CAR_Public/100126.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, January 26, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 17

                            Headlines

ADOBE SYSTEMS: Faces Consolidated Complaint on Omniture Purchase
BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Faces Consolidated Suit in Tarrant County
BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Dallas Plaintiffs Want to Refile Suit
BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Enters MOU to Settle Delaware Complaint
CALIFORNIA MICRO: Enters MOU to Settle Three Suits over Merger

CHASE MANHATTAN: Accused of Not Disclosing Inspection Fees
CLARCOR INC: Seeking to Overturn Dismissed Bid in Filters Suit
ENERGY TRANSFER: Appeal in Price-Fixing Suit Remains Pending
ENERGY TRANSFER: Appeal in Alleged Monopolization Suit Pending
EQUINIX INC: Enters Agreement to Settle Three Suits over Merger

IMS HEALTH: Del. Court Dismisses Consolidated Stockholder Suit
IMS HEALTH: Two Stockholder Suits Remain Pending in Connecticut
LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Court Enters Final Judgment in "McClain" Suit
U.S. HOME: Enters into Agreement to Settle Ex-Employee's Lawsuit

                            *********

ADOBE SYSTEMS: Faces Consolidated Complaint on Omniture Purchase
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adobe Systems Incorporated faces a consolidated amended complaint
relating to its proposed acquisition of Omniture,
Inc., according to the company's Jan. 22, 2010, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Nov. 27, 2009.

On Sept. 23, 2009, Richard Miner on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated stockholders of Omniture, Inc. filed a class
action lawsuit captioned Miner v. Omniture, Inc.,  et. al., Case
No. 090403559 against Omniture, the members of Omniture's board
of directors and Adobe in the U.S. Fourth Judicial District Court
for Utah County, Provo Department, State of Utah seeking to
enjoin the proposed acquisition between Omniture and Adobe.

In the event the acquisition is consummated, the plaintiff seeks
to recover an unspecified amount of damages.

The plaintiff alleges that the members of Omniture's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Omniture's
stockholders by failing to seek the highest possible price for
Omniture and that Adobe induced or aided and abetted in the
alleged breach of such fiduciary duties.

Also on Sept. 23, 2009, Christopher R. Barrell filed a
substantially similar lawsuit to the Miner Lawsuit in the U.S.
Fourth Judicial District Court for Utah County, Provo Department,
State of Utah, captioned Barrell v. Omniture, Inc. et. al., Case
No. 090403560.

The Barrell Lawsuit names the same defendants as the Miner
Lawsuit, and also names Snowbird Acquisition Corporation as an
additional defendant.  Subsequently, on Sept. 24, 2009, the
plaintiff in the Barrell Lawsuit filed an amended complaint,
which added allegations that the Schedule 14D-9
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement filed by Omniture on Sept.
24, 2009 contained inadequate disclosures and was materially
misleading.

On Sept. 25, 2009, the Omniture Defendants filed a motion
requesting that the court consolidate the Barrell Lawsuit, Miner
Lawsuit and a substantially similar lawsuit captioned Lodhia v.
Omniture, Inc. et al., Case No. 090403499 in which the Omniture
Defendants, but not Adobe, were named.

Additionally, on Sept. 30, 2009, the plaintiff in the Lodhia
Lawsuit filed a response to defendants' motion to consolidate,
agreeing consolidation is appropriate, and also filed a motion
seeking appointment as lead plaintiff in the consolidated action.   
Omniture moved for an order consolidating all three lawsuits.

The plaintiffs in the three lawsuits filed a joint motion seeking
preliminary injunction barring the consummation of the proposed
acquisition and requiring additional disclosures by Omniture in
its Schedule 14D-9.

At a hearing on Oct. 20, 2009, the court granted Omniture's
motion to consolidate the three cases and denied the plaintiffs'
motion for a preliminary injunction.

On Dec. 30, 2009, the plaintiffs served the defendants with a
consolidated amended complaint.

Adobe Systems Incorporated -- http://www.adobe.com/-- is a  
diversified software companies.  The company offers a line of
creative, business and mobile software and services used by
creative professionals, knowledge workers, consumers, original
equipment manufacturer (OEM) partners, developers and enterprises
for creating, managing, delivering and engaging with content and
experiences across multiple operating systems, devices and media.  
It distributes its products through a network of distributors,
value-added resellers (VARs), systems integrators, independent
software vendors (ISVs) and OEMs, direct to end users and through
its own Web site at www.adobe.com.  It also licenses its
technology to hardware manufacturers, software developers and
service providers, and offer integrated software solutions to
businesses of all sizes.  Adobe has operations in the Americas,
Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) and Asia.


BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Faces Consolidated Suit in Tarrant County
--------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. faces a consolidated class
action suit filed in Tarrant County, Texas, over its proposed
merger with an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Berkshire
Hathaway Inc., according to the company's Jan. 20, 2010, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On Dec. 23, 2009, the company filed a definitive proxy
statement/prospectus in connection with the proposed merger of
BNSF with and into R Acquisition Company, LLC, an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., pursuant to the
terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of Nov. 2,
2009, by and among Berkshire, BNSF and R Acquisition.

On or about Dec. 28, 2009, putative class action lawsuits were
been filed by alleged BNSF stockholders challenging the proposed
transaction and naming as defendants BNSF and the BNSF Board of
Directors and, in certain instances, Berkshire and R Acquisition.  
Some of these stockholder actions were filed in Tarrant County,
Texas.

The actions have been consolidated as In re Burlington Northern
Santa Fe Corporation Shareholder Class Action Litigation, Cause
No. 348-241465-09.

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. -- http://www.bnsf.com/-- is  
a holding company.  The company, through its subsidiaries, is
engaged primarily in the freight rail transportation business.  
BNSF Railway Company is the company's principal operating
subsidiary.  BNSF Railway operates various facilities and
equipment to support its transportation system, including its
infrastructure and locomotives and freight cars.  It also owns or
leases other equipment to support rail operations, including
containers, chassis and vehicles.  Support facilities for rail
operations include yards and terminals throughout its rail
network, system locomotive shops to perform locomotive servicing
and maintenance, a centralized network operations center for
train dispatching and network operations monitoring and
management in Fort Worth, Texas, regional dispatching centers,
computers, telecommunications equipment, signal systems and other
support systems.


BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Dallas Plaintiffs Want to Refile Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated suit against Burlington Northern
Santa Fe Corp. filed in Dallas County, Texas, intends to refile
their action to Tarrant County, Texas, according to the company's
Jan. 20, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On Dec. 23, 2009, the company filed a definitive proxy
statement/prospectus in connection with the proposed merger of
BNSF with and into R Acquisition Company, LLC, an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., pursuant to the
terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of Nov. 2,
2009, by and among Berkshire, BNSF and R Acquisition.

On or about Dec. 28, 2009, putative class action lawsuits were
been filed by alleged BNSF stockholders challenging the proposed
transaction and naming as defendants BNSF and the BNSF Board of
Directors and, in certain instances, Berkshire and R Acquisition.  
Some of these stockholder actions were filed in Dallas County,
Texas.

The actions were consolidated under the action styled Employees
Retirement System of the City of New Orleans v. Burlington
Northern Santa Fe Corporation, et al, Cause No. 09-14950 and have
been abated.

Plaintiffs have taken steps seeking to refile or transfer the
actions to Tarrant County.

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. -- http://www.bnsf.com/-- is  
a holding company.  The company, through its subsidiaries, is
engaged primarily in the freight rail transportation business.  
BNSF Railway Company is the company's principal operating
subsidiary.  BNSF Railway operates various facilities and
equipment to support its transportation system, including its
infrastructure and locomotives and freight cars.  It also owns or
leases other equipment to support rail operations, including
containers, chassis and vehicles.  Support facilities for rail
operations include yards and terminals throughout its rail
network, system locomotive shops to perform locomotive servicing
and maintenance, a centralized network operations center for
train dispatching and network operations monitoring and
management in Fort Worth, Texas, regional dispatching centers,
computers, telecommunications equipment, signal systems and other
support systems.


BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Enters MOU to Settle Delaware Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. has entered into a memorandum
of understanding to settle a consolidated amended complaint,
according to the company's Jan. 20, 2010, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On Dec. 23, 2009, the company filed a definitive proxy
statement/prospectus in connection with the proposed merger of
BNSF with and into R Acquisition Company, LLC, an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., pursuant to the
terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of Nov. 2,
2009, by and among Berkshire, BNSF and R Acquisition.

On or about Dec. 28, 2009, putative class action lawsuits were
been filed by alleged BNSF stockholders challenging the proposed
transaction and naming as defendants BNSF and the BNSF Board of
Directors and, in certain instances, Berkshire and R Acquisition.  
Some of these stockholder actions were filed in the Delaware
Chancery Court.

The actions were consolidated as In re Burlington Northern Santa
Fe Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 5043-VCL.

Plaintiffs in the Delaware actions filed a consolidated amended
complaint and had requested expedited discovery and proceedings
relating to an application for a preliminary injunction, which
was scheduled to be heard in the Delaware Chancery Court on Feb.
3, 2010.

On Jan. 18, 2010, the parties to the litigation entered into a
memorandum of understanding providing for a settlement of the
litigation, subject to the approval of the Delaware Chancery
Court.  As part of the settlement, the defendants deny all
allegations of wrongdoing and deny that the disclosures in the
proxy statement/prospectus were inadequate, but have agreed to
provide the supplemental disclosures set forth below.  The
settlement will not affect the timing of the Merger or the amount
of merger consideration to be paid in the Merger.

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. -- http://www.bnsf.com/-- is  
a holding company.  The company, through its subsidiaries, is
engaged primarily in the freight rail transportation business.  
BNSF Railway Company is the company's principal operating
subsidiary.  BNSF Railway operates various facilities and
equipment to support its transportation system, including its
infrastructure and locomotives and freight cars.  It also owns or
leases other equipment to support rail operations, including
containers, chassis and vehicles.  Support facilities for rail
operations include yards and terminals throughout its rail
network, system locomotive shops to perform locomotive servicing
and maintenance, a centralized network operations center for
train dispatching and network operations monitoring and
management in Fort Worth, Texas, regional dispatching centers,
computers, telecommunications equipment, signal systems and other
support systems.


CALIFORNIA MICRO: Enters MOU to Settle Three Suits over Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
California Micro Devices Corp. said that it and the other named
defendants in the three purported class action lawsuits that were
filed in connection with the proposed acquisition of California
Micro Devices by ON Semiconductor Corp., entered into a
memorandum of understanding with counsel for the plaintiffs,
according to the company's Jan. 20, 2010, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Under the terms of the memorandum of understanding, the parties
have agreed to settle the lawsuits, subject to court approval.  
As part of the settlement, the defendants deny all allegations of
wrongdoing and deny that the disclosures made by the company in
the Tender Offer Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on
Schedule 14D-9 that was previously mailed by California Micro
Devices were inadequate.  Under the terms of the memorandum of
understanding, the company agreed to make available certain
additional information to its stockholders in an amendment to the
Schedule 14D-9.

The memorandum of understanding further contemplates that the
parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement.

The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary
conditions, including court approval following notice to members
of the proposed settlement class.

If finally approved by the court, the settlement will resolve all
of the claims that were or could have been brought on behalf of
the proposed settlement class in the action being settled,
including all claims relating to the tender offer, the merger,
the merger agreement, the adequacy of the merger consideration,
the negotiations preceding the merger agreement, the adequacy and
completeness of the disclosures made in connection with the offer
and the merger and any actions of the individual defendants in
connection with the offer, the merger or the merger agreement,
including any alleged breaches of the fiduciary duties of any of
the defendants, or the aiding and abetting thereof. If the court
does approve of the settlement after a notice period, then all
public stockholders who did not elect to opt out of such
settlement will be bound thereby.

In addition, in connection with the settlement and as provided in
the memorandum of understanding, and subject to approval by the
court, the company or its insurer will pay to plaintiffs' counsel
for their fees and expenses an amount not to exceed $495,000.  
This payment will not affect the amount of consideration to be
paid to stockholders of the Company in connection with the offer
and the subsequent merger.  Furthermore, any payment is also
conditioned on the offer being consummated so the company's
stockholders will not indirectly bear such payment.

California Micro Devices Corp. -- http://www.cmd.com/-- is a  
leading supplier of protection devices for the mobile handset,
high brightness LED, digital consumer electronics and personal
computer markets.


CHASE MANHATTAN: Accused of Not Disclosing Inspection Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Chase Manhattan Mortgage
fails to disclose an inspection fee on mortgage documents, a
class action claims in Fort Lauderdale Federal Court.

Swirsky v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp., Case No. 10-cv-60058
(S.D. Fla.) (Seitz, J.), was filed on Jan. 15, 2009, and the
Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Lawrence Ferguson, Esq.
          Jeffrey Miles Ostrow, Esq.
          Ruben E. Socarras, Jr., Esq.
          THE KOPELOWITZ & OSTROW FIRM PA
          200 S.W. 1st Avenue, 12th Floor
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-4216
          Telephone: 954-525-4100

               - and -  

          Lawrence M. Kopelman, Esq.
          KOPELMAN & BLANKMAN PA
          200 SW 1st Avenue, 12th Floor
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954-462-6855


CLARCOR INC: Seeking to Overturn Dismissed Bid in Filters Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CLARCOR Inc. is seeking to overturn the dismissal of its motion
to be dropped from the class actions filed by purchasers of
aftermarket filters.

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed
suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
alleging that virtually every major North American filter
manufacturer, including Baldwin Filters, Inc., engaged in a
conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S. customers
for aftermarket filters.

This suit seeks various remedies, including injunctive relief and
monetary damages of an unspecified amount, and is a purported
class action on behalf of direct purchasers of filters from the
defendants.

Parallel purported class actions, including on behalf of indirect
purchasers of filters, have been filed by other plaintiffs in a
variety of jurisdictions in the United States and Canada.

The U.S cases have been consolidated into a single multi-district
litigation in the Northern District of Illinois.

The Company filed a motion to be dismissed from these cases due
to the lack of any factual allegations against the Company
specifically and the fact that the allegations center
predominantly on the automotive filtration market rather than on
the heavy duty filtration market.

On Nov. 9, 2009, the presiding court denied the Company's motion,
a decision that the Company is seeking to overturn.

The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice is also
investigating the allegations raised in these suits, according to
the company's Jan. 22, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov.
28, 2009.

CLARCOR Inc. -- http://www.clarcor.com/-- conducts business in  
three segments: Engine/Mobile Filtration, Industrial/
Environmental Filtration and Packaging.    


ENERGY TRANSFER: Appeal in Price-Fixing Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on a decision dismissing a second
consolidated class action complaint Energy Transfer Partners,
L.P., remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th
Circuit, according to the Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.'s Jan. 20,
2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

ETP is a subsidiary of Energy Transfer Equity.

In October 2007, a consolidated class action complaint was filed
against ETP in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas.

The action alleges that ETP engaged in intentional and unlawful
manipulation of the price of natural gas futures and options
contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange, in violation of
the Commodity Exchange Act.

It is further alleged that during the class period from Dec. 29,
2003 to Dec. 31, 2005, ETP had the market power to manipulate
index prices, and that ETP used this market power to artificially
depress the index prices at major natural gas trading hubs,
including the Houston Ship Channel, in order to benefit its
natural gas physical and financial trading positions, and that
ETP intentionally submitted price and volume trade information to
trade publications.

The complaint also alleges that ETP violated the CEA by knowingly
aiding and abetting violations of the CEA.

The plaintiffs state that this allegedly unlawful depression of
index prices by ETP manipulated the NYMEX prices for natural gas
futures and options contracts to artificial levels during the
class period, causing unspecified damages to the plaintiffs and
all other members of the putative class who sold natural gas
futures or who purchased and/or sold natural gas options
contracts on NYMEX during the class period.

The plaintiffs have requested certification of their suit as a
class action and seek unspecified damages, court costs and other
appropriate relief.

On Jan. 14, 2008, ETP filed a motion to dismiss this suit on the
grounds of failure to allege facts sufficient to state a claim.

On March 20, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
class action complaint.

In response to this new pleading, on May 5, 2008, ETP filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.

On March 26, 2009, the court issued an order dismissing the
complaint, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.

On April 9, 2009, the plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the
order dismissing the complaint, and on Aug. 26, 2009, the court
denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.

On Sept. 28, 2009, these decisions were appealed by the
plaintiffs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, and
the appeal is in briefing stage before the court.

Dallas-based Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. --
http://www.energytransfer.com/-- through its general partnership  
interest in Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., transports natural
gas midstream, stores and retails propane in the United States.  
The company, formerly known as La Grange Energy, L.P., was
founded in 2002.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Appeal in Alleged Monopolization Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal to the dismissal of a class action complaint against
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., alleging monopolization remains
pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit,
according to the Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.'s Jan. 20, 2010,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

ETP is a subsidiary of Energy Transfer Equity.

In March 2008, a class action complaint was filed against ETP in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

The action alleges that ETP engaged in unlawful restraint of
trade and intentional monopolization and attempted monopolization
of the market for fixed-price natural gas baseload transactions
at the Houston Ship Channel from December 2003 through December
2005 in violation of federal antitrust law.

The complaint further alleges that during this period ETP exerted
monopoly power to suppress the price for these transactions to
non-competitive levels in order to benefit its own physical
natural gas positions.

The plaintiff has, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated sellers of physical natural gas, requested
certification of its suit as a class action and seeks unspecified
treble damages, court costs and other appropriate relief.
On May 19, 2008, ETP filed a motion to dismiss this complaint.  
On March 26, 2009, the court issued an order dismissing the
complaint.  The court found that the plaintiffs failed to state a
claim on all causes of action and for antitrust injury, but
granted leave to amend.

On April 23, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
amend to assert a claim for common law fraud and attached a
proposed amended complaint as an exhibit.  ETP opposed the motion
and cross-moved to dismiss.

On Aug. 7, 2009, the court denied the plaintiff's motion and
granted ETP's motion to dismiss the complaint.

On Sept. 10, 2009, this decision was appealed by the plaintiff to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, and the appeal is
in briefing stage before the court.

Dallas-based Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. --
http://www.energytransfer.com/-- through its general partnership  
interest in Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., transports natural
gas midstream, stores and retails propane in the United States.  
The company, formerly known as La Grange Energy, L.P., was
founded in 2002.


EQUINIX INC: Enters Agreement to Settle Three Suits over Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Equinix, Inc., has entered into an agreement to settle three
lawsuits in connection with its planned merger with Switch & Data
Facilities Company, Inc., according to the company's Jan. 19,
2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On Oct. 27, 2009, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the Delaware Chancery Court against Switch and Data,
members of Switch and Data's board of directors, Sundance
Acquisition Corporation and Equinix.  The lawsuit, Gibbs v.
Switch & Data Facilities Company, Inc., et al. (Case No. 5027-
VCS), alleges that the members of Switch and Data's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Switch and Data's
stockholders in connection with the proposed merger by, among
other things, entering into the Merger Agreement without first
taking steps to obtain adequate, fair and maximum consideration
for Switch and Data's stockholders, by structuring the
transaction to benefit themselves and by including provisions
intended to dissuade other potential suitors from making
competing offers.

On Oct. 30, 2009, a second purported stockholder class action
lawsuit, Jiannaras v. Switch & Data Facilities Company, Inc., et
al. (Case No. 09-CA-027950), was filed against the same
defendants in a Hillsborough County, Florida state court.  The
complaint alleges that the members of Switch and Data's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Switch and Data's
stockholders by, among other things, failing to take steps to
maximize the value of Switch and Data to its public stockholders,
failing to value properly Switch and Data, failing to protect
against the directors' conflicts of interest and failing to
disclose all material information to allow a fully informed vote
by the stockholders.

On Dec. 7, 2009, a third purported stockholder class action
lawsuit, Broadbased Equities v. Keith Olsen, et al. (Case No.
8:09-CV-02473), was filed against the same defendants (other than
Sundance Acquisition Corporation, which was not named) in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants have provided materially
incomplete information to Switch and Data stockholders in the
Proxy Statement, that Switch and Data's Chief Executive Officer
and President sought to advance his own interests at the expense
of Switch and Data stockholders in connection with the merger,
and that Switch and Data's directors breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the merger, including by agreeing to
provisions in the Merger Agreement intended to dissuade other
potential suitors from making competing offers.

On Jan. 19, 2010, counsel for parties in all three lawsuits
entered into a memorandum of understanding in which they agreed
upon the terms of a settlement of all lawsuits.

In connection with this settlement, the three lawsuits and all
claims asserted therein would be dismissed with prejudice,
including the claims brought against Switch and Data and its
directors.

The parties will seek approval of the settlement in the Florida
state court; simultaneously, the parties will agree to stay the
actions pending in the Delaware Chancery Court and the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The proposed settlement is conditional upon, among other things,
the execution of an appropriate stipulation of settlement,
consummation of the merger and final approval of the proposed
settlement by the Florida state court. The proposed settlement
contemplates that plaintiffs' counsel will apply to the Florida
state court for an award of attorneys' fees and costs in an
aggregate amount of $900,000, and that the defendants will not
oppose or undermine this application.  These attorneys' fees and
costs will not be deducted from the merger consideration.

Equinix, Inc. -- http://www.equinix.com/-- provides network-
neutral colocation, interconnection and managed information
technology infrastructure services to enterprises, content
providers and financial companies.  Through its International
Business Exchange (IBX) data centers, across 18 markets in North
America, Europe and Asia-Pacific, customers directly interconnect
with a network ecosystem of partners and customers.  Its services
comprises colocation, interconnection and managed IT
infrastructure services.  Colocation services include cabinets,
power, operations space and storage space for customers'
colocation needs.  Interconnection services include cross
connects, as well as switch ports on the Equinix exchange
service.  Managed IT infrastructure services helps customers to
leverage Equinix's telecommunications.  In February 2008, it
acquired Virtu Secure Webservices B.V.  In May 2009, the company
announced the opening of the second phase expansion of its New
York-4 IBX data center in Secaucus, New Jersey.


IMS HEALTH: Del. Court Dismisses Consolidated Stockholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery has dismissed a consolidated
putative stockholder class action against IMS Health Inc. in
connection with its merger with Healthcare Technology Holdings,
Inc., according to the company's Jan. 20, 2010, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The company, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated
as of Nov. 5, 2009, by and among the company, Healthcare
Technology Holdings, and Healthcare Technology Acquisition, Inc.
and a wholly owned subsidiary of Healthcare Technology Holdings,
providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the company.

In connection with the Merger, three putative stockholder class
action lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  
These lawsuits generally alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by
the company's directors in connection with the Merger.

On Dec. 2, 2009, the three lawsuits were consolidated into a
single action, captioned In re IMS Health Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, C.A. No. 5057-CC.

On Jan. 14, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a Notice and Order of
Voluntary Dismissal of all their claims, without prejudice, in
which they represented that no compensation in any form has
passed directly or indirectly from defendants to plaintiffs or
plaintiffs' attorneys and that no promise to give any such
compensation has been made.

The Court of Chancery granted the dismissal on Jan. 15, 2010.

IMS Health Inc. -- http://www.imshealth.com/-- provides market  
intelligence to the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries.  
With $2.3 billion in 2008 revenue and more than 50 years of
industry experience, IMS offers market intelligence products and
services that are integral to clients' day-to-day operations,
including product and portfolio management capabilities;
commercial effectiveness innovations; managed care and consumer
health offerings; and consulting and services solutions that
improve productivity and the delivery of quality healthcare
worldwide.


IMS HEALTH: Two Stockholder Suits Remain Pending in Connecticut
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two putative shareholder class action lawsuits filed in the
Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Stamford
against IMS Health Inc., remain pending, according to the
company's Jan. 20, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

The company, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated
as of Nov. 5, 2009, by and among the company, Healthcare
Technology Holdings, and Healthcare Technology Acquisition, Inc.
and a wholly owned subsidiary of Healthcare Technology Holdings,
providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the company.

In connection with the Merger, two putative stockholder class
action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of Connecticut,
Judicial District of Stamford.

The lawsuits generally alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the
company's directors in connection with the Merger.

IMS Health Inc. -- http://www.imshealth.com/-- provides market  
intelligence to the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries.  
With $2.3 billion in 2008 revenue and more than 50 years of
industry experience, IMS offers market intelligence products and
services that are integral to clients' day-to-day operations,
including product and portfolio management capabilities;
commercial effectiveness innovations; managed care and consumer
health offerings; and consulting and services solutions that
improve productivity and the delivery of quality healthcare
worldwide.


LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Court Enters Final Judgment in "McClain" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court, on Jan. 15, 2010, notified Lufkin
Industries, Inc., that it had entered a final judgment
in McClain, et al., v. Lufkin Industries, Case No. 97-cv-00063
(E.D. Tex.) (Cobb, J.).

The Court ordered Lufkin Industries to pay the plaintiff class
$3.3 million in damages, $2.2 million in pre-judgment interest
and 0.41% interest for any post-judgment interest.  The company
had previously estimated the total liability for damages and
interest to be approximately $5.2 million.

The Court also ordered the plaintiffs to submit a request for
legal fees and expenses from Jan. 1, 2009 through the date of the
final judgment.  The plaintiffs are required to submit this
request within 14 days of the final judgment.  Until the
plaintiffs submit this reimbursement request and the Court
reviews their request, the company says it cannot reasonably
estimate this liability.

On Jan. 15, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with
the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals of the District Court's
final judgment.

On Jan. 21, 2010, the company filed a notice of cross-appeal with
the same court.  In addition, the company filed a motion with the
District Court to stay the payment of damages referenced in the
District Court's final judgment pending the outcome of the Fifth
Circuit's decision on both parties' appeals.  The District Court
has not yet ruled on this motion to stay.

The Company will accrue an additional charge of $300,000 during
the fourth quarter of 2009 related to the interest and damages
award.  When the company can reasonably estimate the liability
for the plaintiff's legal fees since Jan. 1, 2009, the company
will accrue an additional charge and file a current report,
according to the company's Jan. 22, 2010, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Morris J. Baller, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN DEMCHAK BALLER BORGEN
          300 Lakeside Dr., Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Phone: 510-763-9800
          Fax: 1-510-835-1417
          E-mail: mjb@gdblegal.com

               - and -  

          Timothy Borne Garrigan, Esq.
          STUCKEY GARRIGAN & CASTETTER
          2803 North Street, P.O. Box 631902
          Nacogdoches, TX 75963-1902
          Phone: 936-560-6020
          Fax: 1-936-560-9578
          E-mail: tbgstugar@cox-internet.com

The Company is represented by:

          Christopher V. Bacon, Esq.
          VINSON & ELKINS
          1001 Fannin St., Suite 2300
          Houston, TX 77002-6760
          Phone: 713-758-2222
          Fax: 1-713-615-5014
          E-mail: cbacon@velaw.com


U.S. HOME: Enters into Agreement to Settle Ex-Employee's Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Home Systems, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, U.S.
Remodelers, Inc., on Jan. 20, 2010, entered into a Settlement and
Release Agreement with Matthew Ozga and his counsel on behalf of
himself and each of the other class members in settlement of the
class action lawsuit pending against the company in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No.
3:09-CV-05112 JSW.

The settlement, which is subject to, among other things,
preliminary and final Court approval, will resolve all the claims
in the Lawsuit.  Without admitting any liability or wrongdoing of
any kind, the company has agreed to pay the gross settlement
amount of $1.8 million to settle the Lawsuit which includes,
among other items, the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses to
class counsel, not to exceed one-third of the gross settlement
amount and costs associated with the administration of the
settlement.

The company shall deliver to the claims administrator $500,000 of
the gross settlement amount upon establishment of a qualified
settlement fund account.

Within five business days of the effective date of the settlement
agreement the company shall deliver the remaining $1.3 million to
the claims administrator.  The effective date means the later of
(a) the date of entry of the order granting final approval of the
settlement agreement by the Court, (b) the date on which the time
for all appeals from objections to the settlement agreement has
passed, if objection(s) filed but no appeal is taken, and (c) if
an appeal is taken, the date on which any reviewing court issues
a decision and the time for further appeal is expired.

In no event shall company be required to pay more than the gross
settlement amount plus the company's share of FICA and FUTA
payroll taxes on the amounts paid to class members which are
allocated as payment of back wages.

A copy of the Settlement Agreement is available at no charge at:

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/844789/000119312510010980/
dex101.htm

The original complaint in this Lawsuit was filed by Plaintiff, a
former employee of the company, on Feb. 17, 2009 in the Superior
Court of California for the County of Alameda.  The Lawsuit was
subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The Plaintiff alleges that the company failed to reimburse
certain of its California employees for certain expenses they
incurred during their employment with the company, violated
certain provisions of the California Business and Professions
Code (prohibiting unfair business acts or practices) and failed
to pay wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

In the Lawsuit Plaintiff seeks damages, wages owed, injunctive
relief, costs, attorney fees, punitive damages, interest, and
penalties.  The Plaintiff asserted the claims on his behalf and a
class of all others similarly situated. The parties have
conducted extensive discovery and investigations of facts and law
and have engaged in numerous personal and telephone conferences.  
The parties also participated in mediation and engaged in
extensive mediation-related discovery, including exchanging
hundreds of pages of policy documents regarding the claims at
issue, and the time and pay records for the class.

The parties have concluded that based on the disputed factual and
legal issues involved in the Lawsuit and the benefits to be
received by the parties pursuant to the settlement of the
Lawsuit, including avoiding incurring any further expenses and
attorney fees, it is in the best interest of Plaintiff, class
members and the Company to settle the Lawsuit.

In order to facilitate the settlement, the company, solely for
the purposes of the settlement, has consented to the conditional
certification of the class, which are defined as individuals who
are currently or were formerly employed by the Company as non-
exempt installers, including trainees and apprentices for that
position, in California at any time between Feb. 17, 2005 and the
preliminary Court approval date (class period).

The determination of the settlement share that each class member
is due for his or her claim is based on a formula as defined in
the Settlement Agreement.  The Settlement Agreement provides that
30% of the settlement share received by each class member shall
be treated as back wages.  Accordingly, the company shall pay its
share of the employer's portion of all required FICA and FUTA
taxes with respect to the portion of the settlement share of each
class member allocated as payment of back wages.  Additionally
30% of each class member's settlement share will be treated as a
refund for mileage and expense reimbursement with the remaining
40% treated as payment of non-wage penalties or other non-wage
damages.

Because the litigation is a class action, the settlement is
subject to the preliminary approval of the Court as well as the
Court's final approval after notice of the terms of the
settlement has been provided to all class members. Timing of the
approval process is dependent on the Court's calendar.  Class
members have a right to opt-out of the class and may object to
the terms of the settlement. Final consummation of the settlement
must await the entry of final judgment approving the settlement
as fair to all class members.  However, such settlements are not
uncommonly approved without some modification, which could be
material to the settlement terms.  Barring any unusual
developments, the company expects the settlement and approval
process to be completed within a 4 to 6 month period, according
to the company's Jan. 22, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

U.S. Home Systems, Inc. -- http://www.ushomesystems.com/-- is  
engaged in the specialty product home improvement business.  In
its home improvement business, the company manufactures or
procures, designs, sells and installs custom kitchen and
bathroom cabinet refacing products and organizational storage
systems for closets and garages.  The company manufactures
certain of its kitchen and bath cabinet refacing products at the
Charles City, Virginia facility.

                            *********

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 2010.  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  * * *