/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/100330.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, March 30, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 62 Headlines BLOCKBUSTER INC: Creighton Dismisses "No Late Fees" Lawsuit BLOCKBUSTER INC: Defends Lampone's Suit Over "No Late Fees" BLOCKBUSTER INC: Plaintiffs Dismiss VPPA Violation Related Suit BLOCKBUSTER INC: Final Okay in Privacy Suit Settlement Pending BLOCKBUSTER INC: "Hedley" Contract Breach Suit Pending in Canada BLOCKBUSTER INC: Hazell Contract Breach Suit Pending in Canada CIT GROUP: Dismissed as Defendant in Consolidated Lawsuit COST PLUS: Recalls 4,300 Konrad and Loft Office Chairs DIMPLEX NORTH: Recalls 700,000 Fireplace & Stove Remote Controls DO IT BEST: Recalls 1,000 Lead-Contaminated Bicycle Bells GAMESTOP CORP: Accused of Selling Games With Used Codes GRACO CHILDREN'S: Recalls 1.2 Million Harmony(TM) High Chairs HANSEN MEDICAL: Plaintiffs Must File Amended Suit by April 26 HASELSON INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 23,000 Children's Hooded Garments IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Canadian Deceptive Marketing Case is Tossed INTERSECTIONS INC: Motion to Dismiss Texas Suit Still Pending INTERSECTIONS INC: Faces Suit in California LABRANCHE & CO: Continues to Defend Consolidated Amended Suit LUMENTIQUE INC: Recalls 6,000 DayNa Decker Botanika Candles NILES AUDIO: Recalls 3,800 Niles ZR-6 MultiZone Receivers PIEDMONT OFFICE: Motion for Summary Judgment in "Wells" Pending PIEDMONT OFFICE: Discovery in Amended Securities Suit Ongoing SEQUENOM INC: Final Approval Hearing for Settlement on May 3 SPECTRANETICS CORP: Wants Colorado Consolidated Suit Dismissed STADIUM MEMORABILIA: Sued for Selling Refurbished NY Yankee Seats TUMI: Recalls 5,000 Mobile Power Packs ********* BLOCKBUSTER INC: Creighton Dismisses "No Late Fees" Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Beth Creighton has dismissed her lawsuit against Blockbuster, Inc., arising out of the company's "no late fees" program, according to the company's March 16, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Jan. 3, 2010. On March 4, 2005, Ms. Creighton filed a putative class-action suit in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, Oregon, alleging that Blockbuster's "no late fees" program violates Oregon's consumer protection statutes prohibiting deceptive and misleading business practices. The suit alleges fraud and unjust enrichment and seeks equitable and injunctive relief. Blockbuster removed the case to the U.S. District Court for District of Oregon. On Dec. 21, 2009, plaintiff Creighton dismissed her claims with prejudice. No further updates regarding the lawsuit were reported in the company's Nov. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 4, 2009. Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its territories and 24 other countries. The company operates in the home video and home video game industries, which include in-home movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-to- video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and cable and satellite providers. BLOCKBUSTER INC: Defends Lampone's Suit Over "No Late Fees" ----------------------------------------------------------- Blockbuster, Inc., continues to defend Nicholas Lampone's putative class action over the company's "no late fees" program. On May 20, 2009, Nicholas Lampone filed a putative class action in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, alleging Blockbuster's "no late fees" program is a breach of contract and violates California's consumer protection and unfair competition statutes prohibiting unfair, unlawful and deceptive business practices. Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, injunctive relief, general damages, special damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, attorneys' fees, interest, and costs. Blockbuster removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. No further updates regarding the lawsuit were reported in the company's March 16, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Jan. 3, 2010. Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its territories and 24 other countries. The company operates in the home video and home video game industries, which include in-home movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-to- video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and cable and satellite providers. BLOCKBUSTER INC: Plaintiffs Dismiss VPPA Violation Related Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a putative class action complaint against Blockbuster, Inc., has dismissed their claims against the company with prejudice, according to the company's March 16, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Jan. 3, 2010. On April 9, 2008, Cathryn Elaine Harris filed a putative class action complaint under the Video Privacy Protection Act in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. On June 3, 2008, plaintiff Harris filed her first amended class action complaint adding Mario Herrera and Maryam Hosseiny as additional named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs purported to act on behalf of every individual who has ever been a member of Facebook and Blockbuster online during the same time period since Nov. 6, 2007, whose name, and/or address, or a title, description, or subject matter of any video tapes or other audio visual materials that were rented, sold or delivered to each individual were distributed to third parties by Blockbuster without the informed written consent of such individuals obtained at the time the disclosure was made. Plaintiffs claimed Blockbuster violated the VPPA when the company knowingly distributed plaintiffs video tape rental and sales records to Facebook, a third party, without plaintiffs consent at the time of the disclosure. Plaintiffs sought class certification, statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and injunctive relief. On Dec. 30, 2008, the trial court granted Blockbuster's amended motion to transfer venue and transferred the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. On Feb. 9, 2010, plaintiffs dismissed their claims with prejudice. Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its territories and 24 other countries. The company operates in the home video and home video game industries, which include in-home movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-to- video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and cable and satellite providers. BLOCKBUSTER INC: Final Okay in Privacy Suit Settlement Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The final approval of a settlement in a putative class-action complaint against Blockbuster, Inc., remains pending in the District Court for the Northern District of California, according to the company's March 16, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Jan. 3, 2010. Blockbuster is a defendant in one remaining lawsuit arising out of the Blockbuster and Facebook websites. On Aug. 12, 2008, Sean Lane, Mohannaed Sheikha, Sean Martin, Ali Sammour, Mohammaed Zidan, Sara Karrow, Colby Henson, Denton Hunker, Firas Sheikha, Hassen Sheikha, Linda Stewart, Tina Tran, Matthew Smith, Erica Parnell, John Conway, Austin Muhs, Phillip Huerta, Alicia Hunker, and Megan Lynn Hancock (a minor, through her parent Rebecca Holey) filed a putative class action complaint under the Video Privacy Protection Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California's Computer Crime Law in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs assert claims against Facebook, Inc., Blockbuster Inc., Fandango, Inc., Hotwire, Inc., STA Travel, Inc., Overstock.com, Inc., Zappos.com, Inc., Gamefly, Inc., and John Does 1-40, corporations. Plaintiffs are purporting to act on behalf of every Facebook member who visited one or more of Facebook's affiliates' websites and engaged in activities that triggered the Facebook affiliates' websites to communicate with Facebook regarding the activity from Nov. 6, 2007 to Dec. 5, 2007. Plaintiffs claim Blockbuster violated the VPPA, ECPA, and CFAA by allegedly violating the plaintiffs' privacy through their activities on the Blockbuster and Facebook websites. Plaintiffs seek class certification, injunctive and equitable relief, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Plaintiffs have stipulated that Blockbuster is not required to respond to the pending complaint at this time. On Oct. 23, 2009, the court preliminarily approved a settlement on behalf of the putative class of plaintiffs. The proposed settlement is pending final approval by the court. Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its territories and 24 other countries. The company operates in the home video and home video game industries, which include in-home movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-to- video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and cable and satellite providers. BLOCKBUSTER INC: "Hedley" Contract Breach Suit Pending in Canada ---------------------------------------------------------------- Blockbuster, Inc., and Blockbuster Canada, Inc., continue to face a putative class-action lawsuit filed by Douglas R. Hedley. Mr. Hedley filed a complaint before the Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, in Saskatchewan on July 19, 2002. The case asserts claims of unconscionability, unjust enrichment, misrepresentation and deception, and seeks recovery of actual damages of $3 million, disgorgement, declaratory relief, punitive and exemplary damages of $1 million and attorneys' fees. No further updates regarding the lawsuit were reported in the company's March 16, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Jan. 3, 2010. Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its territories and 24 other countries. The company operates in the home video and home video game industries, which include in-home movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-to- video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and cable and satellite providers. BLOCKBUSTER INC: Hazell Contract Breach Suit Pending in Canada -------------------------------------------------------------- Blockbuster, Inc., and Blockbuster Canada, Inc., continue to face William Robert Hazell's putative class-action lawsuit in British Columbia, Canada. The plaintiff filed a complaint before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, on Aug. 24, 2001, against Viacom Entertainment Canada Inc., Viacom Inc., Blockbuster Canada, and Blockbuster. The case asserts claims of unconscionability, violations of the trade practices act, breach of contract and high handed conduct. The relief sought includes actual damages, disgorgement, and exemplary and punitive damages. No further updates regarding the lawsuit were reported in the company's March 16, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Jan. 3, 2010. Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its territories and 24 other countries. The company operates in the home video and home video game industries, which include in-home movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-to- video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and cable and satellite providers. CIT GROUP: Dismissed as Defendant in Consolidated Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- CIT Group Inc., has been dismissed as a defendant from a consolidated securities action, according to the company's March 16, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. In July and August 2008, putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of CIT's pre-reorganization stockholders against CIT, its former Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer. In August 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the New York District Court by a holder of CIT-PrZ equity units against CIT, its former CEO, CFO and former Controller and members of its current and former Board of Directors. In May 2009, the Court consolidated these three shareholder actions into a single action and appointed Pensioenfonds Horeca & Catering as Lead Plaintiff to represent the proposed class, which consists of all acquirers of CIT common stock and PrZ preferred stock from Dec. 12, 2006 through March 5, 2008, who allegedly were damaged, including acquirers of CIT-PrZ preferred stock pursuant to the Oct. 17, 2007 offering of such preferred stock. In July 2009, the Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. Specifically, it is alleged that the company, its former CEO, CFO, former Controller, and a former Vice Chairman violated Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act by allegedly making false and misleading statements and omissions regarding CIT's subprime home lending and student lending businesses. The allegations relating to the company's student lending businesses are based upon the assertion that the company failed to account in its financial statements or, in the case of the preferred stockholders, its registration statement and prospectus, for private loans to students of a helicopter pilot training school, which it is alleged were highly unlikely to be repaid and should have been written off. The allegations relating to the company's home lending business are based on the assertion that the company failed to fully disclose the risks in the company's portfolio of subprime mortgage loans. The Lead Plaintiff also alleges that the company, its former CEO, CFO and former Controller and those current and former Directors of the company who signed the registration statement in connection with the October 2007 CIT- PrZ preferred offering violated the 1933 Act by making false and misleading statements concerning the company's student lending business as described above. Pursuant to a Notice of Dismissal filed on Nov. 24, 2009, CIT Group Inc. was dismissed as a defendant from the consolidated securities action. The action will continue as to the remaining defendants and CIT's obligation to defend such defendants continues. Plaintiffs seek, among other relief, unspecified damages and interest. CIT believes the allegations in these complaints are without merit. CIT Group Inc. -- http://www.cit.com/-- is a bank holding company with more than $60 billion in finance and leasing assets that provides financial products and advisory services to small and middle market businesses. COST PLUS: Recalls 4,300 Konrad and Loft Office Chairs ------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Cost Plus Inc., of Oakland, Calif., announced a voluntary recall about 4,300 Konrad and Loft Office Chairs. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The chair backs can come loose from the seat base, posing a fall hazard to consumers. No incidents or injuries have been reported. The wooden office chairs have these brand names, SKU numbers and purchase order numbers: -- Konrad models SKU #415413, and PO numbers 200360055, 200360056, 200360057, 400360062, 400360063, 400360064; and -- Loft models SKU #415414 and PO numbers 200360058, 200360059, 200360060, 200360061, 400360065, 400360066, 400360074, 400360075. The SKU number and description appear on the sales receipt and original shipping carton. The PO number is located on the underside of the chair itself. The recalled chairs were manufactured in Thailand and sold at Cost Plus/World Market stores and Web site nationwide from January to December 2009 for about $170. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled Konrad and Loft office chairs and return them to any Cost Plus/World Market store for a full refund or exchange. For additional information, contact Cost Plus Inc. toll free at (877) 967-5362 between 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., Eastern Time, any day or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.worldmarket.com/ DIMPLEX NORTH: Recalls 700,000 Fireplace & Stove Remote Controls ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Dimplex North America, of Ontario, Canada, announced a voluntary recall of about 700,000 Remote Control Kits for Electric Fireplaces and Stoves. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The plug-in wall unit can overheat, posing a fire and burn hazard to consumers. Dimplex has received about 5,000 reports of the plug-in wall units overheating including 19 reports of damage beyond the remote control and one report of a house fire in Columbus, Ohio that resulted in considerable property damage. The recalled remote control kits are used with Dimplex, Electraflame, Symphony, Optiflame, Electralog and Charmglow brand electric fireplaces, stoves and fireplace inserts. They include a black or dark gray hand-held remote control and also a black or dark gray wall unit that plugs into an electrical wall outlet. Recalled model numbers include 47-1001, 47-1010-R and APT-1315. The model number is printed on either the plug-in unit or the hand-held remote control. The fireplace or stove's brand name is printed on both units. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10167.html The recalled kits were manufactured in China and sold at mass merchandise, home improvement, specialty fireplace and furniture retailers from January 1998 through December 2008 for between $200 and $1,500 for the fireplaces and stoves. This recall includes remote control kits subsequently replaced under warranty. Consumers should immediately stop using the remote control kits, unplug the power cord from the remote control kit's wall unit, remove the wall unit from the electrical outlet and contact Dimplex for a free replacement kit. Consumers can continue to operate the fireplace or stove by plugging the fireplace or stove's electrical cord directly into an electrical outlet. For additional information, contact Dimplex North America toll-free at (866) 673-9880 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.recall.dimplex.com/ DO IT BEST: Recalls 1,000 Lead-Contaminated Bicycle Bells --------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Do It Best Corp., of Fort Wayne, Ind., announced a voluntary recall of about 1,000 Bicycle Bells manufactured by Botou Baite Bike Bell Co. Ltd., of Botou City, China. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The red paint on the bicycle bells contains excessive lead levels, violating the federal lead paint standard. No incidents or injuries have been reported. This recall involves children's bicycle bells. The bells are red, black and white and has "I [Heart] My Bike" printed on the top. The green and white packaging reads "bike bell" and "$1." A picture of the recalled product is available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10174.html The recalled bicycle bells were manufactured in China and sold at Dollar Stores and Do It Best Hardware stores nationwide from August 2008 through August 2009 for about $1. Consumers should immediately remove the bicycle bells and return them to the store where purchased for a refund. For additional information, contact Do It Best Hardware toll-free at (877) 326-8954 between 7:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.doitbest.com/or e-mail the firm at products@doitbest.com GAMESTOP CORP: Accused of Selling Games With Used Codes ------------------------------------------------------- James Collins, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. GameStop Corp., et. al., Case No. 10-cv-01210 (N.D. Calif. Mar. 23, 2010), accuses the video game retailer of misleading purchasers of its used video games by making them believe that the game comes with free use code, which is needed to download additional game features, including characters, levels, weapons and songs, when it does not, in violation of the California state law and common law. Consumers who purchased used games from GameStop later find out that they must pay an additional fee to access the full game. The Plaintiff alleges that GameStop was and is aware that these games do not include the use codes as prominently displayed on the video game boxes. A copy of the Complaint is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/25/Gamestop.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Gene Williams, Esq. Mark P. Pifko, Esq. Jennifer S. Grock, Esq. INITIATIVE LEGAL GROUP APC 1800 Centruy Park East, 2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-5637 E-mail: Gwilliams@InitiativeLegal.com Mpifko@InitiatieLegal.com Jgrock@InitiativeLegal.com GRACO CHILDREN'S: Recalls 1.2 Million Harmony(TM) High Chairs ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Graco Children's Products Inc., of Atlanta, Ga., announced a voluntary recall of about 1.2 million Graco Harmony(TM) High Chairs. Consumers should stop using product immediately unless otherwise instructed. The screws holding the front legs of the high chair can loosen and fall out and the plastic bracket on the rear legs can crack causing the high chair to become unstable and tip over unexpectedly. This poses a fall hazard to children. Graco has received 464 reports of screws loosening or falling out and plastic brackets cracking causing the high chair to tip over unexpectedly. These tip-over's resulted in 24 reports of injuries including bumps and bruises to the head, a hairline fracture to the arm, and cuts, bumps, bruises and scratches to the body. This recall involves all Harmony(TM) High Chairs. The Harmony(TM) high chair was manufactured from November 2003 through December 2009 and is no longer in production. The model number can be found on the label that is located on the underside of the foot rest. The Harmony(TM) High Chair Model Numbers subject to this recall are: 3920BAN 3920BAN2 3920BEB 3920BEBB 3920COV 3920DOH 3920GEI 3920GEIDSP 3920GRN 3920HMP 3920IVY 3920LAU 3920PKR 3930DDH 3930DHO 3935CAL 3935OXB 3935PKR 3935PKRDSP 3935SPM 3935SPMDSP 3935THR 3935THR2 3935THR3 3940BIA 3940BIADSP 3940CAP 3940CLE 3940COT 3940DRM 3940HML 3940MCH 3940NGS 3940SAV 3940SLT 3940SPT 3940STA 3940UNN 3951CLO 3951CLT 3951COT 3951ORC 3951WLO 3955WSR 3960BGN 3960CJG 3960CNP 3960GGG 3980CNR 3E00ABB 3E00BAT 3E00DCF 3E00DCFDSP 3E00DGP 3E00DGPDSP 3E00GPK 3E01BDS 3E01BDSCA 3E01DNY 3E01DNY1 3E01ELP 3E01ELPDSP These model numbers may begin with the letter A, B, C, or D These additional Model Numbers are also subject to this recall: 1752404 1755859 1755860 1757259 1757412 1760429 The recalled high chairs were manufactured in the United States and sold at AAFES, Burlington Coat Factory, Babies "R" Us, Toys "R" Us, Sears, Target, Target.com, Walmart, WalMart.com, Shopko, USA Baby, and other retailers nationwide from December 2003 through March 2010 for between $70 and $120. Consumers should immediately stop using the Harmony(TM) high chair and contact Graco to receive a free repair kit. To order a free repair kit, contact Graco toll-free at (877) 842-3206 or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.gracobaby.com/ For additional information, contact Graco at (800) 345-4109 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. HANSEN MEDICAL: Plaintiffs Must File Amended Suit by April 26 ------------------------------------------------------------- Lead plaintiffs in a consolidated suit against Hansen Medical, Inc., have until April 26, 2010, to file a consolidated amended complaint, according to the company's March 16, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Following the company's Oct. 19, 2009, announcement that it would restate certain of its financial statements, a securities class action lawsuit was filed on Oct. 23, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming the company and certain of its officers: Curry v. Hansen Medical, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-05094. The complaint asserts claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the company's stock between May 1, 2008 and Oct. 18, 2009, inclusive, and alleges, inter alia: -- that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to make disclosures regarding the company's financial results and compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles while improperly recognizing revenue; -- that these misstatements and/or nondisclosures resulted in overstatement of the company's revenue and financial results and/or artificially inflated its stock price; and -- that following the company's Oct. 19, 2009 announcement, the price of its stock declined. On Nov. 4, 2009 and Nov. 13, 2009, substantively identical complaints were filed in the Northern District of California by other purported Hansen stockholders asserting the same claims on behalf of the same putative class of Hansen stockholders: Livingstone v. Hansen Medical, Inc. et al., Case No. 09-05212 and Prenter v. Hansen Medical, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-05367. All three complaints seek certification as a class action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys fees. On Dec. 22, 2009, two purported Hansen stockholders, Mina and Nader Farr, filed a joint application for appointment as lead plaintiffs and for consolidation of the three actions. On Feb. 25, 2010, the Court issued an order granting Mina and Nader Farr's application for appointment as lead plaintiffs and consolidating the three securities class actions. Lead plaintiffs have until April 26, 2010, to file a consolidated amended complaint. Hansen Medical, Inc. -- http://www.hansenmedical.com/-- develops, manufactures and sells generation of medical robotics designed for accurate positioning, manipulation and stable control of catheters and catheter-based technologies. Its Sensei Robotic Catheter System, or Sensei system, is designed to allow physicians to instinctively navigate flexible catheters with greater stability and control in interventional procedures. The company's focus is on electrophysiology (EP) procedures for the diagnosis and treatment of patients who suffer from abnormal heart rhythms, or arrhythmias, such as atrial fibrillation. HASELSON INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 23,000 Children's Hooded Garments ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Haselson International Trading Inc., of New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of about 23,000 Children's Hooded Sweatshirts with Drawstrings. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The sweatshirts have a drawstring through the hood which can pose a strangulation hazard to children. In February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines (which were incorporated into an industry voluntary standard in 1997) to help prevent children from strangling or getting entangled in the neck and waist drawstrings in upper garments such as sweatshirts and jackets. No incidents or injuries have been reported. This recall involves children's sweatshirts sold in sizes 4 through 7 and S (8) and M (10-12). The sweatshirts were sold in various colors and prints. The brand name Kani Gold or Road Block is printed inside of the garment on the neck tag. Pictured of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10170.html The recalled garments were manufactured in Indonesia, Egypt, China, Pakistan and Korea, and sold exclusively at Burlington Coat Factory stores nationwide from July 2006 through September 2009 for between $6 and $30. Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the sweatshirts to eliminate the hazard. Consumers can also return the sweatshirts to Burlington Coat Factory or the Haselson for a full refund. For additional information, contact Haselson toll- free at (800) 217-4478 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Thursday, or visit the store's Web site at http://www.burlingtoncoatfactory.com/ IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Canadian Deceptive Marketing Case is Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- CBC News reports that The Newfoundland and Labrador court of appeal has ruled that a class action lawsuit claiming Imperial Tobacco used deceptive marketing cannot be pursued. The suit argued that Imperial Tobacco incorrectly presented light and mild cigarettes as a healthy alternative to normal cigarettes. But the court said consumers can't sue a manufacturer. "Our [Newfoundland and Labrador] trade practices act, which is supposed to protect consumers, requires that you must be in a direct relationship, what lawyers called privity, with the person that you want to use that act to assist you to sue and that includes manufacturers," said Ches Crosbie, the lawyer leading the proposed class action suit. Mr. Crosbie said Wednesday that the privity requirement doesn't exist in other provinces. Imperial Tobacco is facing a similar lawsuit in British Columbia. INTERSECTIONS INC: Motion to Dismiss Texas Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Intersections Inc.'s motion to dismiss a putative class action complaint remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, according to the company's March 16, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On Sept. 11, 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed against Intersections, Inc., Intersections Insurance Services Inc., Loeb Holding Corp., Bank of America of America, NA, Banc of America Insurance Services, Inc., American International Group, Inc., National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, and Global Contact Services, LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The complaint alleges various claims based on telemarketing of an accidental death and disability program. The defendants each have filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, and the motions are pending. Intersections Inc. -- http://www.intersections.com/-- is a provider of branded and fully customized identity management solutions. The company also provides consumer-oriented insurance and membership products through marketing partnerships with the major mortgage services in the United States, as well as other financial institutions through its subsidiary, Intersections Insurance Services, Inc. Additionally, through its majority owned subsidiary Screening International LLC (SI or Screening International), Intersections provides pre-employment background screening services domestically and internationally in partnership with Control Risks Group Limited of the United Kingdom. It offers consumers a variety of consumer protection services and other consumer products and services primarily on a subscription basis. Through its subsidiary, Intersections Insurance Services, Inc., it offers a portfolio of services, which include consumer discounts on healthcare, home and auto related expenses. INTERSECTIONS INC: Faces Suit in California ------------------------------------------- Intersections Inc., faces a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, according to the company's March 16, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On Feb. 16, 2010, a putative class action complaint was filed against Intersections, Inc., Bank of America Corporation, and FIA Card Services, N.A. The complaint alleges various claims based on the provision of identity protection services to the named plaintiff. Intersections Inc. -- http://www.intersections.com/-- is a provider of branded and fully customized identity management solutions. The company also provides consumer-oriented insurance and membership products through marketing partnerships with the major mortgage services in the United States, as well as other financial institutions through its subsidiary, Intersections Insurance Services, Inc. Additionally, through its majority owned subsidiary Screening International LLC (SI or Screening International), Intersections provides pre-employment background screening services domestically and internationally in partnership with Control Risks Group Limited of the United Kingdom. It offers consumers a variety of consumer protection services and other consumer products and services primarily on a subscription basis. Through its subsidiary, Intersections Insurance Services, Inc., it offers a portfolio of services, which include consumer discounts on healthcare, home and auto related expenses. LABRANCHE & CO: Continues to Defend Consolidated Amended Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- LaBranche & Co. Inc., continues to defend an amended consolidated complaint brought by persons or entities who purchased and/or sold shares of stocks of companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange, according to the company's March 16, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On or about Oct. 16, 2003 through Dec. 16, 2003, four purported class action lawsuits were brought by persons or entities who purchased and/or sold shares of stocks of NYSE listed companies, including: 1. Pirelli v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8264, 2. Marcus v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8521, 3. Empire v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8935, and 4. California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 9968. On March 11, 2004, a fifth action asserting similar claims, Rosenbaum Partners, LP v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc., et al., No. 04 CV 2038, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by an individual plaintiff who does not allege to represent a class. On May 27, 2004, the court consolidated these lawsuits under the caption In re NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation, No. CV 8264. The court named these lead plaintiffs: California Public Employees' Retirement System and Empire Programs, Inc. On Sept. 15, 2004, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws and Breach of Fiduciary Duty alleging that they represent a class consisting of all public investors who purchased and/or sold shares of stock listed on the NYSE from Oct. 17, 1998 to Oct. 15, 2003. Plaintiffs allege that the company, LaBranche & Co. LLC, Mr. LaBranche, other NYSE specialist firms, including Bear Wagner Specialists LLC, Fleet Specialist, Inc., SIG Specialists, Inc., Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Specialists LLC, Performance Specialist Group, LLC and Van der Moolen Specialists USA, LLC, and certain parents and affiliates of those firms, and the NYSE, violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by failing to disclose alleged improper specialist trading that was the subject of the specialist trading investigations described above, improperly profiting on purchases and/or sales of NYSE listed securities, and breaching and/or aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty. Section 20(a) control person claims also are alleged, including against the company, LaBranche & Co. LLC and Mr. LaBranche. Plaintiffs seek unspecified money damages, restitution, forfeiture of fees, commissions and other compensation, equitable and/or injunctive relief, including an accounting and the imposition of a constructive trust and/or asset freeze on trading proceeds, and attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. On Dec. 12, 2005, motions to dismiss were granted in part and denied in part. The court dismissed plaintiffs' Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) claims against all defendants for conduct that occurred before Jan. 1, 1999 and dismissed plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claims against all defendants. The court also dismissed all claims against the NYSE and certain claims against certain parents and affiliates of specialists other than LaBranche & Co. LLC. On Feb. 2, 2006, plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws and Breach of Fiduciary Duty, adding Robert A. Martin as a plaintiff. This complaint is otherwise identical to plaintiffs' Consolidated Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws and Breach of Fiduciary Duty. On Feb. 22, 2007, the court removed Empire Programs, Inc. as co- lead plaintiff, leaving CalPERS as the sole lead plaintiff. On Feb. 23, 2006, the company, LaBranche & Co. LLC, Mr. LaBranche and the other defendants in the case filed answers to plaintiffs' Amended Consolidated Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws and Breach of Fiduciary Duty, denying liability and asserting affirmative defenses. On June 28, 2007, CalPERS moved for class certification of "[a]11 persons and entities who submitted orders (directly or through agents) to purchase or sell NYSE-listed securities between Jan. 1, 1999 and Oct. 15, 2003, which orders were listed on the specialists' display book and subsequently disadvantaged by defendants," and for the certification of CalPERS and Market Street Securities Inc. as class representatives. On Sept. 18, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reinstated certain of the claims against the NYSE that previously had been dismissed. On March 14, 2009, the court granted CalPERS' motion for class certification. On April 13, 2009, the company, LaBranche & Co. LLC, Mr. LaBranche and the other specialist firm defendants and their affiliates filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), for permission to appeal the class certification order. On Oct. 1, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the petition, and, on Oct. 21, 2009, the company, LaBranche & Co. LLC, Mr. LaBranche and the other specialist firm defendants and their affiliates filed a motion for reconsideration. On Feb. 24, 2010, the Second Circuit denied this motion for reconsideration. On Oct. 5, 2009, CalPERS and the NYSE informed the court that they had agreed to settle all claims against the NYSE. LaBranche & Co. Inc. -- http://www.labranche.com/-- is the parent company of LaBranche Structured Holdings, Inc. (LSHI), the holding company for a group of entities that are specialists and market-makers in options, futures and exchange-traded funds (ETFs), traded on various exchanges. The company is also the parent company of LaBranche & Co. LLC. LaBranche Financial Services, LLC (LFS), another of the company's operating subsidiaries, provides securities execution, clearing and direct- access floor brokerage services to institutional investors. The company operates principally in two segments: the Market-Making segment and the Institutional Brokerage segment. LUMENTIQUE INC: Recalls 6,000 DayNa Decker Botanika Candles ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in cooperation with Lumetique Inc., of Los Angeles, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 6,000 DayNa Decker Botanika Candles manufactured by Southern California Candle Co. Inc., of Los Angeles, Calif. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The candle flame can unexpectedly flare up and the glass container can crack, posing fire, burn and laceration hazards to consumers. The firm has received five reports of the glass breaking and six reports of high flames. No injuries or property damage have been reported. This recall involves DayNa Decker Botanika brand candles sold in 3-, 6-, and 16-ounce glass containers. The words "DayNa Decker" and Bacara, Bardou, Clementine, Indigo, Leila, Manzanita, Sierra, Taiga, Violetta, Viva, Yasmin, or Zelia appear on the bottom of the green glass container. Only Botanika candles with batch code 9J3, 9K1, 9L1 or 9L2 are included in the recall. Batch codes are printed on the bottom of the glass container. The recalled candles were manufactured in the United States and sold at resorts, spas, gift shops and specialty stores nationwide from November 2009 through January 2010 for between $30 and $75, depending on the size. Consumers should immediately stop using the candle and contact Lumetique to receive a full credit toward the purchase of a DayNa Decker brand product. For additional information, contact Lumetique toll-free at (888) 872-0228 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.daynadecker.com/ NILES AUDIO: Recalls 3,800 Niles ZR-6 MultiZone Receivers --------------------------------------------------------- Niles Audio Corp., of Miami, Fla., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 3,800 Niles ZR-6 MultiZone Receivers. Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless otherwise instructed. A failure in the receiver's internal components can cause connected loudspeakers to overheat and cause a fire, posing a fire hazard to consumers. The firm has received reports of three incidents of connected loudspeakers overheating. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves Niles(R) ZR-6 MultiZone Receivers. The receivers are black with a blue LCD display on the right side and the Niles logo in white on the front center. The receivers measure 17 inches wide x 3.5 inches high x 15 inches deep. The model number ZR-6 is located on the lower left side of the front panel of the receivers. The recalled electronic devices were manufactured in China and sold by audio, video and home theater custom installation professionals nationwide from July 2008 through November 2009 for about $2,000. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled receivers and contact Niles for a free repair kit. The repair kit includes a software update for the receivers. Niles is directly contacting consumers who purchased the recalled receivers. For more information, contact Niles at (800) 667-3991 between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, visit the firm's Web site at www.nilesaudio.com/ZR6Info/ or e-mail the firm at ZR6Info@nilesaudio.com or write to Niles Audio Corp., Attention: ZR-6 Recall, 12331 SW 130 Street, Miami, Fla. 33186 PIEDMONT OFFICE: Motion for Summary Judgment in "Wells" Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The motion for summary judgment in a class action suit captioned In Re Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., Securities Litigation Case No. 07-cv-00862, remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, according to Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc.'s March 16, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. On March 12, 2007, a stockholder of Piedmont REIT filed a purported class-action suit and derivative complaint entitled, "Washtenaw County Employees Retirement System v. Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., et al." before the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against, among others, Wells REIT, and the officers and directors of Wells REIT prior to the closing of the internalization transaction. The complaint attempts to assert class action claims on behalf of those persons who received and were entitled to vote on the proxy statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 26, 2007. The complaint alleges, among other things: -- that the consideration to be paid as part of the Internalization is excessive; -- violations of Section 14(A), including Rule 14a-9 thereunder, and Section 20(A) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based upon allegations that the proxy statement contains false and misleading statements or omits to state material facts; -- that the board of directors and the current and previous advisors breached their fiduciary duties to the class and to Wells REIT; and -- that the proposed Internalization will unjustly enrich certain directors and officers of Wells REIT. The complaint seeks, among other things: -- certification of the class action; -- a judgment declaring the proxy statement false and misleading; -- unspecified monetary damages; -- to nullify any stockholder approvals obtained during the proxy process; -- to nullify the merger proposal and the merger agreement; -- restitution for disgorgement of profits, benefits and other compensation for wrongful conduct and fiduciary breaches; -- the nomination and election of new independent directors, and the retention of a new financial advisor to assess the advisability of Wells REIT's strategic alternatives; and -- the payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees. In April 2007, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for an order enjoining the internalization transaction. The court then granted the defendants' motion to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and the case was docketed in the Northern District of Georgia on April 24, 2007. In June 2007, the court granted a motion to designate the class lead plaintiff and class co-lead counsel. On June 27, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which contains the same counts as the original complaint, with amended factual allegations based primarily on events occurring subsequent to the original complaint and the addition of a Piedmont officer as an individual defendant. On March 31, 2008, the court granted in part a motion by the defendants to dismiss the amended complaint. The court dismissed five of the seven counts of the amended complaint in their entirety. The court dismissed the remaining two counts with the exception of allegations regarding the company's failure to disclose in its proxy statement details of certain expressions of interest in acquiring Piedmont. On April 21, 2008, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which alleges violations of the federal proxy rules based upon allegations that the proxy statement to obtain approval for Internalization omitted details of certain expressions of interest in acquiring Piedmont. The second amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages, to nullify and rescind Internalization, and to cancel and rescind any stock issued to the defendants as consideration for Internalization. On May 12, 2008, the defendants answered and raised certain defenses to the second amended complaint. On June 23, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. On Jan. 16, 2009, defendants filed their response to plaintiff's motion for class certification. The plaintiff filed its reply in support of its motion for class certification on Feb. 19, 2009, and the motion is presently pending before the court. The parties are presently engaged in discovery. On April 13, 2009, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend the second amended complaint to add additional defendants. The time for the defendants to respond to the motion for leave to amend has not yet expired On April 13, 2009, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend the second amended complaint to add additional defendants. The defendants responded to the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend on April 30, 2009. The plaintiff filed its reply of its motion for leave to amend on May 18, 2009. The court denied the motion for leave to amend on June 23, 2009. On Dec. 4, 2009, the parties filed motions for summary judgment. The parties filed their responses to the motions for summary judgment on Jan. 29, 2010. The parties filed their respective replies to the motions for summary judgment on Feb. 19, 2010. The motions for summary judgment are currently pending before the court. The suit is In Re Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-00862 (N.D. Ga.) (Pannell, J.). Representing the plaintiffs is: Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq. CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP One Haverford Centre 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041-0100 Phone: 215-642-8500 E-mail: nick@chimicles.com Representing the defendants is: Michael J. Cates, Esq. KING & SPALDING, LLP 1180 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30309-3521 Phone: 404-572-4600 E-mail: mcates@kslaw.com PIEDMONT OFFICE: Discovery in Amended Securities Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the suit In Re Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 07-cv-02660, are engaged. A second amended complaint in the matter captioned In Re Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 07-cv-02660, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The purported class-action suit was filed on Oct. 25, 2007, by a Piedmont Office Realty Trust Inc. stockholder before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the company and its board of directors. The complaint attempts to assert class-action lawsuit claims on behalf of: -- those persons who were entitled to tender their shares pursuant to the tender offer filed with the SEC by Lex-Win Acquisition LLC on May 25, 2007, and -- all persons who are entitled to vote on the proxy statement filed with the SEC on Oct. 16, 2007. The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the federal securities laws, including Sections 14(a) and 14(e) of the U.S. Exchange Act and Rules 14a-9 and 14e-2(b) promulgated thereunder. In addition, the complaint alleges that the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties owed to the proposed classes. On Dec. 26, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking that the court designate it as lead plaintiff and its counsel as class lead counsel, which the court granted on May 2, 2008. On May 19, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint which contains the same counts as the original complaint. On June 30, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 30, 2009, the court granted in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court dismissed two of the four counts of the amended complaint in their entirety. The court dismissed the remaining two counts with the exception of allegations regarding (i) the failure to disclose information regarding the likelihood of a listing in Piedmont's amended response to the Lex-Win tender offer and (ii) misstatements or omissions in Piedmont's proxy statement concerning then-existing market conditions, the alternatives to a listing or extension that were explored by the defendants, the results of conversations with potential buyers as to Piedmont's valuation, and certain details of our share redemption plan. On April 13, 2009, defendants moved for reconsideration of the court's March 30, 2009 order or, alternatively, for certification of the order for immediate appellate review. The defendants also requested that the proceedings be stayed pending consideration of the motion. On June 19, 2009, the court denied the motion for reconsideration and the motion for certification of the order for immediate appellate review. On April 20, 2009, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which alleges violations of the federal securities laws, including Sections 14(a) and 14(e) of the Exchange Act and Rules 14a-9 and 14e-2(b) promulgated thereunder. The second amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages, to nullify and void any authorizations secured by the proxy statement, and to compel a tender offer. On May 11, 2009, the defendants answered the second amended complaint. On June 10, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. The time for defendants to respond to the plaintiff's motion for class certification has not yet expired. On June 10, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. The defendants responded to the plaintiffs' motion for class certification on Jan. 4, 2010. The plaintiffs filed their reply in support of their motion for class certification on Jan. 27, 2010. On March 10, 2010, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The parties are presently engaged in discovery. No further updates were reported in the company's March 16, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Representing the plaintiff are: Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq. CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP One Haverford Centre 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041-0100 Phone: 215-642-8500 E-mail: nick@chimicles.com - and - Meryl W. Edelstein, Esq. CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES 2300 Promenade II 1230 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-873-3900 E-mail: MEdelstein@chitwoodlaw.com - and - Christopher J. Keller, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: 212-907-0700 E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com Representing the defendants is: J. Timothy Mast, Esq. TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP Suite 5200, Bank of America Plaza 600 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30308-2216 Phone: 404-885-3312 Fax: 404-962-6796 E-mail: tim.mast@troutmansanders.com SEQUENOM INC: Final Approval Hearing for Settlement on May 3 ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California has set a hearing on May 3, 2010, to consider final approval of a $14 million settlement in a consolidated suit against Sequenom, Inc., according to the company's March 16, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. In April 2009, the company announced that the expected launch of its test for Trisomy 21 (Down syndrome) had been delayed and that the company was no longer relying on its previously announced test data and results for that test. Following the April 2009 announcement, several complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors on behalf of certain purchasers of the company's common stock. The complaints include claims asserted under Sections 10 and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act and have been brought as shareholder class actions. In general, the complaints allege that the company and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the Trisomy 21 test under development, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's common stock. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On Sept. 1, 2009, the complaints were consolidated under the caption In re Sequenom, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 09- CV-0921 LAB (WMc) (S.D. Cal.) and a lead plaintiff was appointed. On Dec. 24, 2009, the company entered into a stipulation of settlement with the lead plaintiff on behalf of the plaintiffs' class which, if approved by the District Court, will resolve this action. Pursuant to the terms of the stipulation, the company has agreed to pay $14 million, which will be funded by insurance proceeds. The company has also agreed to issue to the plaintiffs' class a number of shares of the company's common stock equal to 9.95% of our total shares outstanding at the time of determination, subject to certain limitations. The company has also agreed to adopt or continue its implementation of changes and additions to certain corporate governance policies, protocols and practices. The court preliminarily approved the settlement on Jan. 26, 2010. The court has scheduled a final settlement approval hearing on May 3, 2010. Sequenom, Inc. -- http://www.sequenom.com/-- is a diagnostic testing and genetics analysis company. The company is focused on providing products, services, diagnostic testing, applications and genetic analysis products that translate the results of genomic science into solutions for biomedical research, translational research, molecular medicine applications, and agricultural, livestock and other areas of research. Its development and commercialization efforts in various diagnostic areas include non-invasive prenatal diagnostics, oncology, infectious diseases and other disorders. The company is researching, developing and pursuing the commercialization of various non-invasive molecular diagnostic tests for prenatal genetic disorders and diseases, oncology, infectious diseases, and other diseases and disorders. SPECTRANETICS CORP: Wants Colorado Consolidated Suit Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- Spectranetics Corp.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated class action complaint remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, according to the company's March 15, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009. Several securities class action lawsuits were filed against the company, John Schulte and Guy Childs in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The suits are: -- Hancook v. The Spectranetics Corp. et al. (filed Sept. 23, 2008); -- Donoghue v. The Spectranetics Corp. et al. (filed Sept. 24, 2008); -- Dickson v. The Spectranetics Corp. et al. (filed Sept. 26, 2008); -- Jacobusse v. The Spectranetics Corp. et al. (filed Oct. 17, 2008); and -- Posner v. The Spectranetics Corp. et al. (filed Nov. 6, 2008). The Donoghue suit also names Jonathan McGuire and Donald Fletcher as defendants, and the Jacobusse suit also names Emile Geisenheimer as a defendant. On Sept. 25, 2008, a securities class action lawsuit captioned Genesee County Employees' Retirement System v. The Spectranetics Corp. et al., was filed against the company, John Schulte and Guy Childs in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. This case was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado and all six cases were consolidated into one case (In re Spectranetics Corporation Securities Litigation) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on Jan. 16, 2009. On June 15, 2009, the court issued an order appointing the Spectranetics Investor Group composed of the Genesee County Employees' Retirement System, the Wayne County Employees' Retirement System, and Peter J. Tortora as lead plaintiff and approving its selection of Labaton Sucharow LLP and Brower Piven as co-lead counsel and The Shuman Law Firm as liaison counsel. On Aug. 4, 2009, the Spectranetics Investor Group filed its consolidated class action complaint, naming the company, John Schulte, Guy Childs, Jonathan McGuire, Emile Geisenheimer, and Craig Walker as defendants. The consolidated complaint asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 alleging that the defendants either failed to disclose, made false and misleading statements, and/or participated in a common plan, scheme and unlawful course of conduct involving, among other things, improper marketing, promoting and testing its products and the products of third parties for unapproved uses; payments to medical personnel in connection with these uses; withholding data from the FDA; the lack of effective regulatory compliance controls and adequate internal and financial controls; and materially inflating the Company's financial results as a result of this conduct. Lead Plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory damages, legal fees and such other relief as the court may deem proper. Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint on Sept. 18, 2009; the Spectranetics Investor Group opposed that motion on Nov. 18, 2009; and Defendants filed a further reply in support of their motion to dismiss on Dec. 18, 2009. The Court has not yet ruled on this motion. The Spectranetics Investor Group filed a supplemental consolidated class action complaint on Feb. 10, 2010, making certain changes to its consolidated class action complaint but asserting the same claims against the same defendants as in the consolidated class action complaint. Defendants intend to file a supplemental motion to dismiss the supplemental class action complaint. The Spectranetics Corporation -- http://www.spectranetics.com/-- develops, manufactures, markets and distributes single-use medical devices used in minimally invasive procedures within the cardiovascular system for use with Spectranetics' excimer laser system. The company's laser system includes the CVX-300 laser unit and various disposable fiber-optic laser catheters. Its laser catheters contain up to 250 small diameter, flexible optical fibers that can access difficult to reach peripheral and coronary anatomy and produce evenly distributed laser energy at the tip of the catheter for uniform ablation. The company's products are focused on two categories: vascular intervention and cardiac lead removal. As of Dec. 31, 2008, the company's installed base of laser systems was 850, of which 627were in the United States. On May 30, 2008, Spectranetics acquired the endovascular business of Kensey Nash Corporation. STADIUM MEMORABILIA: Sued for Selling Refurbished NY Yankee Seats ----------------------------------------------------------------- John J. Lefkus III, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Stadium Memorabilia LLC, et. al., Case No. 600722/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty. Mar. 22, 2010), accuses the New York Yankees memorabilia and collectibles dealer of selling refurbished pair of seats from the old Yankee Stadium, contrary to what the Defendants had advertised on various Web sites, and falsely certifying the authenticity of the articles sold, resulting in substantial injury to him and other persons who directly or indirectly purchased Yankee Stadium seats between May 1, 2009, and Aug. 15, 2009. On May 12, 2009, the New York Yankees and the Defendants announced the commencement of the sale of seats and seat pairs from the old Yankee Stadium which was in the process of being demolished following the completion of construction of a new Yankee Stadium. Defendants assured that the seats would be "unrefurbished" and they they would be authenticated, by among others, the New York Yankees, Major League Baseball and the Defendants. On May 20, 2009, Mr. Lefkus purchased a specific pair of normal Yankee seats he had regularly sat in for the prior 23 years as a season ticket holder for $2,079. Mr. Lefkus says that the seats were refurbished, did not include the original armrest, were not authentic, and were not delivered as advertised. He adds that the Letter of Authenticity falsely certified the authenticity of the articles sold. The Plaintiff says that the Defendants have conceded that no effective tagging system was used to maintain the integrity of their and that seats were dismantled in the demolition process and later reassembled without regard to which pieces of which seats went together. The Plaintiff asks for a jury trial and is represented by: Ralph M. Stone, Esq. Susan M. Davies, Esq. SHALOV STONE BONNER & ROCCO LLP 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 239-4340 - and - Elke A. Hoffman, Esq. Eleven Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 487-9100 TUMI: Recalls 5,000 Mobile Power Packs -------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Tumi, of South Plainfield, N.J., announced a voluntary recall of about 5,000 Mobile Power Packs. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The lithium-ion cells used in the Mobile Power Pack can ignite or explode while charging, posing a fire hazard. This hazard is only present for units that have not been charged. There were two reports of consumers experiencing small fires during their initial charge. No injuries were reported. The recalled Mobile Power Pack is a mobile device that receives an AC charge in a compact battery pack that will then give five DC charges to small electronic devices including mobile phones, MP-3 players, Blackberries, and PDAs. The power pack is black and silver and is rectangular in shape. The front of it has a small circular control panel. The front also displays the word "Tumi" engraved on a silver button located towards the bottom of the device. Style number 14362 is printed on the power pack packaging. A picture of the recalled product is available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10169.html The recalled power packs were manufactured in China and sold by Tumi retail stores, department and specialty stores nationwide and www.Tumi.com from August 2007 through March 2008 for $135. If the unit has not been used and has never been charged, please do not try to charge it. Contact Tumi customer care for instructions on how to return the power pack and receive a free replacement power pack. If you have charged the unit previously without incident, you can continue to use the product. For additional information, contact Tumi customer care at (800) 530-0069 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:45 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.Tumi.com/or e-mail the firm at customercare@tumi.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda, Joy A. Agravante, Ronald Sy and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *