/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100203.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, February 3, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 23


ALBERTA: Court Says Seniors Must Be Told Of Class Action Suit
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Insurers Accused of Not Paying Claims
AMX: Recalls 8,600 Rechargeable Batteries
CHASE MANHATTAN: Loses Bid to Nix Calif. HELOC Suspension Lawsuit
COMCAST CABLE: Class Action Labor Lawsuit filed in California

DUKE ENERGY: Summary Notice of Retirement Plan Class Action Suit
EMBARQ MANAGEMENT: Kan. Lawsuit About Secret Internet Spyware
FAF INC: Recalls 55,000 Children's Metal Necklaces
H&R BLOCK: Expert Admits He Bought "Peace of Mind" for His Wife
HANN & HANN: Agrees to Settle Workers' Suit for $600,000

HOLLAND AMERICA: Filipino Workers Allege Bait-and-Switch Deal
KAISER FOUNDATION: Appeals Court Reinstates UCL Class Action Suit
LAUDERDALE COUNTY: Suit Complains About Arrest & Detention Policy
MORGAN STANLEY: 2d Cir. Says Conflicts Don't Have to Be Disclosed
NATIONAL CORRECTIVE: Collection Tactics Draw Fire in M.D. Pa.

REPUBLIC OF IRAQ: Kurdish Genocide Survivor Files Suit in D.C.
SAGE SOFTWARE: Accused of Not Giving Activation Code by Customer
SPRINT NEXTEL: Calif. Suit Says Unlimited Messaging Not Unlimited
SUMMIT TREESTANDS: Recalls 6,800 Talon Hang-on Tree Stands
VIVENDI SA: Will Appeal Jury's Verdict in Securities Fraud Trial

VONAGE AMERICA: Accused in Calif. of Improper Contract Extensions
WALT DISNEY: Baby Einstein Ad Claims Challenged in Calif. Suit
YELLOWPAGES.COM: Accused of Deceit & Fraud in Calif. Lawsuit
ZIONS FIRST: Accused of Assisting Fraud Telemarketers in Pa. Suit


ALBERTA: Court Says Seniors Must Be Told Of Class Action Suit
CBC News reports that seniors in nursing homes and hospitals
across Alberta must be notified about a class action lawsuit that
contends they may have been overcharged for accommodation, a
Court of Queen's Bench judge has ruled.

Details of the litigation against the provincial government must
be sent to those seniors or their representatives and posted on
the Alberta Health Services website, the court ruled, adding that
ads must also be placed in major Alberta newspapers.

The case began when James Darwish questioned the amount his late
mother Johanna was charged for accommodation at a Calgary seniors

"There was one huge increase of 40 per cent in accommodation rate
there at a time when, you know, people that were renting out
places were offering first month free sort of thing.  It just
didn't make sense to me," Mr. Darwish said.

The lawsuit alleges the increase was unjustified and it accuses
the province of using the extra fees to pay for health care
costs, in violation of the Canada Health Act.

Mr. Darwish and a group called the Elder Advocates of Alberta
Society are named as plaintiffs in the suit, on behalf of more
than 13,000 seniors who have been housed in nursing homes or
hospitals since August 2003.  A copy of the Honourable Madam
Justice S.J. Greckol's Reasons for Judgment certifying a
plaintiff class in Elder Advocates of Alberta Society v. Alberta,
ABQB 490, Docket 0503 13196 (Alberta Ct. of Queen's Bench,
Edmonton Registry), is available at http://is.gd/7pxZm

Mr. Darwish didn't want to discuss the numbers connected to his
mother's situation, but said he believed she was overcharged by
roughly $700 a month.

"It's been going a long time and my mother passed away two or
three years ago," Mr. Darwish said.  "And then to be faced with a
huge trial, it would be nice to have it settled."

The province denies overcharging seniors and is trying to get the
Supreme Court of Canada to rule on whether the class action
should be allowed.

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Insurers Accused of Not Paying Claims
Courthouse News Service reports that American International
Group, Granite State Insurance, and 21st Century Insurance refuse
to pay for property lost when an auto is totaled, a class action
claims in Los Angeles Superior Court.

AMX: Recalls 8,600 Rechargeable Batteries
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
AMX, of Richardson, Texas, announced a voluntary recall of about
8,600 Rechargeable Batteries sold with MVP 5000 Series Wireless
Touch Panels.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

A defect in the battery can cause the battery pack to overheat
and rupture. This poses a fire and burn hazard to consumers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves AMX 5000 series (MVP-5100, MVP-5150, MVP-
5200i) wireless touch panels. The model number can be found on a
label on the back of the unit.  These touch panels can be used as
remote controls for residential or commercial audio/visual
systems.  AMX 5000 series touch panels are available in black or
white and include a 5.2" wide screen color LCD display. The touch
panel's dimensions are 4-3/4" x 7-9/16" x 13/16".   Pictures of
the recalled products are available at:


The recalled batteries were manufactured in the United States and
Mexico and sold by AMX dealers nationwide from May 2008 through
October 2009 for between $2,400 and $4,200.

Consumers should immediately stop using the touch panels and
contact AMX for instructions on how to receive a replacement
battery at no cost.  For additional information, contact AMX at
(800) 222-0193 between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.amx.com/or e-mail the firm at service@amx.com and  
reference "XPX5000B."

CHASE MANHATTAN: Loses Bid to Nix Calif. HELOC Suspension Lawsuit
A federal judge in San Francisco refused to dismiss a class
action accusing Chase Manhattan Bank of suspending borrowers'
home equity accounts based on its inaccurate and mysterious
formula for assessing home values.  

A copy the Honorable William Alsup's Jan. 25, 2010, Order in
Yakas v. Chase Manhattan Bank, U.S.A., N.A., Case No. 09-cv-02964
(N.D. Calif.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Collins, Esq.
          Frank James Janecek, Jr. , Esq.
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-231-1058

               - and -  

          Jack Landskroner, Esq.
          Drew Legando, Esq.  
          1360 W. 9th St,. Suite 200  
          Cleveland, OH 44113  
          Telephone: 216-522-9000

Chase Manhattan is represented by:

          Victoria R. Collado, Esq.
          LeAnn Pedersen Pope
          Danielle Jean Szukala
          330 N. Wabash Ave., 22nd Floor
          Chicago, IL 60611-3607
          Telephone: 312-840-7000

               - and -  

          George Geoffrey Weickhardt, Esq.  
          201 Spear Street, Suite 1000  
          San Francisco, CA 94105  
          Telephone: 415-543-4800

COMCAST CABLE: Class Action Labor Lawsuit filed in California
Courthouse News Service reports that Comcast Cable Communications
faces a class action complaint from employees, in Santa Clara
County Court, Calif.  

A copy of the Complaint in Amery v. Comcast Cable Communications,
LLC, et al., Case No. 110CV162056 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clara
Cty.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Hoffman, Esq.
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1550
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: 415-362-1111

DUKE ENERGY: Summary Notice of Retirement Plan Class Action Suit
                       ANDERSON DIVISION

KENNETH WALTON GEORGE, et al.,  ) Case No. 06-CV-00373
       Plaintiffs,              ) CLASS ACTION
           v.                   ) SUMMARY NOTICE OF
                                ) CLASS ACTION
CASH BALANCE PLAN, et al.,      ) Judge: R. Bryan Harwell
       Defendants.              )

      TO: (1) All present and/or former vested employees of Duke
              who were participants In Duke's Cash Balance Plan  
              at any time between January 1, 1997 and December
              31, 1998, excluding participants who had retired on
              or before December 31,1996. ("Interest Rate Class")

          (2) All former employees of Duke who were participants
              in Duke's Cash Balance Plan, between January 1,
              1997 and December 31, 2002, who retired and took
              lump sum benefits on or before August 17, 2006,
              prior to age 65, and whose lump sum benefits were
              calculated during a calendar quarter when the
              Plaintiffs claim that the applicable Interest
              crediting rate under the relevant Plan documents
              exceeded the applicable Interest rate for
              discounting to present value under the Plan
              documents. ("Whipsaw Class")



This lawsuit is about Duke Energy Corporation''s Retirement Cash
Balance Plan and its administration and calculation of retirement
benefits under that Plan. Plaintiffs claim that Duke acted in
violation of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 in how it has administered and calculated benefits under the
Plan and that it violated fiduciary duties owed to the
participants. Duke Energy denies that it did anything wrong.


The Court has certified an "Interest Rate Class" and a "Whipsaw
Class." The definition for each Class is above. The Court decided
that this lawsuit could be a class action because it met the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which governs
class actions in federal courts. The Court has not decided
whether the Plaintiffs or the Defendants are correct. The
Plaintiffs must prove their claims at trial.


To Remain a Class Member. If you are a member of the Interest
Rate Class or the Whipsaw Class and do not request exclusion, you
will remain a Class Member. Your interests in connection with
those claims will be represented by the Class Representatives and
Class Counsel. You do not need to take any action to remain a
Class Member. To Opt Out of the Class. You have the right to opt
out of the Interest Rate Class, the Whipsaw Class, or both of
them. If you opt out of one or both of those Classes, you will
not be bound by or subject to any judgment or settlement of the
litigation. If you opt out, however, you will also not be
entitled to receive any money or other benefit that those Classes
may receive in a settlement or in a judgment. If you wish to opt
out, you must submit a written, signed request to opt out,
stating (1) your name, address, and telephone number, (2) a
reference to this lawsuit (i.e., George v. Duke Energy Retirement
Cash Balance Plan, Case No. 8:06-CV- 373-RBH), (3) the date of
your first employment and, if applicable, the date you left your
employment with Duke, and (4) your desire to opt out of the
Classes. Requests to opt out must be sent by first class mail,
postage pre-paid, to Wallace and Graham, P.A., 525 North Main
Street, Salisbury, NC 28144, ATTN: Duke Cash Balance Opt-Out, and
post-marked no later than March 17, 2010. If you do not submit a
timely opt-out request that complies with these requirements,
your opt-out request will be deemed invalid and you will not be
excluded from the Classes.


You can obtain more information including the Long-Form Class
Notice by contacting Class Co-Counsel, Wallace and Graham, P.A.,
at 1-800-849-5291, emailing info@wallacegraham.com or visiting

EMBARQ MANAGEMENT: Kan. Lawsuit About Secret Internet Spyware
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that two
Internet providers secretly installed "unprecedented,
extraordinarily pervasive" spyware on their broadband networks,
allowing them to spy on and profile their customers for targeted
online advertising, according to a federal class action in Kansas
City, Kan.

The class claims that from late 2007 to July 2008, Delaware-based
Embarq Management and United Telephone Co. of Eastern Kansas
funneled Internet users' communications to NebuAd, a third-party
advertising company.

The spyware, which was tied to users' Internet Services Provider
addresses, left undeletable tracking cookies and could not be
detected through individual privacy or security settings,
according to the complaint.

NebuAd monitored and profiled individual users -- eavesdropping
on their email and search histories -- to send targeted
advertising on Web pages that the users visited, the class

NebuAd is not named as a defendant. Both Embarq and United
Telephone do business as CenturyLink, according to the complaint.

Named plaintiffs Kathleen and Kerry Kirch say people's online
data can reveal enormous personal information, including
finances, movie rental choices, attorney-client privilege and
information about minor children.

Embarq and United Telephone were paid on a per-customer, per-
month basis, according to the complaint. The class says the
Internet providers gave little warning before activating the
spyware and simply amended their online privacy policies with
misleading information two weeks before they did so.

Embarq told Congress that the NebuAd test affected 26,000
subscribers in Kansas and 6 million across the country, according
to the complaint. But the class claims that many more people were
affected, since one subscription typically includes multiple
users in a household.

"Assuming a single user from each of 26,000 customer accounts
visited one Web site per day during a five-month period, the
number of diverted incoming and outgoing communications would be
approximately 4 million," according to the complaint.

The class says Embarq made misleading statements about the
spyware in response to congressional inquiries, claiming the
"foray into profiling and ad distribution with NebuAd was

Embarq also bent the truth by claiming that it did not use
personally identifiable information, though tracking users
through online behavior profiles is as personally identifiable as
a phone number, according to the complaint.

Embarq and United Telephone are accused of invasion of privacy,
wiretapping and computer fraud.

The class seeks an injunction, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains,
punitive damages and deletion of all the date it wrongfully

A copy of the Complaint in Kirch, et ux. v. Embarq Management
Co., et al., Case No. 10-cv-02047 (D. Kan.), is available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Glenn A. Stockton, Esq.
          207 East Main Street
          Gardner, KS 66030
          Telephone: (913) 856-2828

               - and -  

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          David A. Stampley, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLC
          11 Broadway, Suite 2200
          New York, New York 10004
          Telephone: (212) 920-3071

               - and -  

          Brian J. Panish, Esq.
          Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
          11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 477-1700

               - and -  

          Joseph H. Malley, Esq.
          1045 North Zang Boulevard
          Dallas, TX 75208
          Telephone: (214) 943-6100

               - and -  

          David C. Parisi, Esq.
          15233 Valleyheart Drive
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 990-1299

FAF INC: Recalls 55,000 Children's Metal Necklaces
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
FAF Inc., of Greenville, R.I., announced a voluntary recall of
about 55,000 Children's Metal Necklaces.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The recalled necklaces contain high levels of cadmium.  Cadmium
is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse
health effects.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.  

The recalled jewelry is shaped as a metal crown or frog pendant
on a metal link chain necklace in a crown hinged box. The
packaging has the words "The Princess and the Frog" on it and
contains these model numbers and UPC codes:

          Crown Model # 4616-4187 UPC # 72783367144
          Frog Model # 4616-4190  UPC # 72783367147

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:


The recalled jewelry was manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Walmart retail stores nationwide from November
2009 through January 2010 for $5.

Consumers should immediately take this recalled jewelry away from
children. Consumers should return the recalled jewelry to any
Walmart store for a full refund or a free replacement product.  
For additional information, contact F.A.F. Inc. at (800) 949-3311
between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.faf.com/

H&R BLOCK: Expert Admits He Bought "Peace of Mind" for His Wife
Steve Korris at The Madison and St. Clair Record reports that
class action expert Don Kovacic plans to swear that tax preparer
H & R Block shouldn't sell peace of mind, but apparently his wife
made him buy it.

According to H & R Block lawyer Jason Rankin of Edwardsville,
Kovacic confirmed in a deposition that he and his wife bought a
peace of mind warranty on their tax return.

Warranties protect customers from charges and penalties on

LakinChapman lawyers designated Kovacic as an expert in federal
court for a claim that peace of mind lacks value because 99.7
percent of customers don't need it.

They moved to certify a class action in December, and Rankin
opposed it on Jan. 4.

He wrote that Kovacic disagreed with his wife about peace of

"In both the Kovacic household and the proposed class, there is
no single measure of 'value' that can permit objective
determination whether a purchaser was misled or deceived in
buying POM," Rankin wrote.

"There is real value to certain individuals to have the comfort
of knowing they have eliminated all serious risk of paying more
taxes or having to face the IRS alone," he wrote.

The former Lakin Law Firm sued H & R Block in Madison County
circuit court in 2002, on behalf of Lorie Marshall.

They later added Debra Ramirez as a plaintiff.

Madison Associate Judge Ralph Mendelsohn certified a 48 state
class in 2003.

In 2006, following the Illinois Supreme Court's Avery decision
that disfavored national consumer fraud class actions, Lakin
lawyers amended the complaint.

Although they shrank it to 11 states, they multiplied the

Mendelsohn again certified a class action.

H & R Block removed it to federal court, arguing that under the
Class Action Fairness Act, Mendelsohn turned an old case into a
new one that a state court couldn't touch.

District Judge Michael Reagan tried to toss it back to
Mendelsohn, but appeals judges in Chicago intercepted it last
April and tossed it back to Reagan.

They held that "from the standpoint of the original claim, the
expansion of potential liability was a surprise."

On Dec. 11, Mark Brown of LakinChapman moved to certify Marshall
and Ramirez as representatives of a class in 11 states.

"The overwhelming majority of Block's clients do not need POM
because their returns are so simple that the chance of additional
taxes being owed is infinitesimal," he wrote.

He wrote that H & R Block conceals its low error rate, the
extremely low IRS audit rate, and the difference between the cost
of coverage and the average claim.

He wrote that it conceals a 15 percent commission on peace of
mind payments.

He claimed damages back to 1997, in Arizona, California,
Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Missouri, New Jersey, New York and North Carolina.

He sought separate class certification on a claim that in four
states, peace of mind constituted insurance that H & R Block
needed a license to sell.

He wrote that "the jury will not be required to examine
individual tax returns to determine liability and damages."

Rankin answered that the allegations of Marshall and Ramirez
didn't match.

"Ms. Marshall, who purchased POM for four consecutive years,
alleges that her tax preparer told her POM was insurance and that
it would guarantee that her taxes were prepared correctly," he

"She says she was told that if her taxes were not prepared
correctly, the entity that sold her the POM would act as her
representative with the Internal Revenue Service," he wrote.

She testified she bought it because she was afraid not to, he

"Quite to the contrary, Ms. Ramirez testified that she did not
recall if she was told anything about POM, did not know she had
bought it until she saw it on her statement, had no interest in
the product and claimed to have received no value from it," he

A reply from Marshall and Ramirez on Jan. 19 didn't offer new
argument but it introduced a new lawyer.

Brown didn't file it. Scott Macrae of San Francisco filed it.

HANN & HANN: Agrees to Settle Workers' Suit for $600,000
Ruben Castaneda at The Washington Post reports that a Rockville,
Md.-based construction services contractor accused in a federal
class-action lawsuit of failing to pay overtime and regular pay
to hundreds of workers has agreed to settle the suit by paying
more than $600,000 to current and former employees.

Hann & Hann construction services agreed to pay overtime plus 50
percent to every hourly employee who worked for the company from
May 8, 2006, to May 8, 2008, who was not paid for overtime. The
agreement also calls for Hann & Hann to pay the plaintiffs'
attorney's fees.

The settlement will benefit more than 200 of the firm's current
and former employees, almost all of whom are Spanish-speaking
immigrants, said Laura E. Varela, director of the Immigrant and
Refugee Rights Project at the Washington Lawyers' Committee for
Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.  The group represented the
workers in the suit, along with attorneys with the firm Arnold &
Porter LLC, who provided their services pro bono.

"It's a fantastic result," Ms. Varela said.  She said the
lawyers' committee receives about 10 phone calls a week from
people, usually Latino manual laborers, who report that their
employers have not paid them for their work.

Ms. Varela said she hopes the settlement deters employers from
defrauding workers.  The lawsuit was filed in May 2008.

In a news release put out by the Lawyers' Committee and Arnold &
Porter, Terry R. Hann, president of the construction company,
said, "Hann & Hann strives to comply with the law in all
respects, including the compensation of its employees, and
embraced the opportunity to resolve these allegations."

"We're very happy with the outcome," said Miguel Moya, 48, one of
the workers who will benefit from the settlement. Moya, of
Gaithersburg, said he hopes it will encourage other workers who
have been cheated of their wages to come forward and seek legal
help. "These problems are very common," he said.

According to the lawsuit, Hann & Hann had total sales of about
$19 million in 2007.  A "significant percentage" of the firm's
business comes from federal contracts, according to the suit.

HOLLAND AMERICA: Filipino Workers Allege Bait-and-Switch Deal
June Williams at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class action claims Holland America Tours promised thousands of
Filipino workers "free passage" to jobs on ships, then demanded
thousands of dollars in reimbursement from each of them, under
threat of dumping them off at the next port. The lead plaintiff
says he was dumped in Florida after the steamship company
demanded nearly one-third of his annual salary for its travel

A copy of the Crewmembers' Verified Class Action Complaint for
Wages and Maritime Arrest filed in Balen v. HAL Antillen N.V., et
al., Case No. 10-cv-00138 (W.D. Wash.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles P. Moure, Esq.
          HARRIS & MOURE, pllc
          600 Stewart Street, Suite 1200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: 206-224-5657

               - and -  

          Ross B. Toyne, Esq.
          TOYNE & MAYO, P.A.
          Chase Building
          150 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 1025
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: 305-377-1910

               - and -  

          David W. Brill, Esq.
          Juan M. Garcia, Esq.
          Mercantile Bank Building
          One SW 129th Ave., Suite 305
          Pembroke Pines, FL 33027
          Telephone: 954-447-3556

KAISER FOUNDATION: Appeals Court Reinstates UCL Class Action Suit
Avery Fellow at Courthouse News Service reports that a California
appeals court has reinstated a class action accusing Kaiser
Foundation Health Plan of categorically denying coverage to
autism patients for behavioral and speech therapy.
The Second District Court of Appeal overturned an order
sustaining Kaiser's demurrer to the lawsuit, filed by the
guardian of a 4-year-old autistic child.

Guillermo Arce claimed that Kaiser refused to cover the boy's
behavioral and speech therapy on the basis that the treatments
were not medical necessary.

Mr. Arce filed suit under the Unfair Competition Law, citing
breach of contract and violations of the Mental Health Parity
Act, which mandates coverage for medically necessary health care

Kaiser objected to the class action, arguing that it should be
thrown out because it would require looking into plaintiffs'
cases on an individual basis to determine if autism treatments
were medically necessary.

The trial court sustained the demurrer, citing a lack of
commonality and judicial abstention from deciding economic policy
issues, including what forms of therapy are covered in health

But the appeals court found that Mr. Arce could likely establish
enough common issues to support a class action.

"Arce's allegations that Kaiser systematically breached its
health plan contract by refusing to provide all putative class
members with contractually covered services is sufficient to
state a class action claim under the Unfair Competition Law,"
Justice Laurie Zelon wrote.

The trial court read Mr. Arce's allegations and the Mental Health
Parity Act too narrowly, the court ruled.  The case does not
require the court to make individual determinations of medical
necessity, the ruling states.  Mr. Arce asserts that Kaiser is
denying coverage to all plan members without even considering
medical necessity, the court noted.  If the court finds that
behavioral and speech services are covered under Kaiser's health
plans, then there is a breach of contract, it concluded.
The state appeals court reversed the order sustaining Kaiser's

A copy of the decision in Arce, et al. v. Kaiser Foundation
Health Plan, Inc., et al., Case No. BC388689 (Calif. App. Ct.),
is available at:


In this appeal, The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Scott C. Glovsky, Esq.
          225 South Lake Avenue, Suite 1000
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: 626-243-5598

and Kaiser is represented by:

          William A. Helvestine, Esq.
          Andrew J. Hefty, Esq.
          Lisa Caccavo, Esq.
          One California Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5427

               - and -

          Damian D. Capozzola, Esq.
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2506

LAUDERDALE COUNTY: Suit Complains About Arrest & Detention Policy
Liz Potocsnak at Courthouse News Service reports that a Tennessee
sheriff routinely jails people for up to 2 days without charging
them with a crime, and without probable cause to believe that
they committed a crime, a class action claims in Federal Court.  
The named plaintiffs, a married couple, say Lauderdale County
Sheriff Steve Sanders had them arrested at home after they
attended an evening church service, and jailed them for more than
36 hours.

Paul and Raychel Rhodes say Sheriff Sanders' arrest and detention
policy is unconstitutional.

The Rhodes say deputies arrested them in their home at 10:45 p.m.
on Sunday, Jan. 17, and told them they were "being 'detained,'
not arrested, for suspicion of burglary."

According to the complaint, a woman whom Mrs. Rhodes knew through
her work in child support litigation had accused the Rhodes of
breaking into her home and stealing her heart medication.

The Rhodes say they were "placed in solitary confinement in a
small detention cell that smelled of urine, with a concrete slab
for a bed and a steel toilet."

"Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Rhodes were charged with an offense, nor
offered the opportunity to post bail," the complaint states.

The Rhodes said they had been at the Ripley Church of God during
the alleged burglary and told the investigator that church
services were videotaped if he needed proof.  But they were not
released until noon Tuesday, Jan. 19.

The Rhodes denounce as unconstitutional the sheriff's policy of
"allowing forced arrest and detention of persons in Lauderdale
County Jail for periods of up to 48 hours, without probable
cause, in order to investigate possible crimes."

Numerous citizens have been jailed without reasonable cause, the
Rhodes say.

They seek declaratory and injunctive relief.

A copy of the Complaint in Rhodes, et al. v. Lauderdale County,
et al., Case No. 10-cv-02068 (W.D. Tenn.), is available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert L. Hutton, Esq.
          One Commerce Square, 17th Floor
          Memphis, TN 38103-2566
          Telephone: (901) 525-1322

MORGAN STANLEY: 2d Cir. Says Conflicts Don't Have to Be Disclosed
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that Mutual fund
offering statements are not required to disclose potential
conflicts of interest arising from the dismantling of the
"information barrier" between investment bankers and stock
researchers, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit ruled.

Upholding a lower court decision, the Manhattan-based appellate
panel found that two essentially identical class actions against
two open-ended Morgan Stanley mutual funds failed to identify any
illegal omissions in the mutual funds' registration statements or

Investors argued that they should have been told that the mutual
funds' managers relied on broker-dealers for stock research, and
that this could taint the objectivity of the research.

They sued Morgan Stanley under various sections of the Securities
Act of 1933, claiming the broker's offering documents for
technology and information industry mutual funds omitted the
potential conflict of interest, thereby increasing the risks
associated with the funds.

The named plaintiffs allegedly lost more than $500,000 total due
to the omissions; they estimated the combined class losses to
"exceed $1 billion."

But a federal judge in New York dismissed the actions, saying
they failed to prove that the law requires disclosure of
potential conflicts of interest.
Relying primarily on the logic of an amicus curiae brief filed by
the Securities and Exchange Commission, the three-judge circuit
upheld the lower court's decision.

The SEC said that what the plaintiffs see as risks specific to
the Morgan Stanley funds are actually "generic risks" encountered
by every investor.

"All investors, including the funds' managers, face the risk that
the research they use to make their decisions may be biased or
flawed, and that the prices they pay for securities may not
accurately reflect the securities' intrinsic value," Judge
Richard Wesley wrote.

The ruling quotes the SEC's brief: "[T]he danger that analyst
reports ... will be tainted by undisclosed conflicts of interest
or actual corruption is but one of an indefinitely large number
of factors that could cause a fund (or any other investor) to buy
overpriced securities, and it would not be useful to investors to
require an attempt to set all of those forth in the prospectus."

The 2nd Circuit added that the "true object" of the plaintiffs'
claims is "the alleged malfeasance of the mutual funds'
affiliated broker-dealer entities and not the public offerings
conducted by the funds themselves."

A ruling for the plaintiffs would require the court to expand
liability under certain sections of the Act, and would mandate
affiliate disclosures "not otherwise called for by the securities
laws," the panel concluded.

A copy of the decision in In re Morgan Stanley Information Fund
Securities Litigation, Case No. 09-0837-cv (2nd Cir.), and
In re Morgan Stanley Technology Fund Securities Litigation,
Case No. 09-0858-cv (2nd Cir.), is available at

The attorneys for the Plaintiffs-Appellants are:

          Daniel W. Krasner, Esq.
          Jeffrey S. Nobel, Esq.
          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          29 South Main Street, Suite 215
          West Hartford, CT 06107

               - and -

          Robert B. Weintraub, Esq.
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016

and Morgan Stanley is represented by:

          Walter Rieman, Esq.
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019-6064
          Telephone: 212-373-3000

NATIONAL CORRECTIVE: Collection Tactics Draw Fire in M.D. Pa.
Erin Mcauley at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class action claims a collection agency uses district attorneys'
letterheads to threaten debtors with jail time in a "bad check
restitution program" -- and that the district attorneys allow it.
The class says "approximately twenty" Pennsylvania counties have
contracts with the National Corrective Group, allowing the
collectors to use the "district attorney brand." The class says
such contracts are unconstitutional, as they violate due process.
The class sued Lackawanna County District Attorney Andrew J.
Jarbola III and the National Corrective Group (NCG). It claims
that on March 31, 2009, NCG assumed the "duties and
responsibilities under its contracts with Pennsylvania district
attorneys" from its predecessor, American Corrective Counseling
Services. "NCG has continued to operate the bad check restitution
program in Lackawanna and other counties in the same, or
substantially the same manner as ACCS.

"Pursuant to this contract, Defendant Jarbola permits NCG to use
his office, his official letterhead and his signature in
communicating with individuals who have issued checks which have
been dishonored. NCG thereupon uses the district attorney's
identity in threatening prosecution and imprisonment, stating or
implying that criminal charges have been filed and that court
appearances will be required, and stating that payments are due
that far exceed the amount of the dishonored check. These notices
are sent for the purpose of collecting private debt as well as
fees to the Defendants. NCG has the same arrangement with certain
other Pennsylvania district attorneys.

"Through its ability to use the "district attorney brand" and its
superior performance relative to other debt collectors, NCG
solicits and then receives from merchants reports of debts owed
to them due to dishonored checks," according to the complaint.

After receiving a complaint from a merchant or other creditor,
"NCG sends the individual accused of writing the dishonored check
a notice, ostensibly from the district attorney, on official
district attorney letterhead, with a reproduction of the district
attorney's signature," threatening the debtor with criminal
prosecution, the complaint states. It adds that the complaints
"are never reviewed by any employee of the district attorney. NCG
alone evaluates the complaints and initiates participation in the
bad check restitution program. It has a purely financial
incentive in doing so."

In threatening criminal prosecution, NCG's demand letter states
that if the recipient "may contact 'the District Attorney's Bad
Check Restitution Office' at a toll free number or fax or mail a
written dispute within 30 days to a fax number or post office
box. The phone and fax numbers provided, as well as the P.O. box,
connect the individual with representatives of NCG in California,
not with defendant Jarbola's or any other district attorney's
office," according to the complaint.

In violation of Pennsylvania law, NCG's demand letters say the
debtor may not pay the merchant directly. The complaint adds:
"These notices are sent for the purpose of collecting private
debt as well as fees to the Defendants. NCG has the same
arrangement with certain other Pennsylvania district attorneys."

The class claims that Jarbola and other district attorneys "have
also authorized NCG to use their name, signature and letterhead
to charge individuals numerous incidental fees over and above an
administrative and accountability class fee. These incidental
fees include late payment fees, rescheduling fees,
Payment/Convenience fees and Overpayment/Handling fees.

"Pursuant to the contract with NCG, Defendant Jarbola receives
100% of the administrative fees generated by NCG. NCG receives
100% of the class fees and incidental fees."

The two named plaintiffs say they each had to pay more than three
times the amount of their alleged debts in fees. They say they
were never informed that the "restitution program" was voluntary
and never were told that they were being contacted by a debt
collection agency.

In the past two years, approximately 12,000 people have been
harassed into participating in the "program," according to the

"Neither defendant Jarbola nor other Pennsylvania district
attorneys have the authority under Pennsylvania law to operate a
pre-charge, extra judicial diversion, restitution or debt
collection program, nor are the fees charged pursuant to such
programs authorized by law. Most Pennsylvania district attorneys
have declined to participate in NCG's scheme," the complaint

"Pennsylvania has authorized, through state rule, diversion
programs which require that criminal charges first be actually
filed and which require judicial oversight and approval."

The class seeks an injunction and damages for violations of the
state and federal constitutions, violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, misrepresentation, unfair trade, and
other charges.

A copy of the Complaint in Shouse, et al. v. National Corrective
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-_____ (M.D. Pa.), is
available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Donald Driscoll, Esq.
          Margaret W. Schuetz, Esq.
          429 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1705
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219

               - and -  

          Andrew Hailstone, Esq.
          220 Penn Av., Suite 200
          Scranton, PA 18503

REPUBLIC OF IRAQ: Kurdish Genocide Survivor Files Suit in D.C.
Ryan Abbott at Courthouse News Service reports that an Iraqi
Kurd, who says he is the only survivor of Saddam Hussein's
genocidal poison gas attacks, sued the Republic of Iraq for war
crimes in a federal class action. Ironically, the complaint was
filed on the day that Saddam's cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid, known
as "Chemical Ali," was hanged in Iraq for war crimes.

Taimour Ahmad, who says he testified at Saddam's 2004 trial under
U.S. protection, was 12 years old in 1988 when Saddam launched a
series of chemical and biological attacks against the Kurds in
northern Iraq, which became known as the Anfal, or "Spoils of

Iraqi paramilitary forces known as Jahsh captured and deported
Ahmad and his family to a prison in Kirkuk.

Mr. Ahmad says he was taken with truckloads of Kurds to a place
near the Saudi Arabian border, where they were unloaded and led,
blindfolded, to several 5-foot-deep pits dug into the desert.
Mr. Ahmad and his family "were tossed into the pit like cattle,"
and two Iraqi soldiers, armed with automatic weapons, "began
shooting at the blindfolded defenseless women and children,"
including Ahmadand his family.
Mr. Ahmad was shot in the shoulder, he says. He ran from the pit
and begged an officer to spare his life, but the officer threw
him back into the pit and shot him again, Ahmad says.
Though wounded and bleeding, Mr. Ahmadlived, and waited until the
soldiers stopped shooting and walked away. He says he hid in an
empty pit where he watched bulldozers cover up the pits "with the
bodies of his family and others around him."
Mr. Ahmadescaped the pits and was taken in by a Bedouin Arab
family who risked their lives to hide his Kurdish identity.
Mr. Ahmadsays he constantly fled capture until he was "saved by
U.S. government personnel" just after the first Gulf War.
Years later, he says, he testified in Saddam Hussein's trail that
110 members of his extended family were missing and considered

Mr. Ahmadsays he no longer has any immediate family left, due to
"the extreme systematic barbaric conduct" of Iraq.
Mr. Ahmadseeks damages for violation of international law,
assault and battery, and infliction of emotional distress.
Although the United States is not listed as a defendant, Mr.
Ahmad's complaint says the United States assisted Saddam's
government with money and military support.

He seeks $20 million for each member of the class.

A copy of the Complaint in Ahmad v. The Republic of Iraq, Case
No. 10-cv-00147 (D.C.) (Leon, J.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Athan T. Tsimpedes, Esq.
          1050 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: 202-772-3159

SAGE SOFTWARE: Accused of Not Giving Activation Code by Customer
Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that Sage
Software sold software to a business for 50 computers, and when
the investment firm bought new computers, Sage refused to give it
the "activation code," but insisted it upgrade to a newer
version, the business claims in a class action in Superior Court.

Israel Investment says it bought ACT! software from Sage in 2006,
to install on 50 computers. ACT! is a contact and customer
relationship management program.

Israel says it upgraded its computers in 2009 and needed an
activation code from Sage to download ACT! onto the new

But Israel says Sage "refused to issue the needed activation
code," saying the software "is old and unsupported," in an effort
to force Israel to spend "tens of thousands of dollars" on an

Israel says its license to use ACT! had no notice of an
expiration date.

Israel says it never would have purchased the program at the
price it did, or bought it at all, had it known it would become
useless after 3 years.

Israel alleges false advertising, unfair competition and
violation of consumer law. It seeks restitution, disgorgement and

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Louis Kelly, Esq.
          2361 Rosecrans Avenue, Fourth Floor
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: 310-536-1000

SPRINT NEXTEL: Calif. Suit Says Unlimited Messaging Not Unlimited
Courthouse News Service reports that Sprint Nextel promised
"unlimited messaging" on its "Everything Messaging" cell phone
plan, then billed customers extra if they sent pictures, a class
action claims in Los Angeles Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Eoff v. Sprint Nextel Corporation, et
al., Case No. 10-cv-00591 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
          Devon M. Lyon, Esq.
          RIDOUT & LYON, LLP
          555 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 500
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: 562-216-7380

               - and -  

          Eric D. Freed, Esq.
          FREED & WEISS LLC
          111 West Washington St., Suite 1331
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312-220-0000

SUMMIT TREESTANDS: Recalls 6,800 Talon Hang-on Tree Stands
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Summit Treestands LLC, of Decatur, Ala., announced a voluntary
recall of about 6,800 Talon Hunting Hang-on Tree Stands and
Brackets and Straps.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The tree stand can unexpectedly detach from the tree when the
brackets fail, posing a fall hazard to consumers.

The firm has received four reports of the brackets failing,
resulting in reports of falls and injuries including broken

This recall involves Talon Raptor brackets and straps and Cabelas
Realtree series hang-on tree stands with the Talon brackets and
straps.  A safety label sewn onto the bracket reads "Treestand
Strap Assembly." Tree stands involved in this recall have the
following model numbers: rsEagle 82044, rsOsprey 82041, rsFalcon
82042, rsHawk 82043 and Cabelas Realtree Outfitters Series Hawk
Deluxe 81509. Model information is printed on the tree stand
warning label that is sewn onto the seat.  A picture of the
recalled product is available at:


The recalled products were manufactured in the United States and
sold at hunting stores and in catalogs nationwide from May 2009
through November 2009 for about $25 for the bracket only, for
between $130 and $180 for the tree stand.

Consumers should immediately stop using the brackets and contact
Summit Treestands to receive a replacement bracket and strap.  
For additional information, contact Summit Treestands toll-free
at (800) 241-5559 anytime, or visit their Web site at

VIVENDI SA: Will Appeal Jury's Verdict in Securities Fraud Trial
Vivendi S.A. says it will appeal the jury's verdict in In re
Vivendi Universal, S.A., Securities Litigation, Case No.
02-cv-5571 (S.D.N.Y.) (Holwell, J.).

Friday, a jury found that 57 public statements made by Vivendi
between October 30, 2000, and August 14, 2002, violated the U.S.
securities laws because they hid the company's liquidity crisis.

Vivendi strongly disagrees with the findings against the company,
which the company believes are contrary to the facts and the law,
in particular with respect to an alleged hidden liquidity risk.

VONAGE AMERICA: Accused in Calif. of Improper Contract Extensions
Courthouse News Service reports that Vonage extends subscribers'
contracts for as long as 2 years without their consent, and
collects "unfair and fraudulent" early termination fees, a class
action claims in Orange County Court, Calif.

A copy of the Complaint in Sarabi v. Vonage America, Inc., et
al., Case No. 30-1020-00338457 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.)
(Sanders, J.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          Robert L. Hyde, Esq.
          David C. Leimbach, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          411 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 301
          San Diego, CA 92108-3551
          Telephone: 619-233-7770

               - and -  

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          2700 North Main Street, Suite 1050
          Santa Ana, CA 92866
          Telephone: 800-400-6808

WALT DISNEY: Baby Einstein Ad Claims Challenged in Calif. Suit
Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that Disney
can't turn babies into Einsteins, despite its claims for its
"Baby Einstein" videos, parents say in a class action in Superior
Court. The parents say the video series can be "actually quite
harmful" and can contribute to "attention and learning problems
later on."  

A copy of the Complaint in Yusuf v. The Walt Disney Company, et
al., Case No. 00338298 (Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty.) (Andler,
J.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn F. Khorrami, Esq.
          Matt C. Bailey, Esq.
          444 S. Flower St., 33rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: 213-596-6000

               - and -  

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          Roger E. Borg, Esq.
          610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: 949-706-6464

YELLOWPAGES.COM: Accused of Deceit & Fraud in Calif. Lawsuit
Courthouse News Service reports that business owners claim
Yellowpages.com deceived and defrauded them by selling them ads
by making claims on which it knew it could not deliver, in San
Diego Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Hermann, et al. v. YellowPages.com,
LLC, Case No. 10-cv-00195 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:


          Frank James Janecek, Jr. , Esq.
          Christopher Collins, Esq.
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-231-1058

               - and -

          Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
          Park 80 Plaza West-One
          Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
          Telephone: 201-845-7423

               - and -  

          Paul I. Perkins, Esq.
          LYNCH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          45 Eisenhower Drive, Suite 300
          Paramus, NJ 07652
          Telephone: 800-656-9529

               - and -  

          J. Gordon Rudd, Jr., Esq.
          David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, P.L.L.P.
          651 Nicollet Mall, Suite 501
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: 612-341-0400

ZIONS FIRST: Accused of Assisting Fraud Telemarketers in Pa. Suit
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that five
national banks, including Wells Fargo and Wachovia, helped
"unscrupulous telemarketers" launder millions of dollars they
swiped from consumers, a class action claims in Philadelphia
Federal Court.

The class sued three processing companies -- NetDeposit, MP
Technologies dba Modern Payments and Teledraft -- and five banks:
Zions First National Bank of Utah, Wells Fargo, Wachovia,
National Penn Bank and Harleysville National Bank.

Named plaintiff Reynaldo Reyes says a telemarketer tricked him
into revealing his bank account information and then withdrew
almost $400 from his account.

Payment processors assist "fraudulent telemarketers" by opening
bank accounts and transferring money from unsuspecting victims
into the account, after deducting a fee for their services,
according to the complaint.

Banks follow directions from their telemarketer clients,
transferring funds to offshore accounts in the Caribbean, Canada
and India, according to the complaint.

Mr. Reyes says that NHS Systems, one of 20 allegedly fraudulent
telemarketers mentioned in the lawsuit but not named as a
defendant, told him in November 2007 that he was eligible for a
government grant that could be deposited directly to his bank

Mr. Reyes says Modern Payments took $29.95 out of his account and
deposited the money in an NHS account at Zions Bank, then a week
later the agency transferred $299.95 to the Zions account.

"Neither of the transactions was authorized by Mr. Reyes, nor did
Mr. Reyes receive a government grant or any other consideration
from NHS," according to the complaint.

Mr. Reyes says he had to pay penalties after the debits created
an account overdraft.

Modern Technologies and Teledraft have more than 36,000 consumer
accounts that are connected to NHS, according to the complaint.

Telemarketers often prey on senior citizens, according to the
complaint: "AARP, the National Association of Attorneys General
and the Federal Trade Commission have estimated that 85 percent
of the victims of fraudulent telemarketing are age 65 or older."

The class claims that telemarketers and payment processors
illegally transfer victims' money through an Automated Clearing
House (ACH) debit or a remotely created check (RCC), but banks
know to look out for a high rate of suspicious transfers as "red
flags" for money laundering.

"RCCs are well known to be used by unscrupulous telemarketers to
perpetrate consumer fraud," according to the complaint.

The class claims that by processing fraudulent transactions, the
defendants are "clearing millions of dollars in ACH transactions
for the benefit of telemarketers."

Zions "deliberately closed its eyes" to the fact that its clients
were fraudulent telemarketers and it facilitated their "unlawful
conduct," according to the complaint.

The class seeks treble damages for RICO violations.  

A copy of the Complaint in Reyes v. Zions First National Bank, et
al., Case No. 10-cv-00345 (E.D. Pa.) (Pollak, J.), is available


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Judah I. Labovitz, Esq.
          Howard Langer, Esq.
          Judah I. Labovitz, Esq.
          John Grogan, Esq.
          Edward A. Diver, Esq.
          Irv Ackelsberg, Esq.
          1717 Arch Street, Suite 4130
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 320-5660
          Fax: (215) 320-5703


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,

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  * * *