CAR_Public/120910.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, September 10, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 179

                             Headlines

AMERICAN EQUITY: Continues to Join Mediation of Los Angeles Case
BIRMINGHAM AL: Pepper Spray Suit Obtains Class Action Status
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Awaits Approval of Ex-Server's Suit Settlement
BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Awaits Okay of Ex-Manager's Suit Settlement
CABOT CREAMERY: Sued in Calif. Over False Claims on Greek Yogurt

CITIGROUP: Sued for Misleading Euro Note Investors
COLLECTIVE BRANDS: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
COMMONWEALTH BANK: Class Action Trial May Face Delay
COVENTRY HEALTH: Being Sold to Aetna for Too Little, Suit Claims
COVENTRY HEALTH:  Consolidated ERISA Class Suit Remains Pending

COVENTRY HEALTH: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Maryland
DELTEK INC: Being Sold to Thoma Bravo for Too Little, Suit Says
FACEBOOK: NC Retirement Systems' Lead-Plaintiff Status Questioned
FELTEX CARPETS: Appeals Court Reserves Decision on Defense Costs
FOREVER 21: Faces Class Action Over "Penny-Pinching Scheme"

FORTUNE INDUSTRIES: Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
GOOGLE INC: Subpoena Issued as Part of Class Action
HSBC HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Libor Manipulation
LA FITNESS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Gym Membership Class Action
LOGITECH INT'L: Securities Suit Dismissed in July

MF GLOBAL: Trustee Files New Motion on General Estate Claims
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Athletes Seek Class Cert. in Antitrust Suit
NEW YORK: To Set Aside $735 Million for Settlements
NUANCE COMMUNICATION: Sued Over Voice-Recognition Software
PHARMACIA CORP: Faces Suit for Carcinogenic Airborne PCBs

SANDISK CORP: Appeal From Dismissal of Suit Over SD Cards Pending
SANDISK CORP: Appeal in "Ritz" Antitrust Suit Remains Pending
SANDISK CORP: Continues to Defend Flash Memory-Related Suits
SANDISK CORP: Flash Memory Antitrust Suit Dismissed in May
SCHNEIDER LOGISTICS: Wage Suit Sheds Light on Work Conditions

SOUTHWEST GUARANTEED: Denies Members' Benefit Claims, Suit Says
T-MOBILE: 11th Circuit Upholds Class Action Dismissal
TYSON FOODS: Awaits Rulings on Judgment Bids in "Weissman" Suit
TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend "Thompson" Suit in Oklahoma
UNITED STATES: Lobbyists File Class Action v. State Secretary

UNITED STATES: Cherokee Farmers Get Settlement Payments
WELLS FARGO: Ex-Employee's Suit May Clear Way for Class Action


                          *********

AMERICAN EQUITY: Continues to Join Mediation of Los Angeles Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Equity Investment Life Holding Company disclosed in its
August 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, that it
participated in another mediation session in July 2012 of a
consolidated action alleging improper sales practices.

In recent years, companies in the life insurance and annuity
business have faced litigation, including class action lawsuits,
alleging improper product design, improper sales practices and
similar claims.  The Company is currently a defendant in a
purported class action, McCormack, et al. v. American Equity
Investment Life Insurance Company, et al., in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Western
Division and Anagnostis v. American Equity, et al., coordinated in
the Central District, entitled, In Re: American Equity Annuity
Practices and Sales Litigation, in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, Western Division
(complaint filed September 7, 2005) (the "Los Angeles Case"),
involving allegations of improper sales practices and similar
claims.

The Los Angeles Case is a consolidated action involving several
lawsuits filed by individuals, and the individuals are seeking
class action status for a national class of purchasers of
annuities issued by the Company; however, no class has yet been
certified.  The named plaintiffs in this consolidated case are
Bernard McCormack, Gust Anagnostis by and through Gary S.
Anagnostis and Robert C. Anagnostis, Regina Bush by and through
Sharon Schipiour, Lenice Mathews by and through Mary Ann Maclean
and George Miller.  The allegations generally attack the
suitability of sales of deferred annuity products to persons over
the age of 65. The plaintiffs seek rescission and injunctive
relief including restitution and disgorgement of profits on behalf
of all class members under California Business & Professions Code
Section 17200 et seq. and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act; compensatory damages for breach of fiduciary
duty and aiding and abetting of breach of fiduciary duty; unjust
enrichment and constructive trust; and other pecuniary damages
under California Civil Code section 1750 and California Welfare &
Institutions Codes section 15600 et seq.

As previously reported, the Company participated in mediation
sessions with plaintiffs' counsel in 2011 and the first quarter of
2012.  In July 2012, the Company participated in another mediation
session where potential settlement terms continued to be
discussed.  However, due to (i) the fact no class has been
certified (ii) the lack of specificity as to legal theories put
forth by the plaintiffs, (iii) the lack of specificity of the
remedies sought, and (iv) the lack of any basis on which to
compute estimated compensatory and/or punitive damages, the
Company generally cannot predict what the outcome of the pending
purported class action lawsuit will be, what the timing of the
ultimate resolution of this lawsuit will be, or an estimate and/or
range of possible loss related to the pending purported class
action lawsuit.  In light of the inherent uncertainties involved
in the pending purported class action lawsuit, there can be no
assurance that such litigation, or any other pending or future
litigation, will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, financial condition, or results of operations.

American Equity Investment Life Holding Company --
http://www.american-equity.com/-- through its subsidiaries,
underwrites fixed annuity and life insurance products in the
United States and the District of Columbia.  Its annuity products
include fixed index annuities and fixed rate annuities, as well as
single premium immediate annuities.  Its life insurance products
comprise traditional ordinary and term, universal life, and other
interest-sensitive life insurance products.  The Company was
founded in 1995 and is based in West Des Moines, Iowa.


BIRMINGHAM AL: Pepper Spray Suit Obtains Class Action Status
------------------------------------------------------------
Kent Faulk, writing for The Birmingham News, reports that a
federal judge has granted class action status to a lawsuit
challenging the Birmingham Police Department's use of pepper spray
in schools.

U.S. District Judge Abdul Kallon granted a request by attorneys
for the Southern Poverty Law Center, which had filed the lawsuit
in 2010 with eight named students who were hit by pepper spray, to
certify a class consisting of all current and future high school
students of Birmingham City Schools for the lawsuit.

The questions being answered on behalf of that entire group is
whether the police department's policy in the use of pepper spray
in schools and the training provided to the school resource
officers are "constitutionally defective," according to the
judge's order.

Attorneys for the police department did not respond to e-mail
requests for comment.

Jude Kallon, who issued the order on Aug. 31, has previously
dismissed the Birmingham Board of Education and superintendent
from the lawsuit.  He has not ruled on requests by an assistant
principal and the police officers to dismiss all remaining claims
against them as well.

John Carroll, dean of the Cumberland School of Law, said that
granting a request for class action status, does not mean a judge
won't later rule in favor of the defendants in a case.  But what
ever ruling the judge makes in the case would apply to the entire
class, he said.

Having the lawsuit become a class action case was good news to the
Southern Poverty Law Center.

"This definitely elevates things to a different level," said Ebony
Howard, attorney with the center.  "This is no longer eight kids
challenging the (pepper spray) policy . . . This order is saying
that every high school student in Birmingham has standing," she
said.

"We definitely feel that it is a positive sign," Ms. Howard said.

The center filed the lawsuit in late 2010 claiming police officers
working at the schools have used pepper spray for what are really
just behavioral problems that don't pose a threat to the officers.

The center has stated in court documents that since 2006, more
than 100 school children in Birmingham have been pepper sprayed,
although more recently center officials put that number at 200.

The lawsuit seeks a policy on pepper spray use in schools and
specialized training for police who service as school resource
officers.

The police department has a general policy for its officers on use
of chemical spray, but has no specific policy regarding use of the
spray in schools, according to court documents.


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Awaits Approval of Ex-Server's Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Restaurants, Inc. is awaiting court approval of its
settlement of a class action lawsuit initiated by a former server,
according to the Company's August 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 3, 2012.

On February 4, 2009, a former team member filed a putative class
action complaint in the Superior Court for the County of Fresno,
California, on behalf of himself and other current and former
servers working in the Company's California restaurants.  The
complaint alleged causes of action for failure to pay wages for
on-call time in violation of the California Labor Code, unfair
competition in violation of the California Business and
Professions Code, and associated penalties for failure to pay
wages in a timely manner.  The complaint sought unspecified
damages, a constructive trust, restitution, injunctive relief,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.  On August 14, 2009, a first
amended complaint was filed, in which two other former team
members joined the action as plaintiffs.  The Company answered the
operative complaint denying the allegations.  The parties reached
a settlement in principle of this action in September 2011, and
the settlement agreement was fully executed in May 2012.  The
parties are currently seeking court approval of the settlement.
The terms of this settlement are not considered by the Company to
be material to its consolidated financial position.  The Company
recognized a legal settlement expense and related liability in the
third quarter of fiscal 2011 for this matter.


BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Awaits Okay of Ex-Manager's Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
BJ's Restaurants, Inc. is awaiting court approval of its
settlement of a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of
restaurant managers in California, according to the Company's
August 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 3, 2012.

On August 25, 2009, a former team member filed a putative class
action in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles,
California, on behalf of himself and other current and former
restaurant managers in California.  The complaint, as amended,
alleged that the Company's California kitchen managers were
misclassified as exempt from overtime and other California wage-
and-hour requirements.  It alleged causes of action for failure to
pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods,
failure to pay wages in a timely manner, failure to provide
accurate wage statements, failure to keep accurate payroll
records, penalties associated with these claims, and failure to
reimburse class members for business expenses in violation of the
California Labor Code and unfair competition in violation of the
California Business and Professions Code.  The complaint sought
unspecified damages, restitution, injunctive relief, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.  In January 2010, on the Company's
motion, the Court ordered the venue of the case transferred to
Orange County.  The Company responded to the third amended
complaint, the operative complaint, denying the allegations.  The
parties reached a settlement in principle of this action in July
2011, which was executed fully in February 2012.  The parties are
currently seeking court approval of the settlement.

The terms of this settlement are not considered by the Company to
be material to its consolidated financial position.  The Company
recognized a legal settlement expense and related liability in the
second quarter of fiscal 2011 for this matter.


CABOT CREAMERY: Sued in Calif. Over False Claims on Greek Yogurt
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
the Cabot Creamery Co-op and Agri-Mark sell Greek yogurt that's
not made the authentic Greek way.

A copy of the Complaint in Smith v. Cabot Creamery Cooperative,
Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-04591 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/05/GreekYogurt.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  swestcot@bursor.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 989-9113
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com


CITIGROUP: Sued for Misleading Euro Note Investors
--------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that Citigroup
used misrepresentations to sell billions of dollars of euro notes,
whose value plummeted during the financial crisis, a United
Kingdom-based pension company claims in a federal class action.

Rentokil-Initial Pension Scheme sued Citigroup and four of its top
officers -- Sanford Weill, Charles Prince, Robert Rubin and Vikram
Pandit -- on behalf everyone who bought euro notes from Citigroup
between Oct. 12, 2005 and Feb. 25, 2009.

Citigroup peddled the euro notes with prospectuses that
underestimated the bank's exposure to toxic mortgage-backed
securities, and falsely claimed to be "well capitalized," the
pension fund claims.

The lawsuit does not allege securities fraud.

It seeks damages under the United Kingdom's Financial Services and
Markets Act 2000, or FSMA.

"Section 90 of the FMSA is a strict liability statute," the
complaint states.  "Plaintiff specifically disclaims any
allegations of fraud or reckless wrongdoing."

Citigroup has been sued several times on claims that it misled
investors about collateralized debt obligations tied to the U.S.
housing market.

In one complaint, the SEC claimed that Citigroup sold $1 billion
in mortgage-backed CDOs, which its trader called "a collection of
dogsh!t," while secretly shorting the securities.

Regulators let the bank settle for $285 million without admitting
wrongdoing.

The U.K.-based pension demands about $9 billion in damages for
Citigroup's alleged misrepresentations of its financial health.

"As investors learned in early 2009 that Citigroup was essentially
insolvent, the Euro Notes lost approximately $9 billion in value,
or approximately 30 percent," the complaint states.

The class seeks compensatory damages.

Rentokil-Initial Pension Scheme is represented by:

          Samuel Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com


COLLECTIVE BRANDS: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Collective Brands, Inc. disclosed in its August 6, 2012, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it
entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding the
settlement of certain litigation relating to the Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of May 1, 2012, among Collective Brands,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), WBG-PSS Holdings
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Parent"), WBG-PSS
Merger Sub Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), and, solely for the purposes
of Sections 6.5, 6.8, 6.9 (other than 6.9(e)), 6.13, 6.14(a), 6.17
and Article IX), Wolverine World Wide, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("Wolverine"), providing for the merger (the "Merger")
of Merger Sub with and into the Company.

On July 19, 2012 (the "Definitive Proxy Statement"), five lawsuits
were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
against the following parties: the Company, its directors and
certain of its former and current executive officers, and
Wolverine, Parent and Merger Sub.  Four of the five lawsuits also
named Blum Capital Partners and Golden Gate Capital as defendants.
On June 13, 2012, the Delaware Chancery Court granted a motion to
consolidate all five Delaware actions under the caption In re
Collective Brands, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A.
No. 7498-VCG.  The Delaware plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Amended Verified Class Complaint on June 15, 2012.

A previously pending stockholder derivative lawsuit filed in the
District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas (Israni v. Rubel, et al.,
case no. 12C297) was amended on May 2, 2012, to include a putative
class action alleging certain direct claims relating to the Merger
Agreement and naming the Company, its directors and certain of its
former and current executive officers, Blum, Golden Gate and
Wolverine (but neither Parent nor Merger Sub) as defendants.  On
June 21, 2012, the parties to the Israni case filed an agreed
motion to stay those proceedings pending final resolution of the
Delaware litigation, and the Kansas court granted that motion on
July 5, 2012.

On August 3, 2012, the Company executed a memorandum of
understanding with the Delaware and Kansas plaintiffs regarding
the settlement of the consolidated Delaware litigation.

The Company believes that no further supplemental disclosure is
required under applicable laws.  However, to avoid the risk of the
consolidated Delaware action delaying or adversely affecting the
Merger and to minimize the expense of defending such action, the
Company has agreed, pursuant to the terms of the proposed
settlement and memorialized in a memorandum of understanding
between the parties, to make certain supplemental disclosures
related to the proposed Merger.

The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement.  The stipulation of
settlement contemplated by the parties will be subject to
customary conditions, including Court approval following notice to
the Company's stockholders.  After the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware will consider the
fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement.  If the
settlement is finally approved by the Court, it will resolve and
release all claims in all actions that were or could have been
brought challenging any aspect of the proposed Merger, the Merger
Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith (but
excluding claims for appraisal made by stockholders of the Company
in accordance with Section 262 of the General Corporation Law of
the State of Delaware), pursuant to terms that will be disclosed
to stockholders of the Company prior to final approval of the
settlement.  In addition, in connection with the settlement, the
parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition
in the Delaware Chancery Court for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses to be paid by the Company or its successor.  The Company
or its successor shall pay or cause to be paid any attorneys' fees
and expenses awarded by the Delaware Chancery Court.  There can be
no assurance that the parties will enter into a stipulation of
settlement, or that the Delaware Chancery Court will approve the
settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation.  In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding would be null and
void.


COMMONWEALTH BANK: Class Action Trial May Face Delay
----------------------------------------------------
Trading Room reports that a trial relating to the collapse of
Storm Financial could blow out to five months if parties can't
agree on a number of important facts, a court has heard.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) is
pursuing action against the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA),
Macquarie and Bank of Queensland in the Federal Court in Brisbane,
seeking compensation and orders it hopes will improve the standard
of banks.

The trial, which is due to start this week, relates to the
collapse of Storm Financial in 2008.

Clients -- many of whom were small investors -- lost approximately
$3.6 billion when the Townsville-based financial services company
folded.

Many are involved in a class action against the banks, and the CBA
has lodged a counter-claim against at least one investor.

ASIC alleges the three banks committed numerous breaches through
their involvement with the operation, including unconscionable
conduct and operation of an unregistered managed investment
scheme.

The banks deny the allegations.

Lawyers for ASIC on Sept. 4 told the court they had been engaged
in intense negotiations with the banks to agree on a number of
issues which would substantially shorten the three-month trial.

They proposed all parties meet last week to reach an agreement,
but warned that if the process failed there was a possibility the
trial may not finish until March.

Justice John Reeves is expected to rule on this later on Tuesday.

Several Storm Financial investors were in the court on Sept. 4 for
the hearing.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Being Sold to Aetna for Too Little, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Coventry Health Care is
selling itself too cheaply to Aetna through an unfair process, in
a cash and stock deal worth $7.3 billion, shareholders say in a
class action in Chancery Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Brennan v. Coventry Health Care, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 7826 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/05/Aetna.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James P. McEvilly, III, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 482-3182
          E-mail: jmcevilly@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue
          10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com
                  srowley@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Denis F. Sheils, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          E-mail: dsheils@kohnswift.com


COVENTRY HEALTH:  Consolidated ERISA Class Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
On October 13, 2009, two former employees and participants in the
Coventry Health Care Retirement Savings Plan filed a putative
class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") against Coventry
Health Care, Inc. and several of its current and former officers,
directors and employees in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland.  Plaintiffs allege that defendants breached
their fiduciary duties under ERISA by offering and maintaining
Company stock in the Plan after it allegedly became imprudent to
do so and by allegedly failing to provide complete and accurate
information about the Company's financial condition to plan
participants in SEC filings and public statements.  Three similar
actions by different plaintiffs were later filed in the same court
and were consolidated on December 9, 2009.  An amended
consolidated complaint has been filed.  The Company filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint.  By Order, dated March 31, 2011, the
court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  The Company filed a motion for reconsideration of the
court's March 31, 2011 Order and filed an Alternative Motion to
Certify the Court's March 31, 2011 Order For Interlocutory Appeal
to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Both of those motions
were denied.  The Company will vigorously defend against the
allegations in the consolidated lawsuit.  Although it cannot
predict the outcome, the Company believes this lawsuit will not
have a material adverse effect on its financial position or
results of operations and comprehensive income.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 6, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.


COVENTRY HEALTH: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------------
On September 3, 2009, a shareholder filed a putative securities
class action against Coventry Health Care, Inc. and three of its
current and former officers in the U.S District Court for the
District of Maryland.  Subsequent to the filing of the complaint,
three other shareholders and/or investor groups filed motions with
the court for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of
selection of lead and liaison counsel.  By agreement, the four
shareholders submitted a stipulation to the court regarding
appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of selection of lead
and liaison counsel.  In December 2009, the court approved the
stipulation and ordered the lead plaintiff to file a consolidated
and amended complaint.  The purported class period is February 9,
2007, to October 22, 2008.  The consolidated and amended complaint
alleges that the Company's public statements contained false,
misleading and incomplete information regarding the Company's
profitability, particularly with respect to the profit margins for
its Medicare Private-Fee-For-Service products.  The Company filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint.  By Order, dated March 31,
2011, the court granted in part, and denied in part, the Company's
motion to dismiss the complaint.  The Company filed a motion for
reconsideration with respect to that part of the court's March 31,
2011 Order which denied the Company's motion to dismiss the
complaint.  The motion for reconsideration was denied, but the
court did rule that the class period was further restricted to
April 25, 2008, to June 18, 2008.  The Company will vigorously
defend against the allegations in the lawsuit.  Although it cannot
predict the outcome, the Company believes this lawsuit will not
have a material adverse effect on its financial position or
results of operations and comprehensive income.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 6, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.


DELTEK INC: Being Sold to Thoma Bravo for Too Little, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Deltek is selling itself too
cheaply to Thoma Bravo, for $13 a share or $1.1 billion,
shareholders claim in Chancery Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Bushansky v. Deltek, Inc., et al., Case
No. 7827 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/05/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
          O'KELLY ERNST BIELLI & WALLEN, LLC
          901 North Market Street, Suite 1000
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 778-4000
          E-mail: rernst@oebwlegal.com

               - and -

          Joseph H. Weiss, Esq.
          Julia J. Sun, Esq.
          WEISS & LURIE
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          E-mail: jweiss@weisslurie.com
                  jsun@weisslurie.com


FACEBOOK: NC Retirement Systems' Lead-Plaintiff Status Questioned
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Daily Tar Heel reports that controversy is roiling over North
Carolina Retirement Systems' role as lead plaintiff in the class
action lawsuit against Facebook and Morgan Stanley.

Critics of the system's status as lead plaintiff argue that there
is a potential conflict of interest between it and Facebook.  The
conflict is due, they argue, to the financial and personal
relationship between Erskine Bowles and N.C. State Treasurer Janet
Cowell.

Using the relationship between Ms. Cowell and Mr. Bowles as a
justification for calling for the system to step down as lead
plaintiff is overblown.  The community should direct its attention
to the real issues addressed by the lawsuit.

Erskine Bowles is a board member of both Facebook and Morgan
Stanley, the investment bank that handled the Facebook initial
public offering.  Ms. Cowell is a board member and sole trustee of
the retirement system.

A fundraiser hosted at the Mr. Bowles' household for Ms. Cowell's
campaign for State Treasurer on June 22 of last year is held up as
an example of the close ties between Ms. Cowell and Mr. Bowles.

Opponents of the retirement system as the lead plaintiff argue
that Ms. Cowell might not fairly represent the interests of the
group of plaintiffs bringing the lawsuit, given her ties with
Bowles.

However, if there was a conflict of interest, why would Ms. Cowell
lead a lawsuit against someone with whom she has close ties?

Especially since it could cause Ms. Bowles potential financial
losses.

Also, the investment firm for which Ms. Bowles is a senior
adviser, Carousel Capital, was not directly involved in the
system's purchase of Facebook stock.  Instead, Sands Capital
Management made the purchase.

The focus on the Bowles-Cowell relationship is misplaced.  If the
lawsuit is eventually thrown out by the judge, it should not be
for this reason.

The retirement system is leading the suit against Facebook and the
investment banks who handled the IPO after North Carolina lost
more than $4 million since Facebook's public offering.

Other firms in the class action lawsuit had a $3
million!)_in_Facebook_lead_counsel_spat/ combined loss, which is
much less than the system's loss.

In class action lawsuits, the lead plaintiff is traditionally
the party that has lost the most money, justifying the retirement
system's bid for lead plaintiff.

Since the offering on May 18, Facebook's share price has almost
halved from $38 to less than $18.

Rather than focusing on the Bowles-Cowell connection, it's much
more important to look at where the buck stops in this
financial decision.  This conflict of interest debate is a
distraction from the real issue of the lawsuit.

Focus should instead be on the shady dealings between Morgan
Stanley, Facebook and other investment banks that potentially led
to the losses.

The class-action lawsuit is legitimate and the community should
not call for the system to step down as lead plaintiff.

Ms. Cowell representing the state's retirement system in leading
the lawsuit against Facebook should challenge claims of a conflict
of interest, rather than raise suspicions.

Since the system lost the most money, it ought to be the one
leading the class action lawsuit.


FELTEX CARPETS: Appeals Court Reserves Decision on Defense Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
BusinessDesk.co.nz reports that the Court of Appeal has reserved
its decision in the fight to free up director indemnity insurance
to cover the cost of defending claims in the Bridgecorp
receivership and Feltex Carpets class action.

The former Bridgecorp directors Peter Steigrad, Bruce Davidson and
Gary Urwin were appealing a ruling in the High Court last year
that blocked access to their $20 million directors' and officers'
liability (D&O) policy to cover their defense costs.

They were joined by the former Feltex board and its insurer
Chartis New Zealand who sought a declaration in December on
whether their D&O cover could be used for defense costs after the
Bridgecorp ruling.

Counsel for the Bridgecorp receiver, Murray Tingey, told Justices
Mark O'Regan, Terence Arnold and Rhys Harrison in Wellington the
structure of the Bridgecorp D&O policy meant defense costs ranked
behind a potential claim on liability and couldn't be drawn on.

Mr. Tingey argued the full amount should come to the receivers.
By pooling the policy's limit, rather than divvying up how much
could be allocated to defense costs and how much to liability,
secured creditors had priority.  "When those directors came to
claim their costs, the liability limit was exhausted by the
charge, so the insurer can say we're not going to pay this,"
Mr. Tingey said.

"They chose to take a policy with composite (pooling) -- the
reason they may have done that was for the benefit of the company,
but that's just what the bargain is."  The Court of Appeal has
reserved its decision in the fight to free up director indemnity
insurance to cover the cost of defending claims in the Bridgecorp
receivership and Feltex Carpets class action.

The former Bridgecorp directors Peter Steigrad, Bruce Davidson and
Gary Urwin were appealing a ruling in the High Court last year
that blocked access to their $20 million directors' and officers'
liability (D&O) policy to cover their defense costs.  They were
joined by the former Feltex board and its insurer Chartis New
Zealand who sought a declaration in December on whether their D&O
cover could be used for defense costs after the Bridgecorp ruling.

Counsel for the Bridgecorp receiver, Murray Tingey, told Justices
Mark O'Regan, Terence Arnold and Rhys Harrison in Wellington the
structure of the Bridgecorp D&O policy meant defense costs ranked
behind a potential claim on liability and couldn't be drawn on.
Mr. Tingey argued the full amount should come to the receivers.
By pooling the policy's limit, rather than divvying up how much
could be allocated to defense costs and how much to liability,
secured creditors had priority.

"When those directors came to claim their costs, the liability
limit was exhausted by the charge, so the insurer can say we're
not going to pay this," Mr. Tingey said.  "They chose to take a
policy with composite (pooling) -- the reason they may have done
that was for the benefit of the company, but that's just what the
bargain is."

Michael Ring QC, counsel for Chartis, told the court the
Bridgecorp directors joined the board "on the faith of the
promises" that they would be covered by liability insurance, and
that the receivers' position "pulls up the rope ladder and says
'hang on, you're going to have to pay the defense costs
yourself'."

Mr. Ring said "defense costs cover are fundamental" to the policy
contract, with the cover designed to either prevent legal
liability, or minimize it, with anything left over to go to a
claimant.  A claim couldn't be made on the policy until it was
quantified, which could only happen after any defense, he said.

That would have to lead to defense costs being met by the policy.
Austin Forbes QC, counsel for former Feltex shareholder Eric
Houghton, who's leading the class suit against the carpet maker,
said defense costs advanced by an insurer were conditional, and
was only one of four elements that were covered by Feltex's policy
to protect against securities claim.

Alan Galbraith QC, counsel for the former Feltex directors, said
the obligation between the insurer and the insured party would be
breached if defense costs couldn't be claimed, and would "increase
exposure of the insurer" and "change the contract entitlements for
the insured."


FOREVER 21: Faces Class Action Over "Penny-Pinching Scheme"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Adams, writing for The Huffington Post, reports that
Forever 21 has been known for its legal battles -- even its own
employees have filed suit against the mass retailer.  And while
we're not fazed by any more copyright infringement debacles from
the fast-fashion empire, we're a little amused by their latest
lawsuit.

Carolyn Kellman, a Florida-based lawyer touted as a "fashionista"
by the Miami Herald in 2007, has filed a class action suit against
Forever 21, citing breach of contract, unfair and deceptive
practices and unjust enrichment.  According to the complaint,
Ms. Kellman paid $14.46 for a pair of black shorts at Forever 21
on May 12, but was only credited $14.45 ("'exactly $0.01 less")
upon returning them on May 30.

Ms. Kellman had a similar experience on July 13 when she returned
a $11.57 skirt to Forever 21 only to receive $11.56 in return.
Now Ms. Kellman's alleging that the store is involved in a mass
penny-pinching scheme and she has the receipts to prove it.  This
type of case isn't rare though -- Chipotle was recently slammed
for rounding up their checks in a similar manner.

While we still can't wrap our heads around why a woman who was
photographed in Christian Louboutin heels holding a Balenciaga bag
in the Miami Herald is one to count pennies, the most astounding
part of this is how Ms. Kellman was able to file a class action
lawsuit in the first place.  The threshold for civil actions in
her court district is $15,000 -- meaning, she had to find enough
people to join the case so that she could cite 1.5 million pennies
in damages (that's 750,000 customers since 2007, in case you were
wondering).

The suit encompasses anyone in the last five years who claims they
were charged one cent more or refunded one cent less than they
should have been by Forever 21.  "It might not be a lot of money,
but nonetheless it's a violation," Kevin Love, Ms. Kellman's
attorney who filed the complaint, said.


FORTUNE INDUSTRIES: Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
Fortune Industries, Inc. on Sept. 4 disclosed that a Stipulation
of Dismissal with Prejudice had been filed with the Superior Court
of Indiana, Marion County Circuit in a purported class action
lawsuit, captioned Mark Haagen, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Tena Mayberry, Carter M. Fortune,
Paul J. Hayes, David A. Berry, Richard F. Suja, Fortune
Industries, Inc., CEP, Inc., and CEP Merger Sub, Inc. filed in
April 2012.  The case was voluntarily dismissed prior to the
Defendants filing an answer.   Because the action was dismissed
with prejudice, Plaintiff is precluded from bringing another
action on this claim.  Neither Plaintiff nor his counsel received
any payment in connection with the dismissal.

In the lawsuit, Plaintiff alleged that members of the Company's
Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's stockholders in connection with a proposed management-
led buyout of the Company, and that the Company aided and abetted
the Directors' breaches of fiduciary duties.  Additionally,
Plaintiff alleged that the proposed transaction involves an unfair
price, an inadequate sales process, self-dealing and unreasonable
deal protection devices.

Plaintiff stipulated to the dismissal with prejudice following a
motion to dismiss being filed by the Defendants.  "We are pleased
at Plaintiff's decision to dismiss this lawsuit with prejudice,"
said Tena Mayberry, President and Chief Executive Officer.  "We
have maintained since the lawsuit was filed that it was without
merit, and we look forward to proceeding with our planned
management-led buyout of the company.  As always, our focus
remains on providing superior customer service to our clients and
providing long-term value to our shareholders."

Fortune Industries, Inc., is a professional employer organization
(PEO) focused on small and medium-sized business clients in 47
states, providing human resource consulting and management,
employee assessment, training, payroll services, and benefits
administration.  The company has three divisions operating as
licensed PEOs: Century II, Inc., located in Brentwood, TN;
Employer Solutions Group, Inc., located in Loveland, CO, Provo,
UT, Phoenix and Tucson, AZ; and Professional Staff Management,
Inc., located in Indianapolis, and Richmond, IN.


GOOGLE INC: Subpoena Issued as Part of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Teddy Schleifer, writing for The Daily Princetonian, reports that
University President Shirley Tilghman has been ordered to turn
over all her correspondence with top executives at Google, where
she serves on the board of directors, as part of a subpoena signed
by a New Jersey judge last month.  The subpoena was issued as part
of a class action lawsuit that alleges inappropriate action by
Google's top executives, including Google Executive Chairman Eric
Schmidt '76, and seeks correspondence from all members of the
company's board.

The subpoena, first reported by The Times of Trenton on Sept. 2,
came after attorneys representing the Brockton Retirement Board, a
pension fund in the town of Brockton, Mass., that holds shares of
Google, filed a lawsuit to prevent the company from going through
with a planned restructuring of its stocks.  The Retirement Board
claims that the stock split would marginalize minority investors
like itself while empowering executives like Schmidt and Google
founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin.  The Retirement Board alleges
that the split was created to serve the interest of the company's
leadership and not the shareholders as a whole.

Ms. Tilghman is not being targeted specifically, the Retirement
Board's attorney told the Times, and the group does not suspect
the University or its president has acted inappropriately.  The
entire Google board has been asked to hand over documents that may
reflect why the leadership chose to split the stock.  In addition
to the documents, Ms. Tilghman has also been directed to disclose
donations and contribution pledges she or the University made to
charities and other foundations affiliated with Google leadership.

Ms. Tilghman first joined the Google Board of Directors in 2005,
at the encouragement of the University Board of Trustees.  Ms.
Tilghman now treks out to Silicon Valley four times a year for
Google board meetings, where she sits alongside Stanford President
John Hennessy and earns over $500,000 a year.

It is common for university presidents to serve on corporate
boards, though it occasionally presents potential conflicts of
interest.  Ms. Tilghman has said that she recuses herself from
Google-related decisions at the University, instead delegating the
decision making to University Provost Christopher Eisgruber '83.
This year, all undergraduate student e-mail will be switched to
Gmail as part of a suite of Google applications offered to
students, the closest recent interaction between the University
and the technology giant.

Mr. Schmidt served on the University Board of Trustees from 2004
to 2008 and now sits on the board of trustees at the nearby
Institute of Advanced Study.  He last returned to campus on
May 10, when he spoke in McCosh Hall about the future of
technology.


HSBC HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Libor Manipulation
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that more than a dozen banks and
their subsidiaries artificially manipulated the London interbank
offered rate (Libor) to give the appearance of financial
stability, a class of derivative traders claims.

The suit is Courtyard at Amwell II; Greenwich Commons II v. Bank
of America; Barclays; HSBC Holdings.


LA FITNESS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Gym Membership Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Wolf Law Firm, LLC disclosed that on Sept. 4, 2012, Senior
Judge William H. Walls of the United States District Court in
Newark issued an order denying L.A. Fitness's motion to dismiss
Martina, et al. v. L.A. Fitness, a putative class action lawsuit
charging that the company's cancellation policies are designed to
induce gym members to pay dues for additional months after
notifying the company of their wish to cancel their memberships.
The lawsuit alleges that L.A. Fitness violated New Jersey's
Consumer Fraud Act, by adopting a cancellation policy that
requires gym members to cancel services at least 30 days prior to
the next billing cycle, does not permit in-person or telephone
cancellations, and requires prepayment of the last months'
membership.

Judge Walls ruled that the L.A. Fitness's policies alleged in the
complaint could constitute "unconscionable commercial practices"
prohibited by the Consumer Fraud Act, noting that "[t]he
cancellation policy contains an extra month's cost that may catch
many consumers off guard at the end of their membership."  Judge
Walls also noted that L.A. Fitness's policies of accepting
cancellations only by mail "fall[s] short of good faith: members
cannot terminate membership by phone, online, or even in person at
the very location where they joined . . . In this day and age,
narrowly restricting the mode of cancellation in such a manner
suggests an intent to place barriers in the process."

The lawsuit was filed in February by the Wolf Law Firm, LLC of
North Brunswick on behalf of the plaintiff, Sophia Martina and all
other New Jersey consumers who have been subject to L.A. Fitness'
cancellation policies.  The complaint asserts that those polices
violate the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and Truth in Consumer
Contract, Notice and Warranty Act, and seeks monetary damages
under those statutes for all effected New Jersey consumers.   The
complaint also seeks an injunction that would prohibit L.A.
Fitness from continuing its unlawful cancellation fee policies in
New Jersey.


LOGITECH INT'L: Securities Suit Dismissed in July
-------------------------------------------------
Logitech International S.A. obtained court approval of its motion
to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit originally filed in
New York, according to the Company's August 6, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On May 23, 2011, a class action complaint was filed against
Logitech International S.A. and certain of its officers in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of individuals who purchased Logitech shares between
October 28, 2010, and April 1, 2011.  The complaint relates to
Logitech's disclosure on March 31, 2011, that its results for
fiscal year 2011 would fall below expectations and seeks
unspecified monetary damages and other relief against the
defendants.  The action was transferred to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on
July 28, 2011.  The California Court appointed a lead plaintiff on
October 27, 2011.  The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
January 9, 2012, which expanded the alleged class period to
between October 28, 2010, and September 22, 2011.

On July 13, 2012, the California Court granted defendants' motion
to dismiss the amended complaint, with leave to amend.

The Company believes the lawsuit and claims lack merit and intends
to vigorously defend against them.  However, there can be no
assurances that its defenses will be successful, or that any
judgment or settlement in any of these lawsuits would not have a
material adverse impact on the Company's business, financial
condition, cash flows and results of operations.  The Company is
presently unable to estimate the effects of these claims and legal
proceedings on its results of operations, cash flows or financial
position.


MF GLOBAL: Trustee Files New Motion on General Estate Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel P. Collins, writing for FuturesMag.com, reports that the
trustee for MF Global Inc. filed a motion of support for its
Aug. 15 agreement to cooperate and assign claims to class action
plaintiffs.  The claims stem from a civil action against directors
and officers of MF Global.

The new motion is in response to objections by the Chapter 11
trustee for MF Global Holdings Ltd., the Creditor's Committee of
MFGH and former officers, directors and employees of MFGI.

Louis Freeh, trustee for MFGH, in his objection called on the
court to reject the motion and assign the general estate claims to
the Chapter 11 trustee (Freeh) as a creditor representative.

John Witmeyer, attorney in the Sapere action against former MF
Global executives (not part of class), filed a reply to
Mr. Freeh's objection.  In it Sapere argues that customer priority
rules dictate that former customers of MFGI be made whole before
claims of general creditors are considered.

The reply states, "Because of the priority scheme provided to
public customers (under the Commodity Exchange Act), the Chapter
11 Trustee is not an appropriate person to be assigned MFGI's
general estate causes of action."

The Chapter 11 objection seemed to dispute customer priority
rules.  It stated, "Notwithstanding the fact that the SIPA Trustee
owes fiduciary duties to both customers and creditors equally, the
Motion is quite clear that the only intended beneficiaries of the
Motion and the Agreement are MFGI's customers."

The new MFGI motion states: "The Agreement reflects a creative
approach to streamlining claims against possible defendants, while
maximizing recovery from a limited fund of assets, consisting in
large measure of dwindling insurance policies."


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Athletes Seek Class Cert. in Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that former college
athletes seek certification of their class action that claims the
NCAA duped them into signing away their rights to profit from
their own images in video games and other materials.

In a 2009 class action , former UCLA basketball star Edward
O'Bannon claimed the National Collegiate Athletic Association
forced students to sign the misleading "Form 08-3a" if they wanted
to play NCAA sports.

The form "commercially exploits former student athletes" by giving
the NCAA the right to profit from their images without
compensation, long after the athletes have left school, according
to the complaint.

The athletes said the NCAA, Electronic Arts and the Collegiate
Licensing Co. violated federal antitrust laws and conspired to
restrain trade by fixing their compensation at $0.

The plaintiffs seek certification of two classes: a "declaratory
and injunctive relief" class of NCAA basketball or football
players whose images were used after they stopped playing college
sports; and an "antitrust damages" class of athletes whose images
have been licensed or sold.

The antitrust damages plaintiffs want the NCAA to disclose revenue
data from its members for calculation of damages.

The NCAA claims that information is privileged and not relevant.

During negotiations with the NCAA, the antitrust plaintiffs agreed
to restrict the time period, from July 2005 until the final
judgment.

In their recent motion to certify the class, the athletes said:
"It is undisputed that the NCAA and its member schools have agreed
not to pay, and do not pay, current or former student-athletes in
Division I football or basketball for the use of their names,
images and likenesses in connection with television broadcasts of
games and videogames."

Representing the athletes, Michael Lehmann, with Hausfeld LLP of
San Francisco, wrote that the athletes have proved that their
claims meet the criteria for certification.  Mr. Lehmann cited a
dissenting opinion in a 7th Circuit case involving NCAA contracts
as evidence that college sports "have become big businesses."

"Despite the nonprofit status of NCAA member schools, the
transactions those schools make with premier athletes -- full
scholarships in exchange for athletic services -- are not
noncommercial, since schools can make millions of dollars as a
result of these transactions.  Indeed, this is likely one reason
that some schools are willing to pay their football coaches up to
$5 million a year rather than invest that money into educational
resources," Judge Joel Flaum wrote in the 1993 dissent.

Mr. Lehmann wrote for the plaintiffs that the NCAA could have
compensated athletes in other ways "such as withholding payment
until after graduation or paying student-athletes compensation in
the form of increased living costs."

Suing as a class is the most efficient way of litigating the
athletes' claims, Mr. Lehmann claims: "If proposed class members
had to proceed with separate actions, this litigation would be
unwieldy and unmanageable."

Mr. Lehmann also asked that his firm, with offices in Washington,
D.C., and San Francisco, be appointed class counsel.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken is scheduled to rule on the
motion on March 7, 2013.

A copy of the Notice of Motion and Motion by Antitrust Plaintiffs
for Class Certification and Memorandum of Points and Authorities
in Support Thereof in In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness
Licensing Litigation, Case No. 09-cv-01967 (N.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/05/NCAAClass.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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


NEW YORK: To Set Aside $735 Million for Settlements
---------------------------------------------------
Henry Goldman, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that New York
City plans to spend $735 million this year on settlements or
awards in lawsuits claiming negligence, police abuse and property
damage, the most in its history and almost six times what Los
Angeles pays on a per capita basis.

The cost of legal claims is forecast to rise to $815 million by
2016, more than the city pays to run the Parks and Recreation
Department, according to budget documents.  Among the incidents
triggering payments are malpractice in public hospitals, police
beatings, improper arrests, collisions with fire trucks and
potholes causing accidents.

The increase in litigation payouts may put pressure on Mayor
Michael Bloomberg as he weighs job and service cuts to close a
$3.5 billion deficit in a $72 billion budget next year.  The gap
widened by $1 billion last month when a court struck down a plan
to sell 2,000 new taxi medallions.

"It's a huge problem for the city and trial lawyers will say it's
only justice, but it's also a matter of some people considering a
case before a New York jury the same as winning the lottery," said
E.J. McMahon, a research fellow for the Manhattan Institute's
Empire Center for New York State Policy.  The institute calls for
changes to contingency fees for plaintiffs' lawyers and advocates
a so-called loser pays system for legal costs.

One reason New York's legal payouts are rising, according to the
Law Department, is that unlike California, Illinois and
Pennsylvania, the state has no laws that cap damages or limit
liability in suits against municipal governments.

The city's claims forecast for this year includes litigation
arising from personal injury, property damage and contract
disputes.  Raymond Orlando, a spokesman for the budget office,
said the estimate is based on experience that takes into account
the potential for large payouts from lawsuits originating years
ago.

"These expenses are quite volatile from year to year," Mr. Orlando
said.

New York spent $664 million on claims in the fiscal year that
ended June 30, 2011, the most recent year for which data are
available, according to the Law Department.  Claims alleging
personal injury accounted for $565 million, including $119 million
for police misconduct and civil-rights violations.

New York's 70-year-old mayor is the founder and majority owner of
Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP.

Law Department officials say the office has been able to contain
costs, partly through early identification of cases the city
should settle.  New York's ability to persuade the state
Legislature to enact a 2003 law making adjacent property owners
responsible for maintaining public sidewalks saved about $40
million a year in slip-and-fall cases, said Kate Ahlers, the
department's spokeswoman.

New York's payouts dwarf those of other large U.S. cities.  Los
Angeles, with a population of 3.9 million, paid $54 million for
claims in 2011, or about $14 per capita.  New York's per capita
cost, based upon a population of 8.2 million, is $81.

Comparing New York's settlement payments to other cities "is an
apples-to-oranges undertaking because of the breadth of agencies
and functions covered in New York City's tort payouts and the
differences in other states' tort laws," Ms. Ahlers said.

The city of Los Angeles, for example, isn't legally responsible
for operations under the control of Los Angeles County, which runs
local jails and maintains roads, she said in an e-mail.

"New York City is a self-insured mega-metropolis with a population
of more than 8 million people under a single umbrella for the
purposes of tort liability," she said.

Unlike most cities, New York has its own system of 11 public
hospitals, which generate malpractice claims of more than $130
million a year.  Schools in other cities are controlled by
independent districts; not so in New York City, where the mayor
runs the schools, she said.


NUANCE COMMUNICATION: Sued Over Voice-Recognition Software
----------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn at Courthouse News Service reports that Fry's sells
a $250 Nuance Communication voice-recognition software package
that doesn't work, a man claims in a class action.

Michael Nathan sued Fry's Electronics and Nuance Communications in
Superior Court.

He claims that Nuance advertises, falsely, that its Dragon
Naturally Speaking software can recognize speech with 99 percent
accuracy.

Mr. Nathan says he bought the software for $249.99 at Fry's
because he does a lot of typing and online research for his job.
He says Fry's employees told him he could return the software for
a full refund within 30 days if it didn't work.

He claims he proceeded to spend "more than two week at 3-5 hours
per day reading materials and articles to Dragon Software to
recognize plaintiff's speech and accent, [to] no avail."

Fed up, he says, he returned the software to Fry's, which refused
to refund his money, because, a store supervisor told him, "it was
against the law to accept open software."

Mr. Nathan seeks restitution class damages and punitive damages
for breach of warranty, false advertising, fraudulent inducement,
breach contract, unfair competition, and consumer law violations.

The rather vituperative, 36-page complaint claims, inter alia,
that "Fry's likes people to buy its products, but they hate
customers."

He is represented Motaz Gerges of Sherman Oaks.


PHARMACIA CORP: Faces Suit for Carcinogenic Airborne PCBs
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Lexington, on behalf of all
Massachusetts school districts, claims Monsanto/Pharmacia,
exclusive U.S. maker of PCBs from 1935-78, contaminated schools
with carcinogenic airborne PCBs, in a federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Town of Lexington v. Pharmacia
Corporation, Solutia Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-11645 (D.
Mass.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/09/05/ToxicSchools.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica L. Grant, Esq.
          Esther L. Klisura, Esq.
          SHER LEFF, LLP
          450 Mission Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 348-8300
          E-mail: jgrant@sherleff.com
                  eklisura@sherleff.com

               - and -

          Kevin J. Madonna, Esq.
          KENNEDY & MADONNA, LLP
          48 Dewitt Mills Road
          Hurley, NY 12443
          Telephone: (845) 331-7514
          E-mail: kmadonna@kennedymadonna.com


SANDISK CORP: Appeal From Dismissal of Suit Over SD Cards Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of their antitrust class
action lawsuit relating to Secure Digital ("SD") cards remains
pending, according to SanDisk Corporation's Company's August 6,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended July 1, 2012.

On March 15, 2011, a putative class action captioned Oliver v. SD-
3C LLC, et al was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (the "District Court") on behalf
of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of SD cards alleging
various claims against the Company, SD-3C, Panasonic, Toshiba, and
Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. under federal
antitrust law pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act, California
antirust and unfair competition laws, and common law.  Plaintiffs
allege the Company (along with the other members of SD-3C)
conspired to artificially inflate the royalty costs associated
with manufacturing SD cards in violation of federal and California
antitrust and unfair competition laws, which in turn allegedly
caused plaintiffs to pay higher prices for SD cards.  The
allegations are similar to, and incorporate by reference the
complaint in the Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic
Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America; and SD-3C
LLC.  On November 23, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Complaint, and on February 21, 2012, the Company and the other
defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint.

On May 21, 2012, the District Court granted the motion to dismiss,
with prejudice.  On June 20, 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal.

The Company disclosed that it received two demand letters dated
March 30, 2011, and one demand letter dated February 13, 2012,
pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A Section 9 ("93A
Demand Letters").  The letters gave notice of intention to file a
class action lawsuit on behalf of a nationwide class of indirect
purchasers of SD cards alleging various claims against the
Company, SD-3C, Panasonic; Toshiba, and Toshiba America Electronic
Components, Inc. under Massachusetts unfair competition law if the
Defendants do not tender a settlement.  These letters generally
repeat the allegations in the antitrust cases filed against SD-3C
and Panasonic defendants in Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v.
Panasonic Corp., et al. and against the Company, SD-3C, Panasonic
defendants, and Toshiba defendants in Oliver v. SD-3C LLC, et al.
On April 21, 2011, the Company responded to the March 30, 2011
letters detailing their deficiencies.  On March 21, 2012, the
Company responded to the February 13, 2012 letter similarly
detailing its deficiencies.


SANDISK CORP: Appeal in "Ritz" Antitrust Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
SanDisk Corporation's appeal in the antitrust class action lawsuit
commenced by Ritz Camera & Image, LLC remains pending, according
to the Company's August 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 1,
2012.

On June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC ("Ritz") filed a
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "District Court"), alleging that the Company
violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to monopolize and
monopolizing the market for flash memory products.  The lawsuit
captioned Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corporation, Inc.
and Eliyahou Harari, purports to be on behalf of direct purchasers
of flash memory products sold by the Company and joint ventures
controlled by the Company from June 25, 2006, through the present.
The Amended Complaint alleges that the Company created and
maintained a monopoly by fraudulently obtaining patents and using
them to restrain competition and by allegedly converting other
patents for its competitive use.  On
February 24, 2011, the District Court issued an Order granting in
part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss which
resulted in Dr. Harari being dismissed as a defendant.  In
addition, the Company filed a motion requesting that the District
Court certify for immediate interlocutory appeal the portion of
its Order denying the Company's motion to dismiss based on Ritz's
lack of standing to pursue Walker Process antitrust claims.  The
Company answered the Complaint on March 10, 2011, denying all of
Ritz's allegations of wrongdoing.  On September 7, 2011, the
District Court granted the Company's motion to certify for
interlocutory appeal.  On September 19, 2011, the Company filed a
petition for permission to file an interlocutory appeal in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the "Federal
Circuit").  On October 27, 2011, the District Court
administratively closed the case pending the Federal Circuit's
ruling on the Company's petition.  The briefing on appeal has been
completed.  The Federal Circuit has not set a date for oral
argument.


SANDISK CORP: Continues to Defend Flash Memory-Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
SanDisk Corporation continues to defend consumer class action
lawsuits relating to flash memory, according to the Company's
August 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 1, 2012.

The Company and numerous other companies have been sued in the
U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California in
purported consumer class actions alleging a conspiracy to fix,
raise, maintain or stabilize the pricing of flash memory, and
concealment thereof, in violation of state and federal laws.  The
lawsuits purport to be on behalf of classes of purchasers of flash
memory.  The lawsuits seek restitution, injunction and damages,
including treble damages, in an unspecified amount.  The Company
says it is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits and
investigations.  The cost of discovery and defense in these
actions as well as the final resolution of these alleged
violations of antitrust laws could result in significant liability
and expense and may harm the Company's business, financial
condition and operating results.


SANDISK CORP: Flash Memory Antitrust Suit Dismissed in May
----------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated case captioned In re Flash Memory Antitrust
Litigation was dismissed in May 2012, according to SanDisk
Corporation's August 6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 1,
2012.

Between August 31, 2007, and December 14, 2007, the Company (along
with a number of other manufacturers of flash memory products) was
sued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "District Court"), in eight purported class action
complaints.  On February 7, 2008, all of the civil complaints were
consolidated into two Complaints, one on behalf of direct
purchasers and one on behalf of indirect purchasers, in a
purported class action captioned In re Flash Memory Antitrust
Litigation.  Plaintiffs alleged the Company and a number of other
manufacturers of flash memory and flash memory products conspired
to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of NAND flash
memory in violation of state and federal laws and sought an
injunction, damages, restitution, fees, costs and disgorgement of
profits.  The direct purchaser lawsuit was dismissed with
prejudice.  On March 31, 2010, the District Court denied the
indirect purchaser plaintiffs' class certification motion, and
denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the Consolidated
Amended Complaint to substitute certain class representatives.  On
April 5, 2011, the District Court denied the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the class certification
decision and on April 19, 2011, indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed a Rule 23(f) petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit (the "Ninth Circuit") to request permission to
appeal that decision.  On June 28, 2011, the Ninth Circuit denied
that petition.  On July 12, 2011, indirect purchaser plaintiffs
petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a rehearing, which the Ninth
Circuit denied on August 24, 2011.

In May 2012, following a settlement with individual indirect
purchasers, the case against the Company was dismissed with
prejudice.


SCHNEIDER LOGISTICS: Wage Suit Sheds Light on Work Conditions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kari Lydersen, writing for Working In These Times, reports that a
motion for sanctions filed August 23 in a workers' class action
lawsuit against southern California Wal-Mart warehouses sheds more
light on this structure and alleges that defendant Schneider
Logistics failed to provide legally mandated evidence to avoid
culpability for workers' wages and working conditions.

Last October, workers affiliated with the group Warehouse Workers
United filed a class action lawsuit in U.S. district court in
California alleging labor law violations at Mira Loma warehouses
operated solely for Wal-Mart stores.  The lawsuit names Schneider
Logistics Inc. (SLI) and its subsidiary Schneider Logistics
Transloading and Distribution (STLD) along with the companies
Impact and Premier, which hired people to staff the warehouses.
Schneider took over operation of the warehouses in 2006.

The initial complaint said:

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated to recover the wages that defendants stole --
and are continuing to steal -- from them in violation of federal
and California law.  Plaintiffs also seek redress for other
consequences of defendants' unlawful conspiracy, including
defendants' wrongful scheme to hide and then cover up the extent
of their wrongdoing by failing to keep mandatory payroll records,
falsifying records of hours worked and compensation owed, and
concealing, denying and/or misrepresenting to the workers the
amount of their earnings and on what basis these earnings were
calculated.

A key question is whether Schneider or STLD directly employed --
and is therefore responsible for the working conditions of -- the
plaintiffs, including lead plaintiff Everardo Carrillo.  The
plaintiffs allege that Schneider is their "joint employer" along
with the other defendants.

Schneider Logistics initially argued that it had "no connection
with or responsibility for the operation, oversight, or
supervision" of the workers at the Mira Loma warehouses, as quoted
in the recent motion.  It notes that Schneider Logistics
Secretary-Treasurer Amy Schilling signed a sworn declaration
saying the company had "no business or contractual relationship"
with co-defendants Impact and Premier.  And the motion alleges
that Schneider sought to continue this image by failing to turn
over documents during the discovery process that would have
indicated otherwise.

In April, Schneider attorneys responded to a discovery request
without actually looking for the requested documents, according to
the motion.  In other words, they allegedly were either sloppy or
intentionally avoided turning over evidence to which the
plaintiffs have a legal right.

This became clear when documents turned over by Impact and Premier
included highly relevant Schneider documents which Schneider
attorneys had specifically said did not exist.  The motion notes:

Schneider has now produced thousands of documents it previously
claimed did not exist, including over 12,100 pages of personnel
files it maintained for the Impact and Premier class members (whom
it claims not to jointly employ), and the workplace rules and
training requirements it imposed on all class members.

The plaintiffs say the new documents show that "Schneider's top
managers knowingly made material false statements" to the court,
including claims that the warehouse employees are not subject to
Schneider employment policies and that Schneider does not keep
personnel files on them or set productivity quotas.  The documents
showed that Ms. Schilling herself signed contracts with Premier
and Impact, on behalf of STLD and "its affiliates." Meanwhile, Ms.
Schilling is also vice president and controller of Schneider
National, the parent company of the other Schneider groups, which
actually negotiated the contracts with Impact and Premier.

Once it was clear that Schneider did indeed have contracts with
Impact and Premier, General Manager Vince Redgrave told the court
that the contracts gave Schneider no say over work terms or
conditions.  The court ordered that Schneider actually produce the
contracts, and when it did, as the motion says, "they proved the
exact opposite of what Vince Redgrave had testified."

The federal district judge, Christina Snyder, wrote in a
preliminary injunction ruling that the "contracts dictate nearly
every material term of plaintiffs' employment including how Impact
and PWV (Premier) must conduct pre-employment screening and new
employment training."

The documents also showed that, contrary to Mr. Redgrave's
previous testimony, Schneider did set specific productivity quotas
for the warehouse workers and in fact complained to Premier when
the rate of cases unloaded per hour dropped.  Schneider officials
also talked about how to remedy Impact's "low productivity
levels."

Warehouse worker groups have long argued that unrealistic and
escalating productivity quotas are among the things that lead to
high chronic and acute injury rates in warehouses.  In July,
Warehouse Workers United filed a complaint with California's
Occupational Safety and Health Administration office.

The recent motion also alleges that Schneider or its attorneys did
not order employees to preserve e-mails relevant to the case, as
is standard required legal procedure.  It says the company has an
automatic delete e-mail function for e-mails from the Mira Loma
warehouses, meaning e-mails are deleted automatically after a
short period of time, and employees also have "absolute
discretion" over whether to save or delete e-mails.  The motion
says Schneider was slow to issue a memo instating a "litigation
hold" -- meaning employees should preserve relevant
communications.  And it alleges even after such a memo was issued,
Schneider never enforced it.

The motion also alleges that Schneider destroyed and denied the
existence of security camera footage that would aid the
plaintiffs' case.  The motion demands that Schneider turn over
video footage and also a log of any video that has been destroyed
since October 2011.

The motion asks that the court make note of Schneider's alleged
misconduct, tell Schneider that further misconduct will result in
sanctions, and provide relevant attorneys' fees and costs to the
plaintiffs.  It notes that the court could also decide to inform a
jury of Schneider's false statements and other discovery
violations, and asks that the court establish a "rebuttal
presumption" that Schneider is indeed a "joint employer" of the
plaintiffs.

Overall, the lawsuit is part of WWU's and individual workers'
ongoing campaign to improve conditions in warehouses and shed
light on the complicated employment structure that allows major
companies like Wal-Mart to benefit from the low-paid, dangerous
work of a largely temporary workforce.


SOUTHWEST GUARANTEED: Denies Members' Benefit Claims, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Sonnenschein as trustee of the James R. McDonald Trust,
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v.
Southwest Guaranteed Home Equity Program, Case No. 2012-CH-33502
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., September 4, 2012) arises from the
alleged systemic wrongful denial of statutory guarantees and
benefits for members of the Defendant, and its failure to perform
statutory requirements of behalf of those members.

Although she followed all requirements set forth in the
Defendant's guidelines, Ms. Sonnenschein alleges that the
Defendant wrongfully denied her claims for guarantees and benefits
in connection with her intent to sell her parent's trust-owned
home.  She contends that these denials and failure were due to the
Defendant's failure to follow its own guidelines.

Ms. Sonnenschein is a resident of Naperville, Illinois.

The Defendant is a quasi-municipal program based in Chicago,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick M. Hincks, Esq.
          Michael A. Faccenda, Esq.
          SULLIVAN HINCKS & CONWAY
          120 West 22nd Street, Suite 100
          Oak Brook, IL 60523
          Telephone: (630) 573-5021
          E-mail: pathincks@shlawfirm.com
                  michaelfaccenda@shlawfirm.com


T-MOBILE: 11th Circuit Upholds Class Action Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------
Michael P. Tremoglie, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has upheld a federal
district court's rejection of a class action request in a case
against T-Mobile.

The plaintiffs filed a proposed class action asserting, among
other things, that T-Mobile unlawfully reactivated their lost or
stolen phones without their permission.

The case had been appealed from the U.S. District Court for
Northern Alabama.  The plaintiffs also asserted state law claims
of conversion, trespass to chattels, and unjust enrichment.  They
alleged that they had reported to T-Mobile that their cell phones
had been lost or stolen, and the phones that were brought to
T-Mobile were activated.

According to the opinion issued Aug. 22 by the 11th Circuit, "The
district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification on five grounds.  The first ground was that the
plaintiffs had not satisfied their preliminary burden of
establishing that their proposed class was clearly ascertainable.
Here, the court reasoned, in part, that the plaintiffs had 'made
no effort to separate out those putative class members who may
very well be barred from pursuing class claims due to the
existence of valid arbitration agreements or class action waivers
that potentially prohibit such litigation.'"

The plaintiffs had claimed that that the district made a mistake
by concluding that T-Mobile did not waive its right to assert
arbitration and class-action waiver defenses, and therefore the
court abused its discretion in denying class certification.  The
11th Circuit rejected this argument, replying that the plaintiffs
do not adequately explain this.

Ultimately, the 11th Circuit judges ruled that "we may assume that
the district court was wrong about T-Mobile not waiving its
arbitration and class-action waiver defenses, and wrong about
whether the class was ascertainable and numerous, and wrong about
the non-uniformity of conversion law in the fifty states, and
wrong about a class action not being the superior method for
adjudicating the case."

Judge Edward Earl Carnes authored the opinion.

The judges said that even if they considered all of those
assumptions, the denial of class certification would still not be
considered eligible as a reason to reverse the district court.


TYSON FOODS: Awaits Rulings on Judgment Bids in "Weissman" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. is awaiting court decisions on its motions for
summary judgment in the class action lawsuit involving its plant
located in Jefferson, Wisconsin, according to the Company's August
6, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

The Company has one pending wage and hour action involving its
Tyson Prepared Foods plant located in Jefferson, Wisconsin
(Weissman, et al. v. Tyson Prepared Foods, Inc., Jefferson County
(Wisconsin) Circuit Court, October 20, 2010).  The plaintiffs
allege that employees should be paid for the time it takes to
engage in pre- and post-shift activities such as changing into and
out of protective and sanitary clothing and the associated time it
takes to walk to and from their workstations post-donning and pre-
doffing of protective and sanitary clothing.  Six named plaintiffs
seek to act as state law class representatives on behalf of all
current and former employees who were allegedly not paid for time
worked and seek back wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-
judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.  On May 16,
2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a state law class
of all hourly employees who have worked at the Jefferson plant
from October 20, 2008, to the present.  The Company has filed
motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the claims, or,
in the alternative, to limit the claims made for non-compensable
clothes changing activities, the hearing for which was set for
August 13, 2012.  The parties attended pre-trial mediation on May
30, 2012; however, the parties were unable to resolve the claims.
The trial date has not been set.

Tyson Foods, Inc. -- http://www.tyson.com/-- is a meat protein
company and a food production company with recognized brand names
in the food industry.  The Company produces, distributes and
markets chicken, beef, pork, prepared foods and related allied
products.


TYSON FOODS: Continues to Defend "Thompson" Suit in Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------------
On October 23, 2001, a putative class action lawsuit styled R.
Lynn Thompson, et al. vs. Tyson Foods, Inc. was filed in the
District Court for Mayes County, Oklahoma, by three property
owners on behalf of all owners of lakefront property on Grand Lake
O' the Cherokees.  Simmons Foods, Inc. and Peterson Farms, Inc.
also are defendants.  The plaintiffs allege the defendants'
operations diminished the water quality in the lake thereby
interfering with the plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their
properties.  The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.  While the District Court certified a
class, on October 4, 2005, the Court of Civil Appeals of the State
of Oklahoma reversed, holding the plaintiffs' claims were not
suitable for disposition as a class action.  This decision was
upheld by the Oklahoma Supreme Court and the case was remanded to
the District Court with instructions that the matter proceed only
on behalf of the three named plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief, restitution and compensatory and punitive
damages in an unspecified amount in excess of $10,000.  The
Company and the other defendants have denied liability and
asserted various defenses.  The defendants have requested a trial
date, but the court has not yet scheduled the matter for trial.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 6, 2012,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Tyson Foods, Inc. -- http://www.tyson.com/-- is a meat protein
company and a food production company with recognized brand names
in the food industry.  The Company produces, distributes and
markets chicken, beef, pork, prepared foods and related allied
products.


UNITED STATES: Lobbyists File Class Action v. State Secretary
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Cassidy, writing for BostonHerald.com, reports that a half-
dozen advocacy groups filed a class-action lawsuit against
Secretary of State William Galvin on Sept. 4, alleging his office
overstepped its bounds by requiring lobbyists to report every
communication they have with a lawmaker about a bill.

Lobbyists have to file disclosure reports twice a year with the
state.  The suit claims that for the first time, Mr. Galvin's
office asked them to submit lists of the legislators the lobbyists
either spoke to or corresponded with and the bills they discussed.

The unexpected request came after the reporting cycle had ended,
meaning lobbyists had to recall months-old conversations or even
brief exchanges they may have had with lawmakers, and sign the
document under the pains and penalties of perjury, said Pam Wilmot
of Common Cause.

"It would be completely impossible," said Ms. Wilmot, one of the
plaintiffs in the suit, which was filed in Suffolk Superior Court.
"At the end of the session, I talked to 50 legislators a day."

The suit claims Mr. Galvin's office is trying to enforce a
provision of the state's lobbying disclosure law that simply
doesn't exist.

"It is overreaching his authority to redefine the statute in such
a novel manner that's clearly contrary to what was intended," said
Ms. Wilmot.

Mr. Galvin spokesman Brian McNiff had no comment on the lawsuit.

Plaintiffs named in the suit include Wilmot of Common Cause,
Robert Gibbons of AirtStrategies, Ann Lambert of the ACLU, Lael
Chester of Citizens for Juvenile Justice, Richard Lord of
Associated Industries of Massachusetts and Susan Reid of the
Conservation Law Foundation.


UNITED STATES: Cherokee Farmers Get Settlement Payments
-------------------------------------------------------
Cherokeephoenix.org reports that hundreds of Cherokee farmers
received individual settlement payments of $50,000 during the week
of Aug. 27 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture as part of the
Keepseagle Settlement, which alleged that between 1981 and 1999
the USDA failed to provide technical assistance and, in some
cases, denied or charged higher interest rates to Native Americans
for farm loans.

"This is something we have diligently worked on for 15 years,"
Principal Chief Bill John Baker said.  "It was based on the
federal government not fulfilling their promises to Cherokee
farmers.  For years (Tribal) Councilor Joe Byrd and I repeatedly
brought up the issue in Washington D.C., and they finally
recognized the problem and fixed it.  These funds will provide
much-needed assistance to Cherokee farmers and ranchers and have a
major economic impact on the Cherokee Nation."

Mr. Baker said he reached out to Cherokee County banks and
financial institutions to allow recipients to cash or deposit
their settlement checks.  He said there has been some alarm at so
many recipients walking into banks with checks for such large sums
of money.

"I hope all of our local banks recognize these checks are
legitimate and work with our farmers to process their funds," he
said.

More than thousand Native American farmers in northeast Oklahoma
filed suit against the USDA, more than anywhere else in the
country, according to Alicia Seyler, an Oklahoma tribal
representative who assisted with USDA loans through the
Intertribal Agricultural Council.  The $760 million Keepseagle v.
Vilsack suit was settled in 2010.

Those who received checks in August were part of the Track A
claims.  Claimants with outstanding USDA loans will be notified at
the end of October whether some or all of the debt will be
relieved.  More severe claims, Track B, will be notified by mail
by Oct. 30.

The deadline to file a claim was Dec. 27, 2011.


WELLS FARGO: Ex-Employee's Suit May Clear Way for Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Epstein, writing for DesMoinesRegister.com, reports that
Richard Eggers, a call center worker fired in July for putting a
cardboard cutout of a dime in a laundry machine 49 years ago, has
filed state and federal civil rights complaints against Wells
Fargo, the firm that did his criminal background check, and
federal banking regulators.

Mr. Eggers, 68, of Des Moines, filed the complaints with the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Iowa Civil Rights
Commission, according to attorney Leonard Bates, who is
representing him for the Newkirk Law Firm.

The complaints clear the way for a possible class-action lawsuit
on behalf of thousands of low-level bank employees like Mr. Eggers
who have been fired this year under tightened regulations meant to
deter the kind of high-level excesses that helped precipitate the
global financial crisis, Mr. Bates said.

"We have to exhaust our administrative remedies under the law, and
that's why we've filed these complaints," he said.

The complaints allege discrimination on the basis of age, sex and
disability.  They are directed against Wells Fargo Home Mortgage,
First Advantage, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., and the board of
directors of the Federal Reserve.

The Iowa Civil Rights Commission and EEOC typically decide whether
complaints merit investigation a few months after receiving them.
They then can dismiss them or launch an investigation of their
own, which can result in a lawsuit or settlement against the
defendant years later.

"We're not going to wait that long," Mr. Bates said.

Wells Fargo employed Mr. Eggers as a call center employee for
seven years before a criminal background check by First Advantage
determined the Vietnam veteran had a prior arrest for fraud.
Court documents indicate he was actually arrested and convicted of
"operating a coin changing machine by false means."

Mr. Eggers was fired in July because of the conviction.  Wells
Fargo maintains that it had no choice but to let him and others go
under the tighter regulations, which include $1 million-a-day
fines.

The rules also preclude anyone who has spent a day in jail for a
transactional crime from qualifying for the FDIC's automatic
waiver process.  Mr. Eggers spent two days in jail in 1963 after
his arrest.

The regulations are unfair to older workers because it was more
common for people to be jailed for minor crime decades ago,
Mr. Bates said.  They also disproportionately punish members of
minority groups, who are more likely to have been raised in poor
communities where they engaged in criminal activity to meet basic
needs, he said.

One of the other employees Wells Fargo fired was Yolanda Quesada,
a 58-year-old Milwaukee woman who was convicted of shoplifting
clothes for work 40 years ago.  The complaints contain language
that's typically reserved for class-action lawsuits.

"This complaint is intended to place Wells Fargo, First Advantage,
and the FDIC on notice of class-wide intentional and unintentional
forms of systemic discrimination affecting protected classes of
applicants and employees who are adversely affected by the above-
mentioned background check policy," the document filed with the
Iowa Civil Rights Commission said.


                           *********

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, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2012.  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 Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.





                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *