CAR_Public/111005.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, October 5, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 197

                             Headlines

ABT BUILDING: Property Owners May File Trimboard Claims
AMERIFIT: May Face Suit Over False Claims on Culturelle Products
ANZ: Overdraft Fee Class Action Hearing Begins
BANK OF AMERICA: Homeowner Protests Over Loan Modification
BEST BUY: Awaits Decision on Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit

BEST BUY: Fairness Hearing in Discrimination Suit on Nov. 9
CADBURY HOLDINGS: Oct. 21 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Litigation Over Egg Prices Remains Pending
CHAUS BERNARD: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Camuto Merger Proposal
DEAN FOODS: Sued Over False Misrepresentations on Horizon Milk

DJSP ENTERPRISES: Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Action
FULL TILT: Merchant Law Group Launches Class Action
HEART CHECK: Sued Over Sale and Financing of Imaging Scans
IMVU INC: Faces Lawsuit Over Unfair Trade Practices
LCD PANEL MANUFACTURERS: Unjust Enrichment Claims Can Proceed

LEXINGTON LAW: Settles Credit Repair Class Action for $12.5 Mil.
NARA BANCORP: Awaits Approval of Merger-Related Suit Settlement
PENSON WORLDWIDE: October 24 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Accused of Violating California Labor Code
SINOTECH ENERGY: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action

STATE OF MICHIGAN: Judge Certifies ABA Therapy Class Action
STATE OF MICHIGAN: Welfare Recipients File Class Action
STATE OF WASHINGTON: Immigrants' Suit Gets Partial Certification
TAKEDA PHARMA: Class Action Over Actos Cancer Risk Underway
TARANTO GROUP: Court Certifies Class Action Over Junk Faxes

TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Chrome 6 Exposure Class Suits Still Pending




                             *********

ABT BUILDING: Property Owners May File Trimboard Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
The attorneys working with Class Action.org would like to hear
from property owners who experienced problems with TrimBoard, a
manufactured or composite wood trim product also sold under the
names Pro Trim and Choice Trim.  TrimBoard is manufactured by ABT
Building Products Corporations (ABTCO), which is owned by the
Louisiana Pacific Corporation (LP), and, according to allegations,
contains a defect which can lead to a number of problems,
including premature failure of the product under normal
conditions.  If you experienced problems, including swelling,
rotting or decay, with the LP and ABTCO TrimBoard, you may have
legal recourse.  To find out if can seek financial compensation
for expenses associated with your TrimBoard problems, visit
http://www.classaction.org/trimboard.htmland complete the "Report
a Complaint" form for a no cost, no obligation review of your
claim.

TrimBoard is marketed as a low cost trim for exterior use which is
said to be "easier to use" and "more durable" than other trim
products.  However, the ABTCO and LP TrimBoard is allegedly
unsuitable for exterior use, as it tends to absorb moisture under
normal conditions, which can affect the longevity, stability and
appearance of the wood trim product.  Furthermore, it has been
alleged that this tendency to absorb moisture can also cause a
number of other TrimBoard problems, including swelling, decay and
rotting which, in turn, could allow mold, mildew, fungi or insect
infestation to develop.

The ABTCO and LP TrimBoard wood trim product comes in a variety of
different widths and can be used around windows and doors, at
corners of structures as corner board, as fascia or soffit near
the roofline, as well as decorative trim on rail posts, columns
and along porches or stair stringers.  The LP and ABTCO TrimBoard
is made of wood fibers, waxes and glues and has a paper surface
which looks smooth or embossed with a cedar-like texture.  If you
have noticed TrimBoard problems with this product, you may have
legal recourse in light of allegations that that wood trim is
defective and fails prematurely.  To learn more about your legal
rights in regard to problems with LP and ABTOC TrimBoard, visit
Class Action.org today for a free evaluation of your claim.

                      About Class Action.org

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


AMERIFIT: May Face Suit Over False Claims on Culturelle Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Is Culturelle not working as advertised?  Have consumers paid too
much for these products?  Were the Culturelle probiotics sold
under false and misleading claims?  These allegations are
currently being reviewed by the attorneys working with Class
Action.org who are investigating a potential lawsuit on behalf of
consumers who purchased these probiotic supplements.  If you
bought a Culturelle branded product, you may be able to seek
recovery for the cost of your product, in light of allegations
that Culturelle is not working as advertised.  To find out if you
are eligible, visit http://www.classaction.org/culturelle.html
today and complete the "Report a Complaint" form for a no cost, no
obligation review of your claim.

Marketed and sold by Amerifit, Culturelle is a popular line of
probiotic supplement which contains a good form of bacteria known
as Lactobacillus GG.  According to the manufacturer's claims, the
products boost overall digestive health by helping with bloating,
gas and infrequent bouts of diarrhea and restoring the natural
balance of bacteria in the digestive tract.  The products offer
another Culturelle benefit, according to the manufacturer's
claims, in that they also support the immune system.  Products
sold under these claims include the following: Culturelle Natural
Health and Wellness; Culturelle for Kids; Culturelle Dairy Free
Health and Wellness; and Culturelle Digestive Health.

Consumers who purchased any of these Culturelle products may be
able to participate in a lawsuit to seek recovery for the cost of
their supplement in light of allegations that Culturelle is not
working as advertised and was sold under false and misleading
claims.  The attorneys working with Class Action.org would like to
hear from anyone who purchased these products, particularly those
who found Culturelle not to be working as advertised, to assist in
their investigation.  To learn more about the potential Culturelle
lawsuit, visit Class Action.org today.

                      About Class Action.org

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


ANZ: Overdraft Fee Class Action Hearing Begins
----------------------------------------------
774 ABC Melbourne reports that the company behind what is claimed
to be the biggest class action in Australian legal history says
the case could reap tens of millions of dollars for ANZ customers.

The Federal Court in Melbourne has begun hearing the case, which
aims to establish whether ANZ charges excessive fees to customers
who run up overdrafts.

Andrew Watson from Maurice Blackburn Lawyers says 34,000 ANZ
customers are involved in their case, and a win for them would
have knock-on effects for customers of other banks.

"If we're successful in our claims against ANZ, it is likely that
other banks will need to front up to the reality that their
contracts contain the same problems with charging exorbitant
fees," Mr. Watson said.

"We say that for things like honor and dishonor fees on bank
accounts, the actual costs to the bank associated with processing
those things are much lower than with the penalties that are being
charged."

Mr. Watson said the Oct. 3 hearing marked the first major step in
the case since proceedings were issued on Sept. 22 last year.

"This hearing will answer important questions regarding the
definitions within the contracts between ANZ and its customers of
what is a fee or a charge," he added.


BANK OF AMERICA: Homeowner Protests Over Loan Modification
----------------------------------------------------------
Tom Bailey Jr., writing for The Commercial Appeal, reports that
the first of at least 300 financially distressed Mid-Southerners
went to Downtown Memphis on Sept. 29 seeking lower monthly
mortgage payments on their Bank of America loans.

Through Oct. 1, the bank is setting up a special operation at
Memphis Cook Convention Center to try to ease loan terms for its
3,500 borrowers in the region who could lose their homes.

The free service is one of 40 such events the nation's largest
bank is holding across the country this year to help customers
avoid foreclosure.

But as if to illustrate Bank of America's own mortgage-related
woes, one frustrated homeowner drove from Little Rock seeking
justice and recruiting more plaintiffs for a potential class-
action suit against the institution.

Cosmetologist Karen Laing stood in front of the convention center
on Sept. 29 holding a sign that said "BOA Loan Mod Hell" on one
side and "BOA Class-Action Sign-Up" on the other.

She carried with her an approved loan-modification contract on her
$99,220 loan dated July 11, 2009.

The document was to lower her interest rate from about 6.9% first
to 4.9% and then to about 5.4% starting in 2014.  The modification
also would increase the payback time from 30 to 40 years and lower
her monthly payment about $200, to $720.18.

She has been making the lower payments ever since, but something
went wrong.  The bank says she still owes the original monthly
amount.

Bank of America has been accepting the lower, modified payments
Ms. Laing has sent in for several years, but hasn't been crediting
them against her home loan.  Instead, the bank puts the money in a
miscellaneous account.

The situation has destroyed her credit, meaning she can't qualify
for a business loan she wants or for a car loan to replace her
2002 Mazda.

"I have a modification.  I just want Bank of America to honor it,"
Ms. Laing told Bank of America's Roger Braggs, who came out to
talk to her.

"Let's look at it and try to find out," Mr. Braggs responded
soothingly, taking Ms. Laing inside to talk to a loan specialist.

Afterward, Mr. Braggs reported that when Ms. Laing supplies
documentation on her income, expenses and debts, "we'll make a
decision today or tomorrow, before we leave here."

By lunchtime, two other borrowers had told Ms. Laing they would e-
mail to her their own tales of woe.  She has created an e-mail
account for her cause at loanmodtrouble@hotmail.com.

Betty Johnson of Nashville is among the happier Bank of America
customers.  After working with the bank's customer assistance
center in Nashville, she feels she's on the verge of reducing her
monthly payment from $965 to $703.

"That would be a blessing," she said in a phone interview,
especially considering she has already twice averted foreclosure
on her $78,000 house.

Bank of America has been in the vortex of foreclosure
controversies for several years.

It has been accused of "robo-signing" shoddy mortgage documents.
And just last summer, the Obama administration penalized BOA, JP
Morgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo for poorly administering the
federally funded Home Affordable Modification Program.

Bank of America has dispatched what amounts to a home-retention
SWAT team to its "customer outreach event" in Memphis.

Participating customers first register, then attend a "workshop"
or orientation for 20 to 30 minutes.

Next, they go for 15-20 minutes to a room where nonprofit budget
counselors are available to help them.

Then they step into a larger room to meet with one of the 20
"home-retention specialists."  Customers show the documents they
have been asked to bring, including W-2 forms and other papers
showing income, bills showing monthly obligations and any debts.

The face-to-face meeting, coupled with the documentation, is key
because it often clears up "minor paperwork discrepancies,"
Mr. Braggs said.

While 300 customers had made appointments through Saturday,
there's room for 600, he said, adding, "We've got plenty of room
for walk-ins."

The event is a golden opportunity for customers since everybody
who is needed to resolve issues is on site, Mr. Braggs said.  Even
the institutions that own the loans -- like Fannie Mae, Freddie
Mac and GE Financial -- are represented, Mr. Braggs said.  Bank of
America is just the loan originator and servicer.

Of customers who bring in all their required documentation to
these outreach events, 47% receive a loan modification "on the
spot," Mr. Braggs said.


BEST BUY: Awaits Decision on Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Best Buy Co., Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint in the securities class action
lawsuit pending in Minnesota, according to the Company's
September 30, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended August 27, 2011.

In February 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned IBEW
Local 98 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed
against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.  This federal
court action alleges, among other things, that the Company and the
officers named in the complaint violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act in
connection with press releases and other statements relating to
the Company's fiscal 2011 earnings guidance that had been made
available to the public.  Additionally, in March 2011, a similar
purported class action was filed by a single shareholder, Rene
LeBlanc, against the Company and certain of its executive officers
in the same court.  In July 2011, after an unopposed motion by
IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund and Rene LeBlanc to consolidate their
respective lawsuits was granted, a consolidated complaint
captioned, IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et
al., was filed and served.  In September 2011, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

In June 2011, a purported shareholder derivative action captioned,
Salvatore M. Talluto, Derivatively and on Behalf of Best Buy Co.,
Inc. v. Richard M. Schulze, et al., as Defendants and Best Buy
Co., Inc. as Nominal Defendant, was filed against both present and
former members of the Company's Board of Directors serving during
the relevant periods in fiscal 2011 and the Company as a nominal
defendant in the U.S. District Court for the State of Minnesota.
The lawsuit alleges that the director defendants breached their
fiduciary duty, among other claims, including violation of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, in failing to
correct public misrepresentations and material misstatements
and/or omissions regarding the Company's fiscal 2011 earnings
projections and, for certain directors, selling stock while in
possession of material adverse non-public information.

Additionally, in July 2011, a similar purported class action was
filed by a single shareholder, Daniel Himmel, against the Company
and certain of its executive officers in the same court.  In
August 2011, the parties filed a stipulation for consolidation of
the respective lawsuits of Salvatore M. Talluto and Daniel Himmel
into a new action, and upon consolidation, intend to move the
court to stay the new action until after a final resolution of the
motion to dismiss in the consolidated IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund
v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al. case.

The plaintiffs in the securities actions seek damages, including
interest, equitable relief and reimbursement of the costs and
expenses they incurred in the lawsuits.  The Company believes the
allegations in the securities actions are without merit, and the
Company intends to defend these actions vigorously.  Based on the
Company's assessment of the facts underlying the claims in the
securities actions, their respective procedural litigation
history, and the degree to which the Company intends to defend its
company in these matters, the amount or range of reasonably
possible losses, if any, cannot be estimated.


BEST BUY: Fairness Hearing in Discrimination Suit on Nov. 9
-----------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing will be held on November 9, 2011, with respect
Best Buy Co., Inc.'s settlement resolving a class action lawsuit
alleging employment discrimination, according to the Company's
September 30, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
August 27, 2011.

In December 2005, a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Jasmen Holloway, et al. v. Best Buy Co., Inc., was filed against
the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (the "Court").  This federal court action alleges
that the Company discriminates against women and minority
individuals on the basis of gender, race, color and/or national
origin in the Company's stores with respect to its employment
policies and practices.  The action seeks an end to alleged
discriminatory policies and practices, an award of back and front
pay, punitive damages and injunctive relief, including rightful
place relief for all class members.  In June 2011, the plaintiffs
filed a motion for preliminary approval of the parties' negotiated
settlement including conditional certification of settlement
classes and seeking a schedule for final approval.  The proposed
class action settlement terms include, in exchange for a release
and dismissal of the action, certain changes to the Company's
personnel policies and procedures; payment to the nine named
plaintiffs of $0.3 million in the aggregate; and payment in an
amount to be determined by the Court, not to exceed $10 million,
of a portion of the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.

In August 2011, the Court preliminarily approved the proposed
class action settlement and consent decree; provisionally
certified the settlement class; approved and directed distribution
of notice of the settlement; and scheduled November 9, 2011, as
the date for a Fairness Hearing, pursuant to which the Court will
determine whether to grant final approval.  The Company says it
established an accrual based on the proposed settlement terms.  It
is not reasonably possible that the Company will incur losses
materially in excess of the recorded amount.


CADBURY HOLDINGS: Oct. 21 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Notice Company Inc. issued a Summary Notice for End User-
Purchasers of Chocolate Candy.

LEGAL NOTICE:  If You Bought Chocolate Candy, A Class Action
Settlement May Affect You.

Settlements have been reached with Defendants Cadbury Holdings
Ltd., Cadbury plc, and Cadbury Adams Canada, Inc. ("Cadbury").
The litigation is continuing against the remaining Defendants:
Hershey Canada, Inc., The Hershey Company, Mars, Inc., Mars
Snackfood U.S., LLC and Nestle U.S.A., Inc.  "Chocolate Candy"
means chocolate bars and other confectionery products made by any
Defendant and packaged to be sold at retail.

Who is Included?

You may be a member of the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs Settlement
Class if you purchased in the United States Chocolate Candy
directly from any Defendant listed above from December 9, 2002
through December 20, 2007.  You may be a member of the Indirect
End User Plaintiffs Settlement Class if you purchased, in the
United States or Guam, Chocolate Candy from someone other than a
Defendant (such as at a retail store) for end use (personal
consumption or gifts) and not for resale, from December 9, 2002
through December 20, 2007.  If you made both direct and indirect
purchases of Chocolate Candy, you may be a member of both
settlement classes.

What is this case about?

The lawsuit claims that Defendants conspired to fix, raise,
maintain or stabilize prices of Chocolate Candy resulting in
overcharges to those who purchased Chocolate Candy made by a
Defendant.  The lawsuit seeks nationwide injunctive relief against
the Defendants and money for certain class members.  The vast
majority of sales of Cadbury's chocolate candy products in the
United States are made by the Hershey Company, pursuant to a
trademark license agreement.  The Defendants deny that they did
anything wrong. The Court has not decided who is right.

What does the Settlement Provide?

The settlements provide for the payment by Cadbury of $250,000 in
cash to the Indirect End User Plaintiffs, and $1,312,500 in cash
to the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs.  It also provides for $250,000
to pay for notice of the settlements to all settlement classes.
Cadbury has also agreed to provide certain cooperation in the
prosecution of the litigation against the remaining Defendants.

Who Represents You?

The Court has appointed separate Interim Lead Counsel for the
Indirect End User Plaintiffs and the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs,
as set out in the detailed notices and the Web sites listed below.
You do not have to pay these lawyers to represent you.  You may
hire your own attorney, if you wish, but if you do so you will be
responsible for your own attorney's fees and expenses.

What are your Options?

If you wish to remain a member of the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs
Settlement Class or the Indirect End User Plaintiffs Settlement
Class, you do not need to take any action at this time.  If you
don't want to be legally bound by either or both settlements, you
must exclude yourself in writing by October 21, 2011, or you will
not be able to sue, or continue to sue, Cadbury about the legal
claims in this case.  If you stay in either or both settlement
classes, you may object to the settlement by November 28, 2011.
The detailed notices describe how to exclude yourself or to
object.  The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania will hold a Fairness Hearing at 10:30 a.m. on
December 12, 2011, at 228 Walnut Street, Harrisburg, PA 17108.  At
this hearing the Court will consider whether the Settlements are
fair, reasonable and adequate.  The Court will also consider
requests by Interim Lead Counsel for both classes to use the
settlement funds for expenses to be incurred in the future in this
case.  If there are objections or comments, the Court will
consider them at that time.  You may appear at the hearing, but
you don't have to. After the hearing, the Court will decide
whether to approve the Settlements. Please do not contact the
Court about this case.

This Notice is only a Summary.  To obtain a detailed notice or a
copy of the Settlement Agreement: Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs may
visit http://www.ChocolateSettlementDirect.com

Indirect End User Plaintiffs may visit
http://www.ChocolateSettlementIndirect.com or write to:

          Chocolate Settlement Indirect
          c/o The Notice Company
          P.O. Box 455
          Hingham, MA 02043


CAL-MAINE FOODS: Litigation Over Egg Prices Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The antitrust litigation involving the United States shell egg
industry remains pending, according to Cal-Maine Foods, Inc.'s
September 30, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended August 27, 2011.

Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of
several defendants in twenty-four antitrust cases involving the
United States shell egg industry.  In sixteen of these cases, the
named plaintiffs sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class
of others who claim to be similarly situated.  In fourteen of
those putative class actions, the named plaintiffs allege that
they are retailers or distributors that purchased shell eggs and
egg products directly from one or more of the defendants.  In the
other two putative class actions, the named plaintiffs are
individuals or companies who allege that they purchased shell eggs
and egg products indirectly from one or more of the defendants --
that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously
purchased from defendants or other parties.  In the remaining
eight cases, the plaintiffs sued for their own alleged damages and
are not seeking to certify a class.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of
the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in
which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial
proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  The Pennsylvania court has organized
the putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers
and indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for
the named plaintiffs in each group.

Six of the eight non-class lawsuits were filed in the same court
that is presiding over the putative class actions.  Another of
these non-class cases was filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, but it has been
transferred to the Eastern District and consolidated for pretrial
proceedings with the other cases.  The remaining non-class lawsuit
was filed in the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas.  The
defendants removed this case to the United States District Court
for the District of Kansas, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation granted the defendants' transfer request, and the case
has now been consolidated in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The plaintiffs in this action have filed a motion to remand the
case back to the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas, but
that motion has not been decided.  The plaintiffs in two of the
non-class lawsuits originally filed in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania voluntarily dismissed their lawsuits without
prejudice.

The named plaintiffs in the direct purchaser case filed a
consolidated complaint on January 30, 2009.  On April 30, 2009,
the Company filed motions to dismiss the direct purchasers'
consolidated complaint.  The direct purchaser plaintiffs did not
respond to those motions.  Instead, the direct purchaser
plaintiffs announced a potential settlement with one defendant.
The final hearing on approval of that settlement has been held,
but the court has not yet ruled.  If it is approved, the
settlement would not require the settling party to pay any money.
Instead, the settling defendant, while denying all liability,
would provide cooperation in the form of documents and witness
interviews to the plaintiffs' attorneys.  After announcing this
potential settlement with one defendant, the direct purchaser
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 11, 2009.  On
February 5, 2010, the Company joined with other defendants in
moving to dismiss the direct purchaser plaintiffs' claims for
damages outside the four-year statute of limitations period and
claims arising from a supposed conspiracy in the egg products
sector.  The court heard oral argument on these motions but has
not yet ruled.  On February 26, 2010, the Company filed its answer
and affirmative defenses to the direct purchaser plaintiffs'
amended complaint.  On June 4, 2010, the direct purchaser
plaintiffs announced a potential settlement with a second
defendant.  The final hearing on approval of this settlement has
also been held, but the court has not ruled.  If this settlement
is approved, then the defendant would pay a total of $25 million
and would provide other consideration in the form of documents,
witness interviews, and declarations.  This settling defendant
denied all liability in its potential agreement with the direct
purchaser plaintiffs and stated publicly that it settled merely to
avoid the cost and uncertainty of continued litigation.

The named plaintiffs in the indirect purchaser case filed a
consolidated complaint on February 27, 2009.  On April 30, 2009,
the Company filed motions to dismiss the indirect purchasers'
consolidated complaint.  The indirect purchaser plaintiffs did not
respond to those motions.  Instead, the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 8, 2010.  On
May 7, 2010, the Company joined with other defendants in moving to
dismiss the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims for damages
outside the four-year statute of limitations period, claims
arising from a supposed conspiracy in the egg products sector,
claims arising under certain state antitrust and consumer frauds
statutes, and common-law claims for unjust enrichment.  The court
heard oral argument on these motions but has not yet ruled.  On
June 4, 2010, the Company filed its answer and affirmative
defenses to the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' amended complaint.

The cases in which plaintiffs do not seek to certify a class were
filed between November 16, 2010, and January 25, 2011.  The
Company has not yet answered or moved to dismiss any of these
cases.

In all of the cases, the plaintiffs allege that the Company and
certain other large domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the
domestic supply of eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price
of eggs to artificially high levels.  In each case, plaintiffs
allege that all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of
eggs by (a) manipulating egg exports and (b) implementing
industry-wide animal welfare guidelines that reduced the number of
hens and eggs.

Both groups of named plaintiffs in the putative class actions seek
treble damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and
all other putative class members in the United States.  Both
groups of named plaintiffs in the putative class actions allege a
class period starting on January 1, 2000, and running "through the
present."  The direct purchaser putative class action case alleges
two separate sub-classes -- one for direct purchasers of shell
eggs and one for direct purchasers of egg products.  The direct
purchaser putative class action case seeks relief under the
Sherman Act.  The indirect purchaser putative class action case
seeks relief under the Sherman Act and the statutes and common-law
of various states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

Six of the eight non-class cases remain pending.  In four of the
remaining non-class cases, the plaintiffs seek damages and
injunctive relief under the Sherman Act.  In one of the remaining
non-class cases, the plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief
under the Sherman Act and the Ohio antitrust act (known as the
Valentine Act).  In the other remaining non-class case, the
plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the Kansas
Restraint of Trade Act.

The Pennsylvania court has entered a series of orders in the
putative class actions related to case management and scheduling.
There is no definite schedule in either putative class action case
for discovery, class certification proceedings, or filing motions
for summary judgment.  No trial date has been set in either
putative class action case.  The non-class cases were filed so
recently that the court has not set any schedule for them.

The Company says it intends to continue to defend these cases as
vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company
believes are meritorious and provable.


CHAUS BERNARD: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Camuto Merger Proposal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Chaus, Inc. is facing a purported shareholder class action
lawsuit over a merger proposal by Camuto Consulting, Inc.,
according to the Company's September 30, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended July 2, 2011.

On September 15, 2011, the Company received a cash merger proposal
from Camuto Consulting, Inc., doing business as Camuto Group,
pursuant to which shareholders other than members of the Chaus
family, China Ting Group Holdings Limited ("CTG") and Camuto would
receive $0.13 per share.  The Company says it is currently in
negotiations with CTG, one of its suppliers, to convert
approximately $12 million of debt owed by the Company to CTG from
accounts payable into two interest-bearing term loans with initial
terms of two years and five years.

The proposal is subject to a number of conditions including, among
other things, the negotiation and execution of definitive
agreements, the approval of the transaction by Chaus' Board and
shareholders, the receipt of a fairness opinion, the approval of
the transaction by the Boards of Camuto and CTG, the conversion of
certain amounts owed by Chaus to CTG into term loans and the entry
by Chaus into a new financing agreement with lender, CIT
Group/Commercial Services, Inc. ("CIT"), on terms satisfactory to
all parties.  The proposal from Camuto must be approved by 2/3 of
the Company's shareholders and is currently being considered by
the Company's independent directors, assisted by legal and
financial advisers.

On September 29, 2011, the Company was served with a summons and
complaint in connection with a purported shareholder class action
lawsuit relating to the Camuto proposal.  The lawsuit was filed in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York and alleges, among
other things, breach of fiduciary duties by certain current and
prior directors of the Company.  The Company has not yet responded
to the complaint.

The Company says there can be no assurance that the negotiations
between the Company and CTG, and the Company and CIT will be
successful.  Also, the proposal received from Camuto on
September 15, 2011, is only a proposal and has not yet been fully
considered by the Board of Directors of the Company nor approved
by the shareholders of the Company.  There is no assurance that
any transactions or agreements contemplated by the Camuto proposal
or the negotiations with CTG and CIT will take place or be entered
into by the Company.


DEAN FOODS: Sued Over False Misrepresentations on Horizon Milk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that a $5 million
class action disputes the link Dean Foods has tried to fasten
between Horizon organic DHA-fortified milk and purported
improvement to "brain health" in adults and children.  The
consumer complaint says that Dean and its subsidiary, Whitewave
Foods, sell a line of four Horizon organic milk products with DHA
Omega-3, a "highly processed fermented algae."

According to the federal complaint filed in San Diego, Dean and
Whitewave make "false, misleading and deceptive" brain-health
representations in print, radio and TV ads, and on the labels of
milk cartons.

"Front and center and prominently featured by itself in a white
banner running across the front of each and every milk carton,
defendants state 'DHA Omega-3 Supports Brain Health,'" the
complaint says.  "The brain health representation also prominently
appears on the top, the back and the left side panel of every milk
carton."

"However, the DHA-fortified milk products do not support brain
health in children or adults," lead plaintiff Evereth Barrera
claims.  "Defendants also do not have competent and reliable
scientific evidence to support their brain health representation.
Clinical cause and effect studies have found no causative link
between DHA algal oil supplementation and brain health."

Mr. Barrera, a resident of El Centro, Calif., says he purchased
Horizon Reduced Fat Milk Plus DHA Omega-3 every week for roughly
two months.

Whitewave Foods spokeswoman Sara Loveday said the suit was
"without merit."

"Horizon does not discuss details of pending litigation," she told
Courthouse News.  "However, we plan to vigorously defend ourselves
against the allegations about the labeling and marketing of our
Horizon's DHA Omega-3 enhanced milk products."

The suit says Horizon milk lines the shelves of "virtually every
major food, drug and mass retail outlet in the country," and that
consumers like Mr. Barrera pay a "premium" price of between $5 to
$6 for a one-half gallon of the milk.

But, according to the lawsuit, the DHA-fortified Horizon products,
which include whole, reduced-fat, fat-free and chocolate milk, do
not "perform as advertised."

"DHA is a long-chain omega-3 fatty acid typically found in cold
water fish," according to the complaint.  "The DHA in defendants'
milk products is not derived from fish oil.  Instead, the DHA oil
found in defendants' milk is an immature short-chain omega-3 fatty
acid made from an extract of mutated and fermented algae.  An 8
oz. serving of the DHA-fortified milk products contain
approximately 32 mg of DHA algal oil.  Contrary to defendants'
representations made on each and every milk carton, DHA algal oil
does not support brain health, especially in the relatively small
amount found in a serving of defendants' products."

The class seeks damages for violations of the unfair competition
law, The Consumers Legal Remedies Act and breach of express
warranty.

A copy of the Complaint in Barrera v. Dean Foods, Inc., Case No.
11-cv-02249 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/30/Horizon.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          Lindsey M. Gomez, Esq.
          2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          E-mail: eryan@bffb.com
                  psyverson@bffb.com
                  lgomez@bffb.com

               - and -

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6978
          E-mail: tcarpenter@bffb.com

               - and -

          Stewart Weltman, Esq.
          FUTTERMAN HOWARD ASHLEY & WELTMAN, P.C.
          122 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1850
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 427-3600
          E-mail: sweltman@futtermanhoward.com


DJSP ENTERPRISES: Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Pacenti, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge
dismissed a securities class action suit on Sept. 30 against a
publicly traded foreclosure processing business developed by
Plantation attorney David Stern.

U.S. District Judge William Zloch in Fort Lauderdale said the
lawsuit filed by hedge funds and others did not meet the pleading
standards set by Congress in the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 to sustain the securities fraud claims.

DJSP Enterprises was the largest processing service for
residential foreclosures in Florida until the state attorney
general's office launched an investigation into allegedly
fraudulent court documents.

Philadelphia Financial Management of San Francisco and Blue Lion
Master Fund sought to represent all those who purchased stock from
March 16 through May 27, 2010.  The lawsuit claimed the publicly
traded company was touting its business prospects to investors
while failing to disclose its business had experienced significant
setbacks due to government intervention and other factors.


FULL TILT: Merchant Law Group Launches Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Merchant Law Group LLP has launched class action litigation
against Full Tilt Poker.

"Our class action issued with the courts [Fri]day asserts that
tens of millions of dollars is owed to Canadian online poker
players with real money accounts at Full Tilt Poker", said Tony
Merchant, Q.C. on behalf of Merchant Law Group LLP.  "Our firm has
already received complaints from more than 150 people who were
online poker players.  Many of these individuals held thousands of
dollars in their players' account prior to their accounts being
frozen in June, 2011."

Full Tilt players with real money accounts could previously make
deposits and withdrawals against their player's account in a
manner similar to other online credit or bank accounts.  But since
June, Full Tilt has refused to release any money to Full Tilt
players.

This class action has been launched one day after gambling
regulators on the British Channel Island of Alderney revoked Full
Tilt's online gambling license used to operate its online card
rooms worldwide.  The executive director of the Alderney Gambling
Control Commission has reportedly said Full Tilt had severe
financial problems including unauthorized loans, accounting
difficulties, and a failure to report significant material events.

Merchant Law Group LLP has launched this class action litigation
on behalf of all real money account holders at Full Tilt Poker.
News reports internationally estimate the total value of Full Tilt
players accounts is between one hundred and fifty million dollars
($150,000,000) and three hundred and ninety million dollars
($390,000,000).

Merchant Law Group LLP is a nationally prominent law firm in many
areas of the law including class actions, with offices in
Montreal, Toronto, St. Catharines, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Regina,
Saskatoon, Moose Jaw, Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, and Victoria.

For further information visit:

http://www.merchantlaw.com/classactions/fulltilt.php

A copy of the Statement of Claim is available on request.

Contact:
          E. F. Anthony Merchant, Q.C.
          Cell: 306-539-7777
          E-mail: merchant@merchantlaw.com


HEART CHECK: Sued Over Sale and Financing of Imaging Scans
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert A. Winkler and Anne M. Winkler, Plaintiffs, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Heart Check
America, Tinley Park LLC, An Illinois limited liability company,
Heart Check America Inc., A California corporation, Chase Bank
U.S.A. N.A., a Delaware corporation, Conrad Acceptance
Corporation, a California Corporation, and Defendant Does 1
through 100, Inclusive, Case No. 2011-CH-34135 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
Cook Cty., September 30, 2011) is a class action arising out of
the Defendants' misleading, unlawful and deceptive practices
involving the sale and financing of imaging scans to Illinois
residents for alleged preventative medical diagnosis.

The Plaintiffs are a married couple living in Lemont, Illinois,
and are residents of Cook County, Illinois.  Mr. Winkler is a
retired Special Agent for the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal
Investigations, and Ms. Winkler is a retired Certified
Veterinarian Technician.

Heart Check America, Tinley Park LLC is an Illinois limited
liability company.  Heart Check America Inc. is a California
corporation registered to do business in Illinois.  Heart Check
owns and operates a medical imaging business.  The true names or
capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown.  Conrad
Acceptance is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the state of California.  Chase Bank is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of Delaware and is licensed to do
business in Illinois.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Howard B. Prossnitz, Esq.
          200 West Madison Street, Suite 2670
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 960-1800
          Facsimile: (312) 984-1047
          E-mail: howard@prossnitzlaw.com

               - and -

          George O. West, III, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF GEORGE O. WEST III
          6787 West Tropicana Avenue, Suite 258
          Las Vegas, NV 89103
          Telephone: (702) 248-1076
          Facsimile: (702) 664-0459
          E-mail: gowesq@cox.net

               - and -

          David Ladwig, Esq.
          SALLY J LADWIG
          4331 McGee Street
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 561-3074


IMVU INC: Faces Lawsuit Over Unfair Trade Practices
---------------------------------------------------
Peter MacKinnon, Jr., an individual, on behalf of himself, the
general public and those similarly situated v. IMVU, Inc.; and
Does 1 through 50, Case No. 111-CV-193767 (Calif. Super. Ct.,
Santa Clara Cty., February 7, 2011), which was originally brought
by Colby J. Stratton, alleges violations of the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, breach of contract, conversion, misrepresentation
and unfair trade practices.

The Plaintiff accuses IMVU of selling full-length songs to its
customers, and then destroyed the value of those songs by
drastically cutting their length to only 20 seconds -- even after
assuring its customers that it would not, and after deceptively
marketing those products to its customers as full-length songs.
Despite the fact that its actions have rendered the purchased
products virtually worthless, IMVU refuses to refund Plaintiff and
those similarly situated for their purchases, the lawsuit asserts.

Mr. MacKinnon is a resident of Midvale, Utah.

IMVU is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the state of
Delaware, having its principal place of business in Palo Alto,
California.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants
are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.

IMVU removed the lawsuit on September 30, 2011, from the Superior
Court of the state of California, County of Santa Clara, to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  IMVU argues that the removal is proper because there
is complete diversity of citizenship between Mr. MacKinnon and
IMVU.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:11-cv-04840 to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Gutride, Esq.
          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Todd Kennedy, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          835 Douglass Street
          San Francisco, CA 94114
          Telephone: (415) 271-6469
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
          E-mail: adam@gutridesafier.com
                  seth@gutridesafier.com
                  todd@gutridesafier.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Luanne Sacks, Esq.
          Carter W. Ott, Esq.
          Sushila Chanana, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          555 Mission Street, Suite 2400
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2933
          Telephone: (415) 836-2500
          Facsimile: (415) 836-2501
          E-mail: luanne.sacks@dlapiper.com
                  carter.ott@dlapiper.com
                  schanana@nixonpeabody.com


LCD PANEL MANUFACTURERS: Unjust Enrichment Claims Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Johnson at Courthouse News Service reports that a class of
electronics retailers may proceed with state law consumer
protection and unjust enrichment claims against LCD panel
manufacturers including Toshiba, Hitachi and Epson, among others,
a federal judge ruled.

The plaintiffs contend that the electronics manufacturers engaged
in a global price-fixing conspiracy to raise prices and restrict
competition in the sales of computer monitors, laptops,
televisions and other LCD products.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston agreed that defendants "secretly
conspired" to raise prices on LCD devices to "supra-competitive"
levels.

Whether the defendants' eight to 12 percent price increase amounts
to a "gross disparity" remains to be determined.

Regarding the plaintiffs' Vermont Consumer Fraud Act claim, Judge
Illston found that defendants' concealment of their price-fixing
activities may likely "affect the consumer's conduct or decision
with regard to a product."

The Plaintiffs also presented adequate evidence that the money
they paid for the overpriced LCD-panel devices went directly to
the defendants, which supports an unjust enrichment claim, the
court held.

The Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims also survive under New
York law, as plaintiffs established that the LCD panels are an
integral component of the electronics in which they are contained.
There is a "traceable physical chain" from the defendants, to the
plaintiffs to the consumers.

The unjust enrichment claims may also proceed under Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, Kansas, West Virginia, District of Columbia and
several other state laws.

A copy of the Order Granting in Part Defendants' Joint Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment on Various Issues of State Law in In Re:
TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 07-md-01827
(N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/30/307-md-01827.pdf


LEXINGTON LAW: Settles Credit Repair Class Action for $12.5 Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Slajda, writing for Law360, reports that credit repair firm
Lexington Law on Sept. 30 agreed to pay up to $12.5 million in in-
kind services to settle proposed class action claims in California
that it illegally blocked clients from directly contacting the
credit bureaus.

A California federal judge must approve the settlement, which
would have the firm give class members free identity protection or
credit report maintenance services for at least a month.

The firm was accused by a former client of violating the Credit
Repair Organizations Act.


NARA BANCORP: Awaits Approval of Merger-Related Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nara Bancorp, Inc. is awaiting court approval of a settlement
resolving a lawsuit over its proposed merger transaction with
Center Financial Corporation, according to Nara Bancorp's
September 30, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On May 2, 2011, a purported class action was filed in Los Angeles
County Superior Court against Center Financial, its directors and
Nara Bancorp alleging, among other things, that the directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their approval
of the proposed merger with Nara Bancorp and that Center Financial
breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the disclosures
it made regarding the proposed merger.  On July 29, 2011, the
parties to the litigation agreed to settle all claims asserted in
the action, subject to, among other things, the execution of a
stipulation of settlement and court approval.  As part of the
settlement, Nara Bancorp and Center Financial agreed to make
certain supplemental disclosures included in an amendment to the
registration statement for the Nara Bancorp shares to be issued at
the completion of the merger.  In addition, defendants have agreed
to pay up to $400,000 in plaintiff's attorneys' fees and expenses,
if and to the extent approved by the court.  Such payment would be
due only if the merger is consummated and be payable by the
combined company.

If approved by the court, the settlement also would result in the
release by the plaintiff and the proposed settlement class of all
claims that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect
of the merger agreement, the merger and any disclosures made in
connection therewith (but excluding any properly perfected claims
for statutory appraisal in connection with the merger, certain
claims arising under the federal securities laws and any claims to
enforce the settlement).


PENSON WORLDWIDE: October 24 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith disclosed that all purchasers of
the common stock of Penson Worldwide, Inc. between February 10,
2011, and August 4, 2011, inclusive, have until October 24, 2011,
to move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff in the securities
fraud class action lawsuit.  The shareholder lawsuit, Friedman v.
Penson Worldwide, Inc., et al., No. 3:11-cv-02098-O, was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas.

Penson Worldwide, through its subsidiaries, provides securities
and futures processing infrastructure products and services to the
financial services industry.  The Complaint alleges that during
the Class Period, Penson concealed from investors that by at least
the end of 2010: (1) the Company had approximately $96-97 million
in receivables, of which approximately $43 million were
collateralized by illiquid securities and therefore unlikely to be
collected; (2) the Company's assets (Nonaccrual Receivables) were
materially overstated and should have been written down at least
by the end of 2010; (3) as a result, the Company's reported income
and EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and
amortization and stock-based compensation, and excluding certain
nonoperating expenses) were materially overstated; and (4), the
Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance
with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

No class has yet been certified in the action.  Until a class is
certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain
one.  If you purchased Penson Worldwide securities between
February 10, 2011 and August 4, 2011, you have certain rights, and
have until October 24, 2011, to move for lead plaintiff status.
To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this
time, and you may retain counsel of your choice.  If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215) 638-4847
          Toll Free at (888) 638-4847
          E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com


SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Accused of Violating California Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Ching, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated V. Siemens Industry, Inc., a Delaware
corporation; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. RG
11591371 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda County, August 19, 2011)
alleges that the Defendants violated various provisions of the
California Labor Code, relevant orders of the Industrial Welfare
Commission, and the California Business & Professions Code.

The Plaintiff asserts eight causes of action, including the
allegation that the Defendants' failed to pay prevailing wages and
overtime under the California Labor Code.  He also accuses the
Defendants of failing to provide meal periods to the class
members.

Mr. Ching is a resident of California and, during the time period
relevant to the complaint, was employed by the Defendants as a
non-exempt hourly employee within California.

Siemens was incorporated in Delaware, and maintains its principal
place of business in Alpharetta, Georgia.  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the
Plaintiff.

Siemens removed the lawsuit on September 30, 2011, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of Alameda, to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The Company argues that the removal is proper because
the District Court has original jurisdiction over the action under
the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:11-cv-04838 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Orshansky, Esq.
          David Yeremian, Esq.
          Justin K. Kachadoorian, Esq.
          ORSHANSKY & YEREMIAN LLP
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1245
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 205-1212
          Facsimile: (818) 205-1616
          E-mail: anthony@oyllp.com
                  david@oyllp.com
                  justin@oyllp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          R. Brian Dixon, Esq.
          Alison S. Hightower, Esq.
          Laura E. Hayward, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          A Professional Corporation
          650 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108-2693
          Telephone: (415) 433-1940
          Facsimile: (415) 743-6665
          E-mail: bdixon@littler.com
                  ahightower@littler.com
                  lhayward@littler.com


SINOTECH ENERGY: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the American
Depositary Shares of SinoTech Energy Limited pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus
issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering
commencing November 3, 2010, including purchasers of SinoTech ADSs
between November 3, 2010 and August 16, 2011, inclusive.  The
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP.  Please contact us by phone to discuss this
action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at 310-201-9150 or
Toll Free at 888-773-9224, by e-mail at shareholders@glancylaw.com
or visit our Web site at http://www.glancylaw.com

SinoTech provides Enhanced Oil Recovery services to major oil and
gas fields in the People's Republic of China.  The Complaint
alleges that the Company's Registration Statement issued in
connection with the IPO was materially misleading and
misrepresented the nature, size and scope of the Company's
business.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges that SinoTech and
certain of its executive officers and/or directors, among others,
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's
sole import agent, who accounted for more than $100 million worth
of oil drilling equipment orders, is an empty shell company with
no sign of operations; (2) the Company's only chemical supplier is
also an empty shell company, with little or no revenues; (3) the
Company's largest subcontracting customer, which provides the vast
majority of SinoTech's revenues, has unverifiable operations with
minimal revenues; (4) the financial statements SinoTech issued in
the United States were inconsistent with similar filings the
Company made in China; (5) the Company engaged in undisclosed
related-party transactions in violation of GAAP; (6) as such, the
Company's financial results were not prepared in accordance with
GAAP; (7) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
controls; and (8), as a result of the above, the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On August 16, 2011, following the disclosures of these allegations
in a research report published by Alfredlittle.com, the NASDAQ
halted the trading of SinoTech shares and announced that trading
would remain halted until the Company "fully satisfied NASDAQ's
request for additional information."  To date, trading of SinoTech
has not resumed.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and
is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm with
significant experience in prosecuting class actions, and
substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.

If you are a member of the class described, you may move the
Court, no later than October 18, 2011, to serve as lead plaintiff;
however, you must meet certain legal requirements.  To be a member
of the class you need not take action at this time; you may retain
counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent
class member.  If you wish to discuss this action or have any
questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: 310-201-9150
          Toll Free: 888-773-9224
          E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com
          Web site at http://www.glancylaw.com


STATE OF MICHIGAN: Judge Certifies ABA Therapy Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge on Sept. 30 denied a motion to dismiss a suit
challenging Michigan's failure to provide Medicaid coverage for
applied behavior analysis therapy (ABA) for autistic children.
The plaintiffs in the case of Minter v. Dazzo, case no. 10-cv-
15018, sued the state of Michigan claiming that the state is
violating the federal Medicaid law by not making ABA available to
autistic children through Medicaid.  On Sept. 30, Judge Stephen
Murphy of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan allowed the case to continue by denying the State's
motion to dismiss.  The court found that the plaintiffs presented
evidence creating a question for trial of whether the state is
providing coverage for ABA and whether it is effectively informing
Medicaid participants of their right to receive reimbursement for
ABA.

The court also granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the case
as a class action.  The court held that the question of whether
the state violated the Medicaid Act by failing to provide coverage
for ABA therapy "is precisely the sort of question that is
appropriate for class certification."

ABA therapy is the most effective therapy for treating autism in
children.  The U.S. Surgeon General has found that "30 years of
research demonstrated the efficacy of applied behavioral methods
in reducing inappropriate behavior and increasing communication,
learning and appropriate behavior."  Numerous authorities have
long found that ABA is a scientifically valid treatment for
children with autism, including the United States Surgeon General,
the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Academy of
Pediatrics, and a study commissioned for both the Medicare and
Medicaid systems.  Moreover, 26 states mandate insurance coverage
for ABA therapy.

The plaintiff class is represented by the law firms Mantese
Honigman Rossman and Williamson, P.C., and John J. Conway, P.C.

Contact for the plaintiffs' attorneys is as follows:

          Gerard Mantese
          MANTESE HONIGMAN ROSSMAN AND WILLIAMSON, P.C.
          1361 E. Big Beaver Rd.
          Troy, MI 48083
          Telephone: (248) 457-9200
          Cell: (248) 515-6419
          E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com

               - and -

          John J. Conway, Esq.
          JOHN J. CONWAY, P.C.
          2662 Woodward Ave, Ste 225
          Royal Oak, MI 48067
          Telephone: (313) 961-6525
          Cell: (313) 574-2148
          E-mail: john@johnjconway.com


STATE OF MICHIGAN: Welfare Recipients File Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Snell, writing for The Detroit News, reports that several
welfare recipients filed a class-action lawsuit on Sept. 30 in
federal court to block a stricter, four-year lifetime limit on
benefits from taking effect Oct. 1.

The lawsuit, filed against Human Services Director Maura Corrigan,
said immediate intervention is needed to prevent more than 25,000
parents and children from losing benefits.  The welfare recipients
from Saginaw, Genesee and Macomb counties asked a federal judge to
issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction,
according to the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court in
Detroit.

According to the lawsuit, Ms. Corrigan is violating the
recipients' rights under the due process clause of the 14th
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  The recipients claim
Ms. Corrigan sent them pre-termination notices that cite a "secret
policy" that hasn't been made publicly available and which
provides a vague, generic explanation for why benefits are being
terminated.

Ms. Corrigan is exceeding her authority under the state Social
Welfare Act by imposing the time limit, according to the lawsuit.

Gov. Rick Snyder signed the legislation Sept. 6 and said the state
would offer exemptions to those with disabilities that prevent
them from working.

Gilda Jacobs of the Michigan League for Human Services says she
expects about 41,000 people will lose their cash assistance
payments Saturday, when the state's new budget year begins.  About
30,000 are children.

One of the plaintiffs, Kathleen Dygas of St. Clair Shores,
receives $403 a month in benefits for her and her 11-year-old
daughter.  She also has a 9-year-old son who is disabled and
receives $674 a month in Supplemental Security Income.

Ms. Dygas does not work because of her son's disabilities and was
told by the state in late August that she had reached her lifetime
limit for cash benefits, according to the lawsuit.


STATE OF WASHINGTON: Immigrants' Suit Gets Partial Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a group of immigrants in
Washington who said they were denied state-subsidized health care
can go forward as a class, after a federal judge partly certified
their lawsuit against Douglas Porter, administrator of the
Washington State Health Care Authority.

A copy of the Order on Motion for Class Certification and Motion
for Preliminary Injunction in Unthaksinkun, et al. v. Porter, Case
No. 11-cv-00588 (W.D. Wash.), is available at http://is.gd/TJJIuH


TAKEDA PHARMA: Class Action Over Actos Cancer Risk Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently reviewed partial
findings from a 10-year study by the manufacturer that determined
Actos (pioglitazone hydrochloride), the prescription medication
used to improve blood sugar level for those with type 2 diabetes,
carries with it an increased risk of bladder cancer.  The findings
of the epidemiological study of 193,099 diabetic patients, which
were released this past June, have created enough worry that Actos
has already been banned in France and Germany because of its risk.
The FDA is now advising doctors to warn patients of the risk when
prescribing the medication.  Further, the FDA noted in its
June 15, 2011 Drug Safety Communication concerning risks of
bladder cancer from use of pioglitazone: "[C]ompared to never
being exposed to pioglitazone, a duration of pioglitazone therapy
longer than 12 months was associated with a 40% increase in risk"
Actos belongs to a class of drug known as thiazolidinedione (TZD),
which now has two popular drugs associated with severe harmful
side effects.  Last year, concerns that the other drug in the
class, Avandia, may increase the risk of heart attack prompted the
FDA to restrict use of the drug.  Actos has in some cases been
prescribed instead of Avandia because of these concerns.
Unfortunately, a recent study published in the American Heart
Association journal Circulation found that Actos may also increase
the risk of heart disease by as much as 4%.

                   Pharmaceutical Class Action

Takeda Pharmaceuticals and Eli Lilly & Co., the manufacturers of
Actos, are facing a class action lawsuit for a failure to warn
consumers of the increased risks.  In 2009, Eli Lilly & Co. pled
guilty to illegally marketing Zyprexa, an anti-psychotic drug.
Ultimately the company paid out $1.42 billion to settle the
pharmaceutical class action.

Takeda Pharmaceuticals has been the sole marketer of Actos since
2006, when Eli Lilly lost its rights to the drug.  Actos has been
one of the most-prescribed drugs in the U.S., with sales in 2010
exceeding 2.6 billion dollars.

                           Take Action

Always speak to your prescribing physician before discontinuing
the use of any medication.  If you have symptoms of bladder
cancer, such as blood in the urine, pain or burning during
urination or a change in bladder habits, speak to a doctor
immediately.  Actos is also marketed under the names "Actoplus
Met", "Actoplus Met XR" and "Duetact".  Anyone who took or is
taking Actos or another of these drugs should contact a personal
injury lawyer to discuss potential involvement in the class action
suit, which may bring significant compensation for injuries and
wrongful death.


TARANTO GROUP: Court Certifies Class Action Over Junk Faxes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Koepp, writing for Kansas City Business Journal, reports that
the Kansas Supreme Court on Sept. 30 certified a class-action
lawsuit against a Leawood company accused of sending junk faxes.

Taranto Group Inc., which distributes and resells medical devices,
allegedly sent about 120,000 unsolicited advertising faxes through
two outside vendors to medical offices from 2005 to 2008.

Critchfield Physical Therapy, based in Montgomery City, Mo., filed
suit in Johnson County on behalf of the recipients, seeking to
recover damages for an unknown number of medical professionals.

According to the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, each
plaintiff could recover $500 or actual damages, whichever is
greater.

Taranto objected to the class designation, arguing that some
recipients were customers who had consented to receive the faxes.

Writing for the court, Justice Eric Rosen limited the class to
owners and lessors of fax machines instead of "end users," which
could have included anyone using a fax machine.

The decision directs the Johnson County District Court to proceed
with the lawsuit using that class definition.

Rex Sharp and Barbara Frankland, Prairie Village lawyers with
Gunderson Sharp & Walke LLP, represent Critchfield and the other
class plaintiffs.

Leonard Frischer and Mark Schaffer of Frischer & Schaffer Chtd. in
Overland Park represent Taranto.


TEXAS INDUSTRIES: Chrome 6 Exposure Class Suits Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Industries, Inc., continues to defend itself and its
subsidiaries from numerous lawsuits filed by plaintiffs that were
allegedly exposed to chrome 6 emissions from its cement plants,
according to the Company's September 30, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended August 31, 2011.

In late April 2008, a lawsuit was filed in Riverside County
Superior Court of the State of California styled Virginia
Shellman, et al. v. Riverside Cement Holdings Company, et al.  The
lawsuit against three of the Company's subsidiaries purports to be
a class action complaint for medical monitoring for a putative
class defined as individuals who were allegedly exposed to chrome
6 emissions from the Company's Crestmore cement plant.  The
complaint alleges an increased risk of future illness due to the
exposure to chrome 6 and other toxic chemicals.  The lawsuit
requests, among other things, establishment and funding of a
medical testing and monitoring program for the class until their
exposure to chrome 6 is no longer a threat to their health, as
well as punitive and exemplary damages.

Since the Shellman lawsuit was filed, five additional putative
class action lawsuits have been filed in the same court.  The
putative class in each of these cases is the same as or a subset
of the putative class in the Shellman case, and the allegations
and requests for relief are similar to those in the Shellman case.
As a consequence, the court has stayed four of these lawsuits
until the Shellman lawsuit is finally determined.

Since August 2008, additional lawsuits have been filed in the same
court against Texas Industries, Inc. or one or more of its
subsidiaries containing allegations of personal injury and
wrongful death by approximately 3,000 individual plaintiffs who
were allegedly exposed to chrome 6 and other toxic or harmful
substances in the air, water and soil caused by emissions from the
Crestmore plant.  The court has dismissed Texas Industries, Inc.
from the lawsuits, and its subsidiaries operating in Texas have
been dismissed by agreement with the plaintiffs.  Most of the
Company's subsidiaries operating in California remain as
defendants.

Since January 2009, additional lawsuits have been filed against
Texas Industries, Inc. or one or more of its subsidiaries in the
same court involving similar allegations, causes of action and
requests for relief, but with respect to the Company's Oro Grande,
California, cement plant instead of the Crestmore plant.  The
lawsuits involve approximately 300 individual plaintiffs.  Texas
Industries, Inc. and its subsidiaries operating in Texas have been
similarly dismissed from these lawsuits.  Prior to the filing of
the lawsuits, the air quality management district in whose
jurisdiction the plant lies conducted air sampling from locations
around the plant.  None of the samples contained chrome 6 levels
above 1.0 ng/m3.

The plaintiffs allege causes of action that are similar from
lawsuit to lawsuit.  Following dismissal of certain causes of
action by the court and amendments by the plaintiffs, the
remaining causes of action typically include, among other things,
negligence, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional
distress, trespass, public and private nuisance, strict liability,
willful misconduct, fraudulent concealment, unfair business
practices, wrongful death and loss of consortium.  The plaintiffs
generally request, among other things, general and punitive
damages, medical expenses, loss of earnings, property damages and
medical monitoring costs.  At the date of this report, none of the
plaintiffs in these cases has alleged in their pleadings any
specific amount or range of damages.  Some of the lawsuits include
additional defendants, such as the owner of another cement plant
located approximately four miles from the Crestmore plant or
former owners of the Crestmore and Oro Grande plants.

The Company says it will vigorously defend all of these lawsuits
but it cannot predict what liability, if any, could arise from
them.  The Company also cannot predict whether any other lawsuits
may be filed against the Company alleging damages due to injuries
to persons or property caused by claimed exposure to chrome 6.

                           *********

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  * * *