---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, March 3, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 43

                            Headlines

3M CO: Court Sets May 5 and 6 Hearing in "Whitaker" Suit
3M CO: Continues to Defend "Garcia" Suit in Minnesota
3M CO: Defending Suits Over Chemical Exposure at Alabama Plant
3M CO: Continues to Defend Against "Chemical Dumping" Lawsuit
AVAYA INC: Enters MOU to Settle Suit Over Tenovis Germany Buy

BIOFORM MEDICAL: Faces Suit on Planned Sale to Merz GMBH
CAPITAL ONE: COBNA and COSI Face Three Marketing Practice Suits
CAPITAL ONE: COBNA & COSI Appealing Certification in "Spinelli"
EBAY INC: Class Certification Motion Still Pending in Texas
IMS HEALTH: Approval of Settlement Pact in Conn. Suits Pending

KOSS CORP: Faces "Puskala" Securities Violations Suit in Wis.
MASCO CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Atlanta
MOTOROLA INC: Defends Securities Violations Suit in Illinois
MOTOROLA INC: Faces Two ERISA Violations Suit in Illinois
MOTOROLA INC: Plaintiff's Appeal in "Howell" Suit Still Pending

NATURE'S SUNSHINE: Settlement Agreement Gets Court's Final Nod
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Continues to Defend Suits Over Fuel Surcharges
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Continues to Defend Counterclaim Suit in Ga.
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Qui Tam Lawsuits Over Billing Practices
QWEST CORP: Plaintiffs' Appeal to Dismissal Remains Pending

REALOGY CORP: Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion Pending
REALOGY CORP: Class Certification in "Larpenteur" Suit Pending
REALOGY CORP: Appeal on Dismissal of "Proa" Suit Still Pending
SINOENERGY CORP: Wants Suit in New York Dismissed
SINOENERGY CORP: Faces Four Suits in Nevada Over Sale to Skywide

WINN-DIXIE: Continues to Defend Ex-Employees' Suit in Florida
WASTE MANAGEMENT: WM Holdings Continues to Defend Suit in D.C.
WASTE MANAGEMENT: California Units Continue to Defend Suits
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Reaches Agreement to Settle 33 Lawsuits
YUM! BRANDS: Class Certification Granted in "Chhibber" Suit

YUM! BRANDS: Certification Hearing in Wage Suit Set for 2011
YUM! BRANDS: Dismissal Motion Hearing in "Rosales" Set for April
YUM! BRANDS: Plaintiff's Appeal in "Archila" Suit Pending
YUM! BRANDS: No Trial Date Yet in "Hines" Lawsuit
YUM! BRANDS: Court Denies Summary Judgment for ADA Claims

YUM! BRANDS: "Blackwood" Suit Dismissed Voluntarily

                            *********

3M CO: Court Sets May 5 and 6 Hearing in "Whitaker" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Ramsey County, Minnesota, has scheduled a
hearing on May 5 and 6, 2010 to take testimony on the class
certification issue in a purported class action against 3M Co.
alleging employment discrimination, according to the company's
Feb. 16, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

One current and one former employee of the company filed a
purported class action (the "Whitaker" lawsuit) in the District
Court of Ramsey County, Minnesota, in December 2004, seeking to
represent a class of all current and certain former salaried
employees employed by the company in Minnesota below a certain
salary grade who were age 46 or older at any time during the
applicable period to be determined by the Court.

The complaint alleges the plaintiffs suffered various forms of
employment discrimination on the basis of age in violation of the
Minnesota Human Rights Act and seeks injunctive relief,
unspecified compensatory damages (which they seek to treble under
the statute), including back and front pay, punitive damages
(limited by statute to $8,500 per claimant) and attorneys' fees.

In January 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to join four
additional named plaintiffs.

This motion was unopposed by the company and the four plaintiffs
were joined in the case, although one claim has been dismissed
following an individual settlement.

The class certification hearing was held in December 2007.

On April 11, 2008, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
certify the case as a class action and defined the class as all
persons who were 46 or older when employed by 3M in Minnesota in
a salaried exempt position below a certain salary grade at any
time on or after May 10, 2003, and who did not sign a document on
their last day of employment purporting to release claims arising
out of their employment with 3M.

On June 25, 2008, the Minnesota Court of Appeals granted the
company's petition for interlocutory review of the District
Court's decision granting class certification in the case.

On April 28, 2009, the Court of Appeals issued its decision,
reversing the District Court's class certification decision.

The Court of Appeals found that the District Court had not
required plaintiffs to meet the proper legal standards for
certification of a class under Minnesota law and had deferred
resolving certain factual disputes that were relevant to the
class certification requirements.

The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings in line with the evidentiary standards
defined in its opinion.

The company believes that the Court of Appeals correctly
determined the proper legal standards to apply to motions to
certify a class action, but the company also believes that
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in this case should be
denied as a matter of law.

Accordingly, on May 28, 2009, the company filed in the Minnesota
Supreme Court a Petition for Partial Review of the Decision of
the Court of Appeals.

On July 22, 2009, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied the
Petition.

The trial court has scheduled a hearing on May 5 and 6, 2010 to
take testimony on the class certification issue.

3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology  
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services,
and electro and communications.


3M CO: Continues to Defend "Garcia" Suit in Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------
3M Co. continues to defend a purported class action/collective
action in U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota,
according to the company's Feb. 16, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

The company was served on May 7, 2009 with a purported class
action/collective action age discrimination lawsuit, which was
filed in United States District Court for the Northern District
of California, San Jose Division (the "Garcia lawsuit").

Five former and one current employee of the company are seeking
to represent all current and former salaried employees employed
by the company in the United States during the liability period,
which plaintiffs define as 2001 to the present.

In addition to the six named plaintiffs, 91 other current or
former employees have signed "opt-in" forms, seeking to join the
action.

The Garcia lawsuit expressly excludes those persons and those
claims encompassed within the proposed class and claims in the
Whitaker lawsuit.

The same counsel, joined by additional California counsel for the
Garcia lawsuit, represents the plaintiffs in both cases.

Plaintiffs claim that they and other similarly situated employees
suffered various forms of employment discrimination on the basis
of age in violation of the federal Age Discrimination in
Employment Act.

In regard to these claims, plaintiffs seek to represent "all
persons who were 46 or older when employed by 3M in the United
States in a salaried position below the level of director, or
salary grade 18, during the liability period."

Because federal law protects persons age 40 and older from age
discrimination, with respect to their claim of disparate impact
only, plaintiffs also propose an alternative definition of
similarly situated persons that would begin at age 40.

Plaintiffs allege that there are more than 6,000 current and
former employees who may potentially opt into the collective
action.

On behalf of this group, plaintiffs seek injunctive relief,
unspecified compensatory damages including back and front pay,
benefits, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees.

Certain of the plaintiffs' and putative class members' employment
terminated under circumstances in which they were eligible for
group severance plan benefits and in connection with those plans
they signed waivers of claims, including age discrimination
claims.

Plaintiffs claim the waivers of age discrimination claims were
invalid in various respects.

This subset of release-signing plaintiffs seeks a declaration
that the waivers of age discrimination claims are invalid, other
injunctive, but non-monetary, remedies, and attorneys' fees.

Plaintiffs allege that there are more than 2,000 current and
former employees who would comprise this declaratory judgment
class action.

On July 2, 2009, the company filed its Answer to the Garcia
lawsuit complaint and filed a motion, which was granted, to
transfer the venue of the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota.

3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology  
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services,
and electro and communications.


3M CO: Defending Suits Over Chemical Exposure at Alabama Plant
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Co. continues defending purported class-action lawsuits
involving perfluorooctanyl chemistry exposure at or near the
company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility.

A former employee filed a purported class action lawsuit in 2002
in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama, involving
perfluorooctanyl chemistry, alleging that the plaintiffs suffered
fear, increased risk, subclinical injuries, and property damage
from exposure to perfluorooctanyl chemistry at or near the
company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility.

The Circuit Court in 2005 granted the company's motion to dismiss
the named plaintiff's personal injury-related claims on the basis
that such claims are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the
state's Workers Compensation Act.

The plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended complaint in November
2006, limiting the case to property damage claims on behalf of a
purported class of residents and property owners in the vicinity
of the Decatur plant.

Also in 2005, the judge in a second purported class action
lawsuit (filed by three residents of Morgan County, Alabama,
seeking unstated compensatory and punitive damages involving
alleged damage to their property from emissions of
perfluorooctanyl compounds from the company's Decatur, Alabama,
manufacturing facility that formerly manufactured those
compounds) granted the Company's motion to abate the case,
effectively putting the case on hold pending the resolution of
class certification issues in the action described above filed in
the same court in 2002.

Despite the stay, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking
damages for alleged personal injuries and property damage on
behalf of the named plaintiffs and the members of a purported
class.

No further action in the case is expected unless and until the
stay is lifted.

No further updates were reported in the company's Feb. 16, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology  
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services,
and electro and communications.


3M CO: Continues to Defend Against "Chemical Dumping" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
3M Co. continues defending purported class-action lawsuits
involving perfluorochemicals released or dumped onto the
plaintiff's property, according to the company's Oct. 30, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

In February 2009, a resident of Franklin County, Alabama, filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Franklin
County seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief based
on the application by the Decatur wastewater treatment plant of
wastewater treatment sludge to farmland and grasslands in the
state that allegedly contain perflurooctanoic acid (PFOA),
perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and other perfluorochemicals.

The named defendants in the case include 3M, Dyneon LLC, Daikin
America, Inc., Synagro-WWT, Inc., Synagro South, LLC and
Biological Processors of America.

The named plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons
within the State of Alabama, Inc. who, within the past six years,
have had PFOA, PFOS and other perfluorochemicals released or
dumped onto their property by the defendants.

No further updates were reported in the company's Feb. 16, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology  
company with a global presence in various businesses, including
industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics,
consumer and office, safety, security and protection services,
and electro and communications.


AVAYA INC: Enters MOU to Settle Suit Over Tenovis Germany Buy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Avaya, Inc., has entered into a memorandum of understanding to
settle a class action suit over its purchase of Tenovis Germany
GmbH, according to the company's Feb. 16, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In April and May of 2005, purported class action lawsuits were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
against Avaya and certain of its officers, alleging violations of
the federal securities laws.

The actions purport to be filed on behalf of purchasers of Avaya
common stock during the period from Oct. 5, 2004 (the date of the
company's signing of the agreement to acquire Tenovis Germany
GmbH) through April 19, 2005.

The complaints, which are substantially similar to one another,
allege, among other things, that the plaintiffs were injured by
reason of certain allegedly false and misleading statements made
by Avaya relating to the cost of the integration of Tenovis
Germany GmbH, which was acquired in December 2004, the disruption
caused by changes in the delivery of the company's products to
the market and reductions in the demand for Avaya products in the
U.S., and that based on the foregoing Avaya had no basis to
project its stated revenue goals for fiscal 2005.

The company has been served with a number of these complaints.  
No class has been certified in the actions.

The complaints seek compensatory damages plus interest and
attorneys' fees.

In August 2005, the court entered an order identifying a lead
plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed in October 2005.  
Pursuant to a scheduling order issued by the District Court,
defendants filed their motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint in December 2005.

In September 2006, the District Court granted defendants' motion
to dismiss the case in its entirety and with prejudice, which was
appealed by the plaintiffs.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in April
2009, affirming in part and reversing in part, the District
Court's decision.  Although the appeals court's decision
dismissed most of plaintiffs' claims, a portion of the complaint
alleging that one of the defendants in March 2005 made a
misleading statement about price competition has been remanded to
the District Court for further proceeding.

The court thus limited the class period to the time of March 3,
2005 to April 19, 2005.

The parties are now engaged in the discovery process related to
the remaining allegations.

The parties have entered into a memorandum of understanding to
resolve this matter.

Avaya, Inc. -- http://www.avaya.com/-- is a supplier of  
communications systems and software for enterprise customers.


BIOFORM MEDICAL: Faces Suit on Planned Sale to Merz GMBH
--------------------------------------------------------
BioForm Medical, Inc., faces a purported class action lawsuit in
relation to its planned sale to Merz GMBH & Co. KGAA, according
to the company's Feb. 16, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31,
2009.

On Jan. 13, 2010, one of the company's purported stockholders
filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of
the State of California, San Mateo County, captioned Hassan
Hamedi v. Steven Basta, et. al., against the company and each of
its directors.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the company's
director defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the
stockholders to maximize the price in connection with the Merz
acquisition, articulates alleged deficiencies in the Schedule
14D-9 that result in the Schedule 14D-9 being allegedly
materially misleading and/or incomplete, and claims that the
$5.45 price per share offered by Merz in the tender offer is
inadequate.

The complaint seeks to enjoin the proposed tender offer, in
addition to seeking other relief.

On Feb. 11, 2010, the Superior Court denied an ex parte motion
made by the plaintiff for a temporary restraining order to enjoin
and/or postpone the closing of the Merz acquisition.

BioForm Medical, Inc. -- http://www.bioform.com/-- is a medical  
aesthetics company focused on developing and commercializing
products that are used by physicians to enhance a patient's
appearance.  The company's product is RADIESSE, an injectable
dermal filler designed to provide aesthetic improvement for
patients.


CAPITAL ONE: COBNA and COSI Face Three Marketing Practice Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Bank, N.A., USA (COBNA) and Capital One Services,
Inc. (COSI), face three lawsuits over the marketing of its
payment protection product, according to Capital One Multi-Asset
Execution Trust's Feb. 16, 2010, Form 10-D filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period Jan. 1, 2010 to
Jan. 31, 2010.

In January 2010, three individual plaintiffs, each purporting to
represent a nationwide class of cardholders, filed lawsuits
against Capital One Bank, N.A., USA (COBNA) and Capital One
Services, Inc. (COSI), challenging various marketing practices
relating to the payment protection product.  The suits are:

     (1) Sullivan v. Capital One Bank, et al, (U.S. District
         Court for the District of Connecticut);

     (2) McCoy v. Capital One Bank, et al. (U.S. District Court
         for the Southern District of California); and

     (3) Salazar v. Capital One Bank, et al. (U.S. District
         Court for the District of South Carolina).

These three purported nationwide class actions seek a range of
remedies, including compensatory damages, punitive damages,
restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, and attorneys'
fees.  COBNA and COSI have not yet filed responsive motions to
any of these suits but have meritorious defenses with respect to
these matters and plans to defend them vigorously.


CAPITAL ONE: COBNA & COSI Appealing Certification in "Spinelli"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Bank, N.A., USA (COBNA) and Capital One Services,
Inc.'s (COSI), motion for reconsideration on the class
certification order in the matter Spinelli v. Capital One Bank,
et al., remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, according to Capital One Multi-Asset
Execution Trust's Feb. 16, 2010, Form 10-D filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period Jan. 1, 2010 to
Jan. 31, 2010.

The Court, in September 2009, certified a statewide class action
in Spinelli v. Capital One Bank, et al. with respect to the
marketing of the payment protection product in Florida.


EBAY INC: Class Certification Motion Still Pending in Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------
The motion of the plaintiffs for class certification in a
purported antitrust class action lawsuit against eBay Inc.
remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas, according to the company's Feb. 17, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In March 2007, a plaintiff filed a purported antitrust class
action lawsuit against eBay in the Western District of Texas
alleging that eBay and its wholly owned subsidiary PayPal
"monopolized" markets through various anticompetitive acts and
tying arrangements.  The plaintiff alleged claims under sections
1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, as well as related state law claims.

In April 2007, the plaintiff re-filed the complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (No. 07-
CV-01882-RS), and dismissed the Texas action.  The complaint
seeks treble damages and an injunction.

In 2007, the case was consolidated with other similar lawsuits
(No. 07-CV-01882JF).

In June 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.

In March 2008, the court granted the motion to dismiss the tying
claims with leave to amend and denied the motion with respect to
the monopolization claims.

Plaintiffs subsequently decided not to refile the tying claims.

The plaintiffs' motion on class certification and the company's
motion for summary judgment were heard by the court in December
2009.

eBay Inc. -- http://www.ebay.com/-- connects buyers and sellers  
globally on a daily basis through eBay, an online marketplace
located at www.ebay.com, and PayPal, which enables individuals
and businesses to send and receive online payments through
www.paypal.com.  The company has two business segments:
Marketplaces and Payments.  On Nov. 19, 2009, the company sold
its interest in Skype Luxembourg Holdings S.a.r.l., Skype Inc.
and Sonorit Holdings, A.S. (collectively with their respective
subsidiaries, the Skype Companies) to Springboard Group S.a.r.l.  
Prior to the sale, the company operated in three segments.  Its
Communications segment, which consisted of Skype, enabled
Internet communications between Skype users and provided
connectivity to traditional fixed-line and mobile telephones.  
Following the completion of the sale of Skype, the company
operates through two business segments.


IMS HEALTH: Approval of Settlement Pact in Conn. Suits Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The approval of the settlement agreement entered into by IMS
Health Inc. to resolve two putative stockholder class action
lawsuits remains pending in the Superior Court of Connecticut,
Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk, according to the company's
Feb. 17, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

                      Merger Agreement

On Nov. 5, 2009, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Healthcare Technology Holdings, Inc., and
Healthcare Technology Acquisition, Inc.  Healthcare Technology
Holdings and Healthcare Technology Acquisition are affiliates of
TPG Capital, L.P., and Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.

In connection with the Merger, between Nov. 6, 2009 and Nov. 10,
2009 three putative stockholder class action lawsuits were filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery and two in the Superior Court
of Connecticut, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk.  These
lawsuits generally alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by our
directors in connection with the Merger.

                      Delaware Action

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

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

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

                     Connecticut Action

One of the two putative shareholder class action lawsuits filed
in Connecticut, styled Trust for the Benefit of Sylvia B. Piven
v. IMS Health Incorporated, et al., CV09-5013110-S, was filed on
Nov. 6, 2009, and the other, styled John Felhaber v. David R.
Carlucci, et al., CV09-5013139-S, was filed on Nov. 10, 2009.

On Dec. 8, 2009, plaintiff Felhaber filed an amended complaint
asserting, among other things, that the company's directors had
breached their duty of disclosure in the Preliminary Proxy
Statement on Schedule 14A filed with the SEC by the company on
Nov. 25, 2009.

On Dec. 18, 2009, the company's director defendants filed motions
to dismiss for failure to properly effect service, and on Dec.
21, 2009, the company filed motions to strike the Piven complaint
and the Felhaber amended complaint filed in the Superior Court of
Connecticut.

On Jan. 5, 2010, plaintiff Felhaber filed an application for
temporary injunction seeking, among other things, disclosure-
based relief in advance of the Feb. 8, 2010 Special Meeting of
the company's stockholders, and on Jan. 11, 2010, the company and
its directors filed an objection to the application.

During a Jan. 13, 2010 hearing before the Superior Court of
Connecticut, the company's director defendants withdrew their
motions to dismiss.

On Jan. 27, 2010, the company entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs regarding the settlement of the
two putative stockholder class action lawsuits filed in the
Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Stamford-
Norwalk.

The company believes that no further supplemental disclosure is
required under applicable laws; however, to avoid the risk of the
putative stockholder class actions delaying or adversely
affecting the Merger and to minimize the expense of defending
such actions, the company has agreed, pursuant to the terms of
the proposed settlement, to make certain supplemental disclosures
related to the proposed Merger.  Subject to completion of certain
confirmatory discovery by counsel to the plaintiffs, the
memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement.  The stipulation of
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
court approval following notice to the company's stockholders.

In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of
settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the Superior
Court will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of
the settlement.  If the settlement is finally approved by the
court, it will resolve and release all claims in all actions that
were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the
proposed Merger, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in
connection therewith (but excluding claims for appraisal under
Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation Law), pursuant to
terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to final
approval of the settlement.

In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition in the
Superior Court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be
paid by the company or its successor, which the defendants may
oppose.  The company or its successor shall pay or cause to be
paid those attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Court.  
There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter
into a stipulation of settlement or that the Superior Court will
approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into
such stipulation.  In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be
terminated.

IMS Health Incorporated -- http://www.imshealth.com/-- is a  
provider of market intelligence to the pharmaceutical and
healthcare industries.  It offers products and services,
including product and portfolio management capabilities;
commercial effectiveness innovations; managed care and consumer
health offerings; and consulting and services solutions. The
Company's business lines include Commercial Effectiveness,
Product and Portfolio Management and New Business Areas. Within
these business lines, IMS provides consulting and services that
use in-house capabilities and methodologies to assist clients in
analyzing and evaluating market trends, strategies and tactics,
and to help in the development and implementation of customized
software applications and data warehouse tools. The Company
provides information services covering more than 100 countries
and maintains offices in 75 countries on six continents.


KOSS CORP: Faces "Puskala" Securities Violations Suit in Wis.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Koss Corp. faces a class action complaint styled David A Puskala
v. Koss Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:2010cv00041, filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin,
according to the company's Feb. 16, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

On Jan. 15, 2010, a class action complaint was filed in federal
court in Wisconsin against the company, Michael Koss and Ms.
Sachdeva.

The suit alleges violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5 and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act relating to the unauthorized
transactions and requests an award of compensatory damages in an
amount to be proven at trial.

Koss Corporation -- http://www.koss.com/-- is engaged in the  
design, manufacture and sale of stereo headphones and related
accessory products.  The company's products are sold through
audio specialty stores, the Internet, direct mail catalogs,
regional department store chains, discount department stores,
military exchanges, prisons and national retailers under the Koss
name and dual label.  The company also sells products to
distributors for resale to school systems and directly to other
manufactures for inclusion with their own products.


MASCO CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Atlanta
---------------------------------------------------------
Masco Corporation continues to defend a putative class action
alleging violation of antitrust laws, according to the company's
Feb. 16, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Early in 2003, a suit was brought against the company and a
number of its insulation installation companies in the federal
court in Atlanta, Georgia, alleging that certain practices
violate provisions of federal and state antitrust laws.  The
plaintiff publicized the lawsuit with a press release and stated
in that release that the U.S. Department of Justice was
investigating the business practices of the company's insulation
installation companies.

Although the company was unaware of any investigation at that
time, the company was later advised that an investigation had
been commenced but was subsequently closed without any
enforcement action recommended.  Two additional lawsuits were
subsequently brought in Virginia making similar claims under the
antitrust laws.  Both of these lawsuits have since been dismissed
without any payment or requirement for any change in business
practices.

During the second half of 2004, the same counsel who commenced
the initial action in Atlanta filed six additional lawsuits on
behalf of several of Masco's competitors in the insulation
installation business.

The plaintiffs then dismissed all of these lawsuits and,
represented by the same counsel, filed another action in the same
federal court as a putative class action against the company, a
number of its insulation installation companies and certain of
their suppliers.

All of the Company's suppliers, who were co-defendants in this
lawsuit, have settled this case.

On Feb. 9, 2009, the federal court in Atlanta issued an Opinion
in which the Court certified a class of 377 insulation
contractors.  In its Opinion, the Court also ruled on various
other motions.

Two additional lawsuits, seeking class action status and alleging
anticompetitive conduct, were filed against the company and a
number of its insulation suppliers.

One of these lawsuits was filed in a Florida state court and has
been dismissed by the court with prejudice.  The other lawsuit
was filed in federal court in northern California and was
subsequently transferred to federal court in Atlanta, Georgia.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings is pending in this action.

Masco Corporation -- http://www.masco.com/-- manufactures,  
distributes and installs home improvement and building products.  
The company operates in five segments: Cabinets and Related
Products, which includes assembled and ready-to-assemble
cabinetry for kitchen, bath, home office and home office
applications; Plumbing Products, which includes faucets and
showering devices that are manufactured by the company;
Installation and Other Services, which includes selling of
installed building products and distribution of building
products; Decorative Architectural Products, which includes
paints, primers, specialty paint products, stains, varnishes and
waterproofing products, and Other Specialty Products, which
includes manufacturing and selling of vinyl, fiberglass and
aluminum windows and patio doors.  During the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009, approximately 79% of the company's sales were
generated by its North American operations.


MOTOROLA INC: Defends Securities Violations Suit in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
Motorola, Inc., defends a purported class action lawsuit on
behalf of the purchasers of Motorola securities between Dec. 6,
2007 and Jan. 22, 2008, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, according to the company's Feb.
16, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The suit was filed against the company and certain current and
former officers and directors of the company on Jan. 21, 2010, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as, in the case
of the individual defendants, the control person provisions of
the Securities Exchange Act.  The primary factual assertions in
the complaint are that the defendants knowingly or recklessly
made materially misleading statements concerning Motorola's
financial projections and sales demand for Motorola phones during
the class period.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief relating
to the purported inflation in the price of Motorola shares during
the class period.

The suit is St. Locie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension
Trust Fund v. Motorola, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00427 (N.D.
Ill.).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric D. Freed, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Leon, Esq.
          Julie D. Miller, Esq.
          FREED & WEISS LLC
          111 West Washington Street, Suite 1331
          Chicago, IL 60602-3455
          Telephone: 312-220-0000

               - and -  

          Arthur L. Shingler, III, Esq.
          Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
          SCOTT + SCOTT LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1500
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-233-4565

               - and -  

          David R. Scott, Esq.
          SCOTT + SCOTT LLP
          108 Norwich Avenue
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Telephone: 860-537-3818


MOTOROLA INC: Faces Two ERISA Violations Suit in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
Motorola, Inc., faces two purported class action lawsuits filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
according to the company's Feb. 16, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

The two suits are:

     (1) Joe M. Groussman v. Motorola, Inc. et al.; and
     (2) Angelo W. Orlando v. Motorola, Inc. et al.,

The suit were filed on behalf of all participants in or
beneficiaries of the Motorola 401(k) Plan between July 1, 2007
and the present and whose accounts included investments in
Motorola stock, against the company and certain current and
former officers, directors, and employees of the Company, the
Motorola 401(k) Plan Committee, the Advisory Committee of
Motorola and other unnamed defendants on Feb. 10, 2010.

The identical complaints allege violations of Sections 404 and
405 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
The primary claims in the complaints are that, in connection with
alleged incorrect statements concerning Motorola's financial
projections and demand for Motorola phones during the class
period, various of the defendants failed to prudently and loyally
manage the Plan by continuing to offer Motorola stock as a Plan
investment option, failed to provide complete and accurate
information regarding the performance of Motorola stock to the
Plan's participants and beneficiaries, failed to avoid conflicts
of interest, and/or failed to monitor the Plan fiduciaries. The
complaints seek unspecified damages and other relief relating to
the purported losses to the Plan and individual participant
accounts.

Motorola, Inc. -- http://www.motorola.com/-- provides  
technologies, products and services for mobile phones.  Its
portfolio includes wireless handsets, wireless accessories,
digital entertainment devices, set-top boxes and video
distribution systems, analog and digital two-way radios, wireless
and wireline broadband network products, and end-to-end
enterprise mobility products.  The company operates under three
segments: Mobile Devices segment, Home and Networks Mobility
segment and Enterprise Mobility Solutions segment.  In April
2009, the company completed the sale of its biometric business
unit, including the Printrak trademark, to Safran SA, through its
wholly owned subsidiary, Sagem Securite.  In January 2010, the
company acquired SecureMedia from Innovation Advisors.  In
February 2010, the company acquired BitBand, a provider of
content management and delivery systems, specializing in video on
demand for Internet protocol television (IPTV).


MOTOROLA INC: Plaintiff's Appeal in "Howell" Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiff on the dismissal of the suit styled
Howell v. Motorola, Inc., et al., remains pending in the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the company's Feb. 16,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.  

The class action was filed against Motorola and various of its
directors, officers and employees in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois on July 21, 2003, alleging
breach of fiduciary duty and violations of the Employment
Retirement Income Security Act.

The complaint alleged that the defendants had improperly
permitted participants in the Motorola 401(k) Plan to purchase or
hold shares of common stock of Motorola because the price of
Motorola's stock was artificially inflated by a failure to
disclose vendor financing to Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon
Hizmetleri A.S. in connection with the sale of telecommunications
equipment by Motorola.  Telsim had subsequently defaulted on the
payment of approximately $2 billion of such vendor financing,
approximately half of which the company has recovered to date.

The plaintiff sought to represent a class of participants in the
Plan and sought an unspecified amount of damages.

On Sept. 30, 2005, the Illinois District Court dismissed the
second amended complaint filed on Oct. 15, 2004.

Three new purported lead plaintiffs subsequently intervened in
the case, and filed a motion for class certification seeking to
represent a class of Plan participants.  The class as certified
includes all Plan participants for whose individual accounts the
Plan purchased and/or held shares of Motorola common stock from
May 16, 2000 through May 14, 2001, with certain exclusions.

The court granted leave to defendants to appeal the class
certification and granted leave to lead plaintiff Howell to
appeal an earlier dismissal of his individual claim.

Each party filed those appeals.

On June 17, 2009, the Illinois District Court granted summary
judgment in favor of all defendants on all counts.

On June 25, 2009, the Seventh Circuit dismissed as moot
defendants' class certification appeal and stayed Howell's
appeal.

On July 14, 2009, plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment
decision.

By order of the Seventh Circuit on Aug. 17, 2009, Howell's
individual appeal and plaintiffs' appeal of the summary judgment
decision (now cited as  Howell v. Motorola, Inc. et al. and
Lingis et al. v. Rick Dorazil et al.) have been consolidated with
Spano et al. v. Boeing Company et al. and Beesley et al. v.
International Paper Company for argument and decision.

Motorola, Inc. -- http://www.motorola.com/-- provides  
technologies, products and services for mobile phones.  Its
portfolio includes wireless handsets, wireless accessories,
digital entertainment devices, set-top boxes and video
distribution systems, analog and digital two-way radios, wireless
and wireline broadband network products, and end-to-end
enterprise mobility products.  The company operates under three
segments: Mobile Devices segment, Home and Networks Mobility
segment and Enterprise Mobility Solutions segment.  In April
2009, the company completed the sale of its biometric business
unit, including the Printrak trademark, to Safran SA, through its
wholly owned subsidiary, Sagem Securite.  In January 2010, the
company acquired SecureMedia from Innovation Advisors.  In
February 2010, the company acquired BitBand, a provider of
content management and delivery systems, specializing in video on
demand for Internet protocol television (IPTV).


NATURE'S SUNSHINE: Settlement Agreement Gets Court's Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Utah has issued an Order and Final Judgment approving the
settlement of a consolidated class action suit brought against
Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc., and various past and present
directors and officers of the company, alleging violations of the
federal securities laws, according to the company's Feb. 16,
2010, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Court's order dismisses the suit with prejudice.  The
settlement also includes a release of all claims held by the
class members.  All payments due under the terms of the
settlement have been funded by the company's insurer.

"We are pleased that this matter is now behind us, and that we
can focus more completely on growing our Company and enhancing
shareholder value," said Douglas Faggioli, President and CEO of
Nature's Sunshine.   "Through nearly four decades, our Company
has developed into a leading provider of quality vitamins, herbs
and supplements, with a distribution force of well over 600,000
people in more than 30 countries.  We are proud of our record,
our ability to serve our distributors and sales managers, as well
as their customers, and the esteem with which our Company is
regarded."

                    Class Action Suit

Between April 3, 2006 and June 2, 2006, five separate shareholder
class-action lawsuits were filed against the company and certain
of its present and former officers and directors in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Utah.  These matters were
consolidated and on Nov. 3, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint against the company, the company's Chief
Executive Officer and a director, Douglas Faggioli, the company's
former Chief Financial Officer, Craig D. Huff, and a former
director and former Chair of the Company's Audit Committee, Franz
L. Cristiani.

The Consolidated Complaint asserts three separate claims on
behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock:

     (1) a claim against Mr. Faggioli and the Company for
         violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
         Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
         thereunder, alleging that Mr. Faggioli made a series of
         alleged material misrepresentations to the investing
         public;

     (2) a claim against Mr. Faggioli and the company for
         violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, alleging
         that Mr. Faggioli made a series of misrepresentations
         to the company's then independent auditor, KPMG, LLP,
         for the purpose of obtaining unqualified or "clean"
         audit opinions and review opinions from KPMG concerning
         certain of the company's annual and quarterly financial
         statements; and

     (3) a claim against Messrs. Faggioli, Huff and Cristiani
         for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
         alleging that the individual defendants have "control
         person" liability for the previously-alleged violations
         by the company.

The Consolidated Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages, together with interest thereon, litigation
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees,
and any such other and further relief as may be allowed by law.

On Jan. 5, 2007, the Company and Messrs. Faggioli, Huff and
Cristiani moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint in its
entirety.  On May 21, 2007, the Court issued its decision denying
the motion in large part, but shortening the proposed class
period on one of the plaintiffs' claims.  On June 6, 2007, the
Company and the other defendants answered the Consolidated
Complaint, wherein they denied all allegations of wrongdoing and
raised a number of affirmative defenses.

On Nov. 1, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification, which the company opposed.  On Sept. 25, 2008, the
Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in
part, establishing the class as all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the company's common stock, and were damaged
thereby, from March 16, 2005 to March 20, 2006.
On May 9, 2008, at the invitation of the Court based upon recent
case law developments, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' second cause of action (a 10b-5 claim based on non-
public representations to KPMG).  The plaintiffs opposed this
motion.  On Sept. 23, 2008, the Court granted the company's
motion and dismissed the plaintiffs' second cause of action.

On Sept. 14, 2009, the parties and the company's directors' and
officers' liability insurer signed a Stipulation of Settlement,
which was filed with the Court on Sept. 14, 2009.  The
Stipulation sets forth the complete terms of parties' proposed
settlement.

The basic terms of the settlement are that the company's insurer
will pay the settlement class, which is defined as all persons
(except for defendants and specified related persons and
entities) who purchased the company's common stock during the
period from April 23, 2002 through April 5, 2006, $6 million in
exchange for a dismissal with prejudice of the lawsuit and a
release of all claims held by members of a settlement class.

As set forth in the Stipulation, the proposed settlement will not
become final until a number of conditions are satisfied,
including the Stipulation receiving both preliminary and final
approval from the Court.

On Oct. 8, 2009, the Court entered an order (i) granting
preliminary approval of the Stipulation, (ii) requiring that
notice of the proposed settlement and the proposed plan of
allocation of the settlement proceeds be mailed to members of the
settlement class by Oct. 26, 2009, and (iii) setting a Feb. 9,
2010 hearing.  At this hearing the Court will consider, among
other issues, (i) whether the Stipulation should receive final
approval, (ii) whether the proposed plan of allocation for the
settlement proceeds should be approved, (iii) whether the
settlement class counsel's application for an award of attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of costs and expenses should be approved,
and (iv) whether the settlement class counsel's application for
incentive awards to the settlement class representatives should
be approved.  The Court's Oct. 8, 2009 order also sets Jan. 19,
2010 as the deadline by which settlement class members must
submit a valid proof of claim, if they want to share in the
settlement proceeds, or a proper opt-out request, if they want to
be excluded from the settlement class and thereby not be bound by
the terms of the Stipulation.

Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc. - http://www.natr.com/--  
manufactures and markets through direct sales encapsulated and
tableted herbal products, high quality natural vitamins, and
other complementary products.  In addition to the United States,
the company has operations in Japan, Mexico, Central America,
South Korea, Canada, Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Ecuador,
Peru, the United Kingdom, Columbia, Brazil, Thailand, Israel,
Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Australia, Hong
Kong, Taiwan, Russia, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Kazakhstan,
Mongolia, Belarus, China, Poland, Germany, Austria, Norway,
Sweden, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands.  The company also
has exclusive distribution agreements with selected companies in
Argentina, Australia, Chile, New Zealand, and Norway.


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Continues to Defend Suits Over Fuel Surcharges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk Southern Corp. continues to defend the consolidated
amended complaints filed in several putative class-action suits
against them that were consolidated in the District of Columbia.  
In general, the lawsuits allege that the individual railroads
conspired in violation of U.S. antitrust laws.

As of Feb. 14, 2008, 18 antitrust class-action complaints have
been filed against Norfolk Southern and the other Class 1
railroads in various federal district courts regarding fuel
surcharges

On Nov. 6, 2007, these actions were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia by the Judicial Panel
on Multi-district Litigation.  Consolidated amended class-action
complaints were then filed against Norfolk Southern and three
other railroads on April 15, 2008.

The complaints allege violations of federal antitrust laws and
other laws with regard to the railroads' fuel surcharge programs.

Motions to dismiss the consolidated complaints were filed by the
railroads on May 30, 2008, and discovery has been stayed pending
resolution of these motions.

A lawsuit containing similar allegations against NS and four
other major railroads that was filed on March 25, 2008, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff subject to a tolling agreement entered
into in August 2008.

No further updates were reported in the company's Feb. 17, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Norfolk Southern Corp. -- http://www.nscorp.com/-- controls a  
freight railroad, Norfolk Southern Railway Co.  Norfolk Southern
Railway Co. is primarily engaged in the rail transportation of
raw materials, intermediate products and finished goods primarily
in the southeast, east and Midwest and, via interchange with rail
carriers, to and from the rest of the U.S.
and parts of Canada.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Continues to Defend Counterclaim Suit in Ga.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc., continues to defend a
purported class action counterclaim entitled PRA v. Barkwell,
4:09-cv-00113-CDL, according to the company's Feb. 16, 2010, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The suit was originally filed in the Superior Court of Muscogee
County, Georgia.  The counterclaim, which was filed against the
company, the National Arbitration Forum and MBNA America Bank,
N.A., on July 29, 2009, has since been removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, where it is
currently pending.

The counterclaim alleges that in pursuing arbitration claims
against Barkwell and other consumer debtors, pursuant to the
terms and conditions of their respective cardholder agreements,
the company breached a duty of good faith and fair dealing and
made negligent misrepresentations concerning its "arbitration
practices."

The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, to vacate the
arbitration awards that the company has obtained before NAF and
have the company disgorge the amounts collected with respect to
such awards.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc. --
http://www.portfoliorecovery.com-- is a full-service provider of  
outsourced receivables management and related services.  The
company is engaged in the business of purchasing, managing and
collecting portfolios of defaulted consumer receivables, as well
as offering a range of accounts receivable management and payment
processing services.  The majority of the company's business
activities involve the purchase, management and collection of
defaulted consumer receivables.  It also provides fee-based
services, including collateral-location services for credit
originators, through PRA Location Services, LLC (IGS) and revenue
administration, audit and debt discovery/recovery services for
government entities through PRA Government Services, LLC (RDS)
and MuniServices, LLC (MuniServices).


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Qui Tam Lawsuits Over Billing Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Inc. faces pending class action lawsuits
related to billing practices filed under the qui tam provisions
of the Civil False Claims Act and other federal and state
statutes, regulations and applicable law.

The company says there may be other pending qui tam claims
brought by former employees or other "whistle blowers" as to
which the company cannot determine the extent of any potential
liability.

No further details regarding the lawsuits were disclosed by the
company in its Feb. 17, 2010, Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

Quest Diagnostics Inc. -- http://www.questdiagnostics.com/-- is  
a provider of diagnostic testing, information and services.  The
company offers United States patients and physicians the access
to diagnostic testing services through its network of
laboratories and Company-owned patient service centers.  It is a
provider of clinical testing, including gene-based and other
esoteric testing, anatomic pathology services, including
dermatopathology and testing for drugs-of-abuse, and provider of
risk assessment services for the life insurance industry.  The
company is also the provider of testing for clinical trials.  Its
diagnostics products business manufactures and markets diagnostic
test kits and point-of-care testing.


QWEST CORP: Plaintiffs' Appeal to Dismissal Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration on the dismissal of a
putative class action against Qwest Communications International
Inc. remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado, according to Qwest Corp.'s Feb. 17, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Qwest Communications International (QCII) is the ultimate parent
of Qwest Corp.

A putative class action filed on behalf of certain of QCII's
retirees was brought against QCII, the Qwest Group Life Insurance
Plan and other related entities in federal district court in
Colorado in connection with QCII's decision to reduce the life
insurance benefit for these retirees to a $10,000 benefit.

The action was filed on March 30, 2007.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that QCII and other
defendants were obligated to continue their life insurance
benefit at the levels in place before QCII decided to reduce
them.  Plaintiffs seek restoration of the life insurance benefit
to previous levels and certain equitable relief.

The district court ruled in QCII's favor on the central issue of
whether QCII properly reserved its right to reduce the life
insurance benefit under applicable law and plan documents.

The plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint to assert
additional claims.

The court has since dismissed or granted summary judgment to QCII
on all of the plaintiffs' claims.

Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is pending before the
court.

Qwest Corporation -- http://www.qwest.com/-- provides data,  
Internet, video and voice services within the 14-state region of
Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and
Wyoming.  The company is wholly owned by Qwest Services
Corporation (QSC), which is wholly owned by Qwest Communications
International Inc. (QCII).  Most of its products and services are
provided using its telecommunications network, which consists of
voice and data switches, copper cables, fiber optic broadband
cables and other equipment.  Its network serves approximately
11.6 million access lines and forms a portion of the public
switched telephone network.


REALOGY CORP: Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of the plaintiffs for class certification in the
matter Frank K. Cooper Real Estate #1, Inc. v. Cendant Corp. and
Century 21 Real Estate Corporation, remains pending in the New
Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, Morris County, according to
Realogy Corp.'s Feb. 16, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

Frank K. Cooper Real Estate #1, Inc. filed a putative class
action against Cendant and Cendant's subsidiary, Century 21 Real
Estate Corporation.

Cendant and Century 21 were served with the complaint on March
14, 2002.

The complaint alleges breach of certain provisions of the Real
Estate Franchise Agreement entered into between Century 21 and
the plaintiffs, as well as the implied duty of good faith and
fair dealing, and certain express and implied fiduciary duties.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that:

     -- Cendant diverted money and resources from Century 21
        franchisees and allotted them to NRT owned brokerages;

     -- Cendant used Century 21 marketing dollars to promote
        Cendant's Internet website, Move.com;

     -- the Century 21 magazine was replaced with a Coldwell
        Banker magazine;

     -- Century 21 ceased using marketing funds for yellow page
        advertising;

     -- Cendant nearly abolished training in the areas of
        recruiting, referral, sales and management; and

     -- Cendant directed most of the relocation business to
        Coldwell Banker and ERA brokers.

On Oct. 29, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
adding a count against Cendant as guarantor of Century 21's
obligations to its franchisees.  On June 23, 2003, acting upon a
motion that had been filed by the plaintiffs, the court
determined that the limitations on Century 21 obtaining general
releases should continue with respect to renewals only and
ordered a supplemental notice of the progress of the litigation
distributed to Century 21 franchisees.

On June 30, 2006, the court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify
a class.

Discovery continued thereafter. On April 25, 2007, plaintiffs
filed a motion to compel discovery seeking information relating
to plaintiffs' plan to move a second time to certify a class,
which defendants opposed.  The court did not issue a ruling and
instead by order dated Oct. 1, 2007 appointed a discovery master
to rule on the discovery disputes.

Mediation was held on Jan. 6, 2009 but was unsuccessful.

On Jan. 16, 2009, the company filed a motion to strike the class
allegations from plaintiffs' complaint.

On Feb. 19, 2009, plaintiffs filed their opposition to the
company's motion to strike and filed a cross motion to certify a
class.

There are three pending motions before the Court:

     (1) the class certification motion;

     (2) the company's motion to strike class allegations from
        the complaint; and

     (3) the company's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' pre-1998
        claims because there is no class representative for any
        such claim.

Oral argument was held on Oct. 23, 2009.

Further argument on the pending motions was scheduled for
Feb. 26, 2010.

Realogy Corp. -- http://www.realogy.com-- is a global provider  
of real estate and relocation services, has a diversified
business model that includes real estate franchising, brokerage,
relocation and title services. Realogy's brands and business
units include Better Homes and Gardens(R) Real Estate, CENTURY
21(R), Coldwell Banker(R), Coldwell Banker Commercial(R), The
Corcoran Group(R), ERA(R), Sotheby's International Realty(R), NRT
LLC, Cartus and Title Resource Group.  Headquartered in
Parsippany, N.J. Realogy is owned by affiliates of Apollo
Management, L.P., a leading private equity and capital markets
investor.


REALOGY CORP: Class Certification in "Larpenteur" Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of the plaintiffs for class certification in the
matter Larpenteur v. Burnet Realty, Inc., d/b/a Coldwell Banker
Burnet, and Burnet Title, Inc., No. 27 CV 0824562, remains
pending in Hennepin County District Court, Minnesota, according
to Realogy Corp.'s Feb. 16, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

This putative class action was filed on Sept. 26, 2008 against
the company's Minnesota operations for NRT and Title Resource
Group alleging that the brokerage's affiliated business
relationship with TRG and the practice of referring business to
TRG violates the brokerage's fiduciary duty as a broker and sales
agent to its customers.

Plaintiffs allege that there are lower cost comparable
alternatives to TRG's Burnet Title and that recommending the
higher costing Burnet Title is a breach of duty.  The complaint
further alleges that the brokerage was unjustly enriched as a
result of the affiliated business relationship.

As to Burnet Title, the complaint alleges that it aided and
abetted the breach of the company's fiduciary duty to the
customer.

Discovery for this class action has commenced.

In December 2008, the company's Minnesota operations for NRT and
TRG-the defendants in this action-filed a motion to strike the
class action allegation and a motion for judgment on the
pleadings.

On March 6, 2009, the Court denied without prejudice defendants'
motion for judgment on the pleadings, to strike class allegations
and to deny class certification.

Plaintiff's motion for class certification was filed on Jan. 4,
2010 and the Company's opposition papers were filed on Jan. 15,
2010.

An evidentiary hearing on the class certification motion was held
from Jan. 25 to 27, 2010.

Realogy Corp. -- http://www.realogy.com-- is a global provider  
of real estate and relocation services, has a diversified
business model that includes real estate franchising, brokerage,
relocation and title services. Realogy's brands and business
units include Better Homes and Gardens(R) Real Estate, CENTURY
21(R), Coldwell Banker(R), Coldwell Banker Commercial(R), The
Corcoran Group(R), ERA(R), Sotheby's International Realty(R), NRT
LLC, Cartus and Title Resource Group.  Headquartered in
Parsippany, N.J. Realogy is owned by affiliates of Apollo
Management, L.P., a leading private equity and capital markets
investor.


REALOGY CORP: Appeal on Dismissal of "Proa" Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of the suit Proa,
Jordan and Schiff v. NRT Mid-Atlantic, Inc. d/b/a Coldwell Banker
Residential Brokerage et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-02157, remains
pending in the Fourth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals,
according to Realogy Corp.'s Feb. 16, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

On Aug. 8, 2005, plaintiffs Proa and Jordan filed a lawsuit
against NRT Mid-Atlantic, Inc., NRT Incorporated (now known as
NRT LLC) and Angela Shearer, Branch Vice President of Coldwell
Banker Residential Brokerage's Chestertown, Maryland office, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Northern
Division.

On Oct. 27, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
includes Schiff as a plaintiff, names Sarah Sinnickson, Executive
Vice President and General Sales Manager of Coldwell Banker
Residential Brokerage as an individual defendant and asserts
eight claims.

Plaintiffs' claims involve alleged conduct arising from the
plaintiffs' affiliation with NRT's Chestertown, Maryland office
as real estate agents on an independent contractor basis.

The plaintiffs allege violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act and violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 claiming
discrimination and retaliation on the basis of race, religion,
ethnicity, racial heritage and/or ethnic or racial associations.

The plaintiffs are also seeking declaratory relief on behalf of
themselves and a putative class that they are common law
employees as opposed to independent contractors.  The plaintiffs
are also alleging various breach of contract, wrongful discharge
and negligent supervision claims.  In addition, plaintiffs are
alleging that defendant Shearer made false and defamatory remarks
about plaintiffs Proa and Jordan to their co-workers.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages in
an amount to be determined at trial, as well as attorneys' fees.

On Nov. 14, 2005, the defendants filed an answer to the
plaintiffs' amended complaint.  A stipulation of voluntary
dismissal of the defamation claim against Angela Shearer was
entered on Jan. 18, 2006.

On March 13, 2007, the Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss with prejudice Jordan's Title VII claim for failing to
file suit within the statute of limitations.  The court also
granted defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice plaintiffs'
declaratory judgment claim, which sought to obtain a declaration
that real estate agents are not independent contractors.

The court dismissed the declaratory claim because there is no
actual controversy that requires declaratory relief and because
there is no claim that is appropriate for class relief as pled by
plaintiffs.

On March 21, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
third amended complaint attempting to add class-wide FLSA claims
for unpaid minimum wages, overtime and benefits that employees
receive.  On May 8, 2007, the court denied the motion.  The
plaintiffs have appealed the court's decision, among other
rulings.

In May 2009, summary judgment was granted in favor of defendant
NRT and the case was dismissed, subject to Plaintiffs' right to
appeal.  On June 25, 2009, plaintiffs appealed the District
Court's decision to the Fourth Circuit of the U.S. Court of
Appeals.

The appeal has been briefed by both parties.  At this time, the
company has not received any word from the Fourth Circuit as to
whether it will schedule oral argument or rule solely from the
papers.

Realogy Corp. -- http://www.realogy.com-- is a global provider  
of real estate and relocation services, has a diversified
business model that includes real estate franchising, brokerage,
relocation and title services. Realogy's brands and business
units include Better Homes and Gardens(R) Real Estate, CENTURY
21(R), Coldwell Banker(R), Coldwell Banker Commercial(R), The
Corcoran Group(R), ERA(R), Sotheby's International Realty(R), NRT
LLC, Cartus and Title Resource Group.  Headquartered in
Parsippany, N.J. Realogy is owned by affiliates of Apollo
Management, L.P., a leading private equity and capital markets
investor.


SINOENERGY CORP: Wants Suit in New York Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
Sinoenergy Corp. has asked the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, Nassau County, to dismiss a class action over the planned
sale of the company to Skywide Capital Management Limited,
according to the company's Feb. 16, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

The company is a defendant in a class action commenced on Oct.
16, 2009, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau
County, by alleged class representative plaintiffs Stephen
Trecaso and Linda Watts against the company and its directors
which alleges a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, and which
makes a demand for injunctive relief or alternatively, damages
arising out of the merger agreement.

The complaint generally, alleges that the company and the board
of directors engaged in a defective sales process which will
permit Skywide to buy the company for an unfair price.

The company believes that this action is without merit, that it
has valid defenses to, and will vigorously defend, the action.

As of Feb. 1, 2010, none of the company's directors has been
served with process in this action, except Robert I. Adler.  The
company and and Mr. Adler have made motions to dismiss this
lawsuit on various grounds which include the court's lack of
jurisdiction over the company and the plaintiffs' failure to join
necessary parties as defendants.

Sinoenergy Corp. -- http://www.sinoenergycorporation.com/--  
develops and operates retail CNG stations as well as a
manufactures CNG transport truck trailers, CNG station equipment,
and natural gas fuel conversion kits for automobiles, in China.  
In addition to its CNG related products and services, the company
designs and manufactures a wide variety of customized pressure
containers for use in the petroleum and chemical industries.


SINOENERGY CORP: Faces Four Suits in Nevada Over Sale to Skywide
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sinoenergy Corp. faces four class actions in Nevada over the
planned sale of the company to Skywide Capital Management
Limited, according to the company's Feb. 16, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2009.

The company is a defendant in four other class actions that have
been filed against the company, its directors and Skywide in the
Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for
Clark County which allege a claim for breach of fiduciary duty
and which also make a demand for injunctive relief for a
meaningful auction with third parties or alternatively, damages
arising out of the merger agreement.  Skywide has also been named
in these complaints.

The alleged class representative plaintiffs in each of those four
actions and the respective dates of commencement of those actions
are:

     (i) Johan L. Stoltz - Oct. 26, 2009,
    (ii) Robert E. Guzman - Oct. 27, 2009,
   (iii) Carol Karch - Oct. 27, 2009 and
    (iv) Robert Grabowski - Nov. 2, 2009.

As of Feb. 1, 2010, the company and directors Robert I. Adler and
Greg Marcinkowski have been served in the four actions.

The complaints generally allege that the company and the board of
directors engaged in a defective sales process which will permit
Skywide to buy the company for an unfair price and permitted
Skywide disclosure of material inside information.

The company has removed each of those four actions to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada.  Plaintiffs in those
actions have filed motions seeking to remand the actions back to
the Nevada State Courts.

The time within which the company and Messrs. Adler and
Marcinkowski must appear, answer or otherwise move with respect
to the complaints in those actions was extended to Feb. 16, 2010.

Sinoenergy Corp. -- http://www.sinoenergycorporation.com/--  
develops and operates retail CNG stations as well as a
manufactures CNG transport truck trailers, CNG station equipment,
and natural gas fuel conversion kits for automobiles, in China.  
In addition to its CNG related products and services, the company
designs and manufactures a wide variety of customized pressure
containers for use in the petroleum and chemical industries.


WINN-DIXIE: Continues to Defend Ex-Employees' Suit in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., continues to defend a putative class
action lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, according to the company's Feb. 16, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Jan. 6, 2010.

On Aug. 21, 2009, the company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit filed by two former employees in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleging company-wide
violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act related to
the company's background check procedures.

The company denies all allegations raised in the lawsuit, has
answered the complaint and has filed motions asserting various
defenses to the claims. Discovery in the case is underway.

Florida, Winn-Dixie Stores Inc. -- http://www.winn-dixie.com/--  
is one of the largest food retailers in the United States.  The
company operates grocery stores in Florida, Alabama, Louisiana,
Georgia, and Mississippi.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: WM Holdings Continues to Defend Suit in D.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management Holdings, Inc., continues to defend a lawsuit
filed by two former participants in its Employee Retirement
Income Security Act plans, according to Waste Management, Inc.'s
Feb. 16, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

In April 2002, two former participants in the ERISA plans of WM
Holdings, a wholly-owned subsidiary the company acquired in 1998,
filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia in a case entitled William S. Harris, et al. v. James E.
Koenig, et al.

The lawsuit named as defendants:

     -- WM Holdings;

     -- the members of WM Holdings' Board of Directors prior to  
        July 1998;

     -- the administrative and investment committees of WM
        Holdings' ERISA plans and their individual members;

     -- the company's retirement savings plan;

     -- the investment committees of WMI's plan and its
        individual members; and

     -- State Street Bank & Trust, the trustee and investment
        manager of the ERISA plans.

The lawsuit attempts to increase the recovery of a class of ERISA
plan participants based on allegations related to both the events
alleged in, and the settlements relating to, the securities class
action against WM Holdings that was settled in 1998 and the
securities class action against WMI that was settled in 2001.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaints on the
pleadings, and the Court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motions in the first quarter of 2009.

However, in December 2009, the Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint to overcome
the dismissal of certain complaints and motion for leave to file
a substitute fourth amended complaint to add two new claims.  
Each of Mr. Pope, Mr. Rothmeier and Ms. San Juan Cafferty,
members of the company's Board of Directors, was a member of the
WM Holdings' Board of Directors and therefore is a named
defendant in these actions, as is Mr. Simpson, the company's
Chief Financial Officer, by virtue of his membership on the WMI
ERISA plan Investment Committee at that time.

Waste Management, Inc. -- http://www.wm.com/-- is a provider of  
integrated waste services in North America. Through its
subsidiaries, the Company provides collection, transfer,
recycling, disposal and waste-to-energy services.  The company's
customers include commercial, industrial, municipal and
residential customers, other waste management companies, electric
utilities and governmental entities.  During the year ended Dec.
31, 2009, its largest customer represented approximately 1% of
annual revenues.  The company manages and evaluates its principal
operations through five Groups.  The company's four geographic
Groups, which include its Eastern, Midwest, Southern and Western
Groups, provide collection, transfer, recycling and disposal
services.  Its fifth Group is the Wheelabrator Group, which
provides waste-to-energy services. It also provides additional
services that are not managed through its five Groups.  In
January 2010, the company announced that it has acquired City
Wide Recycling LLC.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: California Units Continue to Defend Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management, Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to defend wage and
hour lawsuits in San Diego County, according to the company's
Feb. 16, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

There are two separate wage and hour lawsuits pending against
certain of the company's subsidiaries in California, each seeking
class certification.  The actions were coordinated to proceed in
San Diego County.

Both lawsuits make the same general allegations that the
defendants failed to comply with certain California wage and hour
laws, including allegedly failing to provide meal and rest
periods, and failing to properly pay hourly and overtime wages.

Waste Management, Inc. -- http://www.wm.com/-- is a provider of  
integrated waste services in North America. Through its
subsidiaries, the Company provides collection, transfer,
recycling, disposal and waste-to-energy services.  The company's
customers include commercial, industrial, municipal and
residential customers, other waste management companies, electric
utilities and governmental entities.  During the year ended Dec.
31, 2009, its largest customer represented approximately 1% of
annual revenues.  The company manages and evaluates its principal
operations through five Groups.  The company's four geographic
Groups, which include its Eastern, Midwest, Southern and Western
Groups, provide collection, transfer, recycling and disposal
services.  Its fifth Group is the Wheelabrator Group, which
provides waste-to-energy services. It also provides additional
services that are not managed through its five Groups.  In
January 2010, the company announced that it has acquired City
Wide Recycling LLC.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Reaches Agreement to Settle 33 Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management, Inc., has reached a tentative settlement to
resolve 33 lawsuits alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, according to the company's Feb. 16, 2010, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed against the company in
August 2008 in federal court in Minnesota alleging that the
company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The court in the
Minnesota lawsuit denied the plaintiffs' motion for conditional
class certification, after which 33 separate lawsuits were filed
in 32 states in addition to Minnesota, all pursuing the same
claims contained in the class action lawsuit, but on state-by-
state bases.

In December 2009, the company reached a tentative settlement to
resolve all 33 lawsuits.

Waste Management, Inc. -- http://www.wm.com/-- is a provider of  
integrated waste services in North America. Through its
subsidiaries, the Company provides collection, transfer,
recycling, disposal and waste-to-energy services.  The company's
customers include commercial, industrial, municipal and
residential customers, other waste management companies, electric
utilities and governmental entities.  During the year ended Dec.
31, 2009, its largest customer represented approximately 1% of
annual revenues.  The company manages and evaluates its principal
operations through five Groups.  The company's four geographic
Groups, which include its Eastern, Midwest, Southern and Western
Groups, provide collection, transfer, recycling and disposal
services.  Its fifth Group is the Wheelabrator Group, which
provides waste-to-energy services. It also provides additional
services that are not managed through its five Groups.  In
January 2010, the company announced that it has acquired City
Wide Recycling LLC.


YUM! BRANDS: Class Certification Granted in "Chhibber" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
has granted class certification in a consolidated case against
Taco Bell Corp., according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s Feb. 17, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 26, 2009.  

On Aug. 4, 2006, a putative class action lawsuit against Taco
Bell Corp. styled Rajeev Chhibber vs. Taco Bell Corp. was filed
in Orange County Superior Court.  On Aug. 7, 2006, another
putative class action lawsuit styled Marina Puchalski v. Taco
Bell Corp. was filed in San Diego County Superior Court.  Both
lawsuits were filed by a Taco Bell restaurant general manager
(RGM) purporting to represent all current and former RGMs who
worked at corporate-owned restaurants in California from August
2002 to the present.  The lawsuits allege violations of
California's wage and hour laws involving unpaid overtime and
meal period violations and seek unspecified amounts in damages
and penalties.  The cases were consolidated in San Diego County
as of Sept. 7, 2006.

Based on plaintiffs' revised class definition in their class
certification motion, Taco Bell removed the case to federal court
in San Diego on Aug. 29, 2008.  On March 17, 2009, the court
granted plaintiffs' motion to remand.

On Jan. 29, 2010, the court granted the plaintiffs' class
certification motion with respect to the unpaid overtime claims
of RGMs and Market Training Managers but denied class
certification on the meal period claims.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service  
restaurant with over approximately 37,000 units in more than 110
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests
in entities in China who operate similar to franchisees of KFC
and a non-controlling interest in Little Sheep, a Hot Pot
concept.  YUM operates in six segments: KFC-U.S., Pizza Hut-U.S.,
Taco Bell-U.S., Long John Silver's (LJS)-U.S. and A&W All
American Food Restaurants (A&W)-U.S., YUM Restaurants
International (YRI or International Division), and YUM
Restaurants China (China Division).


YUM! BRANDS: Certification Hearing in Wage Suit Set for 2011
------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on the class certification in the matter In Re Taco
Bell Wage and Hour Actions is set for Jan. 10, 2011, according to
YUM! Brands, Inc.'s Feb. 17, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 26,
2009.

                      Medlock Action

On Sept. 10, 2007, a putative class action against Taco Bell
Corp., the company and other related entities styled Sandrika
Medlock v. Taco Bell Corp., was filed in U.S. District Court,
Eastern District, Fresno, California.  The case was filed on
behalf of all hourly employees who have worked at corporate-owned
restaurants in California since September 2003 and alleges
numerous violations of California labor laws including unpaid
overtime, failure to pay wages on termination, denial of meal and
rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses
and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200.  The
company was dismissed from the case without prejudice on January
10, 2008.

                     Hardiman Action

On April 11, 2008, Lisa Hardiman filed a Private Attorneys
General Act complaint in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Fresno against Taco Bell Corp., the company
and other related entities.  This lawsuit, styled Lisa Hardiman
vs. Taco Bell Corp., et al., was filed on behalf of Hardiman
individually and all other aggrieved employees pursuant to PAGA.  
The complaint seeks penalties for alleged violations of
California's Labor Code.  On June 25, 2008, Hardiman filed an
amended complaint adding class action allegations on behalf of
hourly employees in California very similar to the Medlock case,
including allegations of unpaid overtime, missed meal and rest
periods, improper wage statements, non-payment of wages upon
termination, unreimbursed business expenses and unfair or
unlawful business practices in violation of California Business &
Professions Code Section 17200.

                       Leyva Suit

On June 16, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit against Taco
Bell Corp. and the company, styled Miriam Leyva vs. Taco Bell
Corp., et al., was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court.  The case
was filed on behalf of Leyva and purportedly all other California
hourly employees and alleges failure to pay overtime, failure to
provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay wages upon
discharge, failure to provide itemized wage statements, unfair
business practices and wrongful termination and discrimination.  
The company was dismissed from the case without prejudice on Aug.
20, 2008.

                       Naranjo Suit

On Nov. 5, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit against Taco
Bell Corp. and the company styled Loraine Naranjo vs. Taco Bell
Corp., et al., was filed in Orange County Superior Court.  The
case was filed on behalf of Naranjo and purportedly all other
California employees and alleges failure to pay overtime, failure
to reimburse for business related expenses, improper wage
statements, failure to pay accrued vacation wages, failure to pay
minimum wage and unfair business practices.  The company filed a
motion to dismiss on December 15, 2008, which was denied on
January 20, 2009.

                       Widjaja Case

On March 26, 2009, Taco Bell was served with a putative class
action lawsuit filed in Orange County Superior Court against Taco
Bell and the Company styled Endang Widjaja vs. Taco Bell Corp.,
et al.  The case was filed on behalf of Widjaja, a former
California hourly assistant manager, and purportedly all other
individuals employed in Taco Bell's California restaurants as
managers and alleges failure to reimburse for business related
expenses, failure to provide rest periods, unfair business
practices and conversion.  Taco Bell removed the case to federal
district court and filed a notice of related case.  On June 18,
2009 the case was transferred to the Eastern District of
California.

                   Consolidated Suit

On May 19, 2009 the court granted Taco Bell's motion to
consolidate the Medlock, Hardiman, Leyva and Naranjo matters, and
the consolidated case is styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour
Actions.

On July 22, 2009, Taco Bell filed a motion to dismiss, stay or
consolidate the Widjaja case with the In Re Taco Bell Wage and
Hour Actions, and Taco Bell's motion to consolidate was granted
on Oct. 19, 2009.

The In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint on June 29, 2009, and the court set a
filing deadline of Aug. 26, 2010 for motions regarding class
certification.

The hearing on any class certification motion is currently
scheduled for Jan. 10, 2011.  Discovery is underway.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service  
restaurant with over approximately 37,000 units in more than 110
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests
in entities in China who operate similar to franchisees of KFC
and a non-controlling interest in Little Sheep, a Hot Pot
concept.  YUM operates in six segments: KFC-U.S., Pizza Hut-U.S.,
Taco Bell-U.S., Long John Silver's (LJS)-U.S. and A&W All
American Food Restaurants (A&W)-U.S., YUM Restaurants
International (YRI or International Division), and YUM
Restaurants China (China Division).


YUM! BRANDS: Dismissal Motion Hearing in "Rosales" Set for April
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on Taco Bell Corp.'s motion to dismiss the putative
class action styled Marisela Rosales v. Taco Bell Corp. is set
for April 12, 2010, according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s Feb. 17,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 26, 2009.

The suit was filed on Sept. 28, 2009, in Orange County Superior
Court.

The plaintiff, a former Taco Bell crew member, alleges that Taco
Bell failed to timely pay her final wages upon termination, and
seeks restitution and late payment penalties on behalf of herself
and similarly situated employees.

The company says that the case appears to be duplicative of the
matter In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions.

Taco Bell removed the case to federal court on Nov. 5, 2009, and
subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, stay or transfer the case
to the same district court as the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour
Actions case.

The plaintiff did not move to remand, but the court on its own
motion ordered Taco Bell to show cause why the case should not be
remanded to state court.  Taco Bell must file its response to the
order to show cause by March 22, 2010.

A hearing on Taco Bell's motion to dismiss is currently scheduled
for April 12, 2010.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service  
restaurant with over approximately 37,000 units in more than 110
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests
in entities in China who operate similar to franchisees of KFC
and a non-controlling interest in Little Sheep, a Hot Pot
concept.  YUM operates in six segments: KFC-U.S., Pizza Hut-U.S.,
Taco Bell-U.S., Long John Silver's (LJS)-U.S. and A&W All
American Food Restaurants (A&W)-U.S., YUM Restaurants
International (YRI or International Division), and YUM
Restaurants China (China Division).


YUM! BRANDS: Plaintiff's Appeal in "Archila" Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiff on the denial of class certification
in the matter Kenny Archila v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc., remains
pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, according to YUM!
Brands, Inc.'s Feb. 17, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 26,
2009.

On Oct. 14, 2008, a putative class action, styled Kenny Archila
v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc., was filed in California state court
on behalf of all California hourly employees alleging various
California Labor Code violations, including rest and meal break
violations, overtime violations, wage statement violations and
waiting time penalties.

KFC removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on Jan. 7, 2009.

On July 7, 2009, the Judge ruled that the case would not go
forward as a class action.  Plaintiff also sought recovery of
civil penalties under the California Private Attorney General Act
as a representative of other "aggrieved employees."

On Aug. 3, 2009, the Court ruled that the plaintiff could not
assert such claims and the case had to proceed as a single
plaintiff action.  On the eve of the Aug. 18, 2009 trial, the
plaintiff stipulated to a dismissal of his individual claims with
prejudice but reserved his right to appeal the Court's rulings
regarding class and PAGA claims.

KFC reserved its right to make any and all challenges to the
appeal.

On or about Sept. 16, 2009, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has set a briefing schedule
for the appeal and plaintiff's opening brief and KFC's response
are each due in March 2010.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service  
restaurant with over approximately 37,000 units in more than 110
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests
in entities in China who operate similar to franchisees of KFC
and a non-controlling interest in Little Sheep, a Hot Pot
concept.  YUM operates in six segments: KFC-U.S., Pizza Hut-U.S.,
Taco Bell-U.S., Long John Silver's (LJS)-U.S. and A&W All
American Food Restaurants (A&W)-U.S., YUM Restaurants
International (YRI or International Division), and YUM
Restaurants China (China Division).


YUM! BRANDS: No Trial Date Yet in "Hines" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
A trial date has yet to be set in the matter Domonique Hines v.
KFC U.S. Properties, Inc., according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s
Feb. 17, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 26, 2009.

On Oct. 2, 2009, a putative class action, styled Domonique Hines
v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc., was filed in California state court
on behalf of all California hourly employees alleging various
California Labor Code violations, including rest and meal break
violations, overtime violations, wage statement violations and
waiting time penalties.

Plaintiff is a current non-managerial KFC restaurant employee
represented by the same counsel that filed the action captioned
Kenny Archila v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc.   

KFC filed an answer on Oct. 28, 2009, in which it denied
plaintiff's claims and allegations.

KFC removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on Oct. 29, 2009.

KFC filed a motion to transfer the action to the Central District
of California due to the overlapping nature of the claims in this
action and the Archila action.  Plaintiff filed a motion to
remand the action to state court.

Both motions have been fully briefed and are under submission
with the District Court.  The case is in its early stages, and no
discovery has yet commenced.  No trial date has been set.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service  
restaurant with over approximately 37,000 units in more than 110
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests
in entities in China who operate similar to franchisees of KFC
and a non-controlling interest in Little Sheep, a Hot Pot
concept.  YUM operates in six segments: KFC-U.S., Pizza Hut-U.S.,
Taco Bell-U.S., Long John Silver's (LJS)-U.S. and A&W All
American Food Restaurants (A&W)-U.S., YUM Restaurants
International (YRI or International Division), and YUM
Restaurants China (China Division).


YUM! BRANDS: Court Denies Summary Judgment for ADA Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has denied Taco Bell Corp.'s motion for summary judgment on the
claims relating to the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act in
the matter Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp., according to YUM!
Brands, Inc.'s Feb. 17, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 26,
2009.

On Dec. 17, 2002, Taco Bell was named as the defendant in a class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California styled Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp.

On Aug. 4, 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
alleges, among other things, that Taco Bell has discriminated
against the class of people who use wheelchairs or scooters for
mobility by failing to make its approximately 220 company-owned
restaurants in California accessible to the class.

Plaintiffs contend that queue rails and other architectural and
structural elements of the Taco Bell restaurants relating to the
path of travel and use of the facilities by persons with
mobility-related disabilities do not comply with the U.S.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Unruh Civil Rights Act
(Unruh Act), and the California Disabled Persons Act (CDPA).

Plaintiffs have requested:

     (a) an injunction from the District Court ordering Taco
         Bell to comply with the ADA and its implementing
         regulations;

     (b) that the District Court declare Taco Bell in violation
         of the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and

     (c) monetary relief under the Unruh Act or CDPA.  
         Plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, are seeking the
         minimum statutory damages per offense of either $4,000
         under the Unruh Act or $1,000 under the CDPA for each
         aggrieved member of the class.  

Plaintiffs contend that there may be in excess of 100,000
individuals in the class.

On Feb. 23, 2004, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  The class includes claims for
injunctive relief and minimum statutory damages.

Pursuant to the parties' agreement, on or about Aug. 31, 2004,
the District Court ordered that the trial of this action be
bifurcated so that stage one will resolve plaintiffs' claims for
equitable relief and stage two will resolve plaintiffs' claims
for damages.  The parties are currently proceeding with the
equitable relief stage of this action.

On May 17, 2007, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment seeking judicial declaration that Taco
Bell was in violation of accessibility laws as to three specific
issues: indoor seating, queue rails and door opening force.

On Aug. 8, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part
with regard to dining room seating.  In addition, the court
granted plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to door opening
force at some restaurants (but not all) and denied the motion
with regard to queue lines.

The parties participated in mediation on March 25, 2008, and
again on March 26, 2009, without reaching resolution.

On Dec. 16, 2009, the court denied Taco Bell's motion for summary
judgment on the ADA claims and ordered plaintiff to file a
definitive list of remaining issues after which Taco Bell may
renew its motion for summary judgment on those issues.

Taco Bell has taken certain steps to address potential
architectural and structural compliance issues at the restaurants
in accordance with applicable state and federal disability access
laws.  .

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service  
restaurant with over approximately 37,000 units in more than 110
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests
in entities in China who operate similar to franchisees of KFC
and a non-controlling interest in Little Sheep, a Hot Pot
concept.  YUM operates in six segments: KFC-U.S., Pizza Hut-U.S.,
Taco Bell-U.S., Long John Silver's (LJS)-U.S. and A&W All
American Food Restaurants (A&W)-U.S., YUM Restaurants
International (YRI or International Division), and YUM
Restaurants China (China Division).


YUM! BRANDS: "Blackwood" Suit Dismissed Voluntarily
---------------------------------------------------
The attorneys of the plaintiff in the matter Sue Blackwood and
Scott Lewis v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc., have voluntarily
dismissed the suit, according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s Feb. 17,
2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended Dec. 26, 2009.

On July 9, 2009, a putative class action styled Mark Smith v.
Pizza Hut, Inc. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado.

The complaint alleges that Pizza Hut did not properly reimburse
its delivery drivers for various automobile costs, uniforms
costs, and other job-related expenses and seeks to represent a
class of delivery drivers nationwide under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Colorado state law.

On Sept. 15, 2009, a putative class action styled Sue Blackwood
and Scott Lewis v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc. was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

Because the Blackwood complaint brought essentially the same
claims and purported to represent the same class as the Smith
case, Blackwood's attorneys voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit in
December 2009.

YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service  
restaurant with over approximately 37,000 units in more than 110
countries and territories.  Through the five concepts of KFC,
Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company
develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of
restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food
items.  In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests
in entities in China who operate similar to franchisees of KFC
and a non-controlling interest in Little Sheep, a Hot Pot
concept.  YUM operates in six segments: KFC-U.S., Pizza Hut-U.S.,
Taco Bell-U.S., Long John Silver's (LJS)-U.S. and A&W All
American Food Restaurants (A&W)-U.S., YUM Restaurants
International (YRI or International Division), and YUM
Restaurants China (China Division).


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda and Peter A. Chapman,
Editors.

Copyright 2010.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *