CAR_Public/110628.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, June 28, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 126

                             Headlines

ACCUTANE: Litigation Attorneys Available to Review IBD Claims
AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls 2,500 Portable Generator Batteries
BRITAX CHILD: Recalls 20,800 Units of B-Nimble Strollers
CHULA VISTA, CA: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Utility Taxes
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Wal-Mart Decision May Affect Class Action

DURHAM, CANADA: Gives Clarifications on Lost USB Key
FAIRBRIDGE FOUNDATION: Class Action Set to Return in November
FISHER AND SHAPIRO: Sued Over Doctored Foreclosure Affidavits
FORNEY LP: Sued for Faxing Unsolicited Advertisements
GAMMA SPORTS: Recalls 2,000 Children's Tennis Racquets

HAIN CELESTIAL: Deceives Consumers Over Organic Claims, Suit Says
KAISER PERMANENTE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
M&F WORLDWIDE: Sued Over Proposed Sale to MacAndrews & Forbes
MEYERS ASSOCIATES: Accused of Making Improper Wage Deductions
NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Super Bowl Fans Seek Compensation

OPENFEINT INC: Sued Over Unauthorized Access to Mobile Devices
PANDORA MEDIA: Accused of Selling Consumer Info to Advertisers
RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF ALABAMA: Employees File Class Action
RUGBY LABORATORIES: Recalls 898,000 Children's Pain & Fever Drops
TARGET: Recalls 51,700 Infant Girls Sandals Due to Choking Hazard

TIMBERLAND CO: Being Sold to VR for Too Little, Suit Claims
UNITED STATES: FTC Opposes Class Action Settlement
UNITED STATES: February 2012 Deadline Set for Pigford Claims
UPONOR PEX: Property Owners May File Class Action Over Fittings




                             *********

ACCUTANE: Litigation Attorneys Available to Review IBD Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Accutane litigation attorneys working with Class Action.org
are available to review claims from Accutane users who were
diagnosed with Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis.
Potentially, Accutane litigation may be an option for users who
developed either of these digestive conditions, which belong to a
group of disorders known as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).  If
you or a loved one was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis or
Crohn's disease after taking Accutane, visit
http://www.classaction.org/accutane.htmland complete the free, no
obligation case review form on the right to find out if you are
eligible for Accutane litigation.

According to Accutane litigation, the manufacturer of the drug
failed to warn patients of the potential Accutane IBD risk.
Reportedly, the acne drug has been linked to the development of
inflammatory bowel disease in users, who as a result may be
eligible for Accutane litigation.  Alleged Accutane ulcerative
colitis and Crohn's disease can cause inflammation of the
intestines, resulting in symptoms such as: chronic abdominal pain;
diarrhea; loss of appetite; bleeding from the rectum; and loss of
appetite.  IBD can also lead to other health problems such as
anemia, arthritis, liver inflammation, gallstones and kidney
stones.

Users of the acne drug who are suffering from Accutane Crohn's
disease or ulcerative colitis may be eligible for Accutane
litigation.  Potentially, an Accutane lawsuit would allow patients
the chance to seek compensation for medical bills, pain and
suffering and other damages resulting from their condition.  To
learn more about Accutane litigation and to receive a free
evaluation of your Accutane IBD claim, visit Class Action.org
today.  The Accutane litigation attorneys working with the site
are providing this online case review at no cost and remain
committed to protecting the rights of Accutane users who were
diagnosed with Accutane ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease.

                      About Class Action.org

Class Action.org is dedicated to protecting consumers and
investors in class actions and complex litigation throughout the
United States.  Class Action.org keeps consumers informed about
product alerts, recalls, and emerging litigation and helps them
take action against the manufacturers of defective products,
drugs, and medical devices.  Information about consumer fraud
issues and environmental hazards is also available on the site.
Visit http://www.classaction.orgtoday for a no cost, no
obligation case evaluation and information about your consumer
rights.


AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls 2,500 Portable Generator Batteries
----------------------------------------------------------
About 2,500 portable generator batteries were recalled by American
Honda Motor Co. of Torrance, California, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.  Consumers should stop
using the product immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The hazard labels attached to the batteries used on the generators
are printed in Japanese instead of English.  As a result,
consumers handling the battery may not be able to adequately avoid
risks associated with the batteries.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

Only portable generator model numbers EM4000SX, EM5000SXK3 and
EM6500SXK2 with hazard labels printed in Japanese are affected.
The word Honda and the model numbers are located on the side of
the generator.  The battery is located above the wheel.  The model
number and serial numbers are located on the generator frame.  The
recalled serial numbers are:

      Model Number              Serial Number
      ------------              -------------
      EM4000SX             EBRC-1000015 to 1000518
      EM5000SXK3           EBMC-1000005 to 1001184
      EM6500SXK2           EBJC-1000017 to 1000857

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11744.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Honda
power equipment dealers nationwide from January 2011 to March 2011
for between $2,250 and $2,890.

American Honda is contacting consumers and giving them the correct
label.  Consumers can either install the label themselves or
contact a Honda dealer to install the label for free.  For more
information, contact American Honda between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday toll-free at (888) 888-
3139 or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.hondapowerequipment.com/products/recalls/


BRITAX CHILD: Recalls 20,800 Units of B-Nimble Strollers
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Britax Child Safety Inc., of Charlotte, North
Carolina, announced a voluntary recall of about 20,000 units of B-
Nimble Strollers in the United States of America and 800 in
Canada.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

An audible click heard when the brake pedal is pressed can give a
false impression that the brake is fully engaged when it is not.
When the brake is not engaged, the stroller can move unexpectedly
posing a risk of injury to the child occupant.

Britax has received seven reports of the brake not being fully
engaged.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves B-Nimble umbrella strollers manufactured on
or after August 1, 2010.  Strollers included in the recall have
model numbers U311771, U311773, U311775 and U311780.  The date of
manufacture labels and model numbers can be found on the lower
frame/tube on either the left or the right side.  The strollers
were sold in a variety of colors including black and silver,
Cowmooflage (black and white), green and red.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11256.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
juvenile product and mass merchandise stores nationwide and online
retailers between September 2010 and June 2011 for about $200.

Consumers should immediately stop using their strollers and
contact Britax for information and to request an improved
replacement stroller.  Consumers who resume use of their strollers
while awaiting the replacement should always ensure that the brake
is fully engaged.  For additional information, contact Britax
toll-free at (888) 427-4829 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Eastern Time Monday through Friday and, or visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.britaxusa.com/


CHULA VISTA, CA: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Utility Taxes
--------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego-based law offices of Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla
Blatt & Penfield, LLP and Newport Beach-based Capretz & Associates
have filed a class action lawsuit against the City of Chula Vista,
Calif., demanding restitution as a result of continued collection
of a controversial tax on cell phone calls.

According to co-lead counsel Thomas Penfield, a partner with Casey
Gerry, the lawsuit was filed in the San Diego Superior Court on
behalf of Chula Vista residents seeking a refund of taxes arising
from the City of Chula Vista's improper collection and
administration of a "Utility Users Tax" (UUT) collected on mobile
phone use.

"Through this class action, we seek a refund from the City for
back taxes unlawfully collected over the years from Chula Vista
residents," Mr. Penfield said.  Added attorney James Capretz, with
Capretz & Associates, "we believe all Chula Vista taxpayers are
clearly entitled to a refund of all UUTs improperly collected for
the maximum period permissible, along with the legal rate of
interest."

Mr. Penfield said the controversy stems from a now outdated tax,
levied on users of telephones, electricity and other utilities,
which was introduced in 1970 and accounts for more than $9 million
in revenue for the city each year -- $5.6 million of that from
cell phone users.

In simple terms, Mr. Penfield said, the tax on cell phones is
"illegal, as the law introducing it was passed before the
invention of cell phones."  Moreover, "the UUT is automatically
added to the monthly charges and embedded in billing statements,
so most tax payers are not even aware of the tax -- or the fact
that it has been illegally collected."

Additionally, in 2006, said Mr. Penfield, the I.R.S. acknowledged
that bundled service, where local and long distance are not
separately billed (including landline and cellular telephone
service), and all long distance service are also non-taxable.

Realizing that there are a host of thorny legal -- and financial
-- issues related to the tax, The City of Chula Vista last year
introduced a ballot proposition, Proposition H, which if passed
and the UUT found to be constitutional, would have legalized the
City's right to collect fees on cell phone calls.  The
proposition, which Capretz called "a failed attempt to
retroactively authorize UUTs" did not pass, intensifying the
controversy and solidifying the illegal status of cell phone
taxes.

Despite the conclusive defeat of Proposition H, the City continues
to date to levy and collect the UUT -- and taxes continue to flow
into the City's coffers.

"These monies belong to the cell phone using residents of Chula
Vista, and in all fairness, should be returned," said
Mr. Penfield.  "The City has no legal or equitable right to retain
these funds."

                       About Casey Gerry

San Diego's oldest plaintiff's law firm, Casey Gerry --
http://www.caseygerry.com-- was founded in 1947, and since then
has worked to help recover hundreds of millions of dollars for
families and individuals who have suffered serious injury or lost
loved ones.  The firm's 13 attorneys practice in numerous areas,
including asbestos, personal injury, product liability and
pharmaceutical litigation.  Located at 110 Laurel St. in the
Banker's Hill neighborhood of San Diego, the firm also has a
satellite office in Carlsbad, Calif.

                   About Capretz & Associates

James T. Capretz is the principal of the Newport Beach law firm of
Capretz & Associates -- http://www.capretz.com-- a firm that
emphasizes complex civil and multidistrict litigation in its
practice.  He is consistently listed in the Martindale-Hubbell Bar
Registry of Preeminent Lawyers.  He was the only attorney in
private practice named in the initial publication of the top 50
most influential business people in Orange County by the Orange
County Business Journal.  He has served as Special Counsel in the
seminal national product liability class action entitled Bowling
vs. Pfizer, et al. in federal district court in Cincinnati, Ohio
since 1992 and he has held positions of responsibility in several
other federal class action lawsuits across the United States.  He
is a charter member of the prestigious Santa Monica-Base RAND
Institute for the Civil Justice, So Cal 50 Executive Committee.
His contact number is 949-724-3000.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Wal-Mart Decision May Affect Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Cronin Fisk and Karen Gullo, writing for Bloomberg News,
report that Costco Wholesale Corp. may be able to block women
accusing it of gender bias from suing as a group because of the
U.S. Supreme Court's decision in a discrimination suit against
Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

The women sued Costco in 2004, accusing the largest U.S.
warehouse-club chain of limiting promotions of female employees to
assistant general manager and general manager by failing to post
such job openings.  They won the right to sue as a group in a
class action in 2007.  Costco's appeal of that order was put on
hold while the Supreme Court considered Dukes v. Wal-Mart.

Parts of the Costco decision conflict with the Supreme Court's
June 20 ruling barring women suing Wal-Mart from pursuing their
claims in a nationwide class action, according to legal experts.
Michael Harper, a professor at Boston University School of Law,
predicted the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco will send the
Costco case back to the trial judge for reconsideration.

"Bottom line: Under Dukes, a class cannot be certified for this
case as framed," Mr. Harper said of the 2007 order granting the
Costco workers class status.  "If I were Costco, I would be
feeling pretty good about this decision."

The Supreme Court said lawyers for women suing Bentonville,
Arkansas-based Wal-Mart failed to point to a common corporate
policy that led to gender discrimination at thousands of its U.S.
stores.  Lawyers for the women said they will reframe their legal
arguments and, if necessary, pursue smaller group or individual
suits.

'Fatally Flawed'

The lawsuit against Costco features "the same lawyers using the
same theories, but more importantly, the same experts to conjure
up this guilt by statistical evidence," Joel Benoliel, spokesman
for Issaquah, Washington-based Costco, on June 19 said in a phone
interview.

"I think that our case will be dismissed by the Ninth Circuit for
exactly the same reasons," Mr. Benoliel said, referring to the San
Francisco appeals court.  "The case is fatally flawed and has been
from the beginning."

The Dukes decision provides an additional hurdle to class actions,
requiring plaintiffs to show that a common issue "predominates,"
Mr. Harper said.  This will affect the Costco case because the
original decision was made under a less stringent standard, which
required only that employment lawyers show evidence of a common
issue, he said.

Corporate Culture

The Supreme Court wasn't convinced by arguments that the corporate
culture at Wal-Mart harmed women, Mr. Harper said.  That part of
the Wal-Mart ruling may doom the Costco class as well, he said.

The Wal-Mart women's "only evidence of a general discrimination
policy was a sociologist's analysis asserting that Wal-Mart's
corporate culture made it vulnerable to gender bias," the Supreme
Court found.  The plaintiffs needed to provide significant proof
that the company operated under a general policy of
discrimination, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority,
reversing the lower-court ruling.

"Because respondents provide no convincing proof of a companywide
discriminatory pay and promotion policy, we have concluded that
they have not established the existence of any common question,"
Judge Scalia said.

Mr. Harper said the appeals court is unlikely to reject or approve
the 2007 decision granting the Costco women class-action status,
which makes litigation less costly for plaintiffs and gives them
more leverage in settlement talks.

Remand 'More Likely'

"More likely they'll remand it," sending it back to the trial
court, he said.

The Costco women should still be able to sue as a group, said
Brad Seligman, a lead attorney for plaintiffs in both suits.
Costco is a "much narrower case," covering two types of managers
who were affected by decisions made above the store level, Mr.
Seligman said.

Dukes involved as many as 1.5 million current and former workers
at Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores in the U.S.  The potential class
in Costco is less than 1,000 women, he said.

"We candidly conceded in Dukes that it could be unmanageable to do
individual damages hearings for every class member," Mr. Seligman
said in an interview.  Costco is "much smaller and much more
manageable of a case," he said.

"Overall, the Costco class action and their theories look a whole
lot like the theories in the Wal-Mart case," said Justin Page, a
lawyer with Bass, Berry & Sims in Nashville, Tennessee.  "They use
some of the exact same experts.  The evidence they used to show a
common practice is very similar," he said.

'Uphill Battle'

"These plaintiffs will have an uphill battle," said Mr. Page, who
represents corporations in employment litigation and isn't
involved in the Wal-Mart or Costco cases.

The part of the Costco judge's decision certifying the class for
injunctive relief under one section of the federal rules of
procedure is similar to the initial decisions allowing the
Wal-Mart class, Mr. Page said.  "The Supreme Court in Dukes
rejected that 9-0, and said the request had to be evaluated under
another section that is more stringent," he said.

In the 2007 decision that allowed the Costco class action, U.S.
District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel in San Francisco wrote that "the
court finds that plaintiffs have presented strong evidence of a
common culture at Costco which disadvantages women."

Central Management

Plaintiffs will need to show a direct connection to discrimination
beyond a common culture, Mr. Harper said.

"How does that common culture play out at the regional decision-
making level?" Mr. Harper asked.  "It looks like central
management at Costco has little role to play" in making decisions
on promotions to assistant general manager and general manager, he
said.

"There is evidence that officers are involved but the key question
is how involved are they," he said.  Under the Dukes decision,
"you have to have some significant proof that the problem is
centralized," he said.

All cases alleging employer bias and seeking class certification,
including the Costco suit, will be affected by the Wal-Mart
decision, said Sara Kane, a New York lawyer who represents workers
and isn't involved in the Wal-Mart or Costco actions.

Next Steps

"People are saying there's no hope, but there are ways to
proceed," she said.  The appellate court will either send the
Costco case back to the trial judge or ask the parties to submit
new filings on whether the Dukes decision applies, she said.

The Wal-Mart workers complained that the company's policy allowing
discretion to local managers over pay and promotions harmed women.
The Supreme Court found that the effect of such discretion
couldn't be considered a common question, a requirement for a
class action.

"In a company of Wal-Mart's size and geographical scope, it is
quite unbelievable that all managers would exercise their
discretion in a common way without some common direction,"
Judge Scalia said.

Costco doesn't use postings or an application process for open
assistant and general manager positions, according to court
papers.  Costco contends decisions to promote a lower-level
manager to an assistant manager are made by warehouse general
managers with the involvement of district vice presidents,
Judge Patel said in her decision approving the Costco class.  The
company said upper management isn't involved, Judge Patel said.

Headquarters Sign-Off

The women suing the company disagree.  The chief executive officer
of Costco "signs off on every store manager position,"
Mr. Seligman said.  "The decisions for both positions are made at
Costco headquarters."

The Costco plaintiffs may be able to keep their class
certification if a court agrees that "signing off" on promotions
is enough to establish centralized decision-making, Ms. Kane said.

"The fact that the overall number is so much smaller may make it
easier to present the more rigorous statistical evidence the
Supreme Court required in Dukes," said Mr. Page, the Nashville
lawyer.  "But that may not be enough because the evidence looks so
similar."

Costco in 2000 investigated the disparity of promotions of women
into management and began posting jobs for lower-level manager
positions.  "There was a conscious decision made not to post
vacancies for GM and AGM," Judge Patel said in her decision
granting the class action.

Disparity's Obligation

This gives plaintiffs an opening for winning a revised attempt at
class certification by meeting the standard requiring predominance
of a common issue, Mr. Harper said.

Recognizing disparity imposes an obligation on the company to do
something about it and could provide a common question for
purposes of a class action, he said.

The questions for Costco would be, "Did they know or should they
have known there was a problem? Did they not properly respond to
that in the central offices?" he said.

This may show negligence as a common question, he said.  Lawyers
for the women would have to "talk not only about commonality, but
predominance" under the new rules, he said.

"It requires some development of the substantive law," he said.
"But that's their best shot."

The case is Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (COST), 04-03341, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).
The Wal-Mart case is Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, 10-00277, U.S.
Supreme Court (Washington).


DURHAM, CANADA: Gives Clarifications on Lost USB Key
----------------------------------------------------
The Oshawa Express reports that the Region of Durham wants to
assure residents that what was lost on a USB key won't be found in
court -- by anyone who doesn't need to know, of course.

As the class action lawsuit continues questions have come up
pertaining to the lost USB key that contained the personal and
confidential information of Durham Regional health patients.

A recent statement from the Region hopes to clarify some of those
queries.

In December 2009, a USB key was lost by a Durham Regional Health
nurse.  On it was the personal information of more than 83,500
residents who had received an H1N1 vaccination shot.

A lawsuit against the Region was certified in December 2010 as a
class action, and named John Sherlock Rowlands the representative
plaintiff.  The causes were listed as "negligence; breach of a
fiduciary duty; breach of confidence and/or violation of privacy;
breach of a statutory duty, public malfeasance and/or failure to
act; and breach of Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms."

Members of the action and their counsel are seeking C$40 million
in "special damages for the purpose of obtaining credit monitoring
for a period of years to be determined by the court" and
"punitive, aggravated and exemplary damages," from the Region
because of the loss of the USB key, says an April 2011
certification order from Justice P. Lauwers.

Currently, the lawsuit is in the opt-out phase.  At this time,
those residents who had their information lost have the chance to
bow out of the class action.  Flaherty Dow Elliott & McCarthy LLP
will represent the plaintiffs, while David Boghosian of Boghosian
and Associates will represent Durham.

The Region's release answers two questions the class action
members have been asking.  First, "why am I included automatically
into the lawsuit?"

"Many residents, whose names were on the USB key, have questioned
why they have been automatically included in the class action,
with responsibility being placed on them to opt out," says the
release.  "Automatic inclusion, and the need for individuals to
opt out of the class action, if they so choose, was mandated by
the Class Proceedings Act, which is the provincial legislation
that governs class actions in Ontario."

The release also seeks to put to rest concerns that the release of
personal information to the plaintiff's counsel could result in
another breach.

"The supply of this information -- by the Region to Flaherty Dow
Elliott & McCarthy LLP -- was court ordered and falls under
applicable privacy legislation," the release clarifies.  "No
breach of confidentiality has been committed by the Region in
responding to this court order.  The action was required by the
Rules of Court which governs disclosure of information relating to
a lawsuit, including what information was on the USB key."

"In addition, for this lawsuit, the Certification Order also
required the Region provide Flaherty Dow Elliott & McCarthy LLP
with all of the information that was on the lost USB key.  That
information has not yet been provided to the law firm.  However,
when it is, the law firm will be bound by strict rules of
confidentiality relating to any information it receives in the
course of the lawsuit, so that no privacy concerns should arise as
a result of that disclosure."

Deloitte LLP, the litigation administrator for the class action as
appointed by the court, will have no access to the information at
all.

"The Region has not provided Deloitte LLP with any of the
information that was contained on the lost USB key, nor will it do
so in the future," notes the release.

While the proverbial cow is out of the barn in this situation,
Durham plans on keeping as much confidential as possible,
continues the release.

"The Region will take all necessary steps to ensure the ongoing
confidentiality of the personal information contained on the USB
key throughout the class action process."


FAIRBRIDGE FOUNDATION: Class Action Set to Return in November
-------------------------------------------------------------
Blake Nicholson, writing for Central Western Daily, reports that a
class action taken out by former Fairbridge Farm residents has
been adjourned and will return to court in November.

Almost 70 former residents have launched the class action against
the Fairbridge Foundation and the state and federal governments
over failures to protect them against alleged sexual, mental and
physical abuse.

Roop Sandhu, an associate at Slater and Gordon, the firm that
launched the class action, said the case was still in its early
stages.

He said at this stage in class actions, the defense often launched
a flurry of applications in dispute of technicalities.

The parties are in dispute about a number of issues including
whether the case should be conducted as a class action or a series
of individual claims, issues relating to the statute of
limitations and the provision of documents and archival
information.

Mr. Sandhu said he believed this to be more delaying tactics and
said his clients wanted their day in court.

"Last week was just sort of an attempt to hear the parties on what
they think the order of battle should be," he said.

It's still too early to know the amount of compensation being
sought.

"For this group of people it's not really about the money, it's
about acknowledgment," he said.

"No amount of money can really make up for the things that
happened to these people."


FISHER AND SHAPIRO: Sued Over Doctored Foreclosure Affidavits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glynis Farrell at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class action claims the Fisher and Shapiro law firm used "false,
deceptive and unfair foreclosure litigation tactics" that the Cook
County Chancery Court ordered it to reopen 1,700 foreclosure
lawsuits.

Lead plaintiff Stacy Hill, who says she was among those 1,700,
claims that Fisher and Shapiro, of Chicago, removed the signature
page from at least 1,700 foreclosure affidavits and reattached
them to other documents, which included fees for Fisher and
Shapiro.

Citing the Chancery Court's General Administrative Order No. 2011-
01, Ms. Hill's complaint states: "The Order provides alarming
detail: that 'affidavits filed in pending mortgage foreclosure
cases by the law firm of Fisher and Shapiro were altered without
the affiants' knowledge.  The affidavits were altered in such a
way that included changing the content of the original affidavit
by removing the signature page and reattaching the signature page
by the affiant to the altered content.  The alteration of the
contents in the affidavits included, but were not limited to,
adding attorneys' fees and costs, adding insurance costs,
inspection costs, preservation costs, and/or taxes incurred on the
property."

Ms. Hill says Fisher and Shapiro filed a foreclosure suit against
her in 2009 and altered an affidavit after it had been notarized
by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company.

She claims the phony affidavits resulted in invalid foreclosure
judgments and wrecked credit ratings.

She seeks an injunction and class damages for violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, consumer fraud and deceptive
trade.

A copy of the Complaint in Hill v. Fisher and Shapiro, LLC, et
al., Case No. 11-cv-04198 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/23/Foreclose.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anita Dellaria, Esq.
          Mark Bulgarelli, Esq.
          Ilan Chorowsky, Esq.
          PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP LLC
          505 N. LaSalle, Suite 350
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 787-2717

               - and -

          Kelli Dudley, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF KELLI DUDLEY
          9130 S. Houston Ave., 1st Floor
          Chicago, IL 60617-4319
          Telephone: (312) 771-9770


FORNEY LP: Sued for Faxing Unsolicited Advertisements
-----------------------------------------------------
Sebastian Contracting Corporation, an Illinois corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons v. Forney, L.P. and Seven Fields, LLC, Case No.
2011-CH-22427 (Ill. Cir. Ct., June 22, 2011), challenges the
Defendants' practice of faxing unsolicited advertisements.

The Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the common law of conversion,
and the consumer protection statutes forbidding and compensating
unfair business practices.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants violated the TCPA by sending advertising faxes to it
and the other members of the class without first obtaining their
prior express invitation or permission, and by not displaying a
proper opt out notice.

The Plaintiff is an Illinois corporation.

Forney is Pennsylvania limited partnership, which has its
principal place of business in Seven Fields, Pennsylvania.  Seven
Fields is the general partner and control entity of Forney.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com

               - and -

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          BOCK & HATCH, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500


GAMMA SPORTS: Recalls 2,000 Children's Tennis Racquets
------------------------------------------------------
About 2,000 Quick Kids Junior Tennis Racquets were voluntarily
recalled by GAMMA Sports, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The orange grip tape on the tennis racket's handle contains high
levels of lead.  Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and
can cause adverse health effects.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Quick Kids 23-inch aluminum junior tennis
racquets with orange tape on the hand grip.  Recalled racquets
have lot number "F:3:10:08" stamped onto the bottom of the racquet
grip below the "G." Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11745.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold online
at http://www.gammasports.com/,http://www.atssports.com/and
http://www.holabirdsports.com/from December 2010 through March
2011 for about $15.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled tennis racquets
away from children and contact GAMMA Sports for a free replacement
grip kit.  GAMMA Sports is directly contacting all known
purchasers of the recalled tennis racquets.  For more information,
contact GAMMA Sports at (800) 333-0337 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.gammasports.com/


HAIN CELESTIAL: Deceives Consumers Over Organic Claims, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosminah Brown, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, and Center for Environmental Health v. The Hain
Celestial Group, Inc., and Does 1-100, Case No. RG11575336 (Calif.
Super. Ct, Alameda Cty., May 11, 2011), alleges unlawful, unfair
and deceptive business practices of Hain Celestial with respect to
its cosmetic products sold under the Jason(R) and Avalon
Organics(R) brands, which are marketed, labeled and sold as
"organic," but which in fact contain less than 70% organic
ingredients.  The lawsuit alleges that the Jason(R) Products are
all marketed and labeled as "Pure, Natural & Organic" and the
Avalon Organics(R) Products are all marketed and labeled as
"Organics."

The Plaintiffs argue that Ms. Brown and the Class would not have
purchased the Products, and would not have paid a high price for
the Products, but for the Defendant's false and misleading
identification of the Products as organic.

Ms. Brown is a resident of California and purchased one of the
Products.  CEH is a non-profit corporation dedicated to protecting
the public from environmental health hazards and toxic exposures.
CEH is based in Oakland, California.

The Company is a Delaware limited corporation with its principal
place of business in Melville, New York.  The Defendant
advertises, markets, distributes and sells the Products in
California.  Does 1 through 100 are persons or entities whose true
names and capacities are presently unknown to the Plaintiffs.

Hain Celestial removed the lawsuit on June 22, 2011, from the
California Superior Court, Alameda County, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.  Because
the Plaintiffs are from California and the Defendant is
incorporated in Delaware with its main office located in New York,
the diversity requirement for removing the lawsuit is satisfied,
Hain Celestial argues.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:11-cv-03082 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark N. Todzo, Esq.
          Howard J. Hirsch, Esq.
          Lisa Burger, Esq.
          LEXINGTON LAW GROUP
          503 Divisadero Street
          San Francisco, CA 94117
          Telephone: (415) 759-4111
          Facsimile: (415) 759-4112
          E-mail: mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Simon J. Frankel, Esq.
          Margaret D. Wilkinson, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          One Front Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 591-6000
          Facsimile: (415) 591-6091
          E-mail: sfrankel@cov.com
                  mwilkinson@cov.com


KAISER PERMANENTE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Kaiser Permanente stiffs
workers for overtime and doesn't pay them for all hours worked,
according to a class action in Alameda County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Scott v. Kaiser Permanente, et al.,
Case No. RG11582019 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/23/Kaiser.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel H. Qualls, Esq.
          Robin G. Workman, Esq.
          Aviva N. Roller, Esq.
          QUALLS & WORKMAN, L.L.P.
          177 Post Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 782-3660
          E-mail: dan@qualls-workman.com
                  robin1@qualls-workman.com
                  aviva@qualls-workman.com


M&F WORLDWIDE: Sued Over Proposed Sale to MacAndrews & Forbes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Theodore Feit, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ronald O. Perelman, Barry F. Schwartz, William C.
Bevins, Bruce Slovin, Philip E. Beekman, Martha L. Byorum, Charles
T. Dawson, Viet D. Dinh, Theo W. Folz, John M. Keane, Paul M.
Meister, Stephen G. Taub, Carl B. Webb, MacAndrews & Forbes
Holdings Inc., and M & F Worldwide Corp., Case No. 651743/2011
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 23, 2011), is brought as a class action
lawsuit on behalf of all owners of MFW common stock, except the
Defendants and their affiliates.

The lawsuit arises out of the proposed acquisition of MFW by its
chairman, Ronald Perelman.  Mr. Feit contends that the Individual
Defendants have breached, and are continuing to breach, their
fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders by proposing to
sell the Company for a wholly inadequate consideration.

The Plaintiff is an MFW shareholder.

MFW is a Delaware corporation and maintains its executive offices
in New York.  MFW, through its subsidiaries, provides check and
check-related products, direct marketing, and customized business
and home office products in North America and internationally.

The Individual Defendants are officers and/or directors of MFW.
MacAndrews & Forbes is a private diversified holding company with
interests in biotechnology, check printing and check related
products and services, consumer products, defense, education,
entertainment, financial services, gaming and other industries.
MacAndrews & Forbes, through its subsidiaries, owns approximately
43% of the outstanding shares of the Company's common stock.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert H. Lefkowitz, Esq.
          Joseph Levi, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          30 Broad Street, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: rlefkowitz@zlk.com
                  jlevi@zlk.com

               - and -

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Tel: (202) 524-4290
          Fax: (202) 333-2121
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com
                  etripodi@zlk.com


MEYERS ASSOCIATES: Accused of Making Improper Wage Deductions
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Thomas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Meyers Associates, L.P., and Bruce Meyers, Case No.
651720/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 22, 2011), is brought by the
Plaintiff to recover unpaid wages and improper wage deductions
from the Defendants Meyers.

Mr. Thomas alleges that the Defendants knowingly failed to pay him
and the other Class members the minimum wage for all hours worked.
He asserts that when he and other Class members did not earn
commissions, the Defendants failed to provide them a "spread of
hours" premium for every day in which they worked over 10 hours,
as required by Section 142-2.4 of the New York Code of Rules and
Regulations.  He adds that throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants routinely made improper deductions from his and other
Class members' earned wages/commissions.

The Plaintiff is a resident of New York, and worked for the
Defendants from August 2004 until July 2009.

Meyers Associates is a New York partnership, with its principle
place of business located at 45 Broadway, 2nd Floor, New York, NY
10006.  Mr. Meyers is an owner and managing partner of Meyer
Associates, firm operated as full-service independent broker-
dealers offering a comprehensive range of financial and wealth
management services for retail investors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles Joseph, Esq.
          Michael D. Palmer, Esq.
          D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
          JOSEPH, HERZFELD, HESTER & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
          233 Broadway, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10279
          Telephone: (212) 688-5640
          Facsimile: (212) 688-2548
          E-mail: charles@jhllp.com
                  mpalmer@jhllp.com
                  maimon@jhllp.com


NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Super Bowl Fans Seek Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Super Bowl ticket-holders
displaced during the seating fiasco at Cowboys Stadium in February
said on June 21 in a court filing they should be compensated for
lost income on top of the other expenses they incurred.

Ticket holders who lost their seats or had obstructed views "at a
very minimum" should be paid for lost income suffered as a result
of traveling to suburban Arlington, according to a document filed
in response to a motion by the Dallas Cowboys and the NFL seeking
to dismiss the class action lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed after 1,250 temporary seats were declared
unsafe just hours before the game between the Green Bay Packers
and the Pittsburgh Steelers.  It says 475 ticket holders were
forced to watch from standing-room locations while others were
relocated, causing them to miss part of the game won by Green Bay.

Another group of fans suffered because they learned upon arrival
at the stadium that they had seats with obstructed views, the suit
contends.

The NFL said last month in its motion to have the suit dismissed
that it satisfied its obligations to the displaced fans by
offering them the actual prices they paid for their tickets as
well as all documented travel, lodging and meal expenses.

A league spokesman said it would have no comment on the
plaintiffs' latest filing.

Michael Avenatti, a Los Angeles attorney representing the ticket
holders, said he expects to take the depositions of NFL
commissioner Roger Goodell and Cowboys owner Jerry Jones before
the end of the summer.

"The law permits the fans to receive 100 percent of their damages,
and we intend on recovering just that," Mr. Avenatti said.

The ticket holders' filing said there is nothing on record to
prove that all eligible fans received settlement offers from the
NFL.  Moreover, the offers had too many strings attached,
including caps on the amount of compensation for meals and
lodging, the filing said.

"Defendants' so-called settlement offers do not come close to
making plaintiffs whole," the filing said.

The filing also reiterated the ticket holders' claim that the NFL
and the Cowboys knew before the game that the temporary seats
weren't ready and amounted to fraud.

"Defendants instead threw a "Hail Mary pass" and hoped, by some
miracle, the problems would somehow solve themselves and
legitimate seats would magically appear," the filing said, citing
e-mail and other documents publicly released by the city of
Arlington after the game.

The NFL and the Cowboys said in their motion that they didn't know
until just before kickoff that the seats were inadequate and that
work on them continued into the afternoon on the day of the game.


OPENFEINT INC: Sued Over Unauthorized Access to Mobile Devices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Hines, Jennifer Aguirre and Alexander Hernandez, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated v. OpenFeint, Inc.,
and GREE International, Inc., Case No. 3:11-cv-03084 (N.D. Calif,
June 22, 2011), is a consumer class action lawsuit brought on
behalf of those who were victims of privacy violations, and unfair
and deceptive business wherein their privacy and security rights
were violated by the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs allege that OpenFeint individually, and in concert,
with third parties gained unauthorized access to, and unauthorized
use of, the Plaintiffs' and Class Members' mobile devices used for
communication over a cellular network in order to access, collect,
monitor, and remotely store the Plaintiffs' and Class Members'
mobile device's Unique Device Identifiers, Personally Identifiable
Information, OpenFeint user account, GPS "Fine" co-ordinates, and
Facebook/Twitter profiles, linking the aggregated data with the
Plaintiffs' and Class Members' UDIDs for financial gain.

Specifically, notes Chris Marshall at Courthouse News Service,
OpenFeint's business plan included accessing and disclosing
personal information without authorization to mobile-device
application developers, advertising networks and web-analytic
vendors that market mobile applications.  The company acquired
such information covertly, without adequate notice or consent,
involving 100 million consumer mobile devices.

After accessing one of OpenFeint's applications, the company
bypassed both the technical and code barriers designed to limit
unauthorized access, as well as his mobile device's privacy and
security settings, Mr. Hines claims.

OpenFeint used the data it collected to collaborate with
application developers and create a database that further enabled
the tracking scheme and conducted systematic and continuing
surveillance of the class members' mobile-device activity, which
continued on June 24.

In spite of this activity, OpenFeint assures customers that its
applications are all safe for downloading, according to the suit.

OpenFeint presents itself as a standalone application that
provides a "social platform" for mobile devices, allowing
application developers to add social-networking aspects to their
gaming applications, including Facebook connect integration and
cloud storage for saved games, according to the complaint.

But in reality, Mr. Hines claims, OpenFeint is "essentially a
mobile platform to obtain user's [unique device identifiers],
aggregate user's data, and sell such for financial gain."

Mr. Hines and two other named plaintiffs allege computer fraud,
invasion of privacy, breach of contract, bad faith and seven other
statutory violations.  They seek more than $5 million in damages.

The Plaintiffs also demand trial by jury.

Mr. Hines is a resident of Fort Worth, Texas; Ms. Aguirre is a
resident of Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Mr. Hernandez is a resident
of Dallas, Texas.

OpenFeint, a Delaware corporation headquartered in California,
does business throughout the United States of America.  GREE is
incorporated and headquartered in California.

A copy of the Complaint in Hines, et al. v. OpenFeint, Inc., et
al., Case No. 11-cv-03084 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://is.gd/8WQr0B

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David C. Parisi, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVENS LLP
          15233 Valleyheart Drive
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 990-1299
          Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
          E-mail: dparisi@parisihavens.com

               - and -

          Joseph H. Malley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH H. MALLEY, P.C.
          1045 North Zang Blvd.
          Dallas, TX 75208
          Telephone: (214) 943-6100
          Facsimile: (214) 943-6170
          E-mail: malleylaw@gmail.com


PANDORA MEDIA: Accused of Selling Consumer Info to Advertisers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Yuncker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Pandora Media, Inc., Case No. 4:11-cv-03113 (N.D.
Calif., June 23, 2011), challenges Pandora's practice of
collecting the personal information of its users and then
disseminating it to third-party advertising libraries, like
Google's AdMob.  While Pandora purports to obtain user consent for
the collection of the information, Pandora does not explain, and
consumers are unaware, that the information is used not for
purposes of the Pandora application itself, but rather for the
transmission and commercialization of the information by way of
third-party advertisers, the Plaintiff alleges.

Mr. Yuncker is a resident of Illinois, and owned an Android mobile
device on which he downloaded and used the Pandora application.

Pandora Media is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place
of business at 2101 Webster Street, Suite 1650, in Oakland,
California 94612.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
          Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
          Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
          Patrick H. Moran, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
          E-mail: gregorek@whafh.com
                  manifold@whafh.com
                  rickert@whafh.com
                  moran@whafh.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          122 South Michigan Ave., Suite 1850
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 588-1440
          Facsimile: (312) 427-1850
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com


RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF ALABAMA: Employees File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
CBS42 reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf
of employees in a state pension plan.  The suit alleges that the
governing bodies of the Retirement System of Alabama invested in
golf courses, condominiums, hotels, resorts and stock and debt
holdings in companies conducting business in Alabama when there
were more profitable investments out of state.

Two Birmingham law firms filed the lawsuit which names RSA CEO
David Bronner and its governing bodies and boards of control as
defendants.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs claim that smaller returns on RSA
investments caused the state to contribute more tax dollars into
the fund and placed a financial burden on the employees who depend
on it.

"Because the returns have lagged what maybe they otherwise could
have done the state legislature passed a new law that says the
participants have to contribute more of their pay," said Billy
Pritchard, Pritchard, McCall & Jones, L.L.C.

"I think part of it is a side political agenda they had to try to
promote the state of Alabama, get some goodwill for the state of
Alabama and maybe promote the state and its business activity.
While that may be well intended on their part, that's not what the
law allows or authorizes them to do.  They are bound by what is
known as the Prudent Man Rule for investing funds for its
members."

An RSA representative declined to comment on the lawsuit on
June 22.


RUGBY LABORATORIES: Recalls 898,000 Children's Pain & Fever Drops
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
manufacturer, Altaire Pharmaceuticals, Inc., of Aquebogue, New
York, and distributor, Rugby Laboratories, Inc., of Duluth,
Georgia, announced a voluntary recall of about 898,000 Children's
Pain & Fever Concentrated Drops.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

This over the counter medicine contains acetaminophen which calls
for child-resistant packaging as required by the Poison Prevention
Packaging Act.  Although the original bottle has child-resistant
packaging, a separate dropper unit provided for dispensing the
drug to children does not.  When in use, a child can access the
medicine, posing serious health problems or death if more than the
recommended dosage is consumed.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Rugby Children's Pain & Fever Concentrated
Drops (Acetaminophen Drops) in a 1/2 fl. oz. (15 ml) bottle size.
The UPC code 305361936723 can be found with the bar code at the
bottom of the box.  The affected lot numbers are:

       09002   09379   10272   10368   10487
       09131   09394   10273   10406   11058
       09215   10154   10366   10433

The lot numbers can be found stamped into the bottom of the carton
with the expiration date and above the label on the bottle printed
in black.  A picture of the recalled products is available at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11258.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at drug stores, grocery stores and other
retailers nationwide between January 2009 and June 2011 for about
$4.

Consumers should immediately store this product with the child-
resistant closure in place and keep it out of the reach of
children.  To arrange for a free replacement dropper, contact
Altaire Pharmaceuticals at (800) 258-2471 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Eastern Time Monday through Friday.  For additional information,
contact Rugby Laboratories at (800) 645-2158 between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday.


TARGET: Recalls 51,700 Infant Girls Sandals Due to Choking Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Target, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, announced a voluntary recall of
about 51,700 Circo Aloma Infant Girls Sandals.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The decorative plastic flowers can detach, posing a choking
hazard.

Target has received eight reports of the decorative flowers
detaching from the sandals.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled infant girls sandals are white with decorative
plastic flowers attached to the toes and sides.  The sandals were
sold under the style name "Aloma" in infant girls' sizes 2 through
5.  "Circo" is printed on the inside and bottom of the shoe.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11257.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Target stores and Target.com nationwide from
January 2011 to May 2011 for about $10.

Consumers should immediately stop using the sandals and return
them to any Target store to receive a full refund.  For additional
information, contact Target Guest Relations at (800) 440-0680
between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.target.com/


TIMBERLAND CO: Being Sold to VR for Too Little, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say Timberland
Co. is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process,
including an $87 million termination fee, to VR Corp., for $2
billion, or $43 per share.

A copy of the Complaint in Kramer v. Swartz, et al., Case No. 6596
(Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

      http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/23/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          919 North Market Street, Suite 1401
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 656-4433
          Email: CKeener@rmgglaw.com

               - and -

          Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
          James S. Notis, Esq.
          Kira German, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          560 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 3085
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: (201) 567-7377
          E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com
                  jnotis@gardylaw.com
                  kgerman@gardylaw.com


UNITED STATES: FTC Opposes Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------
Darren Waggoner, writing for Collections & Credit Risk, reports
that the Federal Trade Commission filed an amicus brief in federal
court opposing a class-action settlement that would require
consumers to surrender protections provided by the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and state laws in exchange for
minimal payments.


UNITED STATES: February 2012 Deadline Set for Pigford Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
South Florida Times reports that a court-ordered process of
officially notifying African-American farmers and their heirs
about the $1.25 billion "Pigford II" class action settlement is
underway.

Black farmers around the country who tried to file a claim in the
1999 settlement of the discrimination class action lawsuit but
were unable to receive a decision on the merits because their
claims were late are now receiving information by mail about their
legal rights and options under the settlement.

The notification drive includes a nationwide radio advertising
campaign, particularly in areas where large numbers of the farmers
are believed to live.  Also, a summary of the notice is being
published in print publications, including black newspapers,
general market daily and community newspapers, and announcements
will be posted online, as well.

The plaintiffs and the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced
the proposed settlement in late 2010 and President Barack Obama
signed the bill on Dec. 9, authorizing payment of the settlement.
If the court approves the settlement, it will resolve
discrimination claims related to USDA farm loans and other
benefits.

The proposed settlement includes $1.25 billion for cash payments
and loan forgiveness for affected farmers who file valid claims.

Eligibility extends to African Americans who farmed or attempted
to farm between Jan. 1, 1981, and Dec. 31, 1996; were prevented
from applying for or were denied a USDA farm loan during that
period or were given a loan with unfair terms; and who filed or
attempted to file a late claim between Oct. 13, 1999, and June 18,
2008, in the original Pigford case that was never considered
because they tried to submit it after the late claim deadline.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia will consider
whether to grant final approval at a hearing in Washington, D.C.,
on Sept. 1.

Those who wish to object to the settlement must do so by Aug. 12,
2011.  The deadline for filing claims may be as early as Feb. 28,
2012.

Class members should visit http://www.BlackFarmerCase.comor  call
1-877-810-8110 for full information, including the notice, key
dates and claims-filing details.

For more information, call the lead counsel, Andrew Marks, of
Crowell & Moring, at 202-624-2500; Gregorio Francis, of Morgan &
Morgan, 407-420-1414; or Henry Sanders, of Chestnut, Sanders,
Sanders, Pettaway & Campbell, 334-875-9264.


UPONOR PEX: Property Owners May File Class Action Over Fittings
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Uponor class action may be an option for property and
homeowners who experienced problems with their Uponor PEX brass
plumbing fittings.  Potentially, an Uponor class action would
allow consumers the opportunity to collectively bring a claim in
court seeking compensation for water damage caused by their
failing plumbing fittings.  To find out if you can participate in
an Uponor class action, visit
http://www.classaction.org/uponor-pex-plumbing-fittings.htmland
complete the form on the right for a no cost, no obligation
evaluation of your claim.

An Uponor class action lawsuit may be an option for consumers, as
it has been alleged that the Uponor PEX brass F1960 plumbing
fittings can fail prematurely, sometimes within months after
installation.  Allegedly, these plumbing fittings are experiencing
problems when exposed to water due to a chemical reaction known as
dezincification, which can cause water leaks and low water
pressure.  Consumers who suffered water damage to floors, walls
and other property as a result of Uponor failure may be able to
participate in an Uponor class action lawsuit.

If you have noticed water leaks or other problems with your brass
Uponor plumbing fittings, you may be able to participate in an
Uponor class action lawsuit.  Visit Class Action.org to learn more
about your eligibility for an Uponor class action lawsuit and to
receive a free evaluation of your water damage claim.  The Uponor
class action attorneys working with Class Action.org are providing
this online consultation at no cost and remain committed to
protecting the rights of consumers who suffered water damage due
to Uponor PEX failure.

                     About Class Action.org

Class Action.org is dedicated to protecting consumers and
investors in class actions and complex litigation throughout the
United States.  Class Action.org keeps consumers informed about
product alerts, recalls, and emerging litigation and helps them
take action against the manufacturers of defective products,
drugs, and medical devices.  Information about consumer fraud
issues and environmental hazards is also available on the site.
Visit http://www.classaction.orgtoday for a no cost, no
obligation case evaluation and information about your consumer
rights.


                             *********

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, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Julie Anne
Lopez, 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  * * *