CAR_Public/110127.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, January 27, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 19

                             Headlines

ABBOTT LABS: Consolidation of Similac Class Actions Sought
ABC LEARNING: Class Action Rests on Availability of Insurance
ALLY FINANCIAL: Class Action Ruling to Hurt Mortgage Investors
AURORA EMPOWERMENT: Trade Union Mulls Class Action
CARE INVESTMENT: 2007 Briarwood Class Action Resolved

CLARCOR INC: Continues to Defend "Filter" Suits in U.S. and Canada
JPMORGAN CHASE: Wins Class Action Over Interest Rate Hikes
LOS ANGELES, CA: Judge Delays Class Action Ruling in ADDA Suit
MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Sued Over Proposed Royal DSM Buyout
MERCK FROST: Faces Class Action Over Hair Loss Drug

MICROSOFT CORP: Sued in Italy Over Windows Refund Procedure
MYSPACE INC: Accused in N.Y. Suit of Violating Customers' Privacy
NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: To Fight Class Action Over CDO Exposure
POWER BALANCE: Accused in Calif. Suit of False Advertising
SMURFIT-STONE: Law Firms Investigating Proposed RockTenn Buyout

TASEKO MINES: Unusual Trading Claims No Basis, CEO Says
WOOD ROT: Class Action Over Defective Windows Proceeds in Ill.

* South Florida Remains National Center of Overtime Complaints


                             *********

ABBOTT LABS: Consolidation of Similac Class Actions Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
A panel of federal judges will hold a hearing this week to
determine whether to consolidate a growing number of Similac class
action lawsuits before one judge for coordinated pretrial
litigation.

The lawsuits were all filed as a result of a Similac recall issued
last year by Abbott Laboratories after some cans of the powered
baby formula were found to be infested with beetles and their
larvae.  The insects are believed to have caused diarrhea and
gastrointestinal distress in some infants who were fed the
contaminated formula.

In late October, plaintiff Chalonda Jasper filed a motion to have
every Similac lawsuit currently pending in federal court
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois as part of an MDL, or multidistrict litigation.

Abbott Laboratories has opposed consolidation, arguing that
motions to dismiss the Similac recall class action suits have been
filed and they believe they are likely to succeed.  In addition.
they have indicated that common factual issues between the
complaints are few and a "patchwork of disparate state-law
standards" govern the claims.

On Jan. 20, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
will hear oral arguments on the motion.  Such centralization is
common in complex product liability claims involving a large
number of similar lawsuits over injuries associated with a
particular product.  The process is designed to avoid duplicative
discovery, prevent inconsistent rulings by different judges and to
promote the efficient litigation of the cases.

Currently, there are at least seven Similac lawsuits filed in five
different districts across the country, including the Central and
Eastern Districts of California, the Northern District of
Illinois, the Eastern District of Louisiana and the Eastern
District of New York.  Three of the cases are located in Illinois,
including Jasper's.

All of the claims are class action lawsuits that accuse Abbott of
negligence in failing to prevent the beetle contamination.  They
also charge the company with illegal enrichment and failing to
warn consumers about the risk of beetle contamination. The
lawsuits claim that Abbott knew about the contamination for at
least a week before announcing the Similac recall.

Abbott recalled the Similac infant formula on September 22 after
discovering beetle contamination, which occurred at the company's
Sturgis, Michigan, production facility.  While Abbott claims that
testing has shown that 99.8% of the recalled products are free of
bugs, concerned parents swamped Abbott's Web site, social media,
news and parenting forums across the Internet with concerns and
fears that their children may have consumed or gotten ill due to
eating Similac with insects.  The recall affected Similac
worldwide, with Saudi Arabia announcing a Similac ban, despite
Abbott limiting the recall to the U.S., Puerto Rico, Guam and
countries in the Caribbean.


ABC LEARNING: Class Action Rests on Availability of Insurance
-------------------------------------------------------------
Liam Walsh, writing for The Courier-Mail, reports chances of a
class-action lawsuit proceeding against ABC Learning Centres
will rest on whether the toppled childcare operator has more than
$10 million in insurance.

Tentative steps have been taken in the Federal Court almost two
years after Brisbane-based ABC collapsed amid long-running
concerns about its accounts.

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers is seeking leave from the court to get
information from ABC's liquidators Ferrier Hodgson about whether
the childcare operator had relevant insurance in place, so losses
can be recovered.

Maurice Blackburn principal Ben Slade said the move came after
liquidators had not responded to requests for information about
the policy and sometimes policies required the existence of the
insurance to be kept confidential.

The case is funded by litigation backers IMF Australia.  More than
100 shareholders whose losses exceeded $100 million have signed
up.  Mr. Slade said the action would proceed if any insurance
policy was worth more than $10 million, otherwise the amount
recovered would be too small.

IMF first flagged a lawsuit in 2008, several months before ABC's
collapse.  The suit is alleging "misleading or deceptive conduct
and a failure to disclose information that was material to the
sharemarket".  It stretches from reported earnings given in
August 2006, when ABC unveiled an 86% rise in profits to $81.1
million, to guidance given in July 2008.

Maurice Blackburn said the share price of ABC, a former market
darling, dipped almost 40% during that roughly two-year period.
Mr. Slade said issues under the spotlight included fees from
developers and income from an outside staffing agency.

Ferrier Hodgson confirmed proceedings were under way, but were
unable to comment about the existence of an insurance policy.


ALLY FINANCIAL: Class Action Ruling to Hurt Mortgage Investors
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Prior, writing for HousingWire, reports a recent ruling from a
federal judge denying class action status to a group of investors
suing Ally Financial and the Royal Bank of Scotland will hurt them
and other investors hoping to get compensation for soured
mortgage-backed securities, Moody's Investors Service said.

U.S. District Judge Harold Baer ruled last week that the investors
in the Ally and RBS case rose "individualized issues" and even
said some plaintiffs knew that the underwriting standards for the
underlying loans were being lowered, while other plaintiffs were
in the dark.  Collectively, the claims are worth $37.6 billion
according to court documents.

Moody's analysts said the ruling "will negatively affect
plaintiffs in the large number of similar multibillion-dollar
securities lawsuits pending in federal court against large
investment banks and chill future lawsuits based on similar legal
theories."

In this case, the varying amount of knowledge of the loans held by
the investors and the varying dates that they made their purchase
kept them from the class-action status.  Moody's said this might
mean plaintiffs in the future will have to pursue litigation on an
individual basis, resulting fewer such cases for the banks.

However, analysts stopped short of saying the ruling will set a
meaningful precedent for class-action lawsuits against issuers for
representations and warranties.  The legal issues in those cases
would likely be different, Moody's said.

"The ruling is particular to securities laws claims that depend on
the level of knowledge of the purchaser," Moody's said.  "Claims
for breaches of representations and warranties are based in
contract law and do not hinge on the particular knowledge of the
investors."


AURORA EMPOWERMENT: Trade Union Mulls Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Moneyweb reports the trade union Solidarity has embarked on a
process of preparing for an alternative legal action against
Aurora Empowerment Systems, as the mine has still not made good on
its promise to pay employees' outstanding salaries, union fees and
other benefits.  Solidarity initially planned to refer the matter
to the Labour Court in January 2011, but has decided on the basis
of legal advice to submit an application for the liquidation of
Aurora to the High Court instead.

Solidarity calls on employees of Aurora's mines who would like to
participate in a class action against the company to contact the
trade union.  "We want to initiate the legal action in early
February.  Therefore, employees have only until January 31 to
provide us with the necessary information," explained Gideon du
Plessis, Deputy General Secretary of Solidarity.

Hanno Bucksteg, specialist litigant of Solidarity's Labour Court
Division, emphasized that employees must supply the trade union
with the necessary information urgently, as new pleas have to be
drawn up.  Mr. Bucksteg pointed out that only employees who
provide complete information before the cut-off date will be
represented in the application.

The following information, together with supporting documents,
must be provided to Solidarity:

    * Full names and surname

    * Copy of identity document

    * Street address and postal address

    * Contact details (including fax, home telephone and cellphone
      number as well as e-mail address)

    * Contact details of next of kin

    * Title of position held at Aurora

    * Employee number

    * Date of appointment and termination of service

    * Pay slips/bank statements from January 2010 to December 2010

    * Information regarding overtime (if applicable)

    * Contract of service

    * List of monies owed

Employees who would like to participate in the class action can:

    * go to http://www.solidaritylegalservices.co.za/and download
      the required form; or

    * contact Michelle Saayman or Hanno Bucksteg at 012 644 4433;
      or

    * send an e-mail to aurora@solidariteit.co.za

According to Du Plessis, the history of Aurora is one of hardship
for its employees.  The provisional liquidation of the former
Pamodzi mines already started in April 2009.  "The President Steyn
mine in the Free State was sold, while the liquidators appointed
Aurora Empowerment Systems to manage the Orkney and East Rand
mines until ownership of these mines can be transferred to Aurora.
Aurora has not managed to raise the necessary finance for the
transaction.  Employees at these mines have received irregular pay
since February last year," he added.


CARE INVESTMENT: 2007 Briarwood Class Action Resolved
-----------------------------------------------------
Care Investment Trust Inc. on Jan. 24 disclosed that the class
action lawsuit filed against it in 2007 in connection with the
Company's IPO (Briarwood v. Care) has been fully and finally
resolved.

Salvatore (Torey) V. Riso, President and Chief Executive Officer,
said, "We are pleased this lawsuit has been resolved in full so
that the Company can continue to focus on its future growth."

Care Investment Trust Inc. (OTCQX: CVTR) is a real estate
investment and finance company investing in healthcare-related
real estate.


CLARCOR INC: Continues to Defend "Filter" Suits in U.S. and Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------
CLARCOR Inc. continues to defend itself from class actions filed
by purchasers of aftermarket filters, according to the Company's
Jan. 21, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 27, 2010.

On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed
suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
alleging that virtually every major North American engine filter
manufacturer, including the Company's subsidiary, Baldwin Filters,
Inc., engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate
U.S. customers for aftermarket filters.  This suit is a purported
class action on behalf of direct purchasers of filters from the
Defendant Group.  Parallel purported class actions, including on
behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, have been filed by other
plaintiffs against the Defendant Group in a variety of
jurisdictions in the United States and Canada.

In addition, the Attorney General of the State of Florida and the
County of Suffolk, New York have filed complaints against the
Defendant Group based on these same allegations, and the Attorney
General of the State of Washington requested various documents,
information and cooperation, which the Company has agreed to
provide.

In late 2010, William Burch, a former employee of two other
defendants in the Defendant Group, brought an action under the
United States False Claims Act and similar state statutes on
behalf of the governments of the United States and approximately
twenty individual states against the Defendant Group, based on
these same allegations.

Finally, the Company understands that the Antitrust Division of
the Department of Justice was investigating the allegations raised
in these suits and issued subpoenas in connection with that
investigation.  The Company was not contacted by the DOJ in
connection with the DOJ investigation and was not the subject of
any subpoena.  Public reports indicate that the DOJ officially
closed its investigation in January 2010 and took no action
against any filter manufacturer.

All of the U.S cases, including the actions brought by and/or on
behalf of governmental entities, have been consolidated into a
single multi-district litigation in the Northern District of
Illinois.  The Company believes all of these lawsuits and the
claims made therein to be without merit and is vigorously
defending them.

CLARCOR Inc. -- http://www.clarcor.com/-- conducts business in
three segments: Engine/Mobile Filtration, Industrial/
Environmental Filtration and Packaging.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Wins Class Action Over Interest Rate Hikes
----------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Jan. 24 that JPMorgan Chase
& Co. did not did not have to provide written notice before
increasing interest rates for account holders who defaulted on
their credit card payment.

The class-action lawsuit was filed in 2004, five years before the
passage of the CARD Act.  The CARD Act changed the notification
requirements for interest rate hikes, requiring that cardholders
now receive 45 days notice on any increase, including default.
This decision will likely have little impact on future cases but
it will impact pending cases.

In the suit Chase Bank USA v. McCoy, James McCoy accused Chase of
violating federal law by retroactively increasing his interest
rates after his account was closed following a late payment.
Chase argued that its cardmember agreement documented the
conditions that Mr. McCoy had to adhere to in order to retain the
lower interest rate, in addition to the maximum interest rate that
could be levied if he violated those terms.

The Supreme Court ruled that under the old federal regulations,
the Chase cardmember agreement disclosed the terms of interest
rates and the maximum rates that would apply if the terms were
violated.  Therefore, Chase did not have to provide written notice
before raising credit card interest rates to account holders who
defaulted on a payment.

Bill Hardekopf is the CEO of LowCards.com, a site helping
consumers understand the complex world of credit cards.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Judge Delays Class Action Ruling in ADDA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sherri M. Okamoto, writing for Metropolitan News-Enterprise,
reports U.S. District Court Judge Otis D. Wright II of the Central
District of California on Jan. 21 backtracked from his tentative
decision to grant class action status to a suit alleging Los
Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley and his senior managers of
discriminating against prosecutors who voted in favor of
unionizing.

Judge Wright began the hearing by telling the attorneys
representing the defendants -- Brian Hershman of Jones Day, and
Calvin House of Gutierrez Preciado & House -- that unless they had
"something earth-shattering" to say, his tentative decision to
certify the class would stand.  But he concluded by saying he
wanted to take another look at the matter, giving no indication of
when he would rule.

The Association of Deputy District Attorneys -- which bills itself
as the largest prosecutors union in the country -- had moved in
April 2010 to certify a class of plaintiffs who allegedly suffered
various constitutional violations when Assistant Head Deputy Peter
Burke disclosed to management a list of prosecutors who had signed
union cards demonstrating their desire to become unionized
employees during the period from December 2007 to February 2008.

At the hearing on Jan. 21, Mr. Hershman contended this putative
class description was "not an accurate characterization" because
the names of the persons Mr. Burke allegedly "outed" were those
who had voted in favor of certifying the ADDA as its bargaining
unit after the vote in favor of unionizing had already taken
place.

Disclosure of who had voted in the uncontested election for who
should serve as the bargaining representative for the prosecutors'
union is "a very different outing than if you wanted to unionize,"
Mr. Hershman said.

'Outed Themselves'

The attorney also argued that individual issues predominated over
common issues for the putative class members since some would-be
plaintiffs may not have acted in private manner in voting or have
been concerned with the Cooley administration learning how he or
she had voted.  Other individuals, such as the ADDA board members
who were "public, vocal, active" and "outed themselves" before the
"Burke list" disclosure.  Mr. Hershman added, insisting for those
individuals who "do[ ] not care or keep this information private,"
there could be no liability.

He further claimed that "this is not a vast group clamoring for
relief," and there was not "300 people clamoring for this court to
address what is alleged," but only a "very discrete group" of
individuals -- namely ADDA President Hyatt Seligman, immediate
past President Steven Ipsen, Vice President Marc Debbaudt, and
former President James Bozajian -- who took issue with assignment
transfers they claim were punitive and retaliatory.

Counsel for the ADDA Matthew Monforton, a former Los Angeles
deputy district attorney, responded that Mr. Hershman's arguments
were addressing issues involving the merits underlying the claim,
and that the hearing on certification was not the appropriate time
to argue the merits.

'No Long Line'

Mr. Monforton emphasized that the list of names given to
Mr. Cooley's administration let them know "exactly the 540 people
who supported the ADDA," and there was "no long line of deputy
district attorneys" willingly identifying themselves as pro-union
at any time.

"At best, a handful" of individuals were publicly endorsing
unionization Mr. Monforton said, "but even as to them, they have a
right of privacy to their union cards."

The attorney analogized the situation to the hypothetical
disclosure of former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's
voting record, contending that a revelation she voted Republican
would "not be a shock" and would still violate her privacy.

Judge Wright said that he was "troubled" by the arguments raised
and "struggling with this now."

When dealing with "publishing someone's association within a
group," the jurist remarked that "you can't say they are all the
same," and factors such as the "scope" "timing," "context" and
"political climate" are relevant.

"Tentative means tentative," Judge Wright observed, and told
counsel "let me take another look at this" before leaving the
bench.

After the hearing, Mr. Monforton predicted the judge's final
ruling was "not going to be any different" and the "540 deputy
district attorneys who defend the rights of the citizens of Los
Angeles will have their right to privacy defended by the court."

Mr. Hershman said he "appreciated the judge taking a fresh look"
at the issue and "we continue to believe class certification is
not appropriate."

The original complaint in the lawsuit was filed in October 2008 by
the ADDA and an unnamed member against Cooley, Chief Deputy
District Attorney John Spillane, Bureau Director John Zajec, and
Assistant District Attorneys Curtis Hazell and Jacquelyn Lacey,
asserting seven causes of action based on the defendants' alleged
attempts to quash the fledging union.

In April 2010, the complaint was amended to add class-based claims
arising from the "unlawful disclosure" to Mr. Cooley and
management officials of a list identifying the class members and
from Mr. Cooley's subsequent use of that list to "intimidate,
harass and slander union supporters."  The amended complaint also
added Burke and other members of Mr. Cooley's management team as
defendants.

The case is One Unnamed Deputy District Attorney v. County of Los
Angeles, 09-7931.


MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Sued Over Proposed Royal DSM Buyout
-------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven on January 24 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been commenced in the Maryland Circuit Court, Howard County,
on behalf of all shareholders of Martek Biosciences Corp.

The claims asserted in the complaint arise from the proposed
buyout of Martek by Koninklijke DSM N.V.  On December 20, 2010,
Martek entered into an agreement and plan of merger with Royal DSM
and Greenback Acquisition Corporation, an indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of Royal DSM.  Pursuant and subject to the terms of the
merger agreement, Royal DSM has commenced a tender offer to
acquire all of the outstanding shares of Martek's common stock for
a purchase price of $31.50 per share in cash.  The tender offer is
scheduled to expire on February 18, 2011, unless the offer is
extended.

The complaint alleges that Martek's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the transaction by, among
other things, carrying out a defective sale process that resulted
in an unfair price to stockholders and agreeing to certain onerous
and preclusive deal protection provisions.


MERCK FROST: Faces Class Action Over Hair Loss Drug
---------------------------------------------------
A class action was filed on Jan. 24 in the Supreme Court of
British Columbia by Vancouver resident, Michael Miller, against
Merck Frosst Canada and its affiliated companies.  The lawsuit has
been brought on behalf of Canadian men who used Propecia or
Proscar and suffered continuing sexual dysfunction.

Propecia and Proscar are prescribed as a cosmetic treatment for
male pattern hair loss also known as androgenic alopecia.  The
product monograph discloses that some men may experience sexual
dysfunction but states that the symptoms disappear after cessation
of the drug.

Mr. Miller, who is in his early 20s, was concerned when his hair
started to thin in some areas.  He was prescribed Proscar which he
hoped would stop his hair from thinning.  After about a month of
use he noticed a drastic change in his behavior, "I lost my
interest in sex and I felt anxious in social situations for no
particular reason," he says.  While on the drug, his symptoms of
sexual dysfunction increased as the months passed.  When he could
no longer bear the side effects, he stopped using Proscar but
these symptoms didn't go away: "My sexual functioning has not
recovered, I have seen specialists and have tried treatments but
nothing has worked," says Mr. Miller.

According to Mr. Miller's lawyer, David Klein, "The product labels
have been changed in several European countries to include a
warning of persistent erectile dysfunction after discontinuation
of the drug but this change has not been made on the Canadian
product labels."  It is alleged that the drug manufacturers failed
to adequately warn Canadians of the true risks.

Mr. Klein also says, "So far, more than 80 Canadian men have
expressed an interest in participating in the class action.  We
believe there are many other men who will come forward now that
the case has been filed in court."

Mr. Miller is represented by Klein Lyons, one of Canada's most
experienced class action law firms.


MICROSOFT CORP: Sued in Italy Over Windows Refund Procedure
-----------------------------------------------------------
Josh Lowensohn, writing for CNET, reports a class action lawsuit
against Microsoft has been filed in Italy by a group claiming that
it's too difficult to procure a refund for the copies of Windows
that come bundled in new PCs.

The case, which was filed in Milan by the Associazione per i
Diritti degli Utenti e Consumatori, and picked up by The Register
earlier on Jan. 24, points to Microsoft's end user license
agreement -- as outlined in various copies of Windows -- noting
that once users turn their computer on and begin to use it, they
are no longer able to return the software for a refund.

Furthermore, the group says consumers who buy computers with OEM
copies of Windows installed have more difficulties in getting a
refund than those who purchased a retail copy of the OS.  The
lawsuit notes that users who buy and install the OS itself, but
that don't agree to the EULA, are entitled to a return from the
place where they bought it.  OEM buyers, however, are at the whim
of their system seller or installer for a refund, which has
historically proven to be a difficult process, it says.

To avail these issues, the class action suit seeks a hearing and
also to nullify the section of the EULA that requires users go to
OEMs instead of Microsoft for refunds.

When asked for comment, a Microsoft representative said it should
be pointed out the company's licensing agreements with OEMs are
non-exclusive, and that users are "free to purchase PCs with a
non-Microsoft operating system, or without any operating system,"
but that having Windows preinstalled "provides the best user
experience."  Even so, the representative reiterated that any
returns or refunds still have to be handled through the OEM, and
not Microsoft itself.

"Customers who purchase a PC from an OEM with Windows preinstalled
and then wish to return the PC and/or the preinstalled software
should consult the OEM's return/refund policies," the spokesperson
said.

Twelve years ago, a group of Linux users in the United States
sought refunds for OEM copies of Windows as part of a campaign
called "Windows Refund Day."  Instead of going to OEMs though, as
Microsoft outlines in its EULA, those users went directly to the
company's offices in Silicon Valley.  Even then though, Microsoft
pointed users back to the PC makers, saying "when a consumer
purchases a new PC, the license for Windows resides with that
specific PC maker, and each PC maker has its own process for
working with customers on licensing issues."


MYSPACE INC: Accused in N.Y. Suit of Violating Customers' Privacy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action filed in
Manhattan federal court claims MySpace violates its customers'
privacy by disclosing their private information to federal and
state law enforcement agencies.


NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: To Fight Class Action Over CDO Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------
The New Lawyer reports National Australia Bank will vigorously
defend itself in a class action that claims the bank failed to
disclose the full extent of losses during the global financial
crisis early enough, its lawyer says.

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers is heading the action by 250
institutional and retail investors seeking about $450 million in
losses.

Maurice Blackburn principal Andrew Watson told a directions
hearing at the Victorian Supreme Court on Jan. 21 that the bank
should have revealed information to shareholders earlier.

Maurice Blackburn was contacted by shareholders following a $6 per
share plunge in the bank's share price in July 2008, the firm
said.

According to the firm, NAB had bought $1.2 billion in Collaterized
Debt Obligations in 2006 which comprised asset-backed securities,
in particular US residential mortgage backed securities.  It
alleges that these CDOs had a heavy exposure to the subprime
residential mortgage market which became "toxic debt" in 2007 and
early 2008.

A lawyer acting for NAB, Geoff Healy, said outside the court on
Jan. 21 that it was still waiting to see a statement of claim from
Maurice Blackburn.

"We will be vigorously defending the case," he said to reporters.

Justice Tony Pagone adjourned the matter on Jan. 21 for a further
preliminary hearing on March 28.

In late July 2008 NAB suffered the biggest drop in its share price
since 1987, when the bank revealed it had lost up to $1 billion in
the US mortgage crisis.

"We will allege that between January 1, 2008 and July 25, 2008 NAB
did not properly disclose to shareholders and potential
shareholders all material information relating to its CDO
exposure.  Shareholders who bought shares before NAB revealed its
true position suffered losses as a result." said Mr. Watson.

"In early May 2008, the NAB told the market that it had
provisioned $181 million, in respect of its $1.2 billion CDO
exposure.  The bank announced at the same time that this was a
very conservative provision.  Investors took comfort from this
apparently conservative and appropriate approach.
the law firm said.

"However only two months later, in July 2008, NAB increased its
total provision to $1.1 billion, or 90 per cent of the value of
the CDOs.  In the following days NAB's share price plunged by
nearly $6 and analysts complained strongly about the misleading
nature of NAB's earlier announcement."


POWER BALANCE: Accused in Calif. Suit of False Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Shaquille O'Neal and Lamar Odom endorse a bogus Power Balance
"performance technology" bracelet that claims to "optimize the
body's natural energy flow," and improve "strength, balance and
flexibility."  It's pure snake oil, says the class, which also
sued Power Balance LLC and the men who run it, Josh and Tony
Rodarmel and Keith Kato.

Lead plaintiff Brian Casserly says he paid $79.95 for the bracelet
or pendant, that contains a hologram that's supposed to give him
better "strength, balance and flexibility."

"In fact, the Power Balance holograms are nothing short of snake
oil," he says in his federal complaint.  "Despite defendants'
representations that the hologram with enhance consumers'
'strength, balance and flexibility,' it is biologically incapable
of doing so.  Plaintiff and other purchasers paid as much as
$79.95 for Power Balance products with the expectation that they
would enjoy greater 'strength, balance and flexibility,' but they
did not.

"Indeed, Power Balance Australia, which sells products containing
the same holograms, recently admitted that '[i]n our advertising
we stated that Power Balance wristbands improved your strength,
balance and flexibility.  We admit that there is no credible
scientific evidence that supports our claims and therefore we
engaged in misleading conduct in breach of s52 of the [Australia]
Trade Practice Act 1974.'"

Mr. Casserly seeks class damages for people who bought the stuff
in the United States.  He sued Messrs. O'Neal and Odom as "paid
celebrity endorser[s]" of the bracelet.

He seeks statutory and punitive damages for consumer fraud, false
advertising, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment.

A copy of the Complaint in Casserly v. Power Balance, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-00670 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/01/24/Shaq.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robyn C. Crowther, Esq.
          CALDWELL LESLIE & PROCTOR, PC
          1000 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 600
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 629-9040


SMURFIT-STONE: Law Firms Investigating Proposed RockTenn Buyout
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC, founded by a former state prosecutor
and enforcement attorney for the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission, and the securities litigation law firm of
Powers Taylor LLP are investigating potential legal claims against
the Board of Directors of Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation
related to the proposed buyout of Smurfit-Stone by RockTenn
Company.  The investigation relates to the fairness of the
proposed transaction to Smurfit-Stone shareholders, possible
breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of state law by
the Board of Directors of Smurfit-Stone for approving this
transaction, and whether Smurfit-Stone's Board of Directors acted
in the shareholders' best interests.

The definitive merger agreement involves a 50% cash and 50% stock
transaction valued at approximately $3.5 billion, which is
expected to close in the second quarter of 2011.  Under the
proposed transaction, Smurfit-Stone shareholders will receive a
cash payment of $17.50 and a fixed-ratio of 0.30605 shares of
RockTenn stock for each share of Smurfit-Stone/SSCC common stock
they hold.  Following the acquisition, Smurfit-Stone will become a
wholly owned subsidiary of RockTenn.  In the 2 weeks prior to the
announcement, Smurfit-Stone shares closed as high as $28 per
share.  "Based on the lack of an appreciable premium to
shareholders, and other factors, we have concern whether the
proposed acquisition is fair to Smurfit-Stone shareholders, and we
want to ensure that the shareholders are receiving the maximum
value for their stock," said shareholder rights attorney
Willie Briscoe.

If you currently own shares of Smurfit-Stone/SSCC and would like
additional information regarding this investigation, or if you
have information regarding the allegations involved in this
transaction, please contact:

          Patrick Powers, Esq.
          Powers Taylor LLP
          Toll Free: 877-728-9607
          E-mail: patrick@powerstaylor.com

               - or -

          Willie Briscoe, Esq.
          The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC
          Toll Free: 877-397-5991
          E-mail: WBriscoe@TheBriscoeLawFirm.com

There is no cost or fee to you.

The Briscoe Law Firm is a full service business litigation and
shareholder rights advocacy firm with more than 20 years of
experience in complex litigation matters.

Powers Taylor LLP is a boutique litigation law firm that handles a
variety of complex business litigation matters, including claims
of investor and stockholder fraud, shareholder oppression,
shareholder derivative suits, and security class actions.


TASEKO MINES: Unusual Trading Claims No Basis, CEO Says
-------------------------------------------------------
Russell Hallbauer, president and CEO of Taseko Mines Limited,
commented on Jan. 24 on recent articles that have appeared in some
newspapers relating to efforts by a Canadian lawyer to solicit
support for a possible class action suit based on unusual trading
in the Company's shares on October 14, 2010.

Taseko is not aware of the cause for the unusual trading activity
that day, nor is it aware of any basis for a claim against Taseko
or any of its officers or directors relating to that trading
activity.  None of Taseko's officers or directors was in
possession of any material undisclosed information or traded any
shares on October 14, 2010.  Taseko has no reason to believe any
class action suit, if pursued, will adversely affect the Company.


WOOD ROT: Class Action Over Defective Windows Proceeds in Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Last week it was announced that the Supreme Court refused to
intervene in a lawsuit alleging a major window manufacturer had
produced defective aluminum clad windows that allowed water to
seep inside causing wood rot.  The case is now proceeding as a
class action lawsuit in federal court in Chicago.

There are a variety of types of fungi that cause wood rot and
decay.  Many property owners have witnessed the destructive nature
of these fungi.  According to an Ohio State University Extension
Fact Sheet, "Current estimates show that replacement materials,
needed to repair damage caused by rot alone, account for nearly 10
percent of U.S. annual wood production."

Many times damage from wood rot fungi are mistakenly blamed on
termites and other insects.   The fungi are living organisms that
send their hyphae through the wood, obtaining their food from the
material as they grow.  The end result is crumbly and stained wood
with expensive repairs needed to prevent structural damage.

Since wood is a major component of most homes and even many
commercial buildings, the destruction caused by wood rot fungi is
enormous.   One of the leading providers of wood rot investigating
and consulting services in Illinois and across the greater Chicago
area is EC2, Inc.  "The key to preventing wood rot is to control
moisture," reported Ed Chambers, President of EC2.  "Wood decay
fungi often appear when there is high moisture content, typically
above 20%.  A common place to find problems from this type of
fungi is in crawl spaces on wood beams.  Incorrectly installed or
missing vapor barriers are often the culprit.  Other solutions
include allowing adequate cross ventilation and proper drainage of
the building site.  It takes an experienced professional to
properly indentify wood rot and to provide solutions to eliminate
its presence and prevent future damage."

To learn more about wood rot, indoor air quality or building
sciences please visit http://www.4ec2inc.come-mail
info@4ec2inc.com or call (815) 703-9000.

The environmental and building science consultants from EC2 Inc.
provide wood rot investigations and consulting services to
residents across Illinois and the Midwest.


* South Florida Remains National Center of Overtime Complaints
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that South Florida remains the
national center of overtime complaints, with seven federal class
actions filed there on Jan. 21, in Miami, Fort Lauderdale and West
Palm Beach.


                             *********

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.  Leah
Felisilda, Neil U. Lim, Rousel Elaine Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante,
Ronald Sy, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2011.  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  * * *