CAR_Public/110926.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Monday, September 26, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 190

                             Headlines

ANGLO AMERICAN: To Defend Ex-Gold Miners' Class Action v. Unit
BANK OF AMERICA: MBS Settlement Not a 'Sweetheart Deal'
BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks Dismissal of Debt Card Fee Class Action
BEAR NAKED: Sued Over "100% Pure & Natural" Product Labels
BP: Oct. 21 Status Conference Set in Consolidated Oil Spill Suit

CHRISTIAN BROTHERS: Sexual Abuse Victims Prepare Class Action
DRUG COMPANIES: Green County to Settle Deceptive Trade Suit
EORP: Faces Class Action Over Amendments in COLA Provisions
FAST FOOD CHAINS: Former Farmworkers File Class Actions
GREAT ATLANTIC: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action

ILLINOIS SPORTS: Accused of Having Improper Billing Practices
IN TOUCH WIRELESS: Accused of Defrauding Verizon Sub-Agents
KASHI COMPANY: Stember Feinstein Files Class Action in Calif.
KRAMER AND KASLOW: Faces Class Action Over Foreclosure Scam
NETLOGIC MICROSYSTEMS: Shareholder Tries to Stop Sale to Broadcom

NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Aylward to Settle Moose Collision Suit
PANDORA MEDIA: Violates Users' Privacy Rights, Suit Alleges
SEQUANS COMMS: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action
TIN INC: Faces Class Action Over "Black Liquor" Oil Spill
WENNER MEDIA: Faces Class Action Over Spam Text Messages

ZALE CORP: Deadline to Appeal Securities Suit Dismissal on Sept 30

* Gov. Cuomo Set to Sign Bill on Class-Action Attorneys' Fees




                             *********

ANGLO AMERICAN: To Defend Ex-Gold Miners' Class Action v. Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Business Live reports that resources giant Anglo American on
Sept. 21 indicated that it would continue to fight any claims made
against it for occupational diseases.

Anglo American's SA subsidiary is facing a new class action law
suit by at least 450 ex-gold miners who claim that working at the
group's mines damaged their health.

London law firm Leigh Day & Co, which is representing the ex-
workers, said that the legal action could expand to include
"potentially thousands of ex-gold miners" and could be worth
"hundreds of millions of pounds".

The law firm confirmed that it has begun proceedings in the London
High Court against the company's SA subsidiary on behalf of the
miners who allege they are suffering from silicosis and silico-
tuberculosis after exposure to dangerous levels of dust.

Anglo American has acknowledged receipt of two notices of claim
filed in the high court in London against Anglo American SA on
behalf of former mineworkers of various gold companies in which
the subsidiary had an interest.

"Anglo American SA has denied liability in answer to similar
claims filed in SA courts that have been sponsored by the same law
firm," the group said in a statement.

"Anglo American does not believe that it is any way liable for the
silicosis claims brought by former gold workers and is defending
the actions."

The law firm said the case has been brought in the UK courts since
Anglo American's SA subsidiary is controlled and managed from UK
headquartered Anglo American PLC.

Under European law, English courts have jurisdiction over a
company, which has its central administration in England.

"Leigh Day & Co argue that bringing this case in the UK is in the
victims' interests as UK proceedings will be speedier because
English courts have well-developed case management procedures,
(unlike in South Africa) lawyers' success fees are paid by the
defendant rather than from claimants' compensation, and the
claimants will be entitled to UK damages," the law firm said.

With a precedent set when a group of 7,500 South African asbestos
miners successfully sued Cape Plc over damage to their health,
Leigh Day & Company is confident of its success.

According to the claimants' solicitor and Leigh Day & Co partner
Richard Meeran, there are "striking similarities between this
silicosis public health disaster and the asbestos scandal".

"First, the similarity in the nature and causes of these diseases
and the measures required to prevent them, namely dust control,
secondly industry knowledge of the hazard having existed for more
than 100 years and thirdly, what we allege is the disregard of the
industry, in its drive for profit, for miners' health," noted
Mr. Meeran.

Leigh Day & Co represented the miners in the asbestos case.

Subtly shifting blame, the resources giant has suggested that the
mining companies that employed the workers should be held directly
accountable.

"Anglo American maintains that these gold companies which employed
the mineworkers were responsible for the health and safety of
their employees and took reasonable steps to protect them," it
said.

The claims are from workers employed at Anglo's gold mines up to
1998.

At the time, Anglo's interest in gold mining would have been held
through AngloGold, which later became AngloGold Ashanti (ANG)
after a merger with the African gold producer.

Anglo has since sold down its stake and now has no interest in
gold mining.

AngloGold Ashanti, which has made no provision for potential
silicosis claims, said in May that the extent of the potential
liability was too early to call.

CEO Mark Cutifani said at the company's March quarter results
presentation that while SA's Constitutional Court had given
silicosis sufferers the right to lodge civil claims for
compensation, the merits of such a case still needed to be tested.

"There is still a long way to go," said Mr. Cutifani at the time.

The company is doing its homework, he said.


BANK OF AMERICA: MBS Settlement Not a 'Sweetheart Deal'
-------------------------------------------------------
Grant McCool, writing for Reuters, reports that a proposed $8.5
billion (GBP5.4 billion) settlement of Bank of America Corp's
mortgage-backed securities liability is not a "sweetheart deal" to
help the bank, a lawyer for institutional investors argued in
court on Sept. 21 in a legal tussle over the agreement.

A federal judge reserved decision after hearing oral arguments
over whether or not the case should be sent back to New York state
court, where Bank of New York Mellon Corp., the trustee for the
mortgage securities, presented a settlement in June for approval.

The Sept. 21 hearing was called because an investor group opposed
to the settlement, Walnut Place LLC, moved the case to Manhattan
federal court in late August, arguing it should be treated as a
"mass action" under a federal law.

"This was no collusive, self-selective group of people who decided
to get into a room and cut a sweetheart deal with Bank of
America," lawyer Robert Madden, representing 22 institutional
investors who want the pact approved in state court, told the
judge.  "It was in no way intended to assist Bank of New York
Mellon or Bank of America."

U.S. District Judge William Pauley peppered lawyers for Bank of
New York Mellon and Walnut Place with questions in the bid by
Walnut for the case to be resolved under the Class Action Fairness
Act (CAFA) of 2005.  CAFA requires big-money class actions to be
supervised by a federal judge.

The judge gave the parties a week to file more written legal
arguments.

The proposed settlement was filed in state court as a special
proceeding known as Article 77 and not as a class action.  Walnut
Place argued in court papers that negotiations between the trustee
and investors were held in secret.

The trustee said it gave public notice of talks over eight or nine
months with investors including BlackRock Inc. and Allianz SE's
Pimco.

The stakes are high for Bank of America, which had hoped the
agreement would resolve uncertainty over potential liabilities
tied to pools of soured loans sold to investors by Countrywide
Financial Corp, the mortgage lender it bought in 2008.
Countrywide was the largest U.S. mortgage lender before being
taken over by BofA.

The proposed agreement also calls for the biggest U.S. bank by
assets to improve its mortgage servicing practices.

Bank of New York Mellon lawyer Matthew Ingber asked Pauley to
reject Walnut Place's arguments to have the case continue before
him.

"We are not extinguishing any rights of Walnut," Mr. Ingber said.
"We think Walnut should be standing side by side with the
trustee."

He said the $8.5 billion payment and the requirement that Bank of
America improve its servicing could not otherwise be obtained.

Walnut Place's lawyer, Owen Cyrulnik, said that in federal court
there were equivalents to the Article 77 special proceeding,
including the class-action statute.

"It would be amazing for a trustee to have the kind of discretion
Bank of New York Mellon claims it has to settle on behalf of these
trusts," Mr. Cyrulnik said.

Walnut Place owns certificates in three of the 530 trusts that are
part of the proposed agreement.

Article 77 in state court usually covers family trust matters.
The agreement covers 530 mortgage pools with $174 billion of
unpaid principal balances.

The cases are In re: The Bank of New York Mellon, New York State
Supreme Court, New York County, No. 651786/2011; and The Bank of
New York Mellon et al v. Walnut Place LLC et al, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of New York, No. 11-05988.


BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks Dismissal of Debt Card Fee Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Leonhardt, writing for Law360, reports that Bank of America
NA on Sept. 19 asked a California federal court to toss a proposed
class action brought by debit card users, arguing it did not
deceive consumers by charging monthly service fees they had
contractually agreed to pay.

The bank filed a motion to dismiss the case, which was brought by
users of CashPay, a voluntary program that allows individuals to
directly deposit their paycheck onto debit cards.


BEAR NAKED: Sued Over "100% Pure & Natural" Product Labels
----------------------------------------------------------
Chanee Thurston and Lawrence G. Knowles, III, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Bear Naked, Inc.,
Case No. 4:11-cv-04678 (N.D. Calif., September 21, 2011) is a
class action brought on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers,
who purchased Bear Naked food products labeled as "100% Pure &
Natural" even though they contain one or more of these synthetic
ingredients: Potassium Carbonate, Glycerin, and Lecithin.

The Plaintiffs allege that Bear Naked prominently makes the claim
"100% Pure & Natural" on the labels of its food products,
cultivating a wholesome and healthful image in an effort to
promote the sale of these products, even though several of its
products were actually not 100% natural.  As a result of this
false and misleading labeling, the Defendant was able to sell
these purportedly "100% Pure & Natural" products to thousands of
unsuspecting consumers in California and throughout the United
States of America and to profit handsomely from these
transactions, the Plaintiffs contend.

Ms. Thurston is a resident of Benicia, California, while Mr.
Knowles is a resident of San Diego, California.

Bear Naked maintains its headquarters in La Jolla, California.
Bear Naked produces and distributes granolas, granola bars,
cereals, trail mixes and cookies.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Janet Lindner Spielberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JANET LINDNER SPIELBERG
          12400 Wilshire Boulevard, #400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 392-8801
          Facsimile: (310) 278-5938
          E-mail: jlspielberg@jlsp.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          10680 West Pico Boulevard, Suite 280
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 836-6000
          Facsimile: (310) 836-6010
          E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq.
          Maureen Davidson-Welling, Esq.
          Wyatt A. Lison, Esq.
          STEMBER FEINSTEIN DOYLE & PAYNE LLC
          Allegheny Building, 17th Floor
          429 Forbes Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-8400
          Facsimile: (412) 281-1007
          E-mail: jkravec@stemberfeinstein.com
                  mdavidsonwelling@stemberfeinstein.com
                  wlison@stemberfeinsfein.com


BP: Oct. 21 Status Conference Set in Consolidated Oil Spill Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge must decide whether Alabama and Louisiana can recover
punitive damages for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill under state
law.  The decision could have lasting consequences on the states'
oil spill recovery.

In a hearing after the monthly status conference on Sept. 16, U.S.
District Judge Carl Barbier, who is overseeing the consolidated
oil spill litigation, compared the oil spill with a deadly rocket
launch.

"We're talking about state sovereignty," Judge Barbier said,
addressing BP attorney Andrew Langan.  "You can imagine scenarios
. . . where someone launches a rocket from federal waters and it
lands on someone's property in Louisiana or Alabama and lands on
someone's roof and causes death.  . . . You don't think someone in
Alabama or Louisiana could file a claim?"

Judge Barbier was not referring to the hypothetical rocket launch
aspect of the scenario; the broken wellhead that spewed the oil
was in federal waters, so federal law applies.  And the Oil
Pollution Act (OPA), which governs oil spills, is a federal law.

Judge Barbier issued an order on Aug. 26, that OPA and federal
maritime law, not state laws, govern oil spill claims.

But the question remains whether states can seek punitive damages
under state law in instances where there is no corresponding
federal law to "fill in the gap."

The way legislation is written, all federal fines recovered from
the oil spill, including fines for Clean Water Act violations,
will go into the federally overseen oil spill trust fund.  The
trust fund is used for oil spill-related damages, but it is not
certain whether it is to be applied to oil spill damages in states
that border the federal waters from which the fines were
recovered.

The only way states can be certain to recover oil spill fines is
if they file for damages under state law.

Mr. Langan told Judge Barbier: "You expressly stated all state law
penalty claims were preempted notwithstanding OPA penalty claims.
. . . The reasoning you reached in the Aug. 26 order is, state law
is ineligible in this case; there is no gap to fill.  The Clean
Water Act and other laws fill in the blank."

Judge Barbier then theorized about a rocket launch from federal
waters that lands on a roof in Alabama or Louisiana and causes a
death.

"That's a criminal act," Mr. Langan replied.  "Here there is no
source state.  If you go that route, you will be allowing numerous
penalty laws."

Mr. Langan said that allowing states to seek damages under state
law would be contrary to Judge Barbier's Aug. 26 order, because
the United States already is a plaintiff and is seeking penalties.

Corey Maze, deputy attorney general of Alabama, said that if a
rocket launched in federal waters killed someone in Alabama or
Louisiana, it would be both a civil and criminal act.

Mr. Maze said that not allowing states to recover damages under
state law strips states of the power to protect themselves; he
indicated that criminal charges in this case might have little
lasting consequence.

"I don't think anyone disputes that you can prosecute this
criminally. But what BP does is every time something like this
happens, the CEO resigns," Mr. Maze said.

"And the Clean Water Act money -- the federal government doesn't
have to give us a dime of that.

"Had the water never crossed our 3-mile borders, we wouldn't be
seeking a civil penalty.  I am not going to argue whether state
law should apply on top of federal law; what I am going to do is
show how the laws should apply," Mr. Maze said.

Although Judge Barbier's Aug. 26 ruling does state that OPA and
federal maritime law replace state law, Mr. Maze said state law is
not replaced by federal law with regard to punitive damages sought
for economic, nonphysical injury losses.

Mr. Maze said states should be eligible to seek penalty fines and
punitive damages for nonphysical injury because there is no
federal law that applies in such cases.

Mr. Maze said that state law here would be limited to penalty
claims -- state penalties and punitive damages for nonphysical
injuries -- "because it is only for those instances where federal
law doesn't apply and there is a gap to be filled."

Judge Barbier gave the parties a week to submit up to 10 pages of
briefings on the topic of whether Alabama and Louisiana can seek
state penalties before he decides on the matter.

The hearing followed the monthly oil spill status conference.

The hearing focused on two issues: whether damages can be brought
under state law, which is wrapped up in the defendants' multiple
motions to dismiss the first amended complaints from Alabama and
Louisiana; and whether Transocean's liability insurance carrier
recognized BP as an additional insured.

Related to the first topic and also discussed at the hearing were
issues of presentment to the Gulf Coast Claims Facility: when a
party should present and how often.

During the status hearing, Judge Barbier ruled that any limitation
of liability claims filed after Friday, Sept. 16, will be
considered to be in default.  The original deadline expired on the
1-year anniversary of the April 20, 2010 explosion of the
Deepwater Horizon.

The limitation of liability trial is scheduled to begin Feb. 27,
2012.

The next status conference is scheduled for Oct. 21.


CHRISTIAN BROTHERS: Sexual Abuse Victims Prepare Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McIlroy, writing for The Courier, reports that victims of
sexual abuse by Christian Brothers will launch a class action
against the order, with a Melbourne lawyer calling for more abused
students to come forward.

Lawyer Vivian Waller on Sept. 20 said that more than 30 victims
from schools and orphanages run by the order would take part.

The legal action relates to abuse alleged to have occurred between
1967 and 1986 but no compensation amount has yet been arrived at.

News of the class action comes after pedophile rapist Brother
Robert Charles Best lodged an appeal relating to his conviction
for sex crimes.

Mr. Best, 70, was jailed for a minimum of 11 years and three
months in August for sexually abusing young boys over the course
of 20 years.

Dr. Waller said many of Mr. Best's victims were included in the
class action, and there were also allegations of abuse at
St. Patrick's College, Ballarat, as well as Geelong, South
Melbourne and Box Hill.

A spokesperson for the Christian Brothers on Sept. 20 confirmed
that the order will not fund Mr. Best's appeal.

Dr. Waller called for the church to reopen cases dealt with as
part of the Towards Healing process, which she called "a farce".

"Towards Healing did not deal with complaints in a proper way and
did not uncover all cases of sexual abuse.

"While victims who have reached agreement with the church may have
been given a modest sum of money in exchange for signing away
their rights, I would call for these cases to be re-examined,"
Dr. Waller said.

She said it was likely other victims were yet to come forward to
police and church authorities.

A Ballarat victim, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said the
action was a good development.

"Any legal action is good so long as it can get what the victims
need.  Many had real problems getting results out of the Catholic
Church," he said.

"The church has set itself up so it is not always liable for
compensation."

Sister Angela Ryan, executive officer of the Catholic Church's
committee for professional standards did not comment on Sept. 20.

"Given that this is a legal process, the church would seek legal
advice before responding," Sr. Ryan said.

A spokesperson for the Christian Brothers Oceania declined to
comment further for this story.


DRUG COMPANIES: Green County to Settle Deceptive Trade Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Alexander, writing for The Daily Mail, reports that the
Greene County Legislature adopted a resolution on Sept. 19
settling an extensive class action suit against 47 drug companies
for fraudulently reported inflated average wholesale prices of
their drugs.

"About five years ago the county opted into a suit bought by many
counties that were overcharged.  We basically made it a class
action suit and the total settlement with all the counties is in
the millions," said Greene County Attorney Carol Stevens.

The lawsuit was filed in 2006 and alleged violations of federal
and state Medicaid law, breach of contract and deceptive trade
practices.

Greene County, along with other counties hired a law firm based on
a contingency basis.  They took a 15% fee and we only paid based
on recovery, said Mr. Stevens.

Actavis, one of the three companies named in the suit, has offered
to settle the county's claim for $18,445.76.  Par has offered to
settle for $16,580.46.  Mylan has offered to settle for
$13,057.11.

The firm of Kriby McInerney LLP is the county's counsel in the
case.  Lawyers recommended to the county that the settlement
offers are fair and just.

"This is good news.  We never had to take a dime out of the
treasury for this," said Mr. Stevens.

Asked if she believed the defendants purposely intended to cause
harm, she said she couldn't be sure on a personal level.

"I believe there is evidence of intent.  The lawyer had told us
that but I have no personal knowledge," said Mr. Stevens.

Mr. Stevens added that the money would benefit the county and
restated the fact that no costs were accrued.  "Compensation is
determined based on Medicaid population," she said.

The total authorized settlement sum is $48,083.33.  The deal is
subject in all respects to the approval of the County Attorney's
office.  The adopted resolution stated the companies' conduct
resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars in overcharges to
Greene County's Medicaid budget.


EORP: Faces Class Action Over Amendments in COLA Provisions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in a class action, retired
state court judges challenge legislatively approved changes to
COLA provisions in The Elected Official Retirement Plan of the
State of Arizona.

A copy of the Complaint in Fields, et al. v. The Elected Official
Retirement Plan of the State of Arizona, Case No. CV2011-017443
(Ariz. Super. Ct., Maricopa Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/21/AzJudges.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Colin F. Campbell, Esq.
          OSBORN MALEDON, P.A.
          2929 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2100
          Phoenix, AZ 85012-2793
          Telephone: (602) 640-e000
          E-mail: ccampbell@omlaw.com


FAST FOOD CHAINS: Former Farmworkers File Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------
News-press.com reports that sixteen current and former farmworkers
who picked tomatoes in the Immokalee area between 2007 and 2010
have filed class action lawsuits against four major fast food
companies, claiming that the restaurants reneged on highly
publicized promises to pay an extra penny for each pound of
Florida tomatoes purchased.

The first of the lawsuits was filed in Circuit Court in Miami on
Sept. 20.

The lawsuits target Burger King Corporation, McDonalds
Corporation, Taco Bell Corporation and Independent Purchasing
Cooperative, which purchases produce on behalf of all Subway
restaurants.  Each of these fast food companies entered into
agreements with the Coalition of Immokalee Workers under which the
restaurants agreed to pay farmworkers an additional penny per
pound for the Florida tomatoes the respective chains purchased.
The farmworker plaintiffs claim that none of the penny per pound
supplements was paid for three harvest seasons, extending from
September 2007 through October 2010.

Payment of these penny per pound supplements was initially delayed
because the farms for which the plaintiffs picked tomatoes refused
to cooperate in the distribution of these additional payments.
However, in November, 2010, the Coalition of Immokalee Workers
negotiated agreements covering most of the major Florida tomato
growers under which the farms agreed to distribute the penny per
pound supplements to the workers.

With the growers agreeing to distribute the back wages, the
workers made inquiries beginning in April 2011 about the three
years of delayed payments under the penny per pound agreements.
The restaurants did not deny that they had failed to make the
payments, but declined to belatedly pay the money to the
farmworkers who had picked the tomatoes purchased between 2007 and
2010.

The amount of the unpaid wage supplements is unknown, according to
Gregory Schell, co-counsel for the farmworkers, but prior press
accounts indicated that roughly $2 million is owed for the period
from 2007 through 2010.

The cases have been filed as class actions, with the 16 named
plaintiffs seeking to represent all of the Immokalee-area workers
who picked tomatoes sold to the four fast food companies from 2007
through 2010.  The named plaintiffs worked for LFC Agricultural
Services, the harvesting subsidiary of Six L's Packing Company.
One of the plaintiffs also worked for Pacific Collier Fresh
Company.

The workers are represented by the Migrant Farmworker Justice
Project, a statewide public interest law firm that provides free
legal assistance to farmworkers, and Solimar Mercado-Spencer, an
attorney in private practice in Fort Myers.


GREAT ATLANTIC: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of The Great
Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company common stock who purchased shares
between July 23, 2009 and December 10, 2010, inclusive.  The
lawsuit alleges that A&P knew but failed to disclose: (i) that A&P
was facing increased low-cost competition from retailers such as
Wal-Mart and Target Corp., which was negatively impacting the
Company's business and financial condition; (ii) that the Pathmark
acquisition was harmful to the Company because Pathmark's
operations were in far worse condition than had been represented
to investors; (iii) that A&P was not operating according to
internal expectations and could not achieve the guidance sponsored
and/or endorsed by defendants; and (iv) that, as a result of the
foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive
statements about the Company, its operations and prospects.

If you purchased A&P common stock during the Class Period, you
have the legal right to petition the Court to be appointed a "lead
plaintiff."  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  Any
such request must satisfy certain criteria and be made no later
than November 8, 2011.  Any member of the purported class may move
the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.  If you are an A&P investor and would like to discuss a
potential lead plaintiff appointment, or your rights and interests
with respect to the lawsuit, you may contact Michael I. Fistel,
Jr., Esq., or Marshall P. Dees, Esq. via e-mail at
mfistel@holzerlaw.com or mdees@holzerlaw.com or via toll-free
telephone at (888) 508-6832.

Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC -- http://www.holzerlaw.com-- is an
Atlanta, Georgia law firm that dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation.


ILLINOIS SPORTS: Accused of Having Improper Billing Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Candice Casey, individually and on behalf of the classes v.
Illinois Sports Medicine and Orthopaedic Center, Ltd., d/b/a
Illinois Sports Medicine and Orthopaedic Centers, Case No.
11CH33067 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., September 21, 2011) seeks
redress from Illinois Sports' improper billing and collection
practices.

The Plaintiff alleges that there is a controversy between her and
Illinois Sports with respect to its policy and practice of
imposing liens on a patient's tort recovery.

Ms. Casey is a resident of Cook County, Illinois.

Illinois Sports is an Illinois corporation, with offices at
various locations in Cook County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, L.L.C.
          120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com


IN TOUCH WIRELESS: Accused of Defrauding Verizon Sub-Agents
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reachout Wireless, Inc., a New York Corporation, and American
Candy, Inc., a New York Corporation, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. In Touch Wireless Concepts, Inc.,
a New York Corporation d/b/a Zcom, and Iminder "Vikas" Dhall,
Individually, Case No. 652587/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. September 20,
2011) is a class action brought by, and on behalf of the sub-
agents of Verizon Wireless master agent In Touch Wireless
Concepts, Inc. ("ITWC"), and its owner, principal and founder
Mr. Dhall, for perpetrating a deceptive scheme to defraud sub-
agents out of hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments due
under the agreements that govern their relationship.

In direct breach of their compensation agreements, the Plaintiffs
allege, the Defendants have engaged in a scheme to unlawfully
retain certain residuals that are due and owing to the Plaintiffs
and the putative class, for its own financial gain.

Plaintiffs RWI and ACI are corporations duly organized and
existing under the laws of the state of New York with their
principal places of business located in New York.

ITWC is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws
of the state of New York.  ITWC transacts substantial business
within the state of New York and contracts with numerous sub-
agents within the state of New York, as well as Texas,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut and Pennsylvania.
Mr. Dhall is a resident of New York, and is the principal, owner
and sole shareholder of ITWC, and the alleged architect of the
deceptive scheme complained by the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
          David S. Paris, Esq.
          Bryan H. Mintz, Esq.
          PARIS ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER LLP
          101 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 228-6667
          Facsimile: (973) 629-1246
          E-mail: ross@paslawfirm.com
                  david@paslawfirm.com
                  bryan@paslawfirm.com


KASHI COMPANY: Stember Feinstein Files Class Action in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Stember Feinstein Doyle & Payne, LLC filed a class
action lawsuit against Kashi Company on behalf of a nationwide
class of consumers who purchased Kashi products labeled as "All
Natural" which we believe contain synthetic ingredients.  The
products we believe are involved include varieties of: GoLean
Crunchy Protein & Fiber Bars, GoLean Roll! Protein & Fiber Bars,
GoLean Shakes, Kashi Frozen Entrees, TLC Crackers, Kashi Waffles,
TLC Layered Granola Bars, TLC Soft-Baked Cookies, Kashi Cold
Cereal, Kashi Frozen Entrees, TLC Soft-Baked Cereal Bars, and
Kashi Thin Crust Pizzas.

The suit was filed on September 7, 2011, and is pending in the
United States District Court for the District of Northern
California.  Joining Stember Feinstein as counsel in this lawsuit
are the Braun Law Group and the Law Office of Janet Lindner
Spielberg, both of Los Angeles.

The lawsuit against Kashi is one of several food mislabeling
lawsuits brought by these law firms against food manufacturers
over the past year.  Attorney Joseph N. Kravec, Jr. of Stember
Feinstein explained why these lawsuits are important to consumers:
"Federal and state consumer protection laws require that all
manufacturers be truthful in their advertising.  After months of
investigation, we have found that there is a pervasive practice in
the food industry of labeling products as 'all natural' when they
are simply not.  Consumers are more willing to buy and even pay
more for 'all natural' products believing they are more wholesome
and healthier for them.  Companies seeking to increase sales and
profits by labeling their products 'all natural' must be made to
deliver what they promise to consumers."

The lawsuit seeks a number of remedies, including: an order
prohibiting Kashi from advertising products as "All Natural" if
they contain synthetic ingredients, a refund of amounts that
consumers paid to purchase them, and Kashi's profits on them.

If you are interested in learning more about the Kashi lawsuit or
have questions about whether another "all natural" food product
you purchased contains synthetic ingredients, please contact:

          Janet Lindner Spielberg, Esq (admitted in CA)
          LAW OFFICES OF JANET LINDNER SPIELBERG
          12400 Wilshire Boulevard, #400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 392-8801

          Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq.
          STEMBER FEINSTEIN DOYLE & PAYNE LLC
          429 Forbes Avenue, 17th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (800) 355-1735
          Web site: http://www.stemberfeinstein.com
          E-mail: info@stemberfeinstein.com

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.(admitted in CA)
          BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          10680 West Pico Boulevard, Suite 280
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 836-6000
          E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com


KRAMER AND KASLOW: Faces Class Action Over Foreclosure Scam
-----------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that hundreds of
homeowners claim several California attorneys used fraudulent
advertising "unrivaled in its falsity and brazenness," promising
fictitious class-action settlements against major banks, and
misused the name of the homeowners' attorney, Mitchell Stein, to
dupe them into paying thousands of dollars.

Mr. Stein was one of a long list of defendants sued by California
Attorney General Kamala Harris in August.  That complaint accused
the Kramer and Kaslow law office, and others, of running a
foreclosure scam that suckered "thousands of California
homeowners."  The state claimed the defendants "prey on desperate
consumer homeowners facing foreclosure" by selling participation
in bogus "mass joinder" lawsuits and "litigation settlement(s),"
but "No settlements exist and in some cases no lawsuit has even
been filed."

Mr. Stein and his clients then countersued Attorney General
Harris, claiming she was "doing Bank of America's bidding" by
seizing legal files from Stein, denying his clients the right to
the legal counsel of their choice.  Similar countersuits were
filed in Miami and New York.

In the latest barrage, in L.A. Superior Court, Mr. Stein and his
clients continue their crusade against the law firms that, they
say, prey on distressed homeowners under the guise of protecting
them from fraud.

"Included among the conspiracy by all defendants, acting in
concert, was utilizing the false advertising to adversely impact
the rights of millions of home owners across the United States and
to defraud their elected representatives for reasons amounting to
nothing but pure 'profit,'" according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs include more than 300 homeowners from several
states who hired Mr. Stein to represent them in lawsuits against
Bank of America and other major lenders.

Mr. Stein and his clients claim the defendants made more than $10
million from their scheme.

Named as defendants are Brookstone Law, its owner Vito Torchia
Jr., his associate Damian Kutzner, California law firm SML, SML
partners Kenin Spivak, Theodore Maloney and Edwin Lasman, and Apex
Legal Group and its employees Christopher Tomaszewski and Bridget
Jones.

Mr. Stein filed his opening shot against a major bank, Ronald v.
Bank of America, in March 2009, alleging that Bank of America had
committed mortgage fraud and was illegally foreclosing on his
clients' homes.

His clients claim that Mr. Stein succeeded in stopping
foreclosures against their homes and expanded the lawsuit against
the bank.

According to the complaint, Mr. Stein represented many California
homeowners for no charge.

The plaintiffs say that in 2010, Mr. Stein enlisted defendant
Mr. Spivak's help as co-counsel in the expanded litigation against
Bank of America, despite Mr. Spivak's lack of experience in
representing homeowners against banks.

"Unknown to attorney Stein or any of the plaintiffs in the Ronald
case -- most of whom are plaintiffs here -- Spivak had ulterior
motives for wanting to be part of the Ronald case," the complaint
states.  "His motives were one of fraud, deceit and profit, which
he failed to disclose to anybody upon his association into the
case by Mr. Stein in March 2010.  Within three months of being
associated into the case, defendant Spivak began asking anybody he
could find -- including Stein and at least half of the plaintiffs
herein -- for money or agreements to pay money."

Mr. Stein and his clients claim that Mr. Spivak infiltrated
Mr. Maloney into Mr. Stein's practice to learn about the banking
industry, gather information on Mr. Stein's cases against the
banks and "poach" contacts to be used in the defendants'
fraudulent marketing campaigns.

A few months later, they say, "Spivak would utilize the
information both he and Maloney were able to 'poach' from
Mr. Stein to ultimately form law firms and relationships to
initiate massive marketing campaigns (a) selling themselves as
experts in the field of bank litigation and (b) lying to home
owners with false mailers and advertisements in order to induce
them to send money for the benefit of Spivak and Maloney . . .."

The defendants defrauded more than 1,000 homeowners nationwide by
sending a false mailer using Mr. Stein's business name and logo,
falsely stating that Mr. Stein was involved in their marketing
campaigns, according to the complaint.

Mr. Stein started using the moniker of a Doberman dog next to his
trade name after a 1991 article in Premiere Magazine labeled him
"the Doberman" in connection with a high profile case.

Mr. Stein's clients say the defendants also tried to remove Mr.
Stein from the Ronald litigation because he had refused to
participate in advertising campaigns.

"Based upon the conspiracy, the Maloney Group -- lacking any
standing under law given that they were not 'real parties in
interest' to any case against any bank in the United States --
made a motion in the Ronald case to 'remove Mr. Stein as lead
counsel' in such case," the complaint states.  "Notwithstanding
that the motion was unsuccessful, the Maloney Group sent out
hundreds of mailers that made representations to the opposite:
that the motion was successful and that clients should choose them
as their lawyers."

Mr. Stein and his clients say the defendants failed to disclose
that "from December 2010 through March 29, 2011 and even
thereafter -- the Maloney Group and [its affiliate] United Law
Group were using the name and likeness of Mitchell J. Stein and
his 'trade dress' to induce homeowners to pay them money. For
example, lead plaintiff Todd Legaspi -- a highly regarded member
of our United States military -- paid money to the Maloney Group
and the Brookstone Group and United Law Group (and has been asked
to pay more money) based upon the representation by Vito Torchia
(through his staff and individually) that 'The Doberman' (Mitchell
J. Stein) is currently representing Mr. Legaspi.  That
representation made by Vito Torchia in conspiracy with all
defendants herein, was at all times false and none of the
defendants had any belief that such a statement was authorized by
Mr. Stein or was truthful."

The plaintiffs say the mailer "was a part of the conspiracy to the
great damage of all plaintiffs herein.  Illegal mailers and
advertisements, and trickery and intrinsic fraud to courts, in the
middle of a crisis such as this one, hinder and delay the efforts
of legitimate persons and lawyers wishing to bring the actual and
ultimate wrongdoers to justice."

They add: "To top it off, as the defendants were completing the
first phase of their fraud and deceit on unsuspecting American
homeowners, they produced infomercials . . . to follow up on the
marketing blitz to profit off of the illegal mailer.  . . . During
this time, bank servicers increased foreclosure efforts based upon
the unique California non-judicial foreclosure laws and plaintiffs
were harmed extensively by foreclosures, invasions of their
privacy, and other actions taken by bank servicers during the
deceptions practiced by the defendants and at a time when
defendants were their lawyers.  In truth and in fact, the
defendants (with the exception of defendant Lasman) had never
obtained a restraining order, an injunction or a stipulation
against a bank, or even brought an application for one, over the
course of their entire careers before meeting Mr. Stein.
Nonetheless, they have produced and distributed infomercials
coupled with illegal mailers that induced home owners across the
United States to believe that the banks in the United States have
agreed to pay up to $75,000 to them by banks who have 'settled'
matters labeled as 'class settlements.'"

Mr. Stein and his clients claim that Mr. Kutzner was previously
involved in illegal marketing schemes, and violated a Federal
Trade Commission order enjoining him from marketing activities for
10 years.

And they say that the defendants instigated Attorney General
Harris to take legal action against Mr. Stein.

In her Aug. 15 complaint against Mr. Stein and other law firms,
Attorney General Harris asked the California Bar to take over
their practices, accusing them of defrauding distressed homeowners
through false advertising.

Mr. Stein and his clients say: "If not for Mr. Torchia's
misrepresentations -- done at the behest of the Maloney Group and
with the assistance, aid and comfort of Kutzner, all for pecuniary
gain -- the plaintiffs herein would not have paid the defendants
any money and would have sought other counsel who (a) were
actually experienced in the kind of banking business at issue in
foreclosure litigation and (b) would have otherwise legitimately
protected their legal rights."

The homeowners seek compensatory and punitive damages for fraud,
legal malpractice, concealment and deceit.

Mr. Stein wants the defendants enjoined from using his name and
identity and more than $100 million in damages for appropriation
of name and likeness.

They are represented by Erikson Davis and Mitchell Stein.


NETLOGIC MICROSYSTEMS: Shareholder Tries to Stop Sale to Broadcom
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vincent Anthony Danielo, On Behalf of himself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. NetLogic Microsystems, Inc., Leonard C.
Perham, Ronald Jankov, Alan Krock, Marvin D. Burkett, Norman
Godinho, Steven Domenik, Douglas Broyles, I&N Acquisition Corp.
and Broadcom Corp., Case No. 6881- (Del. Chancery Ct.,
September 20, 2011) is brought on behalf of the public
shareholders of NetLogic to enjoin a proposed transaction,
pursuant to which NetLogic will be acquired by Broadcom.

The Plaintiff contends that the Proposed Transaction is the
product of a flawed process that resulted from prospects.
Accordingly, Mr. Danielo seeks to enjoin the Proposed Transaction
or, alternatively, to rescind the Proposed Transaction in the
event defendants are able to consummate it.

Mr. Danielo is a NetLogic shareholder.

NetLogic, a Delaware corporation, is a semiconductor company that
designs, develops and markets high performance knowledge-based
processors.  NetLogic's market-leading product portfolio includes
high-performance Multi-Core Processors, Knowledge-based
Processors, Content Processors, Network Search Engines,
Digital Front-End PHYs, high-speed 10/40/100 Gigabit Ethernet PHY
solutions, and Low-Power Embedded Processors.  Broadcom is a
California corporation and is the holding company for I&N
Acquisition Corp.  Broadcom provides integrated silicon solutions
that enable broadband digital data transmission of voice, data,
and video content to the home and within the business enterprise.

I&N Acquisition Corp. is a Delaware corporation and is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Broadcom.  The Doe Defendants are officers and
directors of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James P. McEvilly, III, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 482-3182
          Facsimile: (302) 4823612
          E-mail: jmcevilly@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Fl.
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com


NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Aylward to Settle Moose Collision Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that Liberal Leader Kevin Aylward on Sept. 21
said he will settle a class action lawsuit over moose-vehicle
collisions, if his party wins the Oct. 11 election.

Mr. Aylward, campaigning in Corner Brook, said moose-vehicle
accidents have claimed too many lives and that it is time for a
policy that responds to what people want.

Mr. Aylward said he would find the money for expanded moose
fencing in the provincial highway budget.

Mr. Aylward said that would be done in consultation with the Save
our People Action Committee.

A SOPAC official said settling the lawsuit would cost about $5
million.

The class action lawsuit was launched by victims of moose-vehicle
accidents against the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensation for victims, moose
fencing, a cull of the herd and other measures to reduce
collisions.

Convinced that the current pilot project for moose fencing is
inadequate, Mr. Aylward said his party would install moose fencing
after identifying hotspots along the province's highways.

Amid public pressure for measures to curb accidents, the governing
Progressive Conservatives announced plans for a pilot project in
July.  The $5 million plan includes putting up fencing along
selected stretches of the province's highway system to curb
collisions.


PANDORA MEDIA: Violates Users' Privacy Rights, Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
Peter Deacon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Pandora Media, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
4:11-cv-04674 (N.D. Calif., September 20, 2011) accuses Pandora of
intentionally disclosing its users' private music listening
histories in violation of the Michigan's Video Rental Privacy Act
and the Michigan Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff argues that Pandora has willfully violated its
users' privacy rights in at least two primary ways:

   (1) Pandora asserted that users' profile pages -- containing
       information such as user name, musical preferences,
       favorite songs, and listening history -- would be
       available solely to other registered Pandora users, and
       obtainable only to those registered users with knowledge
       of an individual's unique-mail address.  Instead, Pandora
       made these records publicly available and searchable on
       the World Wide Web for anyone to view; and

   (2) In April 2010, Pandora unilaterally integrated its users'
       profile pages with their Facebook accounts.  As a result,
       Pandora released sensitive listening records to all of its
       users' Facebook "friends."  Moreover, any privacy afforded
       to individuals using pseudonymous e-mail addresses was
       destroyed, as the Facebook integration automatically
       correlated users' existing user names with their actual
       names, and automatically made users' musical preferences
       immediately available to all of their Facebook contacts.

Mr. Deacon is a citizen of Michigan.

Pandora is a Delaware corporation and does business throughout
California and the United States of America.  Pandora owns and
operates the Web site http://www.Pandora.com. Pandora's business
model is essentially that of a massive for-profit sound recording
library, Mr. Deacon asserts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean Reis, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC
          30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
          Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
          Telephone: (949) 459-2124
          Facsimile: (949) 459-2123
          E-mail: sreis@edelson.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
          EDELSON MCGUIRE, LLC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  ascharg@edelson.com


SEQUANS COMMS: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Sequans
Communications S.A. common stock who purchased shares between
April 15, 2011 and July 27, 2011, inclusive.  The lawsuit alleges
that Sequans knew but failed to disclose that it was facing
declining revenues from its WiMax products.  The lawsuit further
alleges, among other things, that Sequans materially overstated
its position with regard to 4G LTE products.

If you purchased SQNS common stock during the Class Period, you
have the legal right to petition the Court to be appointed a "lead
plaintiff."  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  Any
such request must satisfy certain criteria and be made no later
than October 31, 2011.  Any member of the purported class may move
the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.  If you are a Sequans investor and would like to discuss a
potential lead plaintiff appointment, or your rights and interests
with respect to the lawsuit, you may contact Michael I. Fistel,
Jr., Esq., or Marshall P. Dees, Esq. via e-mail at
mfistel@holzerlaw.com or mdees@holzerlaw.com or via toll-free
telephone at (888) 508-6832.

Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC -- http://www.holzerlaw.com-- is an
Atlanta, Georgia law firm that dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation.


TIN INC: Faces Class Action Over "Black Liquor" Oil Spill
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action
demands damages from Tin Inc. dba Temple-Inland for an Aug. 9
spill of noxious "black liquor" into the Pearl River.

A copy of the Complaint in McGehee, et al. v. TIN, Inc., Case No.
11-cv-02348 (E.D. La.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/21/Enviro.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Irving J. Warshauer, Esq.
          Gerald E. Meunier, Esq.
          M. Palmer Lambert, Esq.
          2800 Energy Centre
          1100 Poydras Street
          New Orleans, LA 70163-2800
          Telephone: (504) 522-2304
          E-mail: iwarshauer@gainsben.com
                  gmeunier@gainsben.com
                  plambert@gainsben.com

               - and -

          Kevin D. May, Esq.
          746 Avenue F
          Bogalusa, LA 70427
          Telephone: (985) 516-7602
          E-mail: kelvinmay@yahoo.com


WENNER MEDIA: Faces Class Action Over Spam Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Wenner Media makes illegal text-message spam phone calls with
deceptive offers for "gift cards" that are actually pitches for
magazine subscriptions to Wenner properties such as Rolling Stone
or Us Weekly.

A copy of the Complaint in Hubbard, et al. v. Wenner Media LLC,
Case No. 11-cv-04648 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/21/Wenner.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


ZALE CORP: Deadline to Appeal Securities Suit Dismissal on Sept 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action lawsuit
stemming from Zale Corporation's restatement of its 2009 annual
report have until September 30, 2011, to appeal the dismissal of
the lawsuit, according to the Company's September 20, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended July 31, 2011.

In November 2009, the Company and four former officers, Neal L.
Goldberg, Rodney Carter, Mary E. Burton and Cynthia T. Gordon,
were named as defendants in two purported class-action lawsuits
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas.  On August 9, 2010, the two lawsuits were
consolidated into one consolidated lawsuit, which alleged various
violations of securities laws arising from the financial statement
errors that led to the restatement completed by the Company as
part of its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
July 31, 2009.  The lawsuit requests unspecified damages and
costs.

On August 1, 2011, the Court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice.
The plaintiff has until September 30, 2011, to appeal the
decision.


* Gov. Cuomo Set to Sign Bill on Class-Action Attorneys' Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Wiessner, writing for Reuters, reports that lawyers in New
York who successfully challenge class-action settlements on behalf
of individual plaintiffs could be entitled to attorneys' fees, if
Gov. Andrew Cuomo signs a bill currently before him.

The measure, which would reverse a 1975 law, would allow courts to
award fees to anyone whose work benefits an entire class -- for
example, a lawyer who negotiates an increase in the total amount
of a settlement.  It passed both houses of the state legislature
in June after being drafted by an advisory panel.

The current law reserves attorneys' fees only for "representatives
of a class," which courts have interpreted to exclude lawyers who
represent "objectants," those class members who disagree with
specific terms of the settlement, such as the amount of the
settlement or attorneys' fees.

Proponents say the new law would encourage members of a class to
raise objections, and thus make it harder for class-action
defendants to craft "coupon" settlements, in which they provide
plaintiffs with a token award, such as a gift coupon, without
addressing their grievances.

"You want to give an incentive to the objector to come forward and
say, 'This isn't right,'" said George Carpinello, a partner at
Boies, Schiller & Flexner in Albany and the chair of the advisory
panel that requested the bill.

'BAD POLICY'

A 2010 ruling by the Court of Appeals highlighted the issue and
generated the push for the proposed legislation.  In the case,
Flemming v. Barnwell Nursing Home, which involved a class of 242
plaintiffs with claims of wrongful death or medical malpractice,
the defendant nursing home settled for $950,000, $448,000 of which
was pegged for attorneys' fees and expenses.  After the executor
of one class member's estate objected to the fees, an appellate
court reduced them to $425,000.  But when the executor applied for
fees for negotiating the reduction, the Court of Appeals denied
him, citing the 1975 law.

"Simply put, although a class may at times benefit from an
objectant's actions, the Legislature did not provide recompense
for those efforts," Judge Eugene Pigott wrote in the 5-2 ruling.

In dissent, Judge Robert Smith wrote that the court was promoting
"bad policy" that contradicted common law, and noted that
objectants' arguments often benefit entire classes, particularly
when the attorney for the class is seeking an unreasonably high
fee.

"No one disputes the need to control class counsel's fees, and
nothing furnishes so effective a check on those fees as an
objecting lawyer," Judge Smith wrote.

Michael Gruen, the Manhattan attorney who represented the
objectant in Flemming, said he expected to be awarded fees because
both federal and common law expressly allow it.  Echoing Judge
Smith, he said the current rule is a disincentive for lawyers to
represent objectants.

"No sane attorney, unless he has some non-monetary motivation,
would dream of taking on representation of an objectant under the
current circumstances," Mr. Gruen said.

Following the ruling in Flemming, an advisory panel previously
appointed by the state court administration drafted the bill now
under consideration.

FEARS OF COURT-CLOGGING

There is some concern that the new legislation, if passed, could
clog up the courts with spurious objections, particularly in high-
profile class-action suits.

"There could be more objectors coming out of the woodwork and
trying to muck up a settlement process," said Terry Jesse, the
executive director of the Chicago-based National Association of
Legal Fee Analysis.

But Jesse also noted that because the measure would preserve the
discretion of judges in doling out awards, it could keep
unreasonable objections to settlements in check.

Gov. Cuomo's office does not comment on pending legislation, and a
spokesman would not say when the governor would make a decision on
the bill.


                           *********

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  * * *