon. Thomas P. Griesa of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted class judgments for eight cases in a total amount of approximately $2.2 billion. On Jan. 22, 2009, Argentina appealed these judgments, and the appeals are pending before the Court of Appeals. Class certification has been granted in five further cases, and there are five putative class actions in which plaintiffs have not yet sought class certification. Judge Griesa dismissed class claims brought in actions on Oct. 28, 2008 and on March 4, 2009. As of Nov. 25, 2009, 18 class actions are pending or have reached judgment. The lawsuits allege that Argentina's default is a breach of contract and seeks to recover unpaid past due interest. ********* 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 * * *