/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/120123.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, January 23, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 16


AMERICAN DENTAL: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Class Suits
CARLYLE GROUP: Revises Governing Documents to Avert Class Actions
CLOROX CO: Fresh Step Ads Mislead Consumers, Calif. Suit Claims
CONVERIUM HOLDINGS: Dutch Approves Class Action Settlements
DAVEY TREE: Trial in "Ely" Class Suit vs. Unit Reset to March 26

FOREVER 21: Two Law Firms File Employment Class Action in Calif.
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Motions to Dismiss Class Action Denied in Part
GIANT BICYCLE: Recalls 900 Advanced Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over "Google Tags" Ad Service
GREAT ATLANTIC: Continues to Defend "Dudley" Suit in New Jersey

GREAT ATLANTIC: "LaMarca" Suit Still Stayed Due to Bankruptcy
KRAFT FOODS: Time Spent Donning Work Gear Not Compensable
LEE BACA: ACLU Files Class Action Over Inmate Beatings
MIDWEST GENERATION: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Emissions
NETFLIX: Royal Oak Retirement System Files Class Action

OBESITY RESEARCH: Sued Over Bogus Claims on "Lipozene" Products
OCZ TECHNOLOGY: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss SSD Suit on Feb. 2
SAMSUNG: Gilman Files Class Action Over Galaxy S Phone Defect
SAPS: Faces Class Action Over Police Brutality
SKECHERS: Faces Class Action Over Shape-Ups Injuries

STEELCASE INC: Recalls 11,000 Amia Desk Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
WISDOMTREE INVESTMENTS: Awaits Development in "Steinhardt" Suit
YASSINE ENTERPRISES: May Face Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
ZAPPOS.COM: Faces Class Action Over Customer Data Breach

* Lawyer Says Sexual Abuse Victims Must File Own Lawsuits


AMERICAN DENTAL: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Class Suits
American Dental Partners, Inc. in a Form 8-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 17, 2012, disclosed
that it entered into a memorandum of understanding dated
January 16, 2012, regarding settlement of certain litigation
relating to an Agreement and Plan of Merger by and among American
Dental Partners, Inc. (the "Company"), JLL Crown Holdings, LLC
("Buyer"), and JLL Crown Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), dated as
of November 4, 2011.

On December 20, 2011, the Company, its directors, JLL Partners,
Inc. ("JLL"), Buyer and Merger Sub have been named as defendants
in a purported stockholder class action filed in the Superior
Court, Middlesex County, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on
December 12, 2011, captioned Atoll Advisors v. Gregory A. Serrao,
et al., CV 11-442.  On December 16, 2011, the Company, its
directors, JLL, Buyer and Merger Sub were named as defendants in
another purported stockholder class action filed in the Superior
Court, Middlesex County, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, captioned
John Chew v. American Dental Partners, Inc., et al., CV11-4489.
The complaints in both lawsuits (collectively, the "Shareholder
Litigations") allege, among other things, that the Company's
directors violated their fiduciary duties to the Company's
stockholders through materially inadequate disclosures and
material omissions in the preliminary proxy statement filed by the
Company with the SEC on November 29, 2011, and that JLL, Buyer and
Merger Sub aided and abetted the Company's directors in breaching
their fiduciary duties.  The plaintiffs in both lawsuits seek to
enjoin the consummation of the merger and seek an award of the
costs of the action, including attorneys' and experts' fees, among
other relief.

While the Company and the other defendants believe that each of
the lawsuits is without merit, in an effort to minimize the cost
and expense of any litigation relating to such lawsuits, on
January 16, 2012, the Company and other defendants entered into a
memorandum of understanding ("MOU") with the plaintiffs in the
Shareholder Litigations pursuant to which the parties agreed in
principle, and subject to certain conditions, to settle the
Shareholder Litigations.  Subject to approval of the Superior
Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Middlesex County, and
further definitive documentation, the MOU establishes a framework
to resolve the allegations against the Company and other
defendants in connection with the merger agreement and
contemplates a release and settlement by the Company's
shareholders of all claims against the Company and other
defendants in connection with the merger agreement.  In exchange
for such release and settlement, pursuant to the terms of the MOU,
the parties agreed, after arm's-length discussions, that the
Company would file this Current Report on Form 8-K supplementing
the applicable disclosures in its Definitive Proxy Statement.  The
settlement is also contingent upon, among other things,
consummation of the merger.  In addition, in connection with the
settlement and as provided in the MOU, the parties contemplate
that plaintiffs' counsel will seek an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses as part of the settlement.

The Company says there can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such stipulation.  In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated.  The
settlement will not affect the amount of the merger consideration
that the Company's shareholders are entitled to receive in the
merger.  In the event that the MOU is not approved and such
conditions are not satisfied, the Company will continue to
vigorously defend these actions.

CARLYLE GROUP: Revises Governing Documents to Avert Class Actions
Miles Weiss, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Carlyle
Group LP, the Washington-based buyout company that's preparing to
go public, is seeking to bar its future shareholders from filing
individual and class- action lawsuits.

The firm revised its governing documents to say that investors who
purchase company shares must settle any subsequent claims against
Carlyle through arbitration in Wilmington, Delaware.  That could
limit the ability of stockholders to win big awards for
securities-law violations such as fraud, several attorneys said.

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a series of rulings in recent
years upholding the right of companies to require the use of
arbitration to resolve disputes with consumers.  Carlyle is
seeking to extend this principle to public shareholders, a move
that could run up against a bedrock of U.S. securities law, the
ability of investors to seek redress in federal court.

"What we are talking about is legally uncharted territory," said
Donald Langevoort, a law professor at Georgetown University in
Washington who previously worked for the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.  "I would be surprised if the courts allow
any company to entirely foreclose shareholder rights to sue under
federal securities laws."

Chris Ullman, a spokesman for Carlyle, declined to comment.

At issue are provisions of U.S. securities laws that bar investors
from waiving their rights to seek damages.

After the Supreme Court ruled in the late 1980s that this language
applied only to substantive rights and not to procedural ones,
brokerages began including mandatory-arbitration clauses in their
customer contracts, according to a 2006 report by the independent
Committee on Capital Markets Regulation.  The committee said the
court had yet to rule on whether securities litigation against a
public company can be brought to arbitration.

"If you really could enforce it, you would see every publicly
traded company having that, and you don't," said Kevin LaCroix, an
executive vice president at OakBridge Insurance Services LLC, a
Bloomfield, Connecticut, firm that helps corporations obtain
officers' and directors' liability insurance.  Arbitration clauses
have primarily been used in bilateral contracts between companies
and their customers, Mr. LaCroix said.

The capital markets committee, in a November 2006 report requested
by then-U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, recommended that
public companies be allowed to hold shareholder votes on the use
of arbitration to resolve securities law and other claims.  The
threat of class-action suits was discouraging private as well as
foreign companies from going public in the U.S., the committee

"Carlyle would be highly sensitive to this question because they
have looked at it over and over again in the context of whether to
take private companies public," Hal Scott, a professor at Harvard
Law School in Cambridge, Massachusetts and the committee's
director, said in a telephone interview.  "There are powerful
reasons to do what Carlyle is trying to do."

The SEC must approve Carlyle's registration statement before the
private-equity firm can sell shares to the public.  The agency has
historically refused to permit a public offering by a company
whose charter mandates arbitration and precludes class actions,
John Coffee, a professor at Columbia Law School in New York, said
in an e-mail response to questions.

Carlyle may be considered different because it's a limited
partnership rather than a corporation, Mr. Coffee said.

"It will be a difficult precedent to contain if the SEC permits
this," he said.

Florence Harmon, a spokeswoman for the SEC, declined to comment.

Carlyle, co-founded by David Rubenstein, William Conway and Daniel
D'Aniello, is at least the fifth buyout firm to go public since
Fortress Investment Group LLC held an initial public offering in
February 2007, followed by Blackstone Group LP, KKR & Co., and
Apollo Global Management LLC.  Carlyle would be the first to
impose an arbitration requirement, according to copies of the
limited-partnership agreements the companies have on their
Web sites or in SEC filings.

Blackstone was named in six 2008 lawsuits that were later
consolidated into a class-action complaint alleging that the
prospectus for the company's IPO was false and misleading, in part
because it overstated the value of the firm's private- equity and
real estate investments.  The plaintiffs seek damages and costs,
as well as other relief, Blackstone said in its latest quarterly
report, adding that the case is "totally without merit" and that
the firm intends to "vigorously" defend itself.  Blackstone shares
trade at about half the company's June 2007 IPO price of $31 each.

From 2009 through 2011, Carlyle was targeted in lawsuits tied to
Carlyle Capital Corp. Ltd., a publicly traded bond fund the buyout
firm shuttered at a cost of more than $152 million after its
assets plummeted in value.  The plaintiffs include Carlyle
Capital's liquidators, who sought $1 billion in damages through
four complaints filed in July 2010 in Delaware, New York, the
District of Columbia and Guernsey, two of which have since been

When Carlyle initially filed for the stock sale in September, the
firm said its limited-partnership agreement would require any
shareholder lawsuits be filed in Delaware Chancery court, which is
known for its expertise in adjudicating such claims.  Carlyle
revamped the agreement, according to an amended registration filed
Jan. 10, to say that arbitration would be the "exclusive manner"
for the resolution of any claims, suits, actions or proceedings,
including those made under federal securities laws.

Investors won't be able to bring claims in federal or state court,
or file or participate in class-action suits, even through
arbitration, Carlyle said in the IPO filing.  All proceedings and
awards will be confidential, according to the document.  Investors
who buy Carlyle shares will have automatically agreed to the
provision, the filing said.

Requiring the arbitration of individual claims in lieu of class-
action lawsuits makes it more expensive for plaintiffs to pursue
damages and more difficult to win big awards, said James Hill, who
runs the private-equity practice for the Cleveland law firm
Benesch LLP.  That's partly because attorneys are limited in their
ability to take depositions from senior executives and to demand
internal documents that can provide facts to support larger
claims, he said.

"If you are on the moneyed side, you would like to put an
arbitration clause in every contract," Mr. Hill said in a
telephone interview.  "It's a far more limited opportunity for the

The SEC blocked a 1990 IPO by a Philadelphia savings and loan that
had included a shareholder-arbitration clause in its corporate
charter, according to Carl Schneider, a former securities attorney
who represented the thrift.  The SEC said the provision seriously
impaired the "deterrent function" of shareholder lawsuits and
acted as a "collective waiver of rights" without giving adequate
notice to investors who bought shares in the secondary market,
according to an article he wrote that year in InSights magazine.

"The commission went ballistic," Mr. Schneider said in a telephone
interview.  "They refused to let the offering go public" until the
clause was removed, said Mr. Schneider, who was a partner at the
onetime Philadelphia law firm Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen
and is now retired.

The business environment has changed since 1990, with the Supreme
Court issuing a number of decisions during the past several years
favoring arbitration as a means of resolving disputes, according
to Mr. Schneider.  The court ruled in April that an AT&T Inc. unit
could bar wireless customers from bringing class-action claims
under mandatory-arbitration clauses in their cell-phone contracts.

"It's the class issue that was important," said Harvard's
Mr. Scott.  "Class arbitration is even worse than class
litigation" because certain rights, such as the ability to appeal,
are more limited, he said.

Publicly traded limited partnerships have also been granted more
leeway than corporations in restricting the ability of investors
to make claims, said John Olson, a securities attorney in the
Washington office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.  While these
limited partnerships have primarily been in the energy and mineral
resources businesses, Mr. Olson said buyout firms should be
eligible for similar treatment.

Mr. Hill can be reached at:

          James Hill, Esq.
          BENESCH LLP
          200 Public Square, Suite 2300
          Cleveland, OH 44114-2309
          Telephone: (216) 363.4444
          E-mail: jhill@beneschlaw.com

               - and -

          Carl Schneider, Esq.
          Packard Bldg, S.E. Corner 15th and Chestnut Street
          Twelfth Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102-2678
          Telephone: (215) 9772000

               - and -

          John Olson, Esq.
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036-5306
          Telephone: (202) 955-8500
          E-mail: jolson@gibsondunn.com

CLOROX CO: Fresh Step Ads Mislead Consumers, Calif. Suit Claims
Megan Sterritt, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. The Clorox Company, Case No. 3:12-cv-00280 (N.D.
Calif., January 18, 2012) alleges that through an extensive and
comprehensive nationwide marketing campaign, the Defendant has
conveyed the misleading and deceptive message that: (a) Clorox's
carbon-containing Fresh Step Cat Litter is more effective at
eliminating odors than other cat litters, and (b) cats "choose"
Fresh Step over other cat litters.

Put simply, the Defendant's advertising and marketing campaign is
designed to cause consumers to buy Fresh Step over other brands
because Fresh Step's carbon-based litter is more effective at
eliminating odor than competitor's ingredients, and because cats
themselves "chose" Fresh Step, Ms. Sterritt says.  The truth,
however, is that the Defendant's claims are false because Fresh
Step is not better at eliminating odor and cats do not prefer
Fresh Step over other litters, she points out.

Ms. Sterritt is a resident of Miami, Florida.

Clorox is a Delaware corporation with headquarters in
Oakland, California.  Clorox manufactures and markets consumer and
institutional products.  Clorox has approximately 8,100 employees
worldwide and net sales of $5.2 billion for fiscal year 2011.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn Williams, Esq.
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert M. Rothman, Esq.
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: RRothman@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Mark Dearman, Esq.
          Kathleen L. Barber, Esq.
          Bailie L. Heikkinen, Esq.
          Christopher Martins, Esq.
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
          E-mail: PGeller@rgrdlaw.com

CONVERIUM HOLDINGS: Dutch Approves Class Action Settlements
Spector Roseman Kodroff & Wills, P.C., Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP, and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC, co-lead
counsel in the historic Converium/SCOR securities class action
(the first such case settled on a Trans-Atlantic basis), announced
that on January 17, 2012, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal declared
binding the two international settlement agreements in the
litigation -- an aggregate recovery of $58,400,000.

In its first landmark ruling, on November 12, 2010, the Court of
Appeal announced that it had jurisdiction to declare the
international settlements of the Converium action binding.  In
addition to showing its willingness to provide an effective forum
for European and other investors to settle their claims on a pan-
European or even global basis, the Court of Appeal in Converium
substantially broadened its jurisdictional reach -- to the benefit
of investors in this case and in future actions.  In Converium,
the Court of Appeal secured jurisdiction even though the claims
were not brought under Dutch law, the alleged wrongdoing took
place outside the Netherlands, and none of the potentially liable
parties and only a limited number of the potential claimants are
domiciled in the Netherlands.  That decision, which is now final,
recognizes that all other European Union Member States, as well as
Switzerland, Iceland and Norway, must recognize the Court of
Appeal's ruling, under the Brussels I Regulation and the Lugano

As a result of the two decisions by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal,
the Netherlands has taken the most pragmatic approach within
Europe to aid investors and other claimants by enacting a law (the
Dutch Act on the Collective Settlement of Mass Claims (the "Dutch
Collective Settlement Act")) that allows them to reach a
collective settlement with a defendant or group of defendants.  In
addition, the ruling allows for the settlement to be declared
binding on an entire class on an "opt out" basis which is the same
under U.S. class action procedure.

The Dutch Collective Settlement Act requires that claimants'
interests be represented through a Dutch foundation or association
and the Court of Appeal will only declare a settlement binding if,
among other things, the amount of the settlement is reasonable and
foundation members are sufficiently representative of all
participating investors.  On February 18, 2009, the Stichting
Converium Securities Compensation Foundation (the "Foundation")
was incorporated to represent the interests of all legal and
natural persons who, during the period from January 7, 2002
through September 2, 2004, purchased Converium common stock on a
non-U.S. stock exchange and were not residents of the United
States at the time of purchase.  The Foundation is governed by a
Board of Directors, each of whom is independent of Converium and
Zurich Financial Services (ZFS).  Pursuant to its articles of
association, the Foundation is structured to include a number of
participating parties, which signed agreements to become
registered participants of the Foundation.

Because the Netherlands is the only European country with such a
collective settlement procedure it has become an attractive venue
for settling international mass claims, irrespective of whether
any litigation has taken place in the Netherlands.  The approach
taken in the Netherlands is important for all investors.  This was
underscored by the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in
Morrison v. National Australia Bank, which restricted the rights
of investors to bring claims before U.S. courts for shares not
purchased on a U.S. exchange.  Thus, when U.S. courts will not
hear their claims, European (and American) investors will more
readily look to resolve them in European courts.  The Dutch
Collective Settlement Act, and the Court of Appeal's recent ruling
in the Converium case, will make it easier for them to do so.  The
Court of Appeal noted the significance of its judgment in creating
an alternative venue to declare international collective
settlements in mass claims binding on all class members.  The
Court of Appeal explicitly referred to the limitations of the U.S.
courts in securities cases as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank.

Background of the Case

Converium Holdings AG ("Converium"), a major multi-line re-
insurance company based in Switzerland, was spun-off from its
former parent, ZFS, in December 2001.  The Converium securities
litigation began in October 2004 when Converium investors sued
Converium and ZFS for violating U.S. securities laws. (Converium
was acquired in 2007 by the French company SCOR and is now known
as SCOR Holding (Switzerland) AG.)  The lead plaintiffs alleged
that, when ZFS spun off Converium in an initial public offering
and over subsequent quarters, Converium's earnings were materially
overstated because Converium concealed a massive deficiency in its
North American loss reserves.  This allegedly caused the price of
Converium's stock and American Depositary Shares (ADS) to be
artificially inflated from December 11, 2001 through September 2,
2004.  Ultimately, in September 2004, Converium increased its loss
reserves by $562 million, reported a loss for 2004 of $761 million
and announced that it would place its North American operations
into "run-off" and would no longer write reinsurance policies out
of its U.S. offices.  This caused the price of Converium's stock
and ADS to drop, resulting in losses to investors.

Settlements on Two Continents

The action was originally brought on behalf of all investors who
purchased Converium common stock on the SWX Swiss Exchange and
American Depository Shares in New York.  However, on March 6,
2008, the U.S. federal court certified a class that excluded all
non-U.S. purchasers who bought their shares on the SWX Swiss
Exchange, concluding that there was insufficient evidence of
subject matter jurisdiction over their claims.  Converium and ZFS
ultimately agreed to settle investors' claims for a total of $143
million.  Because of the U.S. court's decision, this settlement
was split between those who purchased Converium shares in the U.S.
and those who purchased them on the SWX Swiss Exchange.  The U.S.
federal judge presided over the former and the Amsterdam Court of
Appeal is currently presiding over the latter.

Contacts: Robert M. Roseman, Esq.
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          E-mail: rroseman@srkw-law.com

              -- or --

          Steven Singer, Esq.
          E-mail: ssinger@blbglaw.com

               -- or --

          Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
          E-mail: dsommers@cohenmilstein.com

DAVEY TREE: Trial in "Ely" Class Suit vs. Unit Reset to March 26
Trial in a class action lawsuit against a subsidiary has been
rescheduled to March 26, 2012, according to The Davey Tree Expert
Company's January 17, 2012, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

With reference to the previously reported lawsuit, "Peter Ely et
al. v. Davey Tree Surgery Company, et al.," Davey Tree Surgery
Company, a subsidiary of The Davey Tree Expert Company named in
the purported class-action lawsuit filed on July 15, 2008, in
California state Superior Court in Alameda County, has entered
into a nonbinding mediation process with the plaintiffs and Local
Union 1245 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

As a result of the recently initiated mediation process, trial in
the case, previously scheduled for January 30, 2012, has been
rescheduled to March 26, 2012.  If the mediation process were to
result in agreement between the parties on the terms of a
settlement, any final settlement would require court approval, a
process that could take several months to complete.  The Company
says it can offer no assurances that the mediation process will
result in a settlement agreement or, if it does, that any
resulting settlement agreement would be approved by the court.

As previously reported, the plaintiffs allege on behalf of
themselves and a putative class that Davey Tree Surgery Company
has failed to comply with California law concerning off-duty meal
periods and the required content of paycheck stubs.  The
plaintiffs also allege that they and the putative "meal periods"
class have not been provided with uninterrupted, duty-free 30-
minute meal periods.  In addition, plaintiffs allege that because
they were supposedly made to work during their meal breaks, Davey
Tree Surgery Company violated California's minimum wage law
because they and the putative members were not paid minimum wage
for their alleged work during meal breaks.  Plaintiffs also
contend Davey Tree Surgery Company violated California law by not
including the time they and the putative "wage statement" class
members worked during their meal periods, their hourly rates of
pay and number of hours worked at each hourly rate on their
paycheck stubs.

The Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
certified both the "meal periods" class and the "wage statements"
class; some individuals are members of both classes, while others
are members of only one class.

FOREVER 21: Two Law Firms File Employment Class Action in Calif.
Norton & Melnik, APC, and Kitchin Legal announced that they filed
a class action lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court on Jan. 18
against the California-based retailer, Forever 21.  The lawsuit
alleges Forever 21 required its employees to perform work without
compensation and denied them meal breaks.

The lead plaintiffs, Jazzreeal Jones, Jessica Ramos, Shanelle
Thompson, Alyssa Elias and Tiffinee Linthicum, say the company
routinely detained them and their co-workers inside Forever 21
stores on lunch breaks and after their shifts were over so
managers could search them for company merchandise.  The suit
alleges these delays resulted in substantial unpaid labor every
day for thousands of Forever 21 employees in California.  The
workers' lawyers are also asking the State of California to
appoint them as private attorneys general so they may prosecute
penalty claims on behalf of the State.

The lawsuit is similar to one brought against Polo Ralph Lauren
that led to a $4 million settlement in 2010.  Patrick Kitchin, who
served as co-lead counsel in the Polo case, explained, "Bag checks
are meant to protect retailers from employee theft.  Ironically,
the delays associated with this industry-wide practice often
result in the theft of employees' wages."

"Sales associates at Forever 21 stores are often still in high
school and under the age of 18 when they begin their employment,"
said Geoffrey Norton, one of the workers' lead attorneys.  "These
young people are vulnerable and often do not understand their
employment rights.  This lawsuit is meant to give these young
people a voice about how they were treated while employed by
Forever 21 in California."

This is not the first time Forever 21 has come under criticism for
its employment practices.  In 2001 workers from six factories sued
the company and called for a boycott of Forever 21 products for
what they called "unsafe and unsanitary working conditions."  That
lawsuit was dropped after Forever 21 agreed to change its labor
practices in its factories and pay the workers the wages they had

Forever 21 was formed in 1984 by South Korean immigrants, Do Won
and Jin Sook Chan.  Begun as a single store in Los Angeles called
Fashion 21, it now operates nearly 500 stores in eight countries.
One hundred of those stores are in California.  Forever 21
employees more than 33,000 people worldwide and projects revenues
of over $3 billion for 2011.

Forever 21 employees are encouraged to contact attorney Geoffrey
P. Norton at 818-999-9500 or attorney Patrick R. Kitchin at 415-

For additional information, including a copy of Plaintiffs'
complaint, please visit http://www.Forever21ClassAction.com

Contact: Patrick R. Kitchin, Esq.
         Telephone: (415) 677-9058
         E-mail: prk@kitchinlegal.com

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Motions to Dismiss Class Action Denied in Part
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that General
Electric is still on the hook for charges that it misled investors
during the 2008 financial crisis, a judge ruled in a federal class

Lead plaintiff State University Retirement System of Illinois
claimed that General Electric hid its financial decline from
investors in GE and its subsidiary GE Capital, from Sept. 25, 2008
to March 19, 2009, at the height of the financial crisis.

The class claims CEO Jeffrey Immelt and CFO Keith Sherin misled
investors about GE's Oct. 7, 2008 stock offering.

Executives from GE Capital allegedly contributed to the deception,
including CEO Michael Neal, CFO Jeffery Bornstein, and Chief
Operating Officer William Cary.

These executives and "various companies that underwrote the
October offering" are the defendants.

"According to plaintiff, during a time when the financial markets
were crumbling and companies across the United States were
scrambling to disclose their holdings in subprime loans, GE
withheld information regarding its substantial holdings in
subprime and non-investment grade loans and touted GE as safe in
comparison to its competitors, despite the fact that GE was also
feeling the impact of the financial crisis," U.S. District Judge
Richard Holwell summarized in a 53-page Memorandum Opinion and

In particular, GE was accused of concealing "its difficulty
issuing commercial paper; the quality of many of its investments;
the fact that many of its assets were overvalued; its inability to
pay the full dividend promised; the fact that business at GE
Capital was drying up; and the precariousness of its AAA rating,"
according to the ruling.

The retirement fund culled evidence for the lawsuit from former
Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson's book "On the Brink."

"According to Paulson, Immelt called him on September 8, 2008, and
again on September 14, 2008, and informed him that GE 'was finding
it very difficult to sell its commercial paper for any term longer
than overnight.'  Paulson concluded based on these conversations
that GE was having difficulty funding itself.  Paulson also
reported that Immelt called him on October 13, 2008, to lobby him
to allow GE to participate in the Temporary Loan Guarantee Program
('TLGP').  The initial plan for the TLGP was that it would
guarantee the short-term unsecured loans of banks.  Immelt
expressed his concern to Paulson that the program as it was then
conceived would place GE at a competitive disadvantage to the
banks because investors would prefer to lend money to entities
whose loans were guaranteed by the government.  In response to
this conversation, Paulson worked to alter the terms of the TLGP
so that GE Capital could also participate, and the FDIC eventually
changed the program to incorporate this change," Judge Holwell

The second amended complaint also drew upon confidential
witnesses, one of whom testified that commercial paper markets
were "frozen" as of Sept. 25, 2008.

GE finally disclosed that GE Capital's portfolio had lower quality
investments in a March 19, 2009 statement that "approximately 42
percent of GE Capital's $183 billion in total consumer loans were
made to non-prime borrowers," the judge wrote, citing the second
amended complaint.

Messrs. Holwell blasted Immelt for his "categorical" statements
that investors could count on the company's financial health.
"Immelt's categorical statements that investors could 'count on' a
dividend and that GE was having 'no difficulties' issuing
commercial paper are not the sort of cautious statements one would
expect of a CEO attempting to come to grips with the effects of
the economic crisis on his company," Mr. Holwell wrote.

He added that the retirement fund plausibly argued that this
misleading was intentional.

"Of course, a CEO is allowed to convince the public to invest in
his company, but not at the expense of providing it with accurate
information about the company's financial health," Mr. Holwell
wrote.  "Taking the factual allegations in the SAC as true, the
inference that Immelt acted with scienter is at least as
compelling as the inference that he did not."

Mr. Holwell added that GE could not be sued for every wide-eyed
"puffery" it made about its financial health, and therefore
dismissed a handful of claims.

"Certain types of statements are generally not materially
misleading.  'Puffery' is one such type.  Puffery is an optimistic
statement that is so vague, broad, and non-specific that a
reasonable investor would not rely on it, thereby rendering it
immaterial as a matter of law," Mr. Holwell wrote.

However, he added: "Although the GE prospectus does contain some
cautionary language regarding the possibility of write-downs
within GE Capital's loan portfolio, this language is not
particularly specific.  The statements from which defendants quote
describe how the faltering economy could hurt GE and how GE could
lose money if borrowers defaulted.  These statements do not
disclose that GE allegedly had shifted its assets around on the
books in order to avoid writing them down.  As such, defendants
did not provide adequate cautionary language regarding the
valuation of GE's assets, and these statements survive a motion to

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order in In re General
Electric Co. Securities Litigation, Case No. 09-cv-01951
(S.D.N.Y.), is available at:


GIANT BICYCLE: Recalls 900 Advanced Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Giant Bicycle, Inc., of Newbury Park, California, announced a
voluntary recall of about 900 2012 Model Year Giant Defy Advanced
and Avail Advanced Bicycles.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal
to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The fork can crack, posing a fall hazard to riders.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves all 2012 model year men's Giant Defy Advanced
0, 1 and 2 model bicycles and the women's Giant Avail Advanced 0,
1, and 2 model bicycles.  "Giant" and the model name are printed
on the bicycle.  The bicycles are various colors and sizes.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:


The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold by
authorized Giant Bicycle dealers nationwide from August 2011
through November 2011 for between $3,000 and $4,550.

Consumers should immediately stop riding the recalled bicycles and
contact any authorized Giant Bicycle dealer for a free inspection
and replacement of the fork.  For additional information, contact
Giant Bicycle toll-free at (866) 458-2555 between 9:00 a.m. and
4:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday through Friday or visit the firm's
Web site at http://www.giant-bicycles.com/

GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over "Google Tags" Ad Service
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that Google
duped businesses and consumers by offering free trials of the now-
defunct "Google Tags" ad service, then charging for it, according
to a federal class action.

Even worse, the plaintiffs say, Google refused to delete their
credit card information from its billing system, violating
California law and putting them at risk of identity theft and

Google's company slogan is "Don't Be Evil."

It launched Google Tags in February 2010 as a way for businesses
to set themselves apart visually in a Google search or on Google
Maps.  Google charged a $25 flat monthly fee per listing.

In July 2010, Google offered a "free 30-day trial" of Google Tags.
Consumers could append a Google Tag to one or more of their
listings, for free.  To activate the service, however, consumers
had to supply their credit card information.

Lead plaintiffs Rachel Frezza and Mauro Rodriguez say Google
charged them for their use of multiple tags during the free trial

Ms. Frezza used the service to advertise her small holistic
healing business, Mr. Rodriguez to promote his employer's auto

When they contact Google's customer service, they say they were
told that the free trial offer "consisted merely of a one-time,
$25 discount -- as opposed to the genuinely 'free' use of the tags
during the 30-day period.  This was not disclosed in the terms of
Google's promotional offer," according to the complaint.

Google killed the service in April 2011.  But the class claims
Google kept the credit card information of those who signed up for
the trial offer, and refused to provide them a way to delete the
sensitive information from its billing records, other than to
advise them to cancel the credit card.

Since Google required customers to enter credit card information
before accepting the not-so-free trial offer, the class claims a
contract was created -- and that Google breached it by charging

The class claims Google also violated California's Customer
Records Act: "The members of the Credit Card Class canceled their
'free' trial of Google Tags prior to, or upon, the expiration of
the 30-day promotional period, and Google subsequently retired its
Google Tags feature altogether.  Thus, Google no longer needs to
retain the credit card number of the class members.  "Nonetheless,
Google has continued to retain this personal information in its
electronic billing records.

"Worse yet, Google has stated to plaintiffs and the Credit Card
Class that Google will not delete their credit card information
without first requiring that the members either cancel their
credit card altogether or replace the existing credit-card number
with the number of a new credit card."
Google took in more than $28 billion from its advertising programs
and products in 2010, accounting for 99 percent of the company's
revenue, according to industry estimates.

The class seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages for
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and consumer law

A copy of the Complaint in Frezza, et al. v. Google Inc., Case No.
12-cv-00237 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd C. Atkins, Esq.
          701 B Street, Suite 1170
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 255-2380
          E-mail: tatkins@atkinsdavidson.com

               - and -

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          James M. McClintick, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          122 South Michigan Ave., Suite 1850
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 588-1440
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com

GREAT ATLANTIC: Continues to Defend "Dudley" Suit in New Jersey
The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. continues to defend
a securities class action lawsuit pending in New Jersey, according
to the Company's January 17, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December
3, 2011.

The matter styled Dudley v. Haub, Claus, Galgano et al.  United
States District Court - District of New Jersey is a securities
class action lawsuit that alleges on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities during the period between July 23, 2009, and
December 10, 2010, that certain of the Company's former and
current executives violated the securities laws by making
fraudulent or misleading statements with respect to material
adverse facts about the Company's financial condition, business
and prospects.  The Company is not named as a defendant in this
lawsuit.  However, the Company's current CEO and two members of
the Board of Directors are individually named defendants.  The
Company views this lawsuit as lacking merit, as the statements and
disclosures forming the basis for the allegations are forward-
looking statements subject to "safe harbor" protections, or are
otherwise not actionable.

GREAT ATLANTIC: "LaMarca" Suit Still Stayed Due to Bankruptcy
On June 24, 2004, a class action complaint, captioned LaMarca et
al v. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., was filed in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York against The Great
Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., d/b/a A&P, The Food
Emporium, and Waldbaum's alleging violations of the overtime
provisions of the New York Labor Law.  Three named plaintiffs,
Benedetto LaMarca, Dolores Guiddy, and Stephen Tedesco, alleged on
behalf of a class that the Company failed to pay overtime wages to
full-time hourly employees who were either required or permitted
to work more than 40 hours per week.  This matter has been stayed
by the Company's Bankruptcy Filing and is a claim that is subject
to compromise.

No further updates were reported in the Company's January 17,
2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended December 3, 2011.

KRAFT FOODS: Time Spent Donning Work Gear Not Compensable
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that Kraft
Foods employees cannot sue the conglomerate for failing to pay
them for time spent donning and doffing work gear, thanks to a
longstanding collective bargaining agreement, a federal judge

Kraft Foods employees brought a class action against the company
in July 2011, for not paying them for time spent donning and
doffing protective work gear.

Before entering the production floor of Kraft's Naperville plant,
which produces Triscuit crackers, workers must don "shoes, safety
glasses, hearing protection, hairnets, beard nets, Kraft-issued T-
shirt or snap shirt, and work pants," U.S. District Judge Virginia
Kendall wrote in her Memorandum Opinion and Order.

The plaintiffs acknowledged in their complaint that the "work time
claimed herein is not compensable under the collective bargaining
agreements pursuant to which the plaintiffs and members of the
putative class are employed."

However, the complaint alleged violations of the Illinois Minimum
Wage Act and Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, rather than
the collective bargaining agreement.  Judge Kendall certified the
class in September 2011.

In a previous case against Kraft, the 7th Circuit found in 2010
that federal labor law governing collective bargaining agreements
does not pre-empt a Wisconsin law mandating wages for donning and
doffing required work gear.

There is no comparable law in Illinois.

Judge Kendall granted Kraft's motion for summary judgment "because
the longstanding custom of non-compensation for donning and
doffing between the plaintiffs and Kraft makes such pay

"The Illinois statutes under which plaintiffs assert their claims
are silent with respect to the issue of whether donning or doffing
time is compensable," and the court must look to federal labor
statutes for guidance, Judge Kendall said.

"The default rule under the Fair Labor Standards Act is that
donning and doffing time is compensable as time worked.  However,
section 203(o) allows for management and the union to enter into a
collective bargaining agreement that excludes from 'Hours Worked'
any time spent changing clothes."

Judge Kendall found that "the undisputed material facts show that
Kraft and the unions have developed a custom or practice of non-
payment for the time spent donning and doffing the items at issue
here.  . . . Since it acquired the facility roughly 20 years ago,
Kraft has never paid for time spent donning or doffing.  It is no
stretch to say that the hourly employees acquiesced in a policy of
non-payment for clothes changing."

Judge Kendall concluded that the longstanding custom of non-
payment for donning and doffing clothes "is the kind of
understanding between a union and an employer that section 203(o)
is designed to protect."

In December 2009, the 4th Circuit came to the same conclusion in a
substantively similar case against Allen Family Foods, finding
that donning and doffing protective gear can be excluded from paid
time according to union negotiations.

In that case, Appellate Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote: "We
stress that our decision does not leave these employees without
protection.  It simply recognizes that Congress has made a policy
choice that, when it comes to time spent changing clothes and
washing, the respective interests involved are best protected
through the collective bargaining process and the agreements
negotiated pursuant thereto."

A copy of Memorandum Opinion and Order in Curry v. Kraft Foods
Global, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-01288 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:


LEE BACA: ACLU Files Class Action Over Inmate Beatings
Christina Villacorte, writing for Contra Costa Times, reports that
the American Civil Liberties Union slapped Los Angeles County
Sheriff Lee Baca and his top brass with a federal class-action
suit on Jan. 18, accusing them of condoning "savage" beatings of
inmates by deputies at county jails.

Filed on behalf of pretrial detainees Alex Rosas and Jonathan
Goodwin, as well as current and future inmates, the lawsuit does
not seek monetary damages.

Instead, the plaintiffs want a federal court order to end the
alleged "long-standing and widespread pattern of violence" at
county jails, according to Margaret Winter, associate director of
the ACLU National Prison Project.

"(The plaintiffs) are not asking to be recompensed for what
happened in the past," she said.  "They're just asking that the
judge enter an injunction requiring the sheriff to stop violence
like this from happening so that they and all other inmates in the
jail, currently and in the future, are protected."

ACLU legal director Peter Eliasberg said Baca, Undersheriff Paul
Tanaka, Assistant Sheriff Cecil Rhambo and Dennis Burns, chief of
custody operations, "allowed deputies to go unpunished, covered up
their behavior and for years made no effort to reform this broken

The lawsuit alleges violations of inmates' rights under the Eighth
Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, and of
pretrial detainees' rights under the 14th Amendment's prohibition
of punishment prior to conviction.

Mr. Baca's spokesman, Steve Whitmore, denied the ACLU's claims.

"Violence is not condoned in the Sheriff's Department," he said.
"Don't forget: violence is perpetrated by the inmates,"
Mr. Whitmore added.  "The inmates begin the violent act and the
deputies contain it.  Regrettably, sometimes they have to use

Mr. Whitmore added Mr. Baca recently installed dozens of cameras
inside the jails as a preventive measure and followed other
recommendations by the Board of Supervisors and the recently
created Citizens Commission on Jail Reforms.

Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who proposed the Commission,
acknowledged there were problems at the jails but was skeptical of
claims that Mr. Baca condoned abuse.

"These kinds of problems don't take place without someone being
asleep on the job or worse, but I think it's a stretch to say that
the sheriff has personally condoned this kind of activity," he

"I think Baca takes this very seriously, but he has to communicate
that concern and his expectations down the chain of command,"
Mr. Yaroslavsky added.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, listed
allegations by dozens of inmates over a period of several years.

Both plaintiffs Messrs. Rosas and Goodwin claimed to have
witnessed deputies beating a handcuffed and nonresisting inmate in
2011.  They said the same deputies later went into their cells and
punched them in the head and other parts of the body.  One also
was sent to solitary confinement.

"It is typical for deputies to subject unresisting inmates to
grossly excessive force by slamming inmates' heads into walls,
punching them in the face with their fists, kicking them with
their boots, and shooting them multiple times with their Tasers --
and for these beatings to result in serious injuries to the
inmates, including broken legs, fractured eye sockets, shattered
jaws, broken teeth, severe head injuries, nerve damage, dislocated
joints, collapsed lungs, and wounds requiring dozens of stitches
and staples," the formal complaint stated.

"Deputies sadistically beat inmates with serious mental illness,"
it continued. "They have beaten inmates who are already in fragile
medical condition, including inmates in wheelchairs.  Deputies
have beaten inmates asking for medical treatment, for the color of
their skin, or for no apparent reason at all."

The ACLU said one inmate even accused a deputy of raping him in
his cell.  The alleged victim gave videotaped testimony about the
alleged incident, which is posted on the ACLU's Web site.

MIDWEST GENERATION: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Emissions
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Midwest
Generation severely pollutes the air and damages property with
toxic emissions from its coal-fired electric plant, the Fisk

A copy of the Complaint in Paraday, et al. v. Midwest Generation,
LLC, et al., Case No. 12CH01575 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), is
available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Arturo Jauregui, Esq.
          Anselmo Duran, Esq.
          120 West Madison St., Suite 400
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 781-9103

               - and -

          Peter W. Macuga, Esq.
          Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
          Kevin J. McGiness, Esq.
          MACUGA, LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C.
          975 East Jefferson Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48207-3101
          Telephone: (313) 392-001

NETFLIX: Royal Oak Retirement System Files Class Action
Ashley C. Woods, writing for MLive.com, reports that customers
raged and journalists scorned when Netflix decided to institute a
whopping 60% pay hike last July on viewers who rent DVDs and
utilize the company's online streaming content.  According to
Deadline.com, the online DVD-rental company has lost 67% of its
stock value and 1 million subscribers since the new price scheme
went into effect.

But movie buffs and TV addicts aren't the only ones steaming mad
about the new Netflix pricing.  In Michigan, the City of Royal Oak
Retirement System, which handles benefits and pensions for retired
municipal employees, filed suit on Jan. 13 in a northern
California district court.  The complaint alleges Netflix
concealed negative business trends in 2011, which helped gouge the
stock price to $300 a share before the news was announced.  The
suit also alleges that investors in the know -- including company
officials -- collected over $90 million by selling 388, 661 shares
with insider information.

Netflix is based in Los Gatos, California.

The complaint specifically names, in addition to Netflix, Chairman
and CEO Reed Hastings, CMO David Wells, Chief Content Officer Ted
Sarandos, Chief Product Officer Neil Hunt and CMO Leslie Kilgore.
CEO Hastings reportedly made $43 million selling shares of

The plaintiffs, shareholders in the company, allege that Netflix
officials knew the business couldn't afford to keep short-term
contracts with streaming content providers like Starz, especially
in the wake of the announcement.  In effect, they say Netflix
deliberately misled shareholders in regards to their 2011 earnings

Jan. 17, Deadline: The suit alleges that through mid-2011 CEO Reed
Hastings and other company officials made over-optimistic
forecasts about Netflix's financial performance and scoffed at
critics who questioned the company's ability to pay for slew of
programming commitments it was making for its video streaming
service.  The defendants "recognized that Netflix's pricing would
have to dramatically increase to maintain profit margins given the
streaming content costs they knew the Company would soon be
incurring," the suit says.

Things got worse for Netflix, and quickly.  In September, the
company acknowledged that it had lost 1 million subscribers since
announcing the new pay scheme, which went into effect on Sept. 1.

Jan. 13, Bloomberg: Netflix . . . fell $39.46, or 19 percent, to
$169.25 on Sept. 15 after cutting its U.S. subscriber forecast
following a price increase.  The shares plunged 35 percent, to
$77.37, on Oct. 25 after the video-rental service said it lost
800,000 U.S. subscribers in the third quarter, more than expected,
and predicted more cancellations over a price increase.
However, the company's stock surged 11% in early January, after
Netflix announced that subscribers had collectively logged two
billion hours of streaming television time, making the company's
site the 15th most-watched television channel in the United
States.  But Netflix hasn't released new data on subscribers since
last fall.

The City of Royal Oak Retirement System has retained Darren J.
Robbins, a founding partner of California law firm Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd.  Mr. Robbins, a veteran plaintiff's lawyer in
class-action lawsuits, wants the court to grant them class-action
status.  If the motion is granted, any shareholder would be able
to join in the case.

But a class-action lawsuit might be an uphill battle, according to
tech blog Mashable, which spoke with an anonymous securities

Jan. 17, Mashable: "Another issue is damage," the source pointed
out.  "How would a judge define them? Typically one's stock being
'overvalued' does not create a cause of action, the logic being
that even if the stock was overvalued with respect to
fundamentals, it was nevertheless trading at that price so the
investor could have sold at the right time and reaped the

OBESITY RESEARCH: Sued Over Bogus Claims on "Lipozene" Products
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
the Obesity Research Institute pushes its "Lipozene" products with
bogus claims.

A copy of the Complaint in Conde v. Obesity Research Institute,
LLC, et al., Case No. 12-cv-00413 (C.D. Calif.), is available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          James B. Hardin, Esq.
          Ryan M. Ferrell, Esq.
          895 Dove Street, Suite 425
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-6464
          E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com

OCZ TECHNOLOGY: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss SSD Suit on Feb. 2
OCZ Technology Group, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a class action
lawsuit pending in California is scheduled for hearing on February
2, 2012, according to the Company's January 17, 2012, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended November 30, 2011.

On March 24, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California San Jose Division alleging that certain of OCZ's solid
state drives ("SSDs") sold after January 1, 2011, did not meet
certain performance criteria and as a result OCZ engaged in
certain deceptive practices and violated various laws.  As of
November 30, 2011, the Company has not recognized this contingency
within the financial statements presented as OCZ believes that the
lawsuit has no merit and intends to vigorously defend against this
litigation.  On May 18, 2011, OCZ filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint, or Alternatively, to Strike Certain
Allegations.  The Motion was granted in part and denied in part on
October 4, 2011.  On November 18, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended
complaint and, on December 20, 2011, the Company again filed a
Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively to Strike Certain Allegations.
The Motion is scheduled for hearing on February 2, 2012.  A
tentative class certification hearing is set for May 21, 2012
(assuming the plaintiff moves for certification and depending upon
when the plaintiff does so), and a trial date of May 28, 2013 has
been set.

SAMSUNG: Gilman Files Class Action Over Galaxy S Phone Defect
Gilman Law LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division,
alleging Samsung's Galaxy S smartphones, including the Captivate,
Fascinate, Vibrant and Epic 4G, are defective, rendering them
worthless.  The lawsuit seeks, among other things, at least $5
million in damages for all purchasers of the allegedly defective
phones (Case No. 2:11-cv-00696).

Ken Gilman, a partner with Gilman Law, is named lead plaintiff in
the complaint.  According to the lawsuit, Mr. Gilman spent
hundreds of dollars on a Fascinate smartphone in December 2010.
The complaint alleges that shortly after it was purchased, the
phone began to malfunction.  As a result, Mr. Gilman missed many
phone calls, alerts, messages, e-mails and alarms, and lost the
ability to access or save data to his phone.  The lawsuit further
alleges that Samsung refused to replace the device, despite his
repeated attempts to procure a working phone.

As an attorney, Mr. Gilman has been working to protect consumer
rights for more than 30 years, and has successfully pursued
product liability claims against a number of large companies.  As
an attorney, and a consumer himself, Mr. Gilman has long been
disturbed at the continuing rollback of laws that once protected
the public from shoddy and defective products, as well as
corporate wrongdoing.  Just 8 months ago, for example, the U.S.
Supreme Court issued a ruling in a case entitled AT&T Mobility LLC
v. Concepcion that could allow any company to block class-action
suits arising from disputes with customers and instead force those
customers into binding arbitration.  The type of arbitration
clauses that sparked the AT&T decision are widely used by
cellphone carriers, cable providers, credit card companies, stock
brokerage firms and other businesses.

"That cuts off a person's rights," Mr. Gilman recently told the
Naples Daily News.  "Now what they have done is preclude you from
going to court.  Companies can treat citizens any way they please
because there's nothing consumers can do about it."

Mr. Gilman suspects that Samsung will try to use the arbitration
decision to have his lawsuit dismissed, but believes he can win.
Such a victory would not only benefit purchasers of Galaxy S
smartphones, but would help to restore some protection to all U.S.

Mr. Gilman emphasized that "the principles involved in this case,
and in other cases interpreting the AT&T-Mobility Supreme Court
decision, will effect consumer rights in nearly every consumer
product purchased by contract-from cell phones, to loans, to
credit cards, to home purchases-virtually any consumer

Gilman Law LLP is national law firm with offices in Florida and
Massachusetts.  The consumer attorneys at Gilman Law have over 32
years of experience representing individuals in consumer class
action lawsuits and all aspects of consumer litigation.  If you
wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other consumer law matter, please
contact our firm.

SAPS: Faces Class Action Over Police Brutality
Alfred Moselakgomo, writing for Sowetan Live, reports that Police
Minister Nathi Mthethwa is facing a ZAR10-million lawsuit after 16
people at Leandra in Mpumalanga were allegedly brutalized by
members of the SAPS Tactical Response Team last month.

Lawyers representing the 16, who include police officers, lawyers
and traffic officers, told Sowetan on Jan. 17 that their clients
were assaulted for no reason by the controversial unit.

The victims also allege they had unsuccessfully tried to open
cases at the local police station.

"We have been unable to open a case at Leandra police station so
we have decided to instead sue the minister.  If the police cannot
help us, then he should," said one of the victims.

They have accused the provincial Tactical Response Team of
randomly beating them up "for nothing".

The victims claim the response unit, which is based in Nelspruit,
travels all over Mpumalanga leaving chaos in its wake.  People in
the area call this unit "Amaberete" because of the distinctive
black and red berets they don.

The unit is under the command of safety and security MEC Vusi

Jabulani Motsoene, 32, a traffic officer at Trichardt, claims he
was assaulted by the officers when he questioned them about
scratches on his car.

"I had left the car at the car wash when I received a call that
there was a fight between members of the community and the TRT
next to where I had left my car," Mr. Motsoene said.

"When I got to the car, I found that it had rubber bullet marks
and when I tried to ask them who had damaged my car, they started
assaulting me."

Another resident, Herman Ntuli, said: "Police found us next to the
car wash and without saying any word started beating us.  It was
chaos.  This TRT is treating every member of the community as a
criminal and they have harmed even the innocent."

Lawyer Mafika Sihlali said Mr. Shongwe appeared to be encouraging
the unit's "barbaric behaviour".

"Shongwe has endorsed the brutality of this police unit by saying
that people found in taverns should not expect to be treated like
people who are in church," Mr. Sihlali said.

Mr. Shongwe on Jan. 17 denied he was behind the terror unleashed
by the unit.

"The unit was acting on the instruction of the provincial
commissioner and I was not even aware that they were in Leandra on
that day," Mr. Shongwe said.

On the other hand, Mr. Mthethwa's office said it was not aware of
the claims.  Spokesman Zweli Mnisi said it was every citizen's
right to sue the state "if they felt their rights have been

SKECHERS: Faces Class Action Over Shape-Ups Injuries
Carmel Lobello, writing for death + taxes, reports that Skechers
is facing a class action over its walking sneakers with fat,
curved soles , which promise to help you "get in shape without
setting foot in a gym."

As with many such products, the claims brands make about toning
sneakers are largely unsubstantiated.

Now Skechers, which avoided using specific numbers in their ads,
is coming under fire for a different reason, namely that the
curvy-soled shoes cause injury.

According to 10 News, a San Diego law firm is filing a class-
action suit against the shoemaker, naming 37 customers who were
injured while using Shape-ups or Tone-ups to get fit.

In addition to claims of negligence and fraud, all customers in
the suit cited serious injuries, from torn cartilage to hip

Attorney Mike Bomberger said some injuries were caused by a fall,
while others were hurt after wearing the shoes for months.

"Man has been walking the same way for many years, and this
changes the way you walk.  It's not a surprise people are going to
have problems," said Mr. Bomberger.

"In a previous published statement, the company said: 'Millions of
people wear Shape-ups without experiencing (serious injuries).'"

Torn cartilage and hip fractures are serious injuries, but it's
still hard to know how unsafe Shape-ups really are.

STEELCASE INC: Recalls 11,000 Amia Desk Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
About 11,000 Amia desk chairs were voluntarily recalled by
Steelcase Inc., of Grand Rapids, Michigan in cooperation with the
CPSC.  Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The pivot pins installed in the control mechanism under the chair
seat can fall out, posing a fall hazard to the user.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall includes the model 482 Series Steelcase Amia desk
chairs manufactured between March 1, 2011, and June 6, 2011.  The
model number and manufacture date are printed on a label on the
underside of the chair seat.  The seats are available in various
colored fabric options as well as leather.  A picture of the
recalled products is available at:


The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at authorized Steelcase dealers and retail
outlets including Healthy Back Store, CSN, Home Office Solutions,
Office & Company and Sam Flax stores nationwide and online at
http://www.store.steelcase.com/from March 2011 through June 2011
for between $350 and $700.

Consumers should immediately stop using the chairs and contact
Steelcase to receive adhesive covers to apply over the pivot pins
on their chairs.  These pin adhesive covers can be applied without
the use of a tool in less than five minutes.  The firm is
contacting all known purchasers.  For additional information,
contact Steelcase toll-free at (800) 391-7194 between 8:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday.  Consumers can
also e-mail the firm at retrofits@steelcase.com

WISDOMTREE INVESTMENTS: Awaits Development in "Steinhardt" Suit
WisdomTree Investments, Inc., is awaiting Michael Steinhardt's
next course of action in his lawsuit against Occam Networks, Inc.,
according to the Company's January 17, 2012, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Chairman of the Company's board of directors, Michael
Steinhardt, was the plaintiff in a civil class action filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in a case entitled
Michael Steinhardt, Herbert Chen, Derek Sheeler, Steinhardt
Overseas Management, L.P., and Ilex Partners, L.L.C., v. Robert
Howard-Anderson, Steven Krausz, Robert Abbott, Robert Bylin,
Thomas Pardun, Brian Strom, Albert Moyer, and Occam Networks,
Inc., C.A. No. 5878-VCL.  Occam Networks, Inc., was a publicly
traded Delaware corporation that announced on
September 16, 2010, that it had entered into a merger agreement
with Calix, Inc., another publicly traded company in the
telecommunications equipment industry.  Plaintiffs, Occam
shareholders, filed the class action challenging the merger.  As
part of these proceedings, the court entered a confidentiality
order to protect the non-public information that would be
exchanged in discovery.  This order contained both a general
requirement that non-public information produced in the action be
used solely for purposes of the litigation and a specific
restriction against purchasing, selling, or otherwise trading in
the securities of Occam or Calix on the basis of such information.

Beginning on December 28, 2010, Mr. Steinhardt began short-selling
Calix stock as a way to exit his Occam position.  The Defendants
filed a motion for sanctions on the basis that Delaware law
prohibits plaintiff-fiduciaries from trading stock while they are
in possession of non-public information they obtained in
discovery.  After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the court
granted the defendants' motion for sanctions.  The court dismissed
Mr. Steinhardt and his affiliated funds from the case with
prejudice, barred them from receiving any future recovery in the
lawsuit, required them to self-report their improper trading to
the Securities and Exchange Commission and disclose it in any
future application to serve as lead plaintiff, and ordered them to
disgorge profits of over $530,000.

Mr. Steinhardt's actions did not involve the Company or trading in
the Company's securities and, based on the facts currently known,
the Company does not believe Mr. Steinhardt's actions will have a
material impact on its business, although there can be no
assurance that this will be the case.  Mr. Steinhardt has informed
the Company that he believes that his actions were entirely
appropriate and lawful and is still evaluating the court's recent
opinion to determine his course of action.

YASSINE ENTERPRISES: May Face Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
Jim Bergamo, writing for KVUE News, reports that more than 200
people could join a class action lawsuit against the owner of
several Austin clubs.  Some current and former employees of eight
downtown Austin nightclubs owned by Yassine Enterprises claim the
company didn't pay them a dime.

A former employee of Roial filed the lawsuit.  He is being
represented by Dan Byrne.

In Texas, bartenders, waiters and waitresses can make the minimum
wage of $7.25 an hour or agree to a wage of $2.13 an hour plus
tips.  That's what the former employee of Roial thought he was
earning during his several months at Roial.

"When his employment ended he went in to the human resource person
and made an inquiry, 'Where is my paycheck?'" said Dan Byrne, the
attorney representing the claimants in the class action lawsuit.
"He was told, 'We do not issue paychecks.'"

The employee did not know he had been working for tips only.
"No wages, no paycheck, nothing," said Mr. Byrne.  "This is pretty
rare.  You see these federal wage cases on a fairly regular basis
but zero wages being paid I have never seen it before."

Roial, is one of eight establishments named in the class action
suit.   All are owned by Mike Yassine of Yassine Enterprises.  An
attorney representing Yassine released a statement saying, in
part, ". . . Yassine is cooperating in the class action, and is
committed to complying with all laws regarding the payment of
tipped employees.  We are not commenting on the merits of the
Plaintiffs wage claims in the lawsuit . . ."

Bartender Danny Langley doesn't work for Yassine Enterprises but
says he's concerned for those who do.

"I have got friends of mine that work at Pure, one of the bars
that is in question," said Mr. Langley.  "They do not know what is
going to happen."

At the moment, there are nine people who have joined the class
action lawsuit.  The attorneys for the claimants are hoping the
hundreds of notices they've sent out will result in many former
and current employees opting in.

ZAPPOS.COM: Faces Class Action Over Customer Data Breach
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Zappos.com and its corporate parent Amazon.com compromised 24
million people's personal information by letting hackers into
"unprotected servers" in western Kentucky.

The class claims: "On January 16, 2012, plaintiff and over 24
million class members received an e-mail from Zappos.com notifying
them that their PCAI [personal customer account information] had
been stolen and/or compromised.

"According to Tony Hsieh, the Zappos.com CEO, plaintiff's and
class members' PCAI including, inter alia, their names, account
numbers, passwords, e-mail addresses, billing and shipping
address, phone numbers, and the last four digits of the credit
cards used to make purchases was stolen by hackers who gained
access to Zappos.com's internal network through its unprotected
servers located in, on information and believe, Shepherdsville,

Amazon bought Zappos in 2009.

The class seeks damages and exemplary for privacy invasion,
negligence, and willful and negligent violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, plus costs and credit monitoring.

A copy of the Complaint in Stevens v. Amazon.com, Inc. d/b/a
Zappos.com, Case No. 12-cv-00032 (W.D. Ky.), is available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark K. Gray, Esq.
          GRAY & WHITE
          713 E. Market Street, Second Floor
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 805-1800
          E-mail: mgray@grayandwhitelaw.com

               - and -
          Ben Barnow, Esq.
          Erich P. Schork, Esq.
          Blake A. Strautins, Esq.
          One N. LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 621-2000
          E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com

               - and -

         Richard L. Coffman, Esq.
         First City Building
         505 Orleans Street, Suite 505
         Beaumont, TX 77701
         Telephone: (409) 833-7700
         E-mail: rc@cofflaw.com

* Lawyer Says Sexual Abuse Victims Must File Own Lawsuits
Ian Fairclough, writing for Herald News, reports that victims of
serial sexual abusers should consider filing their own lawsuits
instead of getting involved in class actions, says an Ontario
lawyer who has represented people assaulted by priests.

"Some of it has to be based upon your personal philosophy; I just
don't believe in class-action suits for victims of sexual abuse,
and particularly childhood victims who have been abused by
priests," Paul Ledroit said on Jan. 17.

"I can't think of a worse thing that you could do to a child."

Mr. Ledroit represents half a dozen people in southwestern Nova
Scotia who are suing the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Halifax-
Yarmouth and an Inverness County man who is suing the Diocese of

He said his prime aim is to help people with their personal

"If a person just wants money, I tell them to go elsewhere,"
Mr. Ledroit said.

But he will help someone "if they're interested in working through
the process of the hours that it takes to tell me their story and
write it down and to go through the discovery process and be
cross-examined by the other lawyer as to what happened and to get
into therapy."

He said victims of sexual abuse by priests "all suffer, to a
greater or lesser extent, from a myriad of post-traumatic stress
disorder problems."

"Working through it and coming clean and facing the demons is the
only way that you can lessen the wound.  A class action just
doesn't provide that; it's not individualistic enough."

While class actions pay out on the basis of the type of abuse,
Mr. Ledroit said that doesn't provide for other factors, such as
whether there was family support that let someone talk about the
abuse, or whether they kept it to themselves and they were
susceptible to mental health issues.

"To put people on a meat chart on a sexual abuse case is not in
keeping with my personal philosophy."

He said some class actions include a clause that if the number of
claimants gets over a certain number, both parties can bail out of
the agreement.  But once the payments start, that can't be undone.

Mr. Ledroit's comments come after word that an influx of claimants
was cutting into the amount of money from the Diocese of
Antigonish available to the original list of victims of sexual
abuse by priests.

Last November, a letter sent to members of a class action against
the diocese said the number of alleged victims joining the suit
had reached 140, almost double the predicted 80 claimants.  That
meant the original victims are only getting about 60 per cent of
the amount they thought they would receive.

The $15-million settlement was reached in September 2009 for
people victimized by clerical abuse in the diocese between 1950
and 2009.

The last of the three payments to members of the class action is
due in November.


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 L. Toledo, 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  * * *