---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, October 17, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 205

                             Headlines

99 CENTS: Weiss & Lurie Files Shareholder Class Action
ABBOTT LABS: Class Action Over Tainted Similac Can Proceed
ABBOTT LABS: Consumer Justice Foundation Discusses Depakote Suit
AUDIOVOX CORP: Class Suits Over RF Exposure Remain Pending
CHALMETTE REFINING: Faces Class Action Over Chemical Pollution

CIBC MORTGAGES: Faces Class Action Over Prepayment Penalties
EPHREN TAYLOR: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Ponzi Scams
FACEBOOK INC: Sued in La. for Tracking Users' Web Browsing
FACEBOOK INC: Sued Over Use of Cookies to Track Browsing History
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Surcharges

HARBIN ELECTRIC: Signs MOU to Settle Consolidated Nevada Suit
INDIANAPOLIS COLTS: Sued Over Minimum Wage Violations
MAGNUM D'OR RESOURCES: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action
MERCK & CO: Faces Class Action Over Vioxx Cardiovascular Risks
OCZ TECHNOLOGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss SSD-Related Suit

PCS EDVENTURES!.COM: "Niederklein" Deal Hearing Set for Feb. 2012
REDLINE COMMS: Settles Shareholder Class Action for C$3.6 Mil.
RENAISSANCE LEARNING: Faces 2 Merger-Related Class Suits in Wis.
TAYLOR BEAN: Workers Settle WARN Suit for $15 Million
TODD WHITE: Faces Class Action Over Inauthentic Giclee Prints

VISA: ATM Operators File Antitrust Class Action
YUM! BRANDS: Bid to Decertify Class in "Moeller" Suit Pending
YUM! BRANDS: Meal-Rest Breaks Claims Remain in Wage and Hour Suit
YUM! BRANDS: Decertification Bid Hearing in "RGM" Suit on Nov. 4
YUM! BRANDS: "Hines" Wage and Hour Class Suit Remains Stayed

YUM! BRANDS: Final Hearing on LJS Suit Settlement Set for Dec. 12
YUM! BRANDS: Oct. 28 Objection Deadline in "Whittington" Suit Set
YUM! BRANDS: "Rosales" Class Suit Remains Stayed in California
YUM! BRANDS: Unit to Oppose "Smith" Plaintiffs' Certification Bid




                          *********

99 CENTS: Weiss & Lurie Files Shareholder Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Lurie, a national class action and shareholder rights law
firm with offices in Los Angeles and New York City, commenced a
class action in Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles on behalf of the shareholders of 99 Cents
Only Stores ("NDN") in connection with the proposed acquisition by
affiliates of Ares Management LLC and Canada Pension Plan
Investment Board for merely $22.00 per share.

The class action alleges, among other things, that the proposed
acquisition provides unfair and inadequate consideration to public
NDN shareholders and that, in pursuing the deal, the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to NDN shareholders.
Indeed, at least one analyst set a high price target of $24.50 per
share.

Whereas, upon closing of the transaction, NDN shareholders will be
precluded from sharing in any favorable long-term prospects of the
Company, the deal safeguards the continued roles and interests of
the Gold-Schiffer family.  Specifically, it is expected that Eric
Schiffer (CEO), Jeff Gold (President and COO), and Howard Gold
(EVP) will continue in their current leadership roles and serve as
directors, and founder David Gold will serve as Chairman Emeritus.
Members of the Gold-Schiffer family, which own about 33% of the
stock and have agreed to vote in support of the transaction, will
continue to hold a significant minority ownership stake.

If you own NDN shares and would like more information about our
lawsuit, please contact:

        Jordan Lurie, Esq.
        Leigh Parker, Esq.
        WEISS & LURIE
        10940 Wilshire Blvd.
        Los Angeles, CA 90024
        Telephone: (800) 437-7918
                    310-208-2800
        E-mail at infoca@weisslurie.com
        Web site: http://www.weisslurie.com

Weiss & Lurie has litigated hundreds of stockholder class and
derivative actions for violations of corporate and fiduciary
duties.


ABBOTT LABS: Class Action Over Tainted Similac Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a
New Jersey mother whose baby got sick after eating Similac infant
formula laced with beetles and larvae can proceed with a class
action against pharmaceutical giant Abbott Laboratories for
shipping the tainted formula, a federal judge ruled.

Abbott, which dodged a different class action this summer over the
same shipment, recalled millions of contaminated units in
September 2010 after discovering beetle larvae in various units of
its Similac powdered infant formula.

Shortly thereafter, Rebecca Brown of New Jersey allegedly
purchased one of the tainted bottles of Similac and fed it to her
daughter, who vomited and required pediatric treatment.  After
Ms. Brown switched to a new formula, the feeding issues
disappeared.

Ms. Brown then filed a putative class action alleging claims such
as strict liability, negligence and fraud, demanding that Abbott
pay damages and disgorge any profits it received through selling
the contaminated Similac.

Abbott moved for summary judgment on all claims.

U.S. District Judge John Grady dismissed most of Ms. Brown's
claims with prejudice, but allowed her to proceed on the counts of
breach of express warranty and state-law violations.

The court began by noting that the beetle-infested Similac did not
necessarily cause Ms. Brown's daughter to get sick.  "It is
possible that Ms. Brown's daughter spit up because infants often
spit up, for reasons other than contaminated baby formula,"
Judge Grady wrote.  Nonetheless, given that both parties' versions
of the events are plausible, he declined to dismiss the suit for
failure to state a claim.

The court dealt with nearly all of Ms. Brown's claims in short
order, with reference to the New Jersey Product Liability Act
(NJPLA).  Because Ms. Brown sufficiently alleged that she had been
"harmed" within the meaning of the act, her claim under it
superseded most of her common-law tort claims.

"The NJPLA 'subsumes' all other causes of action for 'harm caused
by a product,'" Judge Grady explained.

Ms. Brown had noted that the act distinguishes between harm caused
by a product and harm caused by its advertising.  She claimed that
economic loss on the purchase price of the formula, separate from
her daughter's illness, justified many of her other tort claims.

But Judge Grady disagreed, noting that Ms. Brown had alleged that
"Abbott offered to refund Similac purchases provided that 'the
purchaser still has the lot number from the tub containing the
Similac product.'"

"A plaintiff cannot decline a refund and then sue to recover the
purchase price," the 18-page decision states.

Judge Grady also found that the act did not subsume Ms. Brown's
express-warranty claim, which alleges that Abbott advertises
Similac Isomil Soy "to parents seeking to 'comfort [their] baby's
fussiness and gas,'" telling consumers that the product is
"specially designed with the gentleness of soy to soothe the
tummy."

This representation stood apart from other ads Brown had cited,
but were "either irrelevant or puffery," Judge Grady wrote, citing
one ad that said, "Moms can count on [Similac] for trusted
nutrition and the formula that's right for their babies."

But "Abbott's representations about Similac's soothing qualities
are more specific," Judge Grady wrote.

"A fact-finder could conclude that Abbott promised a soothing
product, and instead delivered a defective product that caused
'gastrointestinal discomfort,'" he added.

A status hearing was set for Oct. 12.


ABBOTT LABS: Consumer Justice Foundation Discusses Depakote Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Consumer Justice Foundation, a for-profit corporation that
consists of a team of professional consumer advocates who publish
and maintain a free online informational resource concerning the
alleged dangers of the anticonvulsant drug Depakote discussed the
nature of the neural tube defects that were allegedly caused by
the use of Depakote by mothers during the early stages of
pregnancy in two different Depakote class action lawsuits filed in
Illinois this year.

The Depakote class action lawsuits, which were filed in the
St. Clair County Circuit Court in Illinois and that were assigned
the case numbers 10-L-651 and 11-L-143, allege that the members of
the plaintiff class, which are mothers who used Depakote and who
had children who were born with severe birth defects, were
substantially caused by neural tube defects that have been linked
to the use of this medication.

Depakote is manufactured by Abbott Laboratories and has been
prescribed for patients seeking help with epilepsy, migraine
headaches and the manic episodes associated with bipolar disorder.
Depakote is considered an anticonvulsant drug and has been on the
market for more than 10 years since obtaining FDA approval.

The Depakote class action lawsuits allege that the children who
were born with suspected Depakote side effects suffered from these
birth defects because of a malformation of the neural tube that
occurred during the early stages of the mothers' pregnancies.  The
neural tube is a structure that forms during the first trimester
of a pregnancy, and this structure eventually develops into the
central nervous system.  When the neural tube does not form
properly, it can lead to such results as spina bifida.

These Depakote side effects lawsuits further allege that Abbott
Laboratories knew about the risks of Depakote side effects present
for pregnant women who used this medication and downplayed those
risks to the public.  The class of plaintiffs seeks damages that
compensate them for their losses that include medical costs.

              About the Consumer Justice Foundation

The Consumer Justice Foundation --
http://www.depakotebirthinjury.com-- is a public resource that's
been built and maintained by a group of concerned professionals
who want to provide general information for consumers regarding
the potential dangers involved with the use of Depakote while
pregnant.  This resource is not to be considered as medical or
legal advice, which should only be dispensed by a licensed medical
doctor or a Depakote lawyer.


AUDIOVOX CORP: Class Suits Over RF Exposure Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Certain consolidated class actions transferred to a Multi-District
Litigation Panel of the United States District Court of the
District of Maryland against Audiovox Corporation and other
suppliers, manufacturers and distributors of hand-held wireless
telephones alleging damages relating to exposure to radio
frequency radiation from hand-held wireless telephones are still
pending.

The Company says no assurances regarding the outcome of this
matter can be given, as the Company is unable to assess the degree
of probability of an unfavorable outcome or estimated loss or
liability, if any.  Accordingly, no estimated loss has been
recorded for the case.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 11,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended August 31, 2011.


CHALMETTE REFINING: Faces Class Action Over Chemical Pollution
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Chalmette Refining polluted the neighborhood with vile-smelling
hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide on Oct. 10-11.

A copy of the Complaint in Munna, et al. v. Chalmette Refining,
LLC, 11-cv-02550 (E.D. La.) (Lemmon, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/10/12/CleanAir.pdf


CIBC MORTGAGES: Faces Class Action Over Prepayment Penalties
------------------------------------------------------------
Rob McLister, writing for Canadian Mortgage Trends.com, reports
that CIBC Mortgages Inc., a subsidiary of CIBC bank, has just been
named the subject of a pending class action lawsuit.

The intended suit claims that CIBC improperly calculated penalties
for customers who broke their mortgages from 2005 to date.

The claim alleges that:

"CIBC applied terms and conditions to certain mortgage contracts
to allow it unfettered discretion for calculation of mortgage
prepayment penalties.

". . . the quantification of prepayment penalties applied by CIBC
are in breach of the mortgage contracts."

"Starting in 2005, CIBC started using language in its standard
charge terms that was extremely vague regarding how its prepayment
penalties would be calculated," says Kieran Bridge, lead counsel
on the case, in partnership with Siskinds LLP.

"That language, in legal terms, is called unenforceable.  The net
result is that they cannot collect penalties with a clause like
that."

"Even if [part of the language] is enforceable," says Mr. Bridge,
the penalties should be "capped at three months interest."

In addition to these allegations, the suit claims that CIBC
charges the future value of monies owed in its interest rate
differential calculation, whereas it should "adjust for present
value," asserts Mr. Bridge.  "They 'present-value' all of their
own assets and liabilities.  Any actuary or accountant will tell
you, you have to present value or you're not talking about actual
value received."

Mr. Bridge says the lawsuit applies to most CIBC mortgages,
including many of those originated in CIBC branches and through
its related entities, such as FirstLine Mortgages and President's
Choice Financial.

CIBC Mortgages Inc. is one of the largest residential lenders in
the country.  Mr. Bridge estimates it has about 500,000 mortgages
on the books, of which 5-10% -- 25,000 to 50,000 people -- prepay
every year.

In terms of value, Mr. Bridge estimates this case is worth "into
the tens of millions (of dollars)."  These types of cases are
usually settled out of court, however, and don't usually make it
to full trial.

He adds that there is plenty of precedent with respect to mortgage
prepayment contracts and "uncertain contract provisions."

"You don't start a class action lightly," states Mr. Bridge,
adding that his firm has "literally spent hundreds of hours"
researching this case before filing it.

Mr. Bridge is not a rookie in class actions.  He says he brought
another prepayment-related class action against RBC where the
class members were "paid 100 cents on the dollar" for their
claims, plus legal fees.

"That was a very favorable settlement.  It's about the best you
could possibly do."

This particular class action all started with a single parent in
B.C. whose marriage ended.  That individual had to sell the family
home and was stuck with a C$47,000 interest rate differential
penalty from CIBC.

Mr. Bridge has reviewed other banks' practices and hasn't yet
found other lenders that are calculating IRD penalties improperly.


EPHREN TAYLOR: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Ponzi Scams
----------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that Ephren Taylor,
a self-proclaimed "minister, financial guru . . . and
philanthropic rock star," led Ponzi scams that sucked millions of
dollars from working-class, "socially conscious" people, primarily
minorities, who did not know they were throwing their money away
on nonexistent or failing businesses and illegal gambling
operations, the alleged victims say in a federal class action.

The class claims Mr. Taylor and his co-conspirators are still
running Ponzi schemes under new corporate identities.

A Google search of "Ephren Taylor" on Oct. 12 turned up more than
64,000 hits, many of the top ones linking to his work as an
"entrepreneur."

Lead plaintiff William Lee, of Raleigh, sued Ephren Taylor,
Wendy Connor, Dwayne Connor, Information Enterprises Unlimited,
City Capital Corporation, four other alleged corporate shells and
three other people.

Mr. Lee and two other named co-plaintiffs say they represent
thousands of people swindled by Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Lee claims Mr. Taylor and his co-conspirators "intentionally
targeted and induced hundreds of thousands of innocent, working
class, church-going, 'socially conscious,' mostly minority and
African-Americans to transfer and invest their hard-earned money
in defendants' companies with a false sense of security that their
money was insured, protected and invested by persons in
legitimate, no risk, multi-million dollar, profitable, 'leading'
public and private companies with 'the highest ethics,' and an
overriding sense of social responsibility."

Mr. Lee says many investors lost their life savings and their
401(k) and IRA retirement accounts.  He says the defendants were
not licensed or registered to sell securities or provide
investment advice.

The class claims Mr. Taylor and his associates used various shell
corporations, including City Capital, to run several investment
scams.  The defendants persuaded their victims to invest in
apparently legitimate ventures such as real estate, financial
services, oil and gas, and sweepstakes machines, according to the
109-page complaint.

Mr. Lee says he invested $160,000 in City Laundry, one of
Mr. Taylor's shell companies, after being told he could recoup the
money he had lost in the stock market crashes of 2006-2008 by
betting on the defendants' high-return investments.

Mr. Lee says the defendants failed to disclose that City Laundry
leased most of its equipment -- until they asked him to sign a
personal guaranty on the lease.

Mr. Lee claims the defendants denied him access to the company's
books, refused to return his money when City Laundry was sold at a
loss, and made him sign a confidentiality agreement to discuss
settlement of the City Laundry debt.

He says that after City Laundry's creditor obtained a $133,000
judgment against him, as personal guarantor, the defendants still
refused to settle the debt or return his investment.

According to the complaint, Mr. Taylor lured investors by touting
himself as a "self-made millionaire at 16" and as a "'minister,'
financial guru, investment wizard, multi-million dollar business
manager and philanthropic rock star."

Mr. Taylor, the son of a Missouri minister, claimed that a company
he launched with a high school partner in 1998 made him a teenage
millionaire, according to the complaint.

Mr. Lee says Mr. Taylor repeatedly hawked his "success story" to
the media and used his perceived affiliation with his father's
church to attract church-going investors.

"Taylor targeted minority and African-American persons of faith
because he knew that there was an unwritten (and sometimes
written) tenet imposed upon church members, particularly in
African-American and Christian churches, which can best be
described as 'what happens in church stays in church,'" the
complaint states.  "The tenets of many Christian religions require
disputes among church members to be handled by the church through
its elders, deacons and minister (assuming the minister is not
involved)."

Mr. Lee claims that "Taylor persuaded many church goers to invest
in his schemes using his rags-to-riches story, the promise of 'no
risk' investment returns that were unheard of with any other
investment vehicle, and especially his promise to benefit the
investors/victims' church and community with the proceeds of the
investments."

Mr. Taylor gained credibility by founding companies under the
guise of nonprofit ministries and claiming they were affiliated
with his father's church, according to the complaint.  Though
Mr. Taylor was not an ordained minister, nor the leader of any
church, he told investors that "God had helped him find the
perfect investment opportunity for the church and its members,"
the complaint states.

Mr. Lee says Mr. Taylor devised media campaigns and speaking tours
to promote his shell companies and investment scams.

He says that in a February 2006 press release, Mr. Taylor falsely
claimed that one of his companies was "chosen by Snoop Dogg to
create and raise a one million dollar endowment fund for Snoop's
Youth Football League."

According to a March 2009 forbes.com article, Mr. Taylor delivered
as many as 70 speeches a year at a cost of $8,000 each, the
complaint states.

Mr. Lee says Mr. Taylor's investment scams included a creditor-
investor program that offered investments in affordable real
estate with no money down and guaranteed the investors' mortgage
payments up to 2 years; a "socially conscious" investment scam
that encouraged people to invest in real estate and businesses in
working-class communities, to create new jobs and affordable homes
in those communities while doubling their return on investment
within 12 months "risk free"; and a "sweeps machine" scheme that
advertised sweepstakes machines to be put in retail establishments
around the country, and promised high returns from legal gambling.

In most cases, Mr. Taylor's clients invested in nonexistent
assets, according to the complaint.

"It is estimated that less than 30 percent of the investment
proceeds were ever invested in real estate, sweeps machines or
anything else," the complaint states.  "The remaining proceeds
were misappropriated and diverted by the City Capital conspirators
to pay themselves, pay earlier investors or solicit new investors
to perpetuate the defendants' fraudulent schemes."

Mr. Lee says Virginia and North Carolina shut down Capital City's
sweeps machine operations last fall, under charges of illegal
gambling.  After numerous complaints from investors, the North
Carolina Attorney General in March this year announced an
investigation of the defendants' sweepstakes operations.

Though Mr. Taylor promised to return the investors' money, he
never did, Mr. Lee claims.

He says that while City Capital lost more than $2 million in 2008
and more than $6 million in 2009 and operated on a huge deficit,
Mr. Taylor received more than $1 million in compensation in each
of those years.

In February this year, Mr. Taylor was named one of the 5 richest
African-American CEOs, according to the complaint.

"The Ponzi schemes orchestrated by the City Capital conspirators
were particularly well planned because the 'investments' of the
plaintiffs and other class members were set up to automatically
renew or 'rollover' each year such that the investors could not
liquidate their investments automatically at the end of the
investment period and, in fact, were not even notified at the end
of any investment period that they could withdraw their investment
funds or 'choose' to reinvest," the complaint states.

Mr. Lee says the defendants fed the illusion of successful
investments by sending investment account statements showing high
returns, which in reality were nonexistent.

Mr. Taylor and his cohorts urged investors to act quickly,
claiming the opportunity to buy real estate or invest in other
businesses was limited, the complaint states.

"There is no evidence that Taylor ever generated any kind of
'profit' for any of his 'clients,'" according to the complaint.
"In fact, Taylor never had a license as a securities broker or
dealer or any investment training and therefore was illegally
providing investment advice."

Mr. Lee says the defendants' schemes eventually crumbled, but
Mr. Taylor continues to solicit investments through public
speaking tours, visits to communities and churches and sales of
sweepstakes machines over the Internet.

The plaintiffs seeks class certification and damages for fraud,
money laundering, RICO violations, conversion, conspiracy,
negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair
trade practices, negligence and violations of the North Carolina
Securities Act.

Here are the defendants: Ephren W. Taylor Jr., Wendy Connor,
Dwayne Connor, Information Enterprises Unlimited Inc., Sweepsvend
LLC, Waldo Emerson Brantley, Don Ricardo McCarthy, Web3Direct
Inc., City Capital Corp., Jeffrey Smuda, ERX Energy LLC, and
Equity Trust Co.

A copy of the Complaint in Lee, et al. v. Taylor, et al., Case No.
11-cv-_____ (E.D.N.C.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/10/12/Ponzi.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David G. Schiller, Esq.
          SCHILLER & SCHILLER, PLLC
          Professional Park at Pleasant Valley
          5540 Munford Road, Suite 101
          Raleigh, NC 27612
          Telephone: 919-789-4677

               - and -

          Cathy J. Lerman, Esq.
          CATHY JACKSON LERMAN, P.A.
          7857 W. Sample Road, Suite 140
          Coral Springs, FL 33065
          Telephone: 954-663-5818
          E-mail: clerman@lermanfirm.com

               - and -

          James P. Gitkin, Esq.
          SALPETER GITKIN, LLP
          Museum Plaza, Suite 503
          200 South Andrews Avenue
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954-467-8622


FACEBOOK INC: Sued in La. for Tracking Users' Web Browsing
----------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro de los Rios, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports
that Former Louisiana Attorney General Richard Ieyoub has filed a
federal class action suit against the social networking site
Facebook on behalf of a woman who says the site improperly tracks
users' web browsing.

The suit claims that the plaintiff and class members "did not give
consent or otherwise authorize Facebook to intercept, track,
collect and store [their] wire or electronic communications,
including but not limited to her internet browsing history when
not logged-in to Facebook."

"Defendants are liable to the Plaintiffs in the sum of statutory
damages consisting of the greater of $100 for each day each of the
class members' data was wrongfully obtained or $10,000.00 per
violation," the suit states.

The Web site collected personal information from the plaintiffs,
violating their "clearly established statutory rights," according
to the suit.

The suit claims Facebook is guilty of violating the U.S. Wiretap
Act and the Louisiana Electronic Surveillance Act, as well as
unjust enrichment and invasion of privacy, among other charges.

The lawsuit names Facebook Inc. and a series of John Does believed
to be "directors, employees, agents or contractors of Facebook . .
. whose identity will become known through discovery."

Mr. Ieyoub filed the suit Oct. 10 in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Louisiana on behalf of East Baton Rouge
Parish resident Janet Seamon.  The case has been assigned to Judge
James Brady.

Mr. Ieyoub, served as Louisiana's Attorney General from 1992 to
2004 as a Democrat and ran unsuccessful campaigns for U.S. Senate
and Louisiana's governorship.

Federal Suit 3:11-cv-00689


FACEBOOK INC: Sued Over Use of Cookies to Track Browsing History
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Hughes, writing for KTAR, reports that a Scottsdale woman
is suing Facebook and her case could someday involve you.

Former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods represents Sharon
Beatty and wants to turn her legal action into a class action
lawsuit.

"Facebook has had a practice whereby they basically follow you all
over the Internet, even when you're not on Facebook," Mr. Woods
said.

Mr. Woods said Facebook is violating the wire tap act by using
"cookies" to track browsing habits.

"So you go onto Facebook, then you log out, then you go to other
sites," Mr. Woods said.  "They keep track of what sites you go on,
then they use that for marketing purposes."

The Data Doctors' Ken Colburn doesn't think that argument will
fly.

"The wire tap statutes everybody's trying to use -- the last
update was in 1986 -- there's absolutely nothing there for
'cookies,'" Mr. Colburn said.

He added, that just because Facebook "could" track you for
advertising purposes does not mean it was.  He noted that Facebook
maintains it has fixed the 'cookie' problem.

"It's the allegation that they had the ability to do it,"
Mr. Colburn said.  "That's why this thing is going to go nowhere
because there's no smoking gun."

Similar lawsuits have been filed in several states and could
become a class-action lawsuit.


FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Surcharges
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Frontier Communications defrauds customers by illegally collecting
taxes and surcharges it falsely claims are governmentally imposed.

A copy of the Complaint in Rasschaert, et al. v. Frontier
Communications Corporation, et al., Case No. 11-cv-02963
(D. Minn.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/10/12/TelecomCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER LLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          E-mail: drake@nka.com


HARBIN ELECTRIC: Signs MOU to Settle Consolidated Nevada Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harbin Electric, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding
to settle a consolidated shareholder lawsuit pending in Nevada,
according to the Company's October 11, 2011, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Eleven stockholder class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company and/or certain officers and the members of its board of
directors in connection with the October 10, 2010 non-binding
proposal made by Mr. Tianfu Yang and Baring Private Equity Asia
Group Limited to acquire all of the outstanding shares of the
Company's common stock not currently owned by Mr. Tianfu Yang and
his affiliates for $24.00 per share in cash (the "Yang-Baring
Proposal").  Six actions were filed in Nevada state court (Carson
City, Clark County, or Washoe County), two actions were filed in
Nevada federal district court, and three actions were filed in New
York state court.  All of the actions assert claims against the
Company and/or members of the board of directors for allegedly
breaching their fiduciary duties in connection with the Yang-
Baring Proposal.  On August 19, 2011, the three New York actions
were dismissed.  Both of the actions pending in Nevada federal
district court have also been dismissed.

On October 19, 2010, the Company became aware that the first of
the stockholder class actions had been filed against the Company
and the members of its board of directors in connection with the
Yang-Baring Proposal.  In those initial actions, the plaintiffs
alleged, among other things, that the proposed buyout price and
the process of evaluating the Yang-Baring Proposal were unfair and
inadequate.  On May 3, 2011, the Nevada state court appointed Co-
Lead Counsel for the plaintiffs and the class ("Co-Lead Counsel")
in the Nevada state court actions, and on May 19, 2011, the Nevada
state court consolidated all of the Nevada state court actions
(the "Nevada Action").  On July 20, 2011, the representative
plaintiff in the Nevada Action filed an amended consolidated
complaint, challenging the proposed buyout price and the Special
Committee's process in evaluating the Yang-Baring proposed
transaction.  On July 27, 2011, upon stipulation of the parties to
the Nevada Action, the court certified the consolidated Nevada
Action as a class action under Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure
23(a), 23(b)(1), and 23(b)(2), without opt-out rights.  The
representative plaintiff in the Nevada Action was named as the
class representative, and the court confirmed his selection of Co-
Lead Counsel as counsel for the class.  The representative
plaintiff in the Nevada Action again amended his consolidated
complaint on September 1, 2011.  The representative plaintiff
seeks, among other relief, to enjoin the defendants from
consummating the Yang-Baring proposed transaction and to direct
the defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a
transaction that is in the best interests of the Company's
stockholders.  The parties to the Nevada Action engaged in
discovery, including document production from the defendants and
third parties and depositions.

On October 5, 2011, the parties to the Nevada Action entered into
a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") to settle the Nevada
Action.  The MOU includes an agreement by the parties to the
merger agreement to amend Section 7.3(b) of the merger agreement
to reduce the Company termination fee from $22,500,000 to
$19,750,000 and an acknowledgment by the Company that Co-Lead
Counsel were a significant causal factor in the Company's decision
to make certain additional disclosures in its preliminary proxy
statements filed on Schedule 14A with the SEC on August 15, 2011,
August 29, 2011, and September 13, 2011.  The MOU also provides
for dismissal of the Nevada Action and includes releases of the
Company, its officers and directors, members of the Special
Committee of the Board, in their capacities as such and the
members of the Buyer Group, among others.  The parties to the MOU
anticipate preparing a settlement agreement for presentation to
the court.  The effectiveness of the MOU and any settlement
agreement is conditional upon preliminary approval of the Nevada
state court and final approval by that court following notice to
the class members.  In addition, Co-Lead Counsel have the right to
seek an award of attorneys' fees and costs from the Company for
the benefit, they contend, they provided the class.


INDIANAPOLIS COLTS: Sued Over Minimum Wage Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
Glynis Farrell at Courthouse News Service reports that a longtime
"hostess" in the Indianapolis Colts' press box claims in a federal
class action that the team paid her and her coworkers less than
minimum wage, under the table, and that the football team
continues the illegal practices for "a dozen or more hostesses" on
the Colts' "statistics crew."

Colleen Fenstermaker says she worked part time for the Colts on
its statistics crew from 1998 until she was wrongfully fired in
September this year.

Ms. Fenstermaker says she was one of a dozen or more hostesses who
worked on the Colts' statistics crew.  She and the other hostesses
would pass out written materials (printouts of statistics, etc.)
to coaches, announcers and other employees and/or guests in the
press box area of the Colts' stadium.  They would also get drinks
and food for those in the press box and otherwise attend to their
needs and help them before, during and after the Colts' football
game.

She says hostesses worked 8 or more hours on game days: arriving 2
or more hours before the game and "working significant hours post-
game."

"For this eight or more hours work per game, the Colts were paying
Fenstermaker and each hostess forty dollars ($40.00) in cash.
When Fenstermaker began in 1998, the Colts were only paying
twenty-five dollars ($25.00) per game.

"Throughout her employment with the Colts, Fenstermaker's time
worked was not recorded by the Colts, nor was she asked to keep
track of her time worked. The same was true for similarly situated
hostesses.

"The Colts have failed and refused to pay Fenstermaker and other
similarly situated hostesses at a rate of pay equal to the federal
minimum wage."

Ms. Fenstermaker seeks back pay, with interest, costs and "any and
all other relief just and proper."

A copy of the Complaint in Fenstermaker v. Indianapolis Colts,
Inc., Case No. 11-cv-01346 (S.D. Ind.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/10/11/Colts.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq.
          HUNT, HASSLER & LORENZ LLP
          100 Cherry Street
          Terre Haute, IN 47807
          Telephone: (812) 232-9691
          E-mail: kondras@huntlawfirm.net


MAGNUM D'OR RESOURCES: Rigrodsky & Long Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. disclosed it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired the stock of Magnum D'Or
Resources, Inc. between July 2, 2008 and April 13, 2010,
inclusive, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The case is styled as Jeffrey Swanson v. Magnum D'Or
Resources, Inc., C.A. No. 11-CV-62200 (S.D. Fla.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Noah R. Wortman, Case Development
Director of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 919 North Market Street, Suite
980 Wilmington, Delaware, 19801 at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail to
info@rigrodskylong.com or via our Web site:
http://www.rigrodskylong.com/news/MagnumDOrResourcesInc-MDOR

The Complaint names Magnum and one of the Company's directors as
defendants.  According to its Web site, the Company was
established to deal with the problem of waste tires in a manner
that is environmentally friendly and profitable.  It aims to
create a closed loop with rubber compounds enabling it to be used
as a raw material repeatedly without compromising the quantity or
properties of the compounds.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Magnum made
false statements to the marketplace about its growth and
operations.  Specifically, the Company falsely told investors,
among other things, that it had $130 million in contracts for its
products, and had secured $15 million in financing.  The Company
also failed to disclose the existence of an SEC Formal Order of
Investigation into the Company -- a fact Magnum appears to have
hidden not only from investors but its own outside auditors, as
well.

Moreover, Magnum issued millions of shares of its stock as
compensation to several so-called "consultants," who then sold the
shares in foreign brokerage accounts, kept some of the cash
proceeds for themselves, and funneled the rest -- some $7 million
-- back to Magnum, under sham "loan" agreements.  In April 2010,
when Magnum finally told its auditor, Weinberg & Company, P.A.,
about the SEC's formal investigation, the auditor withdrew its
prior audit opinions for 2008 and 2009.  Magnum's stock price
plummeted on the news.  The SEC formally charged Magnum and its
former CEO Joseph Glusic.  Mr. Glusic has since resigned from
Magnum and has settled with the SEC.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from Oct. 12.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the
class member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability to
share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision
whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  Any member of the
proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and
Garden City, New York, regularly litigates securities class,
derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and
corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of
fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of
Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United
States.


MERCK & CO: Faces Class Action Over Vioxx Cardiovascular Risks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dinesh Chandra Gaur, writing for Top News reports, that a
class-action lawsuit was filed against the US based medicine
manufacturing company Merck & Co for the arthritis painkiller
Vioxx.  The Company has been charged for not providing about the
information of cardiovascular risks associated to the drug.

An Australian patient had filed a case against the company after
the medicine was recollected from the medicinal stores.  The
patient claimed that the medicine has been responsible for his
experiencing of a heart attack in the year 2003.  The Federal
court favored the patient Graeme Peterson and charged the Company
with a penalty of AUD287,000 that is to be paid to Mr. Peterson.

The medicine was recalled from the market overseas in the year
2004 and a research was conducted on the aspect of its being
associated with susceptibility to heart attack.  The research
proved that the medicine resulted in increasing the chances of
heart attack among the consumers.  As a result of the revelation,
the Company had to pay a compensation of AUD4.85 billion to the
patients associated with the lawsuit.

Opposing the verdict as announced by Judge Christopher Jessup,
Merck Sharpe & Dohme made a further appeal to reconsider the
judgment.  The Company stated that it was not accountable for the
damages incurred by the consumers.  The Company proved that there
was no medicinal certification that proved that Mr. Peterson
experienced a heart attack due to Vioxx.  The patient was already
at a risk of heart attack by 51 times due to his habit of smoking.


OCZ TECHNOLOGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss SSD-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
OCZ Technology Group, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a class action complaint relating to its
advanced solid state drives, according to the Company's
October 12, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended August 31, 2011.

On March 24, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California San Jose Division alleging that certain of the
Company's advanced solid state drives ("SSDs") sold after
January 1, 2011, did not meet certain performance criteria and as
a result the Company engaged in certain deceptive practices and
violated various laws.

As of August 31, 2011, the Company says it has not recognized this
contingency within the financial statements presented as it
believes that the lawsuit has no merit and it intends to
vigorously defend against this litigation.  On May 18, 2011, OCZ
filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, or alternatively,
to strike certain allegations.  The Motion was heard on August 2,
2011, and awaits a decision by the court.  On June 28, 2011, a
Case Management Order was issued setting a class certification
hearing for May 21, 2012, and a trial date of May 28, 2013.


PCS EDVENTURES!.COM: "Niederklein" Deal Hearing Set for Feb. 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing with respect to the settlement resolving the
class action lawsuit captioned Niederklein v. PCS Edventures!.com,
Inc., et al., is scheduled for February 22, 2012, according to the
Company's October 12, 2011, Form 8-KA-2 filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

As previously announced, the Company had entered into an agreement
to settle a class action lawsuit (Niederklein v. PCS
Edventures!.com, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court for the
District of Idaho, Case 1:10-cv-00479-CWD), which had been brought
on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of the Company's
common stock during the period between March 28, 2007, and
August 15, 2007, subject to further proceedings and approval by
the Court.  While the Company denies the allegations made in the
class action lawsuit, the settlement was entered to eliminate the
burden and expense of further litigation.  Moreover, neither the
settlement nor any of its terms constitute an admission of any
wrongful conduct.  If the settlement is approved, the Company and
its insurance carrier are obligated to pay the sum of $665,000 in
full settlement of the class action.

On October 5, 2011, the Court granted preliminary approval to the
settlement, approved the notices that would be sent to potential
class members and scheduled the Settlement Fairness Hearing for
February 22, 2012, at which time the Court will decide whether to
grant final approval.


REDLINE COMMS: Settles Shareholder Class Action for C$3.6 Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a proposed settlement has been
reached to resolve a class action lawsuit against Redline
Communications Group Inc.

The lawsuit was filed in September 2010 against RDL, KPMG LLP and
certain officers and directors of RDL in an Ontario Superior
Court.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants misrepresented RDL's
financial results to shareholders.

Under the proposed settlement, the defendants will pay C$3.6
million to the plaintiffs in return for a dismissal of the class
action.

The settlement must be approved by the court before it can be
implemented at a hearing set for Nov. 21 in London, Ont.

RDL designs, makes and sells broadband wireless products that
connect individuals and businesses to the Internet and transport
network traffic.

In January, the company slashed its workforce by 10% after
revising its revenue targets.

In March, company shares plummeted 36% after it said it would
likely miss the deadline for its quarterly and full-year financial
statements as it reviewed its revenue recognition accounting
policies.


RENAISSANCE LEARNING: Faces 2 Merger-Related Class Suits in Wis.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Renaissance Learning, Inc., is facing two class action lawsuits in
connection with its proposed merger with a subsidiary of Raphael
Holding Company, according to the Company's October 11, 2011, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On August 15, 2011, Renaissance entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "original merger agreement") with Raphael Holding
Company, a Delaware corporation ("Parent"), and Raphael
Acquisition Corp., a Wisconsin corporation and an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which
Merger Sub will be merged with and into Renaissance, upon the
terms and conditions of the original merger agreement, with
Renaissance surviving as an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of
Parent.  Parent and Merger Sub were formed at the direction of
investment funds advised by Permira Advisers LLC.

On September 27, 2011, Renaissance received an unsolicited,
revised definitive acquisition proposal from Plato Learning, Inc.
("Plato Learning").  Renaissance also received another
unsolicited, revised definitive acquisition proposal from Plato
Learning on October 7, 2011.

A putative class action complaint relating to the Permira Funds
merger agreement was filed by Data Key Partners on September 23,
2011, in the Circuit Court of Wood County, Wisconsin.

On October 4, 2011, Data Key Partners filed an amended complaint
maintaining the claims in the original complaint and updating its
allegations about the current status of the Permira Funds merger
agreement and the Plato Learning proposal to acquire Renaissance,
and adding a derivative claim seeking to revoke the Permira Funds
merger agreement because of the alleged lack of independence of
Renaissance's Board of Directors and the fiduciary duty violations
alleged in the complaint.

On October 7, 2011, Data Key Partners filed a lawsuit in the
United States District Court, Western District of Wisconsin
asserting substantially the same claims as in its original state
court action, and adding a claim alleging violations of the proxy
statement disclosure requirements under Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  In addition, Data Key Partners
filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to enjoin
Renaissance and the Permira Funds from consummating the merger
contemplated by the Permira Funds merger agreement pending
expedited discovery and trial.

Also on October 7, 2011, a second putative class action complaint
was filed by Michael McDonald in the United States District Court,
Western District of Wisconsin asserting substantially the same
claims asserted in the lawsuits brought by Data Key Partners, with
the exception of the derivative claim.  The complaint also alleges
that the termination fee and nonsolicitation provisions of the
Permira Funds merger agreement constitute breaches of fiduciary
duty by the defendants.

On October 7, 2011, and October 9, 2011, respectively, Plato
Learning filed motions to intervene in the Data Key Partners and
Michael McDonald federal lawsuits in order to assert its own claim
against Renaissance and its board members.  Plato Learning claims
that Renaissance failed to act in good faith in its dealings with
Plato Learning by not engaging in a fair and just process and by
rejecting what Plato Learning contends was a Superior Proposal;
that Renaissance and its board members allegedly accepted the
Permira Fund's purportedly inferior acquisition proposal without
legal justification and, in doing so, allegedly interfered with a
prospective contractual relationship between Plato Learning and
Renaissance's shareholders; and that Renaissance violated
Wisconsin law by colluding and conspiring to reduce competition
for purchasing Renaissance and precluding Plato Learning from
fairly acquiring Renaissance.  As a result, Plato Learning seeks
to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the consummation of the
merger contemplated by the Permira Funds merger agreement.

Renaissance and the other defendants believe these actions are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend against their
claims.


TAYLOR BEAN: Workers Settle WARN Suit for $15 Million
-----------------------------------------------------
Bill Rochelle, the bankruptcy columnist for Bloomberg News,
reports that Taylor Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp. is an example
of how failure to give the required 60-day notice of mass firings
can result in an expensive loss for creditors.  When Taylor Bean
filed under Chapter 11, almost 3,000 workers lost their jobs.  A
class-action lawsuit followed, and a $21.4 million claim was filed
for members of the class.

Because sought-after wages would have been earned during the
Chapter 11 case, the lost compensation was claimed to be an
expense of the bankruptcy required to be paid in full.  Meanwhile,
Taylor Bean confirmed and implemented its Chapter 11 plan in
August.  Since then, a settlement was reached regarding the WARN
Act claims.

The report relates that assuming the bankruptcy judge approves,
the creditors' trust will set aside $15 million to be paid to the
former workers as a priority claim arising during the Chapter 11
case.  The plaintiffs' lawyers say the settlement represents a 70
percent recovery for the priority portion of the claim.  In
addition to creating the creditors' trust, the plan ultimately is
to administer $322 million to $521 million, according to the
disclosure statement.  Once claims with higher priority are paid,
between $264 million and $354 million would remain for unsecured
creditors with claims totaling more than $8 billion, according to
the disclosure statement.

According to the report, unsecured creditors were expected to have
a distribution between 3.3% and 4.4%, the disclosure statement
said.  The largest claim, $3.25 billion, belongs to the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corp.

                         About Taylor Bean

Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp. grew from a small Ocala-
based mortgage broker to become one of the largest mortgage
bankers in the United States.  In 2009, Taylor Bean was the
country's third largest direct-endorsement lender of FHA-insured
loans of the largest wholesale mortgage lenders and issuer of
mortgage backed securities.  It also managed a combined mortgage
servicing portfolio of approximately $80 billion.  The company
employed more that 2,000 people in offices located throughout the
United States.

Taylor Bean sought Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Case
No. 09-07047) on Aug. 24, 2009.  Taylor Bean filed the Chapter 11
petition three weeks after federal investigators searched its
offices.  The day following the search, the Federal Housing
Administration, Ginnie Mae and Freddie Mac prohibited the company
from issuing new mortgages and terminated servicing rights.
Taylor Bean estimated more than $1 billion in both assets and
liabilities in its bankruptcy petition

Lee Farkas, the former chairman, was sentenced in June to 30 years
in federal prison after being convicted on 14 counts of conspiracy
and bank, wire and securities fraud in what prosecutors said was a
$3 billion scheme involving fake mortgage assets.

Jeffrey W. Kelly, Esq., and J. David Dantzler, Jr., Esq., at
Troutman Sanders LLP, in Atlanta, Ga., and Russel M. Blain, Esq.,
and Edward J. Peterson, III, Esq., at Stichter, Riedel, Blain &
Prosser, PA, in Tampa, Fla., represent the Debtors.  Paul Steven
Singerman, Esq., and Arthur J. Spector, Esq., at Berger Singerman
PA, in Miami, Fla., represent the Committee.  BMC Group, Inc.,
serves as the claims and noticing agent.


TODD WHITE: Faces Class Action Over Inauthentic Giclee Prints
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Ferro, writing for Artinfo, reports that Jonathan M.
Jenkins, filed a class-action counter-claim against artist
Todd White -- who was once the head artist for the Nickelodeon
cartoon show "SpongeBob SquarePants" -- alleging that he defrauded
hundreds of people by claiming that his limited-edition giclee
prints were personally embellished and signed when in reality he
outsourced the work to business associates and never touched the
artwork.

According to the complaint, Mr. White trained his former manager
and others how to hand-number, hand-embellish, and forge his
signature on the limited-edition prints.  It also alleges that
Mr. White had his manager fraudulently signed "Todd White" on
hundreds of certificates of authenticity produced for a 2007 event
at the Pechanga Resort and Casino in Temecula, California.

Two different classes of people are named in the suit: art
galleries who bought and resold the allegedly forged artwork and
any individuals who bought inauthentic Todd White artwork.  Orange
County gallery owner Margaret Howell, on behalf of these groups,
seeks at least $5 million in damages from Mr. White and his
company.

The allegations in this claim are eerily similar to the
accusations that Mr. White made against Ms. Howell in an
individual legal complaint filed last month.  In that suit,
Mr. White claimed that Ms. Howell was fraudulently copying,
embellishing, and signing his artwork then profiting from it by
selling the pieces in her gallery, Gallery HB in Huntington Beach,
California (he also seeks at least $5 million in damages for
copyright infringement and fraud).

This legal imbroglio began when the 62-year-old Ms. Howell filed a
lawsuit claiming that Mr. White, an artist she represented, hired
a group of martial arts experts to lure her to her gallery in the
evening, where they then proceeded to attack her and make off with
several pieces of art.  In her most recent legal complaint,
Mr. Jenkins writes that this incident was "one of the largest art
heists in Orange County history."


VISA: ATM Operators File Antitrust Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Visa and MasterCard are the targets of a proposed national class
action lawsuit filed on Oct. 12 claiming that the card issuers'
rules fix the price of ATM access fees, a restraint of trade the
suit claims violates the antitrust laws.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia by the National ATM Council and several independent
operators of automated teller machines, alleges that Visa and
MasterCard's network rules prohibit ATM operators from offering
lower prices for transactions over PIN-debit networks that are not
affiliated with Visa or MasterCard.  The suit alleges that the
price fixing artificially raises the price that consumers pay for
ATM services, limits the revenue that ATM-operators can earn, and
violates the Sherman Act's prohibition against unreasonable
restraints of trade.

According to the suit, ATM operators may charge an access fee to
cardholders at the point of the transaction, but only if the fee
is the same whether the machine is performing a Visa or MasterCard
transaction or a transaction using another PIN-debit network.
Visa and MasterCard networks can be more costly for operators to
use, but the rules prevent an operator from offering consumers a
discount for ATM transactions not completed over Visa or
MasterCard's networks.

"Visa and MasterCard are the ringleaders, organizers, and
enforcers of a conspiracy among U.S. banks to fix the price of ATM
access fees in order to keep the competition at bay," said
Jonathan Rubin, managing member of Washington, D.C.-based Rubin
PLLC, an antitrust law firm representing the plaintiffs in the
suit.  "Were it not for these anticompetitive rules, Visa and
MasterCard would face real competition for ATM services, consumers
would pay lower prices for using ATMs, and more ATMs would be
deployed," Mr. Rubin said.  About 400,000 ATMs are in service
across the nation, of which about half are operated by independent
ATM operators who comprise the proposed class, the suit says.

The lawsuit seeks damages against Visa and MasterCard for
violating the antitrust laws.  Plaintiffs' attorneys have asked
the court to certify the case as a class action on behalf of all
independent ATM operators and to declare Visa and MasterCard's
restraints on ATM access fees unlawful.  The attorneys also ask
the court to enjoin Visa and MasterCard from restricting how
operators charge ATM access fees in the future.

Also representing the plaintiffs are Brooks E. Harlow and David A.
LaFuria of Lukas, Nace, Gutierrez & Sachs, LLP, McLean, VA.
Attorney Don A. Resnikoff is consulting counsel to Rubin PLLC.

The National ATM Council (NAC), a trade association, is a
plaintiff in the case seeking an injunction against Visa and
MasterCard on behalf of its membership, which includes the
operators of a majority of the independent ATMs in the country.
The NAC was formed in 2011 by the consolidation of the National
Association of ATM ISOs and Operators (NAAIO) and the Alliance of
Specialized Communications Providers (ASCP).

Several independent ATM operators, also plaintiffs in the suit,
seek damages and an injunction and to be appointed by the court as
representative plaintiffs on behalf of the proposed class.

The case name is National ATM Council, Inc. et al. v. Visa, Inc.,
et al. no. 11-cv-1803-ABJ (D.D.C., filed October 12, 2011).

                         About Rubin PLLC

Rubin PLLC -- http://www.RubinPLLC.com-- is a Washington, D.C.-
based antitrust law and competition policy law firm.  The firm was
founded in January 2011 by Jonathan L. Rubin, a trial attorney,
economist, and internationally recognized expert in antitrust law.
With a trusted network of corresponding affiliates, Rubin PLLC
serves consumers and businesses in all aspects of U.S. competition
law and policy.

             About Lukas, Nace, Gutierrez & Sachs, LLP

Lukas, Nace, Gutierrez & Sachs, LLP -- http://www.fcclaw.com-- is
a Washington, D.C.-area law firm whose principals practice before
federal and state courts, legislative bodies, and administrative
agencies around the country as litigators and trusted advisors in
the communications and other high-tech industries.  Attorney
Brooks E. Harlow has worked with the banking and ATM industries
for over two decades.


YUM! BRANDS: Bid to Decertify Class in "Moeller" Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Taco Bell Corp. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
decertify the class in the lawsuit commenced by Moeller, et al.,
according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s October 11, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 3, 2011.

On December 17, 2002, Taco Bell was named as the defendant in a
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California styled Moeller, et al. v. Taco
Bell Corp.  On August 4, 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint that alleges, among other things, that Taco Bell has
discriminated against the class of people who use wheelchairs or
scooters for mobility by failing to make its approximately 220
company-owned restaurants in California accessible to the class.
Plaintiffs contend that queue rails and other architectural and
structural elements of the Taco Bell restaurants relating to the
path of travel and use of the facilities by persons with mobility-
related disabilities do not comply with the U.S. Americans with
Disabilities Act (the "ADA"), the Unruh Civil Rights Act (the
"Unruh Act"), and the California Disabled Persons Act (the
"CDPA").  Plaintiffs have requested: (a) an injunction from the
District Court ordering Taco Bell to comply with the ADA and its
implementing regulations; (b) that the District Court declare Taco
Bell in violation of the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and (c)
monetary relief under the Unruh Act or CDPA.  Plaintiffs, on
behalf of the class, are seeking the minimum statutory damages per
offense of either $4,000 under the Unruh Act or $1,000 under the
CDPA for each aggrieved member of the class.  Plaintiffs contend
that there may be in excess of 100,000 individuals in the class.

On February 23, 2004, the District Court granted plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  The class includes claims for
injunctive relief and minimum statutory damages.

On May 17, 2007, a hearing was held on plaintiffs' Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment seeking judicial declaration that Taco
Bell was in violation of accessibility laws as to three specific
issues: indoor seating, queue rails and door opening force.  On
August 8, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part with
regard to dining room seating.  In addition, the court granted
plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to door opening force at
some restaurants (but not all) and denied the motion with regard
to queue lines.

On December 16, 2009, the court denied Taco Bell's motion for
summary judgment on the ADA claims and ordered plaintiff to file a
definitive list of remaining issues and to select one restaurant
to be the subject of a trial.  The exemplar trial for that
restaurant began on June 6, 2011.  The trial was bifurcated and
the first stage addressed whether violations existed at the
restaurant.  Twelve alleged violations of the ADA and state law
were tried.  The trial ended on June 16, 2011.  On October 5,
2011, the court issued its trial decision.  The court found
liability for the twelve items, finding that they were once out of
compliance with applicable state and/or federal accessibility
standards.  The court also found that classwide injunctive relief
is warranted.  The court declined to order injunctive relief at
this time, however, citing the pendency of Taco Bell's motions to
decertify both the injunctive and damages class.  In a separate
order, the court vacated the December 12, 2011 date previously set
for an exemplar trial for damages on the single restaurant.

On June 20, 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued its
ruling in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes.  The Supreme Court held
that the class in that case was improperly certified.  The same
legal theory was used to certify the class in the Moeller case,
and Taco Bell filed a motion to decertify the class on August 3,
2011.  During the exemplar trial, the court observed that the
restaurant had been in full compliance with all laws since March
2010, and Taco Bell argues in its decertification motion that, in
light of the decision in the Dukes case, no damages class can be
certified and that injunctive relief is not appropriate,
regardless of class status.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  Taco Bell has taken steps to
address potential architectural and structural compliance issues
at the restaurants in accordance with applicable state and federal
disability access laws.  The costs associated with addressing
these issues have not significantly impacted the Company's results
of operations.  It is not possible at this time to reasonably
estimate the probability or amount of liability for monetary
damages on a class wide basis to Taco Bell.


YUM! BRANDS: Meal-Rest Breaks Claims Remain in Wage and Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A California court denied certification of claims other than meal
and rest break claims in the consolidated wage and hour lawsuit
filed against a unit of YUM! Brands, Inc., according to the
Company's October 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 3, 2011.

Taco Bell was named as a defendant in a number of putative class
action lawsuits filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 alleging
violations of California labor laws including unpaid overtime,
failure to pay wages on termination, failure to pay accrued
vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage, denial of meal and
rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses,
wrongful termination, discrimination, conversion and unfair or
unlawful business practices in violation of Section 17200 of the
California Business & Professions Code.  Plaintiffs also seek
penalties for alleged violations of California's Labor Code under
California's Private Attorneys General Act and statutory "waiting
time" penalties and allege violations of California's Unfair
Business Practices Act.  Plaintiffs seek to represent a California
state-wide class of hourly employees.

On May 19, 2009, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to
consolidate these matters, and the consolidated case is styled In
Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions.  The In Re Taco Bell Wage and
Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on
June 29, 2009, and on March 30, 2010, the court approved the
parties' stipulation to dismiss the Company from the action.
Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on
December 30, 2010, and the class certification hearing took place
in June 2011.  Taco Bell also filed, at the invitation of the
court, a motion to stay the proceedings until the California
Supreme Court rules on two cases concerning meal and rest breaks.
On August 22, 2011, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to stay
the meal and rest break claims.  On September 26, 2011, the court
issued its order denying the certification of the remaining
claims.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company says the outcome
of this case cannot be predicted at this time.  Likewise, the
amount of any potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.


YUM! BRANDS: Decertification Bid Hearing in "RGM" Suit on Nov. 4
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on Taco Bell Corp.'s motion to decertify the class in
the consolidated lawsuit filed by a Taco Bell restaurant general
manager is scheduled for November 4, 2011, according to YUM!
Brands, Inc.'s October 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
3, 2011.

On August 4, 2006, a putative class action lawsuit against Taco
Bell Corp. styled Rajeev Chhibber vs. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in
Orange County Superior Court.  On August 7, 2006, another putative
class action lawsuit styled Marina Puchalski v. Taco Bell Corp.
was filed in San Diego County Superior Court.  Both lawsuits were
filed by a Taco Bell restaurant general manager ("RGM") purporting
to represent all current and former RGMs who worked at corporate-
owned restaurants in California since August 2002.  The lawsuits
allege violations of California's wage and hour laws involving
unpaid overtime and meal period violations and seek unspecified
amounts in damages and penalties.  The cases were consolidated in
San Diego County as of September 7, 2006.

On January 29, 2010, the court granted the plaintiffs' class
certification motion with respect to the unpaid overtime claims of
RGMs and Market Training Managers but denied class certification
on the meal period claims.  The court has ruled that this case
will be tried to the bench rather than a jury.  Trial is scheduled
to begin on February 6, 2012.  On June 20, 2011, the United States
Supreme Court issued its ruling in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes.
The Supreme Court held that the class in that case was improperly
certified.  Based on this decision and subsequent similar
decisions, Taco Bell will move to decertify the class.  A hearing
on Taco Bell's motion is scheduled for November 4, 2011.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  The Company has provided for
a reasonable estimate of the cost of this lawsuit.  However, in
view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation, there can be no
assurance that this lawsuit will not result in losses in excess of
those currently provided for in the Company's Condensed
Consolidated Financial Statements.


YUM! BRANDS: "Hines" Wage and Hour Class Suit Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
On October 2, 2009, a putative class action was filed against a
unit of YUM! Brands, Inc., styled Domonique Hines v. KFC U.S.
Properties, Inc., in California state court on behalf of all
California hourly employees alleging various California Labor Code
violations, including rest and meal break violations, overtime
violations, wage statement violations and waiting time penalties.
Plaintiff is a former non-managerial KFC restaurant employee.  KFC
filed an answer on October 28, 2009, in which it denied
plaintiff's claims and allegations.  KFC removed the action to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on October 29, 2009.  Plaintiff filed a motion for
class certification on May 20, 2010, and KFC filed a brief in
opposition.  On October 22, 2010, the District Court granted
Plaintiff's motion to certify a class on the meal and rest break
claims, but denied the motion to certify a class regarding alleged
off-the-clock work.  On November 1, 2010, KFC filed a motion
requesting a stay of the case pending a decision from the
California Supreme Court regarding the applicable standard for
employer provision of meal and rest breaks.  Plaintiff filed an
opposition to that motion on November 19, 2010.  On January 14,
2011, the District Court granted KFC's motion and stayed the
entire action pending a decision from the California Supreme
Court.  No trial date has been set.

No further updates were reported in YUM! Brands, Inc.'s
October 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 3, 2011.

KFC denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all
claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the inherent
uncertainties of litigation, the Company says the outcome of this
case cannot be predicted at this time.  Likewise, the amount of
any potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.


YUM! BRANDS: Final Hearing on LJS Suit Settlement Set for Dec. 12
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing to consider final approval of the settlement in the
lawsuit and arbitration proceeding commenced by Long John Silver's
former managers is scheduled for December 12, 2011, according to
YUM! Brands, Inc.'s October 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 3, 2011.

On November 26, 2001, Kevin Johnson, a former Long John Silver's
("LJS") restaurant manager, filed a collective action against LJS
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") on behalf of himself and allegedly similarly-situated LJS
general and assistant restaurant managers.  Johnson alleged that
LJS violated the FLSA by perpetrating a policy and practice of
seeking monetary restitution from LJS employees, including
Restaurant General Managers ("RGMs") and Assistant Restaurant
General Managers ("ARGMs"), when monetary or property losses
occurred due to knowing and willful violations of LJS policies
that resulted in losses of company funds or property, and that LJS
had thus improperly classified its RGMs and ARGMs as exempt from
overtime pay under the FLSA. Johnson sought overtime pay,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees for himself and his
proposed class.

LJS moved the Tennessee district court to compel arbitration of
Mr. Johnson's lawsuit.  The district court granted LJS's motion on
June 7, 2004, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit affirmed on July 5, 2005.

On December 19, 2003, while the arbitrability of Mr. Johnson's
claims was being litigated, former LJS managers Erin Cole and Nick
Kaufman, represented by Mr. Johnson's counsel, initiated
arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (the "Cole
Arbitration").  The Cole Claimants sought a collective arbitration
on behalf of the same putative class as alleged in the Johnson
lawsuit and alleged the same underlying claims.

On June 15, 2004, the arbitrator in the Cole Arbitration issued a
Clause Construction Award, finding that LJS's Dispute Resolution
Policy did not prohibit Claimants from proceeding on a collective
or class basis.  LJS moved unsuccessfully to vacate the Clause
Construction Award in federal district court in South Carolina.
On September 19, 2005, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination
Award, finding, inter alia, that a class would be certified in the
Cole Arbitration on an "opt-out" basis, rather than as an "opt-in"
collective action as specified by the FLSA.

On January 20, 2006, the district court denied LJS's motion to
vacate the Class Determination Award and the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's
decision on January 28, 2008.  A petition for a writ of certiorari
filed in the United States Supreme Court seeking a review of the
Fourth Circuit's decision was denied on October 7, 2008.

An arbitration hearing on liability with respect to the alleged
restitution policy and practice for the period beginning in late
1998 through early 2002 concluded in June 2010.  On October 11,
2010, the arbitrator issued a partial interim award for the first
phase of the three-phase arbitration finding that, for the period
from late 1998 to early 2002, LJS had a policy and practice of
making impermissible deductions from the salaries of its RGMs and
ARGMs.

On September 15, 2011, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding setting forth the terms upon which the parties have
agreed to settle this matter.  On October 5, 2011, the arbitrator
granted the parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of the
Settlement.  The Final Approval Hearing is scheduled for
December 12, 2011.  The Company says the anticipated costs
associated with the settlement have been recorded and did not
significantly impact its results of operations.


YUM! BRANDS: Oct. 28 Objection Deadline in "Whittington" Suit Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A unit of YUM! Brands, Inc. has until October 28, 2011, to file an
objection to a motion for conditional certification under the Fair
Labor Standards Act in the class action lawsuit commenced by
Jacquelyn Whittington, according to the Company's October 11,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 3, 2011.

On August 6, 2010, a putative class action styled Jacquelyn
Whittington v. Yum Brands, Inc., Taco Bell of America, Inc. and
Taco Bell Corp. was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado.  The plaintiff seeks to represent a
nationwide class, with the exception of California, of salaried
assistant managers who were allegedly misclassified and did not
receive compensation for all hours worked and did not receive
overtime pay after 40 hours in a week.  The plaintiff also
purports to represent a separate class of Colorado assistant
managers under Colorado state law, which provides for daily
overtime after 12 hours in a day.  The Company has been dismissed
from the case without prejudice.  Taco Bell filed its answer on
September 20, 2010, and the parties commenced class discovery,
which is currently on-going.  Taco Bell moved to compel
arbitration of certain employees in the Colorado class.  The court
denied the motion as premature because no class has yet been
certified.

On September 16, 2011, the plaintiffs filed their motion for
conditional certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").  The plaintiffs did not move for certification of a
separate class of Colorado assistant managers under Colorado state
law.  Taco Bell's opposition is due October 28, 2011.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company says the outcome
of this case cannot be predicted at this time.  Likewise, the
amount of any potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.


YUM! BRANDS: "Rosales" Class Suit Remains Stayed in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
On September 28, 2009, a putative class action styled Marisela
Rosales v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in Orange County Superior
Court.  The plaintiff, a former Taco Bell crew member, alleges
that Taco Bell failed to timely pay her final wages upon
termination, and seeks restitution and late payment penalties on
behalf of herself and similarly situated employees.  This case
appears to be duplicative of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour
Actions case.  Taco Bell filed a motion to dismiss, stay or
transfer the case to the same district court as the In Re Taco
Bell Wage and Hour Actions case.  The state court granted Taco
Bell's motion to stay the Rosales case on May 28, 2010, and the
matter remains stayed in Orange County Superior Court.

No further updates were reported in YUM! Brands, Inc.'s
October 11, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 3, 2011.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit.  However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company says the outcome
of this case cannot be predicted at this time.  Likewise, the
amount of any potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.


YUM! BRANDS: Unit to Oppose "Smith" Plaintiffs' Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A unit of YUM! Brands, Inc., will oppose plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification in the class action lawsuit filed by
delivery drivers, the Company disclosed in its October 11, 2011,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 3, 2011.

On July 9, 2009, a putative class action styled Mark Smith v.
Pizza Hut, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado.  The complaint alleges that Pizza Hut
did not properly reimburse its delivery drivers for various
automobile costs, uniforms costs, and other job-related expenses
and seeks to represent a class of delivery drivers nationwide
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Colorado state
law.  On January 4, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for
conditional certification of a nationwide class of current and
former Pizza Hut, Inc. delivery drivers.  However, on March 11,
2010, the court granted Pizza Hut's pending motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, with leave to amend.  On March 31, 2010,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which dropped the uniform
claims but, in addition to the federal FLSA claims, asserts state-
law class action claims under the laws of 16 different states.
Pizza Hut filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and
plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint a second time.
On August 9, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to amend.
Pizza Hut filed another motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.

On July 15, 2011, the Court granted Pizza Hut's motion with
respect to plaintiffs' state law claims, but allowed the FLSA
claims to go forward.  Plaintiffs filed their Motion for
Conditional Certification on August 31, 2011, which Pizza Hut will
oppose.  Pizza Hut does not expect a decision on that motion until
2012.

Pizza Hut denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit. However, in view of the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company says the outcome
of these cases cannot be predicted at this time.  Likewise, the
amount of any potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated.


                           *********

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  * * *