/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100323.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, March 23, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 57 Headlines ACCURAY INC: Accused of Misleading Shareholders in Calif. Suit BROTHER INT'L: Sued for Selling Defective Printers & Cartridges CHARTER COMMS: Continues to Defend "Bodet" Suit in Louisiana CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Defends "Goodell" Suit Over Unpaid Wages CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Defends Suit "Lebryk" Suit in Illinois CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Wants Suit Against CEO and CFO Dismissed CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss Maryland Suit Pending CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Lawsuit Pending CONVERGYS CORP: Defending Intervoice Securities Lawsuit in Texas IMPAX LABORATORIES: Continues to Defend Suit Over Budeprion XL JUNIPER NETWORKS: Settles Securities Suit for $169 Million LEXMARK INT'L: Continues to Defend Suit Over Vacation Policies MIDAS INT'L: Sued for Terminating Lifetime Oil Change Contracts SLM CORP: Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint Pending SLM CORP: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Violations Suit Pending SLM CORP: Ninth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment in "Chae" Suit SLM CORP: Continues to Defend "Arthur" Suit in Washington UNISOURCE ENERGY: Unit Continues to Face "Right of Way" Suit UNITED PARCEL: Suit Complains About Next-Day Delivery Service ********* ACCURAY INC: Accused of Misleading Shareholders in Calif. Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Accuray inflated its share price through false and misleading statements, a class action claims in San Francisco Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Israni v. Thomson et al., Case No. 10- cv-01117 (N.D. Calif.) (Alsup, J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/18/SCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc M. Umeda, Esq. Kevin A. Seely, Esq. Kelly M. McIntyre, Esq. Daniel R. Forde, Esq. Alejandro E. Moreno, Esq. ROBBINS UMEDA LLP 600 B St., Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619-525-3990 - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsyslvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: 405-235-1560 - and - Marc S. Henzel, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARC HENZEL 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: 610-660-8000 BROTHER INT'L: Sued for Selling Defective Printers & Cartridges --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Brother claims that its color laser printers will work after replacement of only the tint cartridge that has run out, but that's not the case, a class action claims in Newark Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Booth v. Brother International Corporation, Case No. 10-cv-01364 (D. N.J.) (Pisano, J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/18/Brother.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary S. Graifman, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN 210 Summit Ave. Montvale, NJ 07645 Telephone: 201-391-7000 - and - Michael S. Green, Esq. GREEN & PAGANO, LLP 522 Route 18, P.O. Box 428 East Brunswick, NJ 08816 Telephone: 732-390-0480 - and - Paul Diamond, Esq. DIAMOND LAW OFFICE, LLC 1605 John St., Suite 102 Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Telephone: 201-242-1110 CHARTER COMMS: Continues to Defend "Bodet" Suit in Louisiana ------------------------------------------------------------ Charter Communications, Inc., continues to defend a suit alleging violations of the Sherman Act, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for year ended Dec. 31, 2009. In March 2009, Gerald Paul Bodet, Jr. filed a putative class action against Charter and Charter Holdco captioned Gerald Paul Bodet, Jr. v. Charter Communications, Inc. and Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In January 2010, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint which also named Charter Communications, LLC as a defendant. In the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated the Sherman Act, the Communications Act of 1934, and the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act by forcing subscribers to rent a set top box in order to subscribe to cable video services which are not available to subscribers by simply plugging a cable into a cable-ready television. Defendants' response to the Second Amended Complaint is currently due on April 2, 2010. Charter Communications, Inc. -- http://www.charter.com/-- is a broadband communications company and the fourth-largest cable operator in the United States. Charter provides a full range of advanced broadband services, including advanced Charter Digital Cable(R) video entertainment programming, Charter High-Speed(R) Internet access, and Charter Telephone(R). Charter Business(TM) similarly provides scalable, tailored, and cost-effective broadband communications solutions to business organizations, such as business-to-business Internet access, data networking, video and music entertainment services, and business telephone. Charter's advertising sales and production services are sold under the Charter Media(R) brand. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Defends "Goodell" Suit Over Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Charter Communications, Inc., continues to defend a suit captioned Marc Goodell et al. v. Charter Communications, LLC, and Charter Communications, Inc., alleging violation of wage and hour statutes, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On August 28, 2008, a lawsuit was filed against Charter and Charter Communications, LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of current and former broadband, system and other types of technicians who are or were employed by Charter or Charter LLC in the states of Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri or California. Plaintiffs allege that Charter and Charter LLC violated certain wage and hour statutes of those four states by failing to pay technicians for all hours worked. Charter Communications, Inc. -- http://www.charter.com/-- is a broadband communications company and the fourth-largest cable operator in the United States. Charter provides a full range of advanced broadband services, including advanced Charter Digital Cable(R) video entertainment programming, Charter High-Speed(R) Internet access, and Charter Telephone(R). Charter Business(TM) similarly provides scalable, tailored, and cost-effective broadband communications solutions to business organizations, such as business-to-business Internet access, data networking, video and music entertainment services, and business telephone. Charter's advertising sales and production services are sold under the Charter Media(R) brand. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Defends Suit "Lebryk" Suit in Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- Charter Communications, Inc., continues to defend a suit styled Derrick Lebryk and Nicholas Gladson v. Charter Communications, Inc., Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC, CCHC, LLC and Charter Communications Holding, LLC, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for year ended Dec. 31, 2009. In June 2009, Derrick Lebryk and Nichols Gladson filed a putative class action against Charter, Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC, CCHC, LLC and Charter Communications Holding, LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the Sherman Act based on similar allegations as those alleged in the suit Bodet v. Charter, et al. Charter Communications, Inc. -- http://www.charter.com/-- is a broadband communications company and the fourth-largest cable operator in the United States. Charter provides a full range of advanced broadband services, including advanced Charter Digital Cable(R) video entertainment programming, Charter High-Speed(R) Internet access, and Charter Telephone(R). Charter Business(TM) similarly provides scalable, tailored, and cost-effective broadband communications solutions to business organizations, such as business-to-business Internet access, data networking, video and music entertainment services, and business telephone. Charter's advertising sales and production services are sold under the Charter Media(R) brand. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Wants Suit Against CEO and CFO Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Charter Communications, Inc., intends to seek dismissal of the suit captioned Herb Lair, Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund et al. v. Neil Smit, Eloise Schmitz, and Paul G. Allen, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for year ended Dec. 31, 2009. The suit was filed in June 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on June 1, 2009. Mr. Smit and Ms. Schmitz are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of Charter. The plaintiffs, who seek to represent a class of plaintiffs who acquired Charter stock between Oct. 23, 2006 and Feb. 12, 2009, allege that they and others similarly situated were misled by statements by Ms. Schmitz, Mr. Smit, Mr. Allen and/or in Charter SEC filings. The plaintiffs assert violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In February 2010, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that these plaintiffs' causes of action were released by the Third Party Release and Injunction under Charter's Plan of Reorganization. Charter Communications, Inc. -- http://www.charter.com/-- is a broadband communications company and the fourth-largest cable operator in the United States. Charter provides a full range of advanced broadband services, including advanced Charter Digital Cable(R) video entertainment programming, Charter High-Speed(R) Internet access, and Charter Telephone(R). Charter Business(TM) similarly provides scalable, tailored, and cost-effective broadband communications solutions to business organizations, such as business-to-business Internet access, data networking, video and music entertainment services, and business telephone. Charter's advertising sales and production services are sold under the Charter Media(R) brand. CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss Maryland Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Constellation Energy Group Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated amended complaint remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Three federal securities class-action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the District of Maryland between September 2008 and November 2008. The cases were filed on behalf of a proposed class of persons who acquired publicly traded securities, including the Series A Junior Subordinated Debentures, of Constellation Energy between Jan. 30, 2008, and Sept. 16, 2008, and who acquired Debentures in an offering completed in June 2008. The securities class-action lawsuits generally allege that Constellation Energy, a number of its present or former officers or directors, and the underwriters violated the securities laws by issuing a false and misleading registration statement and prospectus in connection with Constellation Energy's June 27, 2008 offering of Debentures. The securities class-action suits also allege that Constellation Energy issued false or misleading statements or was aware of material undisclosed information which contradicted public statements including in connection with its announcements of financial results for 2007, the fourth quarter of 2007, the first quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2008 and the filing of its first quarter 2008 Form 10-Q. The securities class-action lawsuits seek, among other things, certification of the cases as class actions, compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees, and rescission damages. The Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion to transfer the securities class actions filed there to the District of Maryland, and the actions have since been transferred for coordination with the securities class action filed there. On June 18, 2009, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, who filed a consolidated amended complaint on Sept. 17, 2009. On Nov. 17, 2009, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety. Constellation Energy Group Inc. -- http://www.constellation.com/ -- a FORTUNE 125 company with 2007 revenues of $21 billion, says it is the nation's largest competitive supplier of electricity to large commercial and industrial customers and the nation's largest wholesale power seller. Constellation Energy also manages fuels and energy services on behalf of energy intensive industries and utilities. It owns a diversified fleet of 83 generating units located throughout the United States, totaling approximately 9,000 megawatts of generating capacity. The company delivers electricity and natural gas through the Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., its regulated utility in Central Maryland. CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Lawsuit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Constellation Energy Group Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated complaint alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act remains pending, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. In the fall of 2008, multiple class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Courts for the District of Maryland and the Southern District of New York against Constellation Energy; Mayo A. Shattuck III, Constellation Energy's Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer; and others in their roles as fiduciaries of the Constellation Energy Employee Savings Plan. The actions, which have been consolidated into one action in Maryland, allege that the defendants, in violation of various sections of ERISA, breached their fiduciary duties to prudently and loyally manage Constellation Energy Savings Plan's assets by designating Constellation Energy common stock as an investment, by failing to properly provide accurate information about the investment, by failing to properly monitor the investment and by failing to properly monitor other fiduciaries. The plaintiffs seek to compel the defendants to reimburse the plaintiffs and the Constellation Energy Savings Plan for all losses resulting from the defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty, to impose a constructive trust on any unjust enrichment, to award actual damages with pre- and post-judgment interest, to award appropriate equitable relief including injunction and restitution and to award costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. On Oct. 2, 2009, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint in its entirety. Constellation Energy Group Inc. -- http://www.constellation.com/ -- a FORTUNE 125 company with 2007 revenues of $21 billion, says it is the nation's largest competitive supplier of electricity to large commercial and industrial customers and the nation's largest wholesale power seller. Constellation Energy also manages fuels and energy services on behalf of energy intensive industries and utilities. It owns a diversified fleet of 83 generating units located throughout the United States, totaling approximately 9,000 megawatts of generating capacity. The company delivers electricity and natural gas through the Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., its regulated utility in Central Maryland. CONVERGYS CORP: Defending Intervoice Securities Lawsuit in Texas ---------------------------------------------------------------- Convergys Corp. continues to defend a consolidated lawsuit against Intervoice, Inc., after the appeal of the plaintiffs on the ruling denying class certification was accepted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for year ended Dec. 31, 2009. In September 2008, Convergys announced the closing of its acquisition of Intervoice. Several related class-action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of common stock of Intervoice during the period from Oct. 12, 1999 through June 6, 2000. The plaintiffs have filed claims, which were consolidated into one proceeding, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 against Intervoice as well as certain named current and former officers and directors of Intervoice on behalf of the alleged class members. In the complaint, the plaintiffs claim that Intervoice and the named current and former officers and directors issued false and misleading statements during the Class Period concerning the financial condition of Intervoice, the results of the merger with Brite and the alleged future business projections of Intervoice. They have asserted that these alleged statements resulted in artificially inflated stock prices. The District Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint because it lacked the degree of specificity and factual support to meet the pleading standards applicable to federal securities litigation. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal in part and reversed in part. The Fifth Circuit remanded a limited number of issues for further proceedings in the District Court. On Sept. 26, 2006, the District Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of people who purchased Intervoice stock during the Class Period. On Nov. 14, 2006, the Fifth Circuit granted Intervoice's petition to appeal the District Court's decision to grant Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class. On Jan. 8, 2008, the Fifth Circuit vacated the District Court's class-certification order and remanded the case to the District Court for further consideration in light of the Fifth Circuit's decision in Oscar Private Equity Investments v. Allegiance Telecom, Inc. The parties filed additional briefing in the District Court regarding class certification and are awaiting the District Court's ruling. The District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and Intervoice moved to dismiss portions of that amended complaint. On March 14, 2008, the District Court granted that motion in part and denied it in part. Intervoice has largely completed the production of documents in response to the plaintiffs' requests for production. On July 7, 2009, the District Court ordered the parties to file additional briefing regarding class certification in light of the Fifth Circuit's more recent decision in Alaska Electric Pension Fund v. Flowserve Corporation, No. 07-11303 c/w 08- 10071, http://is.gd/2drBW(5th Cir. June 19, 2009). On Oct. 26, 2009, the District Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class. The named plaintiffs' claims remain pending in the District Court. On Nov. 9, 2009, the Plaintiffs sought permission from the Fifth Circuit to appeal the District Court's order denying class certification. In December 2009, the Fifth Circuit accepted the plaintiff's appeal. Convergys Corp. -- http://www.convergys.com/-- is a global player in relationship management. The Company provides its clients with solutions to support their customers (Customer Solutions) and employees (human resource (HR) Solutions). It has three segments: Customer Management, which provides outsourced customer care solutions, as well as professional and consulting services to in-house customer care operations; Information Management, which provides convergent rating, charging and billing solutions for the global communications industry, and Human Resources Management, which provides human resource business process outsourcing (HR BPO) solutions and learning solutions. In September 2008, Convergys announced the closing of its acquisition of Intervoice, Inc. In October 2008, the Company announced the acquisition of Ceon Corporation, a developer of product lifecycle management and multi-play fulfillment software for communications service providers. IMPAX LABORATORIES: Continues to Defend Suit Over Budeprion XL -------------------------------------------------------------- IMPAX Laboratories, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated action over Budeprion XL, a drug manufactured by the company, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. In June 2009, the company was a co-defendant in class action lawsuits filed in California state court in an action titled Kelly v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Indus. Ltd, et al., No. BC414812 (Calif. Superior Crt. L.A. County). Subsequently, additional class action lawsuits were filed in: -- Louisiana (Morgan v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Indus. Ltd, et al., No. 673880 (24th Dist Crt., Jefferson Parish, LA.)), -- North Carolina (Weber v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Indus., Ltd., et al., No. 07 CV5002556, (N.C. Superior Crt., Hanover County)), -- Pennsylvania (Rosenfeld v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.. et al., No. 2:09-CV-2811 (E.D. Pa.)), -- Florida (Henchenski and Vogel v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., et al., No. 2:09-CV-470-FLM-29SPC (M.D. Fla.)), -- Texas (Anderson v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Indus., Ltd., et al., No. 3-09CV1200-M (N.D. Tex.)), -- Oklahoma (Brown et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Inds., Ltd., et al., No. 09-cv-649-TCK-PJC (N.D. OK)), -- Ohio (Latvala et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Inds., Ltd., et al., No. 2:09-cv-795 (S.D. OH)), -- Alabama (Jordan v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Indus. Ltd et al., No. CV09-709 (Ala. Cir. Crt. Baldwin County)), and -- Washington (Leighty v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Indus. Ltd et al., No. CV09-01640 (W. D. Wa.)). All of the complaints involve Budeprion XL, a generic version of Wellbutrin XL(R) that is manufactured by the company and marketed by Teva, and allege that, contrary to representations of Teva, Budeprion XL is less effective in treating depression, and more likely to cause dangerous side effects, than Wellbutrin XL(R). The actions are brought on behalf of purchasers of Budeprion XL and assert claims such as unfair competition, unfair trade practices and negligent misrepresentation under state law. Each lawsuit seeks damages in an unspecified amount consisting of the cost of Budeprion XL paid by class members, as well as any applicable penalties imposed by state law, and disclaims damages for personal injury. The state court cases have been removed to federal court, and a petition for multidistrict litigation to consolidate the cases in federal court has been granted. These cases and any subsequently filed cases will be heard under the consolidated action entitled In re: Budeprion XL Marketing Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2107, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. IMPAX Laboratories, Inc. -- http://www.impaxlabs.com/-- is a technology based specialty pharmaceutical company applying its formulation expertise and drug delivery technology to the development of controlled-release and specialty generics in addition to the development of branded products. JUNIPER NETWORKS: Settles Securities Suit for $169 Million ---------------------------------------------------------- Juniper Networks, Inc., has agreed to pay $169.0 million to settle an amended consolidated complaint, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On July 14, 2006, and Aug. 29, 2006, two purported class actions were filed in the Northern District of California against the company and certain of the company's current and former officers and directors. On Nov. 20, 2006, the Court consolidated the two actions as In re Juniper Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. C06-04327-JW, and appointed the New York City Pension Funds as lead plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on Jan. 12, 2007, and filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on April 9, 2007. The Amended Consolidated Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by manipulating stock option grant dates to coincide with low stock prices and issuing false and misleading statements including, among others, incorrect financial statements due to the improper accounting of stock option grants. The Amended Consolidated Complaint asserts claims for violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Juniper Networks' publicly-traded securities from July 12, 2001, through and including Aug. 10, 2006. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages in an unspecified amount. On June 7, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss certain of the claims, and a hearing was held on Sept. 10, 2007. On March 31, 2008, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. The order dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs' section 10(b) claim to the extent it was based on challenged statements made before July 14, 2001. The order also dismissed, with leave to amend, plaintiffs' section 10(b) claim against Pradeep Sindhu. The order upheld all of plaintiffs' remaining claims. Plaintiffs did not amend their complaint. On Sept. 25, 2009, the Court certified a plaintiff class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities from July 11, 2003 to Aug. 10, 2006 inclusive, and were damaged thereby, including those who received or acquired Juniper Networks' common stock issued pursuant to the registration statement on SEC Form S-4, dated March 10, 2004, for the company's merger with NetScreen Technologies Inc.; and purchasers of Zero Coupon Convertible Senior Notes due June 15, 2008 issued pursuant to a registration statement on SEC Form S-3 dated Nov. 20, 2003. Excluded from the Class are the Defendants and the current and former officers and directors of the company, their immediate families, their heirs, successors, or assigns and any entity controlled by any such person. On Feb. 5, 2010, the company and the lead plaintiffs entered into an agreement in principle to settle the claims against the company and each of the company's current and former officers and directors. The settlement is contingent upon approval by the Boards of Trustees of the lead plaintiffs and approval by the Court. Under the proposed settlement, the claims against the company and its officers and directors will be dismissed with prejudice and released in exchange for a $169.0 million cash payment by the company. The Company considers the proposed payment to be probable and reasonably estimable and, therefore, recorded the cash settlement amount as a pre-tax operating expense in its consolidated statement of operations for the fourth quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009. Juniper Networks, Inc. -- http://www.juniper.net/-- designs, develops and sells products and services that together provide its customers with network infrastructure that creates responsive and trusted environments for accelerating the deployment of services and applications over a single network. The company serves the networking requirements of global service providers, enterprises and public sector organizations, which view the network to their success. The company offers a product portfolio, which spans routing, switching, security, application acceleration, identity policy and control, and management designed to provide performance, choice and flexibility. The company operations are organized into two segments: infrastructure and service layer technologies (SLT). The company's infrastructure segment offers scalable routing and switching products that are used to control and direct network traffic from the core, through the edge, aggregation and the customer premise equipment level. LEXMARK INT'L: Continues to Defend Suit Over Vacation Policies -------------------------------------------------------------- Lexmark International, Inc., continues to defend a class action lawsuit filed by a former employee over its vacation policies, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On Aug. 31, 2005 former company employee Ron Molina filed a class action lawsuit in the California Superior Court for Los Angeles under a California employment statute which in effect prohibits the forfeiture of vacation time accrued. This statute has been used to invalidate California employers' "use or lose" vacation policies. The class is comprised of less than 200 current and former California employees of the company. The trial was bifurcated into a liability phase and a damages phase. On May 1, 2009, the Judge brought the liability phase to a conclusion with a ruling that the company's vacation and personal choice day's policies from 1991 to the present violated California law. The trial on the damages phase was completed on Jan. 15, 2010 and the parties are awaiting the Judge's ruling. The damage award might range from zero, based on the company's argument that the class has failed to meet its burden of proving damages to approximately $16.7 million dollars, the highest amount asserted by the class' expert based on an assumption that none of the California employees ever used any of their accrued vacation or personal choice days. The class is also seeking injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees. Lexmark International, Inc. -- http://www1.lexmark.com/products/ -- is engaged in developing, manufacturing and supplying printing and imaging solutions for offices and homes. Lexmark's products include laser printers, inkjet printers, multifunction devices, dot matrix printers and associated supplies, services and solutions. Lexmark develops and owns technology for its laser and inkjet products and related solutions. The company operates in the office products industry. The company operates in two divisions: the Printing Solutions and Services Division and the Imaging Solutions Division. MIDAS INT'L: Sued for Terminating Lifetime Oil Change Contracts --------------------------------------------------------------- June Williams at Courthouse News Service reports that Midas International canceled its "Lifetime Oil Change" promise after customers paid $130 for it, a class action claims in King County Court. Midas and its J&A Automotive outlet charged $129.99 for up to four oil changes a year for "lifetime," then sent letters in October 2009 canceling the deal as of Dec. 31, 2010, the class says. The letter referred questions to Midas's 1-800 number, according to the complaint. The class seeks injunctive relief and damages for breach of contract and violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. A copy of the Complaint in Dawson, et al. v. Midas International Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-2-09459-8 (Wash. Super. Ct., King Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/18/Midas.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew N. Metz, Esq. METZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 701 Fifth Ave., Suite 7230 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: 206-583-2745 - and - Adam J. Berger, Esq. SCHROETER, GOLDMARK & BENDER 810 Third Ave., Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: 206-622-8000 SLM CORP: Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ SLM Corporation's motion to dismiss a second amended consolidated complaint remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On Jan. 31, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the company and certain officers. This case and other actions arising out of the same circumstances and alleged acts have been consolidated and are now identified as In Re SLM Corporation Securities Litigation. The case purports to be brought on behalf of those who acquired common stock of the company between Jan. 18, 2007 and Jan. 23, 2008. The complaint alleges that the company and certain officers violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements and that the statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price for the company's securities. The complaint alleges that defendants caused the company's results for year-end 2006 and for the first quarter of 2007 to be materially misstated because the company failed to adequately provide for loan losses, which overstated the company's net income, and that the company failed to adequately disclose allegedly known trends and uncertainties with respect to its non- traditional loan portfolio. On July 23, 2008, the court appointed Westchester Capital Management Lead Plaintiff. On Dec. 8, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. In addition to the prior allegations, the consolidated amended complaint alleges that the company understated loan delinquencies and loan loss reserves by promoting loan forbearances. On Dec. 19, 2008, and Dec. 31, 2008, two rejected lead plaintiffs filed a challenge to Westchester as Lead Plaintiff. On April 1, 2009, the court named a new Lead Plaintiff, SLM Venture, and Westchester appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. On Sept. 3, 2009, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint on largely the same allegations as the Consolidated Amended Complaint, but dropped one of the three senior officers as a defendant. On Oct. 1, 2009, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied Westchester's Writ of Mandamus, thereby deciding the Lead Plaintiff question in favor of SLM Venture. On Dec. 11, 2009, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Consolidated Complaint. This Motion is pending. Lead Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and equitable and injunctive relief. SLM Corporation, known as Sallie Mae -- http://www.salliemae.com/ -- is engaged in the business of originating, servicing and collecting student loans and/or their parents to finance the cost of their education. The company provide funding, delivery and servicing support for education loans in the United States through the participation in the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP), as a servicer of loans for the Department of Education (ED), and through its non-federally guaranteed Private Education Loan programs. The company provides services, including student loan and guarantee servicing, loan default aversion and defaulted loan collections, and providing processing capabilities and information technology to educational institutions, through Upromise Investments, Inc. (UII) and Upromise Investment Advisors, LLC (UIA). The company operates in three business segments: Lending business segment, Asset Performance Group Business Segment (APG) business segment, and Corporate and Other business segment. SLM CORP: Motion to Dismiss ERISA Violations Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------- SLM Corporation's motion to dismiss a second amended consolidated complaint alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act remains pending, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. A case is pending against the company, certain officers, retirement plan fiduciaries, and the Board of Directors, In Re SLM Corporation ERISA Litigation, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The proposed class consists of participants in or beneficiaries of the Sallie Mae 401(K) Retirement Savings Plan between Jan. 18, 2007 and "the present" whose accounts included investments in Sallie Mae stock. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties and prohibited transactions in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act arising out of alleged false and misleading public statements regarding the company's business made during the 401K Class Period and investments in the Company's common stock by participants in the 401K Plan. On Dec. 15, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint and a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint on Sept. 10, 2009. On Nov. 10, 2009, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the matter on all counts. This Motion is pending. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and equitable and injunctive relief. SLM Corporation, known as Sallie Mae -- http://www.salliemae.com/ -- is engaged in the business of originating, servicing and collecting student loans and/or their parents to finance the cost of their education. The company provide funding, delivery and servicing support for education loans in the United States through the participation in the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP), as a servicer of loans for the Department of Education (ED), and through its non-federally guaranteed Private Education Loan programs. The company provides services, including student loan and guarantee servicing, loan default aversion and defaulted loan collections, and providing processing capabilities and information technology to educational institutions, through Upromise Investments, Inc. (UII) and Upromise Investment Advisors, LLC (UIA). The company operates in three business segments: Lending business segment, Asset Performance Group Business Segment (APG) business segment, and Corporate and Other business segment. SLM CORP: Ninth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment in "Chae" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the summary judgment in a putative class action suit against SLM Corporation captioned Anne Chae et al. v. SLM Corporation et al., according to the company's Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On April 6, 2007, the company was served with a putative class action suit by several borrowers in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiffs challenged under California common and statutory law the company's Federal Family Education Loan Program billing practices as they relate to the use of the simple daily interest method for calculating interest, the charging of late fees while charging simple daily interest, and setting the first payment date at 60 days after loan disbursement for Consolidation and PLUS Loans thereby alleging that the company effectively capitalizes interest. The plaintiffs seek unspecified actual and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement of late fees, pre-judgment and post- judgment interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and equitable and injunctive relief. On June 16, 2008, the Court granted summary judgment to the company on all counts on the basis of federal preemption. The decision was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On Jan. 25, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment on all counts on the basis of federal preemption. SLM Corporation, known as Sallie Mae -- http://www.salliemae.com/ -- is engaged in the business of originating, servicing and collecting student loans and/or their parents to finance the cost of their education. The company provide funding, delivery and servicing support for education loans in the United States through the participation in the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP), as a servicer of loans for the Department of Education (ED), and through its non-federally guaranteed Private Education Loan programs. The company provides services, including student loan and guarantee servicing, loan default aversion and defaulted loan collections, and providing processing capabilities and information technology to educational institutions, through Upromise Investments, Inc. (UII) and Upromise Investment Advisors, LLC (UIA). The company operates in three business segments: Lending business segment, Asset Performance Group Business Segment (APG) business segment, and Corporate and Other business segment. SLM CORP: Continues to Defend "Arthur" Suit in Washington --------------------------------------------------------- SLM Corporation continues to defend a putative class action captioned Mark A. Arthur et al. v. SLM Corporation, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On Feb. 2, 2010, a putative class action suit was filed by a borrower in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The suit complains that Sallie Mae allegedly contacted "tens of thousands" of consumers on their cellular telephones without their prior express consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Section 227 et seq. Each violation under the TCPA provides for $500 in statutory damages ($1,500 if a willful violation is shown). Plaintiffs seek statutory damages, damages for willful violations, attorneys' fees, costs, and injunctive relief. SLM Corporation, known as Sallie Mae -- http://www.salliemae.com/ -- is engaged in the business of originating, servicing and collecting student loans and/or their parents to finance the cost of their education. The company provide funding, delivery and servicing support for education loans in the United States through the participation in the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP), as a servicer of loans for the Department of Education (ED), and through its non-federally guaranteed Private Education Loan programs. The company provides services, including student loan and guarantee servicing, loan default aversion and defaulted loan collections, and providing processing capabilities and information technology to educational institutions, through Upromise Investments, Inc. (UII) and Upromise Investment Advisors, LLC (UIA). The company operates in three business segments: Lending business segment, Asset Performance Group Business Segment (APG) business segment, and Corporate and Other business segment. UNISOURCE ENERGY: Unit Continues to Face "Right of Way" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Tucson Electric Power Co.'s motion to dismiss a putative class action remains pending in the U.S. District Court in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Tucson Electric is the principal subsidiary of UniSource Energy. Tucson Electric is a defendant in a putative class action filed on Feb. 11, 2009, by members of the Navajo Nation. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the rights of ways for defendants' transmission lines on Navajo lands were improperly granted and that the compensation paid for such rights of way was inadequate. The plaintiffs are requesting, among other things, that the transmission lines on these lands be removed. In June 2009, TEP and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit on procedural grounds and in September 2009, the plaintiffs filed responses. No further updates were reported in Unisource Energy Corp.'s Feb. 26, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. UniSource Energy Corporation -- http://www.uns.com/-- is a holding company that conducts its operations through its subsidiaries. UniSource Energy owns Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP), UniSource Energy Services, Inc. (UES), Millennium Energy Holdings, Inc. (Millennium) and UniSource Energy Development Company (UED). The company conducts its business through three segments: TEP, UNS Gas and UNS Electric. TEP is an electric utility that provides electric service to the community of Tucson, Arizona. UES, through its two operating subsidiaries, UNS Gas, Inc. (UNS Gas) and UNS Electric, Inc. (UNS Electric), provides gas and electric service to 30 communities in Northern and Southern Arizona. UED developed and owns the Black Mountain Generating Station (BMGS), a natural gas-fired combustion turbine in Northern Arizona that, through a power sales agreement provides energy to UNS Electric. UNITED PARCEL: Suit Complains About Next-Day Delivery Service ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that United Parcel Service charges for next-day delivery service that "it knows, or should know, cannot be timely delivered," a class action claims in Brooklyn Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Starke v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-01225 (E.D.N.Y.) (Garaufis, J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/18/UPS.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Schlachet, Esq. 3637 South Green Rd., 2nd Floor Beachwood, OH 44122 Telephone: 216-896-0714 ********* 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, Joy A. Agravante, Ronald Sy 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 * * *