/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/111012.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, October 12, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 202


ADA COUNTY MISDEMEANOR: Sued Over Excessive Probationer Fees
CENTRO: PwC Asks Judge to Withdraw From Class Action
DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE: Sued Over Alleged Price-Fixing Conspiracy
EXXON MOBIL: Faces Class Action Over Yellowstone River Oil Spill
HONDA: Hagens Berman Files Class Action Over Price-Fixing Scheme

HONORE-MERCIER: C. Difficile Victims to Split C$1MM Settlement
INCO LTD: Ontario Court Dismisses Environmental Class Action
KEYBASE FINANCIAL: Class Certification Hearing Set for June
LCD PANEL MANUFACTURERS: Retailers Can Continue Antitrust Claims
PHILIPS ELECTRONICS: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Okay

POWERCOR: Black Saturday Bushfire Class Action Nears Settlement
QUICKEN LOANS: Accused of Secretly Recording Phone Calls
REEBOK: Settles Class Action Over Toning Shoes & Apparel
SINOTECH ENERGY: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
SONY: Sued for Billing Unauthorized Music "Subscriptions"

STATE OF MICHIGAN: Sued Over Poor Performance of Contract CNAs
SYNGENTA CROP: Petitions for Review in Atrazine Suit Denied
TRAVELZOO INC: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
ZIONS BANK: Faces Class Action Over Debit Card Overdraft Fees


ADA COUNTY MISDEMEANOR: Sued Over Excessive Probationer Fees
Cynthia Sewell, writing for IdahoStatesman.com, reports that Ada
County contracts with a private for-profit company to provide
services to people sentenced to misdemeanor probation.  A company
that's owned by Nancy Cladis, Ada County Misdemeanor Probation
Services Inc., holds that contract.

On Oct. 6, three current probationers filed a class-action
complaint in 4th District Court alleging Ms. Cladis' company has
been charging misdemeanor probationer fees in excess of what is
allowed under state law.  They want the practices to stop, their
fees reimbursed and an unspecified amount of compensation.

Plaintiffs Kenneth Green, Nicholas Hall and Nathaniel Smith said
they were not ordered by the court to undergo drug or alcohol
testing as a condition of their probation, yet each of their
probation officers ordered them to submit to testing, which cost
them fees in excess of the $50 maximum monthly supervision fee
allowed under state law.  On July 1, 2011, the maximum fee
increased to $75.

According to the lawsuit, first reported by Boise Guardian's Dave
Frazier, there could be "thousands" of additional plaintiffs among
current or former Ada County probationers.

Neither Philip Gordon, the three men's attorney, nor Ms. Cladis
could be reached for comment on Oct. 7.

Commissioner Sharon Ullman said on Oct. 7 she has met with several
current and former employees of Ms. Cladis' company and has "grave
concerns" about the company's treatment of employees and clients.
On Oct. 4, the commissioners already have scheduled a routine
consideration of the county's two-year contract with Cladis.  At
that meeting, Ms. Ullman wants the commissioners to initiate an
investigation that, if wrongdoing is found, could allow the county
to break the contract.

"I personally believe there is cause to do an investigation,"
Ms. Ullman said.

CENTRO: PwC Asks Judge to Withdraw From Class Action
Leonie Wood, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
the audit firm at the center of the 2007 Centro non-disclosure
scandal, PricewaterhouseCoopers, has called on a Federal Court
judge to disqualify himself from hearing a major class action case
initiated by the property group's aggrieved investors.

Lawyers for PwC on Oct. 7 told Justice John Middleton in Melbourne
that the accounting and audit firm believed adverse comments he
made about the conduct of some PwC partners during another Centro
case this year could give rise to claims that he was biased.  They
asked him to recuse himself from hearing the Centro class action,
which is scheduled to begin early next year.

Justice Middleton acceded to PwC's request, and management of the
class action has been transferred to Justice Michelle Gordon.
Justice Gordon has a busy corporations list in Melbourne; she is
also hearing the class action against ANZ over fees charged to

Justice Middleton this year presided over a civil penalties case
brought by the corporate regulator against eight former and
serving Centro directors.

The trial heard evidence from at least two PwC partners, including
Stephen Cougle, who were central to the preparation and audit of
Centro's accounts in 2006-07.

Justice Middleton found the Centro directors breached their duties
in late 2007 because they failed to pick up a substantial error in
the group's accounts.

Centro's 2006-07 accounts did not disclose that the company had
billions of dollars that needed to be repaid within months.  The
mistake was detected by a junior PwC partner, who brought it to
the attention of his managers who, in turn, raised it with
Centro's accounting manager, Paul Belcher.

The trial heard that no one at any stage pointed out the mistake
to Centro's directors.  Under cross-examination, Mr. Cougle
revealed that he said nothing about the error during a board
meeting where the accounts were being finalized.

Justice Middleton found the Centro directors breached their duties
because they failed to properly read, understand and focus on
issues that were crucial in approving the financial statements.

DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE: Sued Over Alleged Price-Fixing Conspiracy
Lucha Bott, Jane M. Taylor and Jude A. Anheluk, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Delphi Automotive
LLP; Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd.; Lear Corp.; Leoni AG; Sumitomo
Electric Industries, Ltd.; [S-Y Systems Technologies GmbH; Yazaki
Corp.; Yazaki North America, Inc., Case No. 3:11-cv-04949 (N.D.
Calif., October 6, 2011) alleges that the Defendants are engaging
in a massive, decade-long conspiracy to unlawfully fix and
artificially raise the prices of Automotive Wire Harness Systems,
which are automotive electrical distribution systems used to
direct and control electronic components, wiring, and circuit
boards in an automotive vehicle.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants' conspiracy
successfully targeted the long-struggling United States automotive
industry, raising prices for car manufacturers and consumers
alike.  The Plaintiffs say that competition authorities in the
United States, the European Union and Japan have been
investigating a conspiracy in the market for Automotive Wire
Harness Systems since at least February 2010.

Lucha Bott, a resident of Novato, California, contracted to
purchase a 2009 Honda CRV.  Jane M. Taylor, a resident of Kapaa,
Hawaii, purchased a 2005 Toyota Prius.  Jude A. Anheluk, a
resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota, purchased a 2008 Toyota Camry.

Delphi and Lear are Delaware corporations, while Yazaki North
America is an Illinois corporation.  Furukawa, Sumitomo and Yazaki
Corp. are Japanese corporations.  Leoni and S-Y Systems are German
corporations.  The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell
Automotive Wire Harness Systems throughout the United States.

A copy of the Complaint in Bott, et al. v. Delphi Automotive LLP,
et al., Case No. 11-cv-04949 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Anthony D. Shapiro, Esq.
          George W. Sampson, Esq.
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth A. Fegan
          820 North Boulevard, Suite B
          Oak Park, IL 60301
          Telephone: (708) 776-5604
          Facsimile: (708) 776-5601
          E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com

EXXON MOBIL: Faces Class Action Over Yellowstone River Oil Spill
Stocks and Shares.TV reports that according to the class-action
suit filed against Exxon Mobil Corporation in Yellowstone Country,
the company spilled about 1,200 barrels of oil from its Silvertip
pipeline into the Yellowstone River near Billings, Montana.

It also claims that Exxon Mobil Corporation did a shoddy job of
responding to the spill that occurred in last July.  The lawsuit
was filed on behalf of eight landowners who are seeking
compensation for damage to their land and businesses.

HONDA: Hagens Berman Files Class Action Over Price-Fixing Scheme
Hagens Berman on Oct. 6 filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
a group of Honda and Toyota automobile owners against eight
auto-part suppliers after the federal government released
information detailing an international price-fixing scheme that
may have cost American purchasers and lessees of a wide range of
cars millions of dollars in the form of inflated car prices over a
10-year period.

The defendants supply automotive wire harnesses and related
products in a wide range of Japanese- and American-built cars.
According to the complaint, the defendants collectively dominate
the global automotive wire harness systems market.  Wire harnesses
are used to direct and control electronic components, wiring and
circuit boards in cars.

Among the defendants is Furukawa Electric who was cited in an
agreement announced last week in which three Furukawa Electric's
executives agreed to plead guilty and pay a $200 million fine for
the company's participation in the scheme, and three of its
executives also agreed to serve prison terms ranging from a year
to 18 months in U.S. prison for their role.

"While the agreement with the federal government goes a long way
to serve justice, it does nothing to remunerate the thousands of
auto purchasers who appear to have overpaid for their vehicles,"
said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro, a consumer-rights law firm headquartered in Seattle.  "We
intend to remedy that economic injustice with this filing."

The vehicles purchased by plaintiffs during the class period
include a 2009 Honda CRV, a 2005 Toyota Prius and a 2008 Toyota

According to published documents, Furukawa employees Junichi Funo,
Hirotsugu Nagata and Tetsuya Ukai -- executives who held executive
positions in Japan and in the United States -- conspired to fix
prices and agreed during meetings and conversations to allocate
the supply of wire harnesses and other products on a model-by-
model basis.  The Justice Department states that the price-fixing
scheme was in play from January 2000 until at least January 2010.

Authorities from the U.S., the European Union and Japan have
investigated a conspiracy in the market for automotive wire
harness systems since Feb. 2010 or earlier.

According to Mr. Berman, it's not clear which automobiles contain
the harnesses, but it's possible that they are used by every major
brand sold in the United States.

"We don't yet know the scope and breadth of the impact of the
price-fixing scheme on competitors, but we intend to find out
through discovery," Mr. Berman said.  "It is safe to say, though,
that there are thousands of Toyota and Honda owners who likely
overpaid, thanks to the Furukawa Three and their conspiracy."

Hagens Berman is looking to speak with consumers who purchased new
Honda or Toyota vehicles from January of 2000 to January of 2010
who may have paid more than necessary because of the artificially
inflated cost of parts.

The list of defendants also include Delphi Automotive, Lear
Corporation, Leoni Ag, Sumitomo Electric Industries, S-Y Systems
Technologies GMBH, Yazaki Corporation and Yazaki North America.

Potential plaintiffs are invited to contact the firm by phone at
206-623-7292 or by e-mail at Furukawa@hbsslaw.com

You can learn more about this case by visiting

                        About Hagens Berman

Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP --
http://www.hbsslaw.com-- represents workers, whistleblowers,
investors and consumers in complex litigation.  The firm has
offices in Boston, Chicago, Colorado Springs, Los Angeles,
Minneapolis, New York, Phoenix, San Francisco and Washington, D.C.
Founded in 1993, HBSS continues to successfully fight for investor
rights in large, complex litigation.

HONORE-MERCIER: C. Difficile Victims to Split C$1MM Settlement
CTV Montreal reports that more than 50 victims of a C. difficile
outbreak at Honore-Mercier Hospital five years ago -- including
the families of 16 people who died -- will split a C$1 million
settlement of a class action law suit.

For the families of those who died, the compensation would be in
the range of C$25,000 to C$50,000, said lawyer Jean-Pierre Menard.

A coroner's report investigating the deaths between May and
November of 2006 was scathing -- hands insufficiently washed,
rooms improperly disinfected and a serious lack of health and
safety guidelines were prevalent at the hospital according to the

"Everything that could lack, was lacking here," Mr. Menard said.
"Everything that could be mismanaged was mismanaged here."

Honore-Mercier Hospital officials say things have changed since

"We work in a totally different manner," said spokesman Claude
Dallaire.  "We take a lot more precautions and now we have teams
to control the spread of infection."

This is the first time in Quebec history people who contracted C.
difficile in a hospital were compensated financially.

Were it not for the coroner's report, the case may never have
gotten this far because proving culpability is difficult.

For Sylvie Dorion, who spearheaded the class action suit, this
settlement puts an end to a long, three-year journey.

Ms. Dorion's sister Marie-Andree was one of the 16 people who died
five years ago after the outbreak at the hospital, and the pain of
that loss clearly remains.

"My sister was my mother, my friend, my sister," Ms. Dorion said.
"Oh, I miss her very, very much.  I miss her every day."

The suit was more a matter of principal for Ms. Dorion, because
doing nothing simply wasn't an option.

"I see my sister is looking at me," she said, "and saying it's
done now, you can turn the page."

INCO LTD: Ontario Court Dismisses Environmental Class Action
Christine Dobby, writing for Financial Post, reports that the
Ontario Court of Appeal has dismissed an environmental class
action and reversed an award of C$36-million to a group of Port
Colborne residents who claim their property values took a hit
because of emissions from a nearby Inco Ltd. refinery.

In a decision released on Oct. 7, a three-member panel of the
court unanimously ruled that the plaintiffs did not prove that
Inco was liable to them.

Even if they had succeeded on that front, the court said, the
plaintiffs failed to show any actual loss to Port Colborne's
property appreciation rates.

On top of throwing out the claims, the court ordered the
plaintiffs to pay C$100,000 in costs to Inco.

In one of the first class action lawsuits to go to trial, Judge
Joseph Henderson of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on
July 6, 2010 ordered Inco to pay three sub-groups of plaintiffs a
total of C$36-million in damages.

Now owned by Vale Canada Ltd., Inco operated a nickel refinery in
the small town on the north shore of Lake Erie from 1918 to 1984.

The Court of Appeal said Inco complied with contemporary
environmental and regulatory rules, but emissions from the 500-
foot smoke stack on the refinery led to a build-up of nickel
particles in the soil in the surrounding area.

Although there was no suggestion of threat to human health, the
issue began to attract public attention in 2000 when the Ministry
of the Environment released the results of a phytotoxicology
study, the court said in its decision.

This report on the effects of nickel levels on plant life
identified "hot spots" where the levels were very high.  The
Ministry eventually ordered Inco to "remediate" 25 properties with
particularly high levels, which involved removing the soil to a
certain level and replacing it with new soil.  This was completed
by 2004, although Ellen Smith, the representative plaintiff, would
not allow Inco to remediate her land.

The class of claimants included everyone who owned residential
property in an area that covers most of Port Colborne,
approximately 7,000 properties.  They alleged that because of the
public health concerns the nickel deposits provoked, their
property values did not increase at the same rate as comparable
values in other small cities nearby.

The Court of Appeal said the plaintiffs did not prove Inco was
liable to them.

"People do not live in splendid isolation from one another.  One
person's lawful and reasonable use of his property may indirectly
harm the property of another or interfere with that person's
ability to fully use and enjoy his or her property," the court

It said the plaintiffs' nuisance claim failed because they could
not show "actual, substantial physical damage" to their property
that posed some risk to the residents' health or well-being.

Concern generated by fear of a public health risk was
insufficient, the court said.

The court said the plaintiffs also failed to establish strict
liability and even if they had, the evidence did not prove that
property values were negatively affected.

The case was certified as a class action in February 2006 and
worked its way through the court system to a three-month trial
that started in October 2009.  The court heard Inco's appeal from
the trial decision over four days in May.

Lawyers for both sides were not immediately available for comment,
but David Sterns, a lawyer at Sotos LLP in Toronto, said he
suspects the plaintiffs will likely seek leave to appeal to the
Supreme Court of Canada.

"You always have to imagine the worst-case scenario when you take
on a case and this comes pretty close to that," he said.  "I take
my hat off to the plaintiffs that they pushed the case as far as
they did, and they'll probably push it further."

Mr. Sterns, who frequently represents plaintiffs in class action
cases, called the Oct. 7 ruling a "dramatic reversal" in "a
marathon dispute between people in a community and a very large

"Everybody else follows in the path that these cases blaze," he
said, noting that only a limited number of cases go all the way to

James Sullivan, a litigation partner in Blake Cassels & Graydon
LLP's Vancouver office, has represented defendants in numerous
class action lawsuits.

Reflecting on the decision, he said he believes many "speculative
claims" being advanced as class actions will ultimately be

"I suspect it will cause plaintiffs' counsel to reconsider the
viability of environmental class actions," he said.  "However,
given the relatively low threshold for certification, I suspect we
will continue to see them."

Mr. Sterns acknowledged that the court's ruling stands as a
reminder of the downside risk of taking cases like this on as a
lawyer or pursuing them as a plaintiff but said it wouldn't
discourage them entirely.

"I think it will remind people they better have the commitment and
resources when they start these cases, and be prepared to take
them all the way," he said.

KEYBASE FINANCIAL: Class Certification Hearing Set for June
A certification hearing in the class-action suit against former
Truro financial advisor John Alexander Allen and Keybase Financial
Group Inc. has been set for next June 27 and 28.

Truro solicitor Robert Pineo filed the action against Mr. Allen in
Nova Scotia Supreme Court last December on behalf of Stewiacke
residents Ruth and Dawn Osborne and at least 35 other unnamed

Last June, the Nova Scotia Securities Commission fined Mr. Allen
more than C$1 million for bilking dozens of clients out of an
estimated C$14 million.

Mr. Allen was ordered to pay $1.05 million to the commission and
C$7,000 in investigation and proceedings costs after he admitted
in an agreed statement of facts to violating the Securities Act
and engaging in unfair practices.

Any claims against Allen must be identified by December 15.
The proposed Class Definition is any person who:

A) Was a client or former client of Keybase Financial Group Inc.,
   ("Keybase") and John Alexander Allen ("Allen") during the
   period of March 23, 2007 and August 28, 2007; and,

B) On the advice and actions of Allen, entered into leveraged
   investments strategies by purchasing "distribution paying
   mutual funds" financed by loans inappropriately arranged by the
   Allen ("the Allen Strategy").

The hearing will take place at the Supreme Court building at 1
Church St., Truro, beginning at 9:30 a.m. each day.

The Supreme Court claim alleges that Allen advised clients to
participate in inappropriate investment schemes beyond their risk
tolerances, including leveraged investment schemes and that he
obtained loans for the applicants from financial institutions by
mis-representing their factual circumstances.

The claim alleges that these clients sustained significant
financial losses as a result.

Mr. Allen was registered with the commission from January 1993 to
September 2007 and worked as a mutual fund salesperson with
Keybase Financial Group in Truro for six months in 2007.

LCD PANEL MANUFACTURERS: Retailers Can Continue Antitrust Claims
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that a class of
electronics retailers can continue their claims against LCD panel
manufacturers including Toshiba, Hitachi and Epson, among others,
a federal judge ruled after finding the suit is not barred because
it deals with foreign trade.

The plaintiffs claim that the electronics manufacturers engaged in
a global price-fixing conspiracy to raise prices and restrict
competition in the sales of computer monitors, laptops,
televisions and other LCD products.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston previously agreed that
defendants "secretly conspired" to raise prices on LCD devices to
"supra-competitive" levels.

However, the defendant manufacturers say the class claims are
barred by the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act because the
lawsuit involves "trade or commerce . . . with foreign nations."

The defendants also said the class' state-law claims should be
dismissed because that Act "operates to constrain state antitrust
laws from regulating where federal law does not."

The plaintiffs said the "domestic effect exception" applies in
this case because there was sufficient evidence that the alleged
conspiracy had direct effect on the United States.

Judge Illston treated the defendants' motion as one for summary
judgment, and agreed with the plaintiffs that the manufacturers'
alleged price-fixing conspiracy had direct effects on American

"In price-fixing cases such as this one, defendants would limit a
'direct effect' to the financial harm caused by the first sale of
a price-fixed product," she wrote.

"(B)ecause the effect of defendants' anticompetitive conduct did
not change significantly between the beginning of the process
(overcharges for LCD panels) and the end (overcharges for
televisions, monitors, and notebook computers), the effect
'proceeded without deviation or interruption' from the LCD
manufacturer to the American retail store," Judge Illston found.

"No intervening events interrupted its journey," she continued.

The judge denied defendants' joint motion for summary judgment on
the indirect purchaser claims based on foreign sales.

A copy of the Order Denying Defendants' Joint Dispositive Motion
Regarding Indirect Purchaser Claims Based on Foreign Sales in In
Re: TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 07-md-
01827 (N.D. Calif.), is available at http://is.gd/losqP2

PHILIPS ELECTRONICS: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Okay
The law firms of Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, Horwitz, Horwitz &
Paradis, and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC disclosed that on
October 3, 2011, the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey granted preliminary approval to a proposed class
action settlement with Philips Electronics North America
Corporation.  The settlement proposes to resolve lawsuits that
allege certain Philips and Magnavox televisions suffer from a
defect that causes internal components (called capacitors) to
prematurely fail, resulting in the televisions becoming
inoperable.  The proposed settlement would entitle qualifying
settlement class members, who purchased new or received as a gift
new one of the Philips or Magnavox plasma televisions with the
model numbers listed below, to monetary benefits or vouchers.

The model numbers of the Philips and Magnavox plasma televisions
included in the proposed class action settlement are:

        50PF9830A/37     42PF9630A/37
        50PF9731D/37     42PF7321D/37
        50PF9631D/37     42PF7320A/37
        50PF9630A/37     42PF7220A/37
        50PF9431D/37     42PF5321D/37
        50PF7321D/37     50MF231D/37
        50PF7320A/37     50PF7220A/37

In addition, only those television sets with a serial number
reflecting a manufacturing date between November 1, 2005, through
December 31, 2006, qualify for participation in this settlement.

The Court has scheduled a hearing on December 15, 2011, at 10:30
a.m. to determine whether to grant final approval to the

To be eligible to receive the benefits made available pursuant to
this settlement, class members must submit to the claims
administrator a claim form that is postmarked by February 28,

To obtain additional information about the settlement, to
determine whether your television qualifies, or to obtain a claim
form, you can visit the settlement Web site at

You can also contact the settlement administrator by calling (855)
477-4407, or by writing to Philips Plasma TV Settlement, c/o Dahl,
Inc., P.O. Box 2061, Faribault, MN 55021.

The class members are represented by:

          Steven A. Schwartz, Esq.
          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          361 W. Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA  19041
          Office: (610) 642-8500
          Fax: (610) 649-3633
          E-mail: SteveSchwartz@chimicles.com

          Michael A. Schwartz, Esq.
          Justin Shane, Esq.
          570 Seventh Avenue
          20th Floor
          New York, NY 10018
          Tel: (212) 986-4500
          Fax: (212) 986-4501
          E-mail: mschwartz@hhplawny.com

          Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
          Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
          1100 New York Ave, NW
          Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Tel: (202) 408-4600
          Fax: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com

POWERCOR: Black Saturday Bushfire Class Action Nears Settlement
Michelle Draper, writing for The Australian Associated Press,
reports that a class action launched by farmers against an
electricity distributor over the Black Saturday bushfires in
Victoria's west is close to settlement.

The parties reached an in-principle settlement agreement in
relation to liability on the final day of a five-week trial held
in Horsham.

The class action was brought by lead plaintiff farmer Laurie
Thomas against electricity company Powercor.

The trial heard the Horsham fire on February 7, 2009, burnt nearly
2,500 hectares, destroying 13 homes and many more buildings.

Barrister Tim Tobin, SC, for the plaintiff, said the fire was
sparked by a live power line that fell from a pole and ignited

He alleged Powercor breached its duty to operate safely and his
clients were claiming loss and damages for these breaches.

It was alleged several screws on the power line in question had
come loose before the 2009 bushfires.

Powercor's decision to move from three-yearly inspections of
electricity infrastructure to inspections every five years had
contributed to the failure of its assets, Mr. Tobin said in his
opening statement to the trial.

He said Powercor was aware of the risks associated with its power
lines but had accepted them, rather than take proactive action,
for commercial reasons.

During his opening, David Curtain, QC, for Powercor, accepted that
the fire was caused by a falling power line, but said only one
screw had become loose before February 2009 on the pole in

Mr. Curtain said electricity provision was inherently dangerous
and the risk could be managed, but not eliminated.

He said Powercor's maintenance regime was reasonable and rejected
criticisms of the company's move to five-year inspections of
electricity infrastructure, saying it was the norm in the industry
and had led to improved training of inspectors.

Mr. Thomas was claiming damages of more than AUD300,000. Under the
class action, other parties who suffered damages were also seeking

The settlement will be subject to approval by a Supreme Court
judge not presiding over the trial.

Subject to the settlement's approval, a hearing has been scheduled
before Justice Jack Forrest next Wednesday for an assessment of

A Powercor spokesman said the company would not comment before the
settlement was finalized.

QUICKEN LOANS: Accused of Secretly Recording Phone Calls
Wayne Buder, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Quicken Loans, Inc., a California corporation; and
Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIV1104412, (Calif. Super.
Ct., Marin Cty., September 6, 2011) is brought in connection with
the Defendants' policy and practice of secretly recording
telephone calls with persons located in California without the
persons' consent, in violation of Sections 632 and 632.7 of the
California Penal Code.

Mr. Buder is a resident of Marin County, California.  He says that
he received and answered calls from the Defendants concerning his
efforts to obtain a home loan.  He alleges that the Defendants
recorded each of the calls, without his consent and without
informing him that the calls would be recorded.

Quicken Loans is a Michigan Corporation, with its principal place
of business in Detroit, Michigan.  Quicken Loans is a nationwide
residential mortgage lender.  The true names and capacities of the
Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Company removed the lawsuit on October 6, 2011, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of Marin, to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The Company argues that the District Court has
original jurisdiction over this Action and because the matter in
controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000 and is between citizens of
different states.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:11-cv-04955 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clifford H. Pearson, Esq.
          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          Bobby Pouya, Esq.
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
          E-mail: cpearson@pswplaw.com

               - and -

          George S. Trevor, Esq.
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-9000
          Facsimile: (415) 433-9008

               - and -

          Richard B. Wentz, Esq.
          Jean M. Wentz, Esq.
          2955 East Hillcrest Drive, Suite 123
          Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
          Telephone: (805) 374-0060
          Facsimile: (888) 855-8124

The Defendants are represented by:

          James G. Snell, Esq.
          Heather L. Shook, Esq.
          1117 S. California Avenue
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1106
          Telephone: (650) 849-4400
          Facsimile: (650) 849-4800
          E-mail: james.snell@bingham.com

REEBOK: Settles Class Action Over Toning Shoes & Apparel
GCG, Inc., in its capacity as the Court-appointed Notice
Administrator in In re Reebok EasyTone Litigation, 4:10-CV-11977-
FDS (D. Mass.), issued a statement regarding the case.

If you purchased eligible Reebok toning shoes and/or apparel
(listed below) from December 5, 2008, through October 12, 2011
your rights may be affected by a proposed class action settlement.

You are a Class Member and may be eligible to receive a payment if
you purchased eligible toning shoes and/or apparel from Reebok
and/or its authorized retailers and/or wholesalers from
December 5, 2008, through October 12, 2011, with limited

Eligible Shoes: Easy Tone, JumpTone, EasyTone Flip, SimplyTone,
RunTone, SlimTone, TrainTone

Eligible Apparel: EasyTone Capri, EasyTone Long Bra Top, EasyTone
Pants, EasyTone Sleeveless Shirt, EasyTone Shorts, EasyTone Short
Sleeve Top

The lawsuit alleges that Reebok violated certain state laws
regarding the marketing and sale of toning shoes and apparel.
Reebok denies all wrongdoing.  The Court did not decide which side
was right.  Instead, the parties have decided to settle.  The
parties believe the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and it will provide substantial benefit to the Class.

The settlement utilizes the same $25 million fund announced
recently with the FTC, less the costs of notice and settlement
administration, to pay claims to eligible Class Members relating
to the purchase of Eligible Shoes and Eligible Apparel.  Reebok
shall separately pay attorneys' fees and costs and class
representative awards.  All payments under the settlement must be
approved by the court. Reebok is also agreeing to make certain
conduct changes.  The Settlement Agreement and information on
filing a claim is at http://www.reeboksettlement.com

The lawsuit was resolved in conjunction with Reebok's earlier
settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, which was announced
on September 28, 2011.  Working together, plaintiffs, Reebok and
FTC agreed that the $25 million could be used to pay refunds to
all consumers, less costs of notice and settlement administration.
Consumers who heard about the FTC settlement and filed a claim on-
line will receive notice about the class action settlement in the
near future.

To be eligible for a payment, Class Members must send in a
completed claim form electronically submitted no later than
April 10, 2012, or postmarked no later than April 10, 2012.
Payment amounts to eligible Class Members will vary depending
upon, among other factors, the product(s) purchased, the number
and amounts claimed by all Class Members and other adjustments and
deductions.  The amount could be more (up to double), the same, or
less than $50 for each pair of Eligible Shoes, $40 for each
EasyTone Capri and EasyTone Pants, and $25 for each applicable
shirt, bra top and top.

If you are a Class Member, you may (1) do nothing; (2) exclude
yourself; (3) send in a Claim Form; and/or (4) object to the

Claim Forms must be electronically submitted to the Claims
Administrator no later than April 10, 2012, or postmarked no later
than April 10, 2012.  Objections must be filed with the Court by
December 28, 2011.  Requests to exclude yourself must be
postmarked no later than December 28, 2011.  Requests to appear
must be received no later than December 28, 2011.  The detailed
notice describes how to file a claim, object, or exclude yourself
and provides other important information.  The Court will hold a
hearing on January 17, 2012, at 2:30 p.m. in the federal
courthouse, courtroom 2, Donohue Federal Building, 595 Main
Street, Worcester, Massachusetts, to consider final approval of
the settlement.

The class is represented by Timothy G. Blood of Blood Hurst &
O'Reardon LLP, Milberg LLP, and Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLC, which were all designated by the Court as Interim Class
Counsel in In re Reebok EasyTone Litigation, 4:10-CV-11977-FDS (D.

To obtain a detailed notice, claim form or other documents, visit
http://www.reeboksettlement.comor call, toll-free, 1-888-398-5389
or write to Notice Administrator, In re Reebok EasyTone
Litigation, c/o GCG, Inc., P.O. Box 9770, Dublin, OH 43017-5670.

SINOTECH ENERGY: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
Several class action lawsuits have been filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of the American Depository Shares of SinoTech Energy
Limited between November 3, 2010, and August 16, 2011, including
purchasers of SinoTech's ADS traceable to the Company's Initial
Public Offering on or about November 3, 2010.

The lawsuit alleges that SinoTech failed to disclose the following
material adverse information: (a) the Company's five largest
subcontracting customers and its sole chemical supplier seem to be
shell companies; (b) the Company's financial results filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission were inconsistent with
financial filings made to Chinese authorities; and (c) the
Offering Materials issued in connection with the Company's
November 3, 2010, IPO were materially misleading and inaccurate.

On August 16, 2011, a report was issued by Alfred Little
demonstrating that SinoTech's business was smaller than it had
represented to investors in its SEC filings.  The report contained
a number of revelations into SinoTech, including information that
the Company's sole import agent, sole chemical supplier, and five
largest subcontracting customers, all appeared to be shell
companies with little or no actual operations.

Following the release of the report, SinoTech's ADS declined over
41% to $1.67 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.  Later
on August 16, 2011, NASDAQ halted trading in SinoTech's ADS,
pending further information from the company.

If you purchased SinoTech's ADS during the Class Period you may,
no later than October 18, 2011, request that the court appoint you
lead plaintiff of the proposed class.  A lead plaintiff is a class
member that represents other class members in directing the
litigation.  Your share in any recovery will not be affected by
serving as a lead plaintiff, however, lead plaintiffs make
important decisions that could affect the overall recovery for
class members.  You do not need to be a lead plaintiff to recover.
You may retain Milberg LLP, or other attorneys, for this action,
but do not need to retain counsel to recover.  If this action is
certified as a class action, class members will be automatically
represented by court-appointed counsel.  The complaints in this
action were not filed by Milberg.

Milberg LLP -- http://www.milberg.com-- has represented
individual and institutional investors for over four decades and
serves as lead counsel in courts throughout the United States.

If you wish to discuss this matter with us, please contact the
following attorneys:

Jeff Westerman, Esq. One California Plaza 300 South Grand Avenue,
Suite 3900 Los Angeles, CA 90071

          Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (800) 320-5081
          E-mail: contactus@milberg.com

SONY: Sued for Billing Unauthorized Music "Subscriptions"
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal RICO class action
accuses Sony and Dada Entertainment of running a "common criminal
enterprise to steal money from unsuspecting consumers" by billing
for unauthorized music "subscriptions" for wireless phones.

STATE OF MICHIGAN: Sued Over Poor Performance of Contract CNAs
Glynis Farrell at Courthouse News Service reports that
privatization of the Grand Rapids Home for Veterans endangers more
than 500 of its residents, veterans say in a class action.  The
state laid off 170 workers on Oct. 1 and replaced them with a
private contractor whose workers have a wretched record of abuse,
including one who "broke two of the fingers of a veteran, and
actually bragged about it," the vets say.

Lead plaintiff Anthony Spallone sued the State of Michigan
Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs in Ingham County
Court, on behalf of himself and more than 500 other veterans.

Mr. Spallone says that in an ostensible quest to save money, the
state laid off 170 resident care aides and replaced them with a
private contractor that has a terrible track record, including
leaving veterans in "urine-soaked beds for hours on end."

The state hired J2S Group, which formerly provided only
supplemental nursing care, backing up state workers.  But on
Oct. 1, Michigan handed over "the entire nursing assistant
operation to the private company," which the veterans say "has a
poor, even dangerous track record of care."

J2S Group is not named as a defendant.

But the veterans say J2S workers have been accused of a litany of
abuse, including ripping a feeding tube out of a resident's
stomach, breaking the fingers of another resident and bragging
about it, and that one "invalid veteran . . . fell and broke his
neck which a contract CNA, who was supposed to be caring for him,
walked out of the room."

Mr. Spallone, a Vietnam veteran, says he has seen residents fall
more than 15 times while in the care of contract employees.

The Grand Rapids Home for veterans is funded by the State of
Michigan General Fund, residents' fees, Medicare and the U.S
Department of Veterans Administration.  The center employs 500
nurses and aides to provide care to 600 residents and their

Resident care aides assist the veterans in eating, bathing,
dressing, social activities and emergency medical care when

J2S aides "have been known to abuse residents," the complaint

"One contract employee would leave residents in urine-soaked beds.
Residents have been bruised and have broken bones as a result of
the negligence of J2S contract employees."

"An invalid veteran fell off the bed and broke his neck, after a
contract CNA left him on the bed, unsecure, and left the room,"
the class claims.

"A contract CNA fed a resident by mouth, when there were specific
instructions, (including a sign above his bed) indicating that the
veteran was not to be fed by mouth.  Later, the contract CNA
pulled the feeding tube out of the veteran's stomach -- the
veteran was hospitalized; . . .

Mr. Spallone claims J2S workers were accused of "literally walking
off during their shift, never to return that shift and abandoning
the veterans."

The state replaced 171 nurses aides with private contractors last
Saturday, according to the complaint.  Mr. Spallone says that one
former J2S worker stated in a deposition, that "there are some
veterans who refuse treatment and service by the contract CNAs
from J2S Group.  She discusses how, on average, 10 out of the 15
persons scheduled to work on a shift would call off, and the other
5 would be hours late."

This worker stated that her entire training consisted of shadowing
another worker for 8 hours, that many J2S workers have no
experience in nursing care, and that J2S provides "little to no
oversight" of its workers.

Mr. Spallone seeks an injunction and restraining order.

A copy of the Complaint in Spallone v. State of Michigan
Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs, Case No. 11-1041-CZ
(Mich. Cir. Ct., Ingham Cty.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard G. Mack, Jr., Esq.
          Ada Veloren, Esq.
          Keith D. Flynn, Esq.
          MILLER COHEN, P.L.C.
          600 West Lafayette - 4th Floor
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 964-4454

SYNGENTA CROP: Petitions for Review in Atrazine Suit Denied
Steve Korris, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
that Madison County Circuit Judge William Mudge must carry out
Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder's order requiring agricultural trade
groups, researchers and consultants to disclose their activities
to Stephen Tillery, who hasn't sued any of them.

On Sept. 28, the Illinois Supreme Court denied petitions for
review from atrazine maker Syngenta Crop Protection Services and
the Heartland Institute in Chicago.

Judge Crowder declared information about lobbying efforts of third
parties relevant to Mr. Tillery's claim that they helped Syngenta
conceal the harm atrazine causes.

Fifth District appellate judges had denied review of both
petitions in January.

Heartland president Joseph Bast swore last year that identifying
contributors would expose them to demonization and might cost him
half his support.

The case passed from Judge Crowder to Judge Mudge after Chief
Judge Ann Callis assigned Judge Crowder to the asbestos docket
full time.

The Supreme Court action frees U.S. Magistrate Judge Byron Cudmore
to decide whether to enforce subpoenas Mr. Tillery obtained at
federal court in Springfield.

Mr. Tillery asserted federal jurisdiction because he maintains a
parallel suit against Syngenta at federal court in Benton.

Judge Cudmore stayed motions of Illinois Farm Bureau, Illinois
Fertilizer Chemical Association, and Chemical Industry Council to
quash the subpoenas, pending Supreme Court action.

Mr. Tillery obtained a subpoena against Heartland Institute at
federal court in Chicago, but District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan
quashed it.

Mr. Tillery represents public and private water suppliers in six
Corn Belt states seeking to declare atrazine harmful in any

Federal regulators consider it safe up to three parts per billion,
but Mr. Tillery claims his clients can hold Syngenta to a tighter

Judge Mudge plans a hearing on pending motions on Friday, Oct. 21.

TRAVELZOO INC: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
Bernstein Liebhard LLP on Oct. 7 disclosed that only four days
remain to file a motion for lead plaintiff in the securities class
action filed against Travelzoo, Inc.  A lawsuit was filed in
August 2011, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of a class of investors who
purchased Travelzoo common stock between the period of April 21,
2011, through July 21, 2011.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Travelzoo and
certain of its officers issued a series of materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
prospects.  On July 21, 2011, defendants revealed that the Company
was performing well below expectations, with revenues well below
estimates, and expenses exceeding estimates.  Upon this news,
shares of Travelzoo stock plummeted more than 30 percent, from a
closing price of $85.71 per share on July 20, 2011, to $56.00 the
following day.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members
who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Travelzoo during the
Class Period.  If you purchased or otherwise acquired Travelzoo
shares during the Class Period, and either lost money on the
transaction or still hold the shares, you may wish to join in this
action to serve as lead plaintiff.  In order to do so, you must
meet certain requirements set forth in the applicable law and file
appropriate papers no later than October 11, 2011.

A "lead plaintiff" is a representative party that acts on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.  In order to
be appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Bernstein Liebhard
LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.

If you are interested in discussing your rights as a Travelzoo
shareholder and/or have information relating to the matter, please

          Joseph R. Seidman, Jr., Esq.
          10 East 40th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (877) 779-1414
          E-mail: seidman@bernlieb.com
          Web site: http://www.bernlieb.com

Bernstein Liebhard has pursued hundreds of securities, consumer
and shareholder rights cases and recovered almost $3 billion for
its clients.  It has been named to The National Law Journal's
"Plaintiffs' Hot List" in each of the last eight years.

You can obtain a copy of the complaint from the clerk of the court
for the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

ZIONS BANK: Faces Class Action Over Debit Card Overdraft Fees
Dennis Romboy, writing for Deseret News, reports that Zions Bank
faces a class action over its debit card overdraft practices.

On Aug. 8, 2009, Melinda Barlow started the day with $29.53 in her
checking account.

Using her debit card, she bought meals at Del Taco for $6.43 and
Big Daddy's Pizza for $6.89, spent $33.21 at Walmart and made a
$139.74 insurance payment.  At the end of the day, her account
showed a negative balance of $156.74.

Taking the transactions from the highest dollar amount to the
lowest, Zions Bank charged her $100 in overdraft fees -- $25 for
each transaction, according to court records.  Had the bank taken
the charges from lowest to highest, Barlow would have paid $50 in
overdraft fees.

In a federal class-action lawsuit filed this week, attorneys for
Ms. Barlow are challenging Zions Bank's overdraft policies and
practices -- which they contend "made it extremely difficult, if
not impossible" for customers to avoid overdraft fees even if they
carefully monitored their checking accounts.

Three high-powered law firms represent the Sandy woman and other
possible plaintiffs -- Anderson & Karrenberg in Salt Lake City,
Boston-based Shapiro Haber & Urmy, and Kronenberger Burgoyne in
San Francisco.

One of the suit's primary contentions is that from 2005 to 2010,
the bank intentionally ordered customers' checking account
transactions to make as much money as possible from overdraft

"Zions Bank manipulated and altered the order in which debit
transactions were 'posted' to its customers' accounts in order to
maximize the number of overdrafts in those accounts, thereby
maximizing the overdraft fees that it charged its customers,"
according to the 38-page complaint.

In many cases, customers' accounts were not actually overdrawn
either at the time of the debit transaction or at the time the
overdraft fees were charged, the suit alleges.

As a result, the lawsuit says, customers were charged unreasonable
fees.  "Zions Bank's collection of those excessive fees is
patently unconscionable and unfair."

The lawsuit also claims Zions doesn't uniformly post deposits to
checking accounts before debit transactions, resulting in more
overdraft fees.

A spokeswoman for Zions Bank said the company does not comment on
pending litigation.  Based in Salt Lake City, the company has
branches in 10 Western states.

In May 2011, Zions apparently began processing debit card and ATM
transactions from lowest dollar amount to highest, according to
its customer deposit agreement.  The lawsuit questions whether
that is happening and claims the bank has not followed "best
practices" for the industry over the years.


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  * * *