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  * * *