CAR_Public/100315.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, March 15, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 51

                            Headlines

ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Court Certifies Class in Calif. UCL Suit
AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Appeal to Ariz. Securities Suit Nixed
BRAND EVOLUTION: Recalls 2,800 Boys' Hooded Sweatshirts
BUY-RITE DESIGNS: CPSC Warns of Cadmium in Children's Bracelets
BYER CALIFORNIA: Recalls 600 Girls' Cargo Pocket Jackets

E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Appeals to Approved "Greenberg" Deal Nixed
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Defending Consolidated Securities Complaint
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Defends Securities Suit by Oughtred in N.Y.
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Unit Faces Suit for Unlawful Charges
FEDERAL HOME: "Jacoby" Suit Over False Statements Still Pending

FEDERAL HOME: Amended Consolidated Securities Suit Due March 15
FEDERAL HOME: Pursues Dismissal of "Kuriakose" Securities Suit
FEDERAL HOME: Bid to Junk OPERS Securities Suit Still Pending
FLUKE CORP: Recalls 33,000 Fluke VoltAlert(R) Voltage Detectors
FORMFACTOR INC: Consolidated Stockholder Complaint Dismissed

FORMFACTOR INC: Calif. Stockholder Derivative Suit Dismissed
HITACHI KOKI: Recalls 65,000 Coil Nailers
INFOGROUP INC: Neb. Suit Complains About Unfair Sale Process
JANUS CAPITAL: Faces Remaining Claims in Market Timing Lawsuit
MATHSTAR INC: Expects Spring 2010 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss

MCAFEE: Accused in N.Y. of Charging Unauthorized Renewal Fees
OCCAM NETWORKS: Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Litigation
PEABODY ENERGY: Suits Over Operations in Picher, Okla. Pending
PEABODY ENERGY: Continues to Defend Remanded "Comer" Suit
RACEWAY ASSOCIATES: Accused of Not Paying Overtime in Ill. Suit

RCN CORP: Being Sold to ABRY Partners for Too Little, Suit Says
REGALITI INC: Recalls 3,600 Girl's Hooded Jackets
SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Hazelton Claim in Galura Suit Pending
SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Defending Consolidated Customer Arbitration
SOUTHWEST WATER: Being Sold for Too Little, Del. Suit Claims

TELEBRANDS CORP: Recalls 100,000 Therma Scarf Scarves
UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO: Sued for Racial Discrimination Practice
ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Two Lawsuits Say Hip Implants Were Defective

                            *********

ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Court Certifies Class in Calif. UCL Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge in San Jose, Calif., granted class-action status to a
lawsuit accusing Allstate of issuing misleading billing
statements that listed more than 200,000 customers' renewal
payments as due one month before the actual due date.

A copy of the Honorable James Ware's March 5, 2010, Order in
Miletak v. Allstate Insurance Company, et al., Case No.
06-cv-03778 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/10/Allstate.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel Kornhauser, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAMUEL KORNHAUSER
          155 Jackson St., Suite 1807
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: 415-981-6281

               - and -

          David Edward Malnick, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID MALNICK
          Ten Almaden Blvd., 10th Floor
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Telephone: 408-292-5900

               - and -

          Mark Paul Millen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARK P. MILLEN
          2 N. Santa Cruz Ave., Suite 205
          Los Gatos, CA 95030
          Telephone: 408-399-9707

Defendant Allstate Insurance Company is represented by:

          Gayle M. Athanacio, Esq.
          Hillary Noll Kalay, Esq.
          Sanford Kingsley, Esq.
          SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL
          525 Market St., 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: 415-882-5000

Defendant Allstate Indemnity Company is represented by Allstate
Insurance Company's lawyers as well as:

          Bonnie Lau, Esq.
          SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL
          525 Market St., 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: 415-882-5083


AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Appeal to Ariz. Securities Suit Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------
An appeal to the dismissal of the purported securities class
action suit, Nathan Weiss, et al. v. Amkor Technology, Inc., et
al., was dismissed on Jan. 21, 2010.

On Jan. 23, 2006, the purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against Amkor and certain of its current and former
officers.

Subsequently, other law firms filed two similar cases, which were
consolidated with the initial complaint.

In August 2006 and again in November 2006, the plaintiffs amended
the complaint.  The plaintiffs added additional officer, director
and former director defendants and alleged improprieties in
certain option grants.

The amended complaint further alleges that the defendants
improperly recorded and accounted for the options in violation of
generally accepted accounting principles and made materially
false and misleading statements and omissions in its disclosures
in violation of the federal securities laws, during the period
from July 2001 to July 2006.

The amended complaint seeks certification as a class action
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23, compensatory damages, costs,
and expenses, and such other further relief as the Court deems
just and proper.

On Dec. 28, 2006, pursuant to a motion by the defendants, the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
transferred the action to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona.

On Sept. 25, 2007, the Arizona Court dismissed the case with
prejudice.

On Oct. 23, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from
the dismissal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  The parties have completed briefing of the appeal.

On Dec. 10, 2008, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle this case.  The parties subsequently
filed formal settlement documentation with the court, under which
Amkor and the other defendants will receive a full and complete
release of all claims in the litigation in exchange for payment
of an aggregate amount of $11.3 million.  The directors and
officers' liability insurance carrier and Amkor paid $9.0 million
and $2.3 million, respectively, into a settlement fund during the
three months ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On Nov. 18, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona issued a final order approving the parties' settlement
agreement.

On Jan. 21, 2010, plaintiffs appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit was dismissed, according to the company's
Feb. 24, 2010, Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The suit is "Nathan Weiss, et al. v. Amkor Technology, Inc. et
al., Case No. 07-00278 (E.D. Pa.) (Rosenblatt, J.)

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. (jgoldberg@faruqilaw.com)
         Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
         P.O. Box 30132
         Elkins Park, PA 19027
         Phone: 215-782-8235

              - and -

         Evan J. Smith, Esq. (esmith@brodsky-smith.com)
         Brodsky & Smith, LLC
         Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Phone: 610-667-6200

Representing the defendants are:

         Patrick Loftus, Esq. (loftus@duanemorris.com)
         Duane Morris, LLP
         30 South 17th Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-7396
         Phone: 215-979-1367

              - and -

         Karen T. Stefano, Esq. (kstefano@wsgr.com)
         Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
         650 Page Mill Road
         Palo Alto, CA 94304
         Phone: 650-849-3405


BRAND EVOLUTION: Recalls 2,800 Boys' Hooded Sweatshirts
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Brand Evolution, of Philadelphia, Pa., announced a voluntary
recall of about 2,800 Locks All Over Boys' Hoody, All Over
Skaters Boy's Hoody and Rock Mask Boy's Hoody sweatshirts
manufactured by Locks All Over and All Over Skater by Timex, of
China; and Rock Mask Hoody by Bordados, of Peru.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The hoodies have drawstrings through the hoods that pose a
strangulation hazard to children. In February 1996, CPSC issued
guidelines to help prevent children from strangling or getting
entangled on the neck and waist drawstrings in upper garments
such as sweatshirts and jackets.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.   

The recalled boys hooded sweatshirts come in three styles: All
Over Locks style #MSK7SK3400B in white with colored printed
padlocks in sizes S, M, L and XL; All Over Skaters style
#SKATBS7K302B in white with red and orange skaters in S, M, L,
and XL; and Rock Mask Hoody style #KROCKF7K300K in solid black
with imprint in sizes 4, 5, 6 and 7.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10158.html

The recalled garments were manufactured in China and Peru, and
were sold at the Burlington Coat Factory, Amm One Inc., Avante,
Dr. Jays, Stop, E & J Lawrence Corp., Exclusive Wear, G-Pulse
Apparel, Hip Hop World, Nouveau, Stop Kid, Unica, and Village
Mart.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the
garment to eliminate the hazard or return the garment to the
place of purchase for a refund or credit.  For Additional
information contact Brand Evolution toll-free at (877) 330-3911
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday or visit http://www.burlingtoncoat.com/


BUY-RITE DESIGNS: CPSC Warns of Cadmium in Children's Bracelets
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is warning consumers
about and unknown quantity of Children's Metal Charm Bracelets
imported by out-of-business Buy-Rite Designs, of Freehold, N.J.  
Consumers should stop using the products immediately.

The bracelets contain high levels of cadmium. Laboratory analysis
determined that following a 24-hour incubation in simulated
stomach acid, over 20,000 micrograms of cadmium were released
from the snowman alone. Cadmium can be toxic if ingested by young
children and can cause adverse health effects.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.   

This recall involves Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer brand
children's Christmas and winter-themed bracelets.  The two styles
involved in this notice are the Bumble Snowman and Rudolph the
Red-Nosed Reindeer.  The bracelets were sold with winter and
Christmas-themed charms including a snowman, Christmas tree,
candy cane and snowflake.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10162.html

The recalled bracelets were manufactured in China and sold at
discount and dollar-type stores nationwide between 2006 and March
2009 for about $1.

Consumers should immediately take this recalled jewelry away from
children and dispose of the jewelry.


BYER CALIFORNIA: Recalls 600 Girls' Cargo Pocket Jackets
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Byer California DBA Amy Byer, Philly, of San Francisco, Calif.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 600 Girls' Cargo Pocket
Jackets.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The drawstrings on the neck and waist of the jacket can pose a
strangulation or entrapment hazard to children. In February 1996,
CPSC issued guidelines (which were incorporated into an industry
voluntary standard in 1997) to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist drawstrings
in upper garments such as sweatshirts and jackets.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.   

This recall involves girls' brown cargo pocket jackets sold in
sizes small through extra-large. Style number 2029G1J is printed
on the tag inside the jacket.  Pictures of the recalled product
are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10161.html

The recalled garments were manufactured in China and sold at
Burlington Coat Factory, Bon Ton Stores and juvenile clothing
retail stores nationwide from December 2008 through September
2009 for about $12.

Consumers should remove the drawstring immediately or return the
jacket to the store where purchased for a full refund.  For
additional information, contact Byer California at (800) 998-2937
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through
Friday, or visit http://www.burlingtoncoatfactory.com/


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Appeals to Approved "Greenberg" Deal Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals to the final approval of the settlement of the class
action filed by Nikki Greenberg, et al. against E*Trade Financial
Corp. were dismissed on Jan. 26, 2010.

The class-action suit, challenging the company's practice of
recording customer telephone calls without their knowledge or
consent, was filed on Oct. 11, 2006.  It was brought on behalf of
all customers or consumers who allegedly made or received
telephone calls from E*Trade that were recorded without their
knowledge or consent following a telephone call from the
plaintiff to the company's Beverly Hills branch on Aug. 8, 2006,
that was recorded during a brief period when the company's
automated notice system was out of order.

On Feb. 7, 2008, class certification was granted and the class
defined to consist of:

       -- all persons in California who received telephone calls
          from E*Trade and whose calls were recorded without
          their consent within three years of Oct. 11, 2006, and

       -- all persons who made calls from California to the
          company's Beverly Hills branch office on Aug. 8, 2006.

Plaintiffs sought to recover unspecified monetary damages plus
injunctive relief, including punitive and exemplary damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

On Oct. 16, 2009, the court granted final approval of the
parties' proposed settlement agreement.  Objectors to the court's
order granting final approval of the parties' settlement
agreement filed notices of appeal, which were subsequently
dismissed on Jan. 26, 2010, according to the company's Feb. 24,
2010, Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

For more details, contact:

          Greenberg Settlement Administrator
          P.O. Box 6659
          Portland, OR 97228-6659
          Phone: (888) 236-1260
          Web site:
          https://www.greenbergclassactionsettlement.com/

The Plaintiff Class is represented by:

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          Kiesel, Boucher & Larson LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, California 90211-2910
          Phone: 310-854-4444
          Fax: (310) 854-0812
          E-mail: info@kbla.com
          Web site: http://www.kbla.com

               - and -

          Neville Johnson, Esq.
          Johnson & Johnson LLP
          439 North Cannon Drive, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, California 90210
          Phone: 310-975-1080
          E-mail: njohnson@jjllplaw.com
          Web site: http://www.jjllplaw.com/


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Defending Consolidated Securities Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
E*Trade Financial Corporation continues to defend itself in the
consolidated amended securities class action complaint pending in
New York, according to the company's Feb. 24, 2010, Form 10-K
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Oct. 2, 2007, a class action complaint alleging violations of
the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York against the company and its
then Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer,
Mitchell H. Caplan and Robert J. Simmons by Larry Freudenberg on
his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated (the
"Freudenberg Action").

On July 17, 2008, the trial court consolidated this action with
four other purported class actions, all of which were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and
which were based on the same facts and circumstances.

On Jan. 16, 2009, plaintiffs served their consolidated amended
class action complaint in which they also named Dennis Webb, the
company's former Capital Markets Division President as a
defendant.  

Plaintiffs contend, among other things, that the value of the
company's stock between April 19, 2006 and Nov. 9, 2007 was
artificially inflated because defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements and failed to disclose that the company
was experiencing a rise in delinquency rates in its mortgage and
home equity portfolios; failed to timely record an impairment on
its mortgage and home equity portfolios; materially overvalued
its securities portfolio, which included assets backed by
mortgages; and based on the foregoing, lacked a reasonable basis
for the positive statements made about the Company's earnings and
prospects.  

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages in an amount to be proven at
trial, including interest and attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on April 2, 2009, and
briefing on defendants' motion to dismiss was completed on Aug.
31, 2009.

The suit is "Freudenberg v. E*Trade Financial Corporation et al.,
Case No. 1:07-cv-08538-RWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Judge Robert W. Sweet,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. (drosenfeld@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Phone: 631-367-7100
          Fax: 631-367-1173

Representing the defendants is:

          Davis Polk & Wardwell
          Dennis E. Glazer, Esq. (dennis.glazer@dpw.com)
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Phone: 212-450-4900
          Fax: 212-450-3900


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Defends Securities Suit by Oughtred in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
E*Trade Financial Corporation continues to defend a securities
class action complaint by John W. Oughtred, according to the
company's Feb. 24, 2010, Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On April 2, 2008, a class action complaint alleging violations of
the federal securities laws was filed by John W. Oughtred on his
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the Company.

Plaintiff contends, among other things, that the Company
committed various sales practice violations in the sale of
certain auction rate securities to investors between April 2,
2003, and Feb. 13, 2008 by allegedly misrepresenting that these
securities were highly liquid and safe investments for short term
investing.

On Dec. 18, 2008, plaintiffs filed their first amended class
action complaint.

Defendants filed their pending motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
amended complaint on Feb. 5, 2009, and briefing on defendants'
motion to dismiss was completed on April 15, 2009.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages in an amount to be proven at
trial, or, in the alternative, rescission of auction rate
securities purchases, plus interest and attorney's fees and
costs.

E*TRADE Financial Corporation -- http://www.etrade.com-- is a  
financial services company that provides online brokerage and
related products and services primarily to individual retail
investors, under the brand "E*TRADE Financial." The company is
headquartered at New York, New York.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Unit Faces Suit for Unlawful Charges
-------------------------------------------------------
E*TRADE Securities LLC faces a class action complaint filed by
Joseph Roling on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, according to E*TRADE Financial Corporation's
Feb. 24, 2010, Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Feb. 3, 2010, the class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The lead plaintiff alleges that E*TRADE Securities LLC unlawfully
charged and collected certain account activity fees from its
customers.

Claimant, on behalf of himself and the putative class, asserts
breach of contract, unjust enrichment and violation of California
Civil Code Section 1671 and seeks equitable and injunctive relief
for alleged illegal, unfair and fraudulent practices under
California's Unfair Competition Law, California Business and
Professional Code Section 17200 et seq.

The plaintiff seeks, among other things, certification of the
class action on behalf of alleged similarly situated plaintiffs,
unspecified damages and restitution of amounts allegedly
wrongfully collected by E*TRADE Securities LLC, attorneys fees
and expenses and injunctive relief.

E*TRADE Financial Corporation -- http://www.etrade.com-- is a  
financial services company that provides online brokerage and
related products and services primarily to individual retail
investors, under the brand "E*TRADE Financial." The company is
headquartered at New York, New York.


FEDERAL HOME: "Jacoby" Suit Over False Statements Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit styled, "Jacoby v. Syron, Cook,
Piszel, Banc of America Securities LLC, JP Morgan Chase & Co.,
and FTN Financial Markets," remains pending, according to Freddie
Mac's Feb. 24, 2010, Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Dec. 15, 2008, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against certain former Freddie Mac officers and others.

The complaint, as amended on Dec. 17, 2008, contends that the
defendants made material false and misleading statements in
connection with Freddie Mac's Sept. 29, 2007 offering of non-
cumulative, non-convertible, perpetual fixed-rate preferred
stock, and that such statements "grossly overstated Freddie Mac's
capitalization" and "failed to disclose Freddie Mac's exposure to
mortgage-related losses, poor underwriting standards and risk
management procedures."

The complaint further alleges that Syron, Cook and Piszel made
additional false statements following the offering.

Freddie Mac is not named as a defendant in this lawsuit.

Freddie Mac -- http://www.freddiemac.com/-- is a stockholder-
owned corporation established to support homeownership and rental
housing.  Freddie Mac purchases residential mortgages and
mortgage-related securities in the secondary mortgage market, and
securitizes them into mortgage-related securities that can be
sold to investors.  The company purchases single-family and
multi-family residential mortgages and mortgage-related
securities, which it finances primarily by issuing mortgage-
related securities and debt instruments in the capital markets.
Freddie Mac finances its purchases primarily by issuing a range
of debt instruments in the capital markets.  The company operates
in three segments: Investments, Single-family Guarantee and
Multifamily.


FEDERAL HOME: Amended Consolidated Securities Suit Due March 15
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs have until March 15, 2010, to file an amended
complaint for the dismissed consolidated putative class action
lawsuit against certain former Freddie Mac officers and others.

By letter dated Oct. 17, 2008, Freddie Mac received formal
notification of a putative class action securities lawsuit, Mark
v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., and Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., filed on September 23, 2008, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, regarding
the company's Nov. 29, 2007 public offering of 8.375% Fixed to
Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock.

On Jan. 29, 2009, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York styled, "Kreysar v. Syron, et al."

On April 30, 2009, the Court consolidated the Mark case with the
Kreysar case.  The Kreysar case on Jan. 29, 2009, as a putative
class action lawsuit in the same Court.

The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on
July 2, 2009.

The consolidated complaint alleges that former Freddie Mac
officers Syron, Piszel, and Cook, certain underwriters and
Freddie Mac's auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, violated
federal securities laws by making material false and misleading
statements in connection with an offering by Freddie Mac of $6
billion of 8.375% Fixed to Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual
Preferred Stock Series Z that commenced on November 29, 2007.

The complaint further alleges that certain defendants and others
made additional false statements following the offering.

The complaint names as defendants Syron, Piszel, Cook, Goldman,
Sachs & Co., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Banc of America Securities
LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Suisse Securities
(USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co.
Incorporated, UBS Securities LLC and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class
action complaint on Sept. 30, 2009.

On Jan. 14, 2010, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated action with leave to file an amended
complaint on or before March 15, 2010.

According to the company's Feb. 24, 2010, Form 10-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2009, Freddie Mac is not named as a defendant in
the consolidated lawsuit, but the underwriters previously gave
notice to Freddie Mac of their intention to seek full indemnity
and contribution under the Underwriting Agreement in the Mark
case, including reimbursement of fees and disbursements of their
legal counsel.

Freddie Mac -- http://www.freddiemac.com/-- is a stockholder-
owned corporation established to support homeownership and rental
housing.  Freddie Mac purchases residential mortgages and
mortgage-related securities in the secondary mortgage market, and
securitizes them into mortgage-related securities that can be
sold to investors.  The company purchases single-family and
multi-family residential mortgages and mortgage-related
securities, which it finances primarily by issuing mortgage-
related securities and debt instruments in the capital markets.
Freddie Mac finances its purchases primarily by issuing a range
of debt instruments in the capital markets.  The company operates
in three segments: Investments, Single-family Guarantee and
Multifamily.


FEDERAL HOME: Pursues Dismissal of "Kuriakose" Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Freddie Mac's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in a
putative class action lawsuit styled, "Kuriakose vs. Freddie Mac,
Syron, Piszel and Cook," remains pending, according to Freddie
Mac's Feb. 24, 2010, Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

A putative class-action lawsuit was filed against Freddie Mac and
certain former officers on Aug. 15, 2008, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York for alleged
violations of federal securities laws purportedly on behalf of a
class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from Nov. 21, 2007
through Aug. 5, 2008.

The plaintiff claims that defendants made false and misleading
statements about Freddie Mac's business that artificially
inflated the price of Freddie Mac's common stock, and seeks
unspecified damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

On Jan. 20, 2009, FHFA, the company's Conservator, filed a motion
to intervene and stay the proceedings.

On Feb. 6, 2009, the court granted FHFA's motion to intervene and
stayed the case for 45 days.

On May 19, 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint.

Freddie Mac served a motion to dismiss the complaint on all
parties on Sept. 23, 2009.

Freddie Mac -- http://www.freddiemac.com/-- is a stockholder-
owned corporation established to support homeownership and rental
housing.  Freddie Mac purchases residential mortgages and
mortgage-related securities in the secondary mortgage market, and
securitizes them into mortgage-related securities that can be
sold to investors.  The company purchases single-family and
multi-family residential mortgages and mortgage-related
securities, which it finances primarily by issuing mortgage-
related securities and debt instruments in the capital markets.
Freddie Mac finances its purchases primarily by issuing a range
of debt instruments in the capital markets.  The company operates
in three segments: Investments, Single-family Guarantee and
Multifamily.


FEDERAL HOME: Bid to Junk OPERS Securities Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in "Ohio Public
Employees Retirement System vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, et al,"
remains pending, according to the company's Feb. 24, 2010, Form
10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

This putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against
Freddie Mac and certain former officers on Jan. 18, 2008, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio alleging
that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making
"false and misleading statements concerning our business, risk
management and the procedures we put into place to protect the
company from problems in the mortgage industry."

On April 10, 2008, the court appointed OPERS as lead plaintiff
and approved its choice of counsel.

On Sept. 2, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff's amended complaint, which purportedly asserted claims
on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock between
Aug. 1, 2006 and Nov. 20, 2007.

On Nov. 7, 2008, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
which removed certain allegations against Richard Syron, Anthony
Piszel, and Eugene McQuade, thereby leaving insider-trading
allegations against only Patricia Cook.

The second amended complaint also extends the damages period, but
not the class period.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and interest, and
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney and expert
fees.

On Nov. 19, 2008, the Court granted FHFA's motion to intervene in
its capacity as Conservator.

On April 6, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint.

Freddie Mac -- http://www.freddiemac.com/-- is a stockholder-
owned corporation established to support homeownership and rental
housing.  Freddie Mac purchases residential mortgages and
mortgage-related securities in the secondary mortgage market, and
securitizes them into mortgage-related securities that can be
sold to investors.  The company purchases single-family and
multi-family residential mortgages and mortgage-related
securities, which it finances primarily by issuing mortgage-
related securities and debt instruments in the capital markets.
Freddie Mac finances its purchases primarily by issuing a range
of debt instruments in the capital markets.  The company operates
in three segments: Investments, Single-family Guarantee and
Multifamily.


FLUKE CORP: Recalls 33,000 Fluke VoltAlert(R) Voltage Detectors
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Fluke Corporation, of Everett, Wash., announced a voluntary
recall of about 33,000 Fluke VoltAlert(r) Voltage Detectors.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The testers can fail to give an indication of live voltage,
resulting in the operator falsely believing the electrical power
is off, posing a risk of serious injury or death from electrical
shock or thermal burns.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.   

The Fluke voltage testers look like a pen with a yellow, white
and gray body. The testers measure 90 to 1000 volts alternating
current (VAC). "Fluke" and the model number are printed on the
front of each unit.  The recall involves Fluke 1AC-A1-I
VoltAlert(r) testers.  Pictures of the recalled product are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10164.html

The recalled test equipment was manufactured in China and sold at
industrial distributors and electrical wholesalers nationwide
from September 2009 through February 2010 for about $25.

Consumers should stop using the recalled product immediately and
contact Fluke for a free replacement.  For additional
information, contact Fluke toll-free at (888) 983-5853 between
7:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Pacific TIme, Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.fluke.com/1AC-A1recall


FORMFACTOR INC: Consolidated Stockholder Complaint Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
The second amended complaint in a consolidated stockholder class
action lawsuit against FormFactor, Inc., in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California has been dismissed,
according to the company's Feb. 24, 2010, Form 10-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 26, 2009.

Initially, a purported stockholder class action, entitled "Danny
McCasland, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. FormFactor, Inc., Igor Y. Khandros, Ronald C. Foster
and Richard M. Freeman," was filed on Oct. 31, 2007, and names
the company and certain of its current officers, including one
officer who is a director, as defendants.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed two other purported
stockholder class-action suits before the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California under the captions:

      1. "Yuk Ling Lui, on Behalf of Herself and All Others
         Similarly Situated v. FormFactor, Inc., Igor Y.
         Khandros, Ronald C. Foster and Richard M. Freeman,"
         and

      2. "Victor Albertazzi, Individually and on Behalf of All
         Others Similarly Situated v. FormFactor, Inc., Igor Y.
         Khandros, Ronald C. Foster and Richard M. Freeman."

The plaintiffs filed these actions following the company's
restatement of its financial statements for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 30, 2006, for each of the fiscal quarters for that year, and
for the fiscal quarters ended March 31 and June 30, 2007.

The plaintiffs claim violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a),
andRule 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
alleging that the defendants knowingly issued materially false
and misleading statements regarding the company's business and
financial results prior to the restatements.  They seek to
recover unspecified monetary damages, equitable relief and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The three actions were later consolidated.  In April 2008, the
designated lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.

On or about May 5, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss
the Consolidated Amended Complaint.  On or about July 25, 2008,
the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the complaint.

On Aug. 22, 2008 the designated lead plaintiffs filed a Second
Amended Complaint.  The Second Amended Complaint also alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a), and Rule 10b-5 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The plaintiffs again claim that
defendants knowingly issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding the company's business and financial results
prior to the restatement, as well as regarding the development of
the Harmony product line.  Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified
monetary damages, equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
on Oct. 6, 2008, and a hearing on the motion was held on Jan. 16,
2009.

On July 14, 2009, the court issued a ruling granting motions to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend.

On July 28, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the
Judgment and to Uphold a Revised, Narrowed Second Amended
Complaint.

On Sept. 14, 2009, the court issued a ruling denying plaintiffs'
Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment and to Uphold a Revised,
Narrowed Second Amended Complaint.  Plaintiffs appealed to the
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit the Judgment dismissing
the case and the Court's ruling denying their Motion to Alter or
Amend the Judgment, but thereafter determined to withdraw the
appeal.  Upon motion by the plaintiffs/appellants, the Ninth
Circuit dismissed the appeal, with each side bearing its own
costs.

The suit is McCasland v. Formfactor, Inc., Case No. 07-05545(N.D.
Calif.) (Illston, J.)

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq. (shawnw@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          100 Pine Street Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-288-4545
          Fax: 415-288-4534

          Alan R. Plutzik, Esq. (aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com)
          Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP
          2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120
          Walnut Creek, CA 94598
          Phone: 925-945-0200
          Fax: 925-945-8792

               - and -

          Arthur L. Shingler, III, Esq.
          (ashingler@scott-scott.com)
          Scott + Scott, LLC
          600 B. Street, Suite 1500
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 619-233-4565
          Fax: 619-233-0508

Representing the defendants is:

          Robert P. Varian, Esq. (rvarian@orrick.com)
          Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
          405 Howard Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: 415-773-5700
          Fax: 415-773-5759


FORMFACTOR INC: Calif. Stockholder Derivative Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated stockholder derivative lawsuit against
FormFactor, Inc., in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Alameda has been dismissed without
prejudice.

Initially, two purported stockholder derivative actions were
filed starting Nov. 19, 2007.  The suits name the company as a
nominal defendant and certain of its directors and officers as
defendants.

The first suit is captioned, "John King, Derivatively on Behalf
of Nominal Defendant FormFactor, Inc. v. Dr. Igor Y. Khandros,
Dr. Homa Bahrami, Dr. Thomas J. Campbell, G. Carl Everett, Jr.,
Lothar Maier, James A. Prestridge, Harvey A. Wagner, Ronald C.
Foster and Richard M. Freeman, and FormFactor, Inc."

The second purported stockholder class action suit is captioned
"Joseph Priestley, Derivatively on Behalf of FormFactor, Inc. v.
Igor Y. Khandros, Mario Ruscev, James A. Prestridge, Thomas J.
Campbell, Harvey A. Wagner, G. Carl Everett, Jr., Homa Bahrami,
Lothar Maier, William H. Davidow and Joseph R. Bronson, and
FormFactor, Inc."

The plaintiffs filed the actions following the company's
restatement of its financial statements for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 30, 2006, for each of the fiscal quarters for that year, and
for the fiscal quarters ended March 31 and June 30, 2007.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties and violated applicable law by issuing, and
permitting the company to issue, materially false, and misleading
statements regarding the company's business and financial results
prior to the restatements.

The plaintiffs seek to recover monetary damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

According to the company's Feb. 24, 2010, Form 10-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 26, 2009, the two derivative actions, which had been
consolidated, have been dismissed without prejudice, though two
plaintiffs have the right to re-file the actions at some point in
the future.

FormFactor, Inc. -- http://www.formfactor.com/-- designs,  
develops, manufactures, sells and supports precision
semiconductor wafer probe cards.  Semiconductor manufacturers use
the company's wafer probe cards to perform wafer probe test on
the whole wafer in the front end of the semiconductor
manufacturing process.  FormFactor offers products and solutions
that are custom designed for semiconductor manufacturers' wafer
designs.


HITACHI KOKI: Recalls 65,000 Coil Nailers
-----------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Hitachi Koki U.S.A., Ltd., of Norcross, Ga.,
announced a voluntary recall about 50,000 Coil Nailers in the
United States and 15,000 in Canada.  The recalled tools were
manufactured by Hitachi Koki Co. Ltd., of Japan.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The nailers could have a faulty feeder that can allow nails to be
ejected sideways, posing a serious injury hazard to the user or
bystanders.

The firm has received 37 reports of nails being ejected sideways,
including 15 reports of injuries.  The injuries were primarily in
the eye region, including five reports of partial blindness.

The coil nailers are used to project nails into drywall, wood or
other materials. The model number is NV83A2 and can be found on
the body of the product. Only those units manufactured between
October 2002 and September 2005 are included in this recall. The
manufacturing date can be identified by the serial number
engraved at the end of the handle, the first digit representing
the month (1 for January, 2 for February, 3 for March, 4 for
April, 5 for May, 6 for June, 7 for July, 8 for August, 9 for
September, O for October, N for November and D for December) and
the second digit representing the year (2 for 2002, 3 for 2003, 4
for 2004 and 5 for 2005).  A picture of the recalled product is
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10163.html

The recalled power tools were manufactured in Japan and sold at
Lowe's, Home Depot, other home improvement and building supply
stores and online at Amazon.com nationwide from November 2002
through March 2006 for between $350 and $400.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled coil nailer
and contact Hitachi Koki U.S.A., Ltd. for a free repair.  For
additional information, contact Hitachi Koki U.S.A., Ltd. at
(800) 706-7337 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern TIme,
Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.hitachipowertools.com/


INFOGROUP INC: Neb. Suit Complains About Unfair Sale Process
------------------------------------------------------------
Bridget Freeland at Courthouse News Service reports that mega-
millionaire Vinod Gupta is enriching himself at shareholders'
expense in selling his Omaha-based infoGROUP to a private equity
firm for $635 million, or $8 a share, shareholders say in a state
class action in Omaha.  Mr. Gupta "destroyed enormous value" by
wasting millions on "jet travel, vacation homes, a yacht, country
club memberships and a collection of luxury automobiles," the
shareholders say.

The class claims that Mr. Gupta's "misconduct" caused two
previous shareholder lawsuits, in 2006, and an SEC investigation,
and that the settlements forced Gupta out as CEO and cost the
company millions in reorganization expenses.

Mr. Gupta founded infoGROUP in 1972.  The company has 31
independent businesses and earned $500 million in revenue last
year, according to the complaint in Douglas County Court.

"InfoGROUP is the leading provider of data-driven and interactive
resources for targeted sales, marketing and research solutions
for businesses all over the globe," the complaint states.  It
"powers 95 percent of Fortune 500 companies, powers the top five
Internet search engines, is used in 90 percent of in-car
navigation systems in North America, deploys 30 billion emails
annually on behalf of its clients, partners with CNN on its
exclusive CNN/Opinion Research Poll, and has more than 4 million
global customers," according to the complaint.

Mr. Gupta was appointed U.S. Consul General to Bermuda, and
declined President Clinton's nomination to be U.S. Ambassador to
Fiji, according to Forbes.

Mr. Gupta was a major fundraiser for the Clintons, and "spent
$900,000 of corporate money flying the Clintons to various
destinations," according to National Public Radio.

Mr. Gupta received a $10 million severance payment when he was
removed as CEO of infoGROUP in 2008, shareholders say.

In January this year infoGROUP announced that it would
reorganize, then declared on March 8 that it would sell itself to
CCMP Capital Advisors instead.

Shareholders call the deal an "unfair process at an unfair
price."

They say they will receive "a paltry $8.00 in cash for each
infoGROUP share," 11 percent less than the price the shares
traded at as recently as November.

They say that while Mr. Gupta is expected to pay infoGROUP $9
million over 4 years to settle the shareholder lawsuits, the
acquisition would allow Mr. Gupta to pay off that debt
immediately, since he would receive cash from illiquid holdings
in the company.  They claim that CCMP is likely to hang on to
infoGROUP's management, making the directors both sellers and
buyers in the deal, which shareholders say is "fraught with
conflicts of interest."

To close the deal, shareholders say, infoGROUP unfairly offered a
short, 21-day "go shop" period for competing bidders, and shut
out interested companies by refusing to disclose confidential
information, locking up 36 percent of the voting stock in favor
of CCMP, offering more than $17 million in termination and
expense fees, and allowing CCMP 5 days to match any new offers.

The shareholders want the directors, infoGROUP and CCMP enjoined
from consummating the sale.  They allege breach of fiduciary
duties and aiding and abetting.

The director-defendants are Mr. Gupta, Bill Fairfield, Roger
Siboni, George Krauss, Gary Morin, Bernard Reznicek, Lee Roberts,
John Staples III, Thomas L. Thomas and Clifton Weatherford.

A copy of the Complaint in The Pennsylvania Avenue Funds v.
InfoGROUP Inc., et al., Case No. 822 (Neb. Dist. Ct., Douglas
Cty.) (Coffey, J.), is available at:
         
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/11/Gupta.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harvey B. Cooper, Esq.
          ABRAHAMS KASLOW & CASSMAN LLP
          8712 West Dodge Rd., Suite 300
          Omaha, NE 68114
          Telephone: 402-392-1250

               - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq.
          David T. Wissbroecker, 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


JANUS CAPITAL: Faces Remaining Claims in Market Timing Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Janus Capital Group, Inc., and Janus Capital Management, LLC,
continue to face the remaining claims in a consolidated market
timing lawsuit, according to the company's Feb. 24, 2010, Form
10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Following the market timing investigations by the New York
Attorney General and the Securities and Exchange Commission in
2003, Janus and certain affiliates were named as defendants in a
consolidated lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Baltimore,
Maryland (MDL No. 1586, Case No. 04-MD-15863).

Five amended complaints were originally filed in these
coordinated proceedings, one of which still remains. Namely,
claims by a putative class of JCG shareholders asserting claims
on behalf of the shareholders (First Derivative Traders, et al.
v. Janus Capital Group Inc., et al., U.S. District Court,
District of Maryland, MDL 1586, formerly referred to as Wiggins,
et al. v. Janus Capital Group Inc., et al., U.S. District Court,
District of Maryland, Case No. 04-CV-00818).

In the First Derivative Traders matter, the U.S. District Court
entered an order dismissing all claims. Plaintiffs, however,
appealed that dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit.

In May 2009, the Fourth Circuit reversed the order of dismissal
and remanded the case back to the U.S. District Court for further
proceedings.  

In October 2009, JCG filed a petition for a writ of certiorari
with the U.S. Supreme Court to review the order of the Fourth
Circuit.

On Jan. 11, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court asked the U.S. Solicitor
General to file a brief on the legal questions presented in JCG's
petition. As a result of these developments at the U.S. Supreme
Court, the U.S. District Court has stayed all proceedings until
the U.S. Supreme Court rules on JCG's petition for a writ of
certiorari.

In addition to the First Derivative Traders case, on Jan. 20,
2010, the U.S. District Court entered orders dismissing the
remaining claims asserted against Janus Capital and its
affiliates by fund investors in Steinberg et al. v. Janus Capital
Management, LLC et al., U.S. District Court, District of
Maryland, Case No. 04-CV-00518 (a derivative claim involving
alleged frequent trading practices).

Janus Capital Group Inc. - www.janus.com -- provides investment
management, administration, distribution and related services to
individual and institutional investors through mutual funds,
separate accounts and subadvised relationships in both domestic
and international markets.  JCG provides investment advisory
services through its primary subsidiaries, Janus Capital
Management LLC, INTECH Investment Management LLC and Perkins
Investment Management LLC.  


MATHSTAR INC: Expects Spring 2010 Ruling on Motion to Dismiss
-------------------------------------------------------------
A ruling on MathStar, Inc.'s motions to dismiss the Counterclaim
and Amended Counterclaim filed by Tiberius Capital II, LLC, is
expected the spring of 2010.

                     Tiberius Complaint

On Oct. 8, 2009, legal counsel for Tiberius Capital II, LLC, sent
by e-mail to MathStar's legal counsel a copy of a Complaint
labeled "Draft -- Subject to Completion".

The Tiberius Complaint named Tiberius, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, as plaintiff.  It named
MathStar, Feltl and Company, Inc., Sajan, Perkins Capital
Management, Inc., Richard C. Perkins, Merrill A. McPeak, Benno G.
Sand, John C. Feltl and Joseph P. Sullivan , as defendants
(Minnesota Parties).

Mr. Perkins, Mr. McPeak and Mr. Sand (MathStar Directors) are
members of MathStar's Board of Directors.

The Tiberius Complaint stated that Tiberius was bringing a class
action lawsuit on behalf of a class consisting of all those who
purchased MathStar's securities between May 11, 2009 and Sept.
30, 2009.

The caption on the Tiberius Complaint stated that it was to be
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The Tiberius Complaint alleged:

     (1) violations of Section 13(d) of the Securities Exchange
         Act of 1934 and the Rules of the SEC thereunder against
         the Minnesota Parties except Sajan for alleged failure
         to report that such Minnesota Parties were acting as a
         "group" for purposes of purchasing MathStar's shares
         of common stock;

     (2) breaches of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and the
         Rules of the SEC thereunder against the Minnesota
         Parties except Sajan for alleged misstatements in
         MathStar's proxy statement filed with the SEC on
         June 17, 2009 and in connection with MathStar's annual
         meeting of stockholders held on July 10, 2009;

     (3) violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
         Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC thereunder against
         the Minnesota Parties except Sajan for alleged
         misstatements made in the Proxy Statement and in an
         alleged fraud on the market by such Minnesota Parties;

     (4) violations of Section 14 of the Exchange Act and
         Rule 14e-3 promulgated by the SEC thereunder against
         the Minnesota Parties except Sajan for actions taken by
         such Minnesota Parties in connection with an alleged
         "creeping" tender offer;

     (5) control party liability under Section 20(a) of the
         Exchange Act against the MathStar Directors for alleged
         violations of Sections 14(a) and 14(e) of the Exchange
         Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder;

     (6) breach of fiduciary duty against the MathStar
         Directors; and

     (7) civil conspiracy against the Minnesota Parties.

In the Tiberius Complaint, Tiberius requested that the Court
enter a judgment in favor of Tiberius and the Class and against
the Minnesota Parties declaring that MathStar violated "Section
10b-5, Section 13d, Section 14a and Section 14e" of the Exchange
Act and rules promulgated thereunder, including Regulation FD;
enter judgment in favor of Tiberius and the Class and against the
MathStar Directors in the amount of $10,000,000 in compensatory
and punitive damages; award Tiberius all of its costs incurred in
connection with the action, including reasonable attorneys' fees;
and grant such other and further relief as the Court deems to be
just and equitable.

                      Minnesota Complaint

On Oct. 14, 2009, the Minnesota Parties filed a Complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota captioned
MathStar, Inc., Feltl and Company, Inc., Sajan, Inc., Perkins
Capital Management, Inc., Richard C. Perkins, Merrill A. McPeak,
Benno G. Sand, John C. Feltl and Joseph P. Sullivan, Plaintiffs,
v. Tiberius Capital II, LLC, Defendant (Minnesota Complaint).

In the Minnesota Complaint, the Minnesota Parties state that
Tiberius is threatening to bring a class action lawsuit against
them, as set forth in the Tiberius Complaint.  The Minnesota
Complaint also alleges a claim of tortious interference with
prospective economic advantage against Tiberius on behalf of
MathStar, Sajan and Feltl and Company, Inc.

The Minnesota Complaint requests judgment in favor of the
Minnesota Parties declaring that their actions described in the
Minnesota Complaint were lawful; declaring that the Minnesota
Parties have not violated any legal duties to Tiberius; declaring
that the proposed Tiberius Complaint is without merit; awarding
money damages to MathStar, Sajan and F&C in an amount to be
determined at trial to compensate such Minnesota Parties for
Tiberius' tortious interference with their economic advantage;
awarding the Minnesota Parties their costs, disbursements and
reasonable attorneys' fees; and awarding the Minnesota Parties
such other and further relief as the Court deems to be just,
proper and equitable.  The Minnesota Complaint was served on
Tiberius on Oct. 21, 2009.

On Nov. 9, 2009, Tiberius served and filed its Answer and
Counterclaim denying liability under the Minnesota Complaint and
asserting substantially the same claims set forth in the Tiberius
Complaint and, in addition, asserting common law claims for fraud
against the Minnesota Parties except Sajan and against all of the
Minnesota Parties for wrongful interference with the
prospectively advantageous, successful completion of its tender
offer for MathStar's shares of common stock.

On Dec. 8, 2009, Tiberius served and filed an Answer and Amended
Counterclaim in which it added a jurisdictional allegation and
asserted claims for declaratory relief under its other claims.

The Minnesota Parties filed timely motions to dismiss the
Counterclaim and Amended Counterclaim on several grounds.

The motions were fully briefed, and oral arguments took place
before the Court on Feb. 9, 2010.  

A case scheduling conference was held on Jan. 14, 2010, before
the Magistrate Judge, at which it was determined that a schedule
will be established following a ruling on the motions, according
to the company's Feb. 24, 2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

MathStar, Inc. -- http://www.mathstar.com/-- was a fables  
semiconductor company engaged in the development, marketing and
selling of its programmable platform field programmable object
arrays (FPOA) chips and design tools required to program its
chips.  On May 20, 2008, the company suspended research and
development activities. As of September 30, 2008, the Company had
ceased all operations in Minnesota. As of Dec. 31, 2008, MathStar
had engaged a third party investment banking firm to explore the
sale of intellectual property and patents and potential merger
and acquisition alternatives.


MCAFEE: Accused in N.Y. of Charging Unauthorized Renewal Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that McAfee charges automatic
renewal fees without permission, a class action claims in
Manhattan Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint was not available at press time from the
Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.


OCCAM NETWORKS: Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed
against Occam Networks, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California is now resolved as to all
defendants, according to the company's Feb. 24, 2010, Form 10-K
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On April 26, 2007, and May 16, 2007, two putative class-action
complaints were filed before the district court against the
company and certain of its officers.  The complaints allege that
the defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, and SEC
Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements and
omissions relating to the company's financial statements and
internal controls with respect revenue recognition.

The complaints seek damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of
persons who purchased the company's common stock during the
period from May 2, 2006, and April 17, 2007.

On July 30, 2007, Judge Christina A. Snyder consolidated the
actions into a single case, appointed NECA-IBEW Pension Fund --
The Decatur Plan -- as lead plaintiff, and approved its selection
of lead counsel.

On Nov. 16, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint.  This consolidated complaint adds as defendants
certain of the company's current and former directors and
officers, its current and former outside auditors, the lead
underwriter of its secondary public offering in November 2006,
and two venture capital firms who were early investors in the
company.

The consolidated complaint alleges that defendants violated
sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act by making false and misleading statements and
omissions relating to the company's financial statements and
internal controls with respect to revenue recognition that
required restatement.

The consolidated complaint seeks, on behalf of persons who
purchased the company's common stock during the period from April
29, 2004, to Oct. 15, 2007, damages of an unspecified amount.

On Jan. 25, 2008, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  On July 1, 2008, Judge Christina A.
Snyder issued an order granting in part and denying in part the
defendants' motions.  This order dismissed all claims against
certain of the company's current and former directors, the 20A
claim in its entirety, the section 10(b) claim against the
auditors and venture capital firms, and the section 11 claims
against the venture capital firms.

On July 16, 2008, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint to
conform to the Court's July 1, 2008 order.  On Aug. 29, 2008,
defendants answered the amended complaint.

On Sept. 10, 2009, the company entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle and resolve this stockholder class action
lawsuit.  On Nov. 2, 2009, the parties signed and submitted a
formal, binding stipulation of settlement to the court.  The
court issued its preliminary approval of the settlement on Nov.
13, 2009.

On Feb. 22, 2010, the court held a hearing dismissing the
litigation with prejudice and entered a final judgment.  The
settlement provides for a payment to the class of $13.945
million, of which the company has agreed to contribute $1.7
million and the balance of which will come from its insurers and
other settling defendants.

The company has recorded a charge of $1.7 million as a loss on
settlement for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009, associated with
the settlement.

Occam Networks, Inc. -- http://www.occamnetworks.com/ -- is a   
leading broadband access supplier offering multiservice access
platform solutions based on pure packet technologies.  Occam
Networks' broadband access solutions empower service providers to
offer new voice, data, and video services over copper and fiber.  
Occam systems deliver flexibility and scalability in a Triple
Play world.  Over 2 million BLC 6000 ports are currently deployed
at over 300 service providers worldwide.


PEABODY ENERGY: Suits Over Operations in Picher, Okla. Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Class-action lawsuits filed against one of Peabody Energy Corp.'s
subsidiaries, Gold Fields Mining, LLC, remain pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, according
to the company's Feb. 24, 2010, Form 10-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec.
31, 2009.

Gold Fields and two other companies are defendants in two class
action lawsuits allegedly involving past operations near Picher,
Oklahoma.

The plaintiffs have asserted claims predicated on allegations of
intentional lead exposure by the defendants and are seeking
compensatory damages, punitive damages and the implementation of
medical monitoring and relocation programs for the affected
individuals.

Peabody Energy Corp. -- http://www.peabodyenergy.com/-- is a  
coal company.  It sells coal to over 340 electricity generating
and industrial plants in 19 countries.  The Company owns majority
interests in 31 coal operations located throughout all the United
States coal producing regions and in Australia.  In addition, it
owns a minority interest in one Venezuelan mine, through a joint
venture arrangement.  Most of the production in the western
United States is low-sulfur coal from the Powder River Basin.  
Peabody owns and operates six mines in Queensland, Australia, and
five mines in New South Wales, Australia.


PEABODY ENERGY: Continues to Defend Remanded "Comer" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Peabody Energy Corp. continues to defend the remanded purported
class action lawsuit, Comer, et al v. Murphy Oil Co., et al.,
according to the company's Feb. 24, 2010, Form 10-K filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In April 2006, residents and owners of land and property along
the Mississippi Gulf coast filed a purported class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of
Mississippi against more than 45 oil, chemical, utility and coal
companies, including the Company.

The plaintiffs alleged that defendants' greenhouse gas emissions
"were a proximate and direct cause of the increase in the
destructive capacity of Hurricane Katrina," and sought damages
based on several legal theories.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss on the grounds of lack of
personal and subject matter jurisdiction.

In August 2007, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction finding that plaintiffs'
claims are barred by the political question doctrine and for lack
of standing.

In October 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
reversed in part the decision of the trial court, holding that
the plaintiffs had standing to assert their public and private
nuisance, trespass and negligence claims.  The Fifth Circuit held
that plaintiffs did not satisfy the prudential standing
requirement for their unjust enrichment, fraudulent
misrepresentation and civil conspiracy claims and dismissed those
claims.

The case was remanded to the court for further proceedings.

Peabody Energy Corp. -- http://www.peabodyenergy.com/-- is a  
coal company.  It sells coal to over 340 electricity generating
and industrial plants in 19 countries.  The Company owns majority
interests in 31 coal operations located throughout all the United
States coal producing regions and in Australia.  In addition, it
owns a minority interest in one Venezuelan mine, through a joint
venture arrangement.  Most of the production in the western
United States is low-sulfur coal from the Powder River Basin.  
Peabody owns and operates six mines in Queensland, Australia, and
five mines in New South Wales, Australia.


RACEWAY ASSOCIATES: Accused of Not Paying Overtime in Ill. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that International Speedway
Corp., which owns and operates NASCAR races around the country,
stiffs workers for overtime at its Chicagoland Speedway, a class
action claims in Cook County Court, in Chicago, Ill.

A copy of the Complaint in Kerbes v. Raceway Associates, LLC,
Case No. 10CH09662 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), is available
at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/10/NascarEmploy.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy Touhy, Esq.
          Terrence Buehler, Esq.
          TOUHY, TOUHY, BUEHLER & WILLIAMS
          55 West Wacker Dr., 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: 312-372-2209

               - and -

          John Downey, Esq.
          JOHN J. DOWNEY, P.C.
          907 North Elm St., Suite 100
          Hinsdale, IL 6521-3644
          Telephone: 630-323-1605


RCN CORP: Being Sold to ABRY Partners for Too Little, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that RCN Corp. is selling itself
too cheaply to ABRY Partners, for $1.2 billion or $15 a share,
shareholders say in Delaware Chancery Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Murphy v. Levine, et al., Case No.
5320 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/10/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph A. Rosenthal, Esq.
          Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          919 N. Market St., Suite 1401
          P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: 302-656-4433

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Joseph Russello, Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
          58 South Service Rd., Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: 631-367-100

               - and -
               
          Alfred G. Yates, Jr.
          LAW OFFICES OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C.
          519 Allegheny Bldg.
          429 Forbes Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: 800-391-5164


REGALITI INC: Recalls 3,600 Girl's Hooded Jackets
-------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Regaliti Inc., of New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of
about 3,600 Girl's Hooded Jackets with Drawstrings.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The jackets have a drawstring through the hood, which can pose a
strangulation hazard to young children. In February1996, CPSC
issued guidelines (pdf) (which were incorporated into an industry
voluntary standard in 1997) to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist drawstrings
in upper garments such as sweatshirts and jackets.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.   

This recall involves girl's cropped jackets in a velvet-like
material with a hoodie that has a drawstring. The jackets were
sold under the Betty Blue brand name in pink, red, blue and
brown, and in children's sizes small through XL. Betty Blue Girls
is printed on the hangtag on the neck.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10160.html

The recalled garments were manufactured in Hong Kong and sold
exclusively at Burlington Coat Factory stores nationwide from
November 2007 through September 2009 for about $4.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the
jackets to eliminate the hazard or return the garment to
Burlington Coat Factory or Regaliti for a full refund.  
For additional information, contact Regaliti collect at
(212) 840-0202 between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Eastern Time,
Wednesday through Friday, or visit Burlington Coat Factory's Web
site at http://www.burlingtoncoatfactory.com/


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Hazelton Claim in Galura Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Hazelton's claim in the matter Galura, et al. v. Sonic
Automotive, Inc., filed in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough
County, Florida, is still pending, according to the company's
Feb. 24, 2010, Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.  

In this action, originally filed on December 30, 2002, the
plaintiffs allege that the company and its Florida dealerships
sold an antitheft protection product in a deceptive or otherwise
illegal manner, and further sought representation on behalf of
any customer of any of the company's Florida dealerships who
purchased the antitheft protection product since Dec. 30, 1998.

The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief
on behalf of this class of customers.

In June 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
certification of the requested class of customers, but the court
has made no finding to date regarding actual liability in this
lawsuit.

The company subsequently filed a notice of appeal of the court's
class certification ruling with the Florida Court of Appeals.

In April 2007, the Florida Court of Appeals affirmed a portion of
the trial court's class certification, and overruled a portion of
the trial court's class certification.

In November 2009, the Florida trial court granted Summary
Judgment in the company's favor against Plaintiff Enrique Galura,
and his claim has been dismissed.  

Sonic Automotive, Inc. -- http://www.sonicautomotive.com/--  
operates as an automotive retailer in the U.S.  Each of Sonic's
dealerships provides services, including sales of both new and
used cars and light trucks; sales of replacement parts and
performance of vehicle maintenance, warranty, paint and repair
services, and arrangement of extended service contracts,
financing and insurance and other aftermarket products for its
automotive customers.


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Defending Consolidated Customer Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sonic Automotive, Inc. continues to defend a consolidated
arbitration filed by customers regarding allegations of deceptive
or illegal sales.

Several private civil actions have been filed against Sonic
Automotive, Inc. and several of the company's dealership
subsidiaries that purport to represent classes of customers as
potential plaintiffs and make allegations that certain products
sold in the finance and insurance departments were done so in a
deceptive or otherwise illegal manner.

One of these private civil actions has been filed in South
Carolina state court against Sonic Automotive, Inc. and 10 of the
company's South Carolina subsidiaries.  This group of plaintiffs'
attorneys has filed another private civil class action lawsuit in
state court in North Carolina seeking certification of a multi-
state class of plaintiffs.  The South Carolina state court action
and the North Carolina state court action have since been
consolidated into a single proceeding in private arbitration.  

On Nov. 12, 2008, claimants in the consolidated arbitration filed
a Motion for Class Certification as a national class action
including all of the states in which the company operates
dealerships.

Claimants are seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief on
behalf of this class of customers.

The parties have briefed and argued the issue of class
certification and an order from the arbitrator on class
certification is expected in 2010.  If a class is certified
against the company, and its dealerships, there would still be a
hearing to determine the merits of claimants' claims and
potential liability, according to the company's Feb. 24, 2010,
Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2009.  

Sonic Automotive, Inc. -- http://www.sonicautomotive.com/--  
operates as an automotive retailer in the U.S.  Each of Sonic's
dealerships provides services, including sales of both new and
used cars and light trucks; sales of replacement parts and
performance of vehicle maintenance, warranty, paint and repair
services, and arrangement of extended service contracts,
financing and insurance and other aftermarket products for its
automotive customers.


SOUTHWEST WATER: Being Sold for Too Little, Del. Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Los Angeles-based SouthWest
Water Co. is selling itself too cheaply, for $275 million or $11
a share, stockholders say in Delaware Chancery Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Ritter v. SouthWest Water Company, et
al., Case No. 5323 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/11/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica Zeldin, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          919 N. Market St., Suite 1401
          P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: 302-656-4443

               - and -

          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Ave.
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: 212-759-4600


TELEBRANDS CORP: Recalls 100,000 Therma Scarf Scarves
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Telebrands Corp., of Fairfield, N.J., announced
a voluntary recall of about 98,500 Therma Scarf scarves in the
United States and 1,500 in Canada.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The heat packs can overheat when heated in a microwave oven,
posing a fire and burn hazard to consumers.

The firm has received seven reports of overheating, including
five fires, three of which resulted in property damage to the
microwave. Two of the incidents were in Canada. No injuries have
been reported.

The recalled scarves have pockets and microwaveable heat packs
composed of flax seeds. The scarves are made of polyester/cotton,
and were sold in black and camel colors.  A picture of the
recalled product is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10159.html

The recalled scarves were manufactured in China and sold at Bed
Bath & Beyond(r) stores, As Seen on TV retail kiosks in shopping
malls nationwide, through direct response television and over the
internet at www.thermascarf.com and www.asseenontvguys.com from
October 2009 through January 2010 for between $20 and $25.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled Therma Scarf
and return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. If
purchased through the infomercial or over the internet, consumers
will be contacted by Telebrands with instructions on how to
obtain a full refund.  For additional information, contact
Telebrands at (800) 777-4034 between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.,
Eastern Time, or visit http://www.telebrands.com/


UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO: Sued for Racial Discrimination Practice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that a
University of San Diego basketball player claims that despite the
"popular notion of progress in racial relations," the university
subjects African-Americans to harassment and humiliation, and
wrongfully accuses them of crimes.  In a federal class action,
Trumaine Johnson says he has repeatedly been the target of school
officials' and local authorities' "practice of racial
discrimination."

Though the USD has received millions of dollars in state and
federal grants to create a culture of inclusion and diversity,
the black student population barely exceeded 2 percent in 2009,
Mr. Johnson says.

Mr. Johnson says he was unfairly accused of vandalizing a white
student's car in December 2008, which led to his temporary
suspension from the basketball team.  Mr. Johnson says he cleared
of the allegations.

Nonetheless, he says, head coach Bill Grier, defamed him to local
and national news agencies in speaking about Mr. Johnson's
suspension.  Mr. Johnson says the vandalism allegation was
fabricated and the suspension was "racially motivated."

After that brouhaha, on Feb. 8 this year, Mr. Johnson says, he
was stopped by school security guard Jason Baker.

Mr. Johnson says he was "racially profiled, tackled to the ground
by defendant Baker, kneed in the back, pepper sprayed in the face
and then wrongfully arrested by Baker."

The complaint adds: "More than four San Diego police units
containing some 11 San Diego police officers, and a fire truck,
rolled up on the injured basketball player."

Mr. Johnson says a teammate and a professor witnessed the
incident and his arrest, but officers refused to take statements
from them.

"Sergeant Baker fabricated events to justify the unlawful attack
he had just perpetrated against Mr. Johnson by telling police
officers that Mr. Johnson had assaulted him and admitted to
having a weapon, which plaintiff never said and never had," the
complaint states.

The university took away his basketball scholarship on Feb. 23,
Mr. Johnson says.

Mr. Johnson seeks damages for racial discrimination by a
federally funded program, constitutional violations, conspiracy
to violate civil rights, emotional distress, false imprisonment,
assault and battery and negligent employment.

A copy of the Complaint in Johnson v. University of San Diego, et
al., Case No. 10-cv-00504 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:
          
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/11/USanDiego.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mary Frances Prevost, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARY FRANCES PREVOST
          Emerald Plaza
          402 West Broadway, Suite 950
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-692-9001


ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Two Lawsuits Say Hip Implants Were Defective
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy R. Fleishman of the national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, reports that Todd Lovelace and
Christine Walker have filed separate personal injury lawsuits
against Zimmer Holdings, the nation's largest producer of
orthopedic devices.  Mr. Lovelace and Ms. Walker seek respective
damages against Zimmer for multiple surgeries and debilitating
injuries they suffered due to the defective Durom Acetabular
Component, an artificial hip socket known as the Durom Cup, which
is manufactured and sold by Zimmer.  First on the U.S. market in
2006, the Durom Cup was implanted in 12,000 patients.  

Todd Lovelace, a 45-year old truck driver from Elizabethtown,
Kentucky, received a Zimmer Durom Cup in May 2008 as part of hip
replacement surgery on his left hip.  After months of great pain,
agony, difficulty walking and bearing weight, he was compelled to
undergo a second surgery to remove the defective cup in December
2008.  Mr. Lovelace stated, "It's ruined my life.  I'm in chronic
pain and have lost my job as a result of this defective device."

In December 2007, the Durom Cup was implanted in Christine
Walker, a 53-year old former registered nurse from West Palm
Beach, Florida.  She too suffered months of great pain and agony,
necessitating her to stop working.  In December 2008, her Durom
Cup was removed.  Ms. Walker stated, "I believed that after my
hip replacement I would return to my career in nursing and to my
active lifestyle with my husband of thirty-seven years.  Instead,
I live every minute of every day in pain and worry, with the loss
of my career, how much more I am going to lose."

"The complaint estimates that upwards of 24% of patients that
received the Durom Cup will be forced to undergo revision
surgery," plaintiffs' counsel Wendy R. Fleishman commented.  "It
is long past the time for Zimmer to formally recall the Durom Cup
and take responsibility for the extreme pain and injuries its
defective product has caused thousands of patients across
America."

          Allegations Concerning the Zimmer Durom Cup

A "metal-on-metal" implant, the failures of which were recently
profiled in a New York Times article published March 4, 2010, the
Durom Cup was not cemented or screwed in place during
implantation. Instead, it was designed to bond to the patient's
hip bone.  

"Rather than functioning in the intended manner, the complaint
charges that the Durom Cup implant resists bone growth and
becomes loose or pops free from the hip," stated Ms. Fleishman.  
"This unintended result has caused extreme and devastating pain
to patients and necessitated revision surgery to remove the
failed Durom Cup."

After the product was introduced in the United States, Zimmer
began receiving complaints from physicians that its Durom Cup was
failing.  "Despite warnings from leading orthopedic surgeons,
Zimmer continued to aggressively market the Durom Cup in 2007 and
into 2008, blaming surgeons for the growing failure rate,"
explained Ms. Fleishman.  

In July 2008, Zimmer announced that it was temporarily suspending
the sales of the Durom Cup in the United States.  In its
announcement, Zimmer stated that the suspension was necessary
"while the Company updated labeling to provide more detailed
surgical technique instructions to surgeons and implements its
surgical training program in the U.S."  

Zimmer denies any "evidence of a defect" with the Durom Cup and,
to date, has refused to issue a recall notice in accordance with
procedures established by the Food and Drug Administration.

                 Injuries Suffered by Todd Lovelace

Prior to Todd Lovelace's May 2008 implantation surgery, he was an
active husband and father who regularly enjoyed outdoor
activities such as fishing, hunting, and motorcycle touring with
his wife Lori Lovelace.  Mr. Lovelace worked as a truck driver
for more than twelve years.  His job required him to repeatedly
climb in and out of the cab of his truck, sit for long periods of
time, climb onto the back of an eighteen-wheel truck, carry heavy
boxes, and pull a heavy pallet jack.  

Mr. Lovelace suffered extreme physical pain following his
original hip replacement surgery.  He walked with a gait and had
difficulty bearing weight.  The excruciating pain persisted until
Mr. Lovelace underwent a revision surgery on December 22, 2008,
only seven months after the original implantation.  His Durom Cup
was found to be completely loose with only fibrous tissue between
the cup and socket and no bony ingrowths.  

Mr. Lovelace has not fully recovered from the harm of the
defective Durom Cup and is now disabled.  He continues to
experience great pain, limiting his ability to perform basic day-
to-day activities and preventing him from performing necessary
job functions.  Mr. Lovelace's inability to return to work has
severely impacted his family's economic well-being and has taken
an emotional toll on the entire family.  

                Injuries Suffered by Christine Walker

For twenty-six years, Christine Walker cared for others as a
registered nurse.  Prior to her December 2007 implantation
surgery on her left hip, she took time off from her job as
Director of Nursing in a major Palm Beach County medical
facility, with the expectation that she would return to work six
to eight weeks after the implantation surgery.  However, due to
the defective Durom Cup, she was unable to return to work and
remains disabled.

Ms. Walker experienced extensive pain following her implantation
surgery.  In February 2008, her physical therapist refused to
treat her without further examination from her physician because
the therapist recognized that Ms. Walker's pain was unusually
severe.  

In March 2008, Ms. Walker underwent a surgery to adjust the
femoral component of the hip replacement.  After the surgery,
Christine continued to suffer pain.  She underwent additional
surgeries and continued to experience severe left hip pain.  She
could no longer enjoy activities such as dancing, golfing,
fishing, camping, and long drives with her husband, Kenneth
Walker.  The pain also hindered her ability to perform basic
physical motions such as climbing, bending, and sitting for long
periods of time.  

The excruciating pain persisted until Ms. Walker underwent a
revision surgery in December 2008, one year after the original
implantation.  The Durom Cup was found to be completely loose,
with no porous in-growth in the cup.   

Ms. Walker has not fully recovered from the harm of the defective
Durom Cup and still suffers incredible leg and hip pain.  The
pain has limited her ability to perform basic day-to-day
functions, and she was unable to return to her job.  She now
relies on a cane for walking short distances uses a walker for
longer distances.  Her inability to return to work has severely
impacted her family's economic well-being and has taken an
emotional toll on the entire family.  

                Procedural Status of the Litigation

Walker, et ux. v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No.
10-cv-80376 (S.D. Fla.) (Marra, J.), was filed on March 11, 2010,
in West Palm Beach, Fla.  

Lovelace, et ux. v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No.
10-cv-00125 (W.D. Ky.) (Heyburn, J.), was filed in Louisville,
Ky., on February 26, 2010.

               Legal Resources for Zimmer Durom Cup
                       Hip Implant Patients

Lieff Cabraser represents persons across America injured by
defective medical devices, including the Zimmer Durom Cup.

If you would like to learn more about your legal rights please
visit:

     http://www.personalinjurylawyeramerica.com/medical/zimmer-durom-hip-recall.htm

or call toll free at 1-800-541-7358 and ask to speak to attorney
Heather Foster.  There is no charge or obligation for our review
of your case.

                        About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP --
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/-- is a sixty-plus attorney law  
firm that has represented plaintiffs nationwide since 1972. We
have offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville.  Lieff
Cabraser has a comprehensive and diverse practice, which includes
representing persons injured by defective medical devices.  

Since 2003, The National Law Journal has selected Lieff Cabraser
as one of the top plaintiffs' law firms in the nation.  

                            *********

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  * * *