/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/111228.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, December 28, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 257


ACCESS PLANS: Still Defends Class Suit vs. Unit in Georgia
APPLE REIT NINE: Plaintiff Dismisses New York Shareholder Suit
AVIS BUDGET: Sued Over Alleged Racketeering Activity
BABIES "R" US: Judge Okays $35.5 Million Class Action Settlement
BCSB BANCORP: Got Final OK of Settlement in Suit vs. Unit in Aug.

BERNARD L. MADOFF: Standard Chartered Wins Dismissal of Class Suit
BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP: Recalls 297,200 Colorful Hearts Teddy Bears
CIENA CORP: IPO-Related Suit Settlement Still Subject to Appeal
COMMERCE BANK: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action for $18.3 Mil.
CONDE NAST: Faces Class Actions Over Customer Data Sharing

E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Settles Securities Class Suits for $79 Million
GENERAL FOAM: Recalls 1,000 Holiday Tree, Wreath & Garland Sets
GROUP LEMUR: Recalls 1,750 Petit Lem Children's Pajamas
HANNA ANDERSSON: Recalls 1,000 Children's Fleece Robes
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Cough Syrup Suit Can Proceed as Class Action

LOCAL SERVICE: Named as Plaintiff in Suit v. Elbert County Board
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Latinos Can Join Immigration Class Action
RALPH'S GROCERY: Faces Class Actions Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ROGERS COMMS: Faces Class Action Suit Over "System Access Fees"
SQUARE ENIX: 9th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Class Action

TORO CO: Continues to Defend Suit by Lawnmower Owners in Canada
VILLAGE OF DOWNERS GROVER, IL: Arrest Refund Suit Certified
WASHINGTON COUNTY, IA: Residents Oppose New Sewage System
WILLMOTT FORESTS: Investors File Class Action


ACCESS PLANS: Still Defends Class Suit vs. Unit in Georgia
William Andrew Rivell, M.D. and Alan B. Whitehouse, M.D.,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v.
Private Health Care Systems and The Capella Group, Inc.; Civil
Action File No: CV106-176 was filed and remains pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia,
Augusta Division.  The plaintiffs in this case allege that the
contracts entered into by medical providers with Access Plans,
Inc.'s subsidiary, The Capella Group, Inc. ("Capella") through
Capella's relationship with the Private Health Care Systems
network of providers ("PHCS") did not allow for the use of the
providers' names to market a discount medical plan whereby payment
for services is made at the point of service by the consumer, and
not by a third party payor such as an insurance company.

The Company says it is vigorously contesting this assertion and
intends to defend this case.  The Plaintiffs are, however, seeking
certification of this case as a class action on behalf of all
similarly-situated physicians nationwide.  If the plaintiffs
succeed with such certification and ultimately prevail in the
case, the Company says it could have a material adverse affect on
its financial condition and its results of operation.

The case was originally instituted on November 17, 2006, but was
thereafter dismissed by the District Court.  The United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated such dismissal
and remanded the case to the District Court on March 24, 2008.  In
August of 2009 the District Court denied Plaintiffs' Amended
Motion for Class Certification.  In September of 2009 Plaintiffs
filed their Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Amended
Motion for Class Certification, asking the District Court to
certify a smaller class.  On September 30, 2010, the Court issued
a ruling denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Order
Denying Amended Motion for Class Certification.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 22,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended September 30, 2011.

APPLE REIT NINE: Plaintiff Dismisses New York Shareholder Suit
Barbara Blazer filed a voluntary dismissal of her complaint
against Apple REIT Nine, Inc., and others, according to the
Company's December 22, 2011, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On November 16, 2011, a shareholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit captioned Barbara Blazer v. Apple
REIT Nine, Inc., et al., in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York against the Company, Glade M. Knight, David Lerner
Associates, Inc., and David Lerner.  By order, dated November 28,
2011, the Supreme Court of the State of New York transferred this
case to the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

On December 19, 2011, the plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal of
her complaint and all claims against the Company, Glade M. Knight,
David Lerner Associates, Inc., and David Lerner without prejudice.

AVIS BUDGET: Sued Over Alleged Racketeering Activity
Janet Sparks, writing for Blue Maumau, reports that an independent
agency operator filed a class action lawsuit against Avis Budget
Group, claiming the company intentionally participated in schemes
to defraud its agency operators through its electronic reservation
system.  Avis is accused of being linked to racketeering activity
under federal law.

The amended complaint, Faith Enterprises Group v Avis Budget
Group, Inc., filed November 15, 2011, explains how Avis engaged in
an open and ongoing pattern of deceit and fraud through its Wizard
reservation system.  Under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) statutes, the Avis system constitutes an
"association-in-fact" enterprise.  The purported scheme was to
misrepresent through electronic communications the availability of
vehicles for rent to the public, to divert business away from its
agency operators to its own company locations.

Nathan Copeland, CEO and president of Faith Enterprises in
Atlanta, filed the lawsuit against Avis and its subsidiaries, on
behalf of approximately 500 similarly situated independent agency
operators of Avis.  The class period is for September 19, 2005 to

The Avis Wizard System is the electronic reservation system for
booking all vehicles from Avis throughout the country.  It
processes millions of customer inquiries each day over interstate
wires and is responsible for the large majority of all rentals on
the Avis system.  Customers make reservations in different ways;
on the Avis Web site, through travel agencies and major airlines,
all with direct connect technology.

When the Wizard System shows a location as being "sold out," it is
communicated throughout the country to all entities accessing Avis
data for reservations.

The lawsuit claims that Avis violates the federal RICO statute, as
well as its fiduciary and contractual duties to independent
operators, on a regular basis.  It allegedly does this by using
the Wizard System to routinely and systematically misrepresent to
customers that independent operators are "sold out" of vehicles,
even though vehicles are available.  The misrepresentation is said
to be accompanied by Avis' suggestion that the customer may rent
from an Avis company-owned airport location.  As a result of this
practice, agency operators lose significant vehicle rental
commissions on customers who book elsewhere.

Under RICO, it would be a federal crime for Avis to intentionally
participate in a scheme to defraud and use interstate wires in the
furtherance of that strategy, the lawsuit asserts.  The agency
operator claims that the enterprise affects interstate commence in
a variety of ways, in renting vehicles and making payments to Avis
and franchisees through interstate wires.

By this practice, Avis is said to also breach its fiduciary and
contractual duties by routinely failing to provide sufficient
vehicles to independent operators.  The complaint further states
that Avis also is unjustly enriched by its practice of requiring
agency operators to honor, without compensation, Avis coupons
given to customers for free vehicle rentals.

Faith Enterprises is asking the court to certify the lawsuit as a
class action.  It is also asking for restitution and/or
disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully obtained and for damages
according to proof.  They want treble damages where permitted
under applicable law, and an award of costs and attorneys fees,
and for both pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts

Avis declares the allegations are meritless.

In its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Avis Budget Group says Faith
Enterprises' claims are without merit, asserting that Avis did not
develop an elaborate scheme that intentionally directs available
business away from independent operators.

"The truth is, Avis can only generate revenue when its primary
asset, its vehicle fleet, is being utilized.  Thus, there is a
great incentive to maximize its car rentals at all locations," the
motion states.

Avis contends that Faith provides no logical explanation for why
Avis would risk losing potential rentals to competitors in order
to prevent its own independent operators from renting its
available cars, when those rentals would profit both.

Regarding the RICO claims, Avis states that they should be
dismissed, that they are not plausible given the myriad of obvious
explanations about Avis' car allocation decisions.  And, Faith
cannot show proximate harm stemming from Avis' alleged acts, since
they are addressed in its agency contract.

Avis points to the Independent Operator Agreement, saying Avis has
complete discretion regarding which cars it chooses to make
available for rental.  "Further, the Independent Operator
Agreement is an integrated contract that "supersedes all prior
agreements, negotiations, and discussions."

Avis asserts that this is not a case of a scheme to injure all
independent operators.  "It is one Independent Operator's
unhappiness that Avis takes a macro view of fleet management
rather than micro view focused solely on it small operation.  Avis
emphasizes that "its conduct is entirely consistent with both the
contract and sound business practices and do not amount to fraud
of any sort."

According to Ms. Sparks, her telephone calls and e-mails to both
parties were not returned, in trying to get comments regarding the

BABIES "R" US: Judge Okays $35.5 Million Class Action Settlement
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that a federal judge has approved a $35.5 million settlement in a
class action in which plaintiffs alleged that Babies "R" Us and a
group of baby product manufacturers violated antitrust law.

U.S. District Court Judge Anita B. Brody of the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania also awarded $11.75 million in fees and $2.23
million in costs to the plaintiffs counsel, which included co-lead
counsel Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro of Oak Park, Illinois, and
Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis of Philadelphia.

The class alleged that Babies "R" Us conspired with the defendant
manufacturers to restrict competition by requiring all retailers
to sell their goods at or above a minimum resale price, and thus
that the class paid inflated prices for baby products, Judge Brody
said in her memorandum opinion in McDonough v. Toys "R" US Inc.
and Elliott v. Toys "R" US Inc. Tuesday last week.

The other defendants are Britax Child Safety Inc., Peg Perego USA
Inc., BabyBjoern AB, Regal Lager Inc., Medela Inc., Maclaren USA
Inc. and Kids Line LLC.

The settlement represented 24 percent of estimated actual damages,
Judge Brody said.

Among reasons for approving the attorney fees, Judge Brody said
that if all the claimants received 20% of the purchase price,
which is proposed for the plaintiffs with proper documentation, as
well as treble damages, for an item as expensive as a $300 Peg
Perego stroller, there will be "plenty of funding to allow for the
award of treble damages.  . . . Thus, class members are likely to
enjoy the maximum benefit from the size of the fund."

Spector Roseman spent 20,945.5 hours on the case, Hagens Berman
spent 13,561.75 hours on the case, and all of the 15 plaintiffs
law firms spent 81,200.82 hours collectively on the case, Judge
Brody said.

Judge Brody did "admonish class counsel" for not posting the
motion for attorney fees and costs on the Web site dedicated to
the class action until after the deadline to object to the
proposed settlement had passed.

Among other factors weighing in favor of approving the settlement,
the risk of establishing liability and damages weighed in favor of
settlement, Judge Brody said.

When the case was initiated, a resale price maintenance agreement
was a per se violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, but then the
Supreme Court "overturned nearly a century of precedent to rule
that RPM agreements are no longer per se violations.  . . .
Defendants, therefore, could argue that the challenged agreements
constituted reasonable restraints on trade and thus were legal,"
Brody said. "Even if the plaintiffs could establish liability they
would not have had an easy time providing damages because there
were no universal price 'mark-up.'"

Judge Brody also pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court and the
3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have rendered opinions that make
it more difficult for district courts to grant class
certification, so verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs might face
rejection by the appellate courts.

Judge Brody also said that the complexity, expense and likely
duration of the litigation weighed in favor of the settlement.

"Parties reached this settlement just as they were preparing to
conduct six separate, consecutive jury trials in which they would
have had to address disputed contractual agreements between
manufacturers, distributors and retailers," Judge Brody said.
"Both sides would have likely called several expert witnesses to
the stand and would have had to address disputed business
practices over a number of years."

Discovery involved the review of more than 1 million documents and
more than 30 depositions, Judge Brody said.

Over 1.28 million class members received notice of the settlement,
Judge Brody said.  At least 41,000 claims have been filed.

"As the opinion notes, the settlement represents about 24% of
damages and you know that we're not going to get 100% of the class
members submitting claims . . . those that submit claims are in
line to receive a rather significant recovery of their damages,"
class counsel Eugene A. Spector of Spector Roseman said.

The settlement benefited the class, Mr. Spector said.

BabyAge.com Inc. and The Baby Club of America Inc. filed a
separate antitrust lawsuit against all of the defendants, alleging
the plaintiffs were prevented from discounting items.  Judge Brody
said in her opinion she consolidated that case for purposes of

Kendall Millard, an attorney for Peg Perego USA with Barnes &
Thornburg in Indianapolis, said that the litigation resolved
successfully for his client.

The action with BabyAge against Peg Perego was dismissed with
prejudice, requiring Peg Perego to not pay any money at all,
Millard said.

And the other settlement just approved by Judge Brody required
Peg Perego only to make a "cost of litigation settlement," Mr.
Millard said.

Peg Perego also has maintained that it did not commit antitrust
violations, Mr. Millard said.

Marguerite M. Sullivan, an attorney for defendant Britax Child
Safety Inc. with Latham & Watkins in Washington, D.C.; Neil E.
McDonell, an attorney for BabyBjoern AB with Dorsey & Whitney in
New York; Joseph A. Tate, an attorney for defendant Medela Inc.
with Dechert in Philadelphia; Alan M. Pollack, an attorney for
Maclaren USA Inc. with Robinson Brog Leinwand Greene Genovese &
Gluck in New York; and Michael J. Hahn, an attorney for Kids Line
with Lowenstein Sandler in Roseland, N.J., could not be reached
immediately for comment, according to the report.  While David R.
Martin, an attorney for Regal Lager with D.R. Martin in Atlanta,
declined comment.

BCSB BANCORP: Got Final OK of Settlement in Suit vs. Unit in Aug.
An agreement settling a class action lawsuit against BCSB Bancorp,
Inc.'s subsidiary was finally approved in August 2011, according
to the Company's December 22, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
September 30, 2011.

On November 2, 2010, the Company's subsidiary, Baltimore County
Savings Bank, was sued in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland in the matter of Vicki Piontek v. Baltimore
County Saving Bank, F.S.B. (Civil Action No. 10-cv-3101).  The
Plaintiff's Complaint alleges violations of the Electronic Funds
Transfer Act concerning notice requirements to be displayed upon
one of the Bank's ATM machines and seeks certification of the
action as a class action.  The Bank has answered the Complaint,
denied any such violations and demanded that the Complaint be
dismissed with prejudice and that it be awarded the costs of
lawsuit, and reasonable attorneys fees and intends to vigorously
defend the matter.

On February 1, 2011, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement, which upon final order of judgment dated August 30,
2011, was resolved.  Pursuant to the terms of the settlement
agreement the Bank agreed to pay attorneys fees and costs of
$20,500 dollars and fund a cy pres trust in the amount of $8,928
for any class member who submitted a timely claim who would, if
validated, receive a maximum payment of $100 dollars per
participating class member.

BERNARD L. MADOFF: Standard Chartered Wins Dismissal of Class Suit
Bill Rochelle, the bankruptcy columnist for Bloomberg News,
reports that even though it's "unfair" and "unjust," U.S. District
Judge Victor Marrero in New York said he was nonetheless compelled
to dismiss a class action lawsuit brought against Standard
Chartered Bank by investors in the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme.

The report relates that the investors paid fees to London-based
Standard Chartered for managing their investments in Fairfield
Sentry Ltd., the largest feeder fund for Bernard L. Madoff
Investment Securities Inc.  They sued the bank for breach of
contract, saying fees based on earnings were unearned because the
investments were actually worthless.

According to the report, Judge Marrero dismissed the class suit in
a 21-page opinion.  While he admitted the "losses are plain and
the fees paid unfortunate," Judge Marrero said "that harsh reality
does not create a breach of contract."

Mr. Rochelle explains that according to Judge Marrero, the
contract suit failed because the servicing fees were properly
charged by Standard Chartered based on the net asset values
reported by Madoff.  In case the breach of contract claims failed,
the investors also based the suit on the doctrine of unjust
enrichment.  Those claims failed likewise.  While admitting that
it was "indeed unfair -- and even unjust," Judge Marrero said the
complaint failed because "'the law of restitution is very far from
imposing liability for every instance of what might plausibly be
called unjust enrichment,'" quoting a leading treatise on the
subject.  Judge Marrero threw the investors a small bone by giving
them a chance to revise the complaint on the possibility that a
new version will withstand a dismissal motion.

                   About Bernard L. Madoff

Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC and Bernard L. Madoff
orchestrated the largest Ponzi scheme in history, with losses
topping US$50 billion.  On Dec. 15, 2008, the Honorable Louis A.
Stanton of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted the application of the Securities Investor
Protection Corporation for a decree adjudicating that the
customers of BLMIS are in need of the protection afforded by the
Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970.  The District Court's
Protective Order (i) appointed Irving H. Picard, Esq., as trustee
for the liquidation of BLMIS, (ii) appointed Baker & Hostetler LLP
as his counsel, and (iii) removed the SIPA Liquidation proceeding
to the Bankruptcy Court (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Adv. Pro. No. 08-01789)
(Lifland, J.).  Mr. Picard has retained AlixPartners LLP as claims

On April 13, 2009, former BLMIS clients filed an involuntary
Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition against Bernard Madoff (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. 09-11893).  The case is before Hon. Burton Lifland.  The
petitioning creditors -- Blumenthal & Associates Florida General
Partnership, Martin Rappaport Charitable Remainder Unitrust,
Martin Rappaport, Marc Cherno, and Steven Morganstern -- assert
US$64 million in claims against Mr. Madoff based on the balances
contained in the last statements they got from BLMIS.

On April 14, 2009, Grant Thornton UK LLP as receiver placed Madoff
Securities International Limited in London under bankruptcy
protection pursuant to Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code
(Bankr. S.D. Fla. 09-16751).

The Chapter 15 case was later transferred to Manhattan.  In June
2009, Judge Lifland approved the consolidation of the Madoff SIPA
proceedings and the bankruptcy case.

Judge Denny Chin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on June 29, 2009, sentenced Mr. Madoff to
150 years of life imprisonment for defrauding investors in United
States v. Madoff, No. 09-CR-213 (S.D.N.Y.)

As of July 15, 2011, a total of US$6.88 billion in claims by
investors has been allowed, with US$794.9 million to be paid by
the Securities Investor Protection Corp.  Investors are expected
to receive additional distributions from money recovered by Mr.
Picard from lawsuits or settlements.

Mr. Picard has filed 1,000 lawsuits seeking $100 billion from
banks such as HSBC Holdings Plc and JPMorgan Chase & Co.  The
trustee has seen more than $28 billion of his claims tossed by
district judges.

                     About Fairfield Sentry

Fairfield Sentry is being liquidated under the supervision of the
Commercial Division of the High Court of Justice in the British
Virgin Islands.  It is one of the funds owned by the Fairfield
Greenwich Group, an investment firm founded in 1983 in New York
City.  Fairfield Sentry and other Greenwich funds had among the
largest exposures to the Bernard L. Madoff fraud.

Fairfield Sentry Limited filed for Chapter 15 protection (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. Case No. 10-13164) on June 14, 2010.

Greenwich Sentry, L.P., and an affiliate filed for Chapter 11
protection (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 10-16229) on Nov. 19, 2010,
hoping to settle lawsuits filed against it in connection with its
investments with Bernard L. Madoff.

On May 18, 2009, Irving H. Picard, the trustee liquidating the
estate of Mr. Madoff and his firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment
Securities, LLC, filed a lawsuit against Fairfield Sentry and
Greenwich, seeking the return of US$3.55 billion that Fairfield
withdrew from Madoff during the period from 2002 to Mr. Madoff's
arrest in December 2008.  Since 1995, the Fairfield funds
invested about US$4.5 billion with BLMIS.

Mr. Picard claims that Fairfield knew or should have known about
the fraud give that it received from BLMIS unrealistically high
and consistent annual returns of between 10% and 21% in contrast
to the vastly larger fluctuations in the S&P 100 Index.

BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP: Recalls 297,200 Colorful Hearts Teddy Bears
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Build-A-Bear Workshop Inc., of St. Louis,
Missouri, announced a voluntary recall of about 284,000 Colorful
Hearts Teddy Bears in the United States of America and 13,200 in
Canada.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The teddy bear's eyes could loosen and fall out, posing a choking
hazard to children.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The Colorful Hearts Teddy is a stuffed animal about 16 inches high
with black plastic eyes.  The bear's fabric covering is printed
with multi-colored heart shapes.  Picture of the recalled products
is available at:


The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold by
Build-A-Bear Workshops nationwide and online at
http://www.buildabear.com/from April 2011 through December 2011
for about $18 in the U.S. and $23 in Canada.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled teddy bear from
children and return it to any Build-A-Bear store to receive a
coupon for any available stuffed animal from Build-A-Bear.  For
additional information, contact the firm toll-free at (866) 236-
5683 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through
Friday, on Saturday between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Central Time
and on Sunday between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Central Time, visit
the firm's Web site http://www.buildabear.com/or e-mail the firm
at colorfulhearts@buildabear.com

CIENA CORP: IPO-Related Suit Settlement Still Subject to Appeal
The settlement of a coordinated securities class action lawsuit
involving Ciena Corporation remains subject to appeal, according
to the Company's December 22, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended October 31,

As a result of its June 2002 merger with ONI Systems Corp., Ciena
became a defendant in a securities class action lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York in August 2001.  The complaint named ONI, certain former ONI
officers, and certain underwriters of ONI's initial public
offering (IPO) as defendants, and alleges, among other things,
that the underwriter defendants violated the securities laws by
failing to disclose alleged compensation arrangements (such as
undisclosed commissions or stock stabilization practices) in ONI's
registration statement and by engaging in manipulative practices
to artificially inflate ONI's stock price after the IPO.  The
complaint also alleges that ONI and the named former officers
violated the securities laws by failing to disclose the
underwriters' alleged compensation arrangements and manipulative
practices.  No specific amount of damages has been claimed.
Similar complaints have been filed against more than 300 other
issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998, and all
of these actions have been included in a single coordinated
proceeding.  The former ONI officers have been dismissed from the
action without prejudice.

In July 2004, following mediated settlement negotiations, the
plaintiffs, the issuer defendants (including Ciena), and their
insurers entered into a settlement agreement.  The settlement
agreement did not require Ciena to pay any amount toward the
settlement or to make any other payments.  While the partial
settlement was pending approval, the plaintiffs continued to
litigate their cases against the underwriter defendants.  In
October 2004, the district court certified a class with respect to
the Section 10(b) claims in six "focus cases" selected out of all
of the consolidated cases, which cases did not include Ciena, and
which decision was appealed by the underwriter defendants to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  On February 15,
2005, the district court granted the motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement agreement, subject to certain
modifications, and on August 31, 2005, the district court issued a
preliminary order approving the revised stipulated settlement
agreement.  On December 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit vacated the district court's grant of class
certification in the six focus cases.  On April 6, 2007, the
Second Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition for rehearing.  In
light of the Second Circuit's decision, the parties agreed that
the settlement could not be approved.  On June 25, 2007, the
district court approved a stipulation filed by the plaintiffs and
the issuer defendants terminating the proposed settlement.

On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed second amended complaints
against the defendants in the six focus cases.  On September 27,
2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification based
on their amended complaints and allegations.  On March 26, 2008,
the district court denied motions to dismiss the second amended
complaints filed by the defendants in the six focus cases, except
as to Section 11 claims raised by those plaintiffs who sold their
securities for a price in excess of the initial offering price and
those who purchased outside the previously certified class period.
Briefing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the
focus cases was completed in May 2008.  That motion was withdrawn
without prejudice on October 10, 2008.  On April 2, 2009, a
stipulation and agreement of settlement between the plaintiffs,
issuer defendants and underwriter defendants was submitted to the
Court for preliminary approval.  The Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary approval and preliminarily certified the
settlement classes on June 10, 2009.  The settlement fairness
hearing was held on September 10, 2009.  On October 6, 2009, the
Court entered an opinion granting final approval to a settlement
among the plaintiffs, issuer defendants and underwriter
defendants, and directing that the Clerk of the Court close these
actions.  All appeals of the opinion granting final approval have
been either resolved or dismissed, except one.  On August 25,
2011, on remand from the Second Circuit, the District Court
determined that the last remaining appellant did not have standing
to assert his appeal.

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

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation and because the
settlement remains subject to appeal, the Company says the
ultimate outcome of the matter is uncertain.

COMMERCE BANK: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action for $18.3 Mil.
Vince Brennan, writing for St. Louis Business Journal, reports
that Commerce Bank has reached an $18.3 million settlement in a
class action lawsuit that claimed the bank improperly charged
overdraft fees on certain debit card transactions, according to a
regulatory filing on Dec. 23.

Pending court approval, Commerce will pay $18.3 million to refund
class members, pay attorney fees and cover additional costs.

Commerce said in the filing that the bank did not admit any
wrongdoing in the case and settled the suit to avoid additional
costs.  Commerce Bank officials were unavailable to comment on the

The class action lawsuit, Wolfgeher v. Commerce Bank, was
originally filed in the Western District of Missouri before being
transferred to the Southern District of Florida.

In the quarter ended Sept. 30, Commerce Bancshares Inc., the
bank's holding company, reported earnings of $65.4 million, up 17
percent from $55.9 million a year earlier.  For the year ended
Dec. 31, 2010, earnings totaled $221.7 million, up 31% from $169.1
million in 2009.

CONDE NAST: Faces Class Actions Over Customer Data Sharing
Courthouse News Service reports that Los Angeles Superior Court
class actions claim Conde Nast Publications and Men's Journal
failed to disclose their sharing of customers' personal
information with marketing companies.

E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Settles Securities Class Suits for $79 Million
E*Trade Financial Corporation has entered into a memorandum of
understanding agreeing to settle class action lawsuits (the
"Freudenberg Action") alleging violations of the federal
securities laws by the Company and several of its former
executives, according to the Company's December 21, 2011, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Freudenberg Action, as well as several consolidated lawsuits,
were commenced in October 2007 after the Company experienced
losses in its portfolio of mortgages and home equity loans.  The
agreement in principle, which requires court approval to become
final, calls for the Company and its insurance carriers to make a
settlement payment of $79 million, of which approximately $10.75
million will be paid by the Company, in return for full releases.
The defendants continue to deny that they committed any violations
of law or breached any fiduciary duty to shareholders.  The
Company's portion of the settlement payment will be reflected as
an expense in the fourth quarter of 2011.  The parties expect to
enter into definitive agreements and seek court approval during
the first quarter of 2012.

GENERAL FOAM: Recalls 1,000 Holiday Tree, Wreath & Garland Sets
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
General Foam Plastic Corp., of Norfolk, Virginia, announced a
voluntary recall of about 1,000 units of Brookfield Entry Way Tree
Sets.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The battery box that power lights on the artificial wreath can
overheat, posing a fire hazard.

The firm has received 12 reports of battery boxes overheating and
being warm to the touch after batteries were installed.  No
injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Brookfield entry way decorating sets which
include two green artificial 48-inch (4 ft.) trees in black metal
vases, one green 24-inch wide wreath and one green 9-foot long
garland.  The wreath has battery-powered white lights.  The trees
and the garland plug into wall outlets.  "True Value," "True Value
Item #136879" and "UPC code 0 29033 36798 0" are printed on the
product's box.  Pictures of the recalled products are available


The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at True Value Hardware stores nationwide during
November 2011 for about $40.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled products and
return them to True Value for a full refund.  For additional
information, contact General Foam Plastic Corp. toll-free at (855)
277-0085 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.genfoam.com/

GROUP LEMUR: Recalls 1,750 Petit Lem Children's Pajamas
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Group Lemur Inc., of Montreal, Quebec, announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,750 Children's pajamas.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.
It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer

The pajamas fail to meet the federal flammability standards for
children's sleepwear posing a risk of burn injury to children.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The pajamas are a Petit Lem-brand, two-piece, cotton shorts and
short-sleeved sleepwear set sold in sizes 2 to 12.  The pajamas
are blue with flowers, white with flowers and dots, yellow with
umbrellas, or pink with butterflies and fairies.  Petit Lem Lounge
is printed at the inside neck of the shirt.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:


The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
specialty children's stores and Web sites from January 2009 to
November 2009 for about $30.

Children should stop wearing the recalled pajamas immediately and
consumers should return them to the retailer where they were
purchased or Group Lemur for a refund, exchange or store credit.
For additional information, contact Group Lemur toll-free at (877)
748-6698 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through
Friday, by e-mail at info@lemurgroup.com or at the firm's Web site
at http://www.petitlem.com/

HANNA ANDERSSON: Recalls 1,000 Children's Fleece Robes
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Hanna Andersson, of Portland, Oregon, and manufacturer,
C.F.L Commercial, of China, announced a voluntary recall of about
1,000 Children's fleece robes.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer

These children's robes fail to meet the federal flammability
standards for children's sleepwear, posing a risk of burn injury
to children.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The robes are fluffy white fleece robes with large multi-color
dots.  The 100% polyester fleece robes were sold with Euro
children's sizes 80-150 cm (24 months through size 14) printed on
the hangtag of the garments.  "Style 38310 Hanna Andersson" is
printed on the neck tag of the robes.  Picture of the recalled
products is available at:


The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Hanna
Andersson retail stores, catalogs nationwide and the Hanna
Andersson Web site from September 2011 through November 2011 for
about $50.

Consumers should take these recalled robes away from children
immediately and return them to the retailer where purchased for a
refund, exchange or store credit.  For additional information,
contact Hanna Andersson toll-free at (800) 222-0544 between 8:00
a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday through Saturday or visit
the firm's Web site at http://www.HannaAndersson.com/

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Cough Syrup Suit Can Proceed as Class Action
Jennifer Saltman, writing for The Province, reports that a
Vancouver woman suing children's cough syrup manufacturers for
misrepresentation and non-disclosure has had her case certified as
a class action.

When Lana Wakelam's son, now seven years old, was younger she
bought cough and cold syrup and gave it to him to relieve his

Now, the medicine is no longer marketed in Canada for that age
group because it is considered ineffective for children between
the ages of two and six.

Ms. Wakelam claims buying the medicine was a waste of money and
she alleges that because it offered no benefit to balance the
risks of taking the medication, it exposed her son to a real and
unnecessary risk of harm.

Consequently, she asserts, the companies that made the cough syrup
are all guilty of misrepresentation and non-disclosure.

According to the written decision of B.C. Supreme Court Justice
Christopher Grauer, the defendants called the action "a travesty"
and opposed its certification on a number of grounds, including

"They note that no one has been injured or harmed.  They point out
that they are closely regulated by Health Canada and did nothing
that was not specifically authorized by their federal regulators,"
Justice Grauer wrote.

However, because Ms. Wakelam met all of the requirements of the
Class Proceedings Act, Justice Grauer certified the action as a
class proceeding.

Ms. Wakelam initially filed her lawsuit in 2007, naming Johnson &
Johnson, McNeil Consumer Healthcare Canada, Novartis, Wyeth
Consumer Health Care, Pfizer Canada, Trillium Health Care
Products, Vita Health Products, Procter & Gamble and the attorney-
general of B.C. as defendants.

The class action is open to all B.C. residents who purchased
children's cough medicine for use by children under the age of
six, that was supplied, offered for sale, advertised or promoted
by the defendants between Dec. 24, 1997, and on Dec. 22, when the
action was certified.

LOCAL SERVICE: Named as Plaintiff in Suit v. Elbert County Board
Judge Lewis T. Babcock granted the request of various landowners
in Elbert County, Colorado, to amend their class action lawsuit
against the county's Board of Commissioners to (i) expand the
definition of the class and (ii) add Local Service Corporation,
through its Chapter 11 bankruptcy trustee, Simon E. Rodriguez, as

The Plaintiffs, which include Onyx Properties LLC; Emerald
Properties, LLC; Valley Bank and Trust, a Colorado State Bank; and
Paul and Shauna Naftel, assert class claims pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23 for violations of their constitutional rights under 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1983, "including, but not limited to, the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendment" resulting in a taking of property rights by
Elbert County without due process of law.  The Plaintiffs also
assert individual claims under Sec. 1983 for the loss of their
individual property rights by Elbert County's enforcement of its
allegedly invalid zoning regulations.  They seek damages, as well
as injunctive relief enjoining Elbert County "from any further use
of their invalid Zoning Regulations against" Plaintiffs and all
other members of the public.  The Plaintiffs seek to expand the
proposed class definition from "a class consisting of all persons
who have on or after August 28, 1997 (1) submitted an application
for an A-1 rezone; and (2) all persons who have had the A-1
provisions of the Zoning Regulations as amended by Wolf (inclusive
of the Wolf Maps) and Elbert County enforced against them
regarding the A-1 zone" to "all persons who submitted any
application under Elbert County's Zoning Regulations and who were
subjected to the county's enforcement of any aspect of its Zoning

Elbert County, in response, said its lack of opposition "should
not be construed as a waiver of any of the Defendant's defenses
regarding this party's claims."

The case is ONYX PROPERTIES LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability
Company; EMERALD PROPERTIES, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability
Company; VALLEY BANK AND TRUST, a Colorado State Bank; PAUL
NAFTEL, an individual; and SHAUNA NAFTEL, an individual, v. BOARD
COUNTY, in its official capacity, Civil Case No. 10-cv-01482-LTB-
KLM, Consolidated No. w/11-cv-02321-RPM-MJW (D. Colo.).  A copy of
the Dec. 19, 2011 Order is available at http://is.gd/ZpgVeYfrom

Local Service Corporation filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy (Bankr.
D. Colo. Case No. 08-15543) on April 25, 2008.  In June 2010, the
U.S. Trustee's Office appointed Simon Rodriguez as the Chapter 11
trustee for the LSC estate.

John D. Watson, who held stock interests in LSC, is a debtor in a
separate Chapter 7 case.  Jeffrey A. Weinman was appointed as the
Chapter 7 trustee for Mr. Watson's bankruptcy estate (Bankr. D.
Colo. Case No. 07-21077) in February 2008.  Mr. Weinman became the
sole board member of LSC, elected himself President, and was
authorized to make decisions for LSC.

MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Latinos Can Join Immigration Class Action
JJ Hensley, writing for The Arizona Republic, reports that a
federal judge issued a ruling on Dec. 23 that will curtail the
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office's ability to target illegal
immigrants and gives thousands of Hispanics standing in a civil
lawsuit that seeks to fundamentally alter Sheriff Joe Arpaio's
immigration-enforcement efforts.

Judge Murray Snow's ruling created a class action, giving every
Latino stopped, questioned or detained by the Sheriff's Office
since January 2007 standing in the 4-year-old civil-rights

The suit does not request monetary awards but seeks to change the
way Mr. Arpaio's deputies enforce immigration laws.

The judge's ruling also bars all sheriff's officers from arresting
any person "only on knowledge or reasonable belief, without more,
that the person is unlawfully present within the United States."

Such knowledge or belief, Judge Snow ruled, does not amount to
cause for arrest.

The class standing offers court-ordered protection to that broad
category of Latino residents, said Cecilia Wang, director of the
American Civil Liberties Union's Immigrants' Rights Project.

"It means that you have the protection of a federal court order
that has stopped MCSO from arresting or detaining you by trying to
figure out if you're lawfully in the United States," Ms. Wang
said. "Our main mission with this litigation has been to stop MCSO
from engaging in these illegal practices."

Mr. Arpaio's attorney said that he plans to appeal the injunction
and that deputies will comply with the ruling while continuing to
enforce immigration-related laws.

The most immediate impact from the ruling will be evident as
deputies try to enforce Arizona's human-smuggling law.

The Sheriff's Office says it has booked thousands of people on
human-smuggling allegations since forming a human-smuggling unit
in 2007.

The law, passed in 2005, has several elements, including illegal
presence in the U.S. Previously, sheriff's deputies could rely on
their suspicions under that element of the law alone to detain a
suspect and launch into further investigation.

The judge's ruling means suspicion alone will not give officers
probable cause.  It requires deputies to develop reasonable
suspicion that other factors of the law are being violated,
including that the person is being transported for a commercial

To prove violation of the human-smuggling law, authorities have to
demonstrate the individual harbored, transported or found
transportation for a person known to be in the country illegally,
and did so for a profit or a commercial purpose.

Interpretation of the law has been controversial.  Former County
Attorney Andrew Thomas interpreted it to allow charging people
smuggled into the country as co-conspirators in their own
smuggling, an interpretation that was only enforced in Maricopa
County.  Under the law, deputies have arrested undocumented
immigrants who were not obviously in transit.

Mr. Arpaio has said that he runs the only law-enforcement agency
in Arizona enforcing all aspects of the state's human-smuggling

But Judge Snow ruled that Mr. Arpaio's enforcement tactic is
wrong, to the extent that deputies enforce the law by arresting
illegal immigrants who are not actually being smuggled.

"To the extent that Defendants claim that the human smuggling
statute, or any Arizona or federal criminal law, authorizes them
to detain people based solely on the knowledge, let alone the
reasonable suspicion, that those people are not authorized to be
in the country, they are incorrect as a matter of law," Judge Snow

The ruling comes a little more than a week after the Justice
Department issued the findings of a two-year investigation,
accusing the Sheriff's Office of widespread civil-rights
violations.  In recent filings, attorneys in the suit cited those
findings in support of their claims that the Sheriff's Office

Mr. Arpaio plans to appeal the ruling, but deputies will abide by
the injunction, according to Mr. Arpaio's attorney, Tim Casey.

"So long as the deputies are briefed and trained that they must
comply with Judge Snow's findings, that you have to have
reasonable suspicion on all the elements, crime-suppression
operations can continue, the enforcement of the human-smuggling
law can continue," Mr. Casey said.

Despite the federal injunction, Mr. Casey claimed the ruling was a
"wonderful victory" for the Sheriff's Office that will allow
persistent claims of racial profiling to be thoroughly examined in
U.S. court.

"I think they got a very narrow slice of the pie," Mr. Casey said
of [Judge] Snow's rulings in the plaintiffs' favor.  "They're the
ones that were out there telling the world that this is going to
be coming down on racial profiling as a matter of law, and the
judge said, 'No.'"

Since Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres filed his lawsuit in
December 2007, four other plaintiffs have joined the case with
claims that Mr. Arpaio's deputies stopped or unreasonably detained
them because of their race.

All the plaintiffs are either U.S. citizens or legal residents.

The case was delayed by the sheriff's destruction of or failure to
turn over e-mails and other documents relevant to the plaintiffs'
claims.  Judge Snow already has forced the office to pay more than
$90,000 in court costs and attorneys fees to offset the costs of
depositions that had to be taken again after the Sheriff's Office
produced thousands of records it initially said were not

But not all the ruling went in favor of the plaintiffs.

Judge Snow granted a judgment in favor of the Sheriff's Office in
the case of David and Jessika Rodriguez, two plaintiffs who were
stopped by sheriff's deputies after turning around on a washed-out
road near Bartlett Lake in 2007.  The deputies asked David for a
Social Security card and issued him a citation but, according to
the claim, did not request documents or cite other drivers in the
party, who were White.

Judge Snow found that none of those circumstances meant the couple
were subjected to unreasonable search and seizure, as they had

Judge Snow's ruling included a mention of Mr. Arpaio's handling of
public requests for immigration sweeps based on people speaking
Spanish in a fast-food restaurant and the appearance of Hispanic
men on street corners, which Mr. Arpaio passed on to
administrators for further investigation.

The Sheriff's Office later conducted immigration sweeps in those
same areas, though sheriff's officials have insisted that the
correspondence and subsequent sweeps were unrelated.

The claims deserve to be heard at trial, Judge Snow found, but the
judge noted: "Sheriff Arpaio has made public statements that a
fact finder could interpret as endorsing racial profiling."

Those issues and other evidence amassed in the case will play a
significant role in the trial, Ms. Wang said.

"I think for any injunction in this sort of case to be effective
and to really stop the unconstitutional behavior by MCSO, there
needs to be significant reform," she said.  "If we do prevail on
the equal-protection claim, we'll be proposing that the court
appoint a monitor."

RALPH'S GROCERY: Faces Class Actions Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
Courthouse News Service reports that Los Angeles Superior Court
class actions claim Ralph's Grocery stiffed workers for overtime
at its Food 4 Less stores, as does Sprouts Farmers Markets at its

ROGERS COMMS: Faces Class Action Suit Over "System Access Fees"
Jane Seyd, writing for North Shore News, reports that a North
Vancouver law firm specializing in class action lawsuits has filed
court documents against four cellphone companies over "system
access fees."

Poyner Baxter filed the proposed class action lawsuit in B.C.
Supreme Court Dec. 16 against Rogers Communications Inc., Bell
Canada Enterprises Inc., Telus Corporation, Fido Solutions Inc.
and their subsidiaries on behalf of all cellphone customers in

If the claim is successful, it could be worth up to C$1 billion,
said lawyer Jim Poyner.  The law firm first looked into the system
access fees when they were pointed out by one of the company's
North Vancouver consultants.

The claim alleges phone companies have regularly charged their
customers what was described as a "systems access fee" "systems
administrative fee or "license administrative fee" on monthly
bills, usually an amount of about C$7.

Decades ago, in the early days of cellphone use, there was such a
fee charged by the federal government that the phone companies
simply passed on, said Mr. Poyner.

But while the government stopped charging that fee many years ago,
the phone companies continued to bill their customers, said Mr.

According to the lawsuit, by separating that amount out, the
cellphone companies misrepresented it as a tax or fee paid to
government or a third party.

Instead, the fee was just another charge collected by the
cellphone companies for their own use, the lawsuit claims.

The lawsuit asks the companies to stop charging the system access
fees as separate amounts and to pay back customers the amounts
already charged to them.

It's not known how much money could be at stake if the case is
successful, but Mr. Poyner estimates it could be up to C$1
billion, considering an estimated two million cellphone users in
B.C. could potentially claim the fees back six years.

Mr. Poyner added a very similar class-action case involving
cellphone access fees has already been certified in Saskatchewan

A spokesman for Telus declined to comment on the case while
another spokeswoman for Rogers and Fido said the company hasn't
received the documents yet.

The case has some similarities to another class-action suit
launched by the North Vancouver law firm against several airlines.
In those cases, the law firm is taking issue with amounts
represented as "taxes" on airline tickets -- often amounting to
several hundred dollars per ticket -- that it says are not taxes
paid to government or third parties, but are simply additional
fees collected by the airlines for their own use.

SQUARE ENIX: 9th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Class Action
On December 20, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth affirmed dismissal with prejudice of the Leong v. Square
Enix class action lawsuit, concluding that the plaintiffs' claims
"are without merit."  The case was brought by five alleged former
players of FINAL FANTASY XI.

The District Court ruled, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, that
Square Enix's business practices and click-through user agreements
were both fair and legal.  Both Courts confirmed that Square Enix
owns all of the character-related data generated during gameplay.
"We are very pleased with the Court's ruling," stated Steve Ross,
Deputy General Counsel of Square Enix, Inc.  "We feel vindicated
since many of the allegations were patently false.  We only wish
plaintiffs had contacted our dedicated customer support for
assistance before resorting to a lawsuit.  Square Enix will defend
itself against baseless litigation."

Plaintiffs filed three versions of the class action complaint,
each alleging different plaintiffs or legal theories, before the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
dismissed the case with prejudice on April 20, 2010.

                      About Square Enix, Inc.

Square Enix, Inc. -- http://www.square-enix.com-- develops,
publishes, distributes and licenses SQUARE ENIX(R), EIDOS(R) and
TAITO(R) branded entertainment content throughout the Americas as
part of the Square Enix Group.  The Square Enix Group operates a
global network of leading development studios and boasts a
valuable portfolio of intellectual property, including: FINAL
FANTASY(R), which has sold over 100 million units worldwide;
DRAGON QUEST(R), which has sold over 59 million units worldwide;
TOMB RAIDER(R), which has sold over 35 million units worldwide;
and the legendary SPACE INVADERS(R).  Square Enix, Inc. is a U.S.-
based, wholly-owned subsidiary of Square Enix Holdings Co., Ltd.

TORO CO: Continues to Defend Suit by Lawnmower Owners in Canada
In March 2010, individuals who claim to have purchased lawnmowers
in Canada filed class action litigation against The Toro Company
and other defendants that, (i) contains allegations under
applicable Canadian law that are similar to the allegations made
by the United States plaintiffs, (ii) seeks certification of a
class of all persons in Canada who, beginning January 1, 1994,
purchased a lawnmower containing a gas combustible engine up to 30
horsepower that was manufactured or sold by the Company and other
defendants, and (iii) seeks under applicable Canadian law
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' costs
and fees, and equitable relief.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 21,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended October 31, 2011.

Management continues to evaluate this Canadian litigation.  In the
event the Company is unable to favorably resolve this litigation,
management is unable to assess at this time whether this
litigation would have a material adverse effect on the Company's
annual consolidated operating results or financial condition,
although an unfavorable resolution or outcome could be material to
the Company's consolidated operating results for a particular

VILLAGE OF DOWNERS GROVER, IL: Arrest Refund Suit Certified
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge granted class certification in a case against a suburb of
Chicago that charges processing fees against suspects who come
under arrest, regardless of whether the individual is later found

Robert Bailiff, a resident of Downers Grover, Illinois, was
arrested and charged with domestic battery in May 2009.  At that
time, he had to pay an administrative fee of $30.

The village claimed that the fee was to "defray some of the cost
of processing and booking an arrestee," and that the fee covered
"about half of the village's cost."

When Mr. Bailiff's case was dismissed in January 2011, however, he
was not refunded his $30.  In May 2011, he filed a class action
against Downers Grove because the ordinance has no provision for
reimbursement, allegedly in violation of the due process clause.

While Mr. Bailiff initially sought injunctive relief, "the village
has confirmed that it stopped imposing the booking fee in response
to this lawsuit," court records state.

U.S. District Judge Sheila Finnegan granted Mr. Bailiff's motion
for class certification, with a slight modification to the class

Downers Grove argued that the court should deny class
certification because the class definition could include
individuals with time-barred claims.  But Judge Finnegan managed
to address that concern by specifying that the class would include
all individuals who were arrested on or after May 18, 2009.

The village also argued that the class includes individuals who
were ultimately convicted of their crimes, who "cannot establish,
as a matter of law, that their constitutional rights have been

Judge Finnegan disagreed.  "The court is not convinced that the
putative class 'contains a great many persons who have suffered no
injury at the hands of the defendant," Judge Finnegan wrote,
citing precedent.

"To the extent it may turn out that convicted class members are
not in fact entitled to relief, the court has broad discretion to
modify the class definition as appropriate," she concluded.

There were approximately 1,977 arrests in 2008, according to the
2008 Downers Grove Police Department Annual Report.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order in Bailiff v. Village
of Downers Grove, Case No. 11-cv-03335 (N.D. Ill.), is available


WASHINGTON COUNTY, IA: Residents Oppose New Sewage System
Lee Rood, writing for DesMoinesRegister.com, reports that it
doesn't take long to take a drive through the hilly town south of
Kalona.  Even faster, you can gauge how many residents feel about
a new community sewage system planned for construction next year.

Protests against the three-cell lagoon system are splayed in large
red letters on pieces of plyboard dotting gravel roads.

"It has split the town big-time," said Bonnie Knutson, who with
her husband owns a century farm on a hill about 1,000 feet away
from the lagoon site.  "It's such a tangled spider web.  It just
kind of goes from bad to worse."

A class-action lawsuit filed last month in Washington County by a
group of about 40 residents and the only Catholic church in
Richmond follows a two-year battle with county supervisors and the
regional utility trying to build the new community sewage system.

The lawsuit contests the legality and enforceability of a $2,000
fee to be assessed to those who resist signing over easements in
coming months so the taxpayer-backed Regional Utility Service
Systems can begin work.

"It really doesn't make any sense for the residents to fight this
new system," said Washington County Attorney Larry Brock, who is
representing the county board of supervisors in the class-action
suit.  "Something has to be done."

But experts say the fee, which was approved in September by RUSS'
board, may be unprecedented among rural sewage systems in Iowa.

"That's cutting new ground," said Bob Veenstra, a lawyer at
Veenstra & Kimm Engineering in Des Moines, which has worked on
numerous small community sewer systems.  "It kind of makes my
provide side curl up."

The urgency to fix the unincorporated town's sewage problems began
in 2001, after a resident's complaint led the Iowa's Department of
Natural Resources to cite the city because human sewage was being
poured into a ditch.

RUSS, a regional sewage utility created in 1999, ultimately
submitted an application for a federal grant that tied a community
sewer project in Richmond to two completely different projects
miles away in the more low-income communities of Rubio and Ollie.

The application allowed Richmond to qualify for a federal grant
and loan intended to provide sewer service to disadvantaged rural
areas.  The three communities were eventually awarded a $2.499
million grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's rural
development division, as well as a $1.36 million low-interest
loan.  The grant covered 64.8 percent of eligible costs for all
three communities.

Surveys suggested a clear majority of residents favored the
project early on.  But that sentiment has shifted.

At a public hearing in January, many of Richmond's residents in
attendance voiced opposition to the project and preferred the less
costly option of fixing only substandard septic systems, according
to notes of the meeting taken by the DNR.

Mr. Knutson said she and her husband are among the many in town
who oppose the new system, even though they will not have to be
hooked into it.

The couple is unconvinced the sewage lagoons planned by RUSS will
filter out anything but solid pollutants near the farm and

"There's no reason this can't be fixed on a house-to-house basis
or with a mound system.  I want to protect my land that my
grandparents sweat blood to buy."

Nothing in state or federal law prohibits communities from simply
updating septic systems, as long as all substandard and polluting
systems are brought into compliance.  But federal funding is
easier to obtain for communitywide systems, the county supervisors
who run RUSS say.

In February last year, Wayne Gieselman, who heads the
environmental sciences division of the DNR, sent a letter to the
county board warning supervisors to take action or risk big fines.

"It would be very disappointing if something happened to stop
these improvements from occurring," Mr. Gieselman wrote.

In November, the DNR issued an administrative order demanding that
Richmond address pollution violations or risk civil penalties of
up to $5,000 a day from the state and $10,000 from the federal
Environmental Protection Agency.

RUSS sent letters to Richmond residents offering $1 for easement
land and offered to hook them up to the new system for free.
Those who resisted doing so would be assessed the $2,000, and have
to pay hookup fees of up to $6,000, the organization said.

That move prompted residents to form a nonprofit group, Residents
for a Better Richmond, to represent property owners in the class-
action suit.

Iowa law allows cities and counties to condemn land by eminent
domain for such projects as long as property owners are
compensated fairly.  Typically, a six-person county compensation
commission appointed by a chief judge decides what property is

So far, 38 property owners have joined in the lawsuit, according
to Tom and Peggy Duwa, a couple leading the charge against the new

Richmond residents say the costs of their town's project have
escalated to $1.8 million as RUSS officials have been directed to
build a three-cell lagoon system instead of a two-cell lagoon.
The project will require miles of sewer line and several pumps on
the hilly terrain.

"We have had no control over the cost," said Mr. Duwa, who paid
about $12,000 for a new septic system in 2004.

Mr. Duwa said the town could buy top-of-the-line $15,000 septic
systems for all 83 homes -- though roughly 20 were installed in
the last 20 years -- and still come out more than $500,000 ahead.

Instead, he and others face costs of $5,000 to $6,000 if they
continue to resist the county's attempts to take their easements.

WILLMOTT FORESTS: Investors File Class Action
Ben Butler, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
investors who pumped about AU$150 million into forestry schemes
run by the failed agribusiness group Willmott Forests have
launched a class action against the company, its directors and the
Commonwealth Bank.

The lawsuit is the latest fallout from the collapse of large
plantation investment companies in the past three years, including
Willmott, Timbercorp, Great Southern and Environinvest.

In court documents filed in the Federal Court on Dec. 22, lawyers
for the investors have alleged that documents spruiking three
forestry managed investment schemes failed to disclose all the
risks attached to the investments.

The investors have also alleged that Willmott overstated the value
of assets including land and future wood sales and understated its
liabilities "by failing to provide for the cost of future
plantation maintenance work".

Willmott, which controlled about AUD400 million in investors'
money, collapsed last September owing its banks, the Commonwealth
and St George, about AUD120 million.

Investors allege Willmott's directors -- its chairman, Jonathan
Madgwick, chief executive, Marcus Derham, and non-executive
directors James Higgins, Hugh Davies and Raymond Smith -- were
"recklessly involved" in preparing the misleading product
disclosure statements.

The Commonwealth Bank and a subsidiary set up to fund loans to
investors in schemes such as Willmott's, MIS Funding No. 1, are
alleged to have breached their duty of care to investors and
engaged in unconscionable conduct.

Ron Willemsen, a solicitor with Macpherson+Kelley Lawyers, filed
the lawsuits on behalf of investors in three Willmot schemes
offered in 2008 and 2009.

The company, its directors and the bank have yet to file defenses
and a directions hearing is set for February 14.

Mr. Willemsen was also the driving force behind a class action in
which investors in schemes offered by another failed forestry
group, Timbercorp, tried to have AUD450 million in loans set

That case was thrown out by the Victorian Supreme Court in
September.  Justice James Judd described some of the evidence
given by investors as "implausible" because it downplayed the tax
benefits of their investments.

The industry's woes stem from a fall in subscriptions after the
global financial crisis and the 2007 withdrawal of Tax Office
rulings giving generous deductions for investment in the schemes.


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.  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  * * *