CAR_Public/110914.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, September 14, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 182

                             Headlines

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Still Disputes Class Status in "Cruz" Suit
AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal in "Kassin" Suit Remains Pending
APPLE INC: Accused of Conspiring to Increase eBook Prices
BIG LOTS: Trial in "Seals" Suit Set for April 23, 2012
BIG LOTS: Still Defends Remaining Claims in "Caron" Suit

BIG LOTS: Still Awaits Scheduling of Case Mgmt. Conference
BIG LOTS: Limited Discovery in "Gromek" Suit Ongoing
BIG LOTS: Court Dismisses FLSA-Violation Suit in New York
BIG LOTS: Calif. Court Dismisses "Avitia" Plaintiff's Claims
BP PLC: Prokhorov Urges Shareholders to Join Class Action

CHINESE VIT C MANUFACTURERS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Class Action
FARMERS INSURANCE: Sued in Nev. Over "Anti-Stacking Provision"
FULL TILT: Consumer Law Group Files Class Action in Canada
GROUPON INC: Former Employee Files Overtime Class Action
JEFFERSON PARISH, LA: Oct. 31 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set

LVNV FUNDING: Settles Class Action Over License Status
MACY'S INC: Continues to Defend "Shanehchian" Suit in Ohio
MAIBEC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Cedar Tree Shingles
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Appellant Cannot Object IPO Deal, Court Rules
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Trial in Suit vs. Unit Set for Oct. 17

MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Faces Class Action Over Cliq XT Smartphones
ONTARIO, CA: June 2012 Southwestern Suit Opt-Out Deadline Set
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Appeals in Securities Suit Remain Pending
PAKISTAN GOV'T: Sindh Farmers to File Class Action Over Flooding
PCS EDVENTURES!.COM: Enters MOU to Settle "Niederklein" Suit

SPI ELECTRICITY: July 2012 Trial Set for Black Saturday Suit
ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL: Former Nurse Files Class Action
STATE OF OKLAHOMA: DHS Ignores Foster Care Class Action
TIME WARNER: Must Face Road Runner Internet Service Class Action
WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action Over Delayed Wire Transfers

* Banks May Pay More to Resolve Mortgage Investor Class Actions




                             *********

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Still Disputes Class Status in "Cruz" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and other parties continue to litigate
questions relating to a class certification order and to the
merits of plaintiffs' claims in the lawsuit commenced by Spencer
de la Cruz, according to the Company's September 7, 2011, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 30, 2011.

On December 21, 2007, Spencer de la Cruz, a former employee, filed
an action against Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and Abercrombie & Fitch
Stores, Inc. (collectively, the "Defendants") in the Superior
Court of Orange County, California.  He sought to allege, on
behalf of himself and a putative class of past and present
employees in the period beginning on December 19, 2003, claims for
failure to provide meal breaks, for waiting time penalties, for
failure to keep accurate employment records, and for unfair
business practices.  By successive amendments, plaintiff added 10
additional plaintiffs and additional claims seeking injunctive
relief, unpaid wages, penalties, interest, and attorney's fees and
costs.  Defendants have denied the material allegations of
plaintiffs' complaints throughout the litigation and have asserted
numerous affirmative defenses.  On July 23, 2010, plaintiffs moved
for class certification in the action.  On December 9, 2010, after
briefing and argument, the trial court granted in part and denied
in part plaintiffs' motion, certifying sub-classes to pursue meal
break claims, meal premium pay claims, work related travel claims,
travel expense claims, termination pay claims, reporting time
claims, bag check claims, pay record claims, and minimum wage
claims.  The parties are continuing to litigate questions relating
to the Court's certification order and to the merits of
plaintiffs' claims.

The Company intends to defend the action vigorously, as
appropriate.  The Company says it is unable to quantify the
potential exposure of the pending matter.  However, the Company's
assessment of the current exposure could change in the event of
the discovery of additional facts with respect to legal matters
pending against the Company or determinations by judges, juries,
administrative agencies or other finders of fact that are not in
accordance with the Company's evaluation of the claims.


AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal in "Kassin" Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2001, a securities class action, Kassin v. Agilent
Technologies, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 01-CV-10639, was
filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (the "Court") against certain investment bank
underwriters for the Company's initial public offering ("IPO"),
Agilent and various of the Company's officers and directors at the
time of the IPO.  In 2003, the Court granted Agilent's motion to
dismiss the claims against Agilent based on Section 10 of the
Securities Exchange Act, but denied Agilent's motion to dismiss
the claims based on Section 11 of the Securities Act.  On
June 14, 2004, papers formalizing a settlement among the
plaintiffs, Agilent and more than 200 other issuer defendants and
insurers were presented to the Court.  Under the proposed
settlement, plaintiffs' claims against Agilent and its directors
and officers would be released, in exchange for a contingent
payment (which, if made, would be paid by Agilent's insurer) and
an assignment of certain potential claims. However, class
certification of plaintiffs' underlying action against the
underwriter defendants was a condition of the settlement.  On
December 5, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
reversed the Court's order certifying such a class in several
"test cases" that had been selected by the underwriter defendants
and plaintiffs.  On January 5, 2007, plaintiffs filed a petition
for rehearing to the full bench of the Second Circuit.  On
April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit issued an order denying
rehearing but noted that plaintiffs are free to "seek
certification of a more modest class."  On June 25, 2007, the
Court entered an order terminating the proposed settlement between
plaintiffs and the issuer defendants based on a stipulation among
the parties.  Plaintiffs have amended their allegations and filed
amended complaints in six "test cases" (none of which involve
Agilent).  Defendants in these cases have moved to dismiss the
amended complaints.  On March 26, 2008, the Court denied the
defendants' motion to dismiss.  The parties have again reached a
global settlement of the litigation and filed a motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement on April 2, 2009.  Under
the settlement, the insurers would pay the full amount of
settlement share allocated to Agilent, and Agilent would bear no
financial liability.  Agilent, as well as the officer and director
defendants who were previously dismissed from the action pursuant
to tolling agreements, would receive complete dismissals from the
case.  On October 5, 2009, the Court entered an order granting
final approval of the settlement.  Certain objectors have appealed
the Court's October 5, 2009 order to the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals.  That appeal remains pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's September 7,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 31, 2011.


APPLE INC: Accused of Conspiring to Increase eBook Prices
---------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen Ulbee, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Apple, Inc., Hachette Book Group, Inc.; Harpercollins
Publishers, Inc.; Macmillan Publishers, Inc.; Penguin Group (USA)
Inc.; and Simon & Schuster, Inc., Case No. 4:11-cv-04490 (N.D.
Calif., September 9, 2011) accuses the Defendants of conspiring to
increase current prices for eBooks and, at the same time, to
guarantee Apple that the Publisher Defendants would not sell
eBooks at lower prices elsewhere, like through other eBook
distributors, including Amazon.

The Plaintiff alleges that as intended by the Defendants'
anticompetitive conduct, Amazon was forced to abandon its discount
pricing of eBooks and allow the Publisher Defendants to establish
uniformly higher prices for new release eBooks.

Ms. Ulbee is a resident of Ramsey County, Minnesota.  She
purchased several eBooks from the Publisher Defendants at a price
above $9.99 for use on a Barnes & Noble Nook.  She contends that
she paid higher prices for her eBooks as a direct and foreseeable
result of the unlawful conduct of the Defendants.

Apple is a California corporation and is a leading manufacturer of
mobile devices designed to distribute, store, and display digital
media.  Hachette Book is a leading U.S. trade publisher, and its
imprints include Little, Brown & Co. and Grand Central Publishing.
HarperCollins is a leading U.S. trade publisher and its imprints
include Ecco, Harper, Harper Perennial and William Morrow.
Macmillan is a group of leading publishing companies and its U.S.
publishers include Farrar Straus and Giroux, Henry Holt & Company,
Picador, and St. Martin's Press.  Penguin Group (USA) is the U.S.
affiliate of Penguin Group, one of the largest English-language
trade book publishers in the world.  Penguin's imprints include
Viking, Riverhead Books, Dutton and Penguin Books.  Simon &
Schuster is a leading U.S. trade publisher, and is part of CBS
Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
          Shana Scarlett, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com
                  shanas@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq.
          Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          E-1250 First National Bank Bldg.
          332 Minnesota Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100
          Facsimile: (651) 287-2103
          E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
                  r.yard@rwblawfirm.com

               - and -

          Ira Neil Richards, Esq.
          TRUJILLO RODRIGUEZ & RICHARDS, LLC
          1717 Arch Street, Suite 3838
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 731-9004
          Facsimile: (215) 731-9044
          E-mail: irichards@trrlaw.com


BIG LOTS: Trial in "Seals" Suit Set for April 23, 2012
------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action lawsuit against Big Lots, Inc., known as
the "Seals matter" has been set to begin on April 23, 2012,
according to the Company's September 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended July 30, 2011.

In September 2006, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County,
alleging that the Company violated certain California wage and
hour laws by misclassifying California store managers as exempt
employees ("Seals matter").  The plaintiffs seek to recover, on
their own behalf and on behalf of all other individuals who are
similarly situated, damages for alleged unpaid overtime, unpaid
minimum wages, wages not paid upon termination, improper wage
statements, missed rest breaks, missed meal periods, reimbursement
of expenses, loss of unused vacation time, and attorneys' fees and
costs.  On October 29, 2009, the Court denied, with prejudice,
plaintiffs' class certification motion.  On January 21, 2010, the
plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal.  On December 2, 2010, the
California Court of Appeals notified the parties that the case was
fully briefed and that a hearing for oral argument will be
scheduled.  On April 18, 2011, the California Court of Appeals
affirmed the trial Court's decision denying class certification.
A trial date for the Seals matter has been set for April 23, 2012.
The Company says it cannot make a determination as to the
probability of a loss contingency resulting from this lawsuit or
the estimated range of possible loss, if any.  The Company intends
to vigorously defend itself against the allegations levied in this
lawsuit; however, the ultimate resolution of this matter could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations, and liquidity.


BIG LOTS: Still Defends Remaining Claims in "Caron" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In February 2008, three alleged class action complaints were filed
against Big Lots, Inc., Company by a California resident (the
"Caron matters").  The first was filed in the Superior Court of
California, Orange County.  This action is similar in nature to
the Seals matter, which enabled the Company to successfully
coordinate this matter with the Seals matter in the Superior Court
of California, Los Angeles County.  The second and third matters,
filed in the United States District Court, Central District of
California, and the Superior Court of California, Riverside
County, respectively, allege that the Company violated certain
California wage and hour laws for missed meal and rest periods and
other wage and hour claims.  The plaintiffs seek to recover, on
their own behalf and on behalf of a California statewide class
consisting of all other individuals who are similarly situated,
damages resulting from improper wage statements, missed rest
breaks, missed meal periods, non-payment of wages at termination,
reimbursement of expenses, loss of unused vacation time, and
attorneys' fees and costs.  The Company believed these two matters
overlapped and the Company successfully consolidated the two cases
before the United States District Court, Central District of
California.  The Company believes the remaining allegations also
overlap some portion of the claims released through the class
action settlement in the Espinosa matter, which was settled in
2008.  On August 25, 2009, the Court denied, without prejudice,
the plaintiffs' class certification motion.  On April 21, 2010,
the Court granted, with prejudice, the Company's motion to deny
class certification.  Accordingly, the claims of one plaintiff
remain before the Court.

The Company says it cannot make a determination as to the
probability of a loss contingency resulting from the Caron matters
or the estimated range of possible loss, if any.  The Company
intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations levied
in these lawsuits; however, the ultimate resolution of these
matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity.

No further updates were reported in the Company's September 7,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 30, 2011.


BIG LOTS: Still Awaits Scheduling of Case Mgmt. Conference
----------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc., is still awaiting the scheduling of the initial
case management conference in the "Sample" lawsuit, according to
the Company's September 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 30,
2011.

In June 2010, a representative enforcement action was filed
against the Company in the Superior Court of California, Alameda
County, alleging that the Company violated certain California wage
and hour laws for missed meal and rest periods and other wage and
hour claims ("Sample matter").  The plaintiff seeks to recover, on
her behalf and on behalf of a California statewide class
consisting of all other individuals who are similarly situated,
damages resulting from allegedly unpaid overtime, unpaid meal
period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid business
expenses, non-payment of wages at termination, untimely payment of
wages, noncompliant wage statements, failure to providing seating,
and attorneys' fees and costs.  In July 2010, the Company answered
the plaintiff's complaint and filed a notice of removal to the
United States District Court, Northern District of California.  On
August 25, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the
United States District Court, Northern District of California
remand this lawsuit to the Superior Court of California, Alameda
County.  On November 30, 2010, the United States District Court,
Northern District of California granted the plaintiff's motion to
remand the Sample matter to the Superior Court of California,
Alameda County.  The Company is awaiting the scheduling of the
initial case management conference.  The Sample matter is similar
in nature to the actions comprising the Caron matters.  The
Company says it cannot make a determination as to the probability
of a loss contingency resulting from the Sample matter or the
estimated range of possible loss, if any.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend itself against the allegations levied in this
lawsuit; however, the ultimate resolution of this matter could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations, and liquidity.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.


BIG LOTS: Limited Discovery in "Gromek" Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc., is currently engaged in limited discovery in a
lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
according to the Company's September 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended July 30, 2011.

In June 2010, a civil collective action complaint was filed
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, alleging that the Company violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant store
managers as exempt employees ("Gromek matter").  The plaintiffs
sought to recover, on behalf of themselves and all other
individuals who were similarly situated, alleged unpaid overtime
compensation, as well as liquidated damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs.  The Company answered the plaintiffs' complaint on
August 12, 2010.  On October 15, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a
motion requesting that the Court 1) conditionally certify a class
of then-current and former assistant store managers employed
during the prior three years, excluding those employed in
California or New York, and 2) authorize the plaintiffs to send a
notice of this lawsuit to those putative class members to allow
them to join this lawsuit.  The Company has opposed the
plaintiffs' motion.  On December 17, 2010, the Court denied the
plaintiffs' motion.  On February 11, 2011, the Company filed a
motion to sever the plaintiffs' claims and transfer those claims
to various venues around the country.  On February 22, 2011, the
Court denied the Company's motion without prejudice and granted
limited discovery.  The Company is currently engaged in the
limited discovery granted by the Court.  The Company says it
cannot make a determination as to the probability of a loss
contingency resulting from the Gromek matter or the estimated
range of possible loss, if any.  The Company intends to vigorously
defend itself against the allegations levied in this lawsuit;
however, the ultimate resolution of this matter could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition,
results of operations, and liquidity.


BIG LOTS: Court Dismisses FLSA-Violation Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of New
York dismissed a class action lawsuit against Big Lots, Inc.,
according to the Company's September 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended July 30, 2011.

In April 2009, a civil collective action complaint was filed
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
Western District of New York, alleging that the Company violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant store
managers as exempt employees ("New York matter").  In addition,
the plaintiff seeks class action treatment under New York law
relating to those assistant store managers working in the State of
New York.  The plaintiff sought to recover, on behalf of himself
and all other individuals who are similarly situated, alleged
unpaid overtime compensation, as well as liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.  On January 21, 2010, a stipulation was
filed and order rendered limiting this action to current and
former assistant store managers working in the Company's New York
stores.  On March 2, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for
conditional class certification under federal law, class
certification under state law and class notice.  On May 14, 2010,
the Company filed a memorandum in opposition to the plaintiff's
motion.  On January 20, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a
recommendation that the Court deny the plaintiff's motion.  On
March 17, 2011, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's
recommendation and denied the plaintiff's motion.  On May 31,
2011, the Company entered into a confidential settlement agreement
with the plaintiff to resolve the New York matter and the Court
dismissed the New York matter on July 15, 2011.  The New York
matter was resolved without a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial condition, results of operations, or
liquidity.


BIG LOTS: Calif. Court Dismisses "Avitia" Plaintiff's Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
The court dismissed the claims of one of the plaintiffs in the
"Avitia" lawsuit after the plaintiff entered into a settlement
with Big Lots, Inc., according to the Company's September 7, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 30, 2011.

In April 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County,
alleging that the Company violated certain California wage and
hour laws by misclassifying California store managers as exempt
employees ("Avitia matter").  The plaintiffs seek to recover
damages for alleged unpaid wages and overtime, untimely paid wages
at separation, improper wage statements, and attorneys' fees and
costs.  In August 2010, the five plaintiffs named in the original
complaint, which sought to recover damages on their own behalf and
on behalf of all other individuals who were similarly situated,
filed an amended complaint that removed the class and
representative allegations and asserted only individual actions.
The Company has answered the amended complaint and is engaged in
discovery.  On July 14, 2011, the Company entered into a
confidential settlement agreement with one of the plaintiffs to
resolve their claims and the court dismissed that plaintiff's
claims on July 29, 2011.  The Avitia matter is related to and
overlaps the Seals matter.  The Company says it cannot make a
determination as to the probability of a loss contingency
resulting from the Avitia matter or the estimated range of
possible loss, if any.  The Company intends to vigorously defend
itself against the allegations levied in this lawsuit; however,
the Company currently believes the Avitia matter will be resolved
without a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations, and liquidity.


BP PLC: Prokhorov Urges Shareholders to Join Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Bierman, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that
OAO TNK-BP Holding minority shareholder Andrei Prokhorov called
for investors to join a class action suit against BP Plc (BP/)
directors on the Moscow-traded oil producer's board, according to
an advertisement in the Kommersant newspaper on Sept. 9.

Minority shareholders led by Mr. Prokhorov are suing the U.K.
explorer for 87 billion rubles ($2.9 billion) in damages, which
they are related to the failure of BP's planned share swap and
Arctic exploration deal with state-run OAO Rosneft.  TNK-BP
Holding is the traded unit of the Russian oil venture that BP owns
50-50 with a group of billionaires.

"Prokhorov's claims have no basis in law and real fact, and we
will dispute them in court," Vladimir Buyanov, a spokesman for BP
Russia, said by telephone.  "The TNK-BP group suffered no losses
and could not have suffered losses because Rosneft never
considered TNK-BP as a potential partner."

Thomas Kiehn, a TNK-BP spokesman, declined to comment.

Rosneft agreed to explore three Kara Sea blocks in the Arctic with
Exxon Mobil Corp. after the alliance with BP collapsed.  AAR,
which represents the billionaire partners, had challenged that
deal, saying the U.K. explorer was violating the TNK-BP
shareholder agreement.


CHINESE VIT C MANUFACTURERS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that Chinese
manufacturers failed to dismiss an antitrust class action accusing
them of running an illegal cartel that fixed prices and limited
supplies for vitamin C exports.

Consumers say Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical, Aland (Jiangsu)
Nutraceutical, Northeast Pharmaceutical and Weisheng
Pharmaceutical captured more than 60% of the worldwide market for
vitamin C by November 2001.

Around this time, China's share of vitamin C imports to the United
States rose from 60% in 1997 to more than 80% by 2002, while other
countries' competitors discontinued or reduced production, court
documents state.

The Chinese manufacturers do not deny the price-fixing
allegations, but argued instead that their Ministry of Commerce
mandated the practices.

"The three doctrines upon which defendants rely recognize that a
foreign national should not be placed between the rock of its own
local law and the hard place of U.S. law," U.S. District Judge
Brian Cogan explained.  "However, that concern is insufficient to
protect defendants from their acknowledged violation of the
antitrust laws because, here, there is no rock and no hard place.
The Chinese law relied upon by defendants did not compel their
illegal conduct."

In a 72-page order, Mr. Cogan said the ministry encouraged "self-
discipline" with regard to price-fixing, not compulsion.

"In short, 'self-discipline' does not involve coercion -- as the
term 'self-discipline' suggests on its face, defendants were
engaged in consensual cartelization," he wrote.

That finding contradicted the Chinese government's own statements
submitted to the court in an amicus brief.

"Although defendants and the Chinese government argue to the
contrary, the provisions of Chinese law before me do not support
their position, which is also belied by the factual record,"
Mr. Cogan wrote.  "I decline to defer to the Chinese government's
statements to the court regarding Chinese law."

The judge refused to toss the case to avoid straining diplomatic
relations.

"Although this case could affect foreign relations, these foreign
policy concerns stem directly from the degree of conflict between
Chinese and American laws and policies," the order states.

A footnote on the first page of the order says that there are two
similar price-fixing suits pending against Chinese producers of
magnesite and bauxite.

A copy of the Memorandum Decision and Order in In Re Vitamin C
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 06-md-01738 (E.D.N.Y.), is
available at http://is.gd/yJ2Gxe


FARMERS INSURANCE: Sued in Nev. Over "Anti-Stacking Provision"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Farmers
Insurance denied claims to people injured in auto accidents, under
an invalid "anti-stacking provision."

A copy of the Complaint in Ratnayake v. Farmers Insurance
Exchange, et al., Case No. A-11-648013-C (Nev. Dist. Ct., Clark
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/09/Insurance.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesse M. Sbaih, Esq.
          JESSE SBAIH & ASSOCIATES LTD.
          The District at Green Valley Ranch
          170 South Green Valley Parkway, Suite 280
          Henderson, NV 89012
          Telephone: (702) 896-2529
          E-mail: jsbaih@sbaihlaw.com
                  iolevic@sbaihlaw.com


FULL TILT: Consumer Law Group Files Class Action in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Moore, writing for The Montreal Gazette, reports that a
Canadian class-action lawsuit against the online gambling site
Full Tilt Poker has been launched in Montreal.

The suit, which has to be authorized by a Quebec judge before
proceeding, could benefit Canadian gamblers who saw their accounts
with the site frozen following a U.S. crackdown on Internet poker
sites this summer.

Canadian patrons could have lost about $5-million to $10-million
when Full Tilt shut down its online card rooms to all players on
June 29, lawyer Jeff Orenstein said on Sept. 9.

Mr. Orenstein, of Consumer Law Group Inc., filed the class action
with Quebec Superior Court.

In April, Full Tilt held about $150 million of its players' money,
the court documents said.

Mr. Orenstein estimated that about 10% of the company's players
were Canadians.

He said he has already been contacted by one Edmonton man who
claims Full Tilt was holding $250,000 of his funds when it pulled
the plug while a second gambler said he had $10,000 in his
account.

The average Full Tilt patron probably had much smaller accounts,
Mr. Orenstein said.

The lead plaintiff in the class action is a Montreal man, Mitchell
Schnurbach, who had between $1 and $5 in his player account.

Should the class action be approved, Mr. Orenstein said he intends
to go after Full Tilt assets in Canada and the U.S.

Key executives of Full Tilt and related companies are also named
in the suit.

One of the third-party payment processors for Full Tilt --
Terricorp Inc. -- has bank accounts in Canada, the class action
notes.

Only bricks-and-mortar casinos are allowed in the U.S.  In a bid
to stem the flow of online gambling dollars overseas, the U.S.
Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act in
2006.  The law made it illegal for U.S. business and banks to
knowingly accept payments related to Internet gambling.

On April 15, 2011, the U.S. Justice Department charged PokerStars,
Full Tilt Poker and Absolute Poker -- the world's three biggest
online gaming sites -- and their founders with illegal gambling
and fraud.

It was dubbed "black Friday" in the online poker industry and, as
of that day, U.S. players were unable to access their accounts
with those sites.

Canadian players were still able to play.  But on June 29, the
gaming commission of Alderney suspended the Full Tilt license and
Full Tilt shut down its rooms to all players.

For further information about the class action, go to
http://www.clg.org


GROUPON INC: Former Employee Files Overtime Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
John Letzing, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that former
Groupon Inc. employee has filed a potential class-action lawsuit
alleging illegal pay practices, a move that comes as the online
coupon firm moves fitfully toward an initial public offering.

The lawsuit, filed last month on behalf of current and former
employees, alleges Groupon failed to pay overtime to sales
employees who cold-call businesses to get them signed up for the
coupon service.

The suit, filed by Ranita Dailey in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, alleges account executives at
Chicago-based Groupon were not paid overtime, in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

While Groupon did start paying overtime this year, it did so at an
"illegally low" rate, according to Douglas Werman, an attorney
representing the plaintiff.  The plaintiff is seeking unspecified
back wages and punitive damages.

Mr. Werman said Groupon was expected to file a response on
Sep. 12, though he has not yet been contacted by the company.
Mr. Werman expects to have up to 2,000 current and former
employees signed on as plaintiffs if the case wins class-action
certification.

"We've been hit with a wage and hour lawsuit, similar to the
class-action lawsuits filed against Cisco, Salesforce, Nortel and
countless others," a Groupon spokesman said in a statement.
"Unfortunately, we can't legally say much about the suit, other
than that we think it's without merit and will defend ourselves."

Groupon, which offers steep local discounts and divides resulting
proceeds with merchants, has rapidly grown in popularity since it
was founded in 2008.

The company recently reported in an updated IPO filing that its
revenue rose to $1.5 billion in the first half of this year,
compared to $131.5 million in the same period last year.

However, the company has also drawn attention for its accounting
methods and heavy spending to draw in new business.  Groupon
reported a loss of $255.4 million for the first half of this year,
compared to a loss of $28.4 million in the same period last year.

Groupon Chief Executive Andrew Mason sought to reassure employees
in a recently leaked internal memo, in which he disputed
criticisms of the company.

Groupon earlier last week postponed a planned investor road show
leading up to its IPO amid stock market volatility.

The company has also been sued over other unrelated matters.  In
April, a class-action suit alleging illegal expiration dates on
Groupon's coupons was settled.


JEFFERSON PARISH, LA: Oct. 31 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Adelson, writing for The Times-Picayune, reports that drivers
who ran afoul of Jefferson Parish's red-light camera system are
receiving some news in the mail last week: a notice that the
class-action lawsuit seeking to recoup the fines they paid is
moving forward.

The notices were sent to about 145,000 people in the two-year-old
suit against Redflex Traffic Systems, the Phoenix, Ariz., company
that owns the cameras.

"If they got a ticket and they paid it, they're a member of the
class," said Joseph McMahon, one of the six plaintiffs' attorneys
suing Jefferson Parish.

The notices come after Judge Robert Pitre of the 24th Judicial
District Court in Gretna ruled that a suit brought by motorists
Earl Falgoust and Kathleen McMenamin should encompass all the
complaints against Redflex, including an older case filed by
motorists Timothy Morales, Barry Sevin Jr. and Edwin Bernard.  The
latter group filed their suit in state court after losing a
similar case in federal court.

Those cases allege that the red light system ran afoul of the
state's laws and constitution.

Jefferson Parish began using Redflex's automated system in October
2007 and shelved it in March 2010, after the Parish Council began
questioning commissions that the company planned to pay local
lobbyists for helping to secure the contract with the parish.
Those lobbyists, Bryant Wagner and Julie Murphy, were set to
receive 3.2% of the money that Jefferson Parish made to the
company.

Redflex sued the parish in July 2010 for failing to pay $4.9
million that it said the parish owed to the company.  The parish
has escrowed the $20 million it collected from the fines.

The suit against Redflex covers all drivers who paid the $110
camera tickets, regardless whether they contested those tickets in
court, Mr. McMahon said.  The mail notices were sent to all
motorists who paid their fines and whose address was on record
with the Jefferson Parish.

"This is the only game in town," Mr. McMahon said.

Those who received a notice and do not want to be part of the suit
have until Oct. 31 to opt out.  The case will move forward at that
point, though it is unclear when it will go to trial or
settlement.

Anyone who meets the requirements to be a member of the suit and
does not opt out will be considered part of the case and does not
need to contact the attorneys.


LVNV FUNDING: Settles Class Action Over License Status
------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Lunsford, writing for insideARM.com, reports that LVNV
Funding LLC recently settled a class action suit in Maryland that
focused on the firm's license status in the state.  The suit
alleged that the debt buyer was not properly licensed to file debt
collection suits in Maryland courts.

But the attorney representing LVNV said that the firm did not
admit to any wrongdoing, believing that it was properly licensed.

"[LVNV has] decided to settle this matter with the plaintiffs
rather than face protracted litigation with an unknown outcome,"
said Ronald S. Canter in a statement provided to insideARM.com.

The settlement calls for LVNV to pay $2,000 each to the two named
lead plaintiffs and make an additional $150,000 payment to the
class attorneys to cover legal fees.  LVNV also agreed to stop
legal collection action against the roughly 3,500 members of the
class.

The case highlighted a confusing licensing requirement in Maryland
with regard to debt buyers filing collection suits on debt they
own.

"In interpreting an amended statutory provision, LVNV relied on
specific guidance from Maryland's licensing agency, legal counsel,
and trade organizations in forming the belief that they did not
need to obtain a debt collection license in Maryland," the company
said.  "Unfortunately, later interpretation of the statutory
language by other parties has called this into question."

The company reiterated that it decided to settle rather than face
an uncertain interpretation in the court that would ultimately
rule on the case.

The story was initially reported on Sept. 9 by The Baltimore Sun.
The paper asserted that LVNV was on the hook for $2,000 to each
class member.  But Mr. Canter set the record straight on Sept. 10.

"The statement that LVNV is paying $7 million dollars to 3500
debtors under the settlement agreement is false," Mr. Canter said.
"The settlement only requires LVNV to pay the named Plaintiffs
$2,000 each for a total of $4,000 plus $150,000 to the Plaintiff's
counsel for attorney fees."


MACY'S INC: Continues to Defend "Shanehchian" Suit in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------
On October 3, 2007, Ebrahim Shanehchian, an alleged participant in
the Macy's, Inc. 401(k) Retirement Investment Plan (formerly known
as the Macy's, Inc. Profit Sharing 401(k) Investment Plan) (the
"401(k) Plan"), filed a lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of persons who
participated in the 401(k) Plan and The May Department Stores
Company Profit Sharing Plan (the "May Plan") between February 27,
2005, and the present.  The lawsuit has been conditionally
certified as a class action.  The complaint alleges that the
Company, as well as members of the Company's board of directors
and certain members of senior management, breached various
fiduciary duties owed under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA") to participants in the 401(k) Plan and the
May Plan, by making false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations and prospects in relation to the
integration of the acquired May operations, resulting in supposed
"artificial inflation" of the Company's stock price and "imprudent
investment" by the 401(k) Plan and the May Plan in Macy's stock.
The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages
and costs.  The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and
intends to contest it vigorously.

No further updates were reported in the Company's September 6,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 30, 2011.


MAIBEC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Cedar Tree Shingles
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maibec shingles problems can include warping and cracking,
according to a putative class action against the manufacturer for
its Eastern white cedar tree shingles.  Allegedly, these Maibec
shingles problems, which may also include peeling, curling or
buckling, result from design flaws within the product.  In light
of allegations that the company's eastern white cedar tree
shingles are defective, the attorneys working with Class
Action.org would like to hear from homeowners who experienced
Maibec shingles problems to determine if they can pursue financial
compensation for damages.  To have your claim of Maibec shingles
problems evaluated for free, visit
http://www.classaction.org/maibec-shingles.htmland complete the
form on the right.

According to the putative Maibec class action, the company
advertised its Eastern white cedar tree shingles as a high-
quality, durable product which would be resistant to rot and
damage from insects.  Furthermore, Maibec allegedly guaranteed the
product for 50 years against wood decay.  The suit for Maibec
shingles problems alleges, however, that the company was aware
that the shingles would fail in a fraction of that time and does
not uniformly uphold its warranty terms.

Due to allegations surrounding Maibec shingles issues, homeowners
who experienced problems with the company's Eastern white cedar
tree shingles may have legal recourse.  Potentially, these
individuals may be able to participate in a class action lawsuit
to seek compensation for removal and replacement costs, as well as
other damages resulting from their Maibec shingles problems.  To
find out if you are eligible for a Maibec class action, visit
Class Action.org for a free, no obligation review of your claim.
The attorneys working with the site are providing this online case
evaluation at no cost and remain committed to protecting the
rights of homeowners who experienced Maibec shingles problems.

                      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.


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Appellant Cannot Object IPO Deal, Court Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York has determined that the last remaining appellant was not a
class member and, thus, lacked standing to object to the
settlement in the coordinated securities litigation involving
Marvell Technology Group Ltd., according to the Company's
September 6, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 30, 2011.

In 2001, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
concerning certain alleged underwriting practices related to the
Company's initial public offering (the "IPO") on June 29, 2000.
The actions were consolidated and a consolidated complaint was
filed, naming as defendants certain investment banks that
participated in the IPO, the Company, and two of its officers, one
of whom is also a director.  Plaintiffs claim that defendants
violated certain provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), by allegedly failing to disclose that the
underwriters received "excessive" and undisclosed commissions and
entered into unlawful "tie-in" agreements with certain of their
clients.  The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified damages,
interest and fees.  In addition, this case has been coordinated
with hundreds of other lawsuits filed by plaintiffs against
underwriters and issuers for approximately 300 other IPOs.
Defendants in the coordinated proceedings moved to dismiss the
actions.  In February 2003, the trial court granted the motions in
part and denied them in part, allowing certain claims to proceed.

The parties have reached a global settlement of the coordinated
litigation.  Under the settlement, the insurers will pay the full
amount of settlement share allocated to the Company, and the
Company will bear no financial liability.  The Company and other
defendants will receive complete dismissals from the case.  In
2009, the Court issued an order of final approval of the
settlement.  Certain objectors filed appeals, a number of which
were dismissed by agreement or by the appellate court.  Following
remand from the appellate court, in August 2011, the district
court issued an order determining that the last remaining
appellant was not a class member and thus lacked standing to
object to the settlement.

The Company says that if for any reason the settlement does not
become effective, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses
to the claims against it and intends to defend the action
vigorously.


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Trial in Suit vs. Unit Set for Oct. 17
----------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the wage and hour class action lawsuit against a
subsidiary of Marvell Technology Group Ltd. has been set for
October 17, 2011, according to the Company's September 6, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended July 30, 2011

On October 18, 2006, Dan Holton ("Holton"), a former employee of
the Company's subsidiary, Marvell Semiconductor, Inc., filed a
civil complaint in Santa Clara County Superior Court.  Holton
alleges that MSI misclassified him as an exempt employee.  Holton
claims that due to its misclassification MSI owes him unpaid wages
for overtime, penalties for missed meal periods, and various other
penalties under the California Labor Code, as well as interest.
Holton also pursues a cause of action for unfair business
practices under the California Business & Profession Code.  Holton
brought his complaint as a class action.  On July 8, 2009, the
Court granted certification of the following class: "All
Individual Contributor Engineers who held the title of PCB
Designer, Associate Engineer, Engineer, Staff Engineer and Senior
Engineers, who at any time during the class period while holding
these positions did not have a degree above a baccalaureate degree
nor a degree above a baccalaureate degree in a field of science
related to the work performed, and worked for MSI in California,
at any time from October 19, 2002 through the present."  MSI
disputes all of plaintiff's class claims, and intends to defend
this matter vigorously.  On June 23, 2011, MSI filed a motion for
decertification of the class, which was heard by the Court on
August 25, 2011.  The parties are currently awaiting a decision
from the Court.  The matter has been set for trial on October 17,
2011.


MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Faces Class Action Over Cliq XT Smartphones
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service reports that Motorola
promised people who bought its Cliq XT cell phone that it would
update the phone's Android operating system -- but it didn't,
making the phone "obsolete" and unable to run the latest versions
of Facebook, Angry Birds, Gmail and other applications, angry
humans say in a federal class action.

Lead plaintiffs Elyse Wood and Jack Haught say Motorola sold them
their smartphones running a year-old, Google-owned Android
operating system upon its May 2010 release.  They say Android
version 1.5, released in May 2009, is still the only option for
the phone.

Android version 2.1 was available when the Cliq was released, the
plaintiffs say, and Motorola promised, through tweets and posts on
customer support pages on its Web site, that the phone would be
eligible for an operating system upgrade, according to the
complaint.

They cite an October 2010 tweet by Motorola on its web page: "We
are currently working to upgrade CLIQ and CLIQ XT to Android 2.1
in Q4.  Apologies for any confusion."

But in February, Motorola announced on its customer support page:
"After comprehensive testing of the Android 2.1 upgrade for the
CLIQ XT, we have concluded that this device will remain on Android
1.5."

The class claims Motorola abandoned them with an outdated device.

"The current versions of many of the most popular Android mobile
applications available today will not work on Android 1.5,
including applications such as Facebook, MySpace, Gmail, Angry
Birds, Dropbox, Google Maps, Google Goggles, Kindle, Wells Fargo,
USA Today, CNN, Yahoo Mail, YouTube, Groupon, MSNBC, Fox News, NY
Times, NPR News, My Verizon, Blockbuster, QuickOffice Pro, and
numerous others," the complaint states.

"Accordingly, any failure to update a device's operating system
can significantly hinder the function of the device and quickly
make it obsolete."

Mr. Haught says that an in-store salesperson told him that his
phone would be able to run Android 2.1 "imminently" when he bought
it.

Ms. Wood claims she would not have bought it had Motorola told her
it would be unable to run Android 2.1.

Most Android phones now run Android 2.3.

"As of April 1, 2011, less than 3% of all mobile phones utilizing
the Android operating system were using version 1.5," the
complaint states.

Motorola reported more than $10 billion in revenue in 2010 and has
sold "hundreds of thousands" of Cliq XTs, according to the
complaint.

Android, developed for smartphones and computer tablets, is
popular for its ability to run Java and open source systems.

The class seeks injunctive relief, restitution and attorneys fees
for false advertising, unfair competition and fraud by omission.

A copy of the Complaint in Wood, et al. v. Motorola Mobility,
Inc., Case No. 11-cv-04409 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/09/MotorolaCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sean Reis, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE LLP
          30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
          Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
          Telephone: (949) 459-2124
          E-mail: sreis@edelson.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Christopher L. Dore, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  cdore@edelson.com


ONTARIO, CA: June 2012 Southwestern Suit Opt-Out Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law firm Koskie Minsky LLP disclosed that there is a class action
lawsuit involving the Southwestern Regional Centre.  Southwestern
was a residential facility located in Blenheim, Ontario that
provided care and treatment to persons labeled with a
developmental disability from 1961 to 2008.  Southwestern was
operated by the Province of Ontario and was also known as "Cedar
Springs".

The lawsuit says the Province of Ontario failed to properly care
for and protect people who lived at Southwestern.  The lawsuit
says residents of Southwestern were emotionally, physically, and
psychologically traumatized by their experiences at the facility.
The Province of Ontario denies these claims.  The Court has not
decided whether the Class or the Province of Ontario is right.
The lawyers for the Class will have to prove their claims in
Court.

The Court has appointed the following law firm from Ontario to
represent the Class as "Class Counsel": Koskie Minsky LLP.  Class
Counsel, Kirk Baert explains, "Madam Justice Horkins' decision to
certify this class action is a positive step towards achieving
justice for the former residents and their family members," said
Mr. Baert.  "The alleged physical and mental abuse that these
former residents endured is very disturbing and we are hoping that
this lawsuit will soon come to a conclusion, so that residents can
finally see justice and compensation in their lifetime."  The
lawsuit affects people who were: Southwestern residents any time
between 1963 and 2008; family members of a Southwestern resident
between 1978 and 2008; or estate trustees for a Southwestern
resident between 1963 and 2008 who died after December 29, 2008.
There is no money available now and no guarantee that there will
be.

Class Members do not have to pay Class Counsel, or anyone else, in
order to participate.  If any money or benefit is obtained, Class
Counsel will request fees and costs from the Court, which would be
deducted from any money obtained, or paid separately by the
Province of Ontario.  Class Members may hire their own lawyer to
appear in Court, with leave of the court, on their behalf at their
own expense.

Class Members do not need to do anything to stay in the Class.
They will be legally bound by all orders and judgments of the
Court, and cannot sue the Province of Ontario about the legal
claims in this case.  If money or benefits are obtained, they will
be notified about how to ask for a share.  Staying in the Class
will not impact the residence or services and supports received by
Class Members from community based agencies funded by the Province
of Ontario.

Class Members who want to keep the right to sue the Province of
Ontario over the claims in this case need to opt out or remove
themselves from the Class.  They will not get any money or
benefits if any are awarded.  All requests to be removed must be
made in writing postmarked no later than June 19, 2012.  Details
on how to be removed can be found at
http://www.southwesternclassaction.ca

Some Class Members may have difficulty reading, so we are asking
for the help from family members, caregivers and friends of former
residents in getting information to them.  Please show this notice
to people who are impacted by this lawsuit or to their caregivers.

More detailed information on this lawsuit is available on the
Web site at http://www.southwesternclassaction.ca

You may also call toll-free 1-877-797-6678 (TTY: 1-877-627-7027);
write to: Southwestern Class Action Administrator, 3-505, 133
Weber Street North, Waterloo, Ontario, N2J 3G9; or e-mail:
southwestern@crawco.ca

Class Members who are having a difficult time dealing with the
issues in this lawsuit can call 1-877-797-6678 (TTY: 1-877-627-
7027) for assistance.

For further information: Jody Brown, +1-416-595-2709 Web Site:
http://www.southwesternclassaction.ca


OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Appeals in Securities Suit Remain Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the approval of a settlement in the securities fraud
class action lawsuit against Openwave Systems Inc. remain pending,
according to the Company's September 6, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended June 30, 2011.

On November 5, 2001, a securities fraud class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned In re Openwave Systems Inc.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9744
(SAS) (S.D.N.Y.), related to In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.).  It is brought
purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased shares of
Openwave's common stock from June 11, 1999, through December 6,
2000.  The defendants are Openwave and five of its present or
former officers (the "Openwave Defendants"), and several
investment banking firms that served as underwriters of Openwave's
initial public offering and secondary public offering.  Three of
the individual defendants were dismissed without prejudice,
subject to a tolling of the statute of limitations.  The complaint
alleges liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), on the
grounds that the registration statements for the offerings did not
disclose that: (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow some
customers to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for
excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and (2) the
underwriters had arranged for some customers to purchase
additional shares in the aftermarket at predetermined prices.  The
amended complaint also alleges that false analyst reports were
issued by Credit Suisse First Boston, Hambrecht & Quist, Robertson
Stephens, and Piper Jaffray.  No specific damages are claimed.
Similar allegations were made in over 300 other lawsuits
challenging public offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000, and the
cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes.

On April 2, 2009, the parties in all the lawsuits submitted a
settlement for the Court's approval.  Under the settlement, the
Openwave Defendants would not be required to make any cash
payment.  On October 6, 2009, the Court approved the settlement,
under which the Openwave Defendants are not required to contribute
any cash.  Subsequently, the Court entered a judgment on the
settlement.  Several notices of appeal have been filed by putative
class members, challenging the settlement and the judgment.
Openwave believes a loss is not probable or reasonably estimable.
Therefore, no amount has been accrued as of June 30, 2011.


PAKISTAN GOV'T: Sindh Farmers to File Class Action Over Flooding
----------------------------------------------------------------
Z Ali, writing for The Express Tribune, reports that maddened
farmers are gathering signatures to file a class action suit
against the state in the Supreme Court for government negligence
that they argue exacerbated the flooding in Sindh.

For the second year, monsoon rains devastated the province's rural
economy.  "We will go to court with 10,000 to 12,000 signatures
after taking all representative organizations for farmers on
board," said Dr. Syed Nadeem Qamar, the president of the Sindh
Chamber of Agriculture, at a press conference on Sept. 9.

The monsoon rains and the ensuing floods caused by overflows and
breaches in the irrigation and drainage systems cut a swathe
through agricultural fields, destroying millions of acres of
Kharif crops.

On September 5, the Sindh Agriculture Department released
statistics, according to which it is estimated that 15.9 million
acres from about 44 million acres of cotton, rice, sugarcane,
chilli, tomato, onion, musk melon, Kharif vegetables and banana
crops in Sindh have been destroyed.

The chamber has said that the figures are "too little, too early".
"We have lost at least 70% of our crops by [Sun]day and if the
rainfall continues, the destruction will only get worse," he said.

Dr. Qamar, who is the brother of federal minister Syed Naveed
Qamar, said taking action was unavoidable against officials of all
relevant departments whose negligence and corruption contributed
to the misery brought on by the natural disaster.

"Perhaps we learned nothing from the catastrophe brought by the
super flood last year," he lamented.

Talking to The Express Tribune, Hassan Askari of the Sindh Small
Farmers Association supported the move to file a lawsuit.
However, he said that for now the entire focus should be on
rescuing people.  "Taking the officials to task has become
necessary but it should be definitely done in the next phase," he
said.

Meanwhile, the chamber has demanded the government completely
waive the loans of small farmers who cultivate less than 50 acres
and those growing on more than 50 acres should repay only the
principal amount, without interest.

They also called for free seed, agricultural inputs and a subsidy
on fertilizer for affected farmers.  "The price of a bag of urea
should be brought down to Rs1,200 from the existing Rs1,800 with
the help of a subsidy," demanded Nabi Bux Sathio from this
chamber.

As the rain continued to fall, lower Sindh's Thatta district
became one of the worst hit, said a government handout on
Saturday.  As many as 1,086,638 people from 494 villages have been
affected.  The 10 union councils of Jati and Mirpur Bathoro
talukas have been severely affected as 165,216 acres are submerged
and 25,336 acres of standing crop has gone to waste.  The district
government has set up seven relief camps for 1,071 people.


PCS EDVENTURES!.COM: Enters MOU to Settle "Niederklein" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
PCS Edventures!.com, Inc., entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle a class action lawsuit pending in Idaho,
according to the Company's September 6, 2011, Form 8-KA-1 filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

As previously announced, the Company, along with its former CEO
and former CFO, had been named in a class action lawsuit
(Niederklein v. PCS Edventures!.com, Inc., et al., U.S. District
Court for the District of Idaho, Case 1:10-cv-00479-CWD).  The
class action was brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased
shares of the Company's common stock during the period between
March 28, 2007, and August 15, 2007.  A Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") containing the essential terms of a
settlement of the class action was recently agreed upon, subject
to further proceedings and approval by the Court.  While the
defendants deny the allegations made in the class action lawsuit,
the MOU was entered to eliminate the burden and expense of further
litigation.  Moreover, neither the settlement nor any of its terms
constitute an admission of any wrongful conduct by the defendants.
If the settlement is approved, the Company and its insurance
carrier will be obligated to deposit the sum of $665,000 in full
settlement of the class action.


SPI ELECTRICITY: July 2012 Trial Set for Black Saturday Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Shaun Campbell, writing for Diamond Valley Leader, reports that a
complex class action into the Black Saturday bushfires is expected
to go to court next year.

A Victorian Supreme Court hearing was held last month to determine
timelines for the action, headed by former St. Andrews resident
Carol Matthews, against the distribution company for SP AusNet,
SPI Electricity.

Associate Justice Rita Zammit gave the company until March next
year to search an estimated 155,000 documents to find material
relating to the case.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn launched the action.  Senior associate
Rory Walsh said the decision represented an important step in the
case.

"It provides a sensible timetable for discovery, allowing us to
progress the case towards trial next year," Mr. Walsh said.

A court date has been set for July.

Mrs. Matthews' 22-year-old son, Sam, died defending the family's
Mullers Rd home on Black Saturday.

Documents tendered to the court allege SPI Electricity failed to
properly inspect and maintain its powerlines, leading to a break
in a 43-year-old line which started a fire near Saunders Rd in
Kilmore East.

Last month, Justice Terry Forrest ordered the CFA and State
Government to release a wide range of documents relating to the
Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission to the court.

SP AusNet spokesman Jonathon Geddes said the company did not
oppose the court application for documents but declined to comment
further.

The company denies any allegation of negligence and argues that
the CFA, Victoria Police and the Department of Sustainability and
Environment contributed to the deaths of 119 people.


ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL: Former Nurse Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
David Wahlberg, writing for Madison.com, reports that a former
nurse at St. Mary's Hospital is suing the hospital's owner, saying
she should have been paid for 30-minute meal breaks because she
had to stay at the hospital on call.

Her attorney, Bill Parsons of Madison, is seeking class action
status and says hundreds of nurses could be involved.  His firm,
Hawks Quindel, won a $480,000 settlement in July from Aurora
Health Care in Milwaukee for a similar case involving security
officers.

St. Mary's owner, SSM Health Care of Wisconsin, said in a
statement that it pays fair wages and allows staff to leave the
building for meal breaks.

St. Mary's nurses don't have a union like those at Meriter
Hospital and UW Hospital.

The suit by Roberta Fosbinder-Bittorf, who worked as a nurse at
St. Mary's from 2006 until this year, was filed last month in U.S.
District Court in Madison.  It says she was denied wages during
meal breaks in which she had to work.

Mr. Parsons said St. Mary's owes Ms. Fosbinder-Bittorf $4,000 to
$16,000, a sum other nurses could be due.  St. Mary's fired her
this summer after she missed work for a medical condition, he
said.

Ms. Fosbinder-Bittorf, of Monona, said her shift usually ran from
7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., with a 30-minute lunch break.  She said a
charge nurse told her she had to stay in range of the hospital's
public announcement system to hear of patient emergencies and
respond to them.

That prevented her from having a real break, she said.

"It's extremely important that nurses have a chance to reenergize
physically and mentally in order to give the best possible patient
care," she said.

Meanwhile, Tammy Boyd, who worked at Meriter Hospital from 1985 to
2006, is suing Meriter Health Services over her pension.

Ms. Boyd's suit, which also seeks class action status, alleges
that the Meriter Health Services Employee Retirement Plan violated
federal law by miscalculating benefits.

The suit, filed in April by a law firm in New York, says Meriter
gave Ms. Boyd, who worked in a lab and a call center, a lump sum
of $65,508.   Ms. Boyd, of Elroy, should have received $131,154,
the suit says.

Meriter declined comment.


STATE OF OKLAHOMA: DHS Ignores Foster Care Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Randy Ellis, writing for The Oklahoman, reports that as more and
more children die in DHS care, commissioners there have ignored an
audit calling for reform, belittled a federal lawsuit alleging
children are being hurt and rejected calls for special meetings to
address the ongoing tragedy.

Several commissioners at Oklahoma's Department of Human Services
recently admitted under oath in depositions for the class-action
lawsuit that they never read or only skimmed the taxpayer-funded
$420,000 audit commissioned by the state Legislature to help the
agency reform its child-welfare services.

"My eyes would have glazed over if I had," said one commissioner,
Linda Weeks, of the 197-page report that came out in 2009.

Some commissioners also admitted they haven't paid close attention
to the multimillion class-action lawsuit by a children's-advocacy
group that accuses the agency of actually harming foster children.

"My initial reaction was that our legal department would probably
take care of it.  I didn't probably take it as serious as I should
have," Commissioner Michael Peck said.

And commissioners refused one member's requests to hold special
meetings to discuss high-profile deaths of children who had been
under the agency's care.

Commissioner Steven Dow, who requested the special meetings, said
commission Chairman Richard DeVaughn ignored his e-mail requests.

"It seems to me that the commission, by and large, is just asleep
at the wheel," Mr. Dow told The Oklahoman.

Chairman DeVaughn strongly denied Mr. Dow's contention, saying "I
would say it's 180 degrees from that."

"The commission hires the director and establishes rules and
policies," he said.  "When things go on, we're informed."

Mr. DeVaughn said he rejected requests to discuss high-profile
deaths at special meetings because it would be improper for the
commission to interfere with investigations of agency employees or
make statements that could interfere with their civil rights.

DHS has faced widespread criticism for years over preventable
child deaths and currently is under fire for its mishandling of
the Serenity Deal case.  The 5-year-old girl was beaten to death
in June after being placed with her father at DHS workers'
recommendation, despite having suffered injuries while in his
care.

The commission, itself, is now drawing intense scrutiny.  Critics
question whether the commissioners who oversee the agency have
abdicated their responsibilities and trust too much in their
longtime director, Howard Hendrick.

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin spoke of an "appearance of lax oversight
on the part of DHS commissioners" on Sept. 7 in announcing her
appointment of two new members to the nine-member commission.  The
governor appointed former Oklahoma County District Attorney Wes
Lane and Oklahoma City businessman Brad Yarbrough and asked
Yarbrough to serve as chairman.

Sworn testimony by six of the commission's nine members in the
ongoing federal class-action lawsuit over foster care reveals
example after example of commissioners' oversight lapses.

DHS has failed for years to get accreditation from a national
organization, despite a state law requiring it, testimony reveals.

Mr. Hendrick, the director, blamed budget cuts for the agency's
decision eight or nine years ago to quit following the law.

"I haven't told the current commission," he testified.  "My memory
is this was discussed at the time these budgets were reduced, but
I can't be for certain that it was."

Several commissioners testified DHS administrators never told them
the agency failed to meet all seven national standards for the
safety and well-being of children in its custody.

Mr. DeVaughn told The Oklahoman that no state meets all seven
standards so the failure wasn't as significant as it might sound.

Commissioners also couldn't recall being informed that for eight
years straight, beginning in 2000, Oklahoma ranked among the five
worst states in the country regarding abuse of children in care of
the state.

Commissioners admit in testimony that they haven't conducted a
formal evaluation of Mr. Hendrick's performance in years.  Their
own bylaws require an annual evaluation.  Mr. Hendrick says he is
paid $162,000 a year.

Failure of some commissioners to read the $420,000 child welfare
audit has upset some state lawmakers who felt compelled to request
it because of failures they had witnessed within the agency.

"That's indicative of the larger problem of lax oversight on the
part of the DHS commission," said John Estus, spokesman for House
Speaker Kris Steele, R-Shawnee.

The $420,000 Hornby Zeller audit was completed in 2009 and
recommended 25 specific changes to improve child welfare in
Oklahoma.  Among other things, the consultants suggested DHS
should phase out its two large publicly funded shelters, redefine
the standard for removing children from homes to "an imminent
safety threat" and establish a centralized hotline for people to
report abuse and neglect.

The audit served as a blueprint for several reforms later enacted
by the Legislature.

Despite the attention lawmakers paid to the audit, several
commissioners testified they could remember little about it.

"I don't remember the Hornby Zeller report," said Commissioner
George Young.

"I told you I'd perused the report.  I still haven't read the
report," Chairman DeVaughn told attorneys.

Commission Vice Chairman Aneta Wilkinson said she couldn't recall
any of the consultant's recommendations.

"If I tried to get familiar with every piece of information that
was -- that was given to me that DHS is involved in, I would be a
superwoman," Ms. Wilkinson said.  "So I have to -- I have to rely
on those in charge to know what they're doing."

Some commissioners also said they never read the 2008 lawsuit
criticizing the agency's foster care until they had to give sworn
testimony in the case this year.

"I read portions of it . . . Not the entire complaint," Young
said.

Commissioners Peck and Linda Weeks said they didn't read the
allegations in the lawsuit until recently when they were told they
were going to be questioned under oath by opposing attorneys.

Mr. Estus said House Speaker Steele is concerned commissioners
haven't followed the lawsuit more closely.

"The speaker has been very concerned that the commission has not
been as engaged as it needs to be in the Children's Rights
lawsuit," Mr. Estus said.  "The lawsuit has the potential to have
very catastrophic consequences not just for DHS, but for all of
state government."

Chairman DeVaughn said he believes he has been adequately informed
about the lawsuit.

"I think the state has excellent defenses to all of it," he said.

Despite intense questioning by attorneys about whether Director
Mr. Hendrick had failed to inform them about important matters,
most commissioners voiced strong loyalty toward the director.

"I feel Howard is a very outstanding person and a very competent
and excellent director," Commissioner Peck said.  "I can't imagine
we could have anybody that would do better than him."

Commissioner Dow was the only one of the six commissioners to rip
the commission for its failure to demand accountability,
describing the commission as "quite non-participatory and very
weak."

The agency's failure to meet any of the seven national child
welfare standards is "appalling and unacceptable," he said.

"I have given serious concern to whether or not I should surrender
and resign my role because I feel like I am supposed to be
exercising a degree of oversight for the work of the department
and I'm not satisfied that the information that I'm given on a
routine basis allows me to do that and meet my legal
responsibilities," he stated.

Mr. Dow said he asked to serve on the agency's budget committee,
but Chairman DeVaughn rejected his request, saying the committee
was already full and if Dow were added, the committee would be
subject to the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act.

In Mr. DeVaughn's sworn testimony, he admitted limiting membership
on committees to four and under to avoid having to comply with the
Open Meeting Act.

"I don't think that's the only reason, but that is a -- a good
reason," Mr. DeVaughn testified.

Mr. Dow criticized Mr. DeVaughn's reasoning.

"I expressed to him that I was very troubled by that -- that it
seemed to me that our deliberations around all matters, but
particularly around financial matters, should be transparent and
we should be very open," Mr. Dow said.


TIME WARNER: Must Face Road Runner Internet Service Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that Time Warner
Cable must face a class action alleging that it deliberately
"throttles" its Road Runner Internet service to frustrate
subscribers using peer-to-peer networks, a federal judge ruled.

Lead plaintiffs Jessica Fink and Brett Noia said they signed up
with Time Warner, and paid up to 100% more than competitors
charged, because of misleading advertisements about Road Runner's
"blazing speed" that made it the "fastest, easiest way to get
online."  Even the Road Runner name hearkens to the Warner
Brothers cartoon character known for its lightning speed.

Time Warner assured customers that its service offered "up to 3
times the speed of most standard DSL packages and up to 100x
faster than dial-up so your family can spend their time on the
computer learning, experiencing, and playing -- instead of
waiting," according to one ad quoted in the complaint.

Because of Road Runner's fast connection, Time Warner charged more
than double the fees that its competitors charged, according to
the complaint.  But subscribers say they soon learned Time Warner
intentionally uses tactics to limit bandwidth, a practice known as
"throttling," when users try to share online content via peer-to-
peer (or P2P) file-sharing networks like BitTorrent, Gnutella and
Skype.

Time Warner allegedly designed the "throttling" to steer consumers
to paid content while frustrating access to similar content
available for free elsewhere on the Internet, and avoiding the
costs of infrastructure upgrades.

The proposed class representatives say they would not have paid
the extra premiums if they had known Road Runner would interfere
with their Internet service.

Mr. Noia said the throttling interfered with his work as a
freelance designer, which required him to upload and download
large image and vector files.

To get the files he needed, Mr. Noia allegedly had to drive to a
Kinkos and pay to rent their computers.

Ms. Fink and Mr. Noia said they had trouble using Skype to make
free phone calls, and wasted time rebooting their computers trying
to repair the connections that they did not realize were being
thwarted by Road Runner.

U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain gave the green light to two
of their claims of computer fraud on Sept. 7, but she dismissed
several other counts.

Attorneys for both parties did not immediately reply to phone
requests for comment.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order in Fink, et al. v. Time
Warner Cable, Case No. 08-cv-09628 (S.D.N.Y.), is available at:

  http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/09/Road%20Runner%209-6.pdf


WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action Over Delayed Wire Transfers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Wells Fargo delayed sending wire transfers "for excessive periods
of time to generate interest on the funds not passed along to the
customers."

A copy of the Complaint in Reilly v. Wells Fargo Bank, et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-00743 (W.D. Tex.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/09/WellsFargo.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert C. Hilliard, Esq.
          Catherine Tobin, Esq.
          Rudy Gonzales, Esq.
          Justin Williams, Esq.
          HILLIARD MUNOZ GONZALES, LLP
          719 S. Shoreline Boulevard, Suite 500
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 882-1612
          E-mail: bobh@hmglawfirm.com


* Banks May Pay More to Resolve Mortgage Investor Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thom Weidlich, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Bank of
America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and other banks may pay more
to resolve claims over their alleged roles in the collapse of a
$2.3 trillion mortgage-backed securities market if sophisticated
investors are allowed to sue as a group along with less savvy
ones.

Class-action status allows investors to pool financial and legal
resources, giving them greater leverage to win larger settlements
or verdicts.  The banks, however, have a court ruling on their
side that may help fend off such blockbuster cases.  It says class
status is barred because some investors are too sophisticated --
in fact, because some of them are other banks, including JPMorgan.

"It is possible to be both an alleged perpetrator and victim at
the same time," said Jacob S. Frenkel, a former U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission lawyer now in private practice in Potomac,
Maryland.  "It's unprecedented that you have the most
sophisticated institutions as victims, to be in a position where
their losses are so great that they have sued."

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Harold Baer Jr. in Manhattan,
favoring defendants Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc and Ally
Financial Inc., held that investors may not sue as a class in part
because some of them are being sued over the same claims.  Last
month, that ruling was countered by two judges in Judge Baer's
courthouse, both of whom ruled that investors in home-loan backed
securities may sue as a class.

Pools of home loans securitized into bonds were a central part of
the housing bubble that, once burst, helped push the U.S. into the
biggest recession since the 1930s.  Investors have filed class-
action, or group, lawsuits against at least 16 private issuers of
securities backed by mortgages.

Mortgage-bond deals now involved in the class-action suits
originally held $204.6 billion of loans, an amount that's fallen
to $89 billion amid defaults, borrower refinancing and home sales,
according to data compiled by Bloomberg and a list of transactions
provided by New York-based law firm Grais & Ellsworth LLP.
Realized losses so far total $26.6 billion, with an additional
$33.8 billion of remaining loans at least 30 days delinquent.

"Class certification raises the stakes tremendously," said Alan
White, a law professor at Valparaiso University in Indiana.  "The
damages are going be greater in a class action than a series of
individual cases."

The investors accuse the defendant financial companies of lying
about the quality of the home loans underlying the securities they
back, which have deteriorated in value.  The defendant banks
argued the housing collapse, rather than any misrepresentation on
their part, caused investor losses.

From its $2.3 trillion peak in 2007, the market for mortgage-
backed securities has shrunk to $1.21 trillion as of June 30,
according to the Federal Reserve.

The class actions involve some of the same securities over which
the Federal Housing Finance Agency sued Bank of America, New York-
based Citigroup Inc. and 15 other financial institutions on
Sept. 2.  Those complaints were filed on behalf of Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac, the mortgage-finance companies under government
conservatorship.  The securities at issue in those cases total
$196 billion.

On Aug. 22, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan issued an
opinion explaining why he had earlier ruled that investors,
including Mississippi's public pension system, may sue Charlotte,
North Carolina-based Bank of America's Merrill Lynch unit as a
group in a unified lawsuit.

A week earlier, U.S. District Judge Paul A. Crotty in the same
court similarly held that investors including the New Jersey
Carpenters Health Fund may also collectively pursue their claims
against Credit Suisse Group AG (CSGN)'s DLJ Mortgage Capital.

Judge Rakoff and Judge Crotty weren't swayed by bank arguments
that securities buyers couldn't band together because they were
sophisticated investors who knew about deteriorating home-lending
practices before the meltdown.  The plaintiffs knew that in part
because some of them are also being sued over the same claims, the
defendant banks argued.

The inability to sue as a group would mean many investors won't
pursue their claims, plaintiffs' lawyers said.

"Getting a class certified in a case like this, in any case, is an
important part of the litigation," said Gerald Silk, a partner at
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP in New York representing
investors suing Merrill Lynch.

The three funds seeking to represent the class against Detroit-
based Ally bought a total of $1.79 million of the $3.7 billion in
securities issued, they wrote in court papers.  The case has so
far cost more than $3.5 million to litigate and may run to three
times that if it goes to trial, showing the need for class-action
treatment, they wrote.

The securities lost as much as 99 percent of their value soon
after they were issued, the investors wrote.

Judge Baer's ruling in favor of defendant banks, if upheld, "could
result in dozens of securities class actions erroneously being
denied certification," the investors wrote in their appeal in the
Ally case.  The litigation "would likely be terminated without
class certification."

Class certification has also been a point of contention in cases
filed New York and Seattle over securities issued by IndyMac
Bancorp Inc. and Washington Mutual Inc., now part of New York-
based JPMorgan.

Investors including Mississippi's pension system who are suing
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. are scheduled to file their motion for
class certification in November.

"They're the kinds of cases that have been brought for decades as
class actions," Mr. Silk said.  "It's our view that they're
ideally suited for class-action treatment."

One bank, Wells Fargo & Co., agreed to settle litigation against
it for $125 million two weeks before a scheduled class-
certification hearing in July.  The case concerns $27.3 billion of
certificates sold by the San Francisco-based bank.

"The proposed settlement agreement is a negotiated resolution as
to all named defendants and is intended to avoid the distraction
and expense of litigation," Ancel Martinez, a spokesman for Wells
Fargo, said at the time.

Judge Baer, in his Jan. 18 decision, said investors couldn't sue
as a group because they had different knowledge levels of the
alleged loosening of mortgage-underwriting standards that led to
the home-loan defaults, and ultimately the decline in the value of
the securities.

The investors also bought the securities at different times, in
some cases when more information was surfacing about underwriting
standards being ignored, the judge wrote.

"Many putative class members are sophisticated investors with
significant experience in asset-backed securities markets," he
wrote.  New York-based BlackRock Inc. and Fortress Investment
Group LLC and Old Greenwich, Connecticut-based Ellington
Management Group LLC "each tout their expertise in mortgage-backed
securities," the judge wrote.

In its case, Merrill Lynch called Fannie Mae, the Washington
mortgage-finance company, the biggest class member and a
"quintessential housing-market insider," according to Judge
Rakoff, citing redacted portions of Merrill Lynch's court papers.
Fannie Mae bought about $5 billion of the $16.5 billion of
certificates in the case, according to Judge Rakoff's ruling.
Fannie Mae may seek to opt out of the class now that FHFA sued
Merrill Lynch individually on its behalf.

Amy Bonitatibus, a Fannie Mae spokeswoman, declined to comment on
the litigation.

The investors said there's no evidence they or their financial
advisers knew about specific prospectus misstatements by the
defendants, especially over the particular mortgage originators'
home-lending standards, before they bought the securities.

"The way we understand the law is that the investors had to know
about the scheme or the misstatements in the prospectus, and not
that they were just generally sophisticated about mortgage-backed
securities," said Joel P. Laitman, a New York- based lawyer at
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, which sued on behalf of
investors in the RBS, Credit Suisse and Ally Financial cases.

Pholida Phengsomphone, a spokeswoman for Edinburgh-based RBS, and
Lawrence Grayson, a spokesman for Bank of America, declined to
comment.

"We are encouraged by Judge Baer's analysis," said James Olecki, a
spokesman for Ally.  "It recognizes the legal significance of the
extent of knowledge that individual investors may have had as to
the risks relating to the investment."

In the case against Credit Suisse's DLJ Mortgage unit, which
involves $2.39 billion of securities, Judge Crotty said the
defendants produced no evidence that the more than 330 investors
knew about specific misstatements in the offering documents.

Steven Vames, a spokesman for Zurich-based Credit Suisse, declined
to comment on the case.

Some of the defendant banks noted that potential members of the
class are other financial firms that are themselves being sued
over mortgage-backed securities.

Having individual banks on both sides of these cases is "slightly
unusual" and shows "the multi-headed hydras these investment banks
have become," said James D. Cox, a securities- law professor at
Duke Law School in Durham, North Carolina.  "But they do have
these Chinese walls, to make sure the underwriting people are not
talking to the investment advisers."

New York-based JPMorgan, a potential plaintiff and class member in
the lawsuit against RBS over $3.45 billion in securities, is being
sued in federal court in Brooklyn, New York, over mortgage-backed
securities it sold.  JPMorgan "is alleged to have had knowledge
regarding" disintegrating underwriting standards, Judge Baer
wrote.

The bank's role in underwriting some securities doesn't mean its
affiliated investment funds knew about misrepresentations in the
prospectus for completely different securities, the plaintiff
investors wrote in their appeal in the RBS case.  RBS is Britain's
biggest government-owned lender.

"These were not the firms that underwrote the offering,"
Mr. Laitman said.  "They bought like everybody else."

In the Merrill Lynch case, Judge Rakoff agreed with the investors.

"Although defendants note that some members of the class,
including Morgan Stanley Co., have been sued in connection with
their own MBS offerings, this is irrelevant to the offerings at
issue in this case," he wrote.

The parties in the cases against JPMorgan and New York- based
Morgan Stanley await decisions on the banks' motions to dismiss.
The federal appeals court in Manhattan hasn't said yet whether it
would accept Merrill Lynch's appeal of Judge Rakoff's decision
certifying the class of investors.

The cases are New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund v. Residential
Capital LLC, 08-08781, New Jersey Carpenters Vacation Fund v. The
Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc., 08- 05093, Public Employees'
Retirement System of Mississippi v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 08-
010841, New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund v. DLJ Mortgage Capital
Inc., 08-05653, Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi
v. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS), 09-01110, In re Morgan Stanley
Pass-Through Certificates Litigation, 09-02137, and In re IndyMac
Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, 09-04583, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan); Plumbers' &
Pipefitters' Local #562 Supplemental Plan & Trust v. J.P. Morgan
Acceptance Corp., 08-01713, U.S. District Court, Eastern District
of New York (Brooklyn); In re Wells Fargo Mortgage-Backed
Certificates Litigation, 09-01376, U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California (San Jose); and In re Washington Mutual
Mortgage- Backed Securities Litigation, 09-cv-00037, U.S. District
Court, Western District of Washington (Seattle).


                            *********

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  * * *