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  * * *