/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110928.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, September 28, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 192


BAD BOY: Agrees to $715T Fine for Not Reporting Defective Buggies
BHP BILLITON: Appeal in Colombia Suit Dismissal Remains Pending
BHP BILLITON: Continues to Defend "Choles" Suit in Colombia
CITY OF ELMHURST: Lawyers Gather Information on Flooding Victims
CITY OF HOUSTON: Sued Over Red Light Camera Tickets

CITY OF SACRAMENTO: Files Motion to Appeal Homeless Suit Ruling
CKE RESTAURANTS: Still Defends Employments Suits in California
DAYMAR COLLEGES: Faces Class Action in Ky. for Defrauding Students
DENDREON CORP: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Changes Terms of Service to Avert Class Actions

ENER1 INC: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.
FORD MOTOR: Sued in N.J. Over Pro Rata Vehicle Lease Refunds
ILLINOIS: Toll Highway Authority Sued for Civil Rights Violations
KAPLAN UNIVERSITY: Judge Refuses to Dismiss False Claims Suits
NEWS CORP: Dowler Family Lawyer Mulls Phone-Hacking Class Action

NUCOR: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Discrimination Class Action
PENSON WORLDWIDE: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Texas
ROYAL ST. CHARLES: Sued in N.J. Over Undisclosed "Resort Fee"
SINOTECH ENERGY: Rosen Law Firm Issues Update on Class Action
TOP DOT: Loan Officers Win FLSA Cass Action Bid

TSA STORES: Not Paying Overtime Wages in California, Suit Claims
WAL-MART STORES: Class Action Remanded to San Francisco Court


BAD BOY: Agrees to $715T Fine for Not Reporting Defective Buggies
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced that
Bad Boy Enterprises, LLC of Natchez, Mississippi, has agreed to
pay a civil penalty of $715,000.  The penalty settlement agreement
[http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11332.pdf]has been
provisionally accepted by the Commission.

The settlement resolves CPSC staff allegations that Bad Boy
Enterprises failed to immediately report, as required by federal
law, a defect involving Classic Buggies off-road utility vehicles
with Series brand and SePex brand electric motors that resulted in
sudden acceleration incidents and injuries to consumers.  The off-
road utility vehicles with Series motors were sold between 2003
and June 2007 and the off-road utility vehicles with a SePex
motors were sold between 2007 and June 2010.  Both the Series and
SePex off-road utility vehicles could suddenly accelerate during
use or while the ignition is in the idle position, creating a
runaway vehicle situation.

In 2008, Bad Boy Enterprises implemented a repair program for the
SePex off-road utility buggies to address the sudden acceleration
defect without notifying the Commission.  The firm did not report
to the Commission until August 2009.  CPSC and Bad Boy Enterprises
announced the first recall for sudden acceleration on October 21,

Subsequent investigation conducted by CPSC staff uncovered that
the firm failed to notify the Commission about the sudden
acceleration defect and incidents involving the off-road utility
vehicles with a Series motor.  The firm did not give CPSC full
information about the Series buggies until May 2010.  The firm
also reported in May 2010 that a new repair was necessary for the
previously recalled off-road utility vehicles to repair the sudden
acceleration defect.  The second recall for sudden acceleration in
these off-road utility vehicles was announced in December 2010.
By that time, there were more than 50 reports of sudden
acceleration incidents, resulting in injuries such as arm and leg
fractures, a fractured toe, rotator cuff injury, and sore muscles.

These off-road utility vehicles were sold nationwide by authorized
dealers from Spring 2003 through June 2010 for about $10,000.
CPSC urges consumers with recalled Series and SePex off-road
utility buggies to call the firm toll-free at (855) 738-3711
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday
for a free repair.

Federal law requires manufacturers, distributors and retailers to
report to CPSC within 24 hours after obtaining information
reasonably supporting the conclusion that a product contains a
defect, which could create a substantial product hazard, creates
an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, or fails to
comply with any consumer product safety rule or any other rule,
regulation, standard or ban enforced by CPSC.

In agreeing to the settlement, Bad Boy Enterprises denies CPSC
staff allegations as to the existence of a defect or hazard or
that it violated the law.

BHP BILLITON: Appeal in Colombia Suit Dismissal Remains Pending
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit commenced
against BHP Billiton Limited's subsidiaries remains pending in
Colombia, according to the Company's September 21, 2011, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2010.

The non-government organization, Corporacion Colombia Transparente
(CCT), brought three separate class actions (Popular Actions
1,029, 1,032 and 1,048) against various defendants in connection
with the privatization of 50 per cent of the Cerrejon Zona Norte
mining complex in Colombia in 2002.  Actions 1,029 and 1,048 were
dismissed leaving only the action against Cerrejon Zona Norte SA
(CZN).  The mining complex is currently owned by CZN and Carbones
del Cerrejon Limited (CDC).  The Company's subsidiary, Billiton
Investment 3 BV, owns a 33 per cent share in CDC, and the
Company's subsidiaries, Billiton Investment 3 BV and Billiton
Investment 8 BV (BHP Billiton Shareholders), collectively own a
33.33 per cent share in CZN.

CCT alleges, in part, that the defendants failed to comply with
the privatization process, and that the offer price for shares in
CZN between Stages 1 and 2 of the privatization process was not
correctly adjusted for inflation.

The Company's share of the alleged adjustment of the CZN share
price would be approximately $4 million.  In the alternative, CCT
seeks declaration that the privatization is null and void and
forfeiture of the transfer price paid, of which the Company's
share would be approximately $148 million.  In both instances, CCT
also seeks unquantified sanctions, including payment of stamp
taxes, an award of 15 per cent of all monies recovered by the
defendants, together with interest on all amounts at the maximum
rate authorized by law.

The CZN action was dismissed on February 18, 2011, the Court
determining that there were no irregularities in the privatization
of the Cerrejon Zona Norte mining complex.

CCT's request for a reconsideration of the judgment was denied.
On March 15, 2011, CCT filed an appeal against the dismissal.

BHP BILLITON: Continues to Defend "Choles" Suit in Colombia
BHP Billiton Limited continues to defend a class action lawsuit
over the privatization of the Cerrejon Zona Norte mining complex,
according to the Company's September 21, 2011, Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2010.

A class action lawsuit (Popular Action no. 242) arising out of the
privatisation of the Cerrejon Zona Norte mining complex has been
brought by Mr. Martin Nicolas Barros Choles, against various
defendants including Carbones del Cerrejon Limited (CDC).  The
Company's subsidiary, Billiton Investment 3 BV, owns a 33 per cent
share in CDC.

Mr. Choles claims that the transfer of rights by CDC to Cerrejon
Zona Norte SA (CZN) was ineffective because it only involved a
transfer of shares and not the transfer of the underlying rights
in the properties and assets used in the Cerrejon Zona Norte
mining complex.  Consequently, he is seeking orders that CDC pays
for the use and lease of the properties and assets until November
2009, and that from that date the properties and assets of the
Cerrejon project revert to the State.

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

CITY OF ELMHURST: Lawyers Gather Information on Flooding Victims
Annemarie Mannion, writing for TribLocal, reports that about a
dozen people turned out for an informational session on a class
action lawsuit against the city of Elmhurst for losses incurred by
residents hard hit by last summer's flooding.

"The case proceeds whether there are a thousand (people) or one
person," said Alex Arezina, who brought the suit and spoke at the
Sept. 22 meeting in the Elmhurst Public Library.

"The main reason we want to talk with citizens is to get our arms
around how many people were impacted," he said, referring to the
storms in the summer of 2010.  "It's needed to determine the

Rick Hoffman, an attorney for Cohen, Salk & Huvard, a Northbrook
law firm that filed the suit on behalf of Arezina, told attendees
that they have been trying to get information about the number of
people impacted by flooding from the city.  He said the city has
reported to the state that 50 residents were affected by the

"We know there are more than that," he said.

Mr. Hoffman said under the Freedom of Information Act, the city is
required to provide them with their count of how many people were

After storms hit the Chicago area on June 23, 2010, and
July 23 to 24, 2010, the suit alleges that Arezina, who lives in
the 300 block of Geneva street, and other residents suffered
significant losses because the city's sanitary sewer systems
overflowed, causing storm water and/or raw sewage to back up into
their homes and property.  According to the suit, the flooding was
"caused by the city's negligent failure to properly operate and
maintain its storm and sanitary sewer systems."

If the lawsuit is successful, Mr. Hoffman said the city's
insurance could be tapped to cover some of the costs that
residents faced in cleaning up from the flooding.

He said the lawsuit is not intended "to wipe out the city and not
to raise taxes . . . we're not looking to bankrupt the city.
That's why you buy insurance."

Mr. Hoffman said meetings with city officials about the suit,
which was filed in June, were cooperative at first.

"The initial tone was cooperative, but it doesn't seem to be there
anymore," he said.

City attorney Don Storino confirmed on Sept. 23 that the city has
insurance coverage of $10 million per occurrence and that the city
has hired law firm Schiff Hardin in Chicago as co-counsel.  He
declined to comment any further on the lawsuit because it is
pending litigation.

Joan Vargas, who lives at North avenue and Maple street, said she
had sanitary sewer backups in her house after the storms, even
though she had pumps working non-stop.  She said she is
considering signing on to the suit.

"If there's something to fix the problem or whatever than I'm on
that boat," she said, adding she doesn't feel confident about
Elmhurst's storm water infrastructure and its ability to keep her
house dry.

"I can't control what Elmhurst doesn't control," she said.  "I'm
pretty much at their mercy."

While he stands to potentially gain, Mr. Hoffman said the lawsuit
is intended to get the city to improve its performance related to
flooding.  The city is working with two consultants to come up
with a plan to address both sanitary and storm water flooding.  A
report containing suggested remedies is due in November, and must
be approved by the city council.  The Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency, which also has filed suit against Elmhurst
charging that it failed to report storm water overflows, also will
have a say in what flooding fixes are done.

"We want to make sure the city takes steps that are real and
meaningful and are not just going to be a Band-Aid," Mr. Hoffman

Mr. Hoffman has said previously that a class action related to
flooding and sewer backups is somewhat unusual, but not unheard

"We don't see a lot of cases like this but it's not a great
stretch from what's out there," he said.

A handful of residents attended a meeting to learn about a class
action lawsuit on flooding.

CITY OF HOUSTON: Sued Over Red Light Camera Tickets
Miya Shay, writing for KTRK, reports that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against the city of Houston over red light cameras
which are currently turned off.  The plaintiffs want the city to
dismiss all of the tickets that were issued after voters turned
down the cameras last November.

In the lengthy, on-going legal saga, there is another lawsuit.
With a class action lawsuit filed on Sept. 23, the controversy
simply will not go away.

Last November, residents voted down the red light cameras.  Two
weeks after that, the cameras were turned off.  Earlier this
summer, they were turned back on again, and just recently turned
back off again.

The cameras may be off permanently, but Mayor Annise Parker has
said that drivers who have gotten tickets in the interim are
responsible for paying them.  The lawyer who filed a lawsuit and
his client feel differently.  They are urging people who have
gotten tickets in the interim not to pay.

"People should be warned that if you pay your recent red light
camera ticket, you may not be able to avail yourself of becoming a
class member of this lawsuit," said attorney Randall Kallinen.
"So what we're asking for is that the city nullify all red light
tickets that occurred after the election."

Houston City Attorney Dave Feldman issued the following statement:
"This is a frivolous lawsuit and I am confident it will be
dismissed.  In keeping with the will of the voters, the cameras
have been permanently turned off.  However, whether it is by a
police officer or captured by another mechanism, the City has the
authority and legal responsibility to enforce red light violations
and collect the fines from those violations.  It is irresponsible
to argue otherwise."

The city's legal department has maintained they have full legal
authority and plan on collecting all of the red light camera
tickets that are outstanding.  If you have a ticket, they want you
to pay up.  These attorneys feel differently.  The issue will
likely be fought out in court.

If you get a ticket, the decision is up to you.  The city says you
should pay.  The lawyers say don't do it.  The red light camera
saga continues.

CITY OF SACRAMENTO: Files Motion to Appeal Homeless Suit Ruling
Melissa Corker, writing for The Sacramento Press, reports that on
the same day that activists and supporters rallied together for
homeless rights at the Safe Ground Jubilee, attorneys for the city
of Sacramento were busy filing a motion to appeal a Federal Court
decision in a contentious homeless class action lawsuit.

"Our rationale for appeal is based primarily on procedural and
evidentiary rulings that came up in the trial," Brett Witter,
supervising deputy city attorney for Sacramento said on Sept. 22.

The motion for appeal was filed Sept. 14 in the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals by attorney Chance Trimm, on behalf of the city.

According to court documents, the city is appealing a May 24
Federal Court decision that found the city liable on two of six
claims by plaintiffs that the city "had a custom and practice of
violating (plaintiffs') constitutional rights concerning their
personal property."

"We're not appealing the jury's decision," Mr. Witter said,
"instead, we're challenging the way the evidence was presented to
the jury."

Mr. Witter said that, among the issues brought up in the city's
appeal is an amendment made to the plaintiffs' complaint late in
the game.

"(The amendment) came literally a couple of weeks before the
trial," Mr. Witter said.  "We felt the late amendment was
inappropriate.  That's just one of the problems (with the trial)
we want to discuss."

Mark Merin, the attorney representing the homeless class action
group, said on Sept. 21 that the city has no basis for the motion
to appeal.

"An appeal can only happen after a final judgment," Mr. Merin
said.  "In this case, there hasn't yet been one."

Because the jury decided the city is liable but hasn't set damages
yet, Mr. Merin explained, the case is not considered "final" or

Mr. Merin filed a motion with the court on Sept. 20 to dismiss the
appeal for "lack of jurisdiction."

The homeless class action against the city began in 2007 when
Mr. Merin, representing homeless individuals, filed suit in
Sacramento Federal Court alleging that homeless plaintiffs'
belongings were illegally taken and thrown away by Sacramento
police officers between August 2005 and May 2009.

Once the court made its decision in May 2011, Mr. Merin said, the
next step should be negotiating a claims procedure to compensate
individuals for damages and property loss.

"It's not just compensation for the actual property," Mr. Merin
said.  "It's also loss of use of property.  The (class action
petitioners) are also entitled to damages for the violation of
their rights."

Mr. Merin said there isn't any way to accurately estimate the
final amount of damages, but he estimates the amount may be as
much as $1 million or more.

"As long as the case is unresolved, it has a real impact on the
many homeless people in Sacramento," Joan Burke, director of
advocacy for Loaves & Fishes, said on Sept. 22.

Ms. Burke said that more than 1,000 homeless people in the city
are forced to sleep outside every night because there is a lack of
shelter space available.

"Anyone forced to sleep outside is subject to arrest," Ms. Burke
said.  "When people are arrested, they have to worry about their

Typically what people have with them when they are living outside,
Ms. Burke said, are "survival items" -- such as clothing,
eyeglasses or medical prescriptions -- or more sentimental items
like photographs and family mementos.

"When you have to minimize what you carry around," Ms. Burke said,
"you get it down to what is really most important to you."

In June, the city filed additional motions for summary judgment --
to essentially "cancel" the jury decision -- as well as a motion
for a new trial.

Both actions were denied by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., the
presiding judge of the case, on Aug. 15.

"(The City) has done all they can to delay the reckoning,"
Ms. Merin said, "and it just won't work."

Mr. Witter said that, if the appeal is denied, city attorneys will
go back to the City Council to get direction on what to do next.

Ms. Merin said he expects the court will make a decision on the
motion to dismiss by the end of October.

CKE RESTAURANTS: Still Defends Employments Suits in California
CKE Restaurants, Inc., is currently involved in legal disputes
related to employment claims, real estate claims and other
business disputes.  As of August 15, 2011, the Company's accrued
liability for litigation contingencies with a probable likelihood
of loss was $2,140, with an expected range of losses from $2,140
to $9,940.  With respect to employment matters, the Company's most
significant legal disputes relate to employee meal and rest break
disputes, and wage and hour disputes.  Several potential class
action lawsuits have been filed in the State of California,
regarding such employment matters, each of which is seeking
injunctive relief and monetary compensation on behalf of current
and former employees.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against all
claims in these lawsuits; however, the Company is presently unable
to predict the ultimate outcome of these actions.  As of
August 15, 2011, the Company estimated the contingent liability of
those losses related to litigation claims that are not accrued,
but that the Company believes is reasonably possible to result in
an adverse outcome and for which a range of loss can be reasonably
estimated, to be in the range of $2,555 to $12,780.  In addition,
the Company is involved in legal matters where the likelihood of
loss has been judged to be reasonably possible, but for which a
range of the potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.

No further updates were reported in the Company's September 21,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended August 15, 2011.

DAYMAR COLLEGES: Faces Class Action in Ky. for Defrauding Students
Courthouse News Service reports that Daymar Colleges Group is the
latest profit-seeking college chain to face a class action
accusing it of duping students through many and various ways; this
complaint has 135 named plaintiffs.

A copy of the Complaint in Albury, et al. v. Daymar Colleges
Group, LLC, et al. Case No. 11CI06200 (Ky. Cir. Ct., Jefferson
Cty.), is available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth L. Sales, Esq.
          David G. Bryant, Esq.
          1900 Waterfront Plaza
          325 W. Main Street
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 589-5600

               - and -

          Mark P. Bryant, Esq.
          Emily Ward Roark, Esq.
          601 Washington Street
          P.O. Box 1876
          Paducah, KY 4202-1876
          Telephone: (270) 442-1422

DENDREON CORP: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
Milberg LLP reminds shareholders that class action lawsuits have
been filed on behalf of investors who purchased securities of
Dendreon Corporation during the period April 29, 2010, to
August 3, 2011, inclusive.  The cases are pending in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington and
allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
Dendreon and certain of the Company's officers.

The lawsuits allege that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements to investors by
materially overstating the Company's projected sales of its cancer
drug Provenge and failing to disclose that physicians were slow to
adopt the drug for fear that they would not be reimbursed for the
costly treatment.  The Complaints also allege that the Company
lacked operational or financial controls and that several Company
insiders, including the Chief Executive Officer, sold shares while
the share price was artificially inflated.  On August 3, 2011,
when the Company announced financial and operating results that
were well below analysts' expectations and withdrew its earnings
guidance for the entire fiscal year, shares of Dendreon stock
declined more than 60%, reducing the company's market value by
over $3 billion.

If you purchased securities of Dendreon from April 29, 2010, to
August 3, 2011, you may move the court no later than October 4,
2011, and request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  A
lead plaintiff is a class member that acts on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.  Your share in any
recovery will not be enhanced or diminished by serving as a lead
plaintiff, however, lead plaintiffs make important decisions that
could affect the overall recovery for class members.  You do not
need to be a lead plaintiff to recover in a class action; you can
recover as an absent class member.  You may retain Milberg LLP, or
other attorneys, for this action, but do not need to retain
counsel to recover as an absent class member.  If this action is
certified as a class action, class members will be automatically
represented by court-appointed counsel.  The lawsuits discussed
here were not filed by Milberg.

Milberg LLP has been representing individual and institutional
investors for more than four decades and serves as lead counsel in
federal and state courts throughout the United States.  If you
wish to discuss this matter with us, or have any questions
regarding this matter, please contact the following attorneys:

          Andrei Rado, Esq.
          Jessica Sleater, Esq.
          Milberg LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Fl.
          New York, NY 10119-0165
          Telephone: (800) 320-5081
          E-mail: arado@milberg.com
          Web site: http://milberg.com

ELECTRONIC ARTS: Changes Terms of Service to Avert Class Actions
Luke Plunkett, writing for Kotaku, reports that while Sony's new
"don't sue us" terms of service are terrible, other companies are
now free to do the same thing.

One example: Electronic Arts.

If you scroll down to the bottom of EA's most recent terms of
service, which includes both accounts made for the publisher's
online services (like Madden and FIFA's online play) and its new
Origin PC platform, you'll see sentences like this:

By accepting these terms, you and EA expressly waive the right to
a trial by jury or to participate in a class action.



It means that nearly all kinds of court action possible against
EA, from class action suits to individuals suing the company in a
court of law, are now off the table for most customers.  Only
claims involving intellectual property, theft and piracy can be
taken to court, and in case you haven't noticed, they'd mostly
involve EA taking other people to court, not the other way around.

These new terms have been drafted for exactly the same reason as
Sony's (and many other non-gaming companies, like insurance firms,
in recent times): because unlike courts, whose outcomes are
decided by juries (who can by sympathetic towards consumers
battling multinational corporations), decisions made via private
arbitration often find in favour of businesses, and even when
siding with consumers offer relatively small payouts.  You can't
appeal the findings of a private arbitration hearing, nor is there
an independent or public means of reviewing an arbitrator's
decisions.  They are also designed to be conducted privately, out
of the public eye.

Basically, just like Sony's, it's a move designed to take a lot of
your power as a consumer out of your hands, and make it easier for
big businesses like EA to simply shrug off unhappy customers.  It
also prevents large groups of customers banding together to take a
unified stand against the company.

Note that the "no sue" stuff only applies to you as a user of EA's
services.  It has absolutely no power to stop lawsuits like that
filed by Activision against EA over the "defection" of the
creators of Call of Duty, or the large class action suit brought
against the publisher over its NCAA football games.

You can opt out of EA's ToS by sending the company a letter, the
catch being it must be received within 30 days of a new terms of
service being issued.  Since the last one was updated on August
25, unless you want to courier the thing, you're going to miss out
on this round.

Like Sony's terms of service, EA's don't apply to everyone; in
this case, if you live in "Quebec, Russia, Switzerland and the
Member States of the European Union", you're exempt.  Kotaku is
checking with EA to see if that includes Australia and New Zealand
as well.

It'll be interesting to see, in the wake of the US Supreme Court's
decision on AT&T (and of course Sony and EA's new stance) how many
companies follow this move.  Microsoft's latest terms of service,
dated July, make no mention of forced arbitration, nor does
Steam's, but Blizzard's (dated June) come awfully close.

ENER1 INC: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.
Saxena White P.A. has filed a class action lawsuit against Ener1,
Inc. and certain of its officers.  The securities class action in
the United States Southern District Court of New York is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased
Ener1 securities between January 10, 2011, and August 15, 2011,

On August 15, 2011, Ener1 disclosed that the Company's financial
statements for the year ended December 31, 2010 and for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 should no longer be relied
upon and should be restated.  The determination was made following
an assessment of certain accounting matters related to the loans
receivable owed to Ener1 by Think Holdings and accounts receivable
owed to Ener1 by Think Global held by the Company, and the timing
of the recognition of the impairment charge related to the
Company's investment in Think Holdings originally recorded during
the quarter ended March 31, 2011.

On this news, shares of Ener1 declined 42.31% on August 16, 2011.

You may obtain a copy of the complaint and join the class action
at http://www.saxenawhite.com

If you purchased Ener1 stock between January 10, 2011, and
August 15, 2011, inclusive, you may contact Joe White or Greg
Stone at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights and interests.

If you purchased Ener1 shares during the Class Period and wish to
apply to be the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your
behalf must be filed with the Court no later than October 17,
2011.  You may contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights
regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in
the class action.  Please note that you may also retain counsel of
your choice and need not take any action at this time to be a
class member.

Saxena White P.A., which has offices in Boca Raton, Boston and
Montana, specializes in prosecuting securities fraud and complex
class actions on behalf of institutions and individuals.
Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous securities fraud
class actions nationwide, the firm has recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars on behalf of injured investors and is active
in major litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout
the United States.

FORD MOTOR: Sued in N.J. Over Pro Rata Vehicle Lease Refunds
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Ford Motor Credit Co. violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act
by refusing to give pro rata refunds of upfront lease payments to
people called to military service.

A copy of the Complaint in Demarest v. Ford Motor Credit Company,
Case No. 11-cv-_____, docketed as 1914 in Case No. 33-av-00001 on
Sept. 22, 2011 (D. N.J.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas T. Booth, Jr., Esq.
          129 W. Evesham Road
          Voorhees, NJ 08043
          Telephone: (856) 354-6060
          E-mail: BoothLaw@comcast.net

               - and -

          Michael J. DeBenedictis, Esq.
          20 Brace Road, Suite 350
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 795-2101

ILLINOIS: Toll Highway Authority Sued for Civil Rights Violations
James L. Tobin, Christina Marie Tobin, Rae Ann McNeilly, Glenn
Westphal and Carol Westphal, individually and as representatives
of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Illinois State
Toll Highway Authority, a body politic, Paula Wolff, Chair of the
Illinois Tollway Board of Directors, in her official capacity, and
Electronic Transaction Consultants Corporation, a Texas
Corporation doing business in Illinois, Case No. 2011-CH-33144
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., September 22, 2011) seeks redress for
the Constitutional violations, which took place and which continue
to take place by the manner in which the Defendants are operating
the Illinois Tollway system.

The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, a declaratory judgment and
redress for the violation of their civil rights by the Defendants.

The Tobins are citizens of Illinois.  Mr. Tobin is the president,
and Ms. Tobin is the vice president of Taxpayers United of
America, which is a nonpartisan national organization dedicated to
fighting unjust taxes in the United States.  Plaintiff McNeilly is
the Director of Outreach of TUA, a resident of Illinois and an I-
Pass user of the Illinois tollway system.  The Westphals are
residents of Wisconsin and when they travel in interstate commerce
through the state of Illinois, they are cash users of the Illinois
Tollway system.

The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority is an instrumentality
and an administrative agency of the state of Illinois empowered by
statute to operate the Illinois State Toll Highway system.  The
agency maintains and operates nearly 500 toll lanes located in 12
counties in Northern Illinois, including Cook County, where many
of the actions complained of have taken place.  Electronic
Transaction is a Texas Corporation operating as a foreign
corporation in the state of Illinois, but not in good standing
with the Illinois Secretary of State as of September 19, 2011, the
lawsuit says.  Ms. Wolff is the chair of the Tollway's Board of

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew B. Spiegel, Esq.
          General Counsel, Taxpayers United of America
          407 South Dearborn Street, Suite 1 170
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Telephone: (312) 427-5128
          Facsimile: (312) 427-5139
          E-mail: aspiegel@chawlagroup.com

KAPLAN UNIVERSITY: Judge Refuses to Dismiss False Claims Suits
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge in Miami refused to dismiss several lawsuits in which former
employees accuse Kaplan University and Kaplan Higher Education
Corp. of violating the Higher Education Act, in search of federal
funding and profits.

U.S. District Judge Patricia Seitz rejected claims accusing Kaplan
of manipulating students' academic records and job-placement
statistics, and of paying incentives based on student enrollment
numbers, but allowed whistle-blowers to pursue claims of
retaliation and other violations.

Kaplan University, one of the largest for-profit colleges in the
country, offers more than 200 on-campus and online degrees and
programs.  The university and its parent company, Kaplan Higher
Education Corp., are accredited by the Higher Learning Commission
and receive federal grants and loans from the U.S. Department of

Kaplan is a subsidiary of The Washington Post Co., and has
provided a great deal of that company's profits as the newspaper
industry has been wracked by economic problems.

Since 2006, several former employees have claimed that Kaplan
violated the law, and its program-participation agreement with the
Department of Education, by recruiting unqualified students,
misrepresenting students' academic progress, manipulating job-
placement statistics and paying recruiters bonuses based on how
many students they enrolled, to maximize its federal funding.

In November 2006, two former instructors sued Kaplan, claiming it
submitted false claims to the government and failed to comply with
the Higher Education Act, which was a prerequisite for payment of
the claims.

The plaintiffs, formerly employed at Kaplan's Pittsburgh-based
campus, claimed that Kaplan broke the 70 Percent Rule, which
requires eligible schools to have graduation rates and job
placement rates of at least 70%.

They also claimed that Kaplan Career Institute advertised job-
placement rates but failed to provide prospective students with
job-placement statistics or state licensing requirements.

A federal judge in Pennsylvania upheld the plaintiffs' 70 Percent
Rule claim and one of the whistle-blowers' retaliation claim.
That court also allowed the plaintiffs to pursue claims based on
job placement rates and licensing requirements, in an amended

In one of three rulings on the multidistrict litigation against
Kaplan, Judge Seitz in Miami found that the Pennsylvania
plaintiffs had failed to adequately plead Kaplan's failure to
provide prospective students with data underlying job placement
advertisements, or prove the falsity of the documents that were
made available.

The plaintiffs also failed to establish that Kaplan had not
provided licensing information to prospective students, Judge
Seitz found.

But Judge Seitz upheld the plaintiffs' 70 Percent Rule claim,
finding that "relators have adequately pled which programs must
comply with the 70 Percent Rules by alleging that all of
defendants' programs must comply with the rules and setting forth
the specific programs."

In a separate complaint filed in Florida in April 2007, three
former employees claimed that Kaplan University inflated student
grades to falsely certify that students were maintaining
satisfactory academic progress, paid student recruiters bonuses
based solely on the number of students they enrolled, broke the
Higher Education Act's 90/10 rule regarding financial aid and
falsified documents to receive program accreditation.

One of the whistle-blowers, Jude Gillespie, a former course
developer and associate professor, alleged that Kaplan violated
the Rehabilitation Act by failing to accommodate his bipolar

His co-plaintiff Carlos Urquilla-Diaz sued Kaplan for firing him
in 2005, after Diaz notified it that he would expose Kaplan's
method of recruiting students and other violations to federal and
state authorities.

Judge Seitz ruled in that case that the plaintiffs may sue Kaplan
under the False Claims Act if they could prove Kaplan applied for
federal funds while knowing it was not in compliance with the
Higher Education Act.

But Judge Seitz dismissed several claims, finding that the
plaintiffs had failed to plead them with particularity.

"While the second amended complaint alleges that grades were
inflated in order to maintain eligibility to receive Title IV
funding, which requires satisfactory academic progress, relators
have not set out how the alleged grade inflation violates any
rules or regulations," Judge Seitz wrote.  "Furthermore, the
regulation applies to a student's eligibility to receive HEA
funds, not an institution's eligibility."

Judge Seitz applied the same reasoning to the plaintiffs'
incentive compensation claim.  While the plaintiffs acknowledged
that Kaplan's retention bonuses, cash bonuses and other incentives
paid to student recruiters were based on various factors, they
argued that Kaplan took into account only student enrollment
numbers.  Judge Seitz dismissed that argument as "bare

The plaintiffs also argued that Kaplan violated the 90/10 Rule,
which bars an eligible institution from receiving more than 90
percent of its revenue from federal funds for tuition and student
fees.  They claimed that Kaplan rerouted federal loan money to its
employees, who paid tuition at Kaplan and received tuition tax
credits from the IRS.

But Judge Seitz ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to show how
Kaplan's accounting practices violated the 90/10 Rule.

Judge Seitz also found that the whistle-blowers' claims of false
statements and false documents failed for lack of specificity.

In its motion to dismiss, Kaplan argued that Mr. Gillespie's
Rehabilitation Act claim, which alleged nonexistent violations,
could not be the basis for a fraud claim under the False Claims

Judge Seitz disagreed.  She noted that in 2007 the Department of
Education's Office of Civil Rights concluded that Kaplan was in
violation of the Rehabilitation Act, and directed the school to
correct specific violations.

"All of the violations listed by OCR were system-wide violations,
not violations arising from the treatment of a specific
individual," Judge Seitz wrote.

Mr. Gillespie may pursue his Rehabilitation Act claims only until
the moment when Kaplan corrected the violations, as acknowledged
by the DOE's Office of Civil Rights.

The court also upheld Mr. Diaz's retaliation claim, since Kaplan
knew Mr. Diaz was notifying federal and state authorities of its
noncompliance when it fired him.

Judge Seitz dismissed a third complaint against Kaplan, which also
alleged that the school violated the Higher Education Act's ban on
incentive compensation.

Jorge Torres, a former director of admissions at Kaplan's
Milwaukee-based campus, claimed that Kaplan paid bonuses to its
student recruiters based on enrollment and financial aid numbers
and conditioned its admission staff's continued employment on the
number of students they recruited.

Mr. Torres claimed that Kaplan caused students and private lenders
to make false claims to the government, because Kaplan was not
eligible to receive federal funds.

But Judge Seitz ruled that Kaplan's policy of conditioning
continued employment on minimum enrollment numbers did not violate
the Higher Education Act.

Judge Seitz dismissed Torres' additional claims, finding they were
duplicative of the claims in the Pennsylvania and Florida actions.

In August 2010, Kaplan was one of 15 for-profit universities
subjected to a Senate hearing on the schools' alleged misleading
practices, such as manipulating job-placement statistics to boost
student enrollment and increase federal funding.  A scorching
Government Accountability Office report that month found
violations at every one of more than a dozen for-profit chain
colleges the GAO investigated.

Many of the profit-seeking colleges then faced shareholder class
actions when their stock prices dropped.

NEWS CORP: Dowler Family Lawyer Mulls Phone-Hacking Class Action
Lisa O'Carroll, writing for guardian.co.uk, reports that the
solicitor who represented the family of Milly Dowler in their
phone-hacking claims against News Corporation on Sept. 23
announced he has teamed up with US lawyers with a view to
initiating proceedings targeting Rupert Murdoch and his son James.

Mark Lewis of Taylor Hampton has instructed Norman Siegel, a New
York-based lawyer who represents 20 9/11 families to seek witness
statements from News Corp. and directors including the Murdochs in
relation to allegations that News of the World staff may have
bribed police.

He says he intends to assess whether he can launch a class action
against News Corp. using American foreign corruption laws, which
make it illegal for US companies to pay bribes to government
officials abroad.

"There is a provision within US law, before you start an action to
seek depositions from individuals, in this case, such as James
Murdoch and Rupert Murdoch and other directors of News Corp," said

He added Mr. Siegel would examine allegations of not just police
bribery but also phone hacking and "foreign malpractices."

The move will be a fresh setback for News Corp. which has been
trying to insulate itself against contagion from the UK phone-
hacking scandal that has engulfed its British publishing empire.

Separately, it emerged that this week, US prosecutors at the
Department of Justice have written to Murdoch's News Corporation
requesting information on alleged payments made to the British
police by the News of the World.  The DoJ is looking into whether
the company may have violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Under FCPA laws, American companies are banned from paying
representatives of a foreign government to gain a commercial

The decision to co-ordinate legal efforts on both sides of the
Atlantic comes just days after News International confirmed it was
in settlement talks with the parents of the murdered 13-year-old

News International is discussing a total package of around GBP3
million including a personal donation from Rupert Murdoch of GBP1
million to a charity of the Dowler's choice.

News Corp. declined to comment but it is understood that senior
executives question whether there is any basis for Mr. Lewis'

NUCOR: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Discrimination Class Action
After eight years of a Plaintiffs' law firm unsuccessfully
attempting to certify a national class action against Nucor based
on unfounded allegations, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
confirmed on Sept. 22 that not only was a national class action
inappropriate, but there was no evidence of plant-wide
discrimination at Nucor-Yamato Steel, in Blytheville, Arkansas.
The Eighth Circuit ruled in Nucor-Yamato's favor and found that a
trial court properly denied class action claims brought by six
current and former employees of the Blytheville, Arkansas plant.
United States District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright of the
Eastern District of Arkansas had previously ruled that there was
no evidence of common, plant-wide discrimination, and the
appellate court agreed.

The District Judge dismissed most of the remaining individual
claims of discrimination prior to trial and another was found to
have no merit by the jury.  At trial, the Plaintiffs' law firm
sought $23 million for the handful of remaining claims, but the
jury denied that outrageous demand and instead awarded the six
individual plaintiffs $200,000.  Nucor appealed the jury's
findings on these few, isolated individual claims of
discrimination at the trial, but the Eighth Circuit left intact
the jury's verdict on these few claims due to the heightened
standard of review for overturning any jury verdict.

Nucor-Yamato has over 800 team members who were not a part of this
lawsuit.  Many of these team members testified at trial to the
extraordinary financial, educational, and professional
opportunities as well as the friendly, cooperative and respectful
workplace environment Nucor-Yamato has afforded them.  Even one of
the plaintiffs -- in between his allegations of discrimination --
admitted to the jury that working for Nucor-Yamato was "like
winning the lottery."  A second plaintiff, while waiting for the
case to come to trial requested that his son be hired by Nucor-

Dozens of Nucor-Yamato's team members stepped forward to fight for
and defend this company.  It comes as no surprise that so many
people were willing to step forward.  Nucor-Yamato prides itself
not only on the quality of its products but on the character of
its people and is proud of its record of not laying off a single
teammate in the face of the biggest recession since the Great
Depression.  Nucor-Yamato has brought over 800 jobs and hundreds
of millions of dollars in economic development to northeast
Arkansas. Nucor-Yamato pays some of the most generous wages and
provides some of the best benefits of any employer in the state of

Nucor-Yamato Steel continues to deny that any discrimination
occurred at the plant and was pleased that the Eighth Circuit
confirmed that there was no evidence of plant-wide discrimination.
Nucor-Yamato Steel believes that it can only succeed if its people
succeed and will continue to enforce its long-established practice
of maintaining a workplace free of discrimination of any kind.

PENSON WORLDWIDE: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Texas
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim directors
of Penson Worldwide juggled the books to hide $43 million in bad
loans, causing the share price to plummet when it was revealed.

A copy of the Complaint in McHugh v. Engemoen, et al., Case No.
CC-11-06610-C (Dallas Cty. Ct.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          10205 North Pennsylvania
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          E-mail:  wbf@federmanlaw.com

               - and -

          2926 Maple Avenue, Suite 200
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 696-1100

ROYAL ST. CHARLES: Sued in N.J. Over Undisclosed "Resort Fee"
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
the Royal St. Charles Hotel charges an undisclosed $7.95 per day
"resort fee," plus taxes, and does not disclose it until checkout.

A copy of the Complaint in Bayou Internet, Inc. v. Royal St.
Charles Hotel, LLC, Case No. 11-cv-02385 (E.D. La.), is available


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey P. Berniard, Esq.
          BERNIARD LAW FIRM, L. L. C
          643 Magazine Street, Suite 402
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 527-6225
          E-mail: Jeffberniard@laclaim.com

SINOTECH ENERGY: Rosen Law Firm Issues Update on Class Action
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. issued an update on the securities class
action filed by the firm on behalf securities purchasers of
SinoTech Energy during the period from November 3, 2010, through
and including August 16, 2011.

To join the SinoTech Energy class action, visit the firm's
Web site at http://rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-
free, at 866-767-3653; you may also e-mail pkim@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action.

On September 23, 2011 SinoTech issued an announcement stating that
the Company's Chief Financial Officer and Audit Committee
Chairwoman, had each resigned from the Company.  SinoTech Energy
also announced that the Company's independent auditor Ernst &
Young Hua Ming had resigned and withdrawn its audit opinion for
SinoTech Energy's September 30, 2010 financial statements.

According to SinoTech, the reasons for the resignations were,
without limitation: "(i) that they believe that there has been a
potentially unauthorized transfer in 2011 by Mr. Qingzeng Liu, the
Chairman of the Board of the Company (the "Chairman"), of a
material portion of the Company's cash from a Chinese bank account
held in the name of the Company's Chinese operating subsidiary to
a bank account controlled by the Chairman; (ii) that they have
been unable to investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding
this transfer to their satisfaction; and (iii) that the events
relating to such transactions have caused them to lose confidence
in the accuracy and reliability of the Company's previously filed
financial statements."

"We believe the latest revelations corroborate the allegations
alleged in the complaint filed by the firm," said Rosen attorney,
Phillip Kim.  "Our investigation of SinoTech Energy continues
through resources in China and elsewhere.  The firm has developed
significant expertise in these types of cases serving as lead
counsel in a number of securities fraud class actions against a
number of Chinese based issuers," added Mr. Kim.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 18, 2011.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Toll-free: 866-767-3653
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
          Web site: http://rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.

TOP DOT: Loan Officers Win FLSA Cass Action Bid
In what is believed to be one of the largest Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) verdicts in 2011, a federal court entered a $9 million
judgment on Sept. 23 in favor of Top Dot Mortgage's loan officers
following a jury trial.  The FLSA class action lawsuit, which Erik
H. Langeland and Stephan Zouras actively prosecuted for almost
three years, was brought on behalf of 166 loan officers who were
not properly paid minimum wage or overtime by their employer, Top
Dot Mortgage, and its individual owners.  "At trial, we proved
that Top Dot willfully created a pay plan which denied its loan
officers minimum and overtime wages in violation of federal law,
while its individual owners wrongfully added millions of dollars
to their personal income" said lead trial attorney Ryan Stephan.
The jury specifically found that class members averaged ten hours
of unpaid overtime each week.

Under the FLSA, employees are entitled to wages for all hours
worked and time-and-a-half pay for all time worked over 40 hours
worked in a workweek, unless they are exempt from the Act.
Federal law also requires employers to maintain accurate records
of hours actually worked by employees.

Based on the total verdict, each of the 166 class members was
awarded $54,000 on average.

According to lead trial counsel and founding partner Ryan F.
Stephan, "This is victory not just for our hardworking clients,
but for all Americans who deserve an honest day's pay for an
honest day's work, exactly what the law requires."

"We believe this verdict sets the standard for all similar wage
and hour cases moving forward," says trial counsel and founder
Erik H. Langeland.  "We look forward to bringing justice to other
Americans who are similarly deprived of proper pay."

For more information about the verdict in this case or about your
wage rights, please contact Stephan Zouras, LLP or Erik H.
Langeland P.C. at 312-233-1550.

TSA STORES: Not Paying Overtime Wages in California, Suit Claims
Khanh Nielson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TSA Stores, Inc., erroneously sued as The Sports
Authority, Inc., and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 11-
513562 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., August 22, 2011) is
a class action seeking unpaid wages, including meal and rest
period compensation, penalties, injunctive and other equitable
relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the
California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions
Code and the California Code of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiff alleges that during the Class Period, TSA Stores has
had a consistent policy of requiring its non-exempt retail
employees, including the Plaintiff and class members, to remain at
work after completion of the workers' ordinary duties, without
paying their wages for all compensable time, including overtime

Ms. Nielson was employed by TSA Stores as a non-exempt employee at
one of the Defendant's California retail stores.

TSA Stores is a California corporation.  The Doe Defendants are
business affiliates, successors- and predecessors-in-interest,
officers, directors, partners, and managing agents of some or each
of the remaining Defendants.

TSA Stores removed the lawsuit on September 22, 2011, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of San
Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The Company argues that the removal is
proper because the lawsuit is a civil action between citizens of
different states and the amount of controversy exceeds $75,000.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:11-cv-04724 to the

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
          Hannah R. Salassi, Esg.
          Stephen Noel Ilg, Esq.
          1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 891-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
          E-mail: scole@scalaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Steven W. Moore, Esq.
          Evan R. Moses, Esq.
          Erica K. Rocush, Esq.
          Steuart Tower, Suite 1300
          One Market Plaza
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-4810
          Facsimile: (415) 442-4870
          E-mail: steven.moore@ogletreedeakins.com

WAL-MART STORES: Class Action Remanded to San Francisco Court
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Sept. 23 remanded Wal-
Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, the nation's largest ever proposed
class action, back to the San Francisco court where the case began
more than a decade ago.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the 9th Circuit's
certification of a class of some 1.6 million women who claimed
they had been discriminated against while employed by Wal-Mart.

The high court voted 5-4 in landmark ruling that the plaintiffs
did not have enough in common to justify class certification.


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  * * *