---

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

           Monday, September 19, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 185

                             Headlines

ARAMARK SPORTS: Judge Approves Wage Class Action Settlement
ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Sued Over Alleged Improper Debt Assignments
BARNES & NOBLE: Appellant Has No Standing to Object to Suit Deal
BARNES & NOBLE: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss "Strugala" Suit
BARNES & NOBLE: Faces Class Suit Over eBooks in New York

BARNES & NOBLE: Faces Wage and Hour Class Suit in California
BARNES & NOBLE: Hearing Continued to Oct. 4 in "Minor" Suit
BIOE INC: Judge Allows Stockholder Class Action to Proceed
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Lessors Lose Class Action Certification Bid
CIENA CORP: Appellant Has no Standing to Object to IPO Suit Deal

CITY OF NEW YORK: Formerly Homeless People Loses Class Action
COHEN & SLAMOWITZ: Class Action Over FDCPA Violations Ongoing
DEERE & CO: Recalls 15.5T Lawn Tractors Due to Laceration Hazard
DEERE & CO: Recalls 5,200 Lawn Tractors Due to Brake Failure
EGGED: Faces Class Action Over Mehadrin Bus Lines

EMDEON INC: Robbins Umeda Files Securities Class Action
GROSSE POINTE: Faces Class Action Over Flooding
HIGHWAY 25: Consumer Protection Group Mulls Class Action
HSBC BANK: Accused of Not Paying Employees' Overtime Wages
KAG WEST: Settles Drivers' Class Action for $14 Million

KOREAN AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Air Cargo Price-Fixing
KUBOTA MANUFACTURING: Recalls 6T Riding Mowers Due to Fire Hazard
LG ELECTRONICS: Reannounces Recall of 98,000 Dehumidifiers
LOS ANGELES TIMES: Writer Faces Class Action Over Wiretapping
NARAS: Latin Jazz Musicians File Class Action Over Grammy Awards

OLYMPIC COAST: Faces Class Action Over Two Securities Offerings
SAXON MORTGAGE: Berger & Montague Files Class Action
STATE FARM: Accused of Covering Up Support for Judge Karmier
STATE OF CALIFORNIA: Court to Review Decision on Union Fund
TRAVEL CHANNEL: Faces Right of Publicity Act Class Action

UNITED STATES: Court Wants Cobell Settlement Dispute Resolved
WAL-MART: Set to Unveil Women-Friendly Plans After Class Action
ZONEPERFECT NUTRITION: Sued Over "All-Natural" Product Labels




                             *********

ARAMARK SPORTS: Judge Approves Wage Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that nearly 6,000 food-service
workers will take home $587,000 for two wage and overtime class
actions brought against Aramark for its conduct at three
Philadelphia sports arenas, under the terms of a settlement
approved by a federal judge.

A copy of the Memorandum in Williams, et al. v. Aramark Sports,
LLC, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01044 (E.D. Pa.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/14/aramark.pdf


ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Sued Over Alleged Improper Debt Assignments
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Dearden, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that a St. Clair County man has filed a class action claim against
a debt collection agency for allegedly assigning debts improperly.

Anthony P. Cooper, on behalf of several other defendants, filed
the lawsuit Sept. 2 in St. Clair County Circuit Court against
Asset Acceptance LLC.

According to the complaint, Asset Acceptance purchased
Mr. Cooper's debt from HSBC.  However, Mr. Cooper claims Asset
Acceptance obtained that debt improperly by not using separate
written documents in its assignment -- an alleged violation of the
Collection Agency Act.

Mr. Cooper contends the invalid assignment practices were used by
Asset Acceptance to collect money that was owed not to it but
should have been paid to the original creditor instead.

Mr. Cooper is asking for an unspecified amount in damages on
behalf of all defendants.

The class is represented by attorney James R. Williams, of
Belleville's William, Caponi & Foley law firm.

St. Clair County Circuit Court Case No. 11-L-493


BARNES & NOBLE: Appellant Has No Standing to Object to Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
A district court has ruled that the last remaining appellant of a
decision granting final approval of a settlement in the
consolidated IPO lawsuit against various companies including a
Barnes & Noble, Inc. subsidiary, has no standing to object to the
settlement, according to the Company's September 8, 2011, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended July 30, 2011.

The class action lawsuit known as In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, filed in April 2002 (the Action), named
over one thousand individuals and 300 corporations, including
Fatbrain.com, LLC ("Fatbrain"), a former subsidiary of Barnes &
Noble.com, and its former officers and directors.  The amended
complaints in the Action all allege that the initial public
offering registration statements filed by the defendant issuers
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the one
filed by Fatbrain, were false and misleading because they failed
to disclose that the defendant underwriters were receiving excess
compensation in the form of profit sharing with certain of its
customers, and that some of those customers agreed to buy
additional shares of the defendant issuers' common stock in the
aftermarket at increasing prices.  The amended complaints also
allege that the foregoing constitutes violations of: (i) Section
11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "1933 Act") by
the defendant issuers, the directors and officers signing the
related registration statements, and the related underwriters;
(ii) Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "1934 Act") by the same parties; and (iii) the control
person provisions of the 1933 and 1934 Acts by certain directors
and officers of the defendant issuers.  A motion to dismiss by the
defendant issuers, including Fatbrain, was denied.

After extensive negotiations among representatives of plaintiffs
and defendants, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding (MOU), outlining a proposed settlement resolving the
claims in the Action between plaintiffs and the defendant issuers.
Subsequently, a Settlement Agreement was executed between the
defendants and plaintiffs in the Action, the terms of which are
consistent with the MOU.  The Settlement Agreement was submitted
to the court for approval, and on February 15, 2005, the judge
granted preliminary approval of the settlement.

On December 5, 2006, the Federal Appeals Court for the Second
Circuit (the Second Circuit) issued a decision reversing the
District Court's class certification decision in six focus cases.
In light of that decision, the District Court stayed all
proceedings, including consideration of the settlement.  In
January 2007, plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc
before the Second Circuit, which was denied in April 2007.  On
May 30, 2007, plaintiffs moved, before the District Court, to
certify a new class.  On June 25, 2007, the District Court entered
an order terminating the Settlement Agreement.  On October 2,
2008, plaintiffs agreed to withdraw the class certification
motion.  On October 10, 2008, the District Court signed an order
granting the request.

A Settlement Agreement in principle, subject to court approval,
was negotiated among counsel for all of the issuers, plaintiffs,
insurers and underwriters, and executed by the Company.
Preliminary approval of the settlement was granted by the court on
June 10, 2009, and final court approval of the settlement was
granted on October 5, 2009.  Pursuant to the settlement, no
settlement payment will be made by the Company.  Since that time,
various notices of appeal have been filed by certain objectors on
an interlocutory basis.  On August 25, 2011, the District Court
ruled that the last remaining appellant of the decision granting
final approval of the settlement has no standing to object to the
settlement.


BARNES & NOBLE: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss "Strugala" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its motion
to dismiss the class action lawsuit commenced by Stephen Strugala
against its former directors, according to the Company's
September 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 30, 2011.

On December 21, 2010, a complaint captioned Stephen Strugala v.
Leonard Riggio, et al., was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company's
current directors and former directors Lawrence Zilavy and Michael
Del Giudice.  The complaint is purportedly brought both directly,
on behalf of a putative class of shareholders, and derivatively,
on behalf of the Company.  The complaint generally alleges
breaches of fiduciary duties, waste and unjust enrichment in
connection with the Company's acquisition of Barnes & Noble
College Booksellers, the adoption of the Shareholder Rights Plan,
and other unspecified instances of alleged mismanagement and
alleged wrongful conduct.  The complaint also generally alleges
violations of Section 14(a) of the 1934 Act in connection with the
issuance of various proxy statements by the Company.  The
complaint generally seeks declaratory and equitable relief,
including injunctive relief, and costs and fees.  On January 19,
2011, the Court granted the parties' Stipulation and Order.  On
February 18, 2011, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal of Claim, dismissing without prejudice his putative
class claim for violations of Section 14(a) of the 1934 Act.  On
March 8, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims in
the litigation.  Briefing on the motion is complete.


BARNES & NOBLE: Faces Class Suit Over eBooks in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc., is accused of restraining trade in the
consumer retail market of eBooks, according to the Company's
September 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 30, 2011.

On August 12, 2011, a purported class action complaint, captioned
Rhonda Burstein v. Hachette Book Group, Inc., et al., was filed
against Hachette Book Group, Inc., Harper Collins Publishers,
Inc., Macmillan Publishers, Inc., Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Simon
& Schuster, Inc., Random House, Inc., (collectively, the
"Publisher Defendants") and Apple, Inc., Amazon.Com, Inc., and
Barnes & Noble, Inc. (collectively with the Publisher Defendants,
the "Defendants") in the United State District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of eBooks of
Publisher Defendants through Apple, Amazon, Barnes & Noble and
other eBook retailers.  The complaint generally alleges a
horizontal price fixing and a vertical conspiracy among the
Defendants to restrain trade in the consumer retail market of
eBooks in the United States in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1 and Section 2 of the Sherman Act,
15 U.S.C. Section 2.  The complaint generally seeks treble damages
in an undetermined amount sustained pursuant to Section 4 of the
Clayton Act 15 U.S.C. Section 15, costs and fees, and injunctive
relief.  The Company denies liability and intends to vigorously
defend its interests.


BARNES & NOBLE: Faces Wage and Hour Class Suit in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc., is facing a purported class action lawsuit
in California alleging violations of wage and hour laws, according
to the Company's September 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 30,
2011.

On August 5, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed
against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc.,
captioned Lina v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., and Barnes & Noble
Booksellers, Inc. et al., in the Superior Court for the State of
California making the following allegations against defendants
with respect to salaried Store Managers at Barnes & Noble stores
located in the State of California from the period of August 5,
2007 to present: (1) failure to pay wages and overtime; (2)
failure to pay for missed meal and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting
time penalties; (4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to
provide reimbursement for business expenses; and (6) failure to
provide itemized wage statements.  The claims are generally
derivative of the allegation that these salaried managers were
improperly classified as exempt from California's wage and hour
laws.  The complaint contains no allegations concerning the number
of any such alleged violations or the amount of recovery sought on
behalf the purported class.  The Company was served with the
complaint on August 11, 2011.  The Company is evaluating its
options to respond to the Complaint as well as its defenses to
class certification and on the merits.


BARNES & NOBLE: Hearing Continued to Oct. 4 in "Minor" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The hearing to consider preliminary approval of a settlement of a
lawsuit captioned Minor v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et
al., has been continued until October 4, 2011, according to Barnes
& Noble, Inc.'s September 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 30,
2011.

On May 1, 2009, a purported class action complaint, captioned
Minor v. Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al., was filed
against B&N Booksellers, Inc. (B&N Booksellers) in the Superior
Court for the State of California alleging wage payments by
instruments in a form that did not comply with the requirements of
the California Labor Code, allegedly resulting in impermissible
wage payment reductions and calling for imposition of statutory
penalties.  The complaint also alleges a violation of the
California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act and seeks
restitution of such allegedly unpaid wages under California's
unfair competition law, and an injunction compelling compliance
with the California Labor Code.  The complaint alleges two
subclasses of 500 and 200 employees, respectively (there may be
overlap among the subclasses), but contains no allegations
concerning the number of alleged violations or the amount of
recovery sought on behalf of the purported class.  On June 3,
2009, B&N Booksellers filed an answer denying all claims.
Discovery concerning purported class member payroll checks and
related information is ongoing.  On August 19, 2010, B&N
Booksellers filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of a class
representative when the name plaintiff advised she did not wish to
continue to serve in that role.  On October 15, 2010, the Court
issued an order denying B&N Bookseller's motion to dismiss.  The
Court further ruled that Ms. Minor could not serve as a class
representative.  The Court also granted Plaintiff's Motion to
Compel Further Responses to previously-served discovery seeking
contact information for the putative class.  B&N Booksellers
provided that information on October 15, 2010.  The previously
scheduled Case Management Conference was continued to January 27,
2011.

Plaintiff's counsel filed an amended complaint on January 26,
2011, adding two new named Plaintiffs, Jacob Allum and Cesar
Caminiero.  At the Case Management Conference held on January 27,
2011, the Court ordered the parties to complete mediation by
May 6, 2011.  The parties held a mediation on April 11, 2011.  The
parties have reached a tentative settlement of this matter.  On
August 29, 2011, the Court continued a hearing to consider
granting preliminary approval of the settlement until October 4,
2011.


BIOE INC: Judge Allows Stockholder Class Action to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Hammerand, writing for Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal,
reports that a judge has allowed an investor lawsuit against
company BioE Inc. and Holiday Cos. CEO Ron Erickson to proceed as
a class action.

The ruling by Hennepin County District Judge Lloyd Zimmerman will
allow the lawsuit brought by four angel investors to go ahead on
behalf of all non-insider stockholders.  Filed last year, the suit
accuses the Vadnais Heights-based biotech company and its board of
fraudulently transferring assets and wiping out investor equity
before restarting the company.

The investors say the company defaulted on $4.6 million in loans
made in 2008 by Erickson and Bloomington-based investment group
Queenwood Capital Partners to get the company through a cash
shortfall.  The company shut down and transferred its assets to
the creditors who loaned the $4.6 million.  That group restarted
the company.  That deal, however, wiped out the stake of the four
earlier investors along with hundreds of others who invested more
than $30 million.

The company and its officers have denied wrongdoing.

Judge Zimmerman ruled that certifying the case as a class action
would be more efficient and effective than trying a separate case
for each of the company's 460-some investors.  The class includes
all non-insider stockholders as of Nov. 9, 2009.

A class action victory by the investors could mean much larger
damages.  In January, Zimmerman denied a request by BioE and
Erickson to have the case dismissed.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Lessors Lose Class Action Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge refused to
certify a class of more than 500 Texans with mineral leases who
say Chesapeake Energy unilaterally withheld their oil and gas
lease bonuses when the economy soured.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order in Witt, et al. v.
Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00022 (E.D.
Tex.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/09/14/Lease%20bonuses.pdf


CIENA CORP: Appellant Has no Standing to Object to IPO Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York has determined that the last remaining appellant did not have
standing to assert his appeal in the securities class action
lawsuit over Ciena Corporation's merger with ONI Systems Corp.,
according to the Company's September 8, 2011, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended July 31, 2011.

As a result of its June 2002 merger with ONI Systems Corp., Ciena
became a defendant in a securities class action lawsuit filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York in August 2001.  The complaint named ONI, certain former ONI
officers, and certain underwriters of ONI's initial public
offering (IPO) as defendants, and alleges, among other things,
that the underwriter defendants violated the securities laws by
failing to disclose alleged compensation arrangements in ONI's
registration statement and by engaging in manipulative practices
to artificially inflate ONI's stock price after the IPO.  The
complaint also alleges that ONI and the named former officers
violated the securities laws by failing to disclose the
underwriters' alleged compensation arrangements and manipulative
practices.  The former ONI officers have been dismissed from the
action without prejudice.  Similar complaints have been filed
against more than 300 other issuers that have had initial public
offerings since 1998, and all of these actions have been included
in a single coordinated proceeding.  On October 6, 2009, the Court
entered an opinion granting final approval to a settlement among
the plaintiffs, issuer defendants and underwriter defendants, and
directing that the Clerk of the Court close these actions.  All
appeals of the opinion granting final approval have been either
resolved or dismissed, except one.  On August 25, 2011, on remand
from the Second Circuit, the District Court determined that the
last remaining appellant did not have standing to assert his
appeal.

No specific amount of damages has been claimed in this action.
Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation and because the
settlement remains subject to appeal, the Company says the
ultimate outcome of the matter is uncertain.


CITY OF NEW YORK: Formerly Homeless People Loses Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that more than
16,000 formerly homeless people lost a class action against New
York City for defunding the Advantage rental-assistance program.

The city, state and federal government each contributed one-third
of the funding for the Advantage Program, which aimed to
transition formerly homeless tenants to permanent housing.

The state withdrew its support earlier this year, followed shortly
afterward by federal funds.

New York City ended Advantage on April 1, leading the Legal Aid
Society to file a class action on behalf of the participants.

Justice Judith Gische presided over a five-day bench trial at the
state Supreme Court in late June and early July.  The Manhattan-
based court ruled in favor of the city on Sept. 14, saying the
defendants have the right to terminate any social-benefit program,
"no matter how laudable its goals."

The Department of Homeless Services praised the ruling in a
statement.  "We are gratified that Judge Gische has agreed that
Legal Aid's attempt to require city taxpayers to pay the full cost
of Advantage was misguided," Homeless Services Commissioner Seth
Diamond said.  "At a time of extremely limited resources, Legal
Aid's lawsuit has forced the city to spend nearly $80 million
continuing a program for which the state eliminated funding."

Mr. Diamond then criticized the state for making those cuts.

"While the state's decision to eliminate Advantage was the wrong
policy decision, we will continue to move forward in supporting
homeless families in their effort to gain employment and move out
of shelter," he added.

Legal Aid Society attorney Steven Banks vowed to appeal.  "By
winning, the city loses," Mr. Banks said in a statement, noting
that "thousands of formerly homeless families and individuals are
at risk of losing their homes and flooding the shelter system."

A copy of the Decision After Trial in Zheng, et al. v. The City of
New York, et al., Index No. 400806/11 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty.),
is available at http://is.gd/zDC74b


COHEN & SLAMOWITZ: Class Action Over FDCPA Violations Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court
in the Southern District of New York (Case 1:10-cv-05868-PKC) by
Weisberg & Meyers, LLC, Attorneys for Consumers, continues to move
forward after a joint motion to dismiss filed by defendants Cohen
& Slamowitz, LLP, Encore Capital Group, MRC Receivables
Corporation and Midland Credit Management, Inc. (MCM) was denied
by United States District Judge P. Kevin Castel for 3 out of 4
alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  The
Judge's order (Case 1:10-cv-05868-PKC Document 38) refused to
dismiss the lawsuit's allegation that defendants Encore and
subsidiaries MRC and MCM could be held vicariously liable for
potential FDCPA violations in a collection letter sent by Cohen &
Slamowitz, LLP, an affiliated collection law firm that is part of
Encore Capital Group's debt collection network.

The original class action complaint, filed in November 2010,
alleges a mailed communication plaintiff received from "Law
Offices of Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP" contained multiple FDCPA
violations.  Plaintiff's consumer account was originally purchased
from Citibank by Encore Capital Group, along with countless
others, as part of a consumer accounts portfolio.  According to
the communication and court documents, the law firm was attempting
to collect the debt, now owned by Midland Credit, with an offer of
a 50% off "Tax Season Special Discount" to settle the debt in
full.  The mailed communication and thousands exactly like it,
also allegedly falsely represented the creditor as "Midland
Credit" rather than "MRC Receivables", and used the prefix "Law
Firm Of" in lieu of the firm's legal name "Cohen & Slamowitz,
LLP", both potential Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
violations.  Judge Castel's order declined to dismiss these
allegations against the defendants.

According to the allegations in the complaint, after a debt
portfolio is purchased by Encore Capital Group, MRC Receivables
Management takes title and a "proprietary consumer level
collectability analysis" is performed to determine those accounts
which are the most viable for collection post purchase.  Midland
Credit Management is responsible for managing and servicing the
collection of the debts owned by MRC and other Encore debt owning
subsidiaries as part of the agreement between MRC, Midland and
Encore, the complaint alleges.  According to the complaint, an
outsourced legal collections channel comprised of more than 75
vendor relationships with collection law firms is used to collect
debts where allegedly the debtor can pay but is unwilling to do
so.  The complaint further alleges Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP is part
of the Encore network of collection law firms and as such, agreed
to follow all policies and practices set forth by Encore, MRC and
Midland.

The class action lawsuit alleges that through the collection
efforts of its subsidiaries and network, Encore and its
subsidiaries can be held vicariously liable for violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  Encore, MRC Receivables and
Midland Credit Management filed a joint motion to dismiss claiming
they are not liable for alleged violations.  The Judge's order
permits the plaintiff's claim of alleged liability for Encore, MRC
and Midland Credit to proceed despite their motion to dismiss.

The class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons
located in Connecticut, New York and Vermont who, within one year
before the date of the original complaint, received a letter from
"Law Offices of Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP" identifying
"Citibank/Associates" as the original creditor and "Midland
Credit" as the creditor.  Encore Capital Group, Inc. is the
largest publicly traded debt buyer (by revenue) in the United
States according to Wikipedia and industry research.  Encore
purchases charged off consumer receivables portfolios for pennies
on the dollar and according to a presentation available for
potential investors on Encore's Web site, has acquired 36 million
charged off or in default consumer accounts since inception,
comprised mostly of unsecured credit card accounts Encore employs
and manages a network of complex operational channels which has 10
known subsidiaries including MRC Receivables Management, and
Midland Credit Management, and a network of collection law firms
including Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, to maximize debt collection
efforts to the fullest extent possible.

       About Weisberg & Meyers, LLC, Attorneys for Consumers

Weisberg & Meyers LLC, Attorneys for Consumers, is a nationally
recognized consumer law firm, has attorneys licensed to practice
in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey, New
Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas and Washington, and works with attorneys
throughout the country to protect the rights of aggrieved
consumers.  The Firm's diverse practice includes claims under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA), as well as violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), Truth In Lending Act (TILA), the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), Fair Credit Billing Act
(FCBA), Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), Consumer Leasing Act,
Credit Repair Organizations Act, (CROA) and State Unfair and
Deceptive Practices Acts (UDAP's).  The Firm also offers Debt
Settlement services, prosecutes Class Action Lawsuits, and handles
Breach of Warranty, Lemon Law and Consumer Fraud Claims.


DEERE & CO: Recalls 15.5T Lawn Tractors Due to Laceration Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Deere & Company of Moline, Illinois, announced a voluntary recall
of about 15,500 lawn tractors.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

Hardware used to hold the mower blade brake assemblies on the
mower decks can break.  This can cause the mower blades to spin
longer than normal after the operator turns off the power, posing
a laceration hazard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled lawn tractors are green, with yellow seats and mower
decks.  Model numbers D100, D110, D120, and D130, all with a 42-
inch Edge(TM) Cutting System mower deck, are included in this
recall.  The model number is located on both sides of the
tractor's hood.  Lawn tractors with the serial numbers listed
below are included in the recall.  The serial number is located
under the right rear fender.

   Model                     Serial Numbers
   -----                     --------------
   D100       1GXD100A...BB050246 thru 1GXD100A...BB051508
              1GXD100E...BB104567 thru 1GXD100E...BB114387

   D110       1GXD110A...BB051350 thru 1GXD110A...BB054905
              1GXD110C...BB010187 thru 1GXD110C...BB010413
              1GXD110E...AB106157 thru 1GXD110E...AB106342
              1GXD110E...BB106358 thru 1GXD110E...BB115481

   D120       1GXD120A...BB101040 thru 1GXD120A...BB101642
              1GXD120C...BB010026 thru 1GXD120C...BB010035
              1GXD120E...BB101959 thru 1GXD120E...BB102750

   D130       1GXD130A...BB050470 thru 1GXD130A...BB052004

Picture of the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11325.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at John Deere dealers, Lowe's, and Home Depot
stores nationwide from December 2010 through September 2011 for
between $1,500 and $2,000.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled lawn tractors
and contact the company for a free hardware inspection and repair.
For additional information, contact Deere & Company at (800) 537-
8233 between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, and between 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Saturday
or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.johndeere.com/


DEERE & CO: Recalls 5,200 Lawn Tractors Due to Brake Failure
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Deere & Company of Moline, Illinois, announced a voluntary recall
of about 5,200 D100 lawn tractors.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

Hardware used to hold the brake assembly to the transmission
housing can break.  This can cause the brakes to fail, posing an
injury hazard due to loss of control.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled lawn tractors are green with yellow seats and mower
decks.  Model D100 tractors are included in this recall.  The
model number is located on both sides of the tractor's hood.
Tractors with the serial numbers below are included in this
recall.  Serial numbers are located under the right rear fender:

   * 1GXD100A...BB051247 thru 1GXD100A...BB053312; and
   * 1GXD100E...BB114388 thru 1GXD100E...BB139599

Picture of the recalled products is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11326.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at John Deere dealers, Lowe's, and Home Depot
stores nationwide, except California, from October 2010 through
September 2011 for about $1,500.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled lawn tractors
and contact the company for a free hardware inspection and repair.
For additional information, contact Deere & Company at (800) 537-
8233 between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through
Friday and between 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time Saturday or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.johndeere.com/


EGGED: Faces Class Action Over Mehadrin Bus Lines
-------------------------------------------------
A class action suit has been filed in the Tel Aviv District Court
against the legitimacy of Egged mehadrin (separate seating) bus
lines.  The suit filed against Egged maintains the passengers on
such buses enjoy preferential treatment, The Yeshiva World News,
citing the daily HaMevaser, reports.

In her suit, the petitioner, R. Menashe, is particularly annoyed
over the different fares enjoyed by mehadrin commuters, accusing
Egged of hiding this from the general public, that these
passengers receive a discounted rate.  One example given is a bus
trip from Jerusalem to Netivot, in which a mehadrin bus charges
NIS24.50 while regular passengers pay NIS46.5 for the same
service, a difference of NIS22.  In addition, the mehadrin lines
are direct while regular buses make many stops along the way.

Ms. Menashe is seeking damages to the tune of NIS735 million,
calculating NIS135 for each of the nation's 7 million citizens.


EMDEON INC: Robbins Umeda Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Umeda LLP disclosed that the firm commenced a class action
lawsuit on September 12, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, on behalf of all
persons who hold common stock of Emdeon Inc. against Emdeon and
its board of directors for, among other things, violations of
sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with the proposed acquisition of Emdeon by
Blackstone Capital Partners VI, L.P.

The complaint arises out of an August 4, 2011 press release
announcing that Emdeon had entered into a definitive merger
agreement with Blackstone, pursuant to which Emdeon shareholders
would receive $19.00 in cash for each share of Emdeon they own.

The complaint alleges that certain of the defendants, in
connection with Proposed Acquisition, breached or aided and
abetted the other defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties.
The complaint further alleges that, in an attempt to secure
shareholder approval of the Proposed Acquisition, the defendants
filed a materially misleading Preliminary Proxy on Schedule 14A
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in violation of
sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The omitted and/or misrepresented information is believed to be
material in assisting Emdeon shareholders in making an informed
decision whether or not to vote in favor of the Proposed
Acquisition.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief on behalf of all Emdeon
shareholders as of August 4, 2011.  The plaintiff is represented
by Robbins Umeda LLP.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from September 14, 2011.  If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact:

        Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Esq.
        Robbins Umeda LLP
        Telephone: 800-350-6003
        E-mail: info@robbinsumeda.com
        Web site: http://www.robbinsumeda.com

Any member of the 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.

Robbins Umeda LLP, a California-based law firm, has significant
experience representing investors in securities fraud class
actions, merger-related shareholder class actions, and shareholder
derivative actions.


GROSSE POINTE: Faces Class Action Over Flooding
-----------------------------------------------
Sara Eaton Martin, writing for Grosse Pointe Patch, reports that a
law firm specializing in class action lawsuits has filed a suit
against Grosse Pointe Farms last week in Wayne Circuit Court on
behalf of residents whose homes were flooded in May.

About 200 families are currently represented in the lawsuit,
attorney Peter Macuga said.  The lawsuit will have to be certified
as appropriate for class-action legal status before proceedings
truly get into the issues of the case.

Mr. Macuga said the timing is coincidental with the most recent
flooding from last weekend, explaining that when filing such
action there are specific time frames that must be followed.
Filing the lawsuit last week meets the specified legal time
frames, he said.

His firm will start the process again related to the most recent
flooding by offering to file claims with the city's insurance
carrier on behalf of the residents -- one of the first steps in
the process.

Grosse Pointe Farms Public Services Director Terry Brennan told
Patch earlier last week he intended to mail out the notice of
claim filing to the more than 300 residents who reported flooding
to the city last weekend.

Mr. Macuga said based on the narrative reports his firm has been
hearing from residents, there seems to have been more water
involved this time as compared to May.

The more recent flooding is said to have been caused by power
outages by DTE to the Farms pump station, according to a letter
hand-delivered to residents early on Sept. 10 as they were
cleaning their homes and hauling damaged belongings to the curb.

At least one resident who spoke at Sept. 12's Grosse Pointe Farms
council meeting said he felt it a waste to seek out legal
representation because ultimately residents bear the city's burden
of the cost to fight a lawsuit.

Another referred to not being a litigious person but feeling as if
it might be a viable option if the city doesn't admit
responsibility and take action.

All of the claims filed with the Farms' insurance carrier from the
May flooding were denied on the basis that there was no reasonable
expectation that the city should have known there was a problem.

Mr. Macuga said his firm expected the city's denial on all of the
claims filed in the May flooding, as cities never take the blame.
His firm, Macuga, Liddle and Dubin PC, specializes in class action
lawsuits and is known for its work on behalf of residents in
conflict with their respective community.

Concerns voiced earlier last week at the council meeting reveal
residents' frustrations and new problems, including risking their
own homeowners insurance policy if they file a second claim within
a matter of months.

A special meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, Sept. 15, at
the Grosse Pointe War Memorial, during which city officials hope
to provide answers and come up with a plan to address the problem.

Some residents have also expressed irritation that nothing has
happened to address the problem since May.  Mr. Brennan told Patch
that more than 1,000 feet of sewer pipes have been inspected since
May.  The inspection has not revealed any defects that would cause
mass backups and flooding.

Grosse Pointe Farms city manager Shane Reeside has not yet
received notice of the lawsuit.

According to Wayne Circuit Court records, the lawsuit was filed
Monday Sept. 12.  A copy was not available to the public as of
Sept. 13 but should be in a few days as the original document
moves through the records system of the Wayne County Clerk's
office.


HIGHWAY 25: Consumer Protection Group Mulls Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Montreal Gazette reports that a consumer protection group is
asking a Quebec Superior Court for permission to launch a class-
action lawsuit against the consortium that operates the new
Highway 25 toll bridge.

The group, the Union des consommateurs, claims the consortium is
violating provincial law by charging hidden administrative fees to
motorists who use the bridge linking Laval and Montreal.

According to signs posted at the entrance of the bridge, drivers
must pay C$1.80 to navigate the structure.  But to be charged that
amount, the vehicle must be equipped with a transponder that is
scanned as it passes over the span.

Without the transponder, a camera scans a picture of the vehicle's
license plate, and the driver receives a bill of C$6.80 in the
mail.

"These administrative fees aren't indicated anywhere on the signs"
at the bridge's entrance, a spokesperson for the watchdog, Charles
Tanguay, said Sept. 13.

The group is demanding the consortium repay the additional $5
charge to the thousands who have paid it since the bridge opened
in May.


HSBC BANK: Accused of Not Paying Employees' Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Subrahmanyeswara Rao Kolla, an individual, on behalf of himself,
and all persons similarly situated v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., a
Delaware Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
111CV205999 (Calif. Super. Ct., July 27, 2011) accuses HSBC of
failing to pay its employees' overtime wages as required by
federal and state wage and hour laws.

According to the lawsuit, the class is made up of all persons, who
were employed in California by HSBC as an "AVP Cluster Operations
Officer" or "AVP Branch Operations Officer."

Mr. Kolla was employed by HSBC in Santa Clara County as an "AVP
Cluster Operations Officer" from August 2009 to March 2011.  He
was hired to review bank records to ensure compliance with
customers and to provide customer service at a San Jose retail
location.

HSBC is a Delaware corporation and is the principal subsidiary of
HSBC USA Inc., an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of HSBC North
America Holdings Inc., one of the 10 largest banking holding
companies in the United States.  HSBC provides financial services
throughout the United States, and offers a full range of banking
products and services to individuals, small businesses,
corporations, institutions and governments.  The true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the
Plaintiff.

HSBC removed the lawsuit on September 14, 2011, from the Superior
Court of the state of California, County of Santa Clara, to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  HSBC argues that the removal is proper because of the
existence of a federal question, as well as the supplemental
jurisdiction of the District Court over the Plaintiff's state law
claims.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:11-cv-04565
to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551-1232

The Defendants are represented by:

          George J. Tichy, II, Esq.
          Michelle R. Barrett, Esq.
          Lisa J. Lin, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, A Professional Corporation
          650 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108-2693
          Telephone: (415) 433-1940
          E-mail: gtichy@littler.com
                  mbarrett@littler.com
                  llin@littler.com


KAG WEST: Settles Drivers' Class Action for $14 Million
-------------------------------------------------------
Land Line Mag reports that one of the largest petroleum tank truck
transporters in the country, KAG West, has agreed to pay $14
million to drivers in California to settle a Fair Labor Standards
Act class action lawsuit.

According to Business Wire, drivers for KAG West said they were
forced to work "off the clock" and were not paid time-and-a-half
for overtime work.  The settlement ends a five-year FLSA court
battle after the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California granted the case class-action status in 2008.

According to a Law360 article about the case on Sept. 7, KAG
argued that they did not have to pay drivers time-and-a-half for
overtime "under the Motor Carrier Act exemption because its
workers drive across state lines or carry products in a continuous
stream of interstate commerce."

Class members will receive settlements based on the "number of
shifts worked during the class period," the news report stated.


KOREAN AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Air Cargo Price-Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Butler, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
Korean Airlines has been dragged into a long-running class action
over price fixing in the air cargo market, thanks to the other
alleged participants, including Qantas.

The Federal Court on Sept. 14 allowed two members of the alleged
cartel, Singapore Airlines and Cathay Pacific, to add Korean
Airlines as a cross-respondent.

Justice Richard Tracey said the airlines wanted to add Korean
Airlines because earlier this month its counsel told the court it
had struck an in-principle agreement with the competition
watchdog.

He said that although the application to rope in Korean Airlines
was a few weeks late, it could be accommodated.

The $200 million claim was filed by Maurice Blackburn in 2007 but
does not yet have a trial date.

In addition to Qantas, the lawsuit names Lufthansa, Singapore
Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Air New Zealand, Japan Airlines and
British Airways.


KUBOTA MANUFACTURING: Recalls 6T Riding Mowers Due to Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
About 6,100 units of Kubota Riding Mowers were voluntarily
recalled by Kubota Manufacturing of America Corp., of Gainesville,
Georgia, in cooperation with the CPSC.  Consumers should stop
using the product immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The fuel hose clamp can detach from the fuel filter and allow gas
to leak out, posing a fire hazard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The Kubota Riding Mowers are bright orange, have 48-inch, 54-inch,
or 60-inch wide mower decks and have "KUBOTA" stamped on either
the sides of the front engine cover, or on the right side behind
the driver's seat.  The serial number is located on the left front
frame for T series models and the right front frame for GR and ZG
series models.  This recall involves Kubota Riding Mowers with the
following model numbers and serial number ranges.

      Model             Serial Number Range
      -----             -------------------
      T1880A-42             20196-20944
      T2080A-42             20172-21069
      T2380A-48             20139-20827
      GR2010GA-48           20062-20318
      GR2010GAB-48          20089-20278
      GR2020G-48            10002-10113
      GR2020GB-48           10006-10098
      ZG222A-48             50002-51392
      ZG222A-48S            50005-51388
      ZG227-54              20369-21040
      ZG227A-54             50001-50363
      ZG227L-60             10543-11669
      ZG327P-60             31160-31549
      ZG327PA-60            50004-50165
      ZG327RP-60R           10089-10216
      ZG327RPA-60R          A0001-A0038

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11751.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at authorized Kubota dealers nationwide from
April 2010 through April 2011 for between $3,600 and $11,500.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled riding mowers
and contact Kubota to schedule a free inspection and repair.
Kubota is directly contacting consumers who purchased the riding
mowers.  For more information, contact Kubota at (800) 752-0290
between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Pacific Time Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.kubota.com/


LG ELECTRONICS: Reannounces Recall of 98,000 Dehumidifiers
----------------------------------------------------------
   * Home Fires Prompt Dehumidifier Recall Reannouncement From LG
     Electronics

   * More Than One Million Dollars in Property Damage Linked to
     Goldstar and Comfort-Aire Dehumidifiers

LG Electronics Tianjin Appliance Co., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), is urging consumers to
check if they have recalled Goldstar or Comfort-Aire
dehumidifiers.  The firm is re-announcing the recall of about
98,000 of the dangerous dehumidifiers that pose a serious fire and
burn hazard, and are believed to be responsible for more than one
million dollars in property damage.

The power connector for the dehumidifier's compressor can short
circuit, posing fire and burn hazards to consumers and their
property.

The dehumidifiers were first recalled in December 2009 following
eleven incidents, including four significant fires.  Since that
time, the company has received sixteen additional incident reports
of arcing, smoke and fire associated with the dehumidifiers,
including nine significant fires.  No injuries have been reported.
Fires are reported to have caused more than $1 million in property
damage including:

   * $500,000 in damage to a home in Gibsonia, Pennsylvania;
   * $200,000 in damage to a home in New Brighton, Minnesota;
   * $183,000 in damage to a home in Hudson, Massachusetts;
   * $192,000 in damage to a home in Valparaiso, Indiana;
   * $139,000 in damage to a home in Salem, Ohio;
   * $129,000 in damage to a home in Brielle, New Jersey; and
   * $95,000 in damage to a home in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Because of the severity of the risks, CPSC and LG Electronics are
concerned with the lack of consumer response to the recall.  Only
two percent of the 98,000 consumers who purchased these units have
received a free repair, which means that consumers and their
property remain at serious risk.

Anyone who has the recalled dehumidifiers is strongly encouraged
to immediately stop using them, unplug them, and contact LG
Electronics for the free repair.

The recall involves the 30 pint portable dehumidifiers sold under
the Goldstar and Comfort-Aire brands.  The dehumidifiers are white
with a red shut-off button, controls for fan speed and humidity
control, and a front-loading water bucket.  "Goldstar" or
"Comfort-Aire" is printed on the front.  Model and serial number
ranges included in this recall are listed in the table below.  The
model and serial numbers are located on the interior of the
dehumidifier, and can be seen when the water bucket is removed.

Brand         Model No.    Serial Number Range     Sold at
-----         ---------    -------------------     -------
Goldstar      GHD30Y7    611TAxx00001 thru 08400   Home Depot
                          611TAxx08401 thru 40600
                          612TAxx00001 thru 20400
                          612TAxx21001 thru 30600

Goldstar      DH305Y7    612TAxx00001 thru 00600   Walmart
                          701TAxx00001 thru 16800
                          702TAxx00001 thru 03000

Comfort-Aire  BHD-301-C  611TA000001 thru 001697   Various
                          612TA000001 thru 004200   retailers,
                          701TA000001 thru 000578   including
                          710TA000001 thru 000599   Ace Hardware,
                                                    Do It Best &
                                                    Orgill Inc.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11324.html

The recalled dehumidifiers were sold at The Home Depot, Walmart,
Ace Hardware, Do It Best, Orgill Inc., and other retailers
nationwide from January 2007 through June 2008 for between $140
and $150.  They were manufactured in China.

For additional information about the recall and for the location
of an authorized service center for the repair, contact LG toll
free at (877) 220-0479 between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Central
Time Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.
Central Time on Saturday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.30pintdehumidifierrecall.com/


LOS ANGELES TIMES: Writer Faces Class Action Over Wiretapping
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that an attorney
filed a class action accusing a Los Angeles Times business
columnist of recording telephone conversations without his
interviewees' consent, in violation of state wiretap law.  In
California, a recorded call requires the consent of all parties on
the line, so if one speaker records a call without informing the
other, it is called wiretapping.

Los Angeles attorney Robert B. Silverman claims Michael Hiltzik
illegally wiretapped him, and may have recorded hundreds, or
thousands, of such telephone conversations.  Mr. Silverman's
allegation is made under California Penal Code section 632.

"Commencing in February 2010, Mr. Silverman, an attorney-at-law,
received telephone inquires from defendant Hiltzik concerning
various stories and articles he was writing and intended to
publish as columns in the Los Angeles Times newspaper," according
to the Superior Court complaint.  "Mr. Hiltzik telephoned
Mr. Silverman from the telephone number (562) 252- 1518.
Mr. Silverman responded to each telephone inquiry by providing
information concerning the various articles which defendant
Hiltzik was writing and by defending his clients against false and
misleading claims and accusations defendant Hiltzik made."

Mr. Silverman says he learned on Sept. 8 this year that
Mr. Hiltzik had been recording their conversations, when
Mr. Hiltzik sent him an e-mail revealing that the 562 number was a
recorded line.

"When Mr. Silverman spoke to defendant Hiltzik on the telephone
line, defendant did not disclose the conversations were recorded,
nor did defendant Hiltzik request consent to his electronic
recording and interception of the telephone conversation.
Mr. Silverman did not give his consent to defendant's wiretapping
activities," the complaint states.

Mr. Silverman's attorney Jeffrey Krinsk told Courthouse News:
"Mr. Silverman has long been a person who has been protective of
privacy rights and expected a renowned reporter and highly
respected publication to ensure that illegal recording of
telephonic conversations was safeguarded against."

Mr. Krinsk added: "If it ends up being as widespread a condition
as Mr. Silverman believes, we are essentially looking at a
Murdoch-type situation."

(The allegations in Silverman's 9-page complaint actually do not
resemble the wiretapping scandal that undid Rupert Murdoch's "News
of the World."  Those wiretaps involved third parties and hacking,
not one person recording calls with a second person.)

According to the complaint, Mr. Hiltzik also tape recorded
interviewees who called him.

"Defendant's conduct shocks the conscience of the reasonable
person and constitutes an extreme intrusion into Mr. Silverman's
and class members privacy and emotional well being," according to
the complaint.

Mr. Silverman claims that Mr. Hiltzik's e-mailed statement was not
only "an admission of criminal conduct" but is "an intimidation
and precondition preventing interviewees from responding to
defendant's false and misleading articles, in addition to an
unreasonable intimidation preventing the public from freely
responding to defendant's editorial misstatements."

Mr. Silverman claims Mr. Hiltzik's conduct not only violated state
law but the newspaper's ethic guidelines, which state: "People who
will be shown in an adverse light in an article must be given a
meaningful opportunity to defend themselves.  This means making a
good-faith effort to give the subject of allegations or criticism
sufficient time and information to respond substantively.
Whenever possible, the reporter should meet face-to-face with the
subject in a sincere effort to understand his or her best
arguments."

Mr. Silverman claims that neither he nor other interviewees were
given a "meaningful opportunity to defend themselves."

"Defendant's representations that he abides by the ethics
guidelines are false, and defendant knows they are false because
he does not make a 'good faith effort to give the subject of
allegations or criticism sufficient time and information to
respond substantively.'  Instead, defendant intimidates his
interviewees, conditions their response on providing recorded
telephone interviews, and fails to obtain their consent when he
wiretaps and records their telephone conversations," according to
the complaint.

An L.A. Times vice president called it "another baseless lawsuit
filed by Mr. Silverman."

Nancy Sullivan told Courthouse News: "Mr. Hiltzik has not been
served, but this is just another baseless lawsuit filed by
Mr. Silverman.  This time he is the plaintiff.  Three other
lawsuits he filed against the Los Angeles Times and its employees
have been thrown out of court.  We are confident that this latest
vexatious lawsuit also will be thrown out."


NARAS: Latin Jazz Musicians File Class Action Over Grammy Awards
----------------------------------------------------------------
Felix Contreras, writing for NPR, reports that in April, the board
of the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences (NARAS),
which oversees the Grammy Awards, announced that with next year's
ceremony, the number of awards handed out would be cut from 109 to
78.

Categories like best R&B vocal performance by a male, by a female
and by a group were merged into single award.  Metal and hard rock
were combined into one award.  The number of Grammys that will go
to Latin musicians when the awards are presented at the 54th-
annual awards ceremony in February will be four, down from seven
this year.

Just 17 awards were handed out at the first ever Grammy Awards
ceremony, in 1957, but the number of awards ballooned over the
years.  Videos were added in the 1980s.  The rise of hip-hop
resulted in multiple additions in the 1990s.  Native American,
Hawaiian, and Zydeco and Cajun albums (all categories that were
contracted in the new cuts) were given their own categories in the
last decade.

For NARAS, the cuts have to do with a desire to return some of the
luster to the awards by increasing competition.

"It's got to be the highest possible achievement and when you
begin to dilute that in categories where, for example where there
are few submission or very little Grammy activity or the same
artists continually received the Grammy year after year because it
is such a small community, then that puts a question mark on the
Grammy and what is the value of a Grammy if it is so easy to get,"
says Neil Portnow, the CEO of NARAS.

For many of the musicians who have previously been up for the
awards that were eliminated, the cuts meant that they will now
compete in broader categories, often against more famous
musicians.

"I can't compete with Herbie Hancock.  I can't compete with Wayne
Shorter," says Mark Levine, a pianist, composer and educator who
has twice been nominated in the Best Latin Jazz Album category,
now folded into Best Jazz Album.  "Go down the list.  It is very
unlikely that a Latin jazz artist will be more popular."

To protest the changes, Mr. Levine renounced his NARAS membership
and, along with three other Latin jazz musicians, filed a lawsuit
against the organization in August.  The suit claims that the cuts
made by NARAS demonstrate negligence toward its members by taking
away a shot at recognition musicians might use to promote
themselves, thus making it harder for them to earn a living.

Then there's the simple matter of appropriate categorization.

"Latin jazz is not a subset," says bandleader Arturo O'Farrill,
who won the Grammy for Best Latin Jazz Album in 2009.

Robert Doyle, the CEO of Canyon Records, which has been recording
and releasing Native American music for 60 years (with 30 Grammy
nominations and 1 win), agrees.  Best Native American Music Album
has been combined with Best Hawaiian Music Album and Best Zydeco
or Cajun Music Album under the new category of Best Regional Roots
Music Album.

"On the one hand, we did understand the rationale behind the
cuts," Mr. Doyle says.  "On the other hand, we were deeply
disappointed.  And then really what we wanted [was] to figure a
way to work within the system to get the category back -- What did
we have to do? -- and begin that process."

Mr. Portnow says that NARAS is not backing down from its decision,
but he is leaving the door open just a little.

"We'll be reviewing the awards roll-out after this year's cycle
and we'll be talking about the things that worked, the things that
didn't, and the changes we want to make," he says.

Mr. O'Farrill sees a larger task facing NARAS and other cultural
institutions as this country's cultural profile expands.

"Challenge yourself, challenge the nation, challenge all of us to
look at the different flavors that are part of this world, part of
this nation," he says.


OLYMPIC COAST: Faces Class Action Over Two Securities Offerings
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Gilblom, writing for Puget Sound Business Journal, reports
that Seattle securities dealer Olympic Coast Investment Co. is
being sued in a class action case over two securities offerings
that allegedly bilked more than 200 Washington state investors out
of millions of dollars.

The suit, filed on Sept. 9 in King County Superior Court on behalf
of Spokane-based investor Kathleen Smith, alleges that Olympic
Coast (OCI) made false statements to investors in violation of
state securities laws.

According to the suit, investors collectively poured $21 million
into two different securities offerings to fund a housing
development in North Carolina.  The suit alleges that OCI told
investors the project was more complete than it was, and that it
overstated the value of the portion of the project used as
collateral for the loan.

The suit also alleges that OCI made these false representations to
investors to collect large fees connected with originating and
servicing the securities.

OCI is a company that extends loans to developers who don't
qualify for traditional lending and then sells interest shares in
the loans -- considered "securities" by state law -- to investors.
David Hoff, a lawyer for OCI, did not return calls seeking
comment.

The suit also alleges that OCI did not fully investigate or lied
about the financial situation of one of the project's developers,
J.T. Bramlette.

According to court records, in April 2008, four months after
developer Bramlette received a $3 million loan from OCI to develop
lots in North Carolina, he filed for bankruptcy protection in
Utah.  However, a specific offering circular distributed to
potential investors a few months earlier said Mr. Bramlette had a
track record of success as a developer and was worth $17 million,
with assets including a $6 million jet and luxury automobiles.


SAXON MORTGAGE: Berger & Montague Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. has filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan on behalf of all Michigan homeowners whose
mortgage loans have been serviced by Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc.
and/or Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, and who, since April 13, 2009,
(1) have entered into a Trial Period Plan contract with Defendants
and made all payments as required by their TPP contract and
complied with Defendants' requests for documentation, and (2) have
not received or have been denied a permanent Home Affordable
Modification Agreement that complied with the U.S. Department of
the Treasury's Home Affordable Modification Program rules.

If you believe that you have been improperly denied a permanent
loan modification by Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. or Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC after April 13, 2009, please contact plaintiffs'
counsel, Eric Lechtzin of Berger & Montague, P.C. at 888-891-2289
or 215-875-3038, or by e-mail at elechtzin@bm.net

A copy of the Complaint can be viewed on the firm's Web site at
http://www.bergermontague.comor may be requested from the Court.
The docket number is 2:11-cv-13973-SFC-MJH.

The Complaint alleges that Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. and Ocwen
Loan Servicing, LLC agreed to participate in HAMP, and are
obligated to modify mortgage loans they service for homeowners who
qualify under HAMP, a federal program designed to abate the
foreclosure crisis by providing mortgage loan modifications to
eligible homeowners.  The lawsuit alleges that Defendants
systematically slow or thwart homeowners' requests to modify
mortgages in order to collect higher fees and interest rates
associated with stressed home loans.

Members of the proposed class applied for HAMP loan modifications
from Defendants, were prequalified for the program, and received
TPP contracts calling for them to make three modified loan
payments and submit certain financial documentation if they had
not already done so.  Despite fulfilling these obligations under
the TPP contracts with Defendants, they did not receive permanent
HAMP modifications of their loans, nor did they receive timely
written notifications explaining the reasons for Defendants'
denials.

For more information about this case, please contact:

        Todd S. Collins, Esq.
        Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
        Kimberly A. Walker, Esq.
        BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
        1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103
        Telephone: 1-888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000

Berger & Montague, founded in 1970, is a pioneer in class action
litigation.  The firm's approximately 70 attorneys concentrate
their practice in complex litigation, including consumer
protection, securities fraud, whistleblower and false claims
actions, antitrust, labor and employment rights, and environmental
and mass torts, and have recovered several billion dollars for
consumers and investors.


STATE FARM: Accused of Covering Up Support for Judge Karmier
------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Hundsdorfer, writing for News-Democrat, reports that lawyers
in a class-action case accused insurance giant State Farm of
defrauding the Illinois Supreme Court by covering up its support
of the Republican candidate in the most expensive state judicial
race in U.S. history.

Those attorneys, including a former television star and U.S.
senator, Fred Thompson, allege State Farm lied and mislead the
court, hiding its "extraordinary support of Justice (Lloyd)
Karmeier's campaign and to thwart Justice Karmeier's
disqualification."

A petition was recently filed asking the court to reconsider its
decision to void a $1 billion verdict against State Farm.  The
petition is based on an investigation by a former FBI agent
Michael Reece.

"The bottom line of my investigation is that State Farm used the
Illinois Civil Justice League to elect Judge Karmeier and Judge
Judge Karmeier knew it," Mr. Reece stated in his affidavit that
accompanied the petition.

The petition alleges Judge Karmeier received at least $2.5 million
and up to $4 million in contributions from State Farm during the
2004 campaign against his opponent Democrat Gordon Maag.  Judge
Karmeier declined to recuse himself from the class-action case
against State Farm because of a conflict of interest.  Judge
Karmeier eventually cast his vote to void a $1 billion judgment.

"This case was resolved by the Illinois Supreme Court years ago.
Plaintiffs attempts to have the case heard by the U.S. Supreme
Court were unsuccessful," said State Farm spokesman Dick Luedke.

Judge Karmeier was hearing oral arguments in Springfield on
Sept. 14 and could not be immediately be reached for comment.

"The Court does not comment on a case pending before it," said
Joe Tybor, Supreme Court spokesman.

The decision to recuse from a case is mostly left up to the judge.

"There are no hard and fast rules. Most courts leave it up to each
judge's discretion," said Northwestern University law school
professor J. Samuel Tenenbaum, who teaches civil litigation.

But the U.S. Supreme Court has offered some guidance.

In a 2009 ruling, the court stated a West Virginia appellate judge
should have recused himself from a case where the judge received
$3 million in campaign contributions, then overturned a verdict
against a contributor.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided the judge should have recused
himself because of the "serious risk of actual bias."

The Illinois case dates back to 1997 when it was filed in
Williamson County.  The suit alleged State Farm breached its
contract with policyholders when it directed the use of non-
original parts in vehicles damaged in crashes.  A jury awarded
$465 million to some State Farm customers.  Williamson County
Associate Judge John Speroni awarded $730 million to other policy
holders.

In 2001, the Appellate Court let stand a $1.05 billion judgment.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2003.

Judge Karmeier, then a circuit judge in Washington County,
announced six months later that he would run as a Republican for
Illinois Supreme Court.

Judge Karmeier was elected to the Supreme Court in November 2004.

State Farm later represented to the Supreme Court that it provided
$350,000 to the Karmeier campaign when plaintiffs' attorneys
requested Judge Karmeier recuse himself from the class-action
decision.

Nine months after Judge Karmeier was elected, he sided with a 4-2
majority to void the judgment against State Farm.  To overturn an
appellate decision, there must be a four-justice majority.  If
that does not occur, the appellate court ruling stands.

Plaintiffs' lawyers asked for a review by the U.S. Supreme Court
three years before the West Virginia case was decided, but the
court declined to hear it.

Reece, hired by plaintiffs' lawyers Gordon Ball, Don Barrett and
Pat Pendley, discovered evidence that State Farm lobbyist Bill
Shepherd vetted Judge Karmeier for the job, helped direct
Judge Karmeier's campaign, along with Illinois Civil Justice
League head Ed Murnane, used the league's political action
committee, JUSTPAC, to raise $2.5 million and "funneled" it to
Judge Karmeier's campaign, according to his affidavit filed with
the recent petition.

Mr. Thompson, who played District Attorney Arthur Branch in the
NBC television series "Law and Order," served as a Republican U.S.
Senator from Tennessee and made a run as a presidential candidate
in 2008, joined the plaintiffs' attorneys in the recent petition.


STATE OF CALIFORNIA: Court to Review Decision on Union Fund
-----------------------------------------------------------
National Right to Work Foundation attorneys filed the initial
brief with the United States Supreme Court, which is reviewing a
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that forced nonunion
California state employees to fund union officials' political
activism.

Foundation attorneys, who are litigating the case, filed the brief
on Sept. 12 for the eight California civil servants who initiated
a class-action lawsuit against the California State Employee
Association (CSEA) union, an affiliate of the Service Employees
International Union (SEIU).

In 2005, CSEA union officials imposed a "special assessment" to
raise money from all represented state employees for a union
political fund, regardless of their membership status.  The
political fund was used to defeat several ballot proposals,
including one that revoked public employee unions' special
privilege of using forced fees for political contributions unless
an employee consents.  Employees who refrained from union
membership were given no chance to opt out of the CSEA union's
political fund.

Under the Right to Work Foundation-won Supreme Court decision
Teachers Local 1 v. Hudson, public employees forced to pay union
dues as a condition of employment must be notified of which part
of their dues are spent on union activities unrelated to
collective bargaining and be given an opportunity to opt out of
paying for members-only events and union boss political activism.

In 2007, a federal district court ruled that the CSEA was required
to provide a notice to nonunion employees about the assessment,
allow them to opt-out of paying into the union political fund,
provide a refund of monies spent on union-boss politics, and pay
interest from the dates of the deductions to nonmembers who chose
to opt out.

After CSEA union lawyers appealed the case, a Ninth Circuit panel
reversed that decision in December 2010.  On June 27, 2011, the
United States Supreme Court announced it would review the Ninth
Circuit's ruling.

"Allowing the Ninth Circuit's ruling to stand would further
undermine state employees' First Amendment rights and encourage
union bosses to extract more forced dues from nonunion workers as
a condition of employment," stated Mark Mix, President of the
National Right to Work Foundation.  "It is unconscionable for a
court to force employees who want nothing to do with the union or
its so-called 'representation' to subsidize union political
activities."


TRAVEL CHANNEL: Faces Right of Publicity Act Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports that in its
nearly 25 year history, the Travel Channel has been to a lot of
places in this world, but it's a Chicago hot dog restaurant that's
got the Scripps Network-owned cable station defending a class
action lawsuit with damages potentially worth more than $1 billion
dollars.

The lawsuit was filed last month by an Illinois resident named
Jennifer Zglobicki on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated.  She alleges that that she was filmed at the Chicago-
based Wiener's Circle hot dog restaurant for an episode of the
Travel Channel's Extreme Fast Food show, and that neither the
producer, Sharp Entertainment, nor the network, obtained her
consent to broadcast her likeness.

She's suing under Illinois' Right of Publicity Act, which in the
Hollywood court circuit, amounts to an alleged violation of the
failure-to-blur-one's-face statute.

Ms. Zglobicki demands damages of either $1,000 per violation or
actual damages.  The program is alleged to have aired 20 times and
been broadcast to millions of individuals worldwide, with a
potential damage estimate of more than $1 billion.  Yes, billion.

Travel is denying the claims, but it actually hyped the large
monetary figure in order to get the lawsuit moved on Sept. 12 from
a circuit court in Illinois to a federal court in the state.  Take
this as a tip from Travel that federal courts have better weather
for corporations.

According to the Travel Channel Web site, the hole-in-the-wall hot
dog joint is "infamous for hurling insults at its customers.  The
curses are so insulting, so rude and so downright dirty, they
would make sailors and truck drivers blush with modesty."

Ms. Zglobicki's complaint doesn't explicitly mention that she was
subject to said abuse on television.  One woman's emotional
distress would be too small for a billion-dollar class action
lawsuit.


UNITED STATES: Court Wants Cobell Settlement Dispute Resolved
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Mike Scarcella at The Blog of
Legal Times, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has
agreed to expedite a challenge to the $3.4 billion Native American
class action settlement that a trial judge declared fair and
reasonable.

At the request of the Justice Department, the plaintiffs' lawyers
and the objector to the deal, the appeals court said on Sept. 13
it will accelerate resolution of the dispute.  The D.C. Circuit
could hear the appeal as early as January.

The lawyers for lead plaintiff Elouise Cobell said 92 class
members objected to the settlement, which addressed claims of
decades of government mismanagement of Indian trust accounts.
Senior Judge Thomas Hogan of Washington federal district court
issued final judgment, approving the settlement, in August.

Several class members who did not object in a timely fashion to
the deal want the appeals court to review the settlement.  Only
one class member, Kimberly Craven, has presented the D.C. Circuit
claims that were filed in a timely way in the district court,
according to the plaintiffs' legal team.

"This appeal is brought by a single timely objector out of a
500,000 member class," Ms. Cobell's attorneys said in court papers
filed last week in the D.C. Circuit.  The appeal, the attorneys
said, "effectively stays the payment of billions of dollars to
individual Indian trust beneficiaries who desperately need those
funds."

Ms. Cobell's lawyers, including Washington solo Dennis Gingold and
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton partner Keith Harper, said in a
filing that Ms. Craven's appeal "is a political crusade to deter
trust reform."

"Because Craven failed to block this settlement politically, she
now wants to kill, or at least seriously delay, the settlement
through appeal," Ms. Cobell's attorneys said.

Ms. Craven, represented by Theodore Frank of the Center for Class
Action Fairness, in Washington, said in court papers the issues in
the dispute include the $2.5 million incentive award to certain
class members and class commonality issues in light of the U.S.
Supreme Court's ruling in Wal-Mart v. Dukes.

In a court filing Sept. 12, Mr. Frank said the D.C. Circuit "will
be the first one to address these important constitutional issues
affecting the rights of hundreds of thousands of Indians."

The appeal, Mr. Frank said, centers on questions of law that will
not require the D.C. Circuit to examine the factual record of the
dispute.  Mr. Frank represents Ms. Craven pro bono.

"The Center does not object indiscriminately," Mr. Frank said in a
declaration in Washington's federal trial court.  "It evaluates
many more settlements than it objects to, and regularly rejects
inquiries where it does not feel it has a good chance of
establishing precedent generally useful to class members in future
litigation."

Mr. Frank said in the declaration that the appeal is "brought in
good faith.  The issues Ms. Craven wishes to raise in her appeal
are not only non-frivolous, but have been adopted by other appeals
courts or the Supreme Court, and are of great importance to the
law of class action settlements."


WAL-MART: Set to Unveil Women-Friendly Plans After Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Clifford and Stephanie Strom, writing for The New York
Times, report that Wal-Mart planned to announce on Sept. 14 new
programs aimed at helping women-owned businesses and women
workers, as the company continues to deal with the possibility of
individual claims of sex discrimination after the Supreme Court
threw out a class-action suit by women workers this summer.

In an advance draft of the announcement, Wal-Mart said it planned
to source a total of $20 billion in products from women-owned
businesses in the United States over the next five years, which
works out to an average of $4 billion a year, versus the $2.5
billion a year it currently spends, and to double what it buys
from women-owned businesses globally by 2016.

The company said it would also support training of women in
factories and farms that are Wal-Mart suppliers, donate $100
million to causes supporting women's economic development, and ask
its vendors and services firms like ad agencies or public
relations firms to increase gender and minority representation on
their Wal-Mart accounts.

"If you look at retail, the vast majority of our customers are
women, and if you look at Wal-Mart, the majority of our associates
are women," said Leslie A. Dach, executive vice president of
corporate affairs for Wal-Mart, in an interview.  "It makes
complete sense for us to really have a focus on how we have the
best associates we can, how we help women suppliers succeed and
how we engage our communities."

The $5 billion a year that Wal-Mart plans to spend with women-
owned businesses would still be a small percentage of Wal-Mart's
overall budget.  The $4 billion a year, on average, that Wal-Mart
will spend sourcing from women in the United States works out to
about 5% of the company's annual operating expenses.

"Over the course of the five years, we are going to both have to
seek out the businesses that are there, and open ourselves up to
that, and also we're going to help these businesses grow," he
said.  "They'll range from construction to farming to food, and
one of the great things about this is we will also improve the
assortment of products we sell to people, and help our products
become more relevant."

Mr. Dach said the announcement on Sept. 14 was not in reaction to
the class-action suit against Wal-Mart, which charged unfair
treatment of women in the workplace; the Supreme Court recently
threw out the case.  Some of the plaintiffs have said they will
still try to sue the company through individual claims.

But some critics were quick to fault Wal-Mart's plans.  Janet
Shenk, a former A.F.L.-C.I.O. official, said its move to buy more
products from women was a way of not dealing with problems.

"Once again, Wal-Mart is avoiding every issue that touches on how
its products are produced," said Ms. Shenk, who oversees some
corporate grants at the Panta Rhea Foundation, which works to
combat corporate influence.  "It's not about who owns the factory.
So far as I know, there's no evidence that factories and
businesses owned by women treat their employees better or have
better conditions than factories and businesses owned by men."

Yet CARE, a nonprofit development and relief agency, said Wal-Mart
support would help advance its work.

"The typical woman we work with is a woman working in an apparel
factory in, say, Bangladesh," said Melanie Minzes, senior director
for development at CARE.  "She is probably illiterate, probably
gets sick pretty easily because she doesn't have much health
education.  With Wal-Mart's commitment, we are going to be able to
reach tens of thousands of women like her and improve their lives
and economic positions.  We will be able to teach them to read,
how to address common abuses they face and what proper nutrition
is, all things that will make her a better, healthier employee."

Wal-Mart has measured the gender and ethnic diversity at law firms
that work for it since 2005.  In the draft of the Sept. 14
announcement, it did not specify what new standards might be.
Asked why there were no specifications, Mr. Dach said that "it's
important for us to be realistic about that as we make change --
we're not asking anyone to turn over their work force, but we're
confident that it will help us get results like it did in the
legal field."

According to the draft, the Sept. 14 announcement will be similar
to ones Wal-Mart has made in the past several years outlining
goals on locally sourced agriculture, addressing "food deserts" in
urban areas and reducing energy use.


ZONEPERFECT NUTRITION: Sued Over "All-Natural" Product Labels
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Colucci and Kimberly S. Sethavanish, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. ZonePerfect Nutrition
Company, a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:11-cv-04561 (N.D.
Calif., September 14, 2011) is brought on behalf of a nationwide
class of consumers, who purchased ZonePerfect's nutrition bars
labeled as "All-Natural" even though they contain ingredients
recognized as synthetic chemical or ingredient by federal
regulations, including Ascorbic Acid, Cocoa, Cocoa Powder,
Disodium Phosphate, Glycerine and Xanthan Gum.

The Plaintiffs accuse ZonePerfect of putting false and misleading
labels on its products, in violation of the California Business
and Professions Code and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act of the
California Civil Code.  The Plaintiffs also allege that
ZonePerfect's conduct is grounds for restitution on the basis of
quasi-contract/unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs are residents of Windsor, California, in Sonoma
County.  Mr. Colucci previously served in the United States Marine
Corps and from September 2009 through April 2010, he was deployed
as part of his service with the Marines.  During that time, he
asked his fiancee, Ms. Sethavanish, to purchase multi-bar packs of
ZonePerfect nutrition bars, which were included in the packages
that she sent him on a monthly basis.

ZonePerfect is a Delaware corporation and is a subsidiary of
Abbott Laboratories.  ZonePerfect manufactures, distributes and
sells nutrition bars through walk-in and online retailers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Janet Lindner Spielberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JANET LINDNER SPIELBERG
          12400 Wilshire Boulevard, #400
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 392-8801
          Facsimile: (310) 278-5938
          E-mail: jlspielberg@jlslp.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          10680 West Pico Boulevard, Suite 280
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 836-6000
          Facsimile: (310) 836-6010
          E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq.
          Maureen Davidson-Welling, Esq.
          Wyatt A. Lison, Esq.
          STEMBER FEINSTEIN DOYLE & PAYNE LLC
          Allegheny Building, 17th Floor
          429 Forbes Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-8400
          Facsimile: (412) 281-1007
          E-mail: jkravec@stemberfeinstein.com
                  mdavidsonwelling@stemberfeinstein.com
                  wlison@stemberfeinstein.com


                            *********

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  * * *