CAR_Public/110203.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, February 3, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 24

                             Headlines

2038724 ONTARIO: SCC to Rule on Franchise Class Action Today
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY: Strauss & Troy Investigates Potential Claims
AMAZON.COM INC: Audible Suit Settlement Agreement Under Appeal
APPLE INC: Sued for Sharing iPhone Users' Info to Third Parties
AT&T MOBILITY: Sued Over Rigged iPhone Data Billing System

CHOICE HOTELS: Faces Class Action Over Additional Royalty Fee
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Three Pension Plans File Individual Suits
DICK'S SPORTING: Settles Overtime Pay Class Action for $15-Mil.
DIRECTV INC: Sued Over Unauthorized Installation of TV Equipment
EBAY INC: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Summary Judgment Ruling Pending

EBAY INC: Continues to Defend Two PayPal-Related Suits in Calif.
KOSS CORP: Continues to Defend Amended Class Suit in Wisconsin
KRAFT FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
LAW SOCIETY OF NSW: Clients Mull Class Action to Recover Money
LEXISNEXIS: Faces Class Action for Concealing E-Filing Charges

SASSY INC: Recalls 37,000 Refreshing Rings Infant Teethers/Rattles
SELECT COMFORT: Sued in Ill. for Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
SNAPPLE BEVERAGE: Judge Grants Motion for Summary Judgment
TACO BELL: Mulls Countersuit Against Alabama Law Firm
TIBCO SOFTWARE: Awaits Court OK of Merger-Related Suit Settlement

TIBCO SOFTWARE: Appeals Still Pending in IPO Allocation Suit
TOSHIBA AMERICA: HR Managers Files Employment Class Action
TURNER INDUSTRIES: Workers File Racial Discrimination Suit
UNITED PANAM: Faces Class Action Over Proposed Merger
WAL-MART STORES: Defense Bar Files Amicus Curiae Brief in Dukes

WELLS FARGO: Sued in Washington Over Unjustified "Fax Fee"
WESTERN DIGITAL: Final Hearing on Class Action Pact Set This Month
WESTERN DIGITAL: Defends "Wage-Hour" Lawsuit in California
XO HOLDINGS: Shareholders Sue D&Os Over ACF Deal

* Number of Securities Class Actions in Canada Slips



                             *********

2038724 ONTARIO: SCC to Rule on Franchise Class Action Today
------------------------------------------------------------
Julius Melnitzer, writing for the Financial Post, reports the
Supreme Court of Canada will announce its decision on whether to
grant leave in Quizno's Canada Restaurant Corporation v. 2038724
Ontario Ltd. at 9:45 a.m. on Thursday, Feb. 3.  The Ontario Court
of Appeal certified the franchisees of a fast food restaurant
chain as a class in an action against the franchisors and certain
suppliers.  The issues include a wide range of important questions
relating to class actions.

Quizno's Canada Restaurant Corporation, Quiz-Can LLC, and The
Quizno's Master LLC are the franchisors of a chain of fast food
restaurants in Canada.  Gordon Food Service, Inc. and GFS Canada
Company Inc. are the distributors of food and other supplies to
Quiznos restaurants.  The respondents are former Quiznos
franchisees in Ontario who seek to represent a class of all
Canadian Quiznos franchisees in business on or after May 12, 2006.
The respondents allege that they have been charged exorbitant
prices for food and other supplies they are contractually required
to purchase for use in their restaurants. They commenced an action
asserting claims for breach of the price maintenance provisions of
the Competition Act; civil conspiracy by Quiznos and GFS to fix
prices, and breach of contract.  The respondents brought a motion
under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act to certify the action as a
class action.  Quiznos brought a motion to stay the proceedings.


ALTERNATIVE ENERGY: Strauss & Troy Investigates Potential Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Strauss & Troy on Jan. 31 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Idaho against Alternative Energy Holdings, Inc. on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased common shares of
AEHI during the period between September 20, 2006 through
December 14, 2010 for potential violations of state and federal
law by issuing false and misleading statements.

The Complaint names AEHI and certain of the Company's executive
officers and directors as defendants.  The plaintiff in the case
alleges that the Company, its CEO Donald L. Gillispie, and Senior
Vice President Jennifer Ransom (both currently on leave from the
Company) engaged in a scheme to manipulate and artificially
inflate the market price of AEHI shares.

On December 14, 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission
announced the temporary suspension of trading in AEHI stock.  On
December 16, 2010, the SEC charged the company's top officers of
fraudulently raising millions of dollars from investors while
manipulating its stock price through misleading public statements
that concealed the secret profits reaped by Mr. Gillispie and
Ms. Ransom.

Strauss & Troy is investigating a possible claim to recover
damages on behalf of individuals and entities who purchased AEHI
common stock between September 20, 2006 and December 14, 2010.  If
you purchased common stock during that period, you may, no later
than February 18, 2011, request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts
on behalf of the class members.  In order to be appointed lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that you meet certain legal
requirements.

If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, discuss this
action, or have any questions, please contact:

          Richard S. Wayne, Esq.
          Thomas P. Glass, Esq.
          STRAUSS & TROY
          150 East Fourth Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: 800-669-9341
          E-mail: rswayne@strausstroy.com
                  tpglass@strausstroy.com


AMAZON.COM INC: Audible Suit Settlement Agreement Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2001, Audible, Inc., Amazon.com, Inc.'s subsidiary
acquired in March 2008, was named as a defendant in a securities
class-action filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York related to its initial public offering in
July 1999.  The lawsuit also named certain of the offering's
underwriters, as well as Audible's officers and directors as
defendants.  Approximately 300 other issuers and their
underwriters have had similar suits filed against them, all of
which are included in a single coordinated proceeding in the
Southern District of New York.  The complaints allege that the
prospectus and the registration statement for Audible's offering
failed to disclose that the underwriters allegedly solicited and
received "excessive" commissions from investors and that some
investors allegedly agreed with the underwriters to buy additional
shares in the aftermarket in order to inflate the price of
Audible's stock.  Audible and its officers and directors were
named in the suits pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
other related provisions.  The complaints seek unspecified
damages, attorney and expert fees, and other unspecified
litigation costs.  In March 2009, all parties, including Audible,
reached a settlement of these class actions that would resolve
this dispute entirely with no payment required from Audible.

The settlement was approved by the Court in October 2009, and that
settlement is currently under appeal to the Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, according to Amazon.com's Jan. 27, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010.


APPLE INC: Sued for Sharing iPhone Users' Info to Third Parties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Apple transmits data from iPhones and iPads to third parties,
revealing "the most intimate details" of the lives of people who
use Apple's iPhone operating system.

A copy of the Complaint in Chiu v. Apple, Inc., Case No.
11-cv-00407 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/01/31/AppleCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
          Sabrina S. Kim, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3900
          Telephone: (213) 617-1200
          E-mail: jwesterman@milberg.com
                  skim@milberg.com

               - and -

          Sanford P. Dumain, Esq.
          Peter E. Seidman, Esq.
          Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
          Anne Marie Vu, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          E-mail: sdumain@milberg.com
                  pseidman@milberg.com
                  arado@milberg.com
                  avu@milberg.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          Kim Richman, Esq.
          REESE RICHMAN LLP
          875 Avenue of the Americas, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 579-4625
          E-mail: mreese@reeserichman.com
                  krichman@reeserichman.com


AT&T MOBILITY: Sued Over Rigged iPhone Data Billing System
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that AT&T Mobility faces another
federal class action involving its iPhone and iPad services.  This
one claims that "AT&T's bills systematically overstate the amount
of data used on each data transaction involving an iPhone or iPad
account," and bills customers for data transactions even if they
disable their phones and leave them untouched -- as the
plaintiff's experts did.

The class says AT&T's billing system "is like a rigged gas tank
that charges pump that charges for a full gallon when it pumps
only nine-tenths of a gallon into your car's tank."

AT&T has faced a welter of class actions since rolling out its
iPhone service with Apple, which is not named as a party to this
complaint.  Previous class actions have claimed AT&T charged for
downloads its customers never made, reneged on its billing plans
for iPhones, charged for services it could not or did not deliver,
and promised but failed that the phones could send text messages
and photos.

In the new complaint, named plaintiff Patrick Hendricks claims
that AT&T's overbilling "was discovered by an independent
consulting firm retained by plaintiff's counsel, which conducted a
two-month study of AT&T's billion practices for data usage, and
found that AT&T systematically overstate web server traffic by 7
percent to 14 percent, and in some instances by over 300 percent.
So, for example, if an iPhone user downloads a 50 KB website,
AT&T's bill would typically overstated the traffic as 53.5 KB (a 7
percent overcharge) to as high as 150 KB (a 300 percent
overcharge)."

But wait, Mr. Hendrick's claim continues: "It gets worse.  Not
only does AT&T systematically overbill for every data transaction,
it also bills for phantom data traffic when there is no actual
data usage initiated by the customer.  This was discovered by the
same independent consulting firm, which purchased an iPhone from
an AT&T store, immediately disabled all push notifications and
location services, confirmed that no email account was configured
on the phone, closed all applications, and let the phone sit
untouched for 10 days.  During this 10-day period, AT&T billed the
test account for 35 data transactions totaling 2,292 KB of usage.
This is like the rigged gas pump charging you when you never even
pulled your car into the station."

The class claims that though AT&T's overcharges "have a modest
effect on an individual customer's bill, they have a huge effect
on AT&T's bottom line.  AT&T has 92,8 million customers.  In the
fourth quarter of 2010, AT&T reported its wireless data revenues
increased $1.1 billion, or 27.4 percent, from the year-earlier
quarter, to $4.9 billion.  A significant portion of those data
revenues were inflated by AT&T's rigged billing system for data
transactions."

Mr. Hendricks seeks restitution and class damages for money had
and received, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, unfair and
fraudulent business practices, unfair competition, and violations
of the federal Communications Act.

A copy of the Complaint in Hendricks v. AT&T Mobility, LLC,
Case No. 11-cv-00409 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/01/31/AT&T.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          2121 North California Blvd., Suite 1010
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 482-1515
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com

               - and -

          Barry L. Davis, Esq.
          Daniel R. Lever, Esq.
          Aaron P. Davis Esq.
          THORNTON, DAVIS & FEIN, P.A.
          80 SW 8th Street, 29th Floor
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 446-2646
          E-mail: davis@tdflaw.com
                  lever@tdflaw.com
                  adavis@tdflaw.com


CHOICE HOTELS: Faces Class Action Over Additional Royalty Fee
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Huntemann, writing for The Gazette, reports franchisees in
several states are suing Choice Hotels International of Silver
Spring, claiming the company engaged in "unfair and deceptive
acts" that have cost them millions of dollars.

In the class action complaint, filed in December in U.S. District
Court in Orlando, Fla., the plaintiffs say Choice is charging them
a fee not included in their original franchise contracts.  The
fee, of up to 5%, comes from gross room sales generated by hotel
stays by customers who are members of the Choice Privileges
rewards program, according to the suit.

The program is designed to reward customers for staying at Choice-
brand hotels, which include Comfort Inn, Comfort Suites, Quality,
Sleep Inn, Clarion, Cambria Suites, MainStay Suites, Suburban,
Econo Lodge and Rodeway Inn, according to Choice's Web site.

The plaintiffs include Choice franchisees in Florida, Louisiana,
Missouri and Texas.  They are seeking $225 million in damages,
plus attorneys' fees and costs.

"Plaintiffs' action against Choice also arises from violation of
law based on unfair and deceptive conduct by Choice," the
franchisees allege.

The 5% fee was not included in the original franchise agreements,
the plaintiffs claim, saying it "was created by Choice as part of
Choice's proactive matching program and was initiated by Choice."

"In essence, Choice has created a group of reward members, the
majority of whom are not even aware of that status, and siphoned
5% of the gross room sales revenue from the Plaintiff franchisees
in relation to the stays by these reward members and without any
contractual or other basis to do so," the plaintiffs claim.

The franchisees say Choice customers can sign up for the rewards
program, but the program also automatically enrolls guests who
stay at its hotels and has an "opt-out" provision for them.
Therefore, the plaintiffs claim, many members don't know they are
in the program, which now has more than 1 million members.

In the first nine months of last year, Choice reported a profit of
$83.3 million, up from $74.6 million a year earlier.   Revenues
also grew, to $441.1 million from $423.5 million.  Choice Hotels
franchises more than 6,000 hotels worldwide.

Choice spokesman David Peikin declined to comment on the suit.
Choice attorney Barry Heller of DLA Piper in Reston, Va., did not
immediately return phone and e-mail messages seeking comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by Ruden McClosky of Orlando.

"The additional royalty fee was not authorized by the franchise
agreement," said David S. Wood, a shareholder with Ruden McClosky.
A hearing has not been scheduled, he said.


COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Three Pension Plans File Individual Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arleen Jacobius, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports three
public pension plans opted out of a federal class-action lawsuit
against Bank of America's Countrywide Financial and filed separate
cases claiming the firm misled investors into buying risky
securities.

The $47.5 billion Michigan Retirement Systems, East Lansing,
Mich., filed suit Jan. 26 in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles,
against Countrywide, a number of company executives and more than
a dozen investment firms and banks.  The Michigan lawsuit seeks
$65 million in damages for a "risky scheme to artificially inflate
earnings," the complaint states.

Joy Yearout, spokeswoman, for Michigan Attorney General Bill
Schuette, who filed the suit on behalf of the pension system,
declined to comment on why it opted out of the class action.

Oregon Investment Council, Salem, Tigard, which filed a lawsuit
against Countrywide in Oregon state court Jan. 26, opted out of
the class action because it would have compensated Oregon less
than $500,000 for the $14 million in losses, including $13 million
for the pension fund, allegedly caused by Countrywide, said James
Sinks, spokesman for the council, which oversees the $56.7 billion
Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund, Salem.

Fresno County (Calif.) Employees' Retirement Association also
filed a separate lawsuit against Countrywide on Jan. 26 in U.S.
District Court in Los Angeles.  Roberto Pena, administrator, could
not be reached for comment by press time.

Six other pension plans that also opted out of the class action --
including CalPERS and the Florida State Board of Administration --
have not decided whether to file a new lawsuit together or
individually, said Blair A. Nicholas, partner with the law firm of
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, who represents 16
plaintiffs that had opted out of the class action.

In addition to the $228.5 billion California Public Employees'
Retirement System and $152.2 billion FSBA, the plans are the $94.9
billion Texas Teacher Retirement System, $1.5 billion Government
of Guam Retirement Fund, $36 billion Maryland State Retirement &
Pension System and Montana Board of Investments, which manages
$7.4 billion in pension fund assets.

"It is unfortunate that select investors chose to opt out of a
fair and equitable agreement to settle these issues.  We intend to
vigorously defend these claims," Bank of America spokesman
Lawrence Grayson wrote in an e-mailed request for comment.


DICK'S SPORTING: Settles Overtime Pay Class Action for $15-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Napsha, writing for Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, reports Dick's
Sporting Goods Inc. of Findlay on Jan. 31 said it has agreed to
pay up to $15 million to settle federal and state lawsuits
claiming the company violated wage and labor laws affecting
190,000 current and former workers, according to the company and
court documents.

The settlement resolves a class action lawsuit filed in May 2005
in federal court in Rochester, N.Y.  It also settled related wage
and hour class action lawsuits filed in 22 states, including
Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio that are pending against the
company and five individual defendants, according to documents
filed in federal court in Rochester.

The lawsuit named the former Gaylan's Trading Co. Inc. of
Indianapolis, which Dick's acquired in 2004, as well as CEO Edward
Stack as defendants.

The settlement of the Rochester class action lawsuit, filed by 68
Dick's hourly employees, still must be approved by federal court
in Rochester at a hearing yet to be scheduled.  As part of the
settlement, those suing Dick's agreed to drop lawsuits filed in
the 22 state courts.

The total amount of the claims depends on the number of claims
submitted by employees.  The settlement covers claims under laws
of 36 states.

The lawsuit filed in Rochester claims that Dick's violated New
York labor laws when supervisors made employees work through their
lunch hour, or interrupted their lunch hour, without compensation.
The suit also claimed that Dick's supervisors permitted employees
to work more than 40 hours one week, then let them take time off
the following week or pay them their regular hourly rate in the
following week rather than at their overtime rate.

Spokesman William J. Colombo, vice chairman of Dick's board of
directors and one of the defendants in the lawsuit, could not be
reached for comment.

The settlement and related fees will result in a pre-tax charge of
about $15.5 million against Dick's profits, which will be recorded
in the fourth quarter.


DIRECTV INC: Sued Over Unauthorized Installation of TV Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
class action claims that DirecTV permanently installs TV equipment
on rental properties without the owners' consent.  Jacen
Management, of Connecticut, says DirecTV leases its antennae and
satellite dishes and sets them up on privately owned buildings
without permission from the landlords.

"Defendant knows that it is improper and illegal to install the
equipment on a building without first obtaining the authorization
of the landlord," the complaint states.

Jacen says that in adopting TV equipment regulations in the 1990s,
the Federal Communications Commission "did not diminish the
ability of landlords to prohibit the installation or use of such
equipment in areas -- including but not limited to common areas or
restricted access areas -- not within the tenant's exclusive use
or control."

Jacen claims that since tenants do not have control over the
exterior walls of leased buildings, the FCC regulations do not
authorize DirecTV to install satellite dishes without landlord
authorization.

To circumvent this, Jacen claims, DirecTV gives its subscribers
the option of signing a release form stating that the landlord has
"verbally approved" the installation, "which they could easily
complete without actually obtaining any permission at all, knowing
that DirecTV will accept their representation that the landlord
has given 'verbal' permission."

The complaint contrasts DirecTV unfavorably to a competitor,
DishNetwork.  "Unlike defendant, DishNetwork will not install its
satellite antennae upon a residential property without first
obtaining written authorization from the landlord," the complaint
states.

Jacen claims that DirecTV has installed satellite equipment for at
least three of its tenants within the past 3 years, without even
attempting to get permission.

Jacen demands injunctive relief and damages for unfair
competition.

A copy of the Complaint in Jacen Management LLC v. DIRECTV, Inc.,
Case No. 11-cv-00384 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/01/31/DirecTV.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan R. Plutzik, Esq.
          Jennifer S. Rosenberg, Esq.
          BRAMZON, PLUTZIK, MAHLER & BIRKHAEUSER, LLP
          2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120
          Walnut Creek, CA 94598
          Telephone: (925) 945-0200
          E-mail: aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com
                  jrosenberg@bramsonplutzik.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Nobel, Esq.
          Robert A. Izard, Esq.
          Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
          IZARD NOBEL LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 215
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493-6292
          E-mail: jnobel@izardnobel.com
                  rizard@izardnobel.com
                  mkindall@izardnobel.com


EBAY INC: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Summary Judgment Ruling Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of plaintiffs from a court order granting summary
judgment in favor of eBay, Inc., still remains pending before
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the company's
Jan. 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2010.

In March 2007, a plaintiff filed a purported antitrust class
action lawsuit against eBay in the Western District of Texas
alleging that eBay and its wholly owned subsidiary PayPal
"monopolized" markets through various anticompetitive acts and
tying arrangements.  The plaintiff alleged claims under sections 1
and 2 of the Sherman Act, as well as related state law claims.  In
April 2007, the plaintiff re-filed the complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (No.
07-CV-01882-RS), and dismissed the Texas action.  The complaint
seeks treble damages and an injunction.  In 2007, the case was
consolidated with other similar lawsuits (No. 07-CV-01882JF).  In
June 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In
March 2008, the court granted the motion to dismiss the tying
claims with leave to amend and denied the motion with respect to
the monopolization claims.  Plaintiffs subsequently decided not to
refile the tying claims.  The plaintiffs' motion on class
certification and the Company's motion for summary judgment were
heard by the court in December 2009.  In March 2010, the District
Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment, denied
plaintiffs' motion for class certification as moot, and entered
judgment in the Company's favor.  Plaintiffs have appealed the
District Court's decision, and the matter is fully briefed before
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Company intends to
vigorously oppose plaintiffs' appeal.


EBAY INC: Continues to Defend Two PayPal-Related Suits in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
eBay, Inc., and its subsidiary, PayPal, Inc., continue to defend
themselves against two class action lawsuits alleging violations
of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act pending in California,
according to the Company's Jan. 28, 2011, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2010.

In the second quarter of 2010, two putative class-action lawsuits
(Devinda Fernando and Vadim Tsigel v. eBay Inc. and PayPal, Inc.;
and Moises Zepeda v. PayPal, Inc.) were filed in the U.S. District
Court in the Northern District of California. These lawsuits
contain allegations related to violations of aspects of the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E and violations of a
previous settlement agreement related to Regulation E, and/or
allege that PayPal improperly held users' funds or otherwise
improperly limited user's accounts. These lawsuits seek damages as
well as changes to PayPal's practices among other remedies. A
determination that there have been violations of the Electronic
Fund Transfer Act, Regulation E or violations of other laws
relating to PayPal's practices could expose PayPal to significant
liability. Changes to PayPal's practices that may result from
these lawsuits could require PayPal to incur significant costs and
to expend product resources, which could cause delay to other
planned product improvements, which would further harm eBay's
business.


KOSS CORP: Continues to Defend Amended Class Suit in Wisconsin
--------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2009, Koss Corporation learned of significant
unauthorized transactions which totaled approximately $31,500,000
from fiscal 2005 through December 2009.  The volume of these
unauthorized transactions was $10,286,988 from July 1, 2009 until
the unauthorized transactions were discovered in December 2009.
In the three months ended December 31, 2009, the unauthorized
transactions were $4,962,824.

On January 15, 2010, a class action complaint was filed in federal
court in Wisconsin against the Company, Michael Koss and Sujata
Sachdeva.  The suit alleges violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-
5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act relating to the
unauthorized transactions and requests an award of compensatory
damages in an amount to be proven at trial.  An amended complaint
was filed on September 10, 2010, adding Grant Thornton LLP as a
defendant.

No updates were reported in the Company's Jan. 28, 2011, Form 10-Q
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended December 31, 2010.

Koss Corporation -- http://www.koss.com/-- is engaged in the
design, manufacture and sale of stereo headphones and related
accessory products.  The company's products are sold through audio
specialty stores, the Internet, direct mail catalogs,
regional department store chains, discount department stores,
military exchanges, prisons and national retailers under the Koss
name and dual label.  The company also sells products to
distributors for resale to school systems and directly to other
manufactures for inclusion with their own products.


KRAFT FOODS: Faces Class Action Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
workers at the Kraft Foods Global Inc. plant in Granite City are
seeking to lead a class of fellow workers in a suit that claims
they were not paid for all the hours they worked.

The class action filed Jan. 27 is the first class action filed in
Madison County this year.

Lead plaintiff Joan L. Jones claims that she and other hourly
workers at the plant were not paid for attending safety and other
meetings and were not paid for the time it takes to put on
protective gear mandated by Kraft.

Ms. Jones claims that the failures to pay constitute violations of
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The suit seeks a judgment in the amount of the wages not paid to
the approximately 400 to 500 hundred potential class members and
other relief.

Jones is represented by Joseph Phebus, Ryan Bradley and William
Graham Jr. of Phebus & Koester LLP of Urbana, Ill.

Kraft has yet to enter an appearance in the case and has not yet
answered the claims.

Last year, there were nine class actions filed in Madison County.
The Jones case is the first to be filed this year.

The case is Madison case number 11-L-082.


LAW SOCIETY OF NSW: Clients Mull Class Action to Recover Money
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bev Jordan, writing for Hills Shire Times, reports shattered
clients of former Dural solicitor John Gordon Bradfield are hoping
they can mount a class action against the Law Society of NSW in a
bid to get their money back.

More than 100 clients lost a total of $30 million that they had
entrusted to the well-known and liked solicitor.

It has been just over two years since the Law Society suspended
his practicing certificate, effectively closing down his practice
which had operated in the Hills for more than 40 years.

Many clients are still waiting for justice.

Bob Furness told the Times last week he was hoping former clients
would join a class action to force the Law Society to accept
liability for the actions of Mr. Bradfield who lost the money
through a mortgage lending scheme.

Mr. Furness and his wife Jan invested a total of $200,000 with
Bradfield Anderson Solicitors at Round Corner after he told them a
developer needed money and was offering 10% interest.

What they did not know was that he was not licensed to offer the
mortgage investment.

Changes to legislation introduced after an Albury legal firm lost
more than $70 million meant that after October 2005 lawyers had to
obtain government licenses to lend money and had to conduct their
mortgage lending practices separately from their legal practices.

Peter Dawson, the Dural solicitor who blew the whistle on
Mr. Bradfield and reported him to the Law Society, said
Mr. Bradfield "ignored" the legal changes and continued to run a
mortgage practice.  His clients had no idea he was breaching the
Legal Profession Act.

The "Ponzi"-style scheme meant he had to attract new investors
continually so he could pay the interest owed to other investors.

The Law Society suspended Mr. Bradfield's license for breaches of
the Legal Profession Act and the misappropriation of trust funds.

Mr. Dawson, who is representing 11 former Bradfield clients, said
while the Fidelity Fund was paying clients for investments made
before October 2005 it was wrong that they were not compensating
all clients.

"I believe the Law Society has been negligent in not ensuring that
Bradfield had closed his lending practice and that ex gratia
payments should be made to those who lost their money.

"I'm appalled by my society's attempt to sweep it under the carpet
of legislative protection.

"It's not at all professional or ethical -- it's just wrong.  I'd
really like to see these people get their money back."

Former clients of John Bradfield who have lost money are urged to
call Mr. Furness on 0427 159 220.


LEXISNEXIS: Faces Class Action for Concealing E-Filing Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford at Courthouse News Service reports that
LexisNexis faces class actions in state and federal courts, which
claim that it's illegally concealing charges and overbilling
litigants who must file documents electronically in a Texas state
court.  As a federal judge considered whether to dismiss lead
plaintiff Karen McPeters' case against the publishing giant,
Ms. McPeters last week filed a deceptive trade claim against
LexisNexis in San Antonio state court.

Ms. McPeters' claims are based on a 2003 order from 9th Montgomery
County District Court Judge Frederick Edwards, who ordered private
litigants in his court to file records online through LexisNexis.
Montgomery County is just north of Houston.

In the federal case, Ms. McPeters says Montgomery County District
Clerk Barbara Gladden-Adamick enforced the e-filing requirement by
refusing to file any document given to her in person; by returning
unfiled any document mailed to her office for filing; and by
returning a document filed in person with a "Void" mark over the
clerk's file stamp, with a letter instructing the litigant to file
through LexisNexis.

"It is a violation of the Texas Constitution that requires access
to open courts," Ms. McPeter's attorney Robert Mays said.

"If it was an option, I would have no problem.  But the way it is
implemented, if you hand documents or mail them to the district
clerk, she returns them unfiled."

Ms. McPeters filed the federal class action in April 2010 against
Montgomery County, Barbara Gladden-Adamick, Judge Edwards, and
Netherlands-based Reed Elsevier dba LexisNexis.

Ms. McPeters claimed Judge Edwards' order restricts litigants'
access to court by forcing them to "pay illegal filing fees,
services, charges and taxes, not authorized by statute, and
exceeding the amounts required by statute."

"Everybody who files a lawsuit is entitled to be treated the same
and charged the same fee for filing and that's not what's
happening in Montgomery County," Mr. Mays said.

Lawsuits filed by the State of Texas, Child Protective Services,
adoptions and new divorce and annulment cases are exempt from the
order -- and from LexisNexis fees.

LexisNexis conceals that it charges almost $16 for every document
filed in a case, while a competing e-file provider, Texas On-Line,
for example, charges $7.24 to file a document and "shows the
charge at the time of filing," according to Ms. McPeters' state
complaint.

Ms. McPeters filed a discrimination complaint against Montgomery
County in 2007 and it came under Judge Edwards' order when it was
transferred to his court.

But since neither Montgomery County nor LexisNexis gives litigants
a list of the e-filing charges, Ms. McPeters says, she did not
learn about the e-filing rates until the company billed her
lawyer, in March 2009.

U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison heard Montgomery County's motion
to dismiss Ms. McPeters' case in December 2010.

The county argued that Judge Edwards' order is legal because it is
based on a 1997 miscellaneous order from the Texas Supreme Court,
which said that a district court in the county could "from time to
time, by written order, select and designate those cases which
shall be assigned to the electronic filing system."

Ms. McPeters' attorney particularly objected to the clerk's
refusing to accept documents that are hand-delivered.

Ms. McPeters, who as of April 2010 had paid LexisNexis $444, also
claims that LexisNexis' fees duplicate part of the clerk's charges
when each lawsuit is filed.

In her federal complaint, Ms. McPeters wants Montgomery County
enjoined from requiring that court documents in its 9th District
Court be filed electronically with LexisNexis.  She says the order
violates her constitutional rights to due process and equal
protection.

In the December hearing, Judge Ellison said he was worried about
an "issue of standing, as the Supreme Court has found that filing
fees don't necessarily violate due process or equal protection
laws."

The judge said that three federal courts "have held that filing
fees are not a violation of due process."  He told Mr. Mays his
client's case may be better suited for state court.

So on Jan. 25, in San Antonio Mays filed a state class action
under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act,
claiming that Lexis Nexis' failure to disclose its charges, and
its threats of unlawful collection measures, including reporting
nonpaying litigants' attorneys to the Texas State Bar and
presiding judge, violate state law.

LexisNexis is also violating the Texas Consumer Protection Act by
passing off its goods or services as those of the Montgomery
County District Clerk, and confusing its affiliation with the
clerk, Ms. McPeters says in her complaint in Bexar County Court.

More than 16,000 Montgomery County litigants have been subject to
LexisNexis' filing fees since 2000, Ms. McPeters says.

"LexisNexis charges are an unconstitutional barrier to open courts
according to authority from both the Texas Supreme Court and the
Texas Attorney General," Ms. McPeters says in her state complaint.
"There is no precedent for this barrier.  The charges are like a
poll tax.  Minorities, the poor, elderly and the less educated are
likely to be denied their day in court.  Is it reasonable to
require them to be computer literate? Payment for justice is now a
fact of life, but should it be?"

A copy of the Complaint in McPeters v. LexisNexis, Case No.
2011CI-01119 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Bexar Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/01/31/McPeters.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert L. Mays, Jr., Esq.
          8626 Tesoro Drive, Suite 820
          San Antonio, TX 78217
          Telephone: 210-657-7772


SASSY INC: Recalls 37,000 Refreshing Rings Infant Teethers/Rattles
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Sassy Inc., of Kentwood, Mich., announced a voluntary recall of
about 37,000 Refreshing Rings Infant Teethers/Rattles.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

Small pieces of the plastic ball can detach as a result of
children chewing on the teether/rattle, posing an ingestion
hazard.

The firm has received one report of pieces of the black plastic
from the polka dot ball detaching while being chewed.  No injuries
have been reported.

This recall involves Refreshing Rings infant teethers/rattles
intended for babies ages three months and older.  The product has
a red, water-filled ring on one end and a black and white polka
dot ball on the other end.  The two ends of the rattles/teethers
are connected by a black and white, flexible plastic rod with
three floating rings.  Style number 80026 is printed on the
packaging.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11114.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11114.html/

Consumers should immediately take the teethers/rattles from
children and contact Sassy Inc. for instructions on how to return
the product for a free replacement toy.  For additional
information, contact Sassy Inc. at (800) 323-6336 between
8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.sassybaby.com/


SELECT COMFORT: Sued in Ill. for Non-Payment of Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Select Comfort Corp. cheats
workers of overtime pay, according to a federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Cioe v. Select Comfort Corporation, et
al., Case No. 11-cv-00647 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/01/31/Employ.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ilan Chorowsky, Esq.
          Lindsey Goldberg, Esq.
          PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP LLC
          505 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 350
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 787-2717
          E-mail: ilan@progressivelaw.com
                  lindsey@progressivelaw.com

               - and -

          Robin Potter, Esq.
          ROBIN POTTER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 861-1800
          E-mail: robin@potterlaw.org


SNAPPLE BEVERAGE: Judge Grants Motion for Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that Snapple does
not owe class damages for advertising "All Natural" ingredients on
juices that contained high-fructose corn syrup, a federal judge
ruled. U.S. District Judge Denise Cote granted summary judgment
because plaintiffs "failed to present reliable evidence that they
paid a premium for Snapple's 'All Natural' label."

Evan Weiner and Timothy McClausland filed the class action on
Oct. 10, 2007.  They claimed Snapple's label was misleading
because high-fructose corn syrup "does not exist in nature."  They
sought damages for deceptive trade, unjust enrichment and breach
of warranty.

Their first amended complaint stated that to "produce HFCS [high-
fructose corn syrup] cornstarch is first treated with a purified
enzyme, alpha-amylase, to produce shorter chains of sugars called
polysaccharides."

This process requires use of a bacterium, usually Bacillus.sp, the
complaint states.

A second enzyme, glucoamylase, which is industrially produced with
a fungus, is added to produce glucose.

Then a third enzyme converts the glucose to fructose, which
requires two more steps to produce a concentrate, the complaint
states.

In a 2002 op-ed piece for The New York Times, Michael Pollan,
author of "The Omnivore's Dilemma," wrote: "It's probably no
coincidence that the wholesale switch to corn sweeteners in the
1980s marks the beginning of the epidemic of obesity and Type 2
diabetes in this country.  Sweetness became so cheap that soft
drink makers, rather than lower their prices, super-sized their
serving portions and marketing budgets."

Snapple started substituting sugar for high-fructose corn syrup in
all of its products labeled "All Natural" in 2009, Judge Cote
wrote.

She denied class certification for the plaintiffs in September
2010.

Snapple sought summary judgment on Sept. 17, 2010, which
Judge Cote granted.

"According to Snapple, because the plaintiffs have not offered
evidence showing either the price they paid for Snapple or the
prices charged by competitors for comparable beverages, they
cannot demonstrate that they paid a premium for the 'All Natural'
Snapple product and thus cannot show harm stemming from the
allegedly misleading label . . .

"Neither of the plaintiffs has any record of his purchases of
Snapple.  Their most recent purchases were made in 2005 and 2007,
or 3 to 5 years before their deposition testimony was taken.  Not
surprisingly, they had only vague recollections of the locations,
dates, and prices of their purchases of Snapple," the judge wrote.

The plaintiffs could not determine the prices they paid for the
Snapple products, nor could they recall the prices of competing
beverages made without corn syrup.

Judge Cote wrote that it "would be difficult to recall" such
information because prices in the "retail market vary widely," but
it is necessary for the lawsuit to have merit.

"While the difficulty that the plaintiffs face in showing injury
is great, it is nonetheless their burden to make such a showing,
and they have failed to offer sufficient evidence to permit a jury
to render an award in their favor," the judge wrote.

She said that the plaintiffs gave only rough estimates of the
prices of their Snapple purchases in their depositions, testifying
that the bottles cost "somewhere south of $2" and "$1.50 to $1.75,
around there."

"Snapple is entitled to summary judgment on the ground that the
plaintiffs have failed to identify sufficient evidence to permit a
jury to find that they suffered any injury."

A copy of the Opinion and Order in Weiner, et al. v. Snapple
Beverage Corporation, Case No. 07-cv-08742 (S.D.N.Y.), are
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/01/31/SnappleRuling.pdf

The Plaintiffs were represented by:

          Daniel R. Lapinski, Esq.
          Lynne M. Kizis, Esq.
          Philip A. Tortoreti, Esq.
          WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
          90 Woodbridge Center Drive
          Woodbridge, NJ 07095
          Telephone: 732-636-8000

Snapple Beverage Corporation was represented by:

          Van H. Beckwith, Esq.
          Ryan L. Bangert, Esq.
          BAKER BOTTS LLP
          2001 Ross Avenue
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: 214-953-6500

               - and -

          Seth T. Taube, Esq.
          Maureen P. Reid, Esq.
          BAKER BOTTS LLP
          30 Rockefeller Plaza
          New York, NY 10112
          Telephone: 212-408-2500


TACO BELL: Mulls Countersuit Against Alabama Law Firm
-----------------------------------------------------
Gergana Koleva, writing for Wallet Pop, reports The Taco Bell
controversy over whether its meat really is "ground beef," as the
company claims, or some mysterious concoction of fillers and
additives has dominated consumer news since word got out that the
Mexican-style food franchise was slapped with a class action
lawsuit last week.  In a new advertising campaign run in major
daily newspapers, the Yum! Brands chain defends the quality of its
beef in an effort to counter negative perceptions.

"Thank you for suing us.  Here's the truth about our seasoned
beef," the ad copy reads, before launching into a detailed
description of the percentages of beef and Secret Recipe
seasonings the company uses.  Those include salt, chili pepper,
onion powder, tomato powder, garlic powder, cocoa powder, oats,
caramelized sugar, yeast, citric acid, and "other ingredients that
contribute to the flavor, moisture, consistency, and quality of
our seasoned beef," the ad says.

"Plain beef tastes boring," the ad also says, explaining that the
only reason Taco Bell adds anything to its beef is to enhance its
flavor.  "Otherwise we'd end up with nothing more than the bland
flavor of ground beef, and that doesn't make for great-tasting
tacos."

While the ads are explanatory in nature and clearly aimed at
re-educating consumers, Taco Bell has also threatened to
countersue the Alabama law firm that filed the suit against it.
In an earlier statement, Taco Bell President Greg Creed said the
lawyers had gotten their facts "absolutely wrong."

Bill Marler, a foodborne illness and product liability attorney
who has represented clients in at least three previous food-
related lawsuits against Taco Bell, said the company has made a
clever move by counterattacking its accusers.

"Taco Bell has done an effective job of taking on the lawyers,
[regardless] of whether or not they were selling the definition of
the meat," Mr. Marler told Consumer Ally.  "Lawyers are such an
easy target to take on."

However, Mr. Marler noted, the legal roots of the controversy lie
just as much with Taco Bell.  "It's inconceivable to me that a
company as sophisticated as Yum! Brands didn't vet with their
lawyers the words that they use to advertise their food," he said
of the claims that landed the company in trouble, namely that it
uses "ground beef" or "seasoned ground beef" in its products.

The class action suit alleges the company only uses about 35% real
beef, with the remaining 65% made up of various fillers, binders,
and extenders.  Such percentages do not meet USDA's minimum
requirements for the food mixture to be labeled and advertised as
"beef," according to the suit.

"Just because the food is cheap doesn't mean they should be able
to tell you that it's something it is not," Mr. Marler said.  "But
my strong suspicion is that their aggressive behavior in the ads
is likely justified."


TIBCO SOFTWARE: Awaits Court OK of Merger-Related Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TIBCO Software Inc. is awaiting court approval of its settlement
of a class action lawsuit filed in connection with its acquisition
of Proginet, according to the Company's Jan. 28, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2010.

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

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


TIBCO SOFTWARE: Appeals Still Pending in IPO Allocation Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
TIBCO Software Inc., certain of its directors and officers, and
certain investment bank underwriters have been named in a putative
class action for violation of the federal securities laws in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, captioned "In re TIBCO Software Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation." This is one of a number of cases
challenging underwriting practices in the initial public offerings
of more than 300 companies, which have been coordinated for
pretrial proceedings as "In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation." Plaintiffs generally allege that the underwriters
engaged in undisclosed and improper underwriting activities,
namely the receipt of excessive brokerage commissions and customer
agreements regarding post-offering purchases of stock in exchange
for allocations of IPO shares. Plaintiffs also allege that various
investment bank securities analysts issued false and misleading
analyst reports. The complaint against the Company claims that the
purported improper underwriting activities were not disclosed in
the registration statements for the Company's IPO and secondary
public offering and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a
purported class of persons who purchased the Company's securities
or sold put options during the time period from July 13, 1999 to
December 6, 2000.  A lawsuit with similar allegations of
undisclosed improper underwriting practices, and part of the same
coordinated proceedings, is pending against Talarian, which the
Company acquired in 2002. That action is captioned "In re Talarian
Corp. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation." The
complaint against Talarian, certain of its underwriters and
certain of its former directors and officers claims that the
purported improper underwriting activities were not disclosed in
the registration statement for Talarian's IPO and seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of persons who
purchased Talarian securities during the time period from July 20,
2000 to December 6, 2000.

The parties have reached a global settlement of the litigation,
including the actions against the Company and Talarian. Under the
settlement, the insurers will pay the full amount of settlement
share allocated to the Company (its financial liability will be
limited to paying the remaining balance of the applicable
retention under Talarian's directors and officers liability
insurance policy). In addition, the Company, and the other
defendants will receive complete dismissals from the case. On
October 5, 2009, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement. Certain objectors have filed appeals.

No updates were reported in TIBCO Software Inc.'s Jan. 28, 2011,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2010.


TOSHIBA AMERICA: HR Managers Files Employment Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Human Resources Manager of Toshiba America Nuclear Energy
Corporation filed a class action employment lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
Jan. 31 in an effort to end systemic, companywide gender
discrimination against herself and other female employees by TANE
and its parent corporation, Toshiba America, Inc.

Elaine Cyphers joined TANE as its Human Resources Manager in
June 2008.  Prior to joining Toshiba, she had more than 25 years
of human resources experience.

According to the Complaint, although Toshiba publicly touts its
commitment to gender diversity and its efforts to promote more
female employees to managerial positions, discrimination against
women is pervasive in the company.

The Complaint details a pattern of discrimination against women
employed by the giant technology manufacturer and energy system
supplier.  The Complaint asserts that Toshiba engages in systemic
gender discrimination against female employees by paying them less
than their male counterparts, denying them promotions into better
and higher paying positions, limiting their employment
opportunities to lower and less desirable job classifications, and
exposing them to different treatment as employees.  The Complaint
also details preferential treatment that males at Toshiba receive
with respect to salary, benefits, bonuses and promotions.

Ms. Cyphers is represented in the matter by David Sanford in the
Washington D.C. office of Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP.  The
firm recently secured the largest jury award in the U.S. in an
employment discrimination case, in this same court, in May 2010
when a jury returned a verdict of $253 million in compensatory and
punitive damage at Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.  After
weeks of negotiations, the parties settled that case for $175
million.

"Ms. Cyphers has experienced personal and painful gender
discrimination at Toshiba America Nuclear Energy," said David
Sanford.  "As an experienced human resources professional, she is
very aware of the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act, which Toshiba has
systematically violated in its treatment of her and its other
female employees.  The company added insult to injury by
retaliating against Elaine.  This suit will remedy that
retaliation and discriminatory conduct."

In January 2009, Ms. Cyphers and another employee reported
discriminatory conduct by Toshiba's Vice President of Human
Resources to the company's General Counsel.  After Ms. Cyphers
lodged her complaint, the Vice President and General Counsel
launched a campaign to force Ms. Cyphers out of TANE by
retaliating against her in ways that harmed her reputation,
hindered her advancement and limited her earning potential.

The Complaint describes this retaliatory response as typical of
Toshiba's pattern and practice of facilitating and perpetuating
gender discrimination against female employees by discouraging
employees from complaining about such discrimination, failing to
properly investigate reports of such discrimination, and failing
to remedy or prevent the recurrence of gender discrimination
reported to the company.

Subsequent to Ms. Cyphers' interviewing for and accepting TANE's
"top" HR job, Toshiba created a new HR position above her, and did
not publicize the new position or inform Ms. Cyphers about it.
TANE filled the new position from within Toshiba with a male less
qualified and experienced than she.  After that male's promotion,
Ms. Cyphers was stripped of her primary duties as HR Manager and
assigned low-level administrative and clerical tasks.  Ms.
Cyphers' responsibilities for recruiting and hiring were taken
away and assigned to a less qualified and experienced male
contract employee.

The proposed class includes all females employed by Toshiba in the
U.S.  Ms. Cyphers is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief,
back pay, front pay and lost benefits, as well as compensatory,
nominal and punitive damages in an amount of $100 million or more
for herself and similarly situated female Toshiba employees.

Toshiba America is a subsidiary of Tokyo-based Toshiba
Corporation, a technology manufacturer with 364 consolidated
subsidiaries worldwide.  With some 8,000 employees throughout the
US, it is the parent company of a group of technology companies
that develop, manufacture and market electronic products.  Toshiba
America is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in New York
City.  TANE is a subsidiary of Toshiba America that markets and
promotes advanced boiling water nuclear power plants and related
supports and services.  It is incorporated in Delaware and
headquartered in Falls Church, VA.

Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP (SWH) -- http://www.swhlegal.com/--
is a boutique class-action litigation law firm with offices in New
York, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco.  SWH specializes in
civil rights and general public interest cases, representing
plaintiffs with employment discrimination, labor and wage
violations, predatory lending, whistleblower, consumer fraud, and
other claims.  Along with an expertise in class actions, SWH also
represents select individuals and has developed a particular
expertise in the representation of executives in employment
disputes.


TURNER INDUSTRIES: Workers File Racial Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Eaton, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports nearly
250 workers sued Turner Industries Group of Baton Rouge on
Jan. 30, alleging racial discrimination in hiring, pay, promotions
and on-the-job treatment.

The lawsuit against the closely held industrial construction and
fabrication company, filed electronically in the U.S. Court for
the Eastern District of Texas in Marshall, escalates in scope and
size a dispute that Turner seemed to have put behind it last
summer.

In July, Turner settled similar allegations of discrimination in
an agreement with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
and half a dozen workers at its pipe plant in Paris, Texas.

Terms of the settlement are confidential.  Last March, the EEOC
had issued a letter saying it found "reasonable cause to believe"
that Turner discriminated against black employees.

After the EEOC finding became public in April, hundreds of current
and former Turner employees from across Texas and Louisiana came
forward with similar allegations, said James Vagnini, a partner of
Valli, Kane & Vagnini in Garden City, N.Y., which represents the
workers who filed suit.

The company, a large industrial contractor that does work for oil
refineries across the Gulf Coast, has adamantly disputed that
African-American employees were mistreated.

Nina Taylor, a fire watch, is a plaintiff in an EEOC lawsuit
against Turner Industries, one of hundreds of workers filing
racial discrimination complaints about the Baton Rouge, La heavy-
construction company.

John Fenner, Turner's corporate counsel, didn't respond to
requests for comment Sunday.  But in an interview Friday, he said
the company's policy is clear: "We don't tolerate any activity
that in any way disparages any of our employees."

Employment discrimination has been at the heart of some high-
profile class-action lawsuits, in which several plaintiffs sue
claiming to represent a large group of unnamed people.

The Supreme Court is set to decide later this year whether women
who feel they were discriminated against by Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
can sue as a class representing half a million employees or if
each woman who claims discrimination must file an individual
lawsuit.  Wal-Mart denies the allegations.

In the Turner case, hundreds of named plaintiffs are filing their
own individual experiences, which experts said is uncommon.  "Even
just to have multiple plaintiffs is unusual," said Laura Beth
Nielsen, a professor of sociology at Northwestern University in
Chicago and a research professor at the American Bar Foundation.

In their 374-page complaint, current and former hourly workers for
Turner allege "disparate treatment and derogatory slurs."  They
say they weren't given opportunities for advancement and
promotion, and in some cases were replaced with less experienced
white workers.

The workers also describe racial epithets allegedly made by co-
workers and supervisors, and the appearance of racist graffiti and
nooses.  When they complained, the workers said in the suit, they
were ignored or retaliated against.

The workers are seeking actual and punitive damages, as well as an
array of changes in the company's personnel practices.


UNITED PANAM: Faces Class Action Over Proposed Merger
-----------------------------------------------------
A shareholder that owns more than 150,000 common shares of United
PanAm Financial Corp. has filed a class action lawsuit alleging
breaches of fiduciary duties against UPFC, its directors,
including its Chairman Guillermo Bron, and certain other entities
in connection with the proposed merger of UPFC announced on
December 28, 2010.  The case has been filed in the Superior Court
for the State of California, County of Orange, and been assigned
Civil Case No. 30-2011-00442721-CU-BT-CXC.

The complaint filed in the lawsuit alleges that the proposed
merger, which was approved by the Company's board of directors, is
the product of unfair dealing and is at an unfair price.  The
entity that will be acquiring UPFC if the merger is approved by
shareholders is controlled by Mr. Bron and his affiliates.
Mr. Bron, as the Company's largest shareholder, and the other
directors who approved the merger, owe a duty to shareholders to
obtain a fair price pursuant to a fair process.  The Complaint
alleges that this did not occur because, among other things, there
is no indication that the Company was shopped to other potential
purchasers, or that the proposed merger represents the best offer
available.

Further, the Complaint alleges that, based on the publicly
available information, the proposed merger price of $7.05 per
common share is facially inadequate and significantly below UPFC's
book value at the time of the announced merger.  The Complaint
further alleges that the merger price is significantly below the
multiple-to-book value obtained by shareholders of similar
companies that have recently been acquired, including by
shareholders of AmeriCredit Corporation, which was acquired by
General Motors Corp. on July 22, 2010, and by shareholders of
Chrysler Financial Corporation, which was acquired by Toronto-
Dominion Bank on December 21, 2010.

Finally, the Complaint alleges that the timing of the merger is
suspect because it is designed to prevent shareholders from
continuing to enjoy the fruits of the Company's recent turnaround
effort, which included shedding all risky loans from its books,
reducing its overhead and costs, and bringing in new management.
The Complaint alleges that, as a result of these actions, the
Company's common stock price has rebounded from lows reached
during the heart of the recent global recession.  It also alleges
that the Company, and its industry, is poised for growth as the
economy begins to expand, and that the merger aims to secure the
benefits of the growth for Company insiders to the economic
detriment of UPFC's public shareholders.

The merger is subject to approval by vote of a majority of the
unaffiliated (minority) shareholders, and has been set for a vote
on February 24, 2011.

If you would like further information about this action, you may
speak with the following attorneys:

Contacts: David Wissbroecker, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: djr@rgrdlaw.com

               - or -

          Robert Plosky, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 759-4600
          E-mail: rplosky@wolfpopper.com


WAL-MART STORES: Defense Bar Files Amicus Curiae Brief in Dukes
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Voice of the Defense Bar recently filed an amicus curiae brief
in the United States Supreme Court in the case of Wal-Mart Stores
Inc. v. Dukes, et al. (No. 10-277).  In the brief, DRI asks the
Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit Court's decision that allows
1.5 million plaintiffs' claims to proceed as a nationwide class
action.

"The Court's careful consideration of the class certification of
this case is essential, as the outcome will affect class action
cases in all contexts."

In what originated as a sexual discrimination case by Wal-Mart
employees Betty Dukes and other females, the Supreme Court will
rule on the validity of the class action mechanism itself, not the
merits of the respondents' grievances.  The respondents accused
Wal-Mart Corporation of engaging in a pattern and practice of pay
and promotion discrimination based on gender.

DRI's brief argues that both the size and proposed make-up of the
class, which includes hundreds of thousands of female current and
former Wal-Mart employees, violates due process and lowers the
burden on plaintiffs to show that they were victims of
intentional, institutionalized discrimination.  Granting class
action status in the suit would also eliminate Wal-Mart's right to
present individualized defenses for the numerous and varied claims
the company faces from suit plaintiffs.

"Allowing hundreds of thousands of individuals to file a singular,
overly-generalized claim clearly disregards the requirement of
individualized proof," said R. Matthew Cairns, president of DRI.
"While we hope justice is served for anyone who faces
discrimination, this enormous aggregation of truly disparate
claims could not result in any kind of just and fair ruling."

The Supreme Court's ruling would affect the formation of future
class actions because a failure to overturn the Ninth Circuit
decision would likely trigger "an explosion of meritless class
actions filed solely to force settlements," according to DRI's
brief.

"The Court's careful consideration of the class certification of
this case is essential, as the outcome will affect class action
cases in all contexts," said Mr. Cairns.  "The Ninth Circuit's
ruling clearly manipulated Rule 23, misinterpreting the Rules
Enabling Act, which is essential to assessing class action cases
fairly in the civil justice system."

Immediately following oral arguments before the Court, DRI will
host a webinar addressing the key issues the Court must address as
well as the wide-reaching implications that the decision will have
on business litigation.

The Voice of the Defense Bar -- http://www.dri.org/-- is the
national organization of more than 22,000 defense trial lawyers
and corporate counsel.  DRI provides numerous educational and
informational resources to members and offers many opportunities
for liaison among defense trial lawyers, Corporate America, and
state and local legal defense organizations.  DRI also has an
international presence, seeking to enhance understanding of the
law among members of the defense community who have reason to be
concerned with the expanding globalization of litigation defense.


WELLS FARGO: Sued in Washington Over Unjustified "Fax Fee"
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Wells Fargo Home Mortgage
charges an unjustified "fax fee" of $10 in property transactions,
a class action claims in King County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Hammer, et al. v. Wells Fargo Home
Mortgage, Inc., Case No. 11-2-04830-6 (Wash. Super. Ct., King
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/01/31/WellsFargo.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          SCHOETER GOLDMARK & BENDER
          500 Central Building
          810 Third Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 622-8000


WESTERN DIGITAL: Final Hearing on Class Action Pact Set This Month
------------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing for the final approval of a settlement resolving a
putative class action complaint filed against Western Digital
Corporation is set for February 2011, according to Western
Digital's Jan. 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2010.

On March 20, 2009, plaintiff Ghazala H. Durrani, a former employee
of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint in the
Alameda County (California) Superior Court.  The complaint alleges
that certain of the Company's engineers have been misclassified as
exempt employees under California state law and are, therefore,
due unspecified amounts for unpaid hourly overtime wages and other
amounts, as well as penalties for allegedly missed meal and rest
periods.  By court order dated April 24, 2009, the case was
transferred to the Orange County (California) Superior Court,
where it is now pending.  On or about June 16, 2009, the Company
was dismissed from the case without prejudice by stipulation,
leaving WDTI as the sole remaining defendant.  On or about June 4,
2009, WDTI filed its answer to the complaint, denying the
substantive allegations thereof and raising several affirmative
defenses.  Formal discovery has commenced.  The parties
participated in a mediation of the case on June 3, 2010, which led
to a proposed settlement of the case.  The proposed settlement
would resolve the case on a class-wide basis for an immaterial
amount that was accrued by the Company in the fourth quarter of
fiscal 2010.  The proposed class action settlement must receive
preliminary and final approval by the court before the settlement
will become final and binding.  A hearing for preliminary approval
of the settlement was heard on October 18, 2010, and the court
preliminarily approved the settlement.  The final approval hearing
is currently scheduled for February 2011.  If the court does not
grant final approval of the settlement, and the Company is
unsuccessful in its defense of this matter, potential liability
could include unpaid wages, interest, penalties, attorneys' fees
and costs.  Absent final approval of the settlement, the Company
intends to continue to defend itself vigorously in this matter.


WESTERN DIGITAL: Defends "Wage-Hour" Lawsuit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Western Digital Corporation continues to defend itself against a
"wage-hour" lawsuit filed in Orange County, California, according
to the Company's Jan. 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
December 31, 2010.

On February 26, 2010, and as thereafter amended on August 23,
2010, and December 22, 2010, plaintiff Tarriq Sadaat, a former
employee of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint
in the Orange County (California) Superior Court against the
Company; WDTI; Kelly Services, Inc.; and certain other unnamed
individuals.  The named plaintiff seeks to represent certain
hourly employees who were assigned to work at certain of the
Company's facilities by Kelly Services, a temporary staffing
agency.  In this regard, the complaint alleges that the hourly
employees are due unspecified sums for unpaid overtime wages and
other amounts, as well as penalties for allegedly missed meal and
rest periods.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages including
lost wages, penalties under the California Labor Code and other
statutes, compensatory and punitive damages, declaratory relief,
injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company's response to the complaint was filed and served in
January 2011.  The Company denies the allegations and intends to
defend itself vigorously.


XO HOLDINGS: Shareholders Sue D&Os Over ACF Deal
------------------------------------------------
Robert Murphy, IRA, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Carl C. Icahn, et al., Case No. 650241/2011 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., New York Cty. January 28, 2011), accuses XO Holdings, Inc.
Board Chairman Icahn and other members of the Company's Board of
Directors of breaching their fiduciary duties to the Company's
public shareholders in connection with their unlawful scheme and
plan to sell to ACF Industries Holding Corp. all outstanding
common shares of the Company not currently owned by ACF and
Mr. Icahn for $0.70 offer price per share.

Mr. Murphy (through his IRA) is the beneficial owner of XO Common
Stock.  Mr. Icahn is the beneficial owner of a majority of the
outstanding shares of the Company through ACF or other of his
affiliates.  Specifically, directly and indirectly through his
affiliates, including ACF, Mr. Icahn beneficially owns over 60% of
the outstanding common stock of XO, and over 91.5% of the voting
control of XO.

Defendant XO provides 21st century communications services for
businesses and communications services providers, including 50
percent of the Fortune 500 and leading cable companies, carriers,
content providers and mobile operators.  XO common stock is traded
over the counter under the symbol "XOHO".

Defendant ACF is a privately held company that is an affiliate of
and controlled by Mr. Icahn.

The Complaint says the $0.70 offer price per share, made by ACF on
January 19, 2011, is grossly inadequate.  Among other things, it
is below the current market price and recent trading prices, and
is even below the $0.80 per share price at which Mr. Icahn
proposed to acquire the same public shares in a buyout barely a
year earlier, which price was rejected as being too low and
inadequate.

Mr. Murphy said XO and the Board have further breached their
fiduciary duties to the public shareholders of XO by creating a
"rigged" process designed to approve the ACF offer.  Mr. Murphy
relates that the "independent" special committee selected to
evaluate the ACF's offer and also to negotiate over the terms of
the transaction is composed of directors elected by Mr. Icahn and
two of three members that have longstanding business and financial
connections to Mr. Icahn.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lester L. Levy, Esq.
          Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
          Joshua W. Ruthizer, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 759-4600


* Number of Securities Class Actions in Canada Slips
----------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gray, writing for Globe and Mail, reports that not too long
ago, legal experts warned that Ontario's move to boost the rights
of shareholders by allowing them to sue boards they accused of
fibbing or manipulating stock prices would result in a U.S.-sized
wave of litigation.

Six years later, Canadian shareholders have been more vocal, with
proxy fights and arguments against things like exorbitant
executive pay on the rise.  But Ontario's ruling on secondary
market liability -- which recognizes the right of shareholders to
sue a board not just when it issues stock, but over shares already
on the market -- hasn't brought on an unrelenting wave of
lawsuits.

The latest numbers from NERA Economic Consulting count a record
28 securities class action cases under way in Canada, with
$15.9-billion in outstanding claims.  However, the number of new
cases filed continues to slip.  In 2010, eight new securities
class actions were filed, compared to nine in 2009 and 10 in 2008.
Five cases were settled last year, with an average payout of
$13.5-million.

Regardless of whether shareholders are suing in Canada, companies
here have also long had to keep an eye on the U.S., where this
kind of litigation is more common.  There are currently 13 active
securities class actions in the U.S. against Canadian-domiciled
companies, NERA says.

But as Mark Berenblut, a co-author of the study, points out, a
ruling last year by the U.S. Supreme Court may shield some
Canadian firms from U.S. courts.  The decision, Morrison v.
Australia National Bank, appears to limit the extraterritorial
reach of U.S. litigation to companies listed on a U.S. stock
exchange or to securities purchased in the United States.

                             *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Leah
Felisilda, Neil U. Lim, Rousel Elaine Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante,
Ronald Sy, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2011.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *