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  * * *