CAR_Public/111013.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, October 13, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 203

                             Headlines

AMERIFIT INC: Morgan & Morgan to Review Culturelle Claims
BANK CENTURY: MAKI Urges Public to File Corruption Class Action
CARMAX INC: Awaits Order on Bid to Lift Stay & Compel Arbitration
CINTAS CORP: Appeals From Summary Judgment Orders Still Pending
CINTAS CORP: Paid $1.9-Mil. in Taxes for "Veliz" Class Members

EQUITITRUST: Singapore Firm Agrees to Fund Investor Class Action
GENTEK: Property Owners May File Suit Over Siding Problems
KFC: Settles Class Action Over Free Sandwich Coupons
NCAA: Bill Russell Files Name & Likeness Licensing Class Action
RENAISSANCE LEARNING: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims

ROCKWELL INT'L: Supreme Court to Weigh on Plutonium Class Action
SONY ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Class Action Over Cramming
STATE OF OKLAHOMA: Juvenile Justice Center Reforms Slipping
STEREOTAXIS INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Missouri
TIBCO SOFTWARE: Further Appeal From IPO Suit Ruling Pending

TIBCO SOFTWARE: Proginet Acquisition-Related Suit Dismissed
UNITED STATES: Bid for Appeal Bond in Cobell Settlement Tossed
UNITED STATES: Oct. 18-20 Meetings Set for Keepseagle Settlement
VODAFONE: Law Firm Fails to Secure Funding for Class Action

* DRI Supports Certoriari Petition in Kurns v. Railroad Friction
* Michigan Banks, Credit Unions Face Class Actions Over ATM Fees
* U.S. LENDERS: May Face Class Action Over VA Home Loan Fraud




                          *********

AMERIFIT INC: Morgan & Morgan to Review Culturelle Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action attorneys at Morgan and Morgan would like to hear
from consumers who purchased a Culturelle probiotic supplement to
assist in their investigation into a potential lawsuit on behalf
of these individuals.  The attorneys at the firm are looking into
allegations that Culturelle's advertised health claims are false
and misleading and would like to determine if individuals who
purchased the products believing that the probiotics would support
their digestive and immune system have legal recourse to seek
compensation for the cost of their supplement.  If you purchased a
Culturelle probiotic supplement, visit
http://www.forthepeople.com/culturelle-class-action--11-3257.html
and complete the free case review form with details of your
Culturelle effectiveness claim to find out if you can seek
recovery for the cost of your probiotic supplement.

Culturelle probiotics are manufactured, marketed and sold by
Amerifit Inc.  According to the manufacturer, the probiotic
supports the user's digestive health by helping with diarrhea,
bloating and gas and by restoring the natural balance of bacteria
in the digestive tract.  Additionally, the probiotic supplement,
according to advertised claims, will support the immune system.
Products which were sold under these claims include the following:
Culturelle Dairy Free Health and Wellness; Culturelle Digestive
Health; Culturelle for Kids; Culturelle Natural Health and
Wellness.

If you purchased any of these supplements, the class action
lawyers at Morgan and Morgan would like to hear about Culturelle's
effectiveness for you.  If the products do not live up to their
advertised claims, consumers who bought these products may be able
to participate in a Culturelle class action to seek compensation
for the cost of their product.  To learn more about your
eligibility for a potential Culturelle class action, visit
ForThePeople.com and fill out the free case review form.  The
attorneys at the firm are providing this online consultation at no
cost and would like to hear about Culturelle effectiveness from
any consumer who purchased these supplements.

                     About Morgan and Morgan

Morgan and Morgan is one of the largest personal injury law firms
in the country with multiple office locations throughout Florida
and the Southeast.  The firm handles auto accident cases, personal
injury cases, and medical malpractice cases, as well as claims
against drug and medical device manufacturers.  Visit Morgan and
Morgan online at http://www.forthepeople.com/for a free case
evaluation and information about your legal rights.


BANK CENTURY: MAKI Urges Public to File Corruption Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
TEMPO Interactive reports that the Indonesian Anti-Corruption
Community (MAKI) is encouraging the public to file a class action
suit for unresolved corruption cases, such as the Bank Century and
Bank Indonesia Liquidity Support (BLBI) cases.

MAKI coordinator Boyamin Saiman said the public has the right for
clean governance.  "It's easy to file a class action," he claimed
following the Mobile Public Alliance declaration event in
Surakarta on Oct. 9.

A class action is free of charge and the public do not need to
worry that they will be sued back.  The trial process is only six
days.  Mr. Boyamin said he was ready to be the public's lawyer.


CARMAX INC: Awaits Order on Bid to Lift Stay & Compel Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CarMax, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its motion to lift
the stay, and compel arbitration on an individualized basis, of
remaining claims in the consolidated class action lawsuit over
employee wages, the Company disclosed in its October 7, 2011, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended August 31, 2011.

On April 2, 2008, Mr. John Fowler filed a putative class action
lawsuit against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax
Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles.  Subsequently, two other
lawsuits, Leena Areso et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC and Justin Weaver v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC, were consolidated as part of the Fowler case.
The allegations in the consolidated case involved: (1) failure to
provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2)
failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related
to meal and rest breaks and overtime; (3) failure to pay overtime;
(4) failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement
provisions; and (5) unfair competition/California's Labor Code
Private Attorney General Act.  The putative class consisted of
sales consultants, sales managers, and other hourly employees who
worked for the company in California from April 2, 2004, to the
present.  On May 12, 2009, the court dismissed all of the class
claims with respect to the sales manager putative class.  On
June 16, 2009, the court dismissed all claims related to the
failure to comply with the itemized employee wage statement
provisions.  The court also granted CarMax's motion for summary
adjudication with regard to CarMax's alleged failure to pay
overtime to the sales consultant putative class.  The plaintiffs
appealed the court's ruling regarding the sales consultant
overtime claim.

On May 20, 2011, the California Court of Appeals affirmed the
court's ruling in favor of CarMax.  The plaintiffs filed a
Petition of Review with the California Supreme Court, which was
denied.  As a result, the plaintiffs' overtime claims are no
longer part of the case.

The claims currently remaining in the lawsuit regarding the sales
consultant putative class are: (1) failure to provide meal and
rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay
wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest
breaks; and (3) unfair competition/California's Labor Code Private
Attorney General Act.  On June 16, 2009, the court entered a stay
of these claims pending the outcome of a California Supreme Court
case involving unrelated third parties but related legal issues.
Subsequently, CarMax moved to lift the stay and compel the
plaintiffs' remaining claims into arbitration on an individualized
basis, which the court is considering.  The Fowler lawsuit seeks
compensatory and special damages, wages, interest, civil and
statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and the
recovery of attorneys' fees.  The Company says it is unable to
make a reasonable estimate of the amount or range of loss that
could result from an unfavorable outcome in these matters.


CINTAS CORP: Appeals From Summary Judgment Orders Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cintas Corporation is a defendant in a purported class action
lawsuit, Mirna E. Serrano, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Serrano),
filed on May 10, 2004, and pending in the United States District
Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.  The
Serrano plaintiffs alleged that Cintas discriminated against women
in hiring into various service sales representative positions
across all divisions of Cintas.  On November 15, 2005, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) intervened in the Serrano
lawsuit.  The Serrano plaintiffs seek injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other
remedies.  On October 27, 2008, the United States District Court
in the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in
favor of Cintas limiting the scope of the putative class in the
Serrano lawsuit to female applicants for service sales
representative positions at Cintas locations within the state of
Michigan.  Consequently, all claims brought by female applicants
for service sales representative positions outside of the state of
Michigan were dismissed.  Similarly, any claims brought by the
EEOC on behalf of similarly situated female applicants outside of
the state of Michigan have also been dismissed from the Serrano
lawsuit.  Cintas is a defendant in another purported class action
lawsuit, Blanca Nelly Avalos, et al. v. Cintas Corporation
(Avalos), which was filed in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.  The Avalos
plaintiffs alleged that Cintas discriminated against women,
African-Americans and Hispanics in hiring into various service
sales representative positions in Cintas' Rental division only
throughout the United States.  The Avalos plaintiffs sought
injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and other remedies.  The claims in Avalos
originally were brought in the lawsuit captioned Robert Ramirez,
et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Ramirez), filed on January 20, 2004,
in the United States Districft Court, Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division.  On May 11, 2006, the Ramirez
and Avalos African-American, Hispanic and female failure to hire
into service sales representative positions claims and the EEOC's
intervention were consolidated for pretrial purposes with the
Serrano case and transferred to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.  The
consolidated case was known as Mirna E. Serrano/Blanca Nelly
Avalos, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Serrano/Avalos).

On March 31, 2009, the United States District Court, Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division entered an order denying
class certification to all plaintiffs in the Serrano/Avalos
lawsuits.  Following denial of class certification, the Court
permitted the individual Avalos and Serrano plaintiffs to proceed
separately.  In the Avalos case, the Court dismissed the remaining
claims of the individual plaintiffs who remained in that case
after the denial of class certification.  On May 11, 2010,
Plaintiff Tanesha Davis, on behalf of all similarly situated
plaintiffs in the Avalos case, filed a notice of appeal of the
District Court's summary judgment order in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  The Appellate Court has made no
determination regarding the merits of Davis' appeal.  In September
2010, the Court in Serrano dismissed all private individual claims
and all claims of the EEOC and the 13 individuals it claimed to
represent.  The EEOC has appealed the District Court's summary
judgment decisions and various other rulings to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  The Court of Appeals has
not yet ruled on the EEOC's appeal.

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

The Company says the litigation, if decided or settled adversely
to it, may, individually or in the aggregate, result in liability
material to Cintas' consolidated financial condition or
consolidated results of operation and could increase costs of
operations on an ongoing basis.  Any estimated liability relating
to these proceedings is not determinable at this time.  Cintas may
enter into discussions regarding settlement of these and other
lawsuits, and may enter into settlement agreements if it believes
such settlement is in the best interest of Cintas' shareholders.


CINTAS CORP: Paid $1.9-Mil. in Taxes for "Veliz" Class Members
--------------------------------------------------------------
On July 20, 2011, Cintas Corporation paid $1.9 million to satisfy
the future income tax liabilities of class members in the lawsuit
captioned Paul Veliz, et al. v. Cintas Corporation, according to
the Company's October 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
August 31, 2011.

Cintas is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit, Paul
Veliz, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Veliz), filed on March 19,
2003, in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California, Oakland Division, alleging that Cintas violated
certain federal and state wage and hour laws applicable to its
service sales representatives, whom Cintas considers exempt
employees, and asserting additional related ERISA claims.  On
April 5, 2004, and February 14, 2006, the Court stayed the claims
of all plaintiffs with valid arbitration agreements pending
arbitration of those claims.  Claims made in the Veliz action,
therefore, are pending before the United States District Court,
Northern District of California and Judge Bruce Meyerson (Ret.),
an Arbitrator selected by the parties.  On August 5, 2009, the
parties in the Veliz action reached a settlement in principle.
That settlement was granted preliminary approval by the District
Court.  The pre-tax impact, net of insurance proceeds, was $19.5
million in fiscal 2010.  Pursuant to the settlement agreement,
Cintas paid $22.8 million on December 17, 2010.

On June 3, 2011, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement.  On July 20, 2011, Cintas paid $1.9 million to satisfy
the future income tax liabilities of the class members as they
receive their respective shares of the settlement funds.  Any
remaining balance of the settlement funds will be used to pay the
fees and expenses of the settlement administrator or donated to a
charitable organization as determined by the court.


EQUITITRUST: Singapore Firm Agrees to Fund Investor Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Kruger, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
Singapore's International Litigation Partners has agreed to fund a
potential class action against Equititrust amid growing signs of
turmoil at the Gold Coast mortgage fund operator, which faces
another winding up action by the Sydney businessman Ian Lazar.

In a letter to unitholders with more than AUD250 million tied up
in Equititrust's Income Fund and Premium Fund, the law firm
Piper Alderman confirmed it has signed up ILP as litigation
funder.

The law firm, which is spearheading efforts to recover investor
losses, detailed potential claims against Equititrust.

This includes likely claims of "misleading and deceptive conduct,
breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duties as trustee and
breaches of the Corporations Act in relation to the managed
investment schemes provisions", according to a letter Piper
Alderman sent to unitholders.

Adding to the turmoil at Equititrust is news that a newly
appointed director, David JS Jackson, QC, has resigned as director
two months after joining the company's board.  No explanation for
the resignation was offered in a brief statement from the company.

A further company update on Oct. 10 confirmed that founder
Mark McIvor is no longer involved in the company at any level.

A company statement said while Mr. McIvor remained the sole
shareholder of Equititrust, as well as a creditor and a unitholder
in the Equititrust Income Fund, "Mr. McIvor is not involved in
managing fund assets, recovering outstanding loans or otherwise
involved in the management of the company or the funds".

His actions while managing the company are likely to be central to
any class action.

Piper Alderman told unitholders it expects to make an application
for preliminary discovery in the Federal Court in order to gain
access to documents and help determine whether legal action should
proceed against Equititrust or its directors.

Mention was made of Mr. Lazar's latest attempt to wind up
Equititrust which may also play a role.

Piper Alderman said a successful application to wind up
Equititrust means the company cannot continue as the manager and
responsible entity (RE) of the two funds.

A new responsible entity would be appointed by the Australian
Securities and Investments Commission.

According to the law firm, this will allow further investigations
to be made by any new RE into Equititrust's conduct "which is
likely to assist claims of other unitholders including those who
join the action proposed by Piper Alderman".


GENTEK: Property Owners May File Suit Over Siding Problems
----------------------------------------------------------
A Gentek class action lawsuit may be an option for homeowners who
experienced problems with the company's aluminum or steel exterior
siding, including peeling, chipping, cracking or a change in paint
color.  Potentially, these individuals may be able to participate
in a Gentek class action lawsuit, which would allow a large number
of homeowners the opportunity to collectively file a claim in
court seeking compensation for repairs and other damages.  To find
out if you are eligible for a Gentek class action, visit
http://www.classaction.org/gentek-siding.htmlto receive a no cost
evaluation of your claim.

According to a Gentek class action complaint, the exterior steel
and aluminum siding manufactured by Gentek is inherently
defective, as it starts to crack, chip or peel within the original
warranty period.  Allegedly, the warranties for this siding make
the company liable for the repair, replacement or, for siding sold
in 1995 and thereafter, refinishing of the siding.  The Gentek
class action complaint claims, however, that when the company
receives a claim for peeling paint, it provides the property owner
with either a small monetary sum or an offer to repaint the
siding, which may not fully resolve the Gentek siding problems.
Furthermore, the Gentek class action complaint alleges that the
sum offered to property owners is significantly less than what the
company is liable for under its warranties.

Because Gentek allegedly manufactured defective exterior steel and
aluminum siding and breached its product warranties, homeowners
who experienced Gentek siding problems with this product may have
legal recourse.  Potentially, these individuals may be able to
participate in a Gentek class action to recover compensation for
the repair or replacement of their siding.  If your Gentek
exterior siding peeled, chipped or otherwise failed to perform as
warranted, visit Class Action.org today for a free evaluation of
your Gentek siding complaints.

                      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.


KFC: Settles Class Action Over Free Sandwich Coupons
----------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted at PointofLaw.com by Ted Frank,
KFC decided to advertise with the help of Oprah, and was
overwhelmed with customers demanding more free chicken sandwiches
than the chain had available to offer.  The company voluntarily
replaced the coupons with rainchecks, 2.7 million of which were
redeemed for free sandwiches, but there was still a class action
demanding other recompense.

That other recompense is now available in a class action
settlement.  The millions of class members who downloaded a coupon
on May 5 or May 6, 2009, but didn't bother to get a free sandwich
or other compensation from KFC have a second bite at the apple in
the form of a settlement fund that reserves less than $678,000 for
the class.  If, given the hoop-jumping required to make a claim,
the settlement fund is not exhausted by claims, the remainder goes
in "cy pres" to local Illinois charities, despite it being a
nationwide class.  The attorneys are asking for $515,000 for
themselves and $25,000 for their clients.

The case is in the Northern District of Illinois (In re Kentucky
Grilled Chicken Coupon Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation, No.
1:09-cv-7670), and the Seventh Circuit does not look kindly on
class action settlements like this one.

One hopes that there is a class member willing to come forward to
object to the settlement and that they take advantage of their
ability to access one of the pro bono attorneys who represents
such class members for free.


NCAA: Bill Russell Files Name & Likeness Licensing Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that National Basketball
Association (NBA) great Bill Russell is the latest to file a class
action accusing the National Collegiate Athletic Association and
Electronic Arts of conspiring to pay athletes nothing while using
their names, images and careers for video games.

A copy of the Complaint in Russell v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, et al., Case No. 11-cv-04938 (N.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/10/10/Russell.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
          Jon T. King, Esq.
          Arthur N. Bailey, Jr., Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com
                  jking@hausfeldllp.com
                  abailey@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com


RENAISSANCE LEARNING: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim
Renaissance Learning is selling itself too cheaply to Raphael
Acquisition Corp., for $14.85 a share or $440 million.

A copy of the Complaint in Data Key Partners v. Permira Advisers
LLC, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00688 (W.D. Wis.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/10/10/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark L. Thomsen, Esq.
          Robert D. Crivello, Esq.
          CANNON & DUNPHY, S.C.
          595 North Barker Road
          P.O. Box 1750
          Brookfield, WI 53008-1750
          Telephone: (262) 782-2700

               - and -

          Richard B. Brualdi, Esq.
          Gaitri Boodhoo, Esq.
          Lauren C. Watson, Esq.
          David Titus, Esq.
          THE BRUALDI LAW FIRM
          29 Broadway, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 952-0602


ROCKWELL INT'L: Supreme Court to Weigh on Plutonium Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Wajert at Dechert LLP reports that the U.S. Supreme Court
last week invited the Solicitor General to weigh in on the issues
in a significant class action, in which the plaintiffs allege
plutonium contamination.  Merilyn Cook, et al. v. Rockwell
International Corporation, et al., No. 10-1377 (U.S.).

The plaintiffs were more than 15,000 property owners near the
former Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant in Colorado.  In 2006, a
jury found against defendants Dow and Rockwell.  In 2008, the
federal trial court ordered the companies to pay a total of $926
million in damages.  The 10th Circuit reversed.

At issue now is whether state substantive law controls the
standard of compensable harm in suits under the Price-Anderson
Act, or whether the Act instead imposes a federal standard; and,
secondly, whether, if a federal standard applies, a property owner
whose land has been contaminated by plutonium must show some
physical injury to the property beyond the contamination itself in
order to recover.

The court of appeals had concluded that plutonium contamination by
itself was not adequate under the Act.  In particular, property
owners' fears that the plutonium might damage their health was not
a sufficient basis to award damages.

The case raises the all-too-familiar scenario of trial courts
dispensing with traditional elements of a cause of action in order
to proceed with class litigation.  Plaintiffs alleged that
defendants were responsible for plutonium emissions that
diminished their property values.  But they did not prove any
present physical injury to person or property, or loss of use of
property, on a class-wide basis.  Rather, they vigorously --and
successfully-- urged the district court to dispense with any such
injury requirement.  The district court allowed petitioners to
recover based solely on a risk of injury to person or property,
even if unverifiable or scientifically unfounded.


SONY ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Class Action Over Cramming
----------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that a Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) class action
accuses Sony Entertainment and ringtone provider Flycell of
cramming unasked-for "services" onto cell phone bills.  The lead
plaintiff, an Air Force pilot, says the facts show "the depth to
which some of the most powerful combatants will go in order to
steal billions of dollars from unwitting and relatively helpless
consumers."

In his federal complaint, named plaintiff Mark Smith claims, "This
facts [sic] in this lawsuit will illuminate not only a portion of
the worldwide battle for primacy in the delivery of downloadable
digital media, but also the depth to which some of the most
powerful combatants will go in order to steal billions of dollars
from unwitting and relatively helpless consumers."

Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, says he went to an AT&T outlet to
complain about dropped calls, poor reception and high charges.
(AT&T, though criticized, is not a defendant in the lawsuit.)

"In the course of attempting to resolve the issues, AT&T's agent
pointed to 2 lines on a 68-page, printed monthly bill that
indicated charges in the amount of $19.99 to 'Flycell,'" the
complaint states.  "Further investigation of prior billings
disclosed that AT&T had billed on behalf of Flycell charges of
$19.99 every month for over a year."

Flycell describes itself as an online hub for customers to
download cell phone ringtones, graphics, games, entertainment, and
sports programs.  It is a wholly owned subsidiary of New York-
based company Acotel, also a defendant.

Up to 100 John Doe co-conspirators are also named as defendants.

"At no time did plaintiff agree to pay for media content from
Flycell," Mr. Smith says.

Mr. Smith said he had to complain about the charges for 2 months
to get them reversed.

He seeks an injunction against cramming, and treble damages for
fraud, RICO conspiracy and unjust enrichment.

He is represented by Erik H. Langeland.

The Federal Communications Commission defines cramming as "the
practice of placing unauthorized, misleading, or deceptive charges
on your telephone bill," according to the complaint.


STATE OF OKLAHOMA: Juvenile Justice Center Reforms Slipping
-----------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Hoberock, writing for Tulsa World, reports that the
juvenile justice system is slipping back into the conditions that
led to a decades-old class-action lawsuit that was responsible for
sweeping reforms, Tulsa attorney Steven Novick said.

Mr. Novick, who spearheaded the federal lawsuit, commented on
Oct. 7 following the Board of Juvenile Affairs' approval on Oct. 6
of several security measures to clamp down on unruly juvenile
offenders after an outbreak of violence and escapes at the Central
Oklahoma Juvenile Center in Tecumseh.

The outbreak came after the Office of Juvenile Affairs closed the
state's only maximum-security juvenile facility, the L.E. Rader
Center in Sand Springs, and transferred some of the youths from
there to the state's two other juvenile institutions.

Mr. Novick said he filed the suit in 1978 on behalf of a boy who
described shocking conditions in state-run juvenile centers.

The boy, dubbed Terry D., described the use of hogties and days of
solitary confinement, Mr. Novick said.

A tour Mr. Novick took of a juvenile facility in Taft in 1977
confirmed some of his suspicions, he said.

He said the staff was proud of what it had been doing, adding that
staff members were "every bit as institutionalized as the kids
were.  They didn't see what they were doing as possibly wrong or
harmful.  That was the springboard."

The allegations mounted, Mr. Novick said, and the suit alleged
that children were subjected to abusive use of restraints and
solitary confinement and that staff used tranquilizing drugs to
control juveniles, rather than treat them.

"There was compelling evidence to support all those allegations,"
he said.

In addition, children who had done nothing wrong -- such as
victims of neglect -- were housed with those who had been
adjudicated of crimes, Mr. Novick said.

"And it really was a hard-fought lawsuit," said Jon Trzcinski, who
served as the Office of Juvenile Affairs liaison to the court-
appointed monitor in the case.  "It was very contentious."

A consent decree was issued in 1984.

It resulted in the ban of abusive practices and closed many
facilities.  More juveniles were to be treated in community
settings as a result, Mr. Novick said.

The case finally ended in the late 1990s with an order of
dismissal outlining guidelines for treatment.

Mr. Novick said that since the issuance of the dismissal order,
the system has started moving toward more of a corrections model
than a true juvenile justice system.  Mr. Trzcinski agrees.

Mr. Novick said plans outlined by OJA, which include the use of
Tasers and chemical spray, along with proposed modifications to
the Terry D. order governing solitary confinement and restraints,
are an indication that the reforms created by the case are losing
ground.

He said OJA has not addressed the causes of the violence or put
forth a solution to address it.

He described OJA's plans as "overkill."

"This is all so unbelievable and unnecessary," Mr. Novick said.
"It truly angers me that this agency is going to become the first
in the country to use Tasers on kids when the problems at COJC are
its own fault."

He said the agency was not prepared when it closed Rader.

Gene Christian, Office of Juvenile Affairs executive director,
said treatment is not being sacrificed for security.

In addition, the number of juveniles housed in facilities is down
tremendously, he said.

"I don't see how he can argue overall the system is more penal in
nature," Mr. Christian said of Mr. Novick.  "We are moving them
out of secure settings or preventing delinquency in the first
place."

Linda Terrell, executive director of the Oklahoma Institute for
Child Advocacy, is concerned that the proposals offered by OJA are
more punitive.

"We need to remember that they are children," she said.


STEREOTAXIS INC: Faces Securities Class Action in Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Umeda LLP disclosed that the firm commenced a class action
lawsuit on October 7, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased the common stock of Stereotaxis,
Inc. between February 28, 2011, and August 9, 2011, against
certain of the Company's officers and directors for violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The plaintiff is represented
by Robbins Umeda LLP and Carey, Danis & Lowe.

Stereotaxis designs, manufactures, and markets a cardiology
instrument control system, called Niobe(R), for use in a
hospital's interventional surgical suite to enhance the treatment
of coronary artery disease and arrhythmias.  The Company also
markets the Odyssey system as a data management solution for
remote viewing and recording of live interventional procedures.
The Company's executive offices are located in St. Louis,
Missouri.

The complaint alleges that beginning on February 28, 2011, Chief
Executive Officer Michael Kaminski, along with certain officers
and directors at Stereotaxis, issued a series of positive
statements to investors about the business condition and future
prospects of the Company that were materially false and
misleading, and that caused shares of the Company's stock to trade
at artificially high prices.

In particular, the complaint alleges that officials at the Company
failed to disclose to investors material adverse facts that: (1)
Stereotaxis was unable to leverage its extensive portfolio and
scale of products and services in a strategically beneficial
manner; (2) market feedback from users of the Company's technology
was "mixed"; (3) the Niobe system was far from the "standard of
care" and needed "fundamental product improvements"; (4) demand
for the Niobe and Odyssey systems was weak, and that the number of
units being sold was decreasing; (5) the reported backlog of
orders did not fairly represent future revenue the Company
expected to recognize; and that (6) the Company overstated its
market edge.

On August 8, 2011, the Company announced financial results for the
second quarter of 2011 that revealed that the Company was
performing well below expectations.  Additionally, the press
release disclosed to investors that the Company was forced to
suspend its full year guidance for 2011, and that Daniel Johnston
was resigning as the Chief Financial Officer.  On this news,
shares of Stereotaxis declined by more than 58% of their value,
closing on August 9, 2011, at just $1.19 per share.

If you purchased Stereotaxis stock during the Class Period and
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than 60 days from October 10, 2011.  To discuss your shareholder
rights, please contact:

        Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Esq.
        ROBBINS UMEDA LLP
        Telephone: 800-350-6003

or via the shareholder information form.

Robbins Umeda LLP -- http://www.robbinsumeda.com--represents
individual and institutional shareholders in derivative, direct,
and class action lawsuits.


TIBCO SOFTWARE: Further Appeal From IPO Suit Ruling Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a court decision stating that an objector to a
consolidated class action settlement had no standing to object to
the settlement is pending, according to TIBCO Software Inc.'s
October 7, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended August 28, 2011.

The Company, certain of its directors and officers, and certain
investment bank underwriters have been named in a putative class
action for violation of the federal securities laws in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
captioned "In re TIBCO Software Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation."  This is one of a number of cases
challenging underwriting practices in the initial public offerings
(each, an "IPO") of more than 300 companies, which have been
coordinated for pretrial proceedings as "In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation."  Plaintiffs generally allege that
the underwriters engaged in undisclosed and improper underwriting
activities, namely the receipt of excessive brokerage commissions
and customer agreements regarding post-offering purchases of stock
in exchange for allocations of IPO shares.  Plaintiffs also allege
that various investment bank securities analysts issued false and
misleading analyst reports.  The complaint against the Company
claims that the purported improper underwriting activities were
not disclosed in the registration statements for the Company's IPO
and secondary public offering and seeks unspecified damages on
behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased the Company's
securities or sold put options during the time period from
July 13, 1999, to December 6, 2000.

A lawsuit with similar allegations of undisclosed improper
underwriting practices, and part of the same coordinated
proceedings, is pending against Talarian Corp, which the Company
acquired in 2002.  That action is captioned "In re Talarian Corp.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation."  The complaint
against Talarian, certain of its underwriters and certain of its
former directors and officers claims that the purported improper
underwriting activities were not disclosed in the registration
statement for Talarian's IPO and seeks unspecified damages on
behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased Talarian
securities during the time period from July 20, 2000, to
December 6, 2000.

The parties have reached a global settlement of the litigation,
including the actions against the Company and Talarian.  Under the
settlement, the insurers will pay the full amount of settlement
share allocated to the Company (its financial liability will be
limited to paying the remaining balance of the applicable
retention under Talarian's directors and officers liability
insurance policy).  In addition, the Company and the other
defendants will receive complete dismissals from the case.  In
2009, the Court granted final approval of the settlement.  Certain
objectors appealed; several of the appeals have been dismissed.
Following remand from the appellate court, the district court in
August 2011 determined that the remaining appellant was not a
class member with standing to object to the settlement; that
August order is now on appeal.


TIBCO SOFTWARE: Proginet Acquisition-Related Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit commenced in connection with
the acquisition of Proginet Corporation by TIBCO Software Inc.,
has been dismissed with prejudice following court approval of the
settlement resolving the lawsuit, according to TIBCO's October 7,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended August 28, 2011.

On June 28, 2010, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed by individual stockholders in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, Nassau County, against Proginet Corporation (which
the Company acquired on September 15, 2010), certain of its
officers and directors, the Company and its subsidiary created for
the purpose of effectuating the acquisition of Proginet.  The
complaint generally alleged that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize shareholder
value in negotiating and approving the merger agreement, and that
Proginet and the Company aided and abetted those alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties.  The complaint seeks, among other relief,
class certification, certain forms of injunctive relief, including
enjoining the proposed merger, and unspecified damages.

The Company, Proginet and the other defendants in this action
entered into an agreement providing for the settlement and
dismissal with prejudice of this action.  Although the Company and
Proginet believe that the action is without merit, they entered
into the settlement to avoid the risk of delaying the merger and
to minimize the expense of defending the action.  The settlement
and dismissal with prejudice was approved by the court in July
2011 and resolved all of the claims that were or could have been
brought in the action, including all claims relating to the merger
(other than claims for appraisal under Section 262 of Delaware
law).  In connection with the settlement and dismissal with
prejudice, Proginet and its insurer paid plaintiffs' counsel
$200,000, the amount approved by the court for fees and expenses
in the action.


UNITED STATES: Bid for Appeal Bond in Cobell Settlement Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge has
threatened sanctions against a group of 450,000 Native Americans
who claimed to need an $8.3 million bond against the Arizona
lawyer appealing their $3.412 billion settlement with the United
States.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion in Cobell, et al. v. Salazar, et
al., Case No. 96-01285 (D.D.C.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/10/10/IndianSettlement.pdf


UNITED STATES: Oct. 18-20 Meetings Set for Keepseagle Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
StGeorgeUtah.com reports that as part of the claims-filing
process, attorneys appointed by the court will hold meetings
around the country to provide assistance to Native American
farmers and ranchers who wish to file a claim in the $760 million
Keepseagle class action settlement.  The settlement resolves a
lawsuit claiming the U.S. Department of Agriculture discriminated
against Native Americans in farm loan applications and servicing.

Over the past six months, Native American farmers and ranchers
around the country received information about their legal rights
and options by postal mail and through print and radio notices.
Class members who want to file a claim for cash and loan
forgiveness must file their claims by Dec. 27, 2011.

Class members can get free assistance in filing a claim at
meetings that will be held around the country this Summer and
Fall.

There will be meetings in this area in the Dome Room of the
Shoshone-Bannock Tribal Building in Fort Hall, ID on October 18 to
20 between 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Class members who have already registered for a Claims Package
will receive a schedule of meetings with that package.  The
complete schedule of Claims Filing Meetings is also available on
the Indian Farm Class Web site or by calling 888-233-5506.

The Web site schedule indicates meetings held in Utah and Nevada
have already occurred.  It does provide meetings yet to take
place, Oct. 11, 12 and 13 in Arizona.  Consult the Web site for
Indian Farm Class Web site for Claims Filing Meetings in other
states.

Class members wishing to register to receive a Claims Package can
do so through the Web site or toll-free number by writing to
Keepseagle Settlement Administrator, P. O. Box 3560, Portland,
Oregon 97208-3560.


VODAFONE: Law Firm Fails to Secure Funding for Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lucy Battersby, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that a potential class action between Vodafone and 23,000
disgruntled customers has stalled without any legal action taken
or funding secured over the past 10 months.

Legal firm Piper Alderman's proposed class action added to the
negative publicity surrounding Vodafone when it entered a
publicity nightmare late last year due to poor network performance
and customer care.

However, Piper Alderman has failed to secure any funding to take
the matter to court, or taken any legal steps towards a class
action since it started accepting customer details.

Lawyer Sasha Ivanstoff confirmed that about 23,000 people had
expressed interest in the case.

However, the firm was now looking overseas for litigation funding
after failing to find any Australian backers.

"We are not at the point where all [funding] avenues have been
exhausted and we have still got potential funders looking at it,"
he said.

The law firm would not disclose the amount they were seeking for
the class action to go ahead.  But in comparison, listed
litigation funder IMF has spent between AUD1.4 million to AUD24
million on class action cases, according to its latest annual
report.

A spokeswoman for Vodafone said the mobile company had not had any
contact from Piper Alderman.

The company lost about 375,000 customers in the first half of this
year largely due to network problems, it revealed in a recent
half-year update.

Vodafone responded to the problems by apologizing to customers and
fast-tracking a planned network upgrade.

"In October last year we announced a significant network plan, the
delivery of which was accelerated including upgrading the existing
2G and 3G network, adding capacity, building a new 850 megahertz
network for smartphones and data, replacing equipment across all
network sites with new equipment that is 4G ready, and adding new
sites to the existing 3G network," a spokeswoman said.

"Plans are on track and this month we completed our 850th
installation on our new 850MHz 3G network.  The aim of the network
improvements is to deliver customers with better indoor coverage,
faster downloads and a stronger signal than before."


* DRI Supports Certoriari Petition in Kurns v. Railroad Friction
----------------------------------------------------------------
DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar filed an amicus curiae brief in
the United States Supreme Court in the case of Kurns v. Railroad
Friction Products Corp. and Viad Corp. (U.S. Supreme Court No. 10-
879).  In its brief, DRI reaffirms the importance of maintaining
the doctrine of field preemption.

The case involves a product liability suit.  The plaintiffs are
survivors of George Corson-Gloria Kurns and Freida E. Jung Corson.
George Corson was a railroad worker who repaired locomotives.
Some of the locomotive parts contained asbestos and Mr. Corson
contracted an asbestos-related disease and died.  Plaintiffs claim
that the locomotive parts were defective because they contained
asbestos and because defendants allegedly did not warn of the
danger from the asbestos.  The federal district court and Third
Circuit held that the claims were preempted by the Locomotive
Inspection Act, 49 U.S.C. section 20701 et seq.

The U.S. Solicitor General and the plaintiffs argue that field
preemption does not apply to locomotive and locomotive equipment
while "off-line" in the repair shop and, in any event, does not
extend to protect equipment manufacturers from common law claims.
Alternatively, the solicitor general and the plaintiffs argue that
failure-to-warn claims are not preempted even if design-defect
claims are preempted.  DRI is concerned that, if the Supreme Court
adopted this distinction, it could effectively eliminate field
preemption for many areas of product liability.  A preempted
design-defect claim could easily be recast as an unpreempted
failure-to-warn-of-the-defect claim.

DRI is also concerned with the plaintiffs urging the Supreme Court
to discard field preemption.  Plaintiffs' argument is apparently
an attack on field preemption generally, not restricted to the
locomotive and locomotive equipment, despite specific Supreme
Court precedent from 1926.  "If the Supreme Court rejects field
preemption for petitioners' claims, other claims currently blocked
by field preemption could be revived despite settled expectations
by the business community," cautioned Minneapolis attorney Diane
B. Bratvold, author of the DRI brief.

For these reasons, DRI ? The Voice of the Defense Bar identified
this case as one of great importance to the interests of DRI's
membership.  In supporting the defendants' petition for
certiorari, DRI sends a message to the Supreme Court that this
case presents an important issue worthy of its review.

The DRI brief was authored by Diane B. Bratvold with Briggs and
Morgan in Minneapolis.  She is vice chair of DRI's Amicus
Committee and an appellate lawyer with expertise on a wide range
of issues, including constitutional law, employment law and tort
liability.

The brief is available in its entirety at http://www.dri.org

         About DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar

DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar is an international
organization of defense attorneys and corporate counsel that is
recognized as a thought leader and an advocate for the defense bar
at the national and state level, as well as in Europe.  With more
than 22,000 members, DRI provides members and their clients with
access to world-class education, legal resources and numerous
marketing and networking opportunities that facilitate career and
law firm growth. For more information log on to http://www.dri.org


* Michigan Banks, Credit Unions Face Class Actions Over ATM Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brion Doyle at Varnum LLP reports that an increasing number of
Michigan banks and credit unions have been named as defendants in
class action lawsuits for allegedly failing to post notices of
non-customer fees on the exterior of their ATMs -- even when that
same notice is provided on the ATM screen.

The class action plaintiffs argue that the Electronic Funds
Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1963) requires ATM operators to post
a sticker or sign with notice of the non-customer transaction fee,
including the amount of the fee, on the exterior of the ATM.  The
class action plaintiffs argue that the exterior notice is required
even if the same notice is contained on the ATM screen.  Banks and
their counsel find this argument (and the technical statutory
language that supports this argument) maddening, because in most
cases the onscreen notice does not allow the transaction to
proceed unless the non-customer agrees to the fee.  In almost
every case, the same class action plaintiff who is suing a bank
for lack of exterior notice on the machine has affirmatively
agreed to the fee by pressing a button on the screen of the ATM.

Class action counsel in Illinois filed suit for lack of exterior
notice in 2005, developing an argument based on a technical
reading of the statute. Since that time, a series of cases have
been filed in Illinois, Pennsylvania, and California.  These cases
first appeared in federal court in Michigan in July 2009 and have
given ATM operators much reason to be nervous.  Class action
plaintiffs are now actively seeking ATMs that lack exterior fee
stickers in the state of Michigan.  At the same time, many ATM
operators assumed that their onscreen notice was sufficient to
meet the requirements of the Act, in some cases because of
guidance from their regulators.  The claims have a one-year
statute of limitations, so a bank, credit union, or other ATM
operator could face liability for the lack of a sticker going back
one year prior to the date a lawsuit is filed.

Once a suit is filed, defending an EFTA class action claim carries
significant risk.  Under the Act, the ATM operator may be liable
for any actual damage sustained by the plaintiff as well as a
penalty of up to $1,000.  However, in the case of a class action
suit, the ATM operator could be liable for $500,000 or 1% of the
net worth of the bank, whichever is less.  In addition, a
successful plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of costs and
attorneys' fees.  Given this potential risk, it is no surprise
that EFTA class action claims are almost always settled.  There
are limited defenses available to ATM operators under the Act,
and, in certain cases, the named plaintiff may be vulnerable to
attack as an inadequate class representative.  However, in the
dozens and dozens of cases that have been filed, only a handful of
defendants have successfully obtained a dismissal.

Now that these claims have made their way to Michigan, financial
institutions should strongly consider auditing their ATM machines
on an annual basis.  This audit should include taking pictures of
the fee sticker on each machine.  In addition, it is important to
understand in advance whether insurance coverage will apply to a
class action suit for violation of the EFTA for lack of a fee
sticker.  If coverage is not available, the bank or credit union
should consider discussing policy options with their insurer.


* U.S. LENDERS: May Face Class Action Over VA Home Loan Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jann Swanson, writing for Mortgage News Daily, reports that three
law firms are seeking participants in a class action law suit
seeking damages from 13 lenders for alleged fraud against
borrowers seeking Veterans Administration (VA) home loans.  The
suit charges that the lenders charged fees for their loans which
were unallowable under VA mortgage rules, an action that
technically, according to the suit, invalidated the VA guarantee.

The suit, U.S. ex rel, Victor E. Bibby & Brian J. Donnelly v the
defendants listed below, was originally filed in 2006 by two
"whistleblowers" who were also mortgage brokers.  The suit was
refiled by the three law firms in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern Division of Georgia this past June and is brought as a
qui tam lawsuit, a civil proceeding that is used by whistleblowers
to help the government stop many kinds of fraud such as Medicare
or defense contractor fraud, and recover monies that have been
stolen from the U.S. Treasury and taxpayers.  In a qui tam suit, a
whistleblower can win large rewards representing a portion of the
civil recovery.

Listed as defendants are Wells Fargo Bank, Bank of America,
JPMorgan Chase Bank, GMAC Mortgage, CitiMortgage, Suntrust
Mortgage, Washington Mutual Bank, PNC Bank (which acquired
National City Mortgage Co.), Countrywide Home Loans, Mortgage
Investors Corp., First Tennessee Bank (which acquired First
Horizon Home Loan Corp.), Irwin Mortgage Corp. and New Freedom
Mortgage Corp.

The premise for the suit rests on a VA rule that certain fees
typical to a real estate transaction i.e. attorneys' fees or
settlement closing fees are not allowed in closing a VA loan for
the purpose of refinancing.  The defendants allegedly charged
these fees but disguised them as allowable fee entries on HUD
settlement statements.  For example, the lender might charge a
settlement fee of $400, but rather than entering that amount on
the line provided in the statement where it would be disallowed,
it might be bundled into the fee for a title search, increasing
what would normally be an allowable $150 charge to $550.

The plaintiff's attorneys charge that veterans don't know what the
usual and customary charges for those allowable fees are, and the
VA relied upon the banks to comply with VA regulations, rather
than digging into every loan transaction.  "The banks took
advantage of that reliance to cheat veterans and taxpayers."

According to the court papers, in the last ten years, more than
1.2 million of these refinanced loans have been made to veterans
and their families and up to 90% of them may have been affected by
the alleged fraud.  "By concealing the unallowable fees they
charged, the banks benefited in two ways," said Mary Louise Cohen,
a Washington, DC, attorney who is also representing the
whistleblowers.  "The banks collected the illegal fees from
veterans, and they obtained hundreds of millions of dollars in
loan guarantees they otherwise wouldn't have received."

They may have benefitted in a third way as well.  If the VA loans
were sold to investors, it is probable that the VA guarantee
allowed the lender to extract a better price for the loan than
would be the case without the guarantee.

This type of fraud ultimately cheated taxpayers as well as the
borrowers because charging an unallowable fee invalidates the VA
guarantee which typically insures about 25% of the loan amount.
When the loans containing unallowable fees went into default and
foreclosure they cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in
reimbursements to the lender under the guarantee.

In response to news of the lawsuit, Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH),
Chairman of the Banking Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and
Consumer Protection, has called for action from the VA and the
Department of Justice.  Mr. Brown said, "No consumer should be
forced to pay illegal fees, but it is particularly disgraceful to
impose such extraction schemes on our veterans."  He asked the
agencies to release full information on any internal
investigations and responses to the suit.


                           *********

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  * * *