/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110927.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Tuesday, September 27, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 191


AMERICAN FAMILY: LankinChapman Seeks to Amend Class Action
APPLE INC: Judge Dismisses Consolidated Privacy Class Actions
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Trial Court Denies Ill. Suit Certification
BRAIN RESEARCH: Bid to Disqualify Class Action Lawyer Rejected
BRIDGEWAY INT'L: Recalls 91,000 Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard

C.R. BARD: Women Suffering Avaulta Complications May File Suit
CHRISTIAN BROTHERS: Thirty-Five Men Join Sex Abuse Class Action
CLARK & WASHINGTON: Sued in Ga. for Disgorgement of Legal Fees
COVINGTON DIOCESE: Dist. Ct. Has No Jurisdiction on Law Firm Claim
FEN-PHEN: Lawyer Permanently Disbarred Over Settlement

JPMORGAN CHASE: No Breach in Loyalty in Sigma Investment, Ct. Says
LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: 5th Cir. Urges Recalculation of Goldstein Fees
MERCK & CO: 2nd Cir. Seeks Guidance on Cross Tolling in Virginia
NEIMAN MARCUS: "Monjazeb" Class Suit Remains Pending in Calif.
OASIS LEGAL: App. Ct. Remands Parson Suit on Improper Venue Issue

PANDORA MEDIA: Accused of Violating Video Rental Privacy Act
RICHMOND, VA: Police Officers File Overtime Class Action
SEATTLE HOUSING: Jan. 2012 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
SINOTECH ENERGY: October 18 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
SMITH BARNEY: Union Pension Fund's Class Action Can't Proceed

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Sued in Alabama Over Rapid Rewards Program
SPECIALIZED BICYCLE: Recalls 14,200 Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
STATE STREET: Dist. Ct. Rejects Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
SYCAMORE NETWORKS: IPO Case Appellant May Appeal Until Sept. 24
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Discharged Military Gays


AMERICAN FAMILY: LankinChapman Seeks to Amend Class Action
Steve Korris, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that LakinChapman lawyers who carried on a Madison County class
action against American Family Insurance with a dead client for
three years find a substitute suffers a more serious deficiency.

Jonathan Piper of LakinChapman moved for leave to amend the
complaint on Sept. 9, after American Family alleged that class
representative Mark Kruse leads a conflicting class action in

In the Madison County action, Mr. Kruse and other substitutes for
the late Manuel Hernandez claim American Family improperly reduced
payments on medical bills from car crashes.

According to American Family, the interests of the class in the
Iowa action conflict with the interests of the class in Madison

American Family reported Mr. Kruse's role in Iowa to Madison
County Circuit Judge Bill Mudge on Aug. 16, in a supplement to a
motion to decertify the class.

Rather than oppose the motion, Mr. Piper proposed a new complaint.

He didn't mention Mr. Kruse, but the notes he hit sounded like

"Plaintiffs seek leave to amend their complaint to narrow the
class claims to reductions taken pursuant to Mitchell Medical
software reductions based on charges exceeding the usual and
customary amount for the geographical region," he wrote.

"The amended complaint also contains an alternative request for
certification of particular issues," he wrote.

"The amended complaint will help to focus the issues with respect
to certification and before notice to the class is issued," he

"There is no prejudice or surprise to defendant by making changes
for clarification and proper procedure," he wrote.

Brad Lakin and Robert Schmieder worked on the brief.

Mr. Hernandez sued American Family in 2000.

Retired circuit judge Daniel Stack certified a class action as
associate judge in 2002, on claims from 11 states back to 1990.

Mr. Hernandez died in 2004, but no one told Judge Stack.

He kept holding hearings and signing orders.

In 2006, American Family notified him that Mr. Hernandez died.

The insurer pleaded that the case died with him, but Judge Stack
allowed substitutions in 2007.

This June, American Family filed a decertification motion under

In its Aug. 16 supplement, Anthony Martin of St. Louis wrote that
class counsel should have disclosed the Iowa action at least three
years ago.

He wrote that the Iowa action was replete with accusations against
doctors Mr. Kruse represents in the Madison County action.

He wrote that Mr. Kruse has a conflict with at least 95% of
medical doctors and doctors of osteopathy in Iowa.

He wrote that the case awaited oral argument at the Iowa Supreme

Judge Mudge set an Oct. 14 hearing on Mr. Piper's motion.

APPLE INC: Judge Dismisses Consolidated Privacy Class Actions
Amy Miller, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal judge
in San Jose has dismissed a group of consolidated privacy class
actions that claimed that Apple Inc. and eight other defendants
let advertisers track mobile device users' activity without

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh granted the motions to dismiss on
Sept. 20, with leave to amend, finding that plaintiffs didn't show
that they'd been harmed, or how defendants' actions had allegedly
harmed them.  "In fact," Judge Koh wrote, "plaintiffs fail to
differentiate among the eight mobile industry defendants making it
impossible to decipher, based on the current allegations, any
causal chain."

The suits claim generally that the iPhone's operating system
enables privacy violations by letting app makers access, track and
store user information without the user's knowledge or consent.

"Downloading an app is not a case or controversy," said S. Ashlie
Beringer, a Palo Alto Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner who argued
the motion on behalf of defendants Admob Inc., Flurry Inc.,
Mobclix Inc., Pinch Media Inc., Trafficmarketplace.com Inc.,
Millennial Media, AdMarvel Inc. and Quattro Wireless Inc.  "Mobile
applications need to access information on the device to work, and
so do the companies that provide ads and other support to these
apps, James McCabe of Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco argued
on behalf of Apple.  Officials at Apple did not respond to
requests for comment.

Judge Koh's ruling in In Re iPhone Application Litigation, 11-MD-
02250, comes a month after complaints filed across the country by
KamberLaw, Milberg, Audet & Partners, Parisi & Havens and others
were consolidated before her.

Judge Koh gave the plaintiffs 60 days to file an amended
complaint, which KamberLaw's Scott Kamber said they will do.  "We
look forward to refiling, and appreciate the courts' constructive
input," he said.  U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg dismissed a
similar class action against Facebook over its "Friend Finder"
feature in June, also saying plaintiffs had not shown they'd
suffered any injury.

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Trial Court Denies Ill. Suit Certification
Judge Gary Feinerman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois ruled in favor of Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals Inc. in the class action lawsuit commenced by
Catherine Copello and Annette Allen, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, against the Company, Case No. 10-C 7396
(N.D. Ill.).

The plaintiffs are former employees of the company that allege
deprivation of overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

"Allen's FLSA claims are dismissed, and Copello may not
participate in an FLSA collective action or an IMWL class action
against Boehringer," Judge Feinerman ordered.

Ms. Allen identified nothing "by way of wise judicial
administration or judicial efficiency" that would be gained by
allowing her to pursue her FLSA claims in Illinois, the District
Court opined.  Ms. Allen previously opted into the action
captioned, Ruggeri v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
No. 3:06-CV-1985 (D. Conn.), a pending FLSA collective action
brought by Boehringer PSRs in the District of Connecticut.

As to Ms. Copello, the District Court acknowledged that she
entered into a separation agreement and general release when she
left Boehringer's employ in late October 2009, where the employee
waived the right to become a member of any class in a case against
the company related in any way to the employee's employment with
the company.

The ruling held that because Ms. Allen's FLSA claim is dismissed
and Ms. Copello cannot pursue a FLSA collective action, there is
no plaintiff who could fill that role.  "Accordingly, Plaintiffs'
motion to conditionally certify an FLSA collective action is
denied," the District Court said.

The following claims remain for disposition: (1) Msses. Copello's
and Allen's IMWL claims, for which only Ms. Allen can be put forth
as a class representative if and when Rule 23 certification is
sought; and (2) Ms. Copello's FLSA claims, which can proceed only
on an individual basis.

A copy of the District Court's Aug. 2, 2011 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at http://is.gd/ZxGtVgfrom Leagle.com.

BRAIN RESEARCH: Bid to Disqualify Class Action Lawyer Rejected
Kenneth Ofgang, writing for Metropolitan News, reports that an
attorney who sued the maker of a medical product for false
advertising, and who was in turn sued by the manufacturer for
defamation, may continue to represent the plaintiff in the
original lawsuit, the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled on
Sept. 21.

Orange Superior Court Judge Gail Andler did not abuse her
discretion in ruling that Thomas H. Clarke Jr. of Ropers, Majeski,
Kohn & Bentley did not have a disqualifying conflict of interest,
the court held.  Justice Eileen Moore authored the unpublished
opinion for Div. Three.

Mr. Clarke filed suit on behalf of Joseph Rotenberg against Brain
Research Labs, LLC and related defendants in Marin Superior Court
two yeas ago.  The complaint alleged that the defendants falsely
promoted Procera AVH as protecting the brain and promoting

Mr. Rotenberg asked the Marin court to certify a class and to
grant injunctive relief and restitution under the false
advertising, unfair competition, and consumer legal remedies acts.

                        Defamation Suit

In August 2009, the defendants in that action sued Messrs. Clarke,
Rotenberg, and a television station and its network, claiming
Mr. Clarke made defamatory statements in a local news report and
in an Internet video posted to solicit potential plaintiffs.

Among the allegedly defamatory statements cited by the
manufacturer were that its product "contains dangerous drugs" that
were potentially lethal, that its makers were "scam artists" who
did not care if users "live or die," that claims made for the
product were "bogus," and that it was "absolutely ineffective."

The judge in the defamation case granted an anti-SLAPP motion in
part, concluding that Brain Research Labs might prevail on its
claims against Clarke and his firm, but not against Mr. Rotenberg.
Mr. Clarke and Roper Majeski have an appeal pending; the broadcast
defendants have been dismissed.

                          Action Removed

In the meantime, the underlying case was removed to federal court,
remanded to the Marin court, and ultimately transferred to the
Orange Superior Court.  In September of last year, three months
after the transfer of venue and 15 months after the action was
filed, the defendants moved to disqualify Mr. Clarke and Ropers

They argued that counsel had a strong motive to leverage the class
claims in order to extricate itself from the defamation suit,
noting that Mr. Clarke had said in settlement talks that any
settlement of the underlying suit should involve the defamation
action as well, although he admittedly had later "reversed his

Mr. Clarke denied that he had ever sought to condition a
settlement of the underlying case on a resolution of the
defamation claims.

In denying the disqualification motion, Judge Andler said that to
disqualify counsel under the circumstances would encourage future
defendants to believe that they could leverage selection of class
counsel by suing the plaintiffs' chosen lawyers for defamation.

Any prejudice to the class, she added, could be mitigated through
the court's ongoing supervision of the litigation, including its
authority to rule on class certification and on approval of any

                   Abuse of Discretion Alleged

Justice Moore, writing for the Court of Appeal, said the case was
reviewable under an abuse-of-discretion standard.  The defendants'
argument that the case involved pure questions of law, as to which
the panel would not be required to defer to the trial court, was
"simply incorrect," the justice said, because the disputed
comments by Mr. Clarke about tying settlement of the two cases
together were important to the resolution.

Besides, she wrote, the court would not order disqualification on
de novo review because the defendants failed to establish that a
current conflict exists, and the trial judge can take appropriate
action if new facts arise "somewhere down the road."

Justice Moore distinguished cases in which the court found that
counsel's interests were so antagonistic to those of the class as
to compel disqualification, such as Cal Pak Delivery, Inc. v.
United Parcel Services, Inc. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th l and Apple
Computer, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1253.

Cal Pak involved an attorney who "admitted he had offered to sell
out his client and the class . . . for a payment to himself
personally," the court in that case explained, while Apple
concerned a named plaintiff who was employed by a law firm
representing the class.

                           No Evidence

In contrast, Justice Moore said, there was no evidence that
Mr. Clarke or his firm were looking to sacrifice class interests
for their own benefit, nor that the plaintiff and the law firm had
"an overly close relationship that would compromise the interests
of potential class members."

The justice wrote:

"While defendants' concerns for the interests of the class members
is laudable, all they offer is speculation.  The evidence does not
establish a current conflict between Clarke's duty of loyalty to
the class and his own interests.  The bottom line is that
currently, Clarke's interest is the same as that of the class --
to prove that defendants are liable for selling a defective

Robert H. Platt, Benjamin G. Shatz, Bruce B. Kelson and Adrianne
E. Marshack of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips represented Brain
Research Labs, while Clarke, along with Susan H. Handelman and
Terry Anastassiou, also of Ropers Majeski, represented Rotenberg.

The case is Rotenberg v. Brain Research Labs, LLC, G044675.

BRIDGEWAY INT'L: Recalls 91,000 Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Bridgeway International of Naples, Florida, announced a voluntary
recall of about 91,000 bicycles.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer

The bicycle chain can break, causing a rider to lose control and

The firm is aware of 11 reports of incidents, including nine
reports of injuries, including lacerations and contusions.

This recall involves "NEXT"-branded men's 26-inch hybrid bicycles.
The bicycles are red or orange.  "Power X" and "Suspension" are
printed on the frame.  Model numbers LBH2611M and LBH2611M2 are
included in this recall.  The model number is located on the frame
between the pedals.  Picture of the recalled products is available
at http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11331.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Walmart from February 2011 through July 2011 for about $100.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycle and
contact the company for a free repair.  For additional
information, contact Bridgeway International at (877) 934-3228
anytime or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.powerxbike.com/

C.R. BARD: Women Suffering Avaulta Complications May File Suit
An Avaulta mesh lawsuit may be an option for women who were
implanted with the Avaulta Plus, Avaulta Solo or Avaulta
Biosynthetic and suffered from erosion or other complications.
Potentially, these patients may be able to participate in an
Avaulta mesh lawsuit to seek compensation for medical bills, pain
and suffering and other damages resulting from their mesh
complications.  Several Avaulta mesh lawsuits have already been
filed, and women looking to take legal action should keep in mind
that they only have a certain amount of time to file a claim
before being barred from ever seeking compensation.  To find out
if you are eligible for an Avaulta mesh lawsuit, visit
http://www.classaction.org/avaulta-transvaginal-mesh.htmlfor a no
cost, no obligation review of your claim.

In July 2011, the FDA announced that the transvaginal placement of
mesh products, such as the Avaulta mesh, can put pelvic organ
prolapse patients at a greater risk than other surgical options.
Furthermore, according to the agency, with this greater risk of
mesh complications comes no greater benefit.  Once described as
rare, mesh problems which were reported among pelvic organ
prolapse repair patients implanted with vaginal mesh products
include mesh erosion; infection; discomfort; pain during sex;
urinary problems; vaginal scarring; and recurrence of prolapse or

Because C.R. Bard was allegedly negligent in the design and sale
of its Avaulta mesh product, women suffering Avaulta mesh problems
following pelvic organ prolapse surgery may have legal recourse.
To find out if you can participate in an Avaulta mesh lawsuit to
seek compensation for damages, visit Class Action.org today.  The
Avaulta mesh attorneys working with the site are providing this
consultation at no cost and with no obligation.

                     About Class Action.org

Class Action.org is dedicated to protecting consumers and
investors in class actions and complex litigation throughout the
United States.  Class Action.org keeps consumers informed about
product alerts, recalls, and emerging litigation and helps them
take action against the manufacturers of defective products,
drugs, and medical devices.  Information about consumer fraud
issues and environmental hazards is also available on the site.
Visit http://www.classaction.orgtoday for a no cost, no
obligation case evaluation and information about your consumer

CHRISTIAN BROTHERS: Thirty-Five Men Join Sex Abuse Class Action
ABC News reports that thirty-five Victorian men have joined a
child sex abuse class action against the Christian Brothers order.

Lawyer Vivian Waller is representing the men who say they were
abused while they were students at schools run by the order.

Christian Brother Robert Best is appealing against a 14-year jail
sentence for offences between the 1960s and 1980s in schools
around Victoria, including Ballarat.

Ms. Waller says more men are coming forward.

"I act for the men in relation to Brother Best [who] has recently
been convicted or entered a guilty plea and that was approximately
14 people," she said.

"Since that time, the numbers have expanded to 35.  So more people
are coming forward all the time."

She says other men have come forward who allege abuse that has not
yet been heard in court.

"My office has been inundated with former students of St. Alipius
in Ballarat and St. Patrick's in Ballarat and other schools in
Melbourne taught by the Christian Brothers," she said.

CLARK & WASHINGTON: Sued in Ga. for Disgorgement of Legal Fees
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal
class action, clients of a law firm specializing in bankruptcy say
Clark & Washington made them pay legal fees with postdated checks,
without telling them the checks were dischargeable through their
bankruptcy cases, and cashed the checks after the cases were filed
or discharged.  And, the class claims, Clark & Washington did this
after a federal bankruptcy judge told it not to.

Lead plaintiff Richard Edwin Lundquist III says he "was not
informed that the debt represented by the post-dated checks was
subject to discharge through his case, and subsequently allowed
defendants to cash said checks."

As named plaintiff, Mr. Lundquist sued Clark & Washington and its
managing partner Emory Lee Clark.

Mr. Lundquist says he represents hundreds of clients from Georgia,
Florida and Tennessee who hired Clark & Washington to file Chapter
7 bankruptcy cases on their behalf, and agreed to pay the legal
fees with postdated checks.

Established in 1983, Clark & Washington is one of the largest
bankruptcy filers in the Southeast, with 12 offices in the metro
Atlanta area and more offices in Florida and Tennessee.

Mr. Lundquist says the firm advertises on its Web site, promising
bankruptcy representation for a down payment of $299 and
additional installment payments.

"This installment plan includes, and has included on many
occasions, the practice of having clients tender personal checks
post-dated to be cashed during various intervals following the
planned filing of their bankruptcy cases -- and sometimes after
the bankruptcy cases have been completed," the complaint states.

"Defendants, despite boasting on their Web site that they are 'up
front about costs and fees from the very beginning,' do not
disclose to their potential clients that the post-dated checks
defendants accept and intend to cash during and/or after the
planned bankruptcy cases represent a debt subject to discharge
through those same cases.  Thus, defendants have established a
practice of publicly claiming to absolve clients of all debt
incurred prior to the filing of a bankruptcy case (hereafter 'pre-
petition debt'), while privately working instead to create pre-
petition debt covering defendants' fees and concealing said debt
from their clients to prevent the clients from exercising the
right not to pay the discharged debt.

"Plaintiff, a former client of defendants who was induced to
tender post-dated checks to defendants for legal representation,
was not informed that the debt represented by the post-dated
checks was subject to discharge through his case, and subsequently
allowed defendants to cash said checks."

Mr. Lundquist says the firm sent him a letter in late 2010,
offering to handle his bankruptcy case and save his home from
foreclosure.  He says that in addition to the $364 down payment,
which covered the filing fee, credit counseling and credit report
costs, he was asked to pay $800 for representation, via five
postdated personal checks.

Clark & Washington filed Mr. Lundquist's Chapter 7 case in
January, according to the complaint.

"While plaintiff's case was still active, defendants cashed one or
more of the post-dated checks issued by plaintiff prior to the
filing of the underlying case," the complaint states.  "Defendants
neither requested nor received relief from the automatic stay
imposed by the case in order to collect the pre-petition debt."

Mr. Lundquist says the law firm violated bankruptcy rules by
soliciting clients via direct mail, offering to represent them for
a minimum down payment, with the rest of the fees to be paid by
postdated checks, and sending clients collection letters to
collect a debt incurred before the filing of their cases.

He says, "The practice of collecting pre-petition attorney's fees
in post-dated, post-petition checks was addressed and condemned in
several recent decisions," including rulings by federal bankruptcy
courts in Tennessee and Florida.

In a July 12 order, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Michael Williamson
enjoined Clark & Washington from accepting postdated checks after
the petition date as payment of its attorney's fees for bankruptcy
cases filed in Tampa.

Judge Williamson ruled that the firm's practice of depositing
postdated checks after the bankruptcy cases have been filed or
after a discharge has been entered violated the Bankruptcy Code
and created a conflict of interest between the firm and its

Mr. Lundquist's complaint states: "Following these decisions, and
without regard for the precedent set therein, defendants willfully
continued to solicit and accept post-dated personal checks pre-
petition for payment of flat-fee arrangements with the intention
of cashing said checks following the filing and discharge of many
Chapter 7 cases."

Mr. Lundquist adds: "Unaware that the unpaid portion of their fees
(represented by the post-dated personal checks) were dischargeable
debts under Chapter 7, plaintiff and the class allowed defendants
to unlawfully cash and collect these dischargeable fees following
the filing, completion and discharge of their respective cases."

Mr. Lundquist seeks class certification, disgorgement of legal
fees, and compensatory and punitive damages for federal and state
RICO violations, Bankruptcy Code violations, fraud, unjust
enrichment and concealment.

A copy of the Complaint in Lundquist v. Clark & Washington, P.C.,
et al., Case No. 11-cv-03179 (N.D. Ga.) (Carnes, J.), is available


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Terry Haygood, Esq.
          401 Broad Street
          Rome, GA 30161
          Telephone: (706)-232-2222

COVINGTON DIOCESE: Dist. Ct. Has No Jurisdiction on Law Firm Claim
Judge Danny C. Reeves of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky held that he lacks subject matter
jurisdiction to consider the professional negligence claims
asserted by Julane Simpson, Heather Moser, and Tom Cardosi against
a law firm involved in a state court complaint against the
Catholic Diocese of Covington, Kentucky.

Simpson, et al., accused Stanley Chesley, Robert Steinberg, and
Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., LPA, for breach of
fiduciary duty, professional negligence and fraud.  The Simpson
plaintiffs complained that the actions of Messrs. Chesley and
Steinberg caused them to receive less money in the settlement of
the Covington Diocese class action complaint.  The Boone Circuit
Court approved the settlement in May 2009.

Judge Reeves pointed to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine in making his
decision.  The doctrine precludes "lower federal courts . . . from
exercising appellate jurisdiction over final state-court

Accordingly, the case is remanded to the Kenton Circuit Court,
Judge Reeves ruled.

A copy of the District Court's Aug. 2, 2011 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at http://is.gd/jhst1Nfrom Leagle.com.

FEN-PHEN: Lawyer Permanently Disbarred Over Settlement
Brett Barrouquere, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
a Kentucky attorney who worked on the class-action lawsuit over
the diet-drug fen-phen was permanently disbarred on Sept. 22 for
his role in a scheme that cost clients more than $65 million from
the settlement and landed two other lawyers in federal prison.

The Kentucky Supreme Court revoked the law license of David
Helmers of Lexington, citing "serious ethical violations."

Mr. Helmers is the fourth attorney involved with the case to be

The fen-phen settlement has also jeopardized the Kentucky law
license of Cincinnati attorney Stanley Chesley, known as the
"Master of Disaster" for his work on large class-action cases
around the country.  The Kentucky Supreme Court is weighing a
request from the Kentucky Bar Association to disbar Mr. Chesley
for his role in the proceedings.  That case is pending.

The high court, in an order signed by Chief Justice John Minton,
also ordered Mr. Helmers to pay nearly $40,000 to cover the cost
of the disciplinary proceedings against him.

The court found that Mr. Helmers wasn't the mastermind of the
scheme, but rather acted at the direction of several more
experienced attorneys.

But, Justice Minton wrote, "it takes no technical expertise" to
know that deceiving clients, some of whom were "egregiously
injured" by the drug, was wrong.

"That he did so at the direction of his employer does not permit
us to overlook the serious deficiency in character revealed by the
facts before us," Justice Minton wrote for the court.

Mr. Helmers worked as an associate in William Gallion's law firm
during the 2001 settlement negotiations, which netted $200
million.  The fen-phen case involved 440 clients who said they
suffered heart and lung damage as a result of taking the drug.

Mr. Gallion, 60, and Shirley Cunningham Jr., one-time owners of
champion racehorse Curlin, are serving federal sentences after
being convicted of bilking their clients out of millions from the
settlement.  Both have been disbarred.  A third attorney,
Melbourne Mills of Lexington, was acquitted at a federal criminal
trial, but he was disbarred for his role in the scheme.

Mr. Gallion is not scheduled to be released from federal prison
until 2029; Mr. Cunningham, 57, won't get out until 2025.  The two
men are appealing their convictions.  The U.S. 6th Circuit Court
of Appeals has not scheduled oral arguments in the case.

Mr. Helmers went to work for Gallion, then a respected attorney,
while still in law school in Lexington.  After being admitted to
the bar, Mr. Helmers handled client meetings about the fen-phen
settlement for Gallion.

The court found that Mr. Helmers failed to disclose to clients
details of the settlement or that the attorneys had decided
beforehand how much each client would receive from the settlement.

"Additionally, (Helmers) told many of the clients that if they
spoke to others about their settlement award, they could face a
penalty assessment of $100,000," Justice Minton wrote.

Justice Minton said Mr. Helmers was "inexperienced,
impressionable" and may have been influenced by Gallion,
Cunningham and Mills.

A state court awarded former clients of Gallion and Cunningham $42
million in a civil case, but the Kentucky Court of Appeals
overturned that award.  That case is being appealed to the
Kentucky Supreme Court.

Also on Sept. 22, Mr. Chesley's wife, U.S. District Judge Susan J.
Dlott, withdrew from the Kentucky bar.  Judge Dlott, a federal
judge in southern Ohio since 1995, is not accused of any
wrongdoing in the case.  The reason for her withdrawal wasn't
immediately known on Sept. 22.

JPMORGAN CHASE: No Breach in Loyalty in Sigma Investment, Ct. Says
Judge Shira A. Scheindlin for the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York ruled that JPMorgan Chase Bank did
not breach its duties of loyalty by investing its fiduciary
clients' cash collateral in the June 2009 Medium-Term Notes of
Sigma Finance, Inc., while simultaneously extending billions of
dollars of "repo" financing to Sigma.

Sigma is a structured investment vehicle that collapsed on
Sept. 30, 2008.

The Court held that JPMorgan's extension of repo financing to
Sigma in a non-fiduciary capacity did not constitute a conflict of
interest, nor did it cause Plaintiffs' losses.

Judge Scheindlin entered his ruling in the class actions brought
by the Board of Trustees of The Aftra Retirement Fund, Board of
Trustees of the Imperial County Employees' Retirement System, and
The Investment Committee of The Manhattan and Bronx Surface
Transit Operating Authority Pension Plan against JPMorgan, Case
Nos. 09 Civ. 686, 09 Civ. 3020, and 09 Civ. 4408, (S.D.N.Y.)

A copy of the District Court's Aug. 5, 2011 Opinion and Order is
available at http://is.gd/WLQpq5from Leagle.com.

Counsel for Plaintiffs are:

          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Peter H. LeVan, Jr., Esq.
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, Pennsylvania 19087
          Tel: (610) 667-7706
          Fax: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Milo Silberstein, Esq.
          225 Broadway, Suite 1405
          New York, NY 10007
          Tel: (212) 385-0066

               - and -

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Tel: (212) 545-4761
          Fax: (212) 545-4758
          E-mail: nespole@whafh.com

Counsel for JPMorgan are:

          Lewis Richard Clayton, Esq.
          Jonathan H. Hurwitz, Esq.
          Samuel E. Bonderoff, Esq.
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Tel: (212) 373-3215
          E-mail: lclayton@paulweiss.com

               - and -

          Bradley E. Beckworth, Esq.
          Brad Seidel, Esq.
          205 Linda Drive,
          Daingerfield, Texas 75638
          Tel: (903) 645-7333
          Fax: (903) 645-5389

               - and -

          David L. Wales, Esq.
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Tel: (212) 554-1400
          Fax: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: DWales@blbglaw.com

LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: 5th Cir. Urges Recalculation of Goldstein Fees
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the
district court's back pay calculation in the class action
complaint Sylvester McClain, et al. v. Lukfin Industries, Inc.,
Case No. 10-40036 (5th Cir.)

The Plaintiffs' complaint is a Title VII class action for
employment discrimination against Lufkin, which culminated in a
multi-million dollar judgment in 2005.  However, parties still
challenged the district court's attorneys' fee award and Lukfin
complained that back pay damages were erroneously authorized in an
earlier appeal.

Upon an earlier recommendation of the Fifth Circuit, the district
court awarded $3.3. million in back pay to the class for
discriminatorily lost promotions dating back to 1994.  The
district court also ordered a $400 hourly rate to the Plaintiffs'
lead counsel, Timothy Garrigan; but refused to order payment to
partners at Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian, as
associate counsel, at a $650 hourly rate.  The district court only
awarded $400 per hour to Goldstein Demchak.

The Fifth Circuit stated it found no reversible error in the
district court's calculation of back pay.

The district court, however, erred in failing to calculate the
initial lodestar using the rates Goldstein Demchak attorneys
typically charge in their own home district, the Fifth Circuit
opined.  A recalculation is warranted, the Fifth Circuit noted,
since the present case is atypical in that an avalanche of
unrebutted evidence established that (1) plaintiffs' lead counsel
required assistance in prosecuting the case, and (2) no lawyer
within the Texas district or state were available to assist the
lead counsel.  Goldstein Demcheck is based in California.

Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded the fee award
to Goldstein Demchak for reconsideration.

The appeals panel is composed of Circuit Judges Edith H. Jones,
James L. Dennis, and Edith Brown Clement.

Judge Jones, who penned the appellate court decision, clarified
that the appeal on the fee award is designed simply to enrich, not
to enhance or encourage.  "On remand, the district court should
exercise its discretion within the parameters we have set out to
prevent a windfall recovery," she stated.

Judge Jones' clarification comes after Judge Dennis noted that the
majority opinion does not "categorically prohibit" district courts
from comparing the fees of defense counsel and prevailing
plaintiffs' counsel when statutory fee shifting occurs.

A copy of the Fifth Circuit's Aug. 8, 2011 Order is available at
http://is.gd/W9cq4nfrom Leagle.com.

MERCK & CO: 2nd Cir. Seeks Guidance on Cross Tolling in Virginia
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit referred to the
Supreme Court of Virginia questions of Virginia law relating to
equitable and statutory cross-jurisdictional tolling with respect
to the Fosamax-related actions brought by Virginia residents
against Merck & Co., Inc.

Plaintiffs Rebecca Quarles, Dorothy Deloriea, Ora Casey and
Roberta Brodin filed separate actions in the Southern District of
New York, alleging negligence in Merck's development and
distribution of the drug, Fosamax.

Earlier, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York earlier dismissed the Plaintiffs' product liability claims
for injuries allegedly caused by Fosamax.  Plaintiffs appealed the
District Court judgment.

The Plaintiffs argued that the tolling doctrine established in
American Pipe & Construction Company v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974),
should apply and thus, their status of limitations should have
been tolled for 28 months.

The Second Circuit stated that it is uncertain whether cross-
jurisdictional tolling is available under Virginia law and thus,
it is seeking the guidance of the Supreme Court of Virginia on
whether Virginia law permits equitable tolling of statute of
limitations due to the pendency of a putative class action in
another jurisdiction.

The appellate panel is composed of Circuit Judges Robert D. Sack,
Debra Ann Livingston, and Raymond Lohier, Jr.

A copy of the Second Circuit's Aug. 5, 2011 Order is available at
http://is.gd/uTdb9xfrom Leagle.com.

Counsel for Plaintiffs is:

         Timothy M. O'Brien, Esq.
         316 South Baylen Street
         Pensacola, FL
         Tel: (850) 435-7084
              (888) 435-7001
         Fax: (850) 436-6084

Counsel for Defendant are:

         Norman C. Kleinberg, Esq.
         Theodore V.H. Mayer, Esq.
         William J. Beausoleil, Esq.
         One Battery Park Plaza
         New York, NY 10004-1482
         Tel: (212) 837-6000
         Fax: (212) 422-4726
         E-mail: kleinber@hugheshubbard.com

              - and -

         Paul F. Strain, Esq.
         David J. Heubeck, Esq.
         VENABLE LLP
         750 E. Pratt Street
         Suite 900
         Baltimore, MD 21202
         Tel: (410)244.7400
         Fax: (410)244.7742
         E-mail: pfstrain@Venable.com

NEIMAN MARCUS: "Monjazeb" Class Suit Remains Pending in Calif.
On April 30, 2010, a Class Action Complaint for Injunction and
Equitable Relief was filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California by Sheila Monjazeb,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, against Neiman Marcus, Inc., Newton Holding,
LLC, TPG Capital, L.P. and Warburg Pincus, LLC.  On July 12, 2010,
all defendants except for the Company were dismissed without
prejudice, and on August 20, 2010, this case was refiled in the
Superior Court of California for San Francisco County.  This
complaint, along with a similar class action lawsuit originally
filed by Bernadette Tanguilig in 2007, alleges that the Company
has engaged in various violations of the California Labor Code and
Business and Professions Code, including without limitation 1)
asking employees to work "off the clock," 2) failing to provide
meal and rest breaks to its employees, 3) improperly calculating
deductions on paychecks delivered to its employees, and 4) failing
to provide a chair or allow employees to sit during shifts.  The
plaintiffs in these matters seek certification of their cases as
class actions, reimbursement for past wages and temporary,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief preventing defendant
from allegedly continuing to violate the laws cited in their

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend its interests in
these matters.  Currently, the Company cannot reasonably estimate
the amount of loss, if any, arising from these matters.  However,
the Company does not currently believe the resolution of these
matters will have a material adverse impact on its financial
position.  The Company will continue to evaluate these matters
based on subsequent events, new information and future

No further updates were reported in the Company's September 21,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended July 30, 2011.

OASIS LEGAL: App. Ct. Remands Parson Suit on Improper Venue Issue
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina held that the trial court
in the class action complaint, Jermaine Parson v. Oasis Legal
Finance, LLC, et al., Case No. COA10-1414, erred in its conclusion
that the agreement between the parties was entered in North
Carolina.  The Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial
court and remanded to that court for the purpose of granting a
motion filed by the defendant to dismiss the suit for improper

The plaintiff and Oasis are parties to an agreement for an advance
of funds to pay for plaintiff's legal representation in a
vehicular accident lawsuit.  In return, the plaintiff agreed that
if he made a recovery for his personal injuries, he would repay
the amount advanced by Oasis plus an additional sum.

The plaintiff filed the class action complaint against Oasis in
February 2010 in the Guilford County Superior Court, alleging
among other things usury, violation of the consumer finance act
and unfair and deceptive trade practices because Oasis recovered
more than what it is entitled to.  In April 2010, the trial court
denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff claims
alleging improper venue.  The defendants appealed.

The Appellate Court noted that the validity of the contract at
issue is to be determined by the forum.  As the signature of the
Oasis representative was made in Illinois, the contract was formed
in Illinois, the Appellate Court held.

The Appellate Court added, "the forum selection clause mandates
Cook County, Illinois, as the exclusive venue for all disputes
arising from the [parties'] purchase agreement, while North
Carolina law will be applied to govern the dispute, including the
validity of the contract."

A copy of the Appellate Court's Aug. 2, 2011 decision is available
at http://is.gd/BboiHZat Leagle.com.

Counsel for Plaintiff are:

           John F. Bloss, Esq.
           Greensboro, North Carolina
           Tel: (336) 378-9881
           Fax: (336) 378-9886

                - and -

           Frederick L. Berry, Esq.
           BARRON & BERRY, L.L.P.
           301 S. Greene Street
           Greensboro, NC 27401
           Tel: (336) 274-4782
           Fax: (336) 379-8592
           E-mail: fred.berry@barronberry.com

Counsel for Defendants are:

          Robert J. King, III, Esq.
          Clint S. Morse, Esq.
          2000 Renaissance Plaza
          230 North Elm Street
          Greensboro, NC 27401
          Tel: (336) 373-8850
          Fax: (336) 378-1001
          E-mail: rking@brookspierce.com

PANDORA MEDIA: Accused of Violating Video Rental Privacy Act
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Pandora Media violates Michigan law by its "intentional disclosure
of its users' private music listening histories."

A copy of the Complaint in Deacon v. Pandora Media, Inc., Case No.
11-cv-04674 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean Reis, Esq.
          30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
          Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
          Telephone: (949) 459-2124
          E-mail: sreis@edelson.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370

RICHMOND, VA: Police Officers File Overtime Class Action
Vin Gurrieri, writing for Law360, reports that a putative class of
police officers on Sept. 19 accused Richmond, Va., of violating
federal and state labor laws by failing to properly pay them

The suit, filed by 73 police officers on behalf of a proposed
class of more than 800 law enforcement employees, alleges the city
denied overtime compensation in violation of state law and the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

SEATTLE HOUSING: Jan. 2012 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that the Seattle
Housing Authority agreed to change certain Section 8 housing
policies after voucher holders settled their class action alleging
that the agency discriminates against residents who are disabled
and have children.

Lead plaintiffs Markeletta Wilson and Marie Townes said the
Seattle Housing Authority illegally required Section 8 voucher
holders to show custody documents before allowing children to live
with them, and that it barred relatives from living together.

Their 2009 class action also claimed that the housing authority
did not provide disabled voucher holders with reasonable

Ms. Wilson sought to represent a subclass of disabled voucher
holders who were terminated from the Section 8 program, and Townes
sought to represent holders who were required to prove custody of
their children.

The Seattle Housing Authority denied any illegal activity, but the
parties were able to reach a settlement agreement, which U.S.
District Judge Marsha Pechman preliminarily approved on Sept. 20.

The judge found the settlement "was the result of serious,
informed, non-collusive, and arms-length negotiations" and that
the agreement "falls within the range of reasonableness and
possible approval."

As a result of the settlement, the Seattle Housing Authority will
make certain policy changes and grant new termination hearings to
class members on request.

Among the changes, the authority may "consider extenuating
circumstances to extend the time period that a guest, including a
related adult, is allowed to stay in the subsidized residence."
It must also now notify voucher holders that a judge can review
their terminations.

The court will hold a fairness hearing on the settlement agreement
on Jan. 9, 2012.

SINOTECH ENERGY: October 18 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP disclosed that all persons or
entities who purchased the American Depositary Shares of SinoTech
Energy Limited pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
the Company's initial public offering on November 3, 2010,
including open-market purchasers of SinoTech ADSs between
November 3, 2010 and August 16, 2011, inclusive, have until
October 18, 2011, to move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff in
the securities fraud class action lawsuit.  The shareholder
lawsuit, Athale v. SinoTech Energy Limited, et al., No. 11-cv-
05831-GBD, has been assigned to the Honorable George B. Daniels,
United States District Judge for the Southern District of New

For more information or a copy of the Complaint, please contact
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg by phone to discuss this action at 310-
201-9150, toll-free at 888-773-9224, or by e-mail to

SinoTech provides enhanced oil recovery services to oil companies
in the People's Republic of China.  The Complaint charges
SinoTech, certain of the Company's current and former executive
officers and directors, and the underwriters of its IPO with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.  The Complaint alleges
that certain representations made in the Registration Statement
and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO were materially
inaccurate.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
Company's reported sales and revenues were materially inaccurate,
because the nature, size and scope of the Company's business was
materially exaggerated.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA")
requires the Court to appoint a "Lead Plaintiff" in this case.
Any person or group who suffered a loss as a result of purchasing
SinoTech ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
November 3, 2010 IPO including open-market purchasers between
November 3, 2010 and August 16, 2011, may ask the Court to be
appointed as Lead Plaintiff, but must file a motion no later than
the October 18, 2011 deadline.

To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this
time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and
remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this action
or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: 310-201-9150
          Toll Free: 888-773-9224
          E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com

SMITH BARNEY: Union Pension Fund's Class Action Can't Proceed
Bob Van Voris, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Citigroup
Inc.' s Smith Barney unit can't be sued by the union pension fund
that's the lead plaintiff in a six-year-old shareholder fraud
class action because it never owned any of the shares that are the
basis of the lawsuit, a judge said.

U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III in Manhattan, citing
"epic failures" by the lawyers on both sides of the case, on
Sept. 22 dismissed Operating Local 649 Annuity Trust Fund from the
suit.  The pension fund's attorneys told the judge that their
client bought more than 75,000 shares of a similarly named
security and not those involved in the case.

Judge Pauley called the effect of the error "seismic," and said it
has caused the litigation to take on "Sisyphean dimensions."

"After six years of litigation, including extensive motion
practice, an appeal to the Second Circuit, remand, more motion
practice, and discovery, lead counsel learned that the lead
plaintiff never purchased any of the securities at issue in this
action," Judge Pauley wrote in the Sept. 22 decision.

The suit was filed against Smith Barney Fund Management LLC and
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. in 2005, after Citigroup agreed to
pay $208 million to settle claims by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission that its subsidiaries kept fees that should
have been turned over to Smith Barney's mutual funds.

In a letter to Judge Pauley Aug. 31, Bernstein Liebhard LLP, which
represents Local 649, said the union had purchased shares in Smith
Barney Capital Preservation Collective Trust, not Smith Barney
Capital Preservation Fund, the mutual fund that is the subject of
the litigation.

"Lead counsel's failure to confirm the most basic fact -- that its
client purchased the securities at issue in this action -- has
resulted in a considerable waste of time and resources,"
Judge Pauley said.

Bernstein Liebhard partner Stanley Bernstein said the lawyers
relied on the union's certification that it had bought the mutual
fund shares and brokerage statements that mistakenly reflected the
mutual fund shares along with their ticker symbol.

"We did not just rely on somebody's word," Mr. Bernstein said in a
phone interview on Sept. 22.  "We had the underlying core
documentation from the broker.  And it was wrong."

In addition to the union's attorneys, Judge Pauley also criticized
Citigroup's lawyers in his opinion.

"Astonishingly, defense counsel failed to ask their clients
whether Local 649 had invested in any of the Smith Barney funds
and, if so, specifically which one," Berman said.  "Had Smith
Barney simply checked its records, it would have avoided six years
of sparring with a phantom opponent."

Charles Platt, a partner in the New York office of Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, which represents Citigroup, declined
to comment on Judge Pauley's opinion on Sept. 22.

The mistake will require several motions to be rebriefed, the
filing of another amended complaint and the exchange of additional
evidence in the case, according to Judge Pauley.

"In retrospect, it was something so obvious that every lawyer in
the case should have recognized the problem and reacted
immediately," Judge Pauley wrote.  "But no one did."

The case is In re Smith Barney Transfer Agent Litigation, 05-cv-
07583, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Sued in Alabama Over Rapid Rewards Program
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Southwest Airlines stopped honoring its Rapid Rewards Program
coupons supposedly good for "one beer, wine, mixed or specialty
nonalcoholic drink."

A copy of the Complaint in Baxley v. Southwest Airlines Co.,
Incorporated, Case No. 11-cv-_____ (N.D. Ala.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel E. Dillard, Esq.
          Donald R. James, Jr., Esq.
          2008 Third Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35233
          Telephone: (205) 271-1100
          E-mail: bddmclaw@baxleydillard.com

SPECIALIZED BICYCLE: Recalls 14,200 Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
distributor, Specialized Bicycle Components Inc., of Morgan Hill,
California, and manufacturer, Advanced Group, of Taiwan, announced
a voluntary recall of about 14,200 bicycles with Advanced Group
carbon forks.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The brake component housed within the bicycle's carbon fork can
disengage from the fork and allow the brake assembly to contact
the wheel spokes while rotating, posing a fall hazard.

The company has received two reports of the brake component
disengaging from the carbon fork.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the following nine, 2011 model year bicycles
with Advanced Group carbon forks: Sirrus Expert, Sirrus Comp,
Sirrus Elite, Vita Expert, Vita Comp, Vita Elite, Vita Elite Step
Thru, Tricross Sport, Tricross, and Tricross Comp.  All bicycles
have the brand name "Specialized" on the lower front frame tube.
The model name is on the top tube.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:


The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
authorized Specialized Retailers nationwide from June 2010 through
August 2011 for between $700 and $2,000.

Consumers should immediately stop riding these bicycles and return
them to an authorized Specialized retailer for a free repair or
replacement carbon fork.  For additional information, contact
Specialized toll-free at (877) 808-8154 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. Pacific Time Monday through Friday, or visit the company's
Web site at http://www.specialized.com/

STATE STREET: Dist. Ct. Rejects Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
Judge Nancy Gertner of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts denied motions to dismiss a consolidated class
action complaint against State Street Corporation.

The consolidated action stems from two related class action: a
federal securities action and an Employee Retirement Income
Security Act action.  Lead Plaintiffs in the Securities Action are
institutional investors, Public Employees' Retirement System of
Mississippi and Union Asset Management Holding AG.  Lead Plaintiff
under the ERISA Action is Casey J. Richard, a participant in State
Street's Salary Savings Plan.  Plaintiffs allege that State Street
made material misrepresentations and omissions concerning its
foreign exchange trading practices and revenue.

Judge Gertner found that the Plaintiffs' allegations are both
stated with particularity and plausible.

"Plaintiffs' evidentiary sources," the Court stated, "strengthen
one another and collectively paint a plausible picture of a
company defrauding its clients.  Multiple types of evidence from
multiple sources reinforce the same narrative."  Judge Gertner
held that the Plaintiffs' allegation of fraud meets the
materiality requirement.

A copy of the District Court's Aug. 3, 2011, Memorandum and Order
is available at http://is.gd/SiOV8Ufrom Leagle.com.

SYCAMORE NETWORKS: IPO Case Appellant May Appeal Until Sept. 24
An appellant has until September 24, 2011, to take an appeal from
a district court decision holding that it lacked standing to
object to the settlement in the consolidated securities lawsuit
involving Sycamore Networks, Inc., according to the Company's
September 21, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended July 31, 2011.

Beginning on July 2, 2001, several purported class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company and several of
its officers and directors (the "Individual Defendants") and the
underwriters for the Company's initial public offering on
October 21, 1999.  Some of the complaints also include the
underwriters for the Company's follow-on offering on March 14,
2000.  An amended complaint, which is the operative complaint, was
filed on April 19, 2002, on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between October 21, 1999, and
December 6, 2000.  The amended complaint alleges claims against
the Company, several of the Individual Defendants and the
underwriters for violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"),
primarily based on the assertion that the Company's lead
underwriters, the Company and several of the Individual Defendants
made material false and misleading statements in the Company's
Registration Statements and Prospectuses filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, in October 1999 and March
2000 because of the failure to disclose (a) the alleged
solicitation and receipt of excessive and undisclosed commissions
by the underwriters in connection with the allocation of shares of
common stock to certain investors in the Company's public
offerings and (b) that certain of the underwriters allegedly had
entered into agreements with investors whereby underwriters agreed
to allocate the public offering shares in exchange for which the
investors agreed to make additional purchases of stock in the
aftermarket at pre-determined prices.  It also alleges claims
against the Company, the Individual Defendants and the
underwriters under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), primarily
based on the assertion that the Company's lead underwriters, the
Company and the Individual Defendants defrauded investors by
participating in a fraudulent scheme and by making materially
false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact
during the period in question.  The amended complaint seeks
damages in an unspecified amount.

The action against the Company is being coordinated with
approximately three hundred other nearly identical actions filed
against other companies.  Due to the large number of nearly
identical actions, the court has ordered the parties to select up
to twenty "test" cases.  The Company's case has been selected as
one such test case.  As a result, among other things, the Company
will be subject to broader discovery obligations and expenses in
the litigation than non-test case issuer defendants.

On October 9, 2002, the court dismissed the Individual Defendants
from the case without prejudice.  This dismissal disposed of the
Section 15 and Section 20(a) claims without prejudice, because
these claims were asserted only against the Individual Defendants.
On October 13, 2004, the court denied the certification of a class
in the action against the Company with respect to the Section 11
claims alleging that the defendants made material false and
misleading statements in the Company's Registration Statement and
Prospectuses.  The certification was denied because no class
representative purchased shares between the date of the IPO and
January 19, 2000 (the date unregistered shares entered the
market), and thereafter suffered a loss on the sale of those
shares.  The court certified a class in the action against the
Company with respect to the Section 10(b) claims alleging that the
Company and the Individual Defendants defrauded investors by
participating in a fraudulent scheme and by making materially
false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact
during the period in question.  On December 5, 2006, the Second
Circuit vacated the district court's class certification decision.
On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit panel denied a petition for
rehearing filed by the plaintiffs, but noted that the plaintiffs
could ask the district court to certify a more narrow class than
the one that was rejected.

On August 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class
Action complaint against the Company.  The Company and the
underwriters filed separate motions to dismiss the amended
complaint on November 14, 2007.  On March 26, 2008, the Court
denied the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claims but
dismissed certain Section 11 claims against the Company.  On
June 5, 2008, the Court dismissed the remaining Section 11 claims
against the Company in response to a motion for partial

The parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including
the Company's case, reached a settlement.  The insurers for the
issuer defendants in the coordinated cases will make the
settlement payment on behalf of the issuers, including the
Company.  On October 5, 2009, the Court granted final approval of
the settlement. The settlement approval was appealed to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  One appeal was
dismissed and the second appeal was remanded to the district court
to determine if the appellant was a class member with standing to
appeal.  On August 25, 2011, the district court determined that
the remaining appellant lacked standing to object to the
settlement.  The appellant has until September 24, 2011, to appeal
the district court's decision.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company says
it cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the matter.
If the settlement does not survive appeal, the litigation
continues, and the Company is found liable, the Company is unable
to estimate or predict the potential damages that might be
awarded, whether such damages would be greater than the Company's
insurance coverage, and whether such damages would have a material
impact on the Company's results of operations or financial
condition in any future period.

UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Discharged Military Gays
Nedra Pickler, writing for The Associated Press, reports that two
days after repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy against
gays serving openly in the military, the Obama administration was
in court on Sept. 22 opposing a lawsuit seeking full severance pay
for those dismissed under the law.

The American Civil Liberties Union is seeking class action status
for 142 people who only got half pay after their discharge because
of being gay.  But the Justice Department asked the U.S. Court of
Federal Claims to dismiss the case.

Judge Christine Odell Cook Miller said she probably will let the
case continue and questioned why the government wouldn't pay now
that the law has changed.

"Your timing is exquisite -- two days after the policy goes into
effect eliminating 'don't ask, don't tell,' here we are," she said
as she took the bench.

"I would consider this to be an unenviable argument to have at
this time," she told the government's attorney later.

The case was filed by the ACLU on behalf of former Air Force Staff
Sgt. Richard Collins of Clovis, N.M.  He was honorably discharged
in 2006 after nine years of service when two civilians who worked
with him at Cannon Air Force Base reported they saw him kiss his
boyfriend in a car about 10 miles from the base.  The decorated
sergeant was off-duty and not in uniform at the time, according to
the lawsuit.

In an interview on Sept. 22, Sgt. Collins said he and his partner,
who are still together, always have been discreet about showing
affection in public.  "That one time I just happened to lean over
and kiss him on the cheek," he recalled.  "He said something

The Air Force paid Sgt. Collins $12,351 instead of the $25,702 he
expected after his discharge.

Separation pay is granted to military personnel who served at
least six years but were involuntarily discharged, part of an
effort to ease their transition into civilian life.  But the
Defense Department has a list of conditions that trigger an
automatic reduction in that pay, including homosexuality,
unsuccessful drug or alcohol treatment or discharge in the
interests of national security.  That policy went into effect in
1991, two years before "don't ask, don't tell" became law.

The suit argues it is unconstitutional for the Defense Department
to unilaterally cut the amount for people discharged for

The administration is not defending the merits of the policy.
Instead, Justice Department lawyer L. Misha Preheim argued the
defense secretary has sole discretion to decide who gets what
separation pay and the court cannot rewrite military regulations.

Judge Miller said she would issue a ruling on the government's
motion to dismiss by Oct. 15 after full review of the Justice
Department's arguments, but her preliminary decision was to deny
the motion.  She warned Mr. Preheim and a uniformed Air Force
attorney also at the defense table that they should be prepared
for the case to move forward.  She said it's probably appropriate
to certify it for class action status, if the government really
thinks it's worth it to continue fighting the case.

"I can't believe this is something the military wants to revisit
now," she said.

Joshua Block, attorney with the ACLU lesbian gay bisexual and
transgender project, said class action would cover 142 people who
got half pay for being discharged for homosexuality in the past
six years -- the time period covered by the statute of limitations
-- for a total payment of $2.1 million.  Mr. Miller, first
appointed by President Ronald Reagan and reappointed by President
Bill Clinton, questioned why for that amount of money the
government would want to wade back into the "don't ask, don't
tell" debate.

Mr. Collins, who is 35 and works for his partner's business, said
he has talked to recruiters about going back into the military now
that the policy has been abolished.  But he's leaning against it
since he'd have to go back in at his old rank after missing out on
promotions in the past few years.  And if he did re-enter, he said
he'd be wary of openly discussing his relationship.

"Even though 'don't ask, don't tell' has been rescinded, I
wouldn't go out there and flaunt it," he said.  "Even though that
policy is gone, you are still going to have discrimination from


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  * * *