/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110906.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, September 6, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 176


AVX CORP: Pollution Lawsuit Gets Class-Action Status
BIRD BRAIN: Nine Manufacturers Recall 2 Mil. Pourable Gel Fuel
BLUE COAT: Accused of Issuing False and Misleading Statements
BLUE COAT: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action in Calif.
CADBURY SCHWEPPES: Price-Fixing Class Action Settlement Okayed

CHEVRON CORP: Gasoline Dispenser Class Action Can't Proceed
E.I. DUPONT: Allen Park Woman Files Class Action Over Imprelis
E.I. DUPONT: Settles Two Chemical Class Actions for $8.3 Mil.
FIRST HEALTH: Burke's Bid to Overturn Settlement Rejected
GOOGLE INC: Judge Rejects 3G Smartphone Class Action

LEIGHTON HOLDINGS: To Vigorously Defend Shareholder Class Action
MANHATTAN GROUP: Recalls 3,445 Wooden Rattles Due to Choking Risk
MICROSOFT CORP: Sued for Tracking Mobile Users' Location Data
N.C. BAPTIST: Judge Has Yet to Approve Class Action Settlement
RE LOANS: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in California

STATE OF IDAHO: Sued Over New Late-Term Abortion Law
STATE OF NEBRASKA: Faces Class Action Over Unborn Child Benefits
SUNSATIONS INC: Agrees to $60T Penalty on Drawstrings Issue
TAKE-TWO: Seeks More Plaintiffs for "Wage Abuse" Class Action
TIMBERCORP: Judge Tosses Investor Class Action Over Collapse


AVX CORP: Pollution Lawsuit Gets Class-Action Status
David Wren, writing for TheSunNews.com, reports that an
environmental contamination lawsuit against electronics
manufacturer AVX Corp. moved a step closer to trial last week when
Horry County Judge Benjamin Culbertson certified a class of
plaintiffs that could include as many as 229 property owners near
the company's site along 17th Avenue South in Myrtle Beach.

Judge Culbertson's ruling on Aug. 30 means the nearly 4-year-old
lawsuit will proceed as a class-action case, with participating
property owners sharing in any property damage reimbursements if
they can prove AVX contaminated their groundwater with
trichloroethylene -- an industrial degreaser that has been linked
to cancer and other health problems.

Surfside Beach lawyer Gene Connell, who is representing the class
of property owners suing AVX, said he expects the case will go to
trial at some point next year.  He said the trial probably will
take between three and four weeks.  The lawsuit has been working
its way through state and federal courts for nearly four years.

AVX officials could not be reached for comment on Aug. 1.

The property included in the class-action lawsuit stretches from
17th Avenue South to 5th Avenue South.  Most of the property is
residential, although about 44 commercial lots are included --
sites where hotels, restaurants, shopping centers and an urgent
care clinic are located.

The contaminated area is based on a map drawn by Charles Fetter, a
hydrogeologist for 35 years and the author of textbooks used by
graduate programs and universities.  Mr. Fetter did not conduct
his own environmental testing but relied on data from AVX, the
S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control and
depositions from project managers working to clean up the

The class of plaintiffs includes people who owned property within
the contaminated area as of Nov. 27, 2007 -- the date the lawsuit
was filed.  Mr. Connell said those people will be sent notices of
the class-action lawsuit this week.  They will have 30 days to opt
out of the case if they don't want to participate or if they want
to sue AVX on their own.  If property owners do not opt out of the
case, they will be automatically included in the class-action

The lawsuit claims groundwater contamination from AVX has ruined
property values in the roughly 12-block area.  Mr. Connell is
seeking unspecified damages from AVX to compensate owners for the
loss of their property values.

AVX about three months ago settled a separate lawsuit with
adjacent property owner Horry Land Co., which also claimed its
property values had been ruined by the contamination.  The terms
of that settlement are confidential, but property records show AVX
bought the 21.5-acre Horry Land site in May for $4.6 million.

A third contamination lawsuit -- filed by a family that wanted to
develop a condominium project near the manufacturer -- also is
pending against AVX.  That property, located at Beaver Road and
17th Avenue South, is not included in the class-action lawsuit.

A federal judge ruled in May that AVX is solely responsible for
the TCE contamination in the Myrtle Beach neighborhood.  AVX,
during a trial held in February, claimed that some of the
pollution might have come from the former Myrtle Beach Air Force
Base, which is adjacent to the manufacturer's site.  Judge Terry
Wooten said there is no evidence to show any of the pollution came
from the military base.  AVX is appealing Judge Wooten's ruling
and a mediation conference is scheduled for Sept. 20 in that case.

Testimony and exhibits presented during the February trial showed
AVX officials knew as early as June 1981 that TCE was potentially
spreading through groundwater from the manufacturer's site to
adjacent properties, threatening city and private wells and the
Pee Dee aquifer.  AVX used as much as 400 tons of TCE each year
for decades until discontinuing its use in 1986, according to
court documents.

Trial exhibits showed an insurance company risk assessor told AVX
in 1981 that as much as 6,200 gallons of TCE was being spilled
into the ground each month at the 17th Avenue South facility.
Another document showed that an underground tank and piping system
used to store and pump TCE to the facility was faulty.

Despite consultants' repeated warnings that testing was necessary,
court testimony shows the company did nothing for decades to
determine whether the pollution was a threat to its neighbors.
When AVX finally told state regulators about the contamination in
1995, testimony showed the company downplayed the problem and said
it was limited to the manufacturer's site.

Although TCE is a health hazard, DHEC does not consider the
pollution in the 12-block neighborhood to be dangerous because it
is not used for drinking water.

Even though it is not a drinking source, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency requires that the groundwater's TCE levels be
reduced to no more than five parts per billion.  A part per
billion is a scientific measurement equivalent to 3 seconds out of
a century.  Groundwater tests in 2006 showed TCE contamination as
high as 18,200 parts per billion on the Horry Land property.

AVX -- which moved its world headquarters from Myrtle Beach to
Greenville in 2009 -- has been paying for studies to determine the
best way to clean up the pollution and expects to use a process
called enhanced reductive chlorination, in which a substance
similar to molasses is injected into the groundwater.  The
molasses-like mixture creates bacteria that eat the TCE, breaking
it down into harmless matter.

BIRD BRAIN: Nine Manufacturers Recall 2 Mil. Pourable Gel Fuel
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), in cooperation
with nine manufacturers and distributors, is announcing a
voluntary recall of all pourable gel fuels made or sold by these
companies.  Due to the serious risks of flash fire and burns when
consumers add pourable gel to an already burning fire pot,
consumers should immediately stop using the pourable gel fuel.

The recall involves an estimated 2 million units of various
pourable gel fuels packaged in one-quart plastic bottles and one-
gallon plastic jugs and sold in scented and non-scented
formulations, which were sold since 2008 for between $5 and $20 by
the companies.

Consumers can contact these firms to obtain instructions for a
refund of the product and for returning unused bottles and jugs:

   * Bird Brain Inc., of Ypsilanti, Michigan;
   * Bond Manufacturing of Antioch, California;
   * Sunjel Company (2 Burn Inc.) of Milwaukee;
   * Fuel Barons Inc. of Lake Tahoe, Nevada;
   * Lamplight Farms Inc of Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin;
   * Luminosities Inc (Windflame) of St. Paul, Minnesota;
   * Pacific D‚cor Ltd. of Woodinwille, Washington;
   * Real Flame of Racine, Wisconsin; and
   * Smart Solar Inc. of Oldsmar, Florida

The pourable gel fuel can ignite unexpectedly and splatter onto
people and objects nearby when it is poured into a firepot that is
still burning.  CPSC is aware of 65 incidents resulting in two
deaths and 34 victims who were hospitalized with second and third
degree burns of the face, chest, hands, arms or legs.

Of the 65 incidents, 28 of them, including 37 burn injuries and
two fatalities, occurred with fuel gel products made by Napa Home
& Garden, which conducted a recall of its products in June 2011,
in cooperation with CPSC.  Also in June, CPSC issued a press
statement alerting consumers to the hazards of pourable gel fuels.
All pourable gel fuel, regardless of manufacturer, poses flash
fire hazards.

Consumers should not attempt to use or fix pourable gel fuel
bottles with homemade remedies, or replace the fuel with other
flammable materials.

Retailers should stop sale of existing inventory and immediately
remove all stock of pourable gel fuel from shelves.  Some firms
are working on a design for caps that may prevent flash fire

BLUE COAT: Accused of Issuing False and Misleading Statements
Robert A. Scandlon, Jr., On Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., Brian M. Nesmith
and Gordon C. Brooks, Case No. 5:11-cv-04923 (N.D. Calif.,
August 30, 2011) is a federal class action on behalf of purchasers
of the common stock of Blue Coat between November 24, 2009, and
May 27, 2010, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants disseminated materially
false and misleading statements, and concealed material adverse
facts.  Because of the Defendants' fraudulent scheme, he argues,
he and the members of the Class purchased Blue Coat's common stock
at artificially inflated prices.

Mr. Scandlon is a shareholder of Blue Coat.

Blue Coat designs, develops and sells products and services to
secure and optimize the delivery of business applications and
other information to distributed users over a wide area network or
the public Internet/Web.  Mr. Nesmith is the president and chief
executive officer of Blue Coat.  Mr. Brooks is the chief financial
officer, principal accounting officer and senior vice president of
Blue Coat.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
          707 Broadway, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
          E-mail: mblasy@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          David R. Scott, Esq.
          156 South Main Street
          P.O. Box 192
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Telephone: (860) 537-3818
          Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
          E-mail: drscott@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq.
          DRYER & BERENS LLP
          303 East 17th Avenue, #300
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303) 861-1764
          Facsimile: (303) 395-0393

               - and -

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
          200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: (770) 392-0090
          Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
          E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com

BLUE COAT: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action in Calif.
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Blue
Coat Systems, Inc. common stock who purchased shares between
November 24, 2009, and May 27, 2010, inclusive.  Specifically, the
lawsuit alleges that, among other things, the Company overstated
demand for its products in its European markets throughout the
Class Period.  The lawsuit further alleges the Company concealed
difficulties it was facing maintaining customers after the initial
installation of its products.

If you purchased BCSI common stock during the Class Period, you
have the legal right to petition the Court to be appointed a "lead
plaintiff."  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  Any
such request must satisfy certain criteria and be made no later
than October 31, 2011.  Any member of the purported class may move
the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.  If you are a Blue Coat investor and would like to discuss
a potential lead plaintiff appointment, or your rights and
interests with respect to the lawsuit, you may contact:

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
          Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
          E-mail: mfistel@holzerlaw.com
          Toll-Free Telephone: (888) 508-6832

Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC -- http://www.holzerlaw.com-- is an
Atlanta, Georgia law firm that dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative

CADBURY SCHWEPPES: Price-Fixing Class Action Settlement Okayed
A class action settlement entered into by Cadbury Schweppes plc
and ITWAL has been approved.

                  Notice of Settlement Approval
                       in the Matter of
             Chocolate Products Class Action Litigation


In this notice:

"Class" means all Persons in Canada who, between February 1, 2001
and December 31, 2008, purchased Chocolate Products in Canada,
excluding the Defendants and certain parties related to the

"Chocolate Products" mean any and all chocolate confectionary
products, including boxed chocolates, chocolate bars and seasonal
novelties, of the Defendants sold in Canada;

"Defendants" mean Cadbury Schweppes plc and Cadbury Adams Canada
Inc. ("Cadbury"), Mars, Incorporated, Mars Canada Inc. (formerly
known as Effem Inc.), The Hershey Company, Hershey Canada Inc.,
Nestle S.A., Nestle Canada Inc.; and

"ITWAL" means ITWAL Limited.


Class actions were initiated across Canada alleging a conspiracy
to fix prices of Chocolate Products in Canada.


The Defendants are manufacturers of Chocolate Products.  ITWAL is
also a defendant and operates a retail and foodservice wholesale
distribution network.  It was a major purchaser and distributor of
Chocolate Products during the relevant period.


Cadbury and ITWAL entered into separate settlements that settled
the class actions against them in Canada.  Neither Cadbury nor
ITWAL admit any wrongdoing or liability.  The settlements
represent resolutions of disputed claims.

The courts in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec approved the
settlements.  No Class members opted out of the litigation and
therefore the settlements are final.

Cadbury paid C$5.7 million, plus pre-deposit interest in the
amount of C$95,695.60, [total C$5,795,695.60] for the benefit of
the Class members.

ITWAL assigned to the representative plaintiffs in trust for the
Class, any right it had to sue the Defendants for the wrongdoing
asserted in the class actions.  Also, ITWAL paid C$25,000 towards
the cost of notice.

Both Cadbury and ITWAL agreed to cooperate with the Class in
pursuing their claims in the class actions which continue against
the Defendants.


The three Courts fixed legal fees in the total amount of
C$1,438,830.94, plus disbursements in the amount of C$82,634.15,
plus applicable taxes.


The settlement funds are being held in an interest bearing trust
account for the benefit of the Class.  The costs of notice and
legal fees have been or will be paid from the settlement funds.

The balance of the settlement funds will not be distributed now.
The continuing litigation may or may not result in further
settlements and/or judgments.  If there is a further recovery, it
will be added to the present monies and then distributed.  The
Courts will decide when and to whom the settlement funds will be

Further notices will be published in a manner the Courts direct
and posted online at http://www.chocolateclassaction.com


In Class Counsel's experience, direct compensation is likely to be
paid to eligible Class members who purchased Chocolate Products
directly from the Defendants or distributors.

There are difficulties associated with directly compensating
downstream Class members who are intermediary purchasers of
Chocolate Products and end users who bought Chocolate Product at
retail stores.  These types of Class members are usually
compensated by payments to organizations that operate for their
general benefit or by payments for charitable purposes designated
by the Courts.


This notice contains only a summary of the Court orders.

Class Members are encouraged to review the Amended Settlement
Agreements, reasons, Court orders and the other documents
available online at http://www.chocolateclassaction.com
Updates will be posted online.  If you have questions that are not
answered online, please contact one of the Lawyers listed below.


This notice contains a summary of some of the terms of the Court
orders.  If there is a conflict between the provisions of this
notice and the Court orders, the terms of the Court orders


For further information:


          Sutts, Strosberg LLP
          600-251 Goyeau Street
          Windsor, ON N9A 6V4
          Attention: Jay Strosberg
          Tel: toll free 1-800-229-5323 ext. 8285
          E-mail: jay@strosbergco.com

          Siskinds LLP
          680 Waterloo Street
          London, ON N6A 3V8
          Attention: Charles Wright
          Tel: toll free 1-800-461-6166 ext. 2455
          E-mail: charles.wright@siskinds.com


          Branch MacMaster
          1410-777 Hornby Street
          Vancouver, BC V6Z 1S4
          Attention: Ward Branch
          Tel: 604-654-2966
          E-mail: wbranch@branmac.com

          Camp Fiorante Matthews
          400-856 Homer Street
          Vancouver, BC V6B 2W5
          Attention: J.J. Camp
          Tel: 604-689-7555
          E-mail: jjcamp@cfmlawyers.ca


          Siskind Desmeules s.e.n.c.r.l.
          Les promenades du Vieux-Quebec
          43 rue De Buade
          bureau 320
          Quebec City, QC G1R 4A2
          Attention: Me Simon Hebert
          Tel: 418-694-2009
          E-mail: simon.hebert@siskindsdesmeules.com

CHEVRON CORP: Gasoline Dispenser Class Action Can't Proceed
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that California
consumers cannot sue gasoline retailers over pump nozzles that
allegedly dispense a small amount of lower-grade gas during
high-grade fuel purchases, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit ruled on Sept. 1.

Six consumers of high-grade gasoline sued Chevron, Exxon-Mobile,
Conocophillips, BP, Shell and other companies in Los Angeles,
claiming that the retailers' single-nozzle gasoline dispensers
overcharged them.  They allege that when they purchase high-grade
fuel from a single-nozzle dispenser, a residual amount of
lower-grade fuel -- between two-tenths and three-tenths of a
gallon -- is left over from the previous transaction, thus forcing
the high-grade purchaser to pay for a small amount of mid-range or
regular-grade gas.

The amended class action included six claims under California law,
including breach of contract, bad faith and breach of warranty.
But U.S. District Judge George King dismissed each claim, and
refused to allow the plaintiffs to amend their suit for a third

Judge King found that "California's regulatory scheme precluded
any liability for the residual fuel problem because it mandates
the dispenser and pricing features to which plaintiff objected,"
according to the ruling.  He also ruled that the plaintiffs had
failed to give proper notice on some claims, and that others were
pre-empted by federal law.

The federal appeals panel in Pasadena unanimously affirmed on all

"We agree with the District Court that plaintiffs' well-pleaded
factual allegations, accepted as true, do not give rise to a
reasonable inference that defendants have committed any misconduct
for which we may grant relief," Judge Johnnie Rawlinson wrote for
the three-judge panel.

"Defendants' conduct is clearly permitted by California law, and
defendants therefore are entitled to safe harbor from liability
under these broad consumer protection statutes," he added.

A copy of the Opinion in Alvarez, et al. v. Chevron Corporation,
et al., No. 09-56698 (9th Cir.), is available at:


E.I. DUPONT: Allen Park Woman Files Class Action Over Imprelis
Robert Snell, writing for The Detroit News, reports that an Allen
Park woman on Sept. 1 filed a $5 million class-action lawsuit
against the maker of a weed killer that landscapers have linked to
thousands of tree deaths around the country.

Donna Cozad sued E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. in federal court
in Detroit, claiming her trees were permanently damaged after a
landscaper applied Imprelis in May.  The action follows other
lawsuits in Michigan claiming similar damage.

The lawsuit comes three weeks after the Environmental Protection
Agency banned the sale of Imprelis, and a month after DuPont
suspended sales of the product.

The lawsuit accuses DuPont of violating the Consumer Fraud Act,
deceptive trade practices and negligence, among other claims.
Ms. Cozad wants compensatory damages, including the cost of
replacing dead and dying trees, and other damages.

"While DuPont advertised, marketed, and represented Imprelis as
being environmentally friendly and safe to use, that is simply not
the truth," Southfield lawyer Stuart Shoup wrote in the lawsuit.
"In its relatively short time on the market, DuPont's Imprelis has
proven to be a frighteningly effective tree killer."

The company already faces lawsuits, including one from the
operators of the Polo Fields Golf & Country Club in Southfield,
which lost conifers after Imprelis was used.

"We will be evaluating our response to the complaint and we do not
believe class action treatment is appropriate for these claims,"
DuPont spokeswoman Kate Childress said.

The company will announce its process on Aug. 6 for handling
claims related to Imprelis.

"We believe these situations need to be treated and resolved on a
case-by-case basis," Ms. Childress said.

After Imprelis was introduced to the market early this year,
reports of damaged and dying trees trickled in as the weather
heated up.

Designed to kill weeds like dandelions, clover, plantains, wild
violet and ground ivy, Imprelis was shown to harm a variety of
tree species.  Those included Norway spruces and white pines.

In late July, the company admitted its product was causing
unintended damages, and in early August, they pulled it from the
shelves.  Michigan's Department of Agriculture and Rural
Development had received 15 Imprelis-related complaints before
that time.

E.I. DUPONT: Settles Two Chemical Class Actions for $8.3 Mil.
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. will pay $8.3 million to settle
two U.S. class actions over release of chemicals into the water
supply in Salem County.

District Judge Renee Bumb in Camden approved the settlement with
4,248 households, as well as $2.77 million in class counsel fees
and $886,224 in expenses, on Aug. 26.

The agreement provides class members with a choice of either $800
cash or a Culligan in-home water filtration system, 10 replacement
cartridges and $200 toward filter installation.

The class members are neighbors of duPont's Chambers Works plant
in Deepwater, allegedly exposed to perfluorinated chemicals known
as PFOA that duPont released into the Delaware River and deposited
them at a landfill.  PFOA allegedly causes birth defects and
cancer, but duPont maintained that research had not shown the
chemicals hazardous.

Rowe v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., 06-1810, was filed in
federal court in Camden in April 2006.  Scott v. E.I. duPont de
Nemours and Co., 06-3080, was filed in state court in Salem County
and removed by duPont in June 2006.

The plaintiffs asserted claims for negligence, private nuisance,
trespass, battery and medical monitoring.

The parties settled after Judge Bumb's Dec. 22 rejection of an
earlier agreement that she said did not give adequate relief.
That settlement would have provided class members $200 each but
most of the $8.3 million would have gone to Salem Community
College, the local YMCA and United Way of Salem County.

Class members lost their request for certification for all claims
in December 2008.  They then sought certification of medical-
monitoring claims only, but that was denied on July 29, 2009.

Finally, in October 2009, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
23(b)(2), Judge Bumb certified one subclass of private well owners
and another of Penns Grove Water System customers, all within two
miles of the plant and seeking injunctive relief for private
nuisance.  Judge Bumb also certified the issue of strict liability
for class treatment.

Last September, while duPont's motion for summary judgment was
pending, the parties sought approval of the first settlement.  On
Dec. 16, Judge Bumb said it did not provide injunctive relief, as
required by Rule 23(b)(2).  She suggested the money be better
spent on providing water filters for class members.

DuPont lawyer John Johnson, of Lightfoot, Franklin & White in
Birmingham, Ala., replied that duPont did not believe that remedy
was legally or scientifically justified, considering the proposed
settlement would not release duPont from future health claims.

Last March 22, Judge Bumb gave preliminary approval to the revised
settlement, with its options for the water filter or the $800
cash.  She amended her earlier certification to state that it
covers those who met the qualifications as of March 31, the date
of the settlement's class notice.

Objections then came from Samuel Switzenbaum and Pennsgrove
Associates, owners of the 240-unit Rivers Bend Apartments within
two miles of the plant, whose motion to intervene Judge Bumb
granted.  They claimed, among other things, that the settlement
gives class members disproportionate relief compared with the
severity of their allegations.

Their attorney, Merrill Davidoff of Berger & Montague in
Philadelphia, cited In re GMC Pick-up Truck Fuel Tank Products
Liability Litigation, 55 F.3d 768 (3d Cir. 1995), which held a
proposed settlement unreasonable because it was entered "too
quickly with too little development on the merits."

But Judge Bumb said the duPont case was different: The settlement
had been reached "after five years of exhaustive, contentious
litigation, where liability has been vigorously disputed" and
after the original agreement had been rejected.

Judge Bumb added that the intervenors' counsel wrongly supposed
that class members would receive the relief sought if the case
went to trial.

The merits of the plaintiffs' allegations about the impact of PFOA
"have been hotly contested, leaving duPont's liability far from
certain."  Thus, the intervenors' objection -- that the filter
system fails to approximate the relief plaintiffs originally
sought -- does not warrant rejection of the settlement, Judge Bumb

The intervenors also called the settlement inadequate because it
provides filtration of only one source of water in each household,
but Judge Bumb said that wrongly assumes PFOA had been established
as harmful to human health.

She cited a declaration from a duPont scientist that, "based on
extensive health and toxicological studies, duPont does not
believe that PFOA exposure poses a health risk to the general

The intervenors objected to installation of filters in the
apartments in their complex and said they would notify tenants
that such filters were not allowed.  Judge Bumb agreed to modify
the claim form to let tenants know of that restriction.

Class counsel Shari Blecher, of Lieberman and Blecher in
Princeton, says the class members were pleased with Judge Bumb's
ruling.  Ms. Blecher, who handled the case with Stuart Lieberman,
declines to discuss what led to the wide variations between the
terms of the two settlements.

Local counsel for duPont, Roy Cohen of Porzio, Bromberg & Newman
in Morristown, referred a reporter's question to the company.  A
duPont spokesman, Dan Turner, said the settlement would allow
duPont to "focus on plant operations and the community and not on
lengthy and contentious legal proceedings."

FIRST HEALTH: Burke's Bid to Overturn Settlement Rejected
Steve Korris, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that five years after Richard Burke left the Lakin Law Firm, he
lost a battle he started with former employer Brad Lakin.

On Aug. 23, Fifth District appellate judges rejected his bid to
overturn a class action settlement between LakinChapman law firm
and First Health Group.

They affirmed retired Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack,
who overruled an objection from Mr. Burke on behalf of
chiropractor Kathleen Roche.

Mr. Burke helped Mr. Lakin file the suit in 2004, on behalf of
chiropractor Richard Coy.

In 2007, Mr. Burke and Kevin Hoerner of Belleville filed a nearly
identical suit for Ms. Roche in St. Clair County.

Both suits claimed First Health failed to provide incentives for
patients with workers' compensation or auto accident claims to
seek care in a preferred provider network.

First Health moved to stay the Roche action as duplicative, and
St. Clair County Associate Judge Andrew Gleeson denied the motion.

Mediation of the Madison County action resulted in agreement in

First Health agreed to pay $1.25 million to nonprofit groups that
provide continuing medical education.

It agreed to add language to policies and alter rules.

It agreed to pay class counsel $650,000.

Before the parties could present the agreement to Judge Stack,
Judge Gleeson held a hearing and declared Ms. Roche and her
lawyers adequate to carry on a class action.

Three days later, Judge Stack held an emergency hearing and found
Judge Gleeson's order had no impact on his case.

He found Judge Gleeson defined a class but didn't certify it.

Judge Stack approved settlement documents in 2009, and First
Health mailed notices to about 23,000 Illinois health care

No one objected but Ms. Roche, who moved to intervene at a
fairness hearing.

She claimed First Health and LakinChapman colluded to settle on
less favorable terms than she would have obtained in St. Clair

Judge Stack denied intervention, held the hearing, and granted
final approval.

He found no support for a claim of collusion.

Ms. Roche appealed, claiming Judge Stack improperly nullified
Judge Gleeson's order.

Justices James Donovan, Stephen Spomer and Bruce Stewart found
Stack was well advised of the benefits of the settlement and the
risks of litigation.

Justice Donovan wrote, "Given that a settlement is a compromise,
the court was not to judge the legal and factual questions by the
criteria of a trial on the merits.

"Turning the settlement approval hearing into a trial would defeat
the purposes of a compromise, such as avoiding a determination of
sharply contested issues and dispensing with expensive and
wasteful litigation."

Mr. Lakin fired Mr. Burke in 2006.

Chicago class action lawyer Paul Weiss and Mr. Lakin ended a seven
year partnership, and Mr. Weiss teamed with Mr. Burke.

The lawyers sued each other over fees from cases they started

They settled the dispute but it broke out again.

Records in a Madison County case showed last year that they took
it to arbitration.

The St. Clair County case is still active, and is currently
assigned to Circuit Judge Stephen McGlynn.

GOOGLE INC: Judge Rejects 3G Smartphone Class Action
Chris Marshall at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge tossed two class actions that claimed Google misled
smartphone owners about consistent 3G connectivity, finding that
the plaintiffs could not pinpoint any such promises.

Mary McKinney and Nathan Nabors made only general assertions that
Google had advertised that its flagship smartphone, the Nexus One,
would provide consistent connectivity to 3G networks, U.S.
District Judge Edward Davila explained.

Ms. McKinney and Mr. Nabors each sued Google and HTC Corp., on
behalf of other consumers, for 10 causes of action, including
breach of express and implied warranties, false advertising, and
unfair competition.

"General assertions about representations or impressions given by
defendants about the phone's 3G capabilities are not equivalent to
a recitation of the exact terms of the underlying warranty,"
Judge Davila wrote in dismissing both plaintiffs' claim for breach
of express warranty.

The judge noted that plaintiffs must identify the actual
advertisement they relied on in believing they had been promised
consistent 3G connectivity.  Ms. McKinney identifies only an
advertisement on two Google Web sites that she says has been
"scrubbed" of all related promotional materials, but she does not
state if these ads made assertions about 3G connectivity.

The only representation she specifically identifies comes from a
T-Mobile sales representative who allegedly said the Nexus One had
3G speed and an unidentified source said it was "essential for web
surfing and mail."

But Judge Davila said those allegations are really attacks on
T-Mobile rates and service, which are pre-empted by a provision of
the Federal Communications Act prohibiting state or local
governments from regulating private companies' cellphone rates.

Judge Davila similarly dismissed claims for false advertisement,
finding that Ms. McKinney and Mr. Nabors do not allege that their
phones do not sometimes have 3G connectivity.  They also do not
allege that Google and HTC said the phone would have 3G
connectivity for any specified length of time.  They also does not
identify a single advertisement in which HTC or Google discussed
the phone and 3G wireless connections.

Even if the statements of a T-Mobile sales representative were
attributable to the companies, they "would appear to be non-
actionable puffery," Judge Davila wrote.

The remaining claims also failed to identify advertisements that
promised consistent 3G connectivity.  Judge Davila dismissed all
claims with leave to amend.

A copy of the Order Granting Motion to Dismiss with Leave to Amend
in McKinney v. Google, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-CV-01177 (N.D.
Calif.), is available at:


LEIGHTON HOLDINGS: To Vigorously Defend Shareholder Class Action
Philip Wen, writing for BusinessDay, reports that Leighton
Holdings says it will "vigorously defend" the shareholder class
action launched against it, as major investors mulled joining the
stoush unveiled by law firm Maurice Blackburn.

As revealed by BusinessDay on Sept. 1, Maurice Blackburn will
allege Leighton knew the extent of the problems at its key
infrastructure projects -- and breached its continuous disclosure
obligations under the Corporations Act -- as early as November
last year.  Shares in the company have fallen as much as 40%

Several fund managers contacted by BusinessDay on Sept. 1 said
they were considering their positions.

"We're thinking about it," said Andrew Preston, an investment
manager at Aberdeen Asset Management, one of Leighton's largest
Australian shareholders.  "We would certainly be eligible to take
part but we haven't had a chance to go through it in detail yet to
decide our strategy."

Leighton had assured investors it was on track for a $480 million
full-year profit just two months before stunning the market with a
$1.2 billion write-down in April.  Leighton ended up reporting a
$407 million net loss last month.

"It seems to us to beggar belief that a $1.2 billion turnaround
could happen in the space of less than two months," said
Andrew Watson, a principal at Maurice Blackburn who is leading the
class action.

The law firm will send information packs to Leighton's largest
institutional shareholders.

Shareholders who have transacted in shares between Nov. 2 last
year and April 11, and have suffered losses as a result, are
eligible to register.

Leighton has blamed factors including access approval, difficult
ground conditions and delays caused by design changes for its cost
blowouts at Brisbane's Airport Link.  But Mr. Watson said the
company had encountered those issues as early as 2009.

"We don't think those reasons stack up as things which would have
emerged with the rapidity which Leighton's announcement suggests,"
he said.

In a statement to the stock exchange, Leighton said it was aware
of Maurice Blackburn's intentions and said it would "vigorously
defend" its claims.

New Leighton chief executive Hamish Tyrwhitt declined to comment
further on Sept. 1.  Barely a week in the job, his appointment has
come at the expense of David Stewart, who was recently dumped
after just eight months in the position.

Separately, BusinessDay's Adele Ferguson reports that some key
institutional investors are believed to be keen to take part in a
$400 million shareholder class action against Leighton Holdings,
that was launched by Maurice Blackburn on Sept. 1.

The law firm has sounded out key institutional investors and the
feedback has been positive.  It met with a key investor on Aug. 31
to brief them on the action.

It isn't hard to see why: shareholders who bought stock in the
company between November 2 and April 11 can join the class action
without it costing them a cent.  The action will be funded by a
litigation funder and if the case is settled or they win then the
funder takes a stake, pays Maurice Blackburn and the rest of the
proceeds get divvied out to the shareholders.

Maurice Blackburn will send out packs to various shareholders and
once they get enough they will lodge a statement of claim in the

MANHATTAN GROUP: Recalls 3,445 Wooden Rattles Due to Choking Risk
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Manhattan Group LLC, of Minneapolis, Minnesota,
announced a voluntary recall of about 3,300 units of Twirlla(TM)
wooden rattle in the United States of America, and 145 in Canada.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The toy's U-shaped parts can break, posing a choking hazard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The painted wood rattle is approximately 6 inches long and has a
yellow ball at each end, two U-shaped pieces (red and pale blue)
and an orange bead in the center with a green center post
connecting all pieces.  The moving parts make noise when they come
together.  Picture of the recalled products is available at:


The recalled products were manufactured in Thailand and sold at
baby and gift and specialty stores nationwide and online at
ManhattanToy.com from March 2011 through July 2011 for about $12.

Consumers should take the rattles away from children immediately
and return them to the store where purchased to receive a full
refund.  For additional information, contact Manhattan Group at
(800) 541-1345 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday
through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at

MICROSOFT CORP: Sued for Tracking Mobile Users' Location Data
Sandy Fitzgerald, writing for Mobiledia, reports that Microsoft is
facing a lawsuit for allegedly tracking its mobile customers'
locations without permission, as concerns continue to mount over
wireless privacy issues.

A class action lawsuit, filed on Aug. 31 in a Seattle federal
court on behalf of a Windows Phone 7 user, claims Microsoft's
Windows Phone 7 OS has camera software that ignores customers'
requests not to be tracked.

The lawsuit says Microsoft sent Congress a letter earlier this
year insisting it only collects location data with users' consent.
Instead, the litigation claims, "Microsoft's representations were
false," because the Windows Phone 7 OS transmits data, including
latitude and longitude, when users activate its camera app.

The class action suit comes just a few weeks after the Redmond,
Wash.-based software giant said it improved location filtering, so
its phones and laptops no longer return exact locations.

Microsoft's software update followed a report from Stanford
security researcher Elie Bursztein, who alleged Windows devices
stored Wi-Fi data that pinpointed peoples' past locations.  Every
Wi-Fi device has a unique ID, called a "MAC address," which the
previous software could easily track.

Microsoft's data collection policies differ from Apple's and
Android's methods.  Apple came under fire earlier this year for
recording the locations of iPhones and iPads in an unencrypted
file on the device, which quietly logged more than a year's worth
of unencrypted data even when people disabled location software.
Google's Android devices collect tracking data, but records only
the last few dozen locations.

Microsoft, on the other hand, says only user-allowed apps collect
location data from its phones, and adds the apps don't store data
on the phone itself, so it can't be hacked or synced back to the

But while location tracking is under fire from U.S. lawmakers, who
have been investigating how mobile devices collect personal data
without permission, location tracking will likely continue in
phones and their apps.

Many app developers are small businesses with fewer than 10
employees.  Their apps collect user data, including location,
e-mail and phone numbers, which they sell to advertising networks
who use the data to target their products.

Without advertising revenue, app developers may have to charge
more for their software programs, and customers may need to decide
whether privacy or less-expensive apps are more important.  It may
also mean further legal scrutiny and potential crackdowns on how
wireless businesses use customers' personal information is in
store for the mobile industry.

N.C. BAPTIST: Judge Has Yet to Approve Class Action Settlement
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that a
preliminary settlement agreement of a federal lawsuit involving
N.C. Baptist Hospital would provide $4,000 in compensation for
each of the five primary plaintiffs.

Those plaintiffs started the ball rolling for a class-action case
involving more than 14,000 current and former employees and their

However, how much compensation the remaining class-action members
receive may not be known until the end of the year, according to
legal documents filed.

At a July 28 hearing, Baptist agreed to pay $5.38 million to
settle the lawsuit, which accused the hospital and certain
affiliates' group health plan of requiring employees to pay more
in fees for health benefits than other corporate clients pay.

The agreement represents a potential conclusion of a lawsuit filed
in January 2009 involving MedCost, which Baptist co-owns with
Carolinas HealthCare System of Charlotte.

Those eligible for the settlement participated in the plan from
March 6, 2002, to May 7, 2009.  Plan participants made
contributions of $9 million to $13 million a year beginning in
March 2002, the lawsuit said.

Baptist agreed to pay $438,500 to the plaintiffs' attorneys, who
also are requesting another $1.23 million from the settlement
funds, or 25% of the overall funds.

The preliminary agreement has been presented to Judge James Beaty
Jr. of the U.S. Middle District of North Carolina.  The plaintiffs
and Baptist have requested that Judge Beaty set a hearing on the
agreement, potentially as early as this month.

If Judge Beaty does approve the settlement preliminarily, a notice
will be sent to class-action members about terms of the settlement
and date of a hearing, which will give plaintiffs an opportunity
to object to the terms of the settlement.  Compensation would be
made sometime after the conclusion of the hearing.

If the settlement is approved, each class member could receive
compensation based on factors such as the amount of time they were
enrolled in the plan, which year or years they were enrolled,
which benefits package they chose (prime or select), whether they
had an employee or family plan, the amount of the settlement
allocated to the applicable year or years, and the premium amount
they paid into the plan each year.

The lawsuit said Baptist "violated the duties, responsibilities
and obligations imposed upon them as a fiduciary" under the
federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

ERISA prohibits most employers from using companies they own to
provide health benefits for employees unless they can show they
are putting workers' interests first.

Baptist has denied any wrongdoing.  It said the selection of
MedCost was a plan-sponsor function, not a fiduciary function, and
therefore its actions were not governed by ERISA.

"NCBH alleges that cost is only one factor in a prudence analysis,
and that MedCost provided superior service or capabilities in
other areas that justified any increase in cost," Baptist said in
June 2009.

However, according to the agreement, the plaintiffs' attorneys
"obtained reliable documentary evidence to suggest that NCBH had a
history of 'self dealing' with its subsidiary provider network."

"Indeed, that evidence indicated NCBH was even offering better
pricing to outside health plans that used the MedCost network than
it was offering its own plan and own employees."

According to the documents, Baptist's counsel "bitterly contested
not only the fundamental liability issue described in plaintiffs'
complaint, but also contended damages, if any, were nominal."  It
said Baptist's counsel also contested the damages calculated by
the independent fiduciary.

"The defendants agreed to settle rather than contest the
independent fiduciary's decision before this court where it could
have faced potential enhanced damages and prejudgment interest
assessment," according to the documents.

In October 2009, Baptist agreed to raise its plan discount and
lower the co-payment for inpatient and outpatient services for
2009 and 2010.  The percentage that participants pay in total
premiums cannot be increased through 2014.

The increased discounts and lower co-payments also applied to
members of the hospital's provider network, which at the time
included Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center Community
Physicians; Wake Forest University Physicians; hospitals currently
or formerly affiliated with Baptist in Davie, Stokes and Wilkes
counties; the Downtown Health Plaza in Winston-Salem; and J.R.
Jones Medical Center in King.

In March, the U.S. Labor Department said it was investigating
Carolinas HealthCare regarding MedCost, which provides health
benefits to the medical center's roughly 30,000 employees.

Carolinas HealthCare officials also said they did not see any
conflict with MedCost, telling The Charlotte Observer it offers
good benefits at a competitive price.

RE LOANS: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action in California
Dan Noyes, writing for KGO, reports that a major class action
lawsuit has been filed in what could turn out to be the largest
securities fraud in state history.  It's a story the ABC7 I-Team
first broke: Thousands of investors are out more than $700

ABC7 reported that the FBI and SEC are investigating, and this
class action lawsuit was filed on Sept. 1 in Alameda Superior
Court.  The lawsuit is being carried out by a law firm out of

Yoko Oshima is named as a plaintiff in the class action lawsuit.
She says Walter Ng personally guaranteed that he would protect the
investment she made with his real estate funds so she could care
for her 24-year-old autistic daughter, Lisa.

"I told him, this is not just my life, this is my daughter for
future life, and he said, don't worry about it," Ms. Oshima said.

But with Mr. Ng's companies in default, the lawsuit says about
2,800 investors are out more than $700 million.  Ms. Oshima is
frantic now that $450,000 she invested for her daughter's special
needs trust is gone.

"There's a lack of morality," Ms. Oshima said.  "Even the
business, people still have to have morality.  That's my word."

The lawsuit names the Ng Family companies that operate out of the
Lafayette office: Bar-K Inc., RE Loans -- the fund that made real
estate development loans -- and B-4 Partners, who managed the

The complaint said Walter Ng, his sons Barney and Kelly and Bruce
Horowits "raised funds through the illegal sale of unregistered
securities" and "with the knowing assistance of Defendants Wells
Fargo and (law firm) Greenberg Traurig, engaged in a scheme to
breach their fiduciary duties to the investors in order to prop up
RE Loans and personally enrich themselves and their friends and
business associates."

"It is a very sad case," said class action attorney Greg
Fairbourn.  "A lot of people have been taken advantage of by the
conduct we described in the complaint."

The class action filed by Mr. Fairbourn also names Wells Fargo.
Through its Capital Finance unit, it provided a $50 million line
of credit that was supposed to help keep RE Loans afloat.

Mr. Fairbourn said the allegation they've made is that money was
disbursed to preferred investors -- friends and family members.

"That's the allegation that we've made based on the investigation
that we've done, and we believe that to be accurate,"
Mr. Fairbourn said.

Wells Fargo e-mailed a statement that reads, "The lawsuit against
Wells Fargo Capital Finance is without merit, and we will defend
ourselves against the allegations.  Beyond that, we cannot provide
any further comment at this time."

There was also no comment from several major players in this
story.  Kelly Ng had no comment when ABC7 stopped by a recent Cal
Men's Volleyball Team, and Walter Ng declined to speak with ABC7
when ABC7 caught up with him after a hearing in his bankruptcy

Barney Ng tried to deflect the blame to his father, brother and
Bruce Horowitz when reached by phone on Sept. 1, saying "I didn't
make decisions, and didn't have the authority to make decisions,
on how the investors' money was handled."

Barney Ng was the one who went out to find projects in which to

There was also no comment from law firm Greenberg Traurig.

Cal told ABC7 on Sept. 1 that Kelly Ng's contract has not been
renewed with the school and he is no longer a coach there.  Cal
officials called this case a "distraction for the students."

STATE OF IDAHO: Sued Over New Late-Term Abortion Law
Sofia Resnick, writing for The Washington Independent, reports
that a 33-year-old Idaho woman is seeking class-action status on a
federal lawsuit challenging a new state law that bans abortion
after 20 weeks of gestation, made possible by the claim babies are
developed enough at that stage to feel pain.  There is
disagreement among abortion-rights supporters and opponents about
whether this claim is based on scientific evidence.

Jennie Linn McCormack, a mother of three from Pocatello, Idaho,
was initially arrested and prosecuted in December 2010 for
inducing her own abortion, when she was between 20 and 21 weeks of
gestation, with the abortion pill RU 486, which she bought on the
Internet, reports Reuters.  She was charged under a 1972 state law
that classifies ending one's own pregnancy as a felony, before a
judge threw out her case for lack of evidence.  Now McCormack is
suing the attorney that prosecuted her, Mark Hiedeman.

Idaho's new late-term abortion law -- signed and enacted
immediately by Republican Gov. Butch Otter in April -- makes it a
felony to perform an abortion after 20 weeks, except in a
situation where the mother's life is in danger.  Though this law
was not in effect when McCormack took the abortion drugs, her suit
includes both the 20-week abortion ban and the 1972 law; in the
suit she claims she induced her own abortion because of the
general lack of access to abortions for women in her state.
According to The Associated Press, Ms. McCormack was single and
unemployed when police arrested her after discovering the dead
fetus in a box at her home.

Ms. McCormack's case -- depending on how far up the court system
it goes -- could impact the five other states that have banned
abortion after 20 weeks, beginning with Nebraska in 2010, followed
by Kansas, Indiana, Oklahoma and Alabama.

STATE OF NEBRASKA: Faces Class Action Over Unborn Child Benefits
Lori Pilger, writing for Lincoln Journal Star, reports that a
pregnant woman has sued the Nebraska Department of Health and
Human Services, contending her unborn child is eligible for
medical assistance even if she isn't eligible for it herself
because of her immigration status.

And she's asking for it to be a class action lawsuit.

Sarah Roe, a 33-year-old mother of three who lives in Lancaster
County and is about nine months pregnant, said she applied for
benefits in April under Nebraska's medical assistance program and
was denied in June because she is an "ineligible alien."

In the lawsuit filed on Aug. 26 in Lancaster County District
Court, attorney James Goddard of the Nebraska Appleseed Center,
said Ms. Roe doesn't dispute she is ineligible.

"However, Roe does contend that her unborn child is eligible for
children's medical assistance pursuant to the Nebraska Medical
Assistance Act," he wrote.

Mr. Goddard said HHS also denied her unborn child the benefits by
failing to process the unborn child for eligibility.

He asserts in the suit that the Nebraska Legislature, through
statute, made unborn children eligible for children's medical
assistance in the state when it made eligible all children younger
than 19, as allowed under the Children's Health Insurance Program.
According to CHIP, Mr. Goddard said, a child younger than 19
includes unborn children.

He said Ms. Roe got pregnant in January and paid for prenatal care
in installments, but by March she no longer could afford it.

The lawsuit alleges that on June 28, when HHS officially repealed
rules and regulations that recognized unborn child eligibility for
medical assistance, it acted in excess of its statutory authority
and in violation of the separation of powers.

HHS has not yet responded to the lawsuit.

This isn't the first time the state has been sued over prenatal

In 2010, state government officials were sued for cutting off
prenatal care to more than 1,500 low-income pregnant women when
they ended a program this year that provided Medicaid coverage for
unborn children.

The class-action suit filed by the Nebraska Appleseed Center on
behalf of a woman identified as Jane Doe, an immigrant lawfully
living in Nebraska, alleged the state acted outside its authority
when ending the two-decade-old program.

But a Lancaster County District judge denied a request for a
temporary restraining order to restore eligibility for prenatal
care and later dismissed the case, calling the matter moot because
the woman later became eligible when state lawmakers passed a law
to allow for treatment of pregnant women lawfully living in the
United States and otherwise eligible for Medicaid.

That case is on appeal.

SUNSATIONS INC: Agrees to $60T Penalty on Drawstrings Issue
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced that
Sunsations Inc., of Virginia Beach, Virginia, has agreed to pay a
civil penalty of $60,000.  The penalty agreement has been
provisionally accepted by the Commission (5-0).

The settlement resolves CPSC staff allegations that Sunsations
knowingly failed to report to CPSC immediately, as required by
federal law, that it sold children's hooded sweatshirts with
drawstrings at the neck from March 2008 through November 2010.
Children's upper outerwear with drawstrings, including
sweatshirts, sweaters and jackets, poses a strangulation hazard to
children that can result in serious injury or death.

In December 2009 and again in March 2011, CPSC and Sunsations
announced recalls of more than 15,000 children's sweatshirts that
were sold in Sunsations stores in Virginia Beach, Va., Ocean City,
Md. and North Carolina.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:


Federal law requires manufacturers, distributors, and retailers to
report to CPSC immediately (within 24 hours) after obtaining
information reasonably supporting the conclusion that a product
contains a defect which could create a substantial product hazard,
creates an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, or fails
to comply with any consumer product safety rule or any other rule,
regulation, standard, or ban enforced by CPSC.

In 1996, CPSC issued drawstring guidelines to help prevent
children from strangling on or getting entangled in the neck and
waist drawstrings of upper outerwear, such as jackets and
sweatshirts.  In 2006, CPSC's Office of Compliance announced that
children's upper outerwear with drawstrings at the hood or neck
would be regarded as defective and as presenting a substantial
risk of injury to young children.

In agreeing to the settlement, Sunsations denies CPSC staff
allegations that it knowingly violated the law.

On June 29, 2011, the Commission approved a final rule that
designates children's upper outerwear in sizes 2T through 12 with
neck or hood drawstrings, and children's upper outerwear in sizes
2T through 16 with certain waist or bottom drawstrings, as
substantial product hazards.

TAKE-TWO: Seeks More Plaintiffs for "Wage Abuse" Class Action
Simon Priest, writing for StrategyInformer, reports that law firm
Righetti & Glugoski in California needs more plaintiffs to join
their class action suit against publisher Take-Two for "wage
abuse" against QA staff.

Former visual concepts QA tester Aaron Martinez claims Take-Two
engaged in a "uniform policy" to deny proper wages to testers,
even denying meals and rest.

The suit alleges that Take-Two "engaged in a uniform policy and
systemic scheme of wage abuse" while Mr. Martinez worked there in
2006-2007 and that he and other QA testers were required to
"consistently . . . work off-the-clock," and even have breaks

It goes on to say some testers "were not receiving at least
minimum wage for compensation."  Before they can proceed with the
case more plaintiffs are needed and the law firm is appealing for
others to contact them.  The first hearing could be in March 2012.

TIMBERCORP: Judge Tosses Investor Class Action Over Collapse
The Australian Associated Press reports that a judge has dismissed
a class action by a group of investors in the collapsed Timbercorp

Timbercorp collapsed in 2009, just months after its 2008 annual
report indicated a healthy performance with record revenues of
nearly AUD500 million and a net profit of AUD44.6 million.

At the time the company was wound up, Timbercorp Finance had
outstanding loans to more than 14,500 investors totaling AUD477.8

More than 2,000 investors led by Allen Rodney Woodcroft-Brown
launched a class action in the Victorian Supreme Court in 2009
seeking more than AUD300 million.

The investors argued Timbercorp failed to inform them properly
about the risks associated with its schemes.

It was alleged that declarations made by the directors in March
and September 2008 in financial reports were false or misleading
because of adverse events that occurred in or after February 2007.

But on Sept. 1, Justice James Judd dismissed the class action.

He said there was a lack of credibility in claims by one of the
investors that they would not have invested at all or would have
taken steps to reduce their loss if they had have been informed

He said information contained in a product disclosure statement
was incidental to investment decisions.

Justice Judd said the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the
financial crisis led to the effective closure of global capital

As a consequence "significant and substantial" asset sales planned
by Timbercorp fell through, he said.

Justice Judd said those sales were an underlying assumption for
continuing bank support, something the group depended on.

Outside court, lawyer Ron Willemsen said the decision was very
disappointing and lawyers for the investors were studying the
judgment for possible appeal grounds.

He said there were thousands of investors with no hope of a return
from their investment.

Mr. Willemsen said those out of pocket included mum and dad
investors who had hoped to use the money to pay their children's
school fees.

"We are very disappointed with the outcome [Thurs]day.  It is not
the end of the fight," he said.

Timbercorp was a leading Australian agribusiness company managing
high quality, large-scale forestry and horticulture assets that
included almonds, olive oil, table grapes and eucalypt plantation

A hearing on costs will be held on Oct. 6.


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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Leah
Felisilda, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Julie Anne
Lopez, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

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

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

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

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

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *