/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120104.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, January 4, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 3


BP: Faces Class Action in Oregon Over Illegal Debit Card Fees
CHUHAK & TECSON: NFL Players File Class Action Over Investments
CRANWELL RESORT: Ex-Workers Get Class Action Settlement Checks
EMCORE CORP: Continues to Defend Stockholder Suit in New Mexico
LIVEDEAL INC: Hearing on Class Certification Motion on Jan. 27

NIKE RETAIL: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Unpaid Overtime
NOVELLUS SYSTEMS: Being Sold to Lam Research for Too Little
PACIFIC STEEL: Faces $31-Million Labor Class Action
PORT AUTHORITY OF N.Y. & N.J.: Retirees Sue Over Free Toll Rights
RIGHTNOW TECHNOLOGIES: Class Actions Fail to Halt Oracle Merger

RITE AID: Continues to Defend Store Managers' Class Suits
RITE AID: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suits in California
STATE OF OHIO: Recent Settlement to Benefit Disabled Residents
STATE OF OKLAHOMA: Approves Foster Care Class Action Settlement
SUNSET JUNCTION: Concert Ticketholders Mull Class Action

UNITED STATES: Tax Fraud Victims File Class Action Against IRS
VEOLIA ENVIRONNEMENT: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in N.Y.
VERIZON COMMS: Faces Class Action Over Prepaid Activation Scam
VINCE DIXON: San Diego Court Approves Class Action Settlement


BP: Faces Class Action in Oregon Over Illegal Debit Card Fees
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims BP and
affiliates illegally and secretly add debit card fees to gasoline

A copy of the Complaint in Scharfstein v. BP West Coast Products,
LLC, Case No. 1112-17046 (Ore. Cir. Ct., Multnomah Cty.), is
available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David F. Sugerman, Esq.
          707 SW Washington Street, Suite 600
          Portland, OR 97205
          Telephone: (503) 228-6474

               - and -

          Tim Alan Quenelle, Esq.
          TIM QUENELLE, PC
          4248 Galewood St.
          Lake Oswego, OR 97035
          Telephone: (503) 675-4330

CHUHAK & TECSON: NFL Players File Class Action Over Investments
The Associated Press reports that Kansas City Chiefs quarterback
Kyle Orton and some 20 other NFL players are suing a Chicago law
firm for more than $10 million, claiming they received bad
financial advice on investing in energy concerns.

The 14-page lawsuit filed last week in Cook County Circuit Court
claims that the alleged negligence of Chuhak & Tecson cost
Mr. Orton and the other players millions of dollars related to
energy investments.  The firm did not return several messages left
on Dec. 30 seeking comment.

The lawsuit only lists two individuals by name as plaintiffs --
Mr. Orton, now 29, a former quarterback for the Chicago Bears and
Denver Broncos, and Atlanta lawyer Edward Rappaport.  Plaintiffs'
attorney Daniel Konicek told The Associated Press the others he
represents in the suit are all NFL players he declined to

"I think this says a lot about the vulnerabilities of NFL players
-- that they rely on the expertise of others," he said.  "They
relied on people who were supposed to have their best interests in

In 2005, the law firm encouraged then-rookie Mr. Orton and others
to set up partnerships that, in turn, would invest in producers
and sellers of gas generated at landfills, the lawsuit says.  The
plaintiffs didn't find out until 2010 that they didn't qualify for
tax breaks that Chuhak & Tecson allegedly assured them they would
benefit from.

Instead, the investors "suffered millions of dollars in damages,
including loss of investment, adverse tax consequences, penalties,
expenses and professional fees," the lawsuit claims.

The suit itself doesn't provide an exact figure for how much the
parties are seeking in damages, but Mr. Konicek said that,
combined, it will be more than $10 million.

"This is a lesson to make sure you're dealing with the right
people," said Ms. Konicek.  "These guys thought they were."

CRANWELL RESORT: Ex-Workers Get Class Action Settlement Checks
Clarence Fanto, writing for Berkshire Eagle, reports that for 700
current and former employees of Cranwell Resort, Spa and Golf
Club, it [was] an especially happy New Year's Day thanks to $7
million in lawsuit settlement checks that landed in their
mailboxes last week.

The 400 food-service and 300 spa workers are each getting
thousands of dollars from a class-action lawsuit that was settled
out of court then finalized at a fairness hearing in Berkshire
Superior Court in November.

The settlements include tips withheld by the resort plus interest,
said attorney Paul Holtzman of the Boston firm Krokidas and
Bluestein, which represented the workers.

Checks for food-service workers also include the difference
between their $2.83 an hour "sub-minimum wage" and the $8 an hour
state minimum for other employees.

"If an employer doesn't pay all your tips, then state law
prohibits them from using sub-minimum wages," Mr. Holtzman said.
"The tips were withheld, so that violation triggers the other
minimum-wage violation."

Spa employees who were paid at or above the $8 an hour minimum are
receiving settlements representing the 20 percent gratuities that
were not paid to them, Mr. Holtzman explained.

Last week's checks also include penalty interest charges -- 32
percent for the spa workers and 40 percent for the food-service

For Erin Meizinger of New Lebanon, N.Y., now the mother of two and
a part-time waitress at Mario's Restaurant on Route 22, the check
will "help us get ahead of bills as much as we can."

She worked at Cranwell in 2002 and 2003 as a nail technician in
the spa and recalled that the non-payment of gratuities was
brought up to management.  But she said the claim "was ignored or
people were pushed out the door.  They weren't fair to the workers
in general.  It's nice to see more people are getting the justice
and the money they earned."

Ms. Meizinger plans to attend beauty school and then seek
employment in a smaller, family-oriented spa.

"The worst part was having to lie to the spa-savvy guests who
asked us if we were receiving the 20 percent gratuities on their
bills," said Polly Karis of Stephentown, N.Y., a massage therapist
at Cranwell from January 2003 to June 2007. She plans to use her
settlement to help pay for graduate school.

Ms. Karis and her fellow workers quickly realized that the
gratuities were missing from their paychecks but during a meeting
with the spa director, she said, the employees were told to lie to
the guests who asked if the tips were being passed on.

"My mother always taught me not to lie," said Ms. Karis, adding
that she always told the truth to her clients "as tactfully as
possible" despite instructions to the contrary.

Following complaints by the workers, the resort started referring
to the 20% gratuity listed on patrons' bills as a "service
charge," she added.

"It was very demeaning when the spa director went around the room,
asking us to rehearse how we would lie to the guests," Ms. Karis
told The Eagle.  "That was the biggest frustration for us."

But now, Ms. Karis said, justice has been served and the "people
who were wronged were compensated.  Most important, it sets a
precedent for people who work on tips."

"There were many wonderful things about working at Cranwell, and I
didn't want to be the kind of employee who speaks badly about our
employer," she recalled.  "It put many of us in a pickle, we were
up against having to put a lie between ourselves and the public."

According to Mr. Holtzman, "the laws on wages are intended to make
sure workers get monies owed in a timely fashion."

The food and beverage-service workers did receive 75% of their
tips, he said, but the spa employees did not receive any of the
20% gratuity or service charges billed to guests who paid on
average $100 apiece for spa services.

"Any time there's a settlement in one of these cases it's an
important reminder to companies, hotels and spas that tips are
required to be paid 100 percent to the employees who earned them,"
Mr. Holtzman said.

The lawsuit, first filed in 2007 by a half-dozen plaintiffs
representing the 600 workers, named Cranwell Management Corp. and
those who made up the resort's five member executive team at that
time.  The lawsuit covered unpaid tips dating back to 2002.

Cranwell's current general manager, Carl Pratt, who assumed the
post last March, has told The Eagle that Cranwell denies any
liability and never instructed employees to lie to patrons.

"We're pleased to have the matter behind us," he said on Dec. 29,
"and we're looking forward to continued support of the economy as
we have done for the past 19 years."

Similar cases involving withholding of gratuities to employees
have been resolved in recent years.  In 2008, Canyon Ranch paid
out $14,750,000 in an out-of-court settlement to 600 employees who
worked there from April 2004 until October 2007.  Canyon Ranch
also denied any wrongdoing.

EMCORE CORP: Continues to Defend Stockholder Suit in New Mexico
The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico
appointed a lead counsel in September 2011 in the consolidated
stockholder class action lawsuit against EMCORE Corporation,
according to the Company's December 29, 2011, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended September 30, 2011.

On December 23, 2008, Plaintiffs Maurice Prissert and Claude
Prissert filed a purported stockholder class action (the "Prissert
Class Action") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
allegedly on behalf of a class of Company shareholders against the
Company and certain of its present and former directors and
officers (the "Individual Defendants") in the United States
District Court for the District of New Mexico captioned, Maurice
Prissert and Claude Prissert v. EMCORE Corporation, Adam Gushard,
Hong Q. Hou, Reuben F. Richards, Jr., David Danzilio and Thomas
Werthan, Case No. 1:08cv1190 (D.N.M.).  The Complaint alleges that
the Company and the Individual Defendants violated certain
provisions of the federal securities laws, including Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of the
Company's disclosure regarding its customer Green and Gold Energy
("GGE") and the associated backlog of GGE orders with the
Company's Photovoltaics business segment.  The Complaint in the
Prissert Class Action seeks, among other things, an unspecified
amount of compensatory damages and other costs and expenses
associated with the maintenance of the action.  On or about
February 12, 2009, a second purported stockholder class action
(Mueller v. EMCORE Corporation et al., Case No. 1:09cv 133
(D.N.M.)) (the "Mueller Class Action"), together with the Prissert
Class Action, the "Class Actions") was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Mexico against the same
defendants named in the Prissert Class Action, based on
substantially the same facts and circumstances, containing
substantially the same allegations and seeking substantially the
same relief.

On September 25, 2009, the court issued an order consolidating
both the Prissert and Mueller actions into one consolidated
proceeding, but denied plaintiffs motions for appointment of a
lead plaintiff or lead plaintiff's counsel.  On July 15, 2010, the
court appointed IBEW Local Union No. 58 Annuity Fund to serve as
lead plaintiff ("IBEW"), but denied, without prejudice, IBEW's
motion to appoint lead counsel.  On August 24, 2010, IBEW filed a
renewed motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and for approval
of its selection of counsel.  IBEW filed a renewed motion for
appointment of counsel on May 13, 2011, which the Company did not
oppose.  By Order dated September 30, 2011, the court appointed
counsel to act on behalf of the purported class.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against the
allegations of the Class Actions.

LIVEDEAL INC: Hearing on Class Certification Motion on Jan. 27
A motion for class certification in the consumer class action
lawsuit against LiveDeal, Inc., is set to be heard on January 27,
2012, according to the Company's December 29, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended September 30, 2011.

On June 6, 2008, Global Education Services, Inc. ("GES") filed a
consumer class action lawsuit, captioned Global Education
Services, Inc. v. LiveDeal, Inc., against the Company in King
County (Washington) Superior Court alleging that the Company's use
of activator checks violated the Washington Consumer Protection
Act.  GES seeks injunctive relief against the Company's use of the
checks, as well as judgment in an amount equal to three times the
alleged damages sustained by the members of the class.  LiveDeal
denied the allegations and is defending the litigation.  Early in
2010, the Court denied both parties' dispositive motions after
oral argument.  After settlement discussions failed to result in
resolution, the parties resumed the litigation in the fall of
2011.  GES' motion for class certification is briefed and
scheduled to be heard on January 27, 2012.  The parties continue
to discuss settlement pending hearing on the motion.

LiveDeal, Inc. provides local customer acquisition services for
small businesses.  LiveDeal, through its two primary wholly owned
subsidiaries (Velocity Marketing Concepts, Inc. and Local
Marketing Experts, Inc.), offers an affordable way for businesses
to extend their marketing reach to local, relevant customers via
the Internet.

NIKE RETAIL: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Unpaid Overtime
Courthouse News Service reports that Nike makes its store salesmen
work off the clock and stiffs them for overtime, a former worker
claims in a federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Proctor v. Nike Retail Services, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 11-cv-06711 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Hoffman, Esq.
          Leonard Emma, Esq.
          333 Bush Street, Suite 2250
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 362-1111
          E-mail: mhoffman@employment-lawyers.com

NOVELLUS SYSTEMS: Being Sold to Lam Research for Too Little
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders say Novellus is
selling itself too cheaply to Lam Research, in a cash and stock
deal worth $3.3 billion.

A copy of the Complaint in Ramsay v. Novellus Systems, Inc., et
al., Case No. 111CV215756 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty.),
is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David E. Bower, Esq.
          Vahn Alexander, Esq.
          Christopher Hayes, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          E-mail: dbower@faruqilaw.com

PACIFIC STEEL: Faces $31-Million Labor Class Action
MetalBulletin reports that Pacific Steel Casting Co. is facing its
third labor-related challenge in less than a year with a class-
action lawsuit seeking an estimated $31 million in damages from
the company.

In a press conference posted online, Rodriguez's attorney, Timothy
P. Rumberger, claimed that Pacific Steel employees who report for
work at 5:00 a.m. and perform "hard jobs in very hot conditions"
aren't allowed a lunch break until 11:30 a.m.

PORT AUTHORITY OF N.Y. & N.J.: Retirees Sue Over Free Toll Rights
Chris Fry at Courthouse News Service reports that a retired police
officer filed a class action against the Port Authority of New
York and New Jersey for revoking Port Authority retirees' rights
to free tolls for life.

Thomas Westfield claims the Port Authority "unilaterally revoked
[his] promised right to free passage at its Hudson River vehicular
crossings," a right that "had been promised upon starting
employment at the Port Authority," as "a lifetime benefit."

Mr. Westfield, who retired from the Port Authority Police Force in
1998, claims that the Port Authority broke its promise to
employees by a vote in November 2010, rescinding their right to
free tolls on bridges and tunnels, and canceling their right to
free parking at airports the Port Authority manages.

Mr. Westfield says the Port Authority promised the free tolls
"would be available during their tenure of employment, and for
life upon successful retirement."

He says the free tolls have been in place since before he started
at the Port Authority in 1971.  At first, the Port Authority
"issued paper passes for such benefit," then "switched to the
electronic EZPass to facilitate the process" in 2002.

Now the class must pay tolls on the George Washington Bridge, the
Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, the Bayonne Bridge, the Goethals
Bridge and the Outerbridge Crossing. Free parking at John F.
Kennedy, LaGuardia and Newark Liberty Airports also was revoked.

Class members "are now required to pay an amount of up to $12 per
crossing" and "an average of $24 for 4 hour parking at their

Mr. Westfield estimates the class consists of more than 4,000
retirees says 400 have notified him of claims they filed.  He
seeks class damages for breach of contract, breach of promise and
unjust enrichment.

He filed pro se in Morris County Court, apparently as an attorney,
signing the complaint Thomas Westfield, Esq.

A copy of the Complaint in Westfield v. The Port Authority of New
York and New Jersey, Case No. MRS-L-3458-11 (N.J. Super. Ct.,
Morris Cty.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas Westfield, Esq.
          29 Fairchild Place
          Whippany, NJ 07981
          Telephone: (973) 428-0060

RIGHTNOW TECHNOLOGIES: Class Actions Fail to Halt Oracle Merger
Jodi Hausen, writing for Bozeman Daily Chronicle, reports that
RightNow Technologies stockholders overwhelmingly approved the
company's merger with Oracle Corporation, despite a class action
lawsuit contending the deal was unfair.

Nearly everyone present at the special stockholders meeting
Dec. 22 voted for the deal, according to a news release.  Those
voting represented about 87% of RightNow's shares of common stock.

Stockholder approval does not seal the deal, however.  It is
"subject to regulatory approval" and final closing, the statement

The class action lawsuit filed in Gallatin County District Court
on Nov. 4 by the Town of Davie Police Officers Retirement System
and Diane Wosek is one of at least four filed since RightNow and
Oracle announced their proposed merger in October.

Three other lawsuits were also filed in Delaware, where Oracle's
subsidiaries are incorporated, according to court documents.

The Gallatin County suit names both corporations, RightNow's
founder and CEO Greg Gianforte and other board members who retain
16.4% of RightNow's voting power.

The lawsuit alleges the merger is unfair to RightNow shareholders
and that board members "are in possession of private corporate
information," creating a "disparity of knowledge and economic
power between them and the public shareholders."

The proposed merger undervalues RightNow and does not give
stockholders the ability to reap the rewards of future success,
the lawsuit states.

When RightNow announced the deal, it valued stocks at $43 per
share, which is about what it was trading for on the NASDAQ on
Dec. 30.

But the plaintiffs claim the company's value will rise, citing a
CNBC report that said one of RightNow's 2011 quarterly net income
earnings of $1.4 million trumped the previous year's same quarter
by 138%.

The proposed merger is the result of a "flawed" process that
yielded an unfair price, the suit says, and was designed to ensure
the merger terms were preferential to Oracle and company insiders.
"Any economic upside (of the deal) will enrich Oracle," and if it
goes through, the principal stockholders will be "unjustly
enriching themselves at the expense or to the detriment of the
public shareholders," the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit also claims that company insiders are obtaining
"lucrative benefits" in the deal, citing a Bloomberg report that
Mr. Gianforte's stake in RightNow -- 20% -- is worth about $290
million in the deal.

RightNow's attorney, Jim Goetz, filed a brief the day after
stockholders approved the acquisition, saying the class action
lawsuit is now moot.

The only thing plaintiffs sought was to prevent the shareholder
vote from taking place "on the basis that the proxy statement
soliciting the vote was materially misleading," Mr. Goetz wrote.
They failed to ask Park County District Judge Nels Swandal, who is
presiding over the case, to stop the voting process.

"Dec. 22, 2011, came and went, the shareholder vote has now taken
place" and, at this stage, a court order requiring corrective
measures "would be an exercise in futility and frivolity,"
Mr. Goetz wrote.

Messrs. Goetz and Gianforte declined to comment for this story.
The plaintiffs' attorney, John H. Tarlow, was unavailable for
comment on Dec. 30.

RITE AID: Continues to Defend Store Managers' Class Suits
Rite Aid Corporation is currently a defendant in several putative
collective or class action lawsuits filed in federal or state
courts in several states, including Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New
York, Maryland, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Washington
and Oregon, purportedly on behalf of, in some cases (i) current
and former assistant store managers and co-managers or (ii)
current and former store managers and assistant store managers,
respectively, working in the Company's stores at various
locations.  The lawsuits allege violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and of certain state wage and hour statutes.  The
lawsuits seek various combinations of unpaid compensation
(including overtime compensation), liquidated damages, exemplary
damages, pre-and post-judgment interest as well as attorneys' fees
and costs.

In one of the cases, Craig et al. v. Rite Aid Corporation et al.,
pending in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania, brought on behalf of current and former
assistant store managers, the Court, on December 9, 2009,
conditionally certified a nationwide collective group of
individuals who worked for the Company as assistant store managers
since December 9, 2006.  Notice of the Craig action was sent to
the purported members of the collective group (approximately 6,700
current and former assistant store managers) and approximately
1,100 joined the Craig action.  The Company has filed a motion to
decertify the class which is presently pending.

In another of the cases, Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation et al,
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, brought on behalf of current and former
store managers, the Court, on April 2, 2010, conditionally
certified a nationwide collective group of individuals who worked
for the Company as store managers since March 31, 2007.  The Court
ordered that Notice of the Indergit action be sent to the
purported members of the collective group (approximately 7,000
current and former store managers) and approximately 1,550 joined
the Indergit action.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 29,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended November 26, 2011.

At this time, the Company says it is not able to predict the
outcome of these lawsuits, or any possible monetary exposure
associated with the lawsuits.  The Company's management believes,
however, that the lawsuits are without merit and not appropriate
for collective or class action treatment.  The Company is
vigorously defending all of these claims.

RITE AID: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suits in California
Rite Aid Corporation is currently a defendant in several putative
class action lawsuits filed in state courts in California alleging
violations of California wage and hour laws pertaining primarily
to pay for missed meals and rest periods.  These lawsuits purport
to be class actions and seek substantial damages.  At this time,
the Company says it is not able to predict the outcome of these
lawsuits, or any possible monetary exposure associated with the
lawsuits.  The Company's management believes, however, that the
plaintiffs' allegations are without merit and that their claims
are not appropriate for class action treatment.  The Company is
vigorously defending all of these claims.

No further updates were reported in the Company's December 29,
2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended November 26, 2011.

STATE OF OHIO: Recent Settlement to Benefit Disabled Residents
The Associated Press reports that the recent settlement of a
class-action lawsuit over Ohio's process for reviewing some
healthcare claims is expected to speed things up for thousands of
disabled residents waiting on benefits to start.

People whose disability determination applications have been
pending for more than 90 days will automatically be enrolled in
Medicaid by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, The
Blade in Toledo reported.  The agreement, filed in early December
in U.S. District Court, also sets a timeline for the agency to
ensure that most applicants don't face such lengthy waiting

"This is a huge victory for people who are marginalized," said
Tim Harrington, executive director of the Ability Center of
Greater Toledo.  "It's really important that folks in Ohio who are
poor and disabled have access to health care, and that's what this

W. David Koeninger, one of the lawyers who filed the case on
behalf of the center and five residents, said the first round of
applications should be processed and applicants should be eligible
for benefits to start the new year.

He said more than 22,000 applications had been pending with the
department for more than 90 days when the lawsuit was filed in
2010.  It claimed the state's slowness in reviewing cases caused
unreasonable delays and suffering for some people who sought
Medicaid services but had to wait for decisions on their claims.

Job and Family Services already has reduced the application
backlog to about 5,000, department spokesman Ben Johnson told the

The agency did not admit any fault or wrongdoing under the
agreement, which calls for an outside vendor to be hired to help
gather medical documentation needed for application processing.

"Once a vendor is in place, the wait time will continue to be
reduced," he said.  "Ultimately we will determine disability and
process these applications within the 90-days time limit."

By July 1, the agency must ensure that 90 percent of its
applications are being processed within that time frame, as long
as the caseload remains below a specified monthly level, according
to the deal.

Mr. Koeninger said the five named plaintiffs from the lawsuit are
now getting treatment they needed.

STATE OF OKLAHOMA: Approves Foster Care Class Action Settlement
Ginnie Graham, writing for Tulsa World, reports that a proposal to
settle a federal class-action lawsuit over the state's foster care
system was approved by the state on Dec. 29 but an attorney for
the plaintiffs said they are preparing for trial.

The Contingency Review Board -- composed of Gov. Mary Fallin,
House Speaker Kris Steele and Senate President Pro Tem Brian
Bingman -- voted to approve a proposed settlement of the lawsuit
on Dec. 29.  However the board made changes to the settlement
which will need to be considered by the Department of Human
Services commission, officials said.  That was expected to occur
this week.

Tulsa attorney Fred Dorwart, who is assisting plaintiff Children's
Rights in the litigation, said he has not seen a copy of the
amendments suggested by the board.

"We viewed the agreement we made with the department as a win-win
for the state of Oklahoma, and we are disappointed we'll not be
able to proceed with the settlement agreement."

A pre-trial hearing is set for Jan. 6 and non-jury trial slated to
begin Feb. 21.

"We are preparing for trial at this point," Mr. Dorwart said.  "We
are under a gag order and cannot discuss much about this case.
But there will be ongoing discussions.

"This type of case cannot be settled at the courthouse steps.  We
are on a time frame and that time frame has essentially expired.
We are out of time."

The board met in executive session on Dec. 29 for about an hour
before making the announcement.  The board also discussed the
settlement for three hours on Dec. 28 in executive session but did
not reach an agreement on whether to accept the terms, which have
not been released.

The lawsuit was filed in February 2008 by New York-based child
advocacy group Children's Rights.  The suit, filed in the Northern
District of U.S. District Court, sought reforms in the child
welfare division of the state Department of Human Services.

The board is required by state law to meet when the Legislature is
not in session to vote on any settlements that may cost taxpayers
at least $25,000.

In a related development, Oklahoma City attorney Jerry Fent handed
a written protest to the board, claiming it is unconstitutional
based on the "separation of powers" clause.  Mr. Fent cited three
previous court cases and an attorney general opinion that limited
the board's authority.

Gov. Fallin said on Dec. 28 it is in the best interest of Oklahoma
to avoid a costly legal battle.

"But it has to be sensible," she said.

A pretrial conference is set for Jan. 6 with the non-jury trial
scheduled to start Feb. 21.

No monetary awards will be given to the class or nine original
plaintiffs.  Children's Rights has argued reforms will be more

The DHS commission spent five hours in executive session Dec. 20
discussing a proposed settlement.  The oversight board voted 6-3
for the settlement, with commissioners Jay Dee Chase, Aneta
Wilkinson and Richard DeVaughn voting against it.

In court filings, Children's Rights claimed that foster children
were scalded in bath water, sexually molested, beaten with tree
switches and belts and hit in the face.  It argues these abuses
are systemic problems, not isolated incidents.

U.S. District Judge Gregory Frizzell agreed the suit should be
expanded into a class action, which occurred in May 2009.  The
class is defined as current and future foster children. DHS has
more than 8,000 children in foster placements.

The original plaintiffs ranged in age from 4 months to 16 years
and had suffered abuse while in DHS foster-care placements.

Children's Rights sought reforms such as caseload limits,
education and training for foster families and staff, additional
placement options for foster children, improved monitoring,
quality assurance and appointment of a neutral monitor.

DHS has spent about $7 million on outside attorneys to defend the
lawsuit, and commissioners approved another $2 million for future
costs.  Because it agreed to the settlement, DHS likely will have
to pay some or all of the plaintiffs' legal fees.

Children's Rights has launched legal challenges seeking
improvements in child welfare systems in at least 15 states and
jurisdictions since 1995, with all but two ending in judicial
consent orders that settled the cases.  Legal fees have included
$10.5 million in Georgia and $6.5 million in Michigan.

The Oklahoma lawsuit has more than 775 docket entries, more than
any other case the organization has litigated, said Children's
Rights Executive Director Marcia Lowry.

Commissioners came under criticism earlier this year after some
high-profile child deaths where DHS workers were involved.

Gov. Fallin appointed two new members -- former Oklahoma County
District Attorney Wes Lane of Oklahoma City and businessman Brad
Yarbrough -- who took over as commission chairman in October.

A major point mentioned in judicial orders and disputed among the
parties is caseload per DHS worker.

Despite having a federally recognized tracking system, DHS does
not have a definitive number for average caseload.  Estimates show
that 68% of foster children have workers with 20 or more cases and
that 15 percent have 30 or more cases.

Accrediting body standards call for no more than 18 children per
caseworker, or eight per caseworker in the case of special needs

SUNSET JUNCTION: Concert Ticketholders Mull Class Action
mxdwn.com reports that in response to the cancellation of the
Sunset Junction Music Festival earlier last year, some angry
ticketholders are looking to file a class-action lawsuit against
the company behind the concert.  This could result in almost $1
million in lost sales.

The suit would be against the Sunset Junction Neighborhood
Alliance whose organizer, Michael McKinley has been MIA since the
show was denied a city permit in late August.

Leading the suit is Michelle Stimson, a tax law attorney and
ticketholder who is one of many who want their money back. She
made her opinion known on Sunset Junction's Facebook page, and has
gotten some others interested in her goal.  Those who want to join
the suit can e-mail her at MichelleMStimson@yahoo.com

Ms. Stimson is not the only one to voice her idea.  Other angry
customers had written their concerns on the Facebook wall as well.
Since then the page has been removed.  Most of the concert sales
had been sold through the Festival's Web site.  Ms. Stimson had
voiced her concern over where the money has gone from the tickets
that have not been refunded.  Following all this, some buyers have
had success getting a reimbursement from their debit card

Unpaid debt, almost $400,000, was the reason for this
cancellation.  The Festival had been going on for over 30 years,
originating in the Silverlake area of Los Angeles, CA.  It began
as a peace event to bring gay and latino communities together.
Silverlake has also benefited financially from the Festival, in
the way that it has brought tourists to the local businesses.

UNITED STATES: Tax Fraud Victims File Class Action Against IRS
Elaine Silvestrini, writing for The Tampa Tribune, reports that as
far as Jay Gordon is concerned, the Internal Revenue Service was
the victim of someone who used Mr. Gordon's identity to commit tax
fraud, and now Mr. Gordon and his wife are victims of the IRS.

"I know we're not the only ones," said Mr. Gordon, who described
his predicament as "ridiculous, asinine, whatever you want to call

The Gordons have filed what they hope will be a class-action
lawsuit against the U.S. government on behalf of a growing number
of Florida residents who are having trouble getting their tax
refunds because someone else filed tax returns to obtain
fraudulent refunds in their names.

Law enforcement authorities in Tampa say tax refund fraud has
exploded in the area, with postal inspectors intercepting what
they estimate to be hundreds of millions of dollars of fraudulent
tax refund checks.

Victims of identity theft have expressed near universal
frustration with how the IRS has handled their cases.  Lawmakers
in Washington have introduced legislation and convened hearings to
address the issue.

"We're basically not receiving what's ours because somebody else
did something fraudulently," said Mr. Gordon, who teaches
psychology at Tarpon Springs High School.  "And I just don't
understand why it's affecting us."

Mr. Gordon said he has "a high level of frustration" with the IRS.
"All they try to do is just sort of placate you, and it's just
ridiculous because you know it's going on with a lot of people."

Mr. Gordon said he and his wife, Christine, first learned of the
tax fraud when they received a letter from the IRS in March
stating that the agency wanted to audit his tax return.  There
were two problems with that: Gordon and his wife always filed
taxes jointly, and they hadn't even filed their taxes yet.

Finding out about the fraud was "a little bit surreal and very
unnerving," Christine Gordon said.

When they called the IRS, after being put on interminable hold,
they were told someone must have stolen their identity.  Jay
Gordon said they were told to file an identity theft affidavit,
which they did.  After that, they continued to get letters
informing them of an audit.

He said he called the IRS and said, "Don't you know that we have
filed as identity theft, and you need to back off."

The response, he said, was, "Well this department doesn't
communicate with this department.  Their bureaucracy is just,
'wow.' "

Finally, around June, the audit letters stopped.

"You're on hold, and then you're transferred from one ill-informed
representative to another," added Christine, a licensed massage

The day after the Gordons attempted to file their electronic tax
return, they were notified that their return was rejected.

No one would tell them how much of a refund the criminal obtained
in his name.  But the IRS has still failed to send the Gordons
their $2,500 refund.

"I've called countless times," Jay Gordon said, "and we've got
plenty of things coming up that we need to pay for."

He estimated he's called the IRS between 10 and 15 times, being
put on hold each time for up to an hour.  Frequently, he said,
he's told someone will call him back.  But no one ever does.

Contacted on Dec. 30, the IRS released a written statement about
the Gordons' lawsuit, saying they couldn't legally address the
specifics of an individual case.

"We understand that this is a frustrating process for identity
theft victims, and we share their frustrations," the statement
said.  "These are some of the most complex cases we handle.  The
IRS is firmly committed to working with people to take care of
these issues as quickly as possible.  We have been working hard to
speed up resolution of refund fraud cases and help get these fixed
promptly for taxpayers.  We have put more people into this area to
help resolve these cases as fast as we can."

The Gordons may have an uphill battle in court, as class-action
lawsuits have been difficult to bring in recent years.

But their attorney, James A. Staack of Clearwater, said he thinks
the prospects are good that a federal judge will give his approval
to the class-action status of the suit.

"I think the class can be certified based on the existing rules
and case law because everybody is experiencing the same problem,"
Staack said.  "The IRS owes them a refund; they've applied for a
refund . . .  Everybody in the class we've defined has done that
and the IRS has failed and refused to give them the money they're
entitled to.

"It's not the IRS' money; it's not the government's money; it's
the taxpayers' money as of Jan. 1.  Our position is they're
withholding the taxpayers' money."

VEOLIA ENVIRONNEMENT: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in N.Y.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Dec. 27 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Veolia Environnement S.A. American Depositary Shares during the
period between April 27, 2007, and August 4, 2011.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from Dec. 27.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman
or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Veolia and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Veolia operates utility and public transportation businesses.  The
Company supplies drinking water, provides waste management
services, manages and maintains heating and air conditioning
systems, and operates rail and road passenger transportation

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and prospects.  Specifically, defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse
facts: (a) that Veolia was materially overstating its financial
results by engaging in improper accounting practices; (b) that the
Company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable
to ascertain its true financial condition; (c) that Veolia failed
to timely record an impairment charge for its Transport business
in Morocco, Environmental Services businesses in Egypt, Marine
Services business in the United States, and for Southern Europe;
(d) that the Company's revenues were being hampered by the renewal
of some of its major concession contracts; and (e) that, as a
result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for
their positive statements about the Company and its prospects.

On August 4, 2011, Veolia announced its half-year results, for the
period ended June 30, 2011.  For the half year, the Company
reported consolidated revenue of EUR16,286.7 million.  Moreover,
defendants reported operating income of EUR252.2 million, compared
to EUR1100.7 million in the prior year period, due to "non-
recurring write-downs amounting to EUR686 million (principally in
Italy, Morocco and the United States)."  The Company stated that
it would exit certain businesses and certain geographies,
including its Transport business in Morocco, Environmental
Services businesses in Egypt, Marine Services business in the
United States and in Southern Europe.  In reaction to these
announcements, the price of Veolia ADSs fell $4.66 per share, or
over 22%, to close at $16.10 per share, on heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Veolia ADSs during the Class Period.  Plaintiff is represented by
Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class
actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is a 180-lawyer firm
with offices in San Diego, San Francisco, New York, Boca Raton,
Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta.  The firm is active in
major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout
the United States and has taken a leading role in many important
actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and
companies, as well as victims of human rights violations.

VERIZON COMMS: Faces Class Action Over Prepaid Activation Scam
Courthouse News Service reports that In Touch Concepts dba ZCom
demands billions of dollars from Verizon Communications, Vodafone,
Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems and others, in a class action
alleging monkey business in prepaid cell phone service.

A copy of the Complaint in In Touch Concepts, Inc. v. Verizon
Communications, Inc., et al., Index No. 653635/2011 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., N.Y. Cty.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ravi Batra, Esq.
          Todd B. Sherman, Esq.
          Michael W. Kennedy, Esq.
          The Batra Building
          142 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-1993

               - and -

          John L. Sampson, Esq.
          134-27 154th Street
          Jamaica, NY 11434
          Telephone: (718) 272-8470

VINCE DIXON: San Diego Court Approves Class Action Settlement
San Diego, California lemon law attorney Michael R. Vachon, Esq.,
on Dec. 31 disclosed that the California Superior Court for the
County of San Diego has granted final approval of the class action
settlement in Kinney v. Vince Dixon Ford, Inc., et al. (Case No.
37-2010-00059153).  Vince Dixon Ford, Inc. owns and operates the
popular dealership "Ken Grody Ford" in Carlsbad, California.  Lead
Plaintiff Brenda Kinney and the certified class were represented
by the Law Office of Michael R. Vachon, Esq., a California lemon
law attorney in San Diego, California.

           Lawsuit's Allegations Against Ken Grody Ford

Lead Plaintiff Brenda Kinney alleged (through her San Diego lemon
law attorney) that Ken Grody Ford Carlsbad wrongfully failed to
itemize and disclose the charges for optional items included in
her vehicle lease contract.  She further alleged that Ken Grody
Ford had failed to properly itemize and disclose the charges for
optional items in all of the class members' automobile lease
contracts.  Although such conduct is not prohibited by the
California lemon law, Ms. Kinney's San Diego lemon law attorney
alleged that Ken Grody Ford had violated several California
consumer protections statutes, including California's Vehicle
Leasing Act and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

     Settlement Payments to Ken Grody Ford Carlsbad Customers

On December 23, 2011, the California Superior Court for the County
of San Diego granted final approval to the class action settlement
negotiated by Ken Grody Ford Carlsbad and Ms. Kinney's California
lemon law attorney.  The settlement covers all California
consumers who (1) leased vehicles from Ken Grody Ford Carlsbad,
(2) who purchased optional items along with their leases, the
charges for which were not itemized in the lease contracts, and
(3) whose lease contracts terminated on or after September 7,

Under the settlement, class members will receive settlement
payments of $200 each.  Ken Grody Ford Carlsbad has also agreed to
submit to an injunction to be issued by the San Diego County
Superior Court that will require it to enact a corporate policy
requiring its employees to properly disclose the charges for
optional items in all future automobile lease contracts.

The Settlement Administrator is expected to begin mailing the
settlement checks to class members in January, 2012.

If class members have any questions about this lawsuit or the
class action settlement, they should call San Diego lemon law
attorney Michael R. Vachon, Esq. at (858) 674-4115, or they can
call the Settlement Administrator Kurtzman, Carson Consultants at
(866) 298-8511.

The Law Office of Michael R. Vachon, Esq. is located in San Diego,
California.  It specializes in the California lemon law.


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.  Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne Lopez, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and
Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2012.  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 Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *