CAR_Public/100217.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, February 17, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 33

                            Headlines

ACXIOM CORP: Continues to Seek Approval of "Fresco" Settlement
ADVANCED HEARING: Notice of Hearing Aid Purchaser Class Action
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: "Bateman" Case Remains Stayed Pending Appeal
AMERICAN INT'L: Tex. Suit Complains About Unpaid Overtime Wages
BECTON DICKINSON: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in N.J.

BECTON DICKINSON: Continues to Oppose Bales Class Certification
BOEING CO: Suit Over Spirit's Hiring Decisions Remains Pending
BOEING CO: Still Faces Suit Over Sale of Wichita Plant to Spirit
BOEING CO: Plaintiffs' Appeal on "Nonviolation" Ruling Pending
BOEING CO: Seeks Decertification in "VIP Plan" Illinois Lawsuit

BOEING CO: Faces Suit Over Dreamliner First Flight Postponement
CUBIC CORP: Settlement in Wage Suit Gets Preliminary Court Nod
DENBURY RESOURCES: Inks MOU to Settle Suits Over Encore Merger
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Notice of Mass Arrest Litigation Settlement
ENCORE CAPITAL: Faces Lawsuits Over Claims for FDCPA Violations

ENCORE CAPITAL: Midland Continues to Face Counter-Claim Suit
EXXON MOBIL: Accused of Misleading XTO Shareholders in Tex. Suit
HARMAN INT'L: Bid to Junk Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
HARMAN INT'L: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Violations Lawsuit Pending
IMMERSION CORP: California Court Consolidates Class Suits

INDIANA: Revised Settlement in Medicaid Benefit Litigation
MARQUEE HOLDINGS: Appeal of Bateman Certification Ruling Pending
MICROSOFT CORP: Accused in Washington of Unlawful HR Practices
MORGAN STANLEY: N.Y. Suit Complains About Compensation Payouts
QUADRAMED CORP: Faces Amended Complaint Over Francisco Merger

QUADRAMED CORP: Faces Stockholder Suit over Francisco Merger
SAN FRANCISCO: Lawsuit Challenges City's Auto Towing Authority
TEMPUR-PEDIC: Continues to Defend Securities Fraud Suit in Ga.
WALGREEN CO: Sued in Illinois for Illegal Prerecorded Calls

                            *********

ACXIOM CORP: Continues to Seek Approval of "Fresco" Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Acxiom Corp. continues to seek approval from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida of a settlement in the
matter Richard Fresco, et al. v. R.L. Polk and Company and Acxiom
Corporation (07-60695), formerly, Linda Brooks and Richard Fresco
v. Auto Data Direct, Inc., et al., (03-61063), according to the
company's Feb. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009.

This putative class action lawsuit, removed to federal court in
May 2003, was filed against Acxiom and several other information
providers.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants obtained and used
drivers' license data in violation of the federal Drivers Privacy
Protection Act.  A class has not been certified as of Feb. 8,
2010.

Among other things, the plaintiffs seek injunctive relief,
statutory damages, and attorneys' fees.

Acxiom has agreed to settle the case and is seeking preliminary
approval by the court.

The process of obtaining final approval of the settlement is
expected to take several months.

Acxiom has accrued $5.0 million for the settlement and ancillary
costs to obtain final approval and has paid $2.5 million of this
amount into an escrow fund established for the settlement,
leaving a remaining accrual of $2.5 million.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Tod N. Aronovitz, Esq.
         Aronovitz Trial Lawyers
         150 W Flagler Street, Suite 2700 Museum Tower
         Miami, FL 33130
         Phone: 305-372-2772
         Fax: 305-375-0243
         E-mail: ta@aronovitzlaw.com

             - and -

         Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
         James Hoyer Newcomer & Smiljanich
         3301 Thomasville Road, Suite A-200
         Tallahassee, FL 32308
         Phone: 850-325-2680
         Fax: 850-325-2681

             - and -

         Lawrence Dean Goodman, Esq.
         Devine Goodman Pallot & Wells
         777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 850
         Miami, FL 33131
         Phone: 305-374-8200
         Fax: 305-374-8208
         E-mail: lgoodman@devinegoodman.com

             - and -

        James Kellogg Green, Esq.
        222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 1650 Esperante
        West Palm Beach, FL 33401
        Phone: 561-659-2029
        Fax: 561-655-1357
        E-mail: jameskgreen@bellsouth.net

R.L. Polk & Co. is represented by:

        Christopher M. Mason, Esq.
        Nixon Peabody, LLP
        437 Madison Avenue
        New York, NY 10022

             - and -

        Scott J. Frank, Esq.
        Butler Pappas Weihmuller Katz Craig, LLP
        One South Harbour Island Boulevard
        Tampa, FL 33602

Acxicom is represented by:

        Juan C. Enjamio, Esq.
        Hunton & Williams, LLP
        Mellon Financial Center
        1111 Brickell Ave., Suite 2500
        Miami, FL 33131


ADVANCED HEARING: Notice of Hearing Aid Purchaser Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
                           STATE OF OHIO
                  Butler County Common Pleas Court

     Alden Craig                 )
                                 )
          v.                     )   Case No. CV2009-01-0196           
                                 )
     Advanced Hearing            )
     Technologies, Inc.          )

                   NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT

To: Ohio Residents who purchased hearing aid(s) from
    Advanced Hearing Technologies, Inc. or who were
    sued by Advanced Hearing Technologies, Inc.
    between January 1, 2006, and January 20, 2009.

A class action has been filed against Advanced Hearing
Technologies, Inc for alleged violations of the consumer sales
practices act. In a class action, claims common to a group are
litigated together. The results bind all class members. Class
member''s rights will be affected by this lawsuit.

You are a class member if you either purchased a hearing aid from
Advanced Hearing Technologies, Inc. between January 1, 2006, and
January 20, 2009 or you were sued by the company in Indiana
during this time.  

If you are a class member and do not exclude yourself, you will
remain a class member. You may not bring your own suit for the
same claims. Please send your address to Pro Seniors at the
address below.  EXCLUDING YOURSELF: If you exclude yourself from
the class, you will not share in any recovery, and you will not
be bound by decisions made in this case. You may pursue your own
claim against the Defendant, at your own expense.  TO EXCLUDE
YOURSELF, YOU MUST MAIL BY APRIL 30, 2010 a signed, dated
statement (with your name, address and phone number) stating you
want to be excluded from the class.  Mail this statement to:

          Advanced Hearing Technologies Class Action Litigation
          Notice Administrator
          c/o Pro Seniors, Inc.
          7162 Reading Road, Suite 1150
          Cincinnati, OH 45237

A more detailed notice is at

     http://www.proseniors.org/AHTClassAction.html

or can be mailed to you.


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: "Bateman" Case Remains Stayed Pending Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bateman v. Regal Cinemas Inc. et al., Case No. 07-cv-00052 (C.D.
Calif.) (Feess, J.), which names AMC Entertainment, Inc., as a
defendant, remains stayed pending the plaintiff's appeal on the
denial of his renewed motion for class certification.

The suit was filed in January 2007, before the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, alleging violations
of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act.

FACTA provides in part that neither expiration dates nor more
than the last five numbers of a credit or debit card may be
printed on electronic receipts given to customers.  It imposes
significant penalties upon violators where the violation is
deemed to have been willful.  Otherwise damages are limited to
actual losses incurred by the cardholder.

The plaintiff is seeking an order certifying the case as a class
action as well as statutory and punitive damages in an
unspecified amount.

On Oct. 31, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiff's
motion for class certification without prejudice pending the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's decision in an
appeal from a denial of certification in a similar FACTA case.

On June 3, 2008, the President of the United States of America
signed the FACTA reform bill.  The bill specifies that if a
company printed the expiration date on credit card receipts, but
otherwise complied with FACTA, it did not willfully violate the
law.  The legislation does not specifically address the situation
where more than five digits of the credit card are printed on a
receipt.

The Ninth Circuit appeal was subsequently dismissed after the
parties reached a settlement.

On Oct. 24, 2008, the District Court denied plaintiff's renewed
motion for class certification.  Plaintiff has appealed this
decision.

The case is stayed pending this appeal.

No further updates were reported in the company's Feb. 8, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
         Ira Spiro, Esq.
         Spiro Moss Barness
         11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90064
         Phone: 310-235-2468
         E-mail: greg@spirmoss.com
                 ira@spiromoss.com

Representing the defendants is:

          David E. Novitskim, Esq.
          Thelen Reid Brown Raymans and Steiner
          333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3048
          Phone: 213-576-8097
          Fax: 213-576-8080


AMERICAN INT'L: Tex. Suit Complains About Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that American International Group
cheated insurance adjusters of overtime pay and ordered them not
to report any more than 37.5 hours a week no matter how long they
worked, a class action claims in Houston Federal Court.

A copy of the Plaintiff's Original Collective Action Complaint in
Hollis v. American International Group, Inc., et al., Case No.
10-cv-00434 (S.D. Tex.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/12/EmployAIG.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
          Andrew H. Iwata, Esq.
          TRAN LAW FIRM L.L.P.
          3050 Post Oak, Suite 1720
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: 713-223-8855


BECTON DICKINSON: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Co. continues to defend a consolidated
action alleging violation of federal antitrust laws, according to
the company's Feb. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

                    Direct Purchasers Suit

The company is named as a defendant in five purported class
action suits brought on behalf of direct purchasers of the
company's products, such as distributors, alleging that the
company violated federal antitrust laws, resulting in the
charging of higher prices for the company's products to the
plaintiff and other purported class members.

The cases filed are:

     (1) Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company, Inc., et. al. vs.
         Becton Dickinson and Company (Civil Action No. 05-1602,
         U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey), filed on
         March 25, 2005;

     (2) SAJ Distributors, Inc. et. al. vs. Becton Dickinson &
         Co. (Case 2:05-CV-04763-JD, U.S. District Court,
         Eastern District of Pennsylvania), filed on Sept. 6,
         2005;

     (3) Dik Drug Company, et. al. vs. Becton, Dickinson and
         Company (Case No. 2:05-CV-04465, U.S. District Court,
         Newark, New Jersey), filed on Sept. 12, 2005;

     (4) American Sales Company, Inc. et. al. vs. Becton,
         Dickinson & Co. (Case No. 2:05-CV-05212-CRM, U.S.
         District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania),
         filed on Oct. 3, 2005; and

     (5) Park Surgical Co. Inc. et. al. vs. Becton, Dickinson
         and Company (Case 2:05-CV-05678- CMR, U.S. District
         Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania), filed on
         Oct. 26, 2005.

These actions have been consolidated under the caption In re
Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation.

                   Indirect Purchasers Suit

The company is also named as a defendant in four purported class
action suits brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of the
company's products, alleging that the company violated federal
and state antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of higher
prices for the company's products to the plaintiff and other
purported class members.

The cases filed are:

     (1) Jabo's Pharmacy, Inc., et. al. v. Becton Dickinson &
         Company (Case No. 2:05-CV-00162, U.S. District Court,
         Greenville, Tennessee), filed on June 7, 2005;

     (2) Drug Mart Tallman, Inc., et. al. v. Becton Dickinson
         and Company (Case No. 2:06-CV-00174, U.S. District
         Court, Newark, New Jersey), filed on Jan. 17, 2006;

     (3) Medstar v. Becton Dickinson (Case No. 06-CV-03258-JLL
          (RJH), U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey), filed
         on May 18, 2006; and

     (4) The Hebrew Home for the Aged at Riverdale v. Becton
         Dickinson and Company (Case No. 07-CV-2544, U.S.
         District Court, Southern District of New York), filed
         on March 28, 2007.

A fifth purported class action on behalf of indirect purchasers
International Multiple Sclerosis Management Practice v. Becton
Dickinson & Company (Case No. 2:07-cv-10602, U.S. District Court,
Newark, New Jersey), filed on April 5, 2007 was voluntarily
withdrawn by the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs in each of the antitrust class action lawsuits
seek monetary damages.

All of the antitrust class action lawsuits have been consolidated
for pre-trial purposes in a Multi-District Litigation in Federal
court in New Jersey.

On April 27, 2009, the company entered into a settlement
agreement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs in these actions.
Under the terms of the settlement agreement, which is subject to
preliminary and final approval by the court following notice to
potential class members, the company will pay $45 million into a
settlement fund in exchange for a release by all potential class
members of the direct purchaser claims related to the products
and acts enumerated in the complaint, as well as a dismissal of
the case with prejudice.

The release would not cover potential class members that
affirmatively opt out of the settlement.

No settlement has been reached to date with the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs in these cases, which will continue to the
extent these cases relate to their claims.

On May 7, 2009, certain indirect purchaser plaintiffs in the
litigation, who are not parties to the settlement, filed a motion
with the court seeking to enjoin the consummation of the
settlement agreement on the grounds that, among other things, the
court had not yet ruled on the issue of which plaintiffs have
direct purchaser standing.

The Court has scheduled a hearing on the indirect plaintiffs'
motions regarding direct purchaser standing and the proposed
injunction of the settlement for February of 2010.

Becton, Dickinson and Company -- http://www.bd.com/-- is a  
medical technology company engaged in the manufacture and sale of
a range of medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment and
diagnostic products used by healthcare institutions, life science
researchers, clinical laboratories, industry and the general
public.  The segments in which the company operates include BD
Medical, BD Diagnostics and BD Biosciences.  On May 12, 2008, the
company acquired Cytopeia Inc.  In November 2009, the company
acquired HandyLab, Inc.


BECTON DICKINSON: Continues to Oppose Bales Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Co. continues to oppose class action
certification in the case styled Bales vs. Becton Dickinson et.
al., Case No. 98-CP-40-4343, filed in Richland County Court of
Common Pleas on Nov. 25, 1998.

The company, along with another manufacturer and several medical
product distributors, is named as a defendant in a product
liability class action lawsuit relating to healthcare workers who
allegedly sustained accidental needlesticks, but have not become
infected with any disease.

The action alleges that healthcare workers have sustained
needlesticks using hollow-bore needle devices manufactured by the
company and, as a result, require medical testing, counseling
and/or treatment.

Plaintiffs seek money damages.

According to the company's Feb. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2009, there is no current activity in this case and the
company continues to oppose class action certification in this
case, including pursuing all appropriate rights of appeal.

Becton, Dickinson and Company -- http://www.bd.com/-- is a  
medical technology company engaged in the manufacture and sale of
a range of medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment and
diagnostic products used by healthcare institutions, life science
researchers, clinical laboratories, industry and the general
public.  The segments in which the company operates include BD
Medical, BD Diagnostics and BD Biosciences.  On May 12, 2008, the
company acquired Cytopeia Inc.  In November 2009, the company
acquired HandyLab, Inc.


BOEING CO: Suit Over Spirit's Hiring Decisions Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Co. continues to face a putative class action
complaint over the hiring decisions made by Spirit AeroSystems,
Inc., according to the company's Feb. 8, 2010, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On March 2, 2006, the company served with a complaint filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging that
hiring decisions made by Spirit AeroSystems, Inc. near the time
of the company's sale of the Wichita facility were tainted by age
discrimination, violated Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
violated the company's collective bargaining agreements, and
constituted retaliation.

The case is brought as a class action on behalf of individuals
not hired by Spirit.

While the company believes that Spirit has an obligation to
indemnify Boeing for claims relating to the 2005 sales
transaction, Spirit has refused to indemnify Boeing for all
claims arising from employment activity prior to Jan. 1, 2005.

On June 4, 2008, claims by individuals who filed consents to join
the Age Discrimination Employment Act collective action and were
terminated by Boeing prior to Jan. 1, 2005 were dismissed by
stipulated order.

On June 15, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class
certification for certain former Boeing employees at the Wichita,
Tulsa and McAlester facilities over the age of 40 who were laid
off between Jan. 1, 2005 and July 1, 2005, and were not hired by
Spirit on June 17, 2005.

On July 31, 2009, Boeing filed motions opposing class
certification and seeking dismissal of the ERISA and breach of
contract claims.

On Aug. 14, 2009, Boeing filed a motion seeking dismissal, or in
the alternative, decertification of the age claims.

Plaintiffs' reply brief on certification of ERISA Section 510 and
Labor-Management Relations Act Section 301 classes was filed on
Aug. 28, 2009.

Plaintiffs' response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment
on Plaintiffs' ERISA Section 510 and LMRA Section 301 claims was
filed on Sept. 11, 2009.

These motions are fully briefed and are pending before the court.

The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/-- is involved in the  
design, development, manufacture, sale and support of commercial
jetliners, military aircraft, satellites, missile defense, human
space flight, and launch systems and services.  The company
operates in five principal segments: Commercial Airplanes,
Precision Engagement and Mobility Systems, Network and Space
Systems, Support Systems and Boeing Capital Corporation.  PE&MS,
N&SS and Support Systems comprise the company's Integrated
Defense Systems business.  The Other segment classification
principally includes the activities of Engineering, Operations
and Technology, an advanced research and development organization
focused on technologies, processes and the creation of new
products.


BOEING CO: Still Faces Suit Over Sale of Wichita Plant to Spirit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An alleged class action involving The Boeing Co.'s sale of the
Wichita facility to Spirit AeroSystems, Inc., remains pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas

The case, filed on Feb. 21, 2007, is also brought under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and, in general, claims
that the company has not properly provided benefits to certain
categories of former employees affected by the sale.

On May 22, 2008, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint and
on June 3, 2008, filed a motion to certify a class.

On July 14, 2008, the Court granted class certification for the
purpose of adjudicating liability for the class of employees who
went to work for Spirit, and deferred class certification motions
for the class of employees who did not go to work for Spirit.

A Memorandum and Order on Nov. 3, 2009, resolves discovery
disputes and discovery continues for both groups of employees,
according to the company's Feb. 8, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/-- is involved in the  
design, development, manufacture, sale and support of commercial
jetliners, military aircraft, satellites, missile defense, human
space flight, and launch systems and services.  The company
operates in five principal segments: Commercial Airplanes,
Precision Engagement and Mobility Systems, Network and Space
Systems, Support Systems and Boeing Capital Corporation.  PE&MS,
N&SS and Support Systems comprise the company's Integrated
Defense Systems business.  The Other segment classification
principally includes the activities of Engineering, Operations
and Technology, an advanced research and development organization
focused on technologies, processes and the creation of new
products.


BOEING CO: Plaintiffs' Appeal on "Nonviolation" Ruling Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the District Court's ruling in a
class action lawsuit against The Boeing Co. remains pending in
the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the company's
Feb. 8, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Sept. 13, 2006, two UAW Local 1069 retirees filed a class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee alleging that recently announced changes to medical
plans for retirees of UAW Local 1069 constituted a breach of
collective bargaining agreements under Section 301 of the Labor-
Management Relations Act and Section 502(a)(1)(B) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

On Sept. 15, 2006, the company filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the
International UAW and two retiree medical plan participants
seeking a declaratory judgment confirming that the company has
the legal right to make changes to these medical benefits.  On
June 4, 2007, the Middle District of Tennessee ordered that its
case be transferred to the Northern District of Illinois.

The two cases were consolidated on Sept. 24, 2007.

On Jan. 17, 2008, the Court granted the UAW's motion to amend the
complaint to drop the retirees' claim for vested lifetime
benefits based on successive collective bargaining agreements and
instead allege that the current collective bargaining agreement
is the sole alleged source of rights to retiree medical benefits.

Both parties filed Motions for Class Certification on Nov. 16,
2007 and filed briefs on class certification on Feb. 28, 2008.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on May 27,
2008.

On Sept. 30, 2008, the court certified a class of retirees for
all claims.

On Sept. 9, 2009, the court granted Boeing's motion and ruled
that the retiree medical benefits were not vested lifetime
benefits and that the 2006 changes to benefits did not violate
the 2005 collective bargaining agreement.

On Oct. 8, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/-- is involved in the  
design, development, manufacture, sale and support of commercial
jetliners, military aircraft, satellites, missile defense, human
space flight, and launch systems and services.  The company
operates in five principal segments: Commercial Airplanes,
Precision Engagement and Mobility Systems, Network and Space
Systems, Support Systems and Boeing Capital Corporation.  PE&MS,
N&SS and Support Systems comprise the company's Integrated
Defense Systems business.  The Other segment classification
principally includes the activities of Engineering, Operations
and Technology, an advanced research and development organization
focused on technologies, processes and the creation of new
products.

  
BOEING CO: Seeks Decertification in "VIP Plan" Illinois Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Co.'s motion to decertify the class certification in a
lawsuit concerning the Boeing Company Voluntary Investment Plan
remains pending, according to the company's Feb. 8, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Oct. 13, 2006, the company was named as a defendant in a
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.

Plaintiffs, seeking to represent a class of similarly situated
participants and beneficiaries in the Boeing Company Voluntary
Investment Plan, alleged that fees and expenses incurred by the
VIP Plan were and are unreasonable and excessive, not incurred
solely for the benefit of the VIP Plan and its participants, and
were undisclosed to participants.

The plaintiffs further alleged that defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in violation of Section 502(a)(2) of ERISA, and
sought injunctive and equitable relief pursuant to Section
502(a)(3) of ERISA.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class, which the company
opposed.

On Dec. 14, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs leave to file an
amended complaint, which complaint added the company's Employee
Benefits Investment Committee as a defendant and included new
allegations regarding alleged breach of fiduciary duty.

The stay of proceedings entered by the court on Sept. 10, 2007,
pending resolution by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit of Lively v. Dynegy, Inc., was lifted on April 3, 2008,
after notification that the Lively case had settled.

On April 16, 2008, plaintiffs sought leave to file a second
amended complaint, which the company opposed, which would add
investment performance allegations.

On Aug. 22, 2008, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to file
their second amended complaint to add investment performance
allegations.

On Sept. 29, 2008, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to
certify the class of current, past and future participants or
beneficiaries in the VIP Plan.

On Sept. 9, 2008, the company filed a motion for summary judgment
to dismiss claims arising prior to Sept. 27, 2000 based on the
ERISA statute of limitations.

On Oct. 14, 2008, the company filed a petition for leave to
appeal the class certification order to the Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals.

The plaintiffs opposed this motion and it is currently pending
before the court of appeals.

On Jan. 15, 2009, the company filed a motion seeking dismissal of
all claims as a matter of law.

On Aug. 10, 2009, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted
Boeing's motion for leave to appeal the class certification
order.

The district court entered a stay of proceedings in the trial
court pending resolution of the class certification appeal.

On Dec. 29, 2009, the district court lifted on plaintiffs' motion
the stay of proceedings previously entered.

Boeing responded by filing an Application for Stay Pending Appeal
with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on Jan. 7, 2010.

The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/-- is involved in the  
design, development, manufacture, sale and support of commercial
jetliners, military aircraft, satellites, missile defense, human
space flight, and launch systems and services.  The company
operates in five principal segments: Commercial Airplanes,
Precision Engagement and Mobility Systems, Network and Space
Systems, Support Systems and Boeing Capital Corporation.  PE&MS,
N&SS and Support Systems comprise the company's Integrated
Defense Systems business.  The Other segment classification
principally includes the activities of Engineering, Operations
and Technology, an advanced research and development organization
focused on technologies, processes and the creation of new
products.


BOEING CO: Faces Suit Over Dreamliner First Flight Postponement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Co. faces a putative securities fraud class action
arising from the announcement that the first flight of the 787
Dreamliner would be postponed, according to the company's
Feb. 8, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Plaintiff shareholders have filed a putative securities fraud
class action against the company and two of its senior
executives.  The lawsuit arises from the company's June 2009
announcement that the first flight of the 787 Dreamliner would be
postponed due to a need to reinforce an area within the side-of-
body section of the aircraft.

Plaintiffs contend that the company was aware before June 2009
that the first flight could not take place as scheduled due to
issues with the side-of-body section of the aircraft, and that
the company's determination not to announce this delay earlier
resulted in an artificial inflation of the company's stock price
for a multi-week period in May and June 2009.

Plaintiffs' complaint was filed in November 2009.

No briefing or discovery has yet taken place.

In addition, plaintiff shareholders have filed three similar
shareholder derivative lawsuits concerning the flight schedule
for the 787 Dreamliner that closely tracks the allegations in the
putative class action lawsuit.  No briefing or discovery has yet
taken place.

The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/-- is involved in the  
design, development, manufacture, sale and support of commercial
jetliners, military aircraft, satellites, missile defense, human
space flight, and launch systems and services.  The company
operates in five principal segments: Commercial Airplanes,
Precision Engagement and Mobility Systems, Network and Space
Systems, Support Systems and Boeing Capital Corporation.  PE&MS,
N&SS and Support Systems comprise the company's Integrated
Defense Systems business.  The Other segment classification
principally includes the activities of Engineering, Operations
and Technology, an advanced research and development organization
focused on technologies, processes and the creation of new
products.


CUBIC CORP: Settlement in Wage Suit Gets Preliminary Court Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement agreement in a class action lawsuit against Cubic
Corp. has received preliminary approval from the court, according
to the company's Feb. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31,
2009.

In December 2008, the company was named in a class action lawsuit
alleging misclassification of Training Analysts as exempt from
overtime, seeking damages for overtime pay and back wages, as
well as damages for various violations of California and federal
wage and hour laws.

Mediation was conducted in August 2009 and the company settled
the matter for $1.7 million, less a contribution of $300,000 from
the company's insurance carrier.

Preliminary court approval of the settlement was entered in
December 2009.

Cubic Corporation -- http://www.cubic.com/-- designs, develops,  
manufactures and installs products and replacement parts, which
are mainly electronic in nature, such as equipment for use in
customized military range instrumentation, training and
applications systems, simulators, communications and surveillance
systems, surveillance receivers, power amplifiers, and avionics
systems and automated revenue collection systems, including
contactless smart cards, passenger gates, central computer
systems and ticket vending machines for mass transit networks,
including rail systems, buses, and parking applications.  The
company also performs a variety of services, such as computer
simulation training, distributed interactive simulation, military
education, development of military doctrine, as well as field
operations and maintenance. Cubic operates in three primary
business segments: Cubic Transportation Systems, Cubic Defense
Systems and Mission Support Services.


DENBURY RESOURCES: Inks MOU to Settle Suits Over Encore Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Denbury Resources Inc., has entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding to settle shareholder lawsuits over its pending
merger with Encore Acquisition Company, according to the
company's Feb. 8, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.
Denbury Resources Inc.

Three shareholder lawsuits styled as class actions were filed
against Encore and its board of directors in relation to the
pending merger of Encore with and into the company.

The lawsuits are:

     -- Sanjay Israni, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
         Similarly Situated vs. Encore Acquisition Company
         et al., filed Nov. 4, 2009 in the District Court of
         Tarrant County, Texas;

     -- Teamsters Allied Benefit Funds, Individually and On
         Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated vs. Encore
         Acquisition Company et al., filed Nov. 5, 2009 in the
         Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware; and

     -- Thomas W. Scott, Jr., individually and on behalf of all
         others similarly situated v. Encore Acquisition Company
         et al., filed Nov. 6, 2009 in the District Court of
         Tarrant County, Texas.

The Teamsters and Scott lawsuits also name the company as a
defendant.

The complaints generally allege that:

     (1) Encore's directors breached their fiduciary duties in
         negotiating and approving the merger and by
         administering a sale process that failed to maximize
         shareholder value and

     (2) Encore, and, in the case of the Teamsters and Scott
         complaints, the company aided and abetted Encore's
         directors in breaching their fiduciary duties.

The Teamsters complaint also alleges that Encore's directors and
executives stand to receive substantial financial benefits if the
transaction is consummated on its current terms.  The plaintiffs
in these lawsuits were seeking, among other things, to enjoin the
merger and to rescind the merger agreement.

Encore and the company have entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the plaintiffs in these lawsuits agreeing in
principle to the settlement of the lawsuits based upon inclusion
in the Company's and Encore's joint proxy statement/prospectus
for the merger of additional disclosures requested by the
plaintiffs, and agreeing that the parties to the lawsuits will
use best efforts to enter into a definitive settlement agreement
and seek court approval for the settlement which would be binding
on all Encore shareholders who do not opt-out of the settlement.

Denbury Resources Inc. -- http://www.denbury.com/-- is engaged  
in the acquisition, development, operation and exploration of oil
and natural gas properties in the Gulf Coast region of the United
States, primarily in Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas and Alabama.  
The company is an independent oil and gas company engaged in
acquisition, development and exploration activities in the United
States Gulf Coast region. It is an oil and natural gas producer
in Mississippi, which owns a carbon dioxide (CO2) reserves east
of the Mississippi River used for tertiary oil recovery, and
holds a significant operating acreage in the Barnett Shale play
near Fort Worth, Texas, onshore Louisiana, Alabama, and
properties in Southeast Texas.  In January 2010, the Company
announced the sale of its remaining 40% working interest in
Barnett Shale properties to Talon Oil & Gas LLC.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Notice of Mass Arrest Litigation Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has granted
preliminary approval of a settlement in Becker, et al. v.
District of Columbia, et al., Case No. 01-cv-00811, relating to
the April 15, 2000, mass arrest of nearly 700 people in
Washington, D.C.

This sets in motion the process for class members to receive up
to $18,000 each in compensation for their claims. This is the
largest class action settlement of protestor claims in U.S.
history.

This historic victory is the consequence of nearly ten years of
hard-fought litigation by Partnership for Civil Justice Fund
attorneys.

In addition to monetary payments, the arrest of class members
will be expunged; each arrestee who participates in the
settlement will receive a court order declaring his or her arrest
to be legally null and void. There is also substantial equitable
relief, changes in the law and to police policies and practices
that have been achieved in the course of the litigation.

The Notice to Class Members, which describes the litigation and
settlement and answers questions that potential claimants may
have, is available at http://is.gd/8oMGt

The Proof of Claim form, which must be filled out and timely
submitted by potential claimants to the Class Administrator, is
available at http://is.gd/8oMQ4

The deadline for submitting the Proof of Claim form requires that
it be postmarked by no later than May 17, 2010.

Additional information is available at:

          http://www.BeckerSettlement.com/

The class is "all persons who were detained and arrested on April
15, 2000 near the area of 20th Street, NW and I and K Streets,
Washington D.C., in connection with the protest against the
Prison Industrial Complex during the IMF/World Bank
demonstrations."

If you believe you are a member of the class and wish to seek
payment under the settlement, do not delay in submitting your
Proof of Claim.  Do not wait until you can include hard-to-find
arrest paperwork.

Even if you need time to locate any arrest related records or
paperwork, you should file your Proof of Claim without delay. The
first way the Class Administrator will try to confirm your
eligibility is by comparing your name/contact information to
records provided by law enforcement in litigation or to the
Administrator. In other words, if your arrest can be matched or
confirmed against law enforcement records, there will be no need
to send in any arrest related documentation. If a match is made,
the Administrator will send you a letter advising so. If not, the
Administrator will send you a letter requesting additional
information or paperwork.

You can send in your Proof of Claim form immediately with copies
of any arrest related paperwork or things (such as a property bag
or ID bracelet) that are readily available. Continue to gather
any related records, in case they are needed or requested.

The official web site, established by the Class Administrator, is
at http://www.BeckerSettlement.com/and additional materials are  
available there, and answers to frequently asked questions will
be posted there as questions are presented to the Administrator.
If you have questions, please first read the Notice to Class
Members, which is in Q & A format and answers many important
questions about the settlement and the process. The Class
Administrator has also set up a toll free number, 1-877-567-4780,
in case you have questions that are not answered in the notice or
on the web site.


ENCORE CAPITAL: Faces Lawsuits Over Claims for FDCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Encore Capital Group, Inc. faces class action lawsuits over
claims based on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and
comparable state statutes.

These claims may result in class action lawsuits, which can be
material to the company due to the remedies available under these
statutes, including punitive damages.

A number of cases styled as class actions have been filed against
the company.

A class has been certified in several of these cases.  Several of
these cases present novel issues on which there is no legal
precedent.

No specific details regarding the cases were disclosed by the
company's in its Feb. 8, 2010 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

Encore Capital Group, Inc. -- http://www.encorecapitalgroup.com/
-- is a systems-driven purchaser and manager of charged-off
consumer receivable portfolios and, through its wholly owned
subsidiary Ascension Capital Group, Inc., a provider of
bankruptcy services to the finance industry.  The company
acquires receivable portfolios at deep discounts from their face
values using its valuation process that is based upon an analysis
of the individual consumer attributes of the underlying accounts.  
The receivable portfolios it purchases consist primarily of
unsecured, charged-off domestic consumer credit card, auto loan
deficiency and telecom receivables purchased from national
financial institutions, retail credit corporations, telecom
companies and resellers of such portfolios. In September 2007,
the Company exited its healthcare purchasing and internal
collection activities, although it receives collections from
certain healthcare portfolios that it purchased.


ENCORE CAPITAL: Midland Continues to Face Counter-Claim Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Encore Capital Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Midland Credit
Management, Inc., continues to defend a class action counter-
claim filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio (Western Division), according to the company's in its
Feb. 8, 2010 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In one such action, captioned Brent v. Midland Credit Management,
Inc., et. al, filed on May 19, 2008, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio [Western
Division], the plaintiff has filed a class action counter-claim
against Midland Credit Management, Inc. and Midland Funding LLC.

The complaint alleges that the Midland Defendants' business
practices violated consumers' rights under the FDCPA and the Ohio
Consumer Sales Practices Act.

The plaintiff is seeking actual and statutory damages for the
class of Ohio residents, plus attorney's fees and costs of class
notice and class administration.

On Aug. 11, 2009, the court issued an order partially granting
plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and entering findings
adverse to the Midland Defendants on certain of plaintiff's
claims.  The Midland Defendants subsequently moved the court to
reconsider the order and were partially successful.

However, because the court did not completely reverse the August
11 order, certain portions of the order remain subject to
reversal only on appeal.

Plaintiff is currently seeking to enlarge the case to include a
national class of consumers; however, no class has been certified
in this case.

Encore Capital Group, Inc. -- http://www.encorecapitalgroup.com/
-- is a systems-driven purchaser and manager of charged-off
consumer receivable portfolios and, through its wholly owned
subsidiary Ascension Capital Group, Inc., a provider of
bankruptcy services to the finance industry.  The company
acquires receivable portfolios at deep discounts from their face
values using its valuation process that is based upon an analysis
of the individual consumer attributes of the underlying accounts.  
The receivable portfolios it purchases consist primarily of
unsecured, charged-off domestic consumer credit card, auto loan
deficiency and telecom receivables purchased from national
financial institutions, retail credit corporations, telecom
companies and resellers of such portfolios. In September 2007,
the Company exited its healthcare purchasing and internal
collection activities, although it receives collections from
certain healthcare portfolios that it purchased.


EXXON MOBIL: Accused of Misleading XTO Shareholders in Tex. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that XTO Energy shareholders say
ExxonMobil issued false and misleading information about the
proposed merger, and is trying to buy them out for an unfair
price, in a class action in Fort Worth Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Pappas, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corp.,
et al., Case No. 10-cv-00094 (N.D. Tex.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/12/SCAExMob.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
          Aaron W. Beard, Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-231-1058

               - and -

          Brian P. Murray, Esq.
          MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER LLP
          275 Madison Ave., Suite 801
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: 212-682-1818

               - and -

          Bruce Steckler, Esq.
          Kelly Reddell, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          3102 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: 214-521-3605

               - and -

          Marc S. Henzel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARC S. HENZEL
          273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: 610-660-8000

               - and -

          Marc R. Stanley, Esq.
          Martin Woodward, Esq.
          STANLEY, MANDEL & IOLA, LLP
          310 Monticello Ave., Suite 750
          Dallas, TX 75205
          Telephone: 214-443-4301

               - and -

          James G. Stranch, III, Esq.
          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          Steven J. Simerlein, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC          
          227 Second Ave. North, 4th Floor
          Nashville, TN 37201-1631
          Telephone: 615-254-8801

               - and -

          William J. Doyle, II, Esq.
          John Lowther, Esq.
          James Hail, Esq.
          DOYLE LOWTHER LLP
          9466 Black Mountain Rd., Suite 210
          San Diego, CA 92126
          Telephone: 619-573-1700

               - and -

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          S. Benjamin Rozwood, Esq.
          Arshan Amiri, Esq.
          Dan R. Forde, Esq.
          David L. Martin, Esq.
          ROBBINS UMEDA LLP
          600 B St., Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-525-3990

               - and -

          Debra S. Goodman, Esq.
          Henry J. Young, Esq.
          THE WEISER LAW FIRM, PC
          121 North Wayne Ave., Suite 100
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: 610-225-0273

               - and -

          Roger B. Greenberg, Esq.
          Thane Tyler Sponsel, III, Esq.
          SCHWARTZ, JUNELL, GREENBERG & OATHOUT, LLP
          Two Houston Center
          909 Fannin, Suite 2700
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: 713-752-0017

               - and -
               
          Eben O. McNair, IV, Esq.
          SCHWARZWALD MCNAIR & FUSCO LLP
          616 Penton Media Building
          1300 East Ninth St.
          Cleveland, OH 44114-1503
          Telephone: 216-566-1600


HARMAN INT'L: Bid to Junk Consolidated Securities Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harman International Industries, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a
consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit before the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia remains pending.

                         Kim Litigation

On Oct. 1, 2007, a purported class-action suit was filed by
Cheolan Kim against the company and certain of its officers,
seeking compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons
who purchased the company's common stock between April 26, 2007,
and Sept. 24, 2007.

The original complaint purported to allege claims for violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleged that the defendants omitted to disclose
material adverse facts about the company's financial condition
and business prospects.  It also contended that had these facts
not been concealed at the time the company's merger agreement
with Kohlberg, Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P., and Goldman, Sachs &
Co. was entered, there would not have been a merger deal, or it
would have been at a much lower price, and the price of the
company's common stock therefore would not have been artificially
inflated during the class period.

The plaintiffs alleged that, following the reports that the
proposed merger was not going to be completed, the price of the
company's common stock declined causing the plaintiff class
significant losses.

On Jan. 16, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which extends the class period through Jan. 11, 2008.  It
contends that, in addition to the violations alleged in the
original complaint, the company also violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) and Rule 10b-5 by purportedly knowingly failing to disclose
"significant problems" relating to its personal navigation device
"sales forecasts, production, pricing, and inventory" prior to
Jan. 14, 2008.

The amended complaint claims that when "Defendants revealed for
the first time on Jan. 14, 2008 that shifts in PND sales would
adversely impact earnings per share by more than $1.00 per share
in fiscal 2008," that led to a further decline in the Company's
share value and additional losses to the plaintiff class.

                     Boca Raton Litigation

On Nov. 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees' Pension Plan
filed a purported class-action suit against the company and
certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, seeking compensatory damages and costs on
behalf of all persons who purchased the company's common stock
between April 26, 2007, and Sept. 24, 2007.

The allegations in the Boca Raton complaint are essentially
identical to the allegations in the original Kim complaint, and
like the original Kim complaint, the Boca Raton complaint alleges
claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

                         Consolidation

On Feb. 15, 2008, the Court ordered the consolidation of the Kim
action with Boca Raton General Employees' Pension Plan v. Harman
International Industries, Incorporated, et al., and designated
the short caption of the consolidated action as In re Harman
International Industries Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action
No. 07-cv-01757 (D.C.) (Roberts, J.).  That same day, the Court
ordered the administrative closing of Boca Raton Litigation.

Also on that same day, the Court appointed Arkansas Public
Retirement System as lead plaintiff and approved the law firm
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll, P.L.L.C., to serve as Lead
Counsel.

On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of Russell v. Harman with In re
Harman International Industries Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. 07-cv-01757 (D.C.) (Roberts, J.).

On May 2, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class-
action complaint.  The consolidated complaint, which extends the
class period through Feb. 5, 2008, contends that the company and
certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) and Rule 10b-5 by issuing false and misleading disclosures
regarding the company's financial condition in fiscal 2007 and
fiscal 2008.

In particular, the consolidated complaint alleges that the
defendants knowingly or recklessly failed to disclosure material
adverse facts about MyGIG radios, PNDs and the company's capital
expenditures.

The consolidated complaint also alleges that when the company's
true financial condition became known to the market, the price of
the company's stock declined significantly, causing losses to the
plaintiff class.

                     Motion to Dismiss

On July 3, 2008, defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint in its entirety.  Lead Plaintiff opposed defendants'
motion to dismiss on Sept. 2, 2008, and defendants filed a reply
in further support of their motion to dismiss on Oct. 2, 2008.

The motion is now fully briefed.

No further updates were reported in the company's Feb. 8, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Dec. 31,2009.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
          Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Phone: 202-408-4600
          Fax: 202-408-4699
          E-mail: dsommers@cmht.com     

Representing the defendants is:

          Thomas F. Cullen, Esq.
          Jones Day
          51 Louisiana Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001-2105
          Phone: 202-879-3939
          E-mail: tfcullen@jonesday.com


HARMAN INT'L: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Violations Lawsuit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to dismiss Russell v. Harman International Industries,
Incorporated et al., Case No. 07-cv-02212 (D.C.) (Roberts, J.),
which alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, remains pending.

On Dec. 7, 2007, Patrick Russell filed a purported class action
lawsuit alleging violations of ERISA in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia.  The plaintiff is seeking, on
behalf of all participants in and beneficiaries of the Harman
International Industries Inc. Retirement Savings Plan,
compensatory damages for losses to the Plan as well as injunctive
relief, constructive trust, restitution, and other monetary
relief.

The complaint alleges that from April 26, 2007, to the present,
the defendants failed to prudently and loyally manage the Plan's
assets, thereby breaching their fiduciary duties in violation of
ERISA, by causing the Plan to invest in company stock
notwithstanding that the stock allegedly was "no longer a prudent
investment for the Participants' retirement savings."

The suit further claims that, during the Class Period, the
defendants failed to monitor the Plan fiduciaries, and failed to
provide the Plan fiduciaries with, and to disclose to Plan
participants, adverse facts regarding the company and its
businesses and prospects.

The plaintiff also contends that the defendants breached their
duties to avoid conflicts of interest and to serve the interests
of participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan with undivided
loyalty.

As a result of these alleged fiduciary breaches, the complaint
asserts that the Plan has "suffered substantial losses, resulting
in the depletion of millions of dollars of the retirement savings
and anticipated retirement income of the Plan's Participants."

On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of the case with In re Harman
International Industries Inc. Securities Litigation.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on Aug.
5, 2008.  The Russell Plaintiff opposed defendants' motion to
dismiss on Sept. 19, 2008, and defendants filed a reply in
further support of their motion to dismiss on Oct. 20, 2008.
The motion is now fully briefed.

No further updates were reported in the company's Feb. 8, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          John Bucher Isbister, Esq.
          Tydings & Rosenberg, LLP
          100 East Pratt Street
          Baltimore, MD 21202-1062
          Phone: 410-752-9714
          Fax: 410-727-5460
          E-mail: jisbister@tydingslaw.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Thomas F. Cullen, Esq.
          Jones Day
          51 Louisiana Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001-2105
          Phone: 202-879-3939
          E-mail: tfcullen@jonesday.com


IMMERSION CORP: California Court Consolidates Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has consolidated class action complaints against Immersion
Corporation alleging violations of federal securities laws,
according to the company's Feb. 8, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2009.

In September and October 2009, various putative shareholder class
action and derivative complaints were filed in federal and state
court against the Company and certain current and former
Immersion directors and officers.

On Sept. 2, 2009, a securities class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the company and certain of its current and
former directors and officers.  Over the following five weeks,
four additional class action complaints were filed. One of these
four actions was later voluntarily dismissed.

The securities class action complaints name the company and
certain current and former Immersion directors and officers as
defendants and allege violations of federal securities laws based
on the company's issuance of allegedly misleading financial
statements.  The various complaints assert claims covering the
period from May 2007 through July 2009 and seek compensatory
damages allegedly sustained by the purported class members.

On Dec. 21, 2009, these class actions were consolidated by the
court as In Re Immersion Corporation Securities Litigation.
On the same day, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel.

The lead plaintiff will file a consolidated complaint following
the company's restatement of financial statements to which
defendant will then have the opportunity to file responsive
pleadings.

Immersion Corporation -- http://www.immersion.com/-- is a  
provider of haptic technologies that allow people to use their
sense of touch while operating a variety of digital devices.  The
company develops and manufactures or licenses a range of hardware
and software technologies and products.  It focuses on marketing
and business development in the target application areas, which
include automotive, consumer electronics, gaming, and commercial
and industrial controls; medical simulation, and mobile
communications.  The company manages these application areas
under two segments: the Touch Line of Business and the Medical
Line of Business.  In March 2009, the company announced the sale
of its CyberGlove business to Shackleton Advisors.  In July 2009,
the company announced that Revware, Inc. purchased its
MicroScribe business.


INDIANA: Revised Settlement in Medicaid Benefit Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
                 NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS OF
         PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
             IN MURRAY, ET AL. V. MURPHY, ET AL.

TO: All current and future individuals who:

    1) apply for Medicaid benefits,

    2) receive a denial of the application, and

    3) timely appeal the denial (hereinafter referred to as
       "the class" or "class members").

The class action, Murray, et al. v. Murphy, et al. (Marion County
Superior Court 5, Cause No. 49D05-0505-PL-16671), alleges that
the State failed to take final agency action on Medicaid appeals
within ninety (90) days of the date of a request for an appeal
hearing as required by federal law. This case initially resulted
in a Consent Decree that was approved by the Court on March 30,
2007. The class then filed a petition to hold the State in
contempt of court on February 13, 200. This Contempt Petition has
resulted in a proposed Second Consent Decree in which the parties
agreed to resolve all issues in the case. The proposed Second
Consent Decree was filed with the Court on December 22, 2009.

One aspect of the Second Consent Decree is that the parties agree
that the earlier Consent Decree will be vacated in its entirety,
and will be replaced by the Second Consent Decree. Because this
case is a class action, we are required to inform the class
members of the proposed settlement terms before the Court will
approve the Consent Decree.  In settlement of this class action,
the parties have agreed to the following terms:

      1. The parties agree that the defendants are permanently
         enjoined to take final administrative action on all
         Medicaid appeals within ninety (90) days of the date of
         a request for an appeal hearing.

      2. As soon as possible, but not later than April 30, 2010,
         the parties agree that the State will take final agency
         action by issuing final decisions on Medicaid disability
         appeals within ninety (90) days of the date of a timely
         request for an appeal hearing at the following rates:

         -- no more than 6% of Medicaid disability appeals will
            be pending beyond ninety (90) days from the date of
            an appeal request, exclusive of all appellant-request
            continuances; and

         -- no more than 1% of Medicaid disability appeals will
            be pending beyond one hundred twenty (120) days from
            the date of an appeal request, exclusive of all
            appellant-requested continuances.

      3. This Consent Decree will remain in effect until the
         State demonstrates that it is in compliance as described
         above for eight (8) out of ten (10) consecutive months,
         provided that in no month during this ten-month period
         will more than 10% of all Medicaid disability appeals be
         pending longer than ninety (90) days from the date of
         appeal request, exclusive of all appellant-requested
         continuances.

      4. The class will not be able to petition the Court to hold  
         the State in contempt until April 30, 2010.

      5. The State will pay the plaintiff's reasonable attorneys'
         fees and costs.

The attorney representing the class must contact the Court to
inform the Court of any comments from class members as to the
terms of this proposed settlement. Therefore, if you have such
comments, please contact the class attorney at the address and/or
telephone number below as soon as possible, but by no later than
February 22, 2010.  The class attorney listed below has no
information as to whether or not you are actually eligible for
Medicaid. You should contact the attorney below only if you have
comments or questions about the settlement itself.  When the
settlement is approved by the Court, it will be binding on all
class members, as well as on the State. Thank you very much.

          Gavin M. Rose, Esq.
          ACLU of INDIANA
          1031 E. Washington Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46202
          Telephone: (317) 635-4059, x106
          E-mail: grose@aclu-in.org


MARQUEE HOLDINGS: Appeal of Bateman Certification Ruling Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff's appeal of the denial of his renewed motion for
class certification in Bateman v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc.,
Case No. 07-cv-00171 (C.D. Calif.), which names Marquee Holdings,
Inc., as a defendant, is pending.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act.  FACTA provides in part that neither expiration
dates nor more than the last five numbers of a credit or debit
card may be printed on receipts given to customers.  It imposes
significant penalties upon violators where the violation is
deemed to have been willful.  Otherwise damages are limited to
actual losses incurred by the card holder.

The plaintiff is seeking an order certifying the case as a class
action as well as statutory and punitive damages in an
unspecified amount.

On Oct. 31, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiff's
motion for class certification without prejudice pending the
Ninth Circuit's decision in an appeal from a denial of
certification in a similar FACTA case.

The District Court stayed all proceedings in the case pending the
outcome of the Ninth Circuit case.

On June 3, 2008, the President of the United States of America
signed the FACTA reform bill.  The bill specifies that if a
company printed the expiration date on credit card receipts, but
otherwise complied with FACTA, it did not willfully violate the
law.  The legislation does not specifically address the situation
where more than five digits of the credit card are printed on a
receipt.

The Ninth Circuit appeal was subsequently dismissed after the
parties reached a settlement.

On Oct. 24, 2008, the District Court denied plaintiff's renewed
motion for class certification.

Plaintiff has appealed this decision and the case is stayed
pending this appeal.

No further updates were reported in the company's Feb. 8, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The suit is Michael Bateman v. Regal Cinemas Inc. et al., Case
No. 07-cv-00052 (C.D. Calif.) (Feess, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
         Ira Spiro, Esq.  
         SPIRO MOSS BARNESS
         11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor
         Los Angeles, CA 90064
         Phone: 310-235-2468

Representing the defendants is:

         David E. Novitski, Esq.
         THELEN REID BROWN RAYMANS AND STEINER
         333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3048
         Phone: 213-576-8097
         Fax: 213-576-8080


MICROSOFT CORP: Accused in Washington of Unlawful HR Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
June Williams at Courthouse News Service reports that calling
Microsoft "a lawless place," a longtime worker claims in a class
action that he was fired in retaliation for reporting
supervisors' misconduct.  He claims the company "routinely
produces and/or condones deficient investigations, covers up
alleged misconduct, mischaracterizes evidence, refuses to
preserve or provide pertinent facts and data, protects the
perpetrators and retaliates against victims."

Craig Bartholomew worked for Microsoft for 21 years, he says in
his complaint in King County Court.  He says he was fired after
complaining that his supervisors had created a "dysfunctional
environment that was harming Microsoft and risking certain of its
programs and objectives."

"Microsoft has twice tried to cover up what really happened,
first wrongly claiming his termination was a layoff or RIF.  
Neither was or is true," according to the complaint.

According to his complaint: "Microsoft can be a lawless place.
Courts have found that its key executives have violated the law
and/or sought to circumvent court rulings.  Powerful employees,
because of their perceived value to the company, has (sic) been
protected.  Employees who have reported misconduct by senior
management have been punished or fired based on trumped-up
charges.

"Microsoft routinely misrepresents to current and prospective
employees the companies' (sic) practices regarding equal
opportunity, fair treatment, equal income and promotion
opportunities, severance/separation packages, and its 'non-
retaliatory' policies."

Mr. Bartholomew claims that Microsoft's own studies show that
"supervisors have retaliated against subordinates who report
misconduct to HR" and that "a handful of executives" have decided
not to fix the problem.

"This case is about the systematic practices of Microsoft's Human
Resources (HR) department that have injured thousands of its
former employees and continue to injure current employees," the
complaint states.

Mr. Bartholomew seeks punitive damages for breach of contract,
misrepresentation, and negligent retention, plus wants front pay,
back pay, and an injunction.


A copy of the Complaint in Bartholomew v. Microsoft Corporation,
Case No. 10-2-06886-4 (Wash. Super. Ct., King Cty.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/12/vMicrosoft.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D. Helgren, Esq.
          MCNAUL EBEL NAWROT & HELGREN PLLC
          One Union Square
          600 University St., Suite 2700
          Seattle, WA 98101-3143
          Telephone: 206-467-1816


MORGAN STANLEY: N.Y. Suit Complains About Compensation Payouts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders complain that
Morgan Stanley paid its employees $16.6 billion, or 59% of its
net revenue in 2007, and $14.4 billion, or 62% percent of its net
revenue for 2009, while its stock price tanked, in a derivative
class action seeking billions of dollars in New York County
Court.

Copies of the Summons and the Shareholder Derivative Complaint in
Security Police and Fire Professionals of America Retirement
Fund, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al., Index No. 10600359 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.), are available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/12/MorganStanley.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
          Richard Schiffrin, Esq.
          Michael J. Barry, Esq.
          Hung G. Ta, Esq.
          Michele Carino, Esq.
          Ananda Chaudhuri, Esq.
          Natalia Williams, Esq.
          Christian Keeney, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Ave., 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 646-722-8500

               - and -

          Robert B. Weiser, Esq.
          Brett D. Stecker, Esq.
          Jeffrey J. Ciarlanto, Esq.
          THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          121 N. Wayne Ave., Suite 100
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: 610-225-2677


QUADRAMED CORP: Faces Amended Complaint Over Francisco Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
QuadraMed Corp. faces an amended complaint over its planned
merger with Francisco Partners, according to the company's
Feb. 8, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On Dec. 8, 2009, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with affiliates of Francisco Partners relating to an
acquisition of the company by Francisco Partners.

On Dec. 17, 2009, a purported stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against members of
the Board, the company, Francisco Partners, and Bavaria Merger
Sub, Inc., seeking to enjoin the merger, entitled Vincent
Pirrello, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Duncan James, James Peebles, Robert
Pevenstein, Lawrence English, Robert Miller, William Jurika,
QuadraMed Corporation, Bavaria Holdings Inc., and Bavaria Merger
Sub, Inc., Defendants, C.A. No. 5149- VCS.

The complaint seeks certification of a class of all common
stockholders of QuadraMed who have been allegedly harmed by the
defendants' actions challenged in the complaint.

In particular, the complaint alleges that the defendant directors
have breached their fiduciary and other duties and that the
company and Francisco Partners have aided and abetted such
breaches of those fiduciary and other duties owed to the common
stockholders.

The complaint seeks entry of an order temporarily and permanently
enjoining the Transaction, compensatory damages, costs and
disbursements, including plaintiff's counsel's fees and experts'
fees, and other relief.

On Jan. 21, 2010, following the Jan. 4, 2010 filing of the
company's preliminary proxy statement with the SEC, an amended
complaint was filed, repeating substantially the same allegations
as the original complaint and further alleging that certain of
the Company's disclosures in its preliminary proxy statement were
misleading or deficient.

QuadraMed Corp. -- http://www.quadramed.com/-- provides  
healthcare information technology to hospitals and other
healthcare organizations.  Its solutions are used by
organizations, such as hospitals, which includes community
hospitals, academic hospitals, local and regional delivery
networks, hospital-based clinics, and governmental agencies,
including the 147 Veteran's Administration hospitals.  
QuadraMed's solutions include QuadraMed Care Management
Solutions, QuadraMed Patient Revenue Management Solutions,
QuadraMed Health Information Management Solutions, QuadraMed
Access and Identity Management Solutions, and Governmental
Solutions.


QUADRAMED CORP: Faces Stockholder Suit over Francisco Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
QuadraMed Corp. faces a purported stockholder class action over
its planned merger with Francisco Partners, according to the
company's Feb. 8, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On Dec. 8, 2009, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with affiliates of Francisco Partners relating to an
acquisition of the company by Francisco Partners.

On Jan. 19, 2010, a purported stockholder class action was filed
by a holder of Preferred Stock in the Delaware Court of Chancery
against members of the Board, the company, Francisco Partners,
and Bavaria Merger Sub, Inc., entitled LC Capital Master Fund,
Ltd., on behalf of itself and all other holders of the Series A
Cumulative Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock of QuadraMed
Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Duncan James, James Peebles, Robert
Pevenstein, Lawrence English, Robert Miller, William Jurika,
QuadraMed Corporation, Francisco Partners II, L.P., Francisco
Partners Parallel Fund II, L.P., Francisco Partners GP II, L.P.,
Francisco Partners GP II Management, LLC, Francisco Partners
Management, LLC, Bavaria Holdings Inc., and Bavaria Merger Sub,
Inc., Defendants, C.A. No. 5214-VCS.

The complaint seeks certification of a class of all holders of
the Preferred Stock who have allegedly been harmed by the
defendants' actions challenged in the complaint.  In particular,
the complaint alleges that the defendant directors have breached
their fiduciary and other duties, that the defendant directors
and the Company have breached their duty of disclosure, and that
the company and Francisco Partners have aided and abetted such
breaches of those fiduciary and other duties owed to the holders
of the Preferred Stock.

The complaint seeks entry of an order temporarily and permanently
enjoining the merer, compensatory damages, costs and
disbursements, including plaintiff's counsel's fees and experts'
fees, and other relief.

QuadraMed Corp. -- http://www.quadramed.com/-- provides  
healthcare information technology to hospitals and other
healthcare organizations.  Its solutions are used by
organizations, such as hospitals, which includes community
hospitals, academic hospitals, local and regional delivery
networks, hospital-based clinics, and governmental agencies,
including the 147 Veteran's Administration hospitals.  
QuadraMed's solutions include QuadraMed Care Management
Solutions, QuadraMed Patient Revenue Management Solutions,
QuadraMed Health Information Management Solutions, QuadraMed
Access and Identity Management Solutions, and Governmental
Solutions.


SAN FRANCISCO: Lawsuit Challenges City's Auto Towing Authority
--------------------------------------------------------------
theNewspaper.com reports that a California motorist is suing the
city of San Francisco for towing his legally parked 1998 Toyota
4Runner. John J. Riley last month filed a class action suit
arguing that the city, under its own municipal ordinances, lacked
the authority to seize vehicles parked in the same spot for 72
hours. Mr. Riley had left his Toyota on Chestnut Street while out
of the country. On November 28, 2008, a meter maid noticed it had
not moved and ordered the Toyota towed away. The city imposed a
total of $1000 in fees and fines for the vehicle's return. Mr.
Riley had a valid residential parking sticker for the area.

"[San Francisco] has a policy, practice and custom of towing, or
causing to be towed, otherwise legally parked vehicles without
proper notice and legal authority to do so, in violation of
vehicle owners' rights," Mr. Riley argued in his court filing.
"No valid ordinance exists in the San Francisco Municipal Code
authorizing defendant San Francisco to tow vehicles otherwise
authorized to park on a city street for parking in excess of 72
hours."

According to city ordinances, towing is only allowed "when any
legally required signage is posted giving notice." No such signs
are posted anywhere in San Francisco. Mr. Riley also argued that
the city ordinance is so confusingly drafted that it is
impossible to meet its requirements for removing a vehicle from
the streets. The citation left on Mr. Riley's car was also filled
with defects, including a statement of the wrong fine amount and
an instruction that vehicles must be moved "at least one block"
to avoid towing. There is no such requirement in the city code.

Mr. Riley is demanding that the city refund the fines and fees
collected from about two thousand motorists accused of parking in
the same space for more than 72 hours. He is also asking that the
city cease its towing practices immediately and pay $500,000 in
compensatory damages for violating the due process rights of
residents. The first hearing in the case is scheduled for June.


TEMPUR-PEDIC: Continues to Defend Securities Fraud Suit in Ga.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tempur-Pedic International Inc. continues to defend Jacobs, et
al. v. Tempur-Pedic International, Inc., Case No. 07-cv-00002
(N.D. Ga.) (Vining, J.), a class-action antitrust proceeding.

On Jan. 5, 2007 a purported class action was filed against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Rome Division.  The action alleges violations of federal
antitrust law arising from the pricing of Tempur-Pedic mattress
products by Tempur-Pedic North America and certain distributors.

The action further alleges a class of all purchasers of Tempur-
Pedic mattresses in the United States since Jan. 5, 2003 and
seeks damages and injunctive relief.

Count Two of the complaint was dismissed by the court on June 25,
2007 based on a motion filed by the company.  Then, following a
decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in "Leegin Creative
Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.," on June 28, 2007, the
company filed a motion to dismiss the remaining two counts of the
complaint on July 10, 2007.

On Dec. 11, 2007, that motion was granted and, as a result,
judgment was entered in favor of the company and the plaintiffs'
complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a "Motion to Alter or
Amend Judgment," which has been fully briefed.

On May 1, 2008, that motion was denied.  The Jacobs appealed the
dismissal of their claims, and the parties argued the appeal
before the U.S. Circuit Court for the Eleventh Circuit on Dec.
11, 2008.

The matter has been taken under advisement by the court.

No further updates were reported in the company's Feb. 8, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Tempur-Pedic International Inc. -- http://www.tempurpedic.com/--  
is a manufacturer, marketer and distributor of mattresses and
pillows, which it sells in approximately 80 countries under the
TEMPUR and Tempur-Pedic brands. The Company has two operating
segments: Domestic and International.  The Domestic operating
segment consists of United States manufacturing facilities, whose
customers include its United States distribution subsidiary and
certain third party distributors in the Americas.  The
International segment consists of its manufacturing facility in
Denmark, whose customers include all of the Company's
distribution subsidiaries and third party distributors outside
the Domestic segment.


WALGREEN CO: Sued in Illinois for Illegal Prerecorded Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Walgreen makes illegal,
prerecorded calls to cell phones pushing its H1N1 flu shots, a
class action claims in Lake County Court, Ill.

A copy of the Complaint in Kelly v. Walgreen Co., Case No.
10CH615 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Lake Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/12/Walgreen.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Rd., Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: 847-368-1500

               - and -

          Philip A. Bock, Esq.
          BOCK & HATCH, LLC
          134 North LaSalle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312-658-5500

                            *********

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  * * *