CAR_Public/091208.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, December 8, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 242
  
                            Headlines

AMAZON.COM: Accused of Shortchanging Employees Overtime Pay
AT&T INC: Sued in D. Neb. for Collecting Illegal Taxes
BIOTECH CORP: Cognovin Memory Enhancement Claims Challenged
CAPITAL ONE: N.J. Suit Complains about Credit Card Practices
GLOBAL VISION: Jury Returns $50 Million Hair Loss Product Verdict

HAIER AMERICA: Recalls 53,800 Blenders
HURRICANE KATRINA: Fifth Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Dredging Suit
NEW YORK: Teachers Sue for Being Confined to "Rubber Rooms"
NTD APPAREL: Recalls 1,200 Hello Kitty Zip Up Hoodie Sweatshirts
OBERON MEDIA: Lawsuit Complains About Automatic GameSaver Fees

OHIO AUTOMOBILE: Accused of Charging Bogus $250 Documentation Fee
OWENS CORNING: Accused in W.D. Pa. Lawsuit of Breaching Warranty
PROVIDENT ROYALTIES: Idaho Subclass Complaint Filed in D. Idaho
STORK CRAFT: Crib Recall Leads to Class Action Suit in N.D. Ill.
SUNSATIONS INC: Recalls 12,000 Children's Hooded Sweatshirts

TOO LAZY: Accused in Calif. Lawsuit of False Billing Practices
VIVENDI SA: S.D.N.Y. Declines Invitation to Halt French Lawsuit
WACHOVIA MORTGAGE: Mass. Suit Attacks World Mortgage Deals
WAL-MART STORES: 8th Cir. Revives Suit Concerning 401(k) Fees
WAL-MART STORES: Agrees to Pay $40 Million to Mass. Workers

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Shareholder Suit Filed in E.D. Pa.

                            *********

AMAZON.COM: Accused of Shortchanging Employees Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tresa Baldas at The National Law Journal reports that Amazon.com
received some early coal in its stocking: a potential class
action claiming unpaid overtime.

In Austin v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-01679 (W.D. Wash.)
(Robart, J.), filed Nov. 25, 2009, in Seattle, the on-line retail
giant is being sued for allegedly rounding off the hours worked
by 21,000 warehouse employees who fill orders and ship packages.
Specifically, the company is accused of rounding the start and
end times for each person's shift, costing employees roughly 15
minutes of overtime pay each day.

That's a lot of money when you add it all up, Mark Thierman of
the Thierman Law Firm, whose Reno, Nev., firm is one of four
handling the case, told Ms. Baldas.  Mr. Thierman argued that
Amazon should know better than to cut corners with the time
clock: "You're in the technology business. Use it. You can do
this to the second. There's no need for this. These people punch
in on an electronic clock."  Mr. Thierman also said that, while
rounding off work hours is not uncommon in the workplace,
Amazon's rounding-off practice "is very unusual."  He said, "With
other companies, I've never seen 15 minutes of rounding off. It's
usually more like five minutes."  He added that Amazon has "been
doing this for years."

Amazon has not yet filed a response to the complaint. Company
officials were not available for comment.

Rounding-off policies have been challenged elsewhere, Ms. Baldas
relates.  In Nevada, Station Casinos is facing a potential class
action on behalf of 10,000 hourly employees for allegedly
rounding off their shifts' starting and ending times.  The suit
was filed by three employees, including a food-and-beverage
runner and a blackjack dealer.

In Michigan, a group of call center employees is pursuing a class
action against Michigan Bell, alleging -- among other things --
that the phone company's rounding-off policy denies them earned
overtime pay.

And in New Jersey this summer, the state Department of Labor and
Workforce Development warned employers about such policies,
announcing that it "does not accept the 'rounding' policy" of the
U.S. Department of Labor. The federal department has long allowed
for rounding, holding that it's acceptable "provided that it is
used in such a manner that it will not result, over a period of
time, in failure to compensate the employees properly for all the
time they have actually worked."

New Jersey, however, has taken the position that "if an employer
does round off to an increment or a fraction of an hour, it must
be to the benefit of the employee."

Court records show Mr. Austin is represented by:

          Matthew James Ide, Esq.
          801 Second Ave., Ste. 1502
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: 206-625-1326

               - and -  

          David R. Markham, Esq.
          Clark & Markham LLP
          600 B Street, Ste. 2130
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-239-1321


AT&T INC: Sued in D. Neb. for Collecting Illegal Taxes
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that AT&T and AT&T Mobility
charge state and local taxes for Internet access, which is
illegal in Nebraska, a class action claims in Lincoln Federal
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Cranford v. AT&T, Inc., et al., Case
No. 09-cv-03243 (D. Neb.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/01/InternetTax.pdf.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jefferson Downing, Esq.
          KEATING, O'GARA, NEDVED & PETER, P.C., L.L.O.
          530 S. 13th Street, Suite 100
          Lincoln, NE 68520
          Telephone: 402-475-8230

               - and -  

          James Bartimus, Esq.
          Edward D. Robertson, Jr., Esq.
          Mary D. Winter, Esq.
          Anthony L. DeWitt, Esq.
          BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON, ROBERTSON & GORNY, P.C.
          715 Swifts Highway
          Jefferson City, Mo. 65109
          Telephone: 573-659-4454

News about the filing of a similar lawsuit, Pauley v. AT&T, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 09-cv-04248 (W.D. Mo.), appeared in the Class
Action Reporter on Dec. 1, 2009.  


BIOTECH CORP: Cognovin Memory Enhancement Claims Challenged
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Biotech Corp. and The
Vitamin Shoppe push "Cognovin" with false claims that it "quickly
boosts memory . . . counteracts cognitive decline," and so on, a
class action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court.


CAPITAL ONE: N.J. Suit Complains about Credit Card Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Capital One Bank defrauds
credit-card customers by luring them in with teaser rates and
then jacking up the rates and piling on other charges, a class
action claims in Morris County Court, N.J.  The named plaintiff
says Capital One tried to collect more than $4,000 on a $1,327
debt, which he paid off.

A copy of the Complaint in Hoffman v. Capital One Bank (USA),
N.A., Docket No. L-3836-09 (N.J. Super. Ct., Morris Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/02/Banks.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Hoffman, Esq.
          15A New England Avenue
          P.O. Box 554
          Summit, NJ 07901
          Telephone: 908-608-0333


GLOBAL VISION: Jury Returns $50 Million Hair Loss Product Verdict
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Moser at The Recorder reports that an Alameda County,
Calif., jury late last month returned a $50 million verdict --
see http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/ca/verdict1202_02.pdf-- in Thomas  
v. Global Vision Products, Inc., et al., Case No. RG03091195
(Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.), which sought relief for
Californians who'd bought Avacor, a hair-loss remedy that was
marketed as an all-natural, clinically tested product.

Attorneys fees have yet to be decided, local Plaintiff's counsel:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BRAMSON, PLUTZIK, MAHLER & BIRKHAEUSER LLP
          2125 Oak Grove Rd., Suite, 120
          Walnut Creek, CA 94598
          Telephone: (925) 945-0200

told Ms. Moser.  New York lawyer Scott Bursor and New York firm
Faruqi & Faruqi also represented the plaintiffs.  There were
about 150,000 purchases of Avacor in California during the class
period, but since some were reorders, the exact size of the class
is unclear, Mr. Fisher said.

The outcome against two defendants marked the second trial
victory in the same class action for the plaintiff lawyers. The
earlier trial had ended in a $40 million win against different
defendants, but Fisher said the awards from the trials will not
be added together, and he expects the court will order that $50
million in all be returned to the class.

Both trials took place before Alameda County Superior Court Judge
Robert Freedman.

The defendants in the latest trial were two officers of Global
Vision Products Inc., Robert DeBenedictis and Henry Edelson -- a
court stay after the company's 2007 bankruptcy filing had kept
them out of the earlier one.  Mr. DeBenedictis was represented
by:

          Peter M. Hart, Esq.
          LeClairRyan
          44 Montgomery Street, 18th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415-391-7111

Mr. Edelson was recently representing himself and did not appear
at trial.

One of Mr. DeBenedictis' lawyers said his client was just an
investor and not directly participating in the company in its
early years, and that he planned to appeal.

"Once he became involved in 2004, he took every effort he
possibly could to get the company back on the straight and narrow
and get its advertising in compliance with the Better Business
Bureau and the Food and Drug Administration," Mr. Hart said. "We
think the jury looked at his position and made the leap that just
because he was president, he was responsible."  To bolster that
thought, he noted that the jury had found in Mr. DeBenedictis'
favor on allegations of conspiracy with defendants from the
earlier trial.

Named plaintiffs Garrett Boyd and James Thomas claimed Avacor's
three-part "hair re-growth program" was misleading in selling
itself as an all-natural, clinically tested product with no side
effects. Fisher, one of their lawyers, contended that Global
Vision Products' advertising referred to a clinic that didn't
exist, a study that was never done and success rates that had no
backing.  The company, having filed for bankruptcy, was not
included in either trial.

Testimony that Mr. DeBenedictis continues to sell Avacor seemed
influential with the jury, Mr. Fisher said.

"We got the sense that they understood how many people had been
defrauded here and that this was a widespread scheme, that this
was something that [they] needed to put a stop to."

But Mr. Hart said that while Mr. DeBenedictis has an interest in
a new company, Avacor, no state or federal agency is claiming
that selling the hair remedy is improper.

The 2007 trial involved three principal defendants: Avacor's
creator, a Nascar driver hired as its celebrity spokesman and a
former doctor who appeared in ads for the product.  The jury
returned a verdict of just under $37 million.  In his May 2008
statement of decision, Judge Freedman increased the award to $40
million.

"The court can and does take judicial notice of the fact that
enormous sums of money are spent on personal care and grooming
products," Judge Freedman wrote in that decision -- see
http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/ca/verdict1202_01.pdf  

"Into this lucrative market stepped a band of hucksters,
defendants, to prey on the vulnerabilities of human nature and
employing a colossal array of false, deceptive and fraudulent
techniques cynically collected millions of dollars from deceived
California consumers."


HAIER AMERICA: Recalls 53,800 Blenders
--------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Haier America Trading, L.L.C., of New York, N.Y., announced a
voluntary recall of about 53,800 blenders manufactured by Ka Po
International Industrial Co., of Hong Kong.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The blade assemblies of the blenders may come apart or break,
posing a laceration risk.

Haier America has received approximately 60 reports of blade
assemblies coming apart or breaking. One consumer reported
receiving a minor cut to his hand.

This recall involves commercial-style 500-watt blenders with
model number HB500BSS. The units are stainless steel and black
plastic. "Haier" is printed on the front below the power switch,
and the model number is printed on a label on the bottom of the
blenders.  A picture of the recalled product is available at
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10052.html

The recalled blenders, manufactured in China, were sold at mass
merchandisers and specialty retailers nationwide from November
2006 through October 2009 for between $26 and $60.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled blenders and
contact Haier America to receive a free replacement blade
assembly.  For additional information, contact Haier America
toll-free at (866) 327-6147 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.haieramerica.com/


HURRICANE KATRINA: Fifth Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Dredging Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Youderian at Courthouse News Service reports that the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld a
lower court's dismissal of a class action seeking to hold 32
federal contractors liable for flood damage linked to the
dredging of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet shipping canal
before Hurricane Katrina.

The three-judge panel in New Orleans backed a federal judge's
decision to dismiss the 2006 class action against the United
States and 32 dredging companies.

The plaintiffs claimed that the dredging damaged wetlands,
"created an environmental disaster," and "dramatically increased
the region's vulnerability to hurricanes and tropical surges."

Specifically, they said the dredging amplified the storm surge
during Hurricane Katrina.

However, the district court found that the contractors were
protected by government-contractor immunity, and the 5th Circuit
panel agreed.

"These allegations attack Congress' policy of creating and
maintaining the MGRO, not any separate act of negligence by the
Contractor Defendants," Judge Priscilla Owen wrote.

The plaintiffs' remaining claims -- that the lower court should
have let them amend their complaint or conduct discovery -- as
being "without merit" or "harmless error," the court concluded.

A copy of the slip opinion in Ackerson, et al. v. Bean Dredging
LLC, et al., No. 07-30272 (5th Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/07/07-30272-CV0.wpd.pdf


NEW YORK: Teachers Sue for Being Confined to "Rubber Rooms"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that some 2,000
schoolteachers say New York City is discriminating against them
by confining them on trumped-up charges in infamous "rubber
rooms" until they retire.  Rubber rooms are study hall-like
places where teachers are paid full wages to do nothing --
sometime for years.

The class of tenured teachers claims School Chancellor Joel Klein
is following Mayor Michael Bloomberg's orders: to abolish the
public schools' tenure system by firing tenured teachers or
forcing them to quit by making their work life unbearable.

Mayor Bloomberg took administrative control of the city's public
schools in 2002. The named plaintiffs - Marie Anne Thomas,
Leverett Holmes, Josefina Cruz, Brian Salazar, David Pakter and
Paul Santucci -- all were brought up on disciplinary charges
after Bloomberg took over the schools.

They say Chancellor Klein had no educational experience when he
was appointed, and was given the job with a directive to abolish
the public school's system of tenure, and to either fire tenured
teachers or force them to quit by making their work life
unbearable.

Since then, the defendants -- the New York City Department of
Education, Chancellor Klein, Human Resources Director Philip
Crowe and his deputy Judith Rivera -- have denied an estimated
2,000 class members due process rights, consigning them to the
limbo of the district's overcrowded Teacher Reassignment Centers,
aka the rubber rooms, according to the complaint.

Thomas and her fellow plaintiffs say the practice also violates
their right to equal protection, their human rights, and their
contractual and statutory rights under state law. They seek
declaratory and injunctive relief, and compensatory and punitive
damages.

In each case, the teachers said, the charges were improperly
brought without contractually required checks and balances to
determine whether there was probable cause to back the suspicions
raised about them.

When confined in rubber rooms, the teachers are subjected to
surveillance by guards and security cameras, hostility from
administrators, and are denied use of electronic devices,
including their telephones and laptop computers.

And because the centers are overcrowded, the teachers say, they
are exposed to health and fire dangers.

Few teachers are ever provided with the opportunity to be
exonerated of any or all charges, the complaint states.

The teachers say that no teacher outside of New York Cit is
confined in a rubber room while awaiting the disposition of
disciplinary charges. They want the rubber rooms to be closed
immediately, and to be returned to their teaching duties.

A copy of the Complaint in Thomas, et al. v. New York City
Department of Education, Case No. 09-cv-05167 (E.D.N.Y.) (Townes,
J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/01/RubberRoom.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joy Hochstadt, Esq.
          300 Central Park West, Suite 2E
          New York, NY 10024-1513
          Telephone: 212-580-9930


NTD APPAREL: Recalls 1,200 Hello Kitty Zip Up Hoodie Sweatshirts
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
NTD Apparel, of Los Angeles, Calif., announced a voluntary recall
of about 1,200 "Hello Kitty" Zip Up Hoodie Sweatshirts
the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

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

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The "Hello Kitty" hoodie has an appliqu‚ on the right chest and
screenprint on left chest and left sleeve. They were sold in
black with silver lining and in sizes 2T, 3T, 4, 5, 6 and 6X. NTD
APPAREL, D1592H7273, RN#116180 is printed on the neck label and
care label.  A picture of the recalled product is available at
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10054.html

The garments were manufactured in China and sold at Macy's and
Dillard's department stores nationwide from November 2008 through
December 2008 for $36.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the
sweatshirts to eliminate the hazard, or return the garment to
either the place of purchase or to NTD Apparel for a full refund.  
For additional information, contact NTD Apparel toll-free at
(866) 317-3974 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Pacific time,
Monday through Friday.


OBERON MEDIA: Lawsuit Complains About Automatic GameSaver Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that video game
players expecting free games were charged monthly subscription
fees instead by GameSaver, according to a federal class action.
Oberon, which sells video games to "casual gamers," automatically
enrolls people in its GameSaver subscription service when they
buy a game online or redeem a free game, the class claims.

The class says they never consented to purchase GameSaver
subscriptions and that Oberon refused to cancel these memberships
unless they agreed to pay an "early termination fee."
They claim GameSaver automatically charged their credit cards
"membership fees" of up to $9.95 a month.

They also say that Oberon refuses to deliver on its promise of
one free game per month and charged their credit cards multiple
times for single-game purchases.

Lead plaintiff Blake Williams says she was charged twice for a
GameSaver membership after she tried to redeem a free game on the
GameSaver Web site, and that Oberon refused to refund her money.
Peggy McGregor says that one month after she bought a single
game, she discovered she had been charged for a monthly GameSaver
membership. McGregor says she is still trying -- unsuccessfully
-- to cancel the "service."

Oberon is a Delaware corporation based in New York City.
The class demands restitution and compensatory damages for
Oberon's unlawful early termination fees and unjust enrichment.

A copy of the Complaint in Williams, et al. v. Oberon Media,
Inc., Case No. 09-cv-08764 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/02/GameSaver.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ronald W. Makarem, Esq.
          Marni B. Folinsky, Esq.
          MAKEREM & ASSOCIATES, APLC
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-1760
          Telephone: 310-312-0299

               - and -  

          Michael H. Kim, Esq.
          MICHAEL H. KIM, P.C.
          3699 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 860
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: 213-639-2900


OHIO AUTOMOBILE: Accused of Charging Bogus $250 Documentation Fee
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that The Ohio Automobile Dealers
Association adds a bogus $250 "documentation fee" to every auto
its members sell or lease in Ohio, a class action claims in
Cuyahoga County Court, Cleveland.


OWENS CORNING: Accused in W.D. Pa. Lawsuit of Breaching Warranty
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Owens Corning claims its
shingles are guaranteed for 20 to 40 years, but refuses to
replace or repair them when they start falling apart after less
than 5 years, a class action claims in Pittsburgh Federal Court.

A copy of the Class Action Complaint dated Nov. 24, 2009 (Doc.
1529, filed Nov. 30, 2009) in Wright v. Owens Corning, Case No.
05-cv-02025 (W.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/01/CCAShingles.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James T. Davis, Esq.
          DAVIS & DAVIS
          107 East Main Street
          Uniontown, PA 15401
          Telephone: 724-437-2799

               - and -  

          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
          Brendan S. Thompson, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          507 C Street, N.E.
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: 202-789-3960

               - and -  

          Michael McShane, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          221 Main Street, Suite 1460
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: 415-568-2555

               - and -  
          Robert J. Shelquist, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE, GRINDAL & NAUEN, P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: 612-339-6900

               - and -  

          Clayton D. Halunen, Esq.
          Shawn Wanta, Esq.
          HALUNEN & ASSOCIATES
          1650 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: 612-605-4098

               - and -  

          Charles Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN FISHBEIN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
          Telephone: 215-592-1500

Jon Hood at ConsumerAffairs.com reports that Ms. Wright had
Owens Corning Oakridge Shadow 40-year shingles installed on
her house in 1998.

She bought the shingles through her contractor, who was
convinced of their durability.  But in late 2008 and early
2009 -- ten years after she purchased the shingles -- Ms.
Wright discovered that her roof was leaking.  In March, she
was told that the only way to prevent further damage was to
replace her entire roof.

Ms. Wright responded by filing a class action lawsuit in
federal court in Pennsylvania.  The complaint says that
Owens Corning failed to adequately test its shingles for
common conditions that it knew, or should have known, could
damage the shingles. As a result, the company's shingles
.routinely deteriorate by cracking, curling and
degranulating far in advance of the expiration of warranty
periods..

The suit also says that Owens Corning fraudulently marketed
the shingles as durable and long-lasting, leading consumers
to believe that their roof would be taken care of for
decades.

Owens Corning marketed the Oakridge shingle, in particular,
as "offering premium protection and enduring value . . .
[c]onstructed with the most weathering grade asphalt
available and a tough Fiberglass mat."  Further, the suit
says that Owens Corning actively concealed facts about the
shingles' design that would have made consumers think twice
before buying them.

In addition to Owens Corning's inadequate testing and
fraudulent marketing, the suit charges that the company had
steadfastly refused to replace defective shingles, even
though they are warrantied for up to 40 years. At least one
consumer had his warranty claim turned down because he
wasn't the house's original owner. The company has done
nothing to remedy its warranty procedures or the design of
its shingles, the suit charges.

The suit is brought on behalf of all homeowners who have had
Owens Corning shingles installed since 1986. The complaint
asserts that, in addition to their ruined roofs, the
plaintiffs have suffered structural damage to their homes
and diminished property values. The action includes counts
for breach of contract, breach of warranty, negligence,
strict product liability, unjust enrichment, and breach of
Pennsylvania consumer protection laws.

Owens Corning is the second-largest asphalt shingle
manufacturer in the U.S., and the largest manufacturer of
industrial and specialty shingles.


PROVIDENT ROYALTIES: Idaho Subclass Complaint Filed in D. Idaho
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Bradley K. Hofhines and
Summit Retirement Advisors sold Provident Securities through
false and misleading statements, shareholders claim in Boise
Federal Court. Defendants include Securities America, Securities
American Financial Corp., and Ameriprise Financial Inc.

A copy of the Complaint in Toomey, et al. v. Hofhines, et al.,
Case No. 09-cv-00613 (D. Idaho), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/30/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard H. Greener, Esq.
          Soo Y. Kang, Esq.
          GREENER BURKE SHOEMAKER P.A.
          The Banner Building
          950 W. Bannock Street, Suite 900
          Boise, ID 83702
          Telephone: (208) 319-2600

               - and -  

          Lynn L. Sarko, Esq.
          Michael D. Woerner, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Leland, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900

Pursuant to Section VIII of the Order Granting Temporary
Restraining Order, Appointing Receiver, Freezing Assets, Staying
Litigation, Prohibiting the Destruction of Documents and
Accelerating Discovery entered in Securities and Exchange
Commission v. Provident Royalties LLC, et al., Case No.
09-cv-c1238 (N.D. Texas, filed July. 2, 2009), the Plaintiffs do
not assert claims against Provident Royalties, LLC, Provident
Asset Management, LLC, their subsidiaries or affiliates, Paul R.
Melbye, Brendan W. Coughlin or Henry D. Harrison.


STORK CRAFT: Crib Recall Leads to Class Action Suit in N.D. Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Stork Craft Manufacturing
made dangerously defective drop-side cribs, which were recalled,
and Wal-Mart sold them, a class action claims in Chicago Federal
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Wiegel v. Stork Craft Manufacturing,
and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-07417 (N.D. Ill.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/30/CCACribs.pdf      

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          Sharon Harris, Esq.
          BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 621-2000
          Fax: (312) 641-5504

               - and -  

          Aron D. Robinson
          LAW OFFICE OF ARON D. ROBINSON
          19 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 857-9050

News about the recall appeared in the Class Action Reporter on
Nov. 11, 2009, and news about the filing of Canadian class action
lawsuits following the recall appeared in the Class Action
Reporter on Dec. 1, 2009.  


SUNSATIONS INC: Recalls 12,000 Children's Hooded Sweatshirts
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Sunsations Inc, of Virginia Beach, Va., announced a voluntary
recall of about 12,000 Children's Hooded Sweatshirts with
Drawstrings.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The sweatshirts have a drawstring through the hood which can pose
a strangulation hazard to children. In February 1996, CPSC issued
guidelines (which were incorporated into an industry voluntary
standard in 1997) to help prevent children from strangling or
getting entangled on the neck and waist drawstrings in upper
garments, such as jackets or sweatshirts.  A picture of the
recalled product is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10053.html

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recall involves children's hooded sweatshirt sizes 2T through
12 sold in various solid colors. Style numbers included in this
recall are: KD102, KD124 and KFS102.

The garments were manufactured in Pakistan and were sold at
Sunsations stores in Virginia Beach, Va.; Ocean City, Md.; and
North Carolina from April 2006 through July 2009 for about $13.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the
sweatshirts to eliminate the hazard or return the garment to
Sunsations for a full refund.  For additional information contact
Sunsations at (800) 786-9044 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Eastern time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.sunsationsusa.com/


TOO LAZY: Accused in Calif. Lawsuit of False Billing Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Too Lazy LLC charges cell-
phone customers for "services" they didn't order and don't want,
a class action claims in Santa Clara County Court, Calif.

A copy of the Complaint in Johnson v. Too Lazy, LLC, Case No.
109CV158280 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/30/CellPhone.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Parisi, Esq.
          Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVENS LLP
          15233 Valleyheart Drive
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: 818-990-1299


VIVENDI SA: S.D.N.Y. Declines Invitation to Halt French Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Perlow at Courthouse News Service reports that in an
effort to avoid dueling "anti-suit injunctions," a federal judge
in Manhattan refused to force media giant Vivendi SA to withdraw
a French lawsuit against two members of a class action alleging
securities fraud.

U.S. District Judge Richard J. Holwell tried to avoid stepping on
the Paris court's jurisdiction, despite acknowledging that the
plaintiffs in the U.S. suit met the qualifications for an
injunction.

Investors sued in 2002, claiming Vivendi artificially inflated
its stock price and issued false and misleading statements.

The trial in Manhattan Federal Court began on Oct. 5. Three days
later, Vivendi asked the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris to
enjoin two individual French class members from participating.
The trial is expected to last until the end of the year, the
judge said.

"Thus, both a U.S. court and a French court are being asked to
enjoin parties from proceeding in a foreign jurisdiction,"
Holwell wrote. "The court concludes that plaintiffs in this
action likely established their entitlement to an anti-suit
injunction against Vivendi."

But he said that his decision was "in the interests of comity"
and was the necessary step "to avert the need for either a French
or a U.S. court to enter competing anti-suit injunctions."

Former CEO Jean-Marie Messier fueled Vivendi's growth from a
water supply company to one of the world's largest media and
telecommunications conglomerates.

He and the company are accused of failing to disclose a liquidity
crisis and of manipulating the company's share price. He faces
criminal charges in France.

Mr. Messier and former CFO Guillaume Hannezo are named as
defendants along with Vivendi.
     
They sued in 2007, claiming France was the proper venue to hear
the case because the alleged fraudulent statements were approved
by executives in Paris.
     
U.S. District Judge Harold Baer Jr. ruled that the Manhattan
District Court had jurisdiction over the case, in part because
the company had moved its headquarters to New York. The fact that
Messier lived in a $17 million Park Avenue apartment paid for by
the company didn't help Vivendi's cause either.
     
The judge certified a class of investors from the United States,
France, England and the Netherlands. German and Austrian
shareholders were excluded.
     
Vivendi unsuccessfully argued that French investors should be
barred from the suit, as class actions are not allowed in France.
     
The court's decision "was based on the traditional notion that a
court may exercise its jurisdiction to regulate illegal activity
occurring within its territory," the judge wrote.
     
In the most recent proceedings, Judge Holwell chose to not impede
on a lawsuit filed in another country's court, but noted that "a
final judgment in this case will dispose of the Paris action
because the alleged need for a French court to issue an
injunction against this action will be mooted."
     
Vivendi claimed it was not trying to disrupt the trial or coerce
the two French plaintiffs, but wanted to obtain a ruling from a
French court. Such a decision "might be helpful to this court in
any further consideration of these issues," Holwell wrote.
     
"Requesting a French court to order class plaintiffs to withdraw
from this action in the middle of a trial on the merits is a most
unusual form of help."  

A copy of Judge Holwell's decision dated Nov. 19, 2009, in
In re Vivendi Universal, S.A., Securities Litigation, Case No.
02-cv-05571 (S.D.N.Y.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/01/Vivendi.pdf


WACHOVIA MORTGAGE: Mass. Suit Attacks World Mortgage Deals
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Wachovia Mortgage, successor
to World Savings Bank, profited unjustly by World's
misrepresentation of the terms of its negatively amortizing,
interest-only, "pick a payment" mortgages, a class action claims
in Boston Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Leonelli, et ux. v. Wachovia Mortgage,
FSB, Case No. 09-cv-12047 (D. Mass.) (O'Toole, J.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/02/HomeMorts.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Valeriano Diviacchi, Esq.
          DIVIACCHI LAW OFFICE
          111 Beach Street #1A
          Boston, MA 02111-2532
          Telephone: 617-542-3175


WAL-MART STORES: 8th Cir. Revives Suit Concerning 401(k) Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reinstated a class action accusing
Wal-Mart and its executives of turning a blind eye while mutual
funds charged millions of dollars in unnecessary fees for Wal-
Mart's employee retirement plans.

According to the complaint, a committee overseeing Wal-Mart's
profit-sharing and 401(k) plan routinely selected mutual funds
that shared their fees with trustee Merrill Lynch.

As a result, some or all of the plan's investment options charged
excessive fees, to the tune of $20 million a year, the plaintiffs
claimed.

The class members added that the high fees couldn't be justified
by greater returns on investment, because most of the mutual
funds underperformed lower-cost alternatives.

Lead plaintiff Jeremy Braden estimated that the funds' higher
fees and lower returns cost around $140 million by the end of
2007.

The district court granted Wal-Mart's motion to dismiss,
concluding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge how
the plan was managed before they began contributing to it.

"In reaching this conclusion, the district court mixed two
distinct issues," the St. Louis-based appeals court ruled.

"Whether Braden may pursue claims on behalf of the Plan at all is
a question of constitutional standing which turns on his personal
injury," Judge Diana Murphy wrote for the three-judge panel.
"Whether relief may be had for a certain period of time is a
separate question, and its answer turns on the cause of action
Braden asserts."

Mr. Braden established standing for the alleged injury to his own
plan, the court ruled, and the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act allows him to "seek relief for the entire Plan."
     
"The relief that may be appropriate, should Braden succeed, is
not necessarily limited to the period in which he personally
suffered injury," Judge Murphy added.
     
The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

A copy of the slip opinion in Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et
al., No. 08-3798 (8th Cir.), is available at:

     http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/09/11/083798P.pdf

The District Court's order dismissing the lawsuit was reported at
590 F. Supp. 2d 1159 (W.D. Mo. 2008).

Prior coverage of Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, et al., Case
No. 08-cv-03109 (W.D. Mo.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter
on April 23, 2008, and July 24, 2008.  


WAL-MART STORES: Agrees to Pay $40 Million to Mass. Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rodrigue Ngowi at The Associated Press reports that Wal-Mart
Stores Inc. has agreed to pay $40 million to 87,500 Massachusetts
employees who claimed the retailer denied them rest and meals
breaks, manipulated time cards and refused to pay overtime,
according to court documents filed last week.  

The settlement -- believed to be one of the largest of its kind
in the state -- seeks to resolve a class action lawsuit filed in
2001. It comes less than three months after the world's largest
retailer reached a deal with state prosecutors to pay $3 million
to settle complaints that it didn't give its Massachusetts
workers proper meal breaks.

An affidavit filed by plaintiffs' attorney Philip Gordon says
people who worked for Wal-Mart between August 1995 and this year
will receive payments of between $400 and $2,500, depending upon
their years of service.

"It is the largest settlement of any wage and hour class action
in the history of Massachusetts, and it dwarfs settlements of
similar class actions against Wal-Mart across the country," Mr.
Gordon said in the affidavit.

The settlement was reached after the court rejected a deal
proposed in June and July when Mr. Gordon and other plaintiffs'
attorneys objected, saying it was negotiated without the
knowledge or consent of class action representatives, Wal-Mart's
payout would not exceed $20 million and the money would be
consumed largely by attorney fees.

The latest settlement is also subject to approval from the
Middlesex Superior Court.

Under terms of the settlement, both sides are barred from
commenting on the matter.

"Resolving this litigation is in the best interest of our
company, our shareholders and our associates. These cases were
filed years ago, and the allegations are not representative of
the company we are today," Wal-Mart spokeswoman Daphne Moore told
the AP.  

The settlement guarantees the full $40 million and stipulates
that no leftover funds will revert back to the Bentonville, Ark.-
based Wal-Mart.

The deal "will not only provide real cash to hard working Wal-
Mart employees, but should also provide a mini-stimulus to
Massachusetts as the money is distributed and spent by class
members around the state," lead plaintiffs attorney Carolyn
Beasley Burton said in an affidavit.

The lawsuit was part of a string of complaints filed against Wal-
Mart across the country in 2001.  Last December, the company
agreed to pay as much as $640 million to settle 63 lawsuits over
wage-and-hour violations.


                     New Securities Fraud Cases


HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Shareholder Suit Filed in E.D. Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Hemispherx Biopharma
inflated its share price through false and misleading statements,
shareholders claim in Philadelphia Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in McGovern v. Hemispherx Biopharma,
Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-05682 (E.D. Pa.) (Diamond, J.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/12/02/SCAHemispherx.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott R. Shepherd, Esq.
          Natalie Findelman Bennett, Esq.
          James C. Shah, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          35 E. State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: 610-891-9880

               - and -  

          Lawrence E. Feldman, Esq.
          LAWRENCE E. FELDMAN & ASSOCIATES     
          Jenkintown Plaza, Suite 230
          101 Greenwood Ave.
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: 215-885-3302

               - and -  

          James E. Miller, Esq.
          Patrick A. Klingman, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          65 Main Street
          Chester, CT 06412
          Telephone: 860-526-1100

                            *********

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 2009.  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  * * *