CAR_Public/100428.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, April 28, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 82

                            Headlines

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Wins Dismissal of Hospira Retirees' Lawsuit
AUBREY FERRAO: Four Fiddler's Creek Golfers Say Fees Mishandled
BERNARD L. MADOFF: C.D. Calif. Dismissed Investors' SEC Lawsuit
CITY OF MARKHAM: Suit Complains About Unlawful Detention Policy
COBY ELECTRONICS: Recalls 32,600 Rechargeable Batteries

COUNTRYWIDE FINANIAL: Investors Reportedly Settle for $600 Mil.
CSC HOLDINGS: Sued for Sending Spam E-mail Ads to Subscribers
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: D.C. Cir. Says Medicaid Fines Were Improper
FLEMING & ASSOCIATES: Accused of Overcharging FenPhen Clients
FLORIDA METROPOLITAN: Accused of Violating Texas Education Code

GLOBAL CASH: Notice of $5.8 Million Shareholder Settlement
HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Bondholders Extract $133.5 Mil. from UBS & E&Y
ILLINOIS: Suit Says Forced Unionization of Care Providers Wrong
J.M. BRIGHT: Sued for Failing to Pay Overtime Wages
JOTUL AS: Recalls 200 SCAN Andersen 10 Wood Burning Stoves

LOUISIANA CITIZEN: 4th Cir. Tosses $35 Mil. Katrina Settlement
MEDICINOVA INC: Proposed Settlement in Avigen Transaction Lawsuit
PHASE FORWARD: Being Sold to Oracle for Too Little, Suit Says
POLAR BEAR: Recalls 300 Children's Hooded Sweatshirts
RCN CORP: Notifies Customers of Broadband P2P Traffic Settlement

REED ELSEVIER: Recusal Sought Against Judges in Lexis-Nexis Suit
SAFECO: Protective Order Limiting Use of Medical Records
SIGMA PHARMACEUTICALS: CLF Funding Potential Shareholder Suit
SMALL SMILES: Dental Clinic Sued for Doing Unnecessary Procedures
SONY OPTIARC: Tenth Optical Disc Drive Price-Fixing Suit Filed

SONY CORP: Eleventh Optical Disc Drive Price-Fixing Suit Filed
SONY OPTIARC: Twelfth Optical Disc Drive Price-Fixing Suit Filed
SPRINT: Hearing in 11-Year-Old Madison County Suit Set for Today
SRS CONSTRUCTION: Diversion of Trust Funds Alleged in N.Y. Lawsuit
T&S PLASTERING: Construction Worker Sues for Overtime Wages

TRENDSET ORIGINALS: Recalls 2,400 Girls' Hooded Jackets
TROPICAL BEDDING: Recalls 15,000 Mattress Sets
UNITED STATES: E.D. Tenn. Lawsuit Says Obamacare Unconstitutional
VATICAN: Targeted, with Pope, in Suit Filed in Milwaukee, Wis.
WELLS FARGO: Overdraft Fee Trial Underway in N.D. Calif.

                            *********

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Wins Dismissal of Hospira Retirees' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Francine Knowles at the Chicago Sun-Times reports that a federal
judge ruled in favor of Abbott Laboratories and Hospira Inc. in a
class-action lawsuit filed by former Abbott employees who accused
the Lake County-based companies of cheating them out of their
retiree benefits when Abbott spun off its hospital products unit,
creating Hospira.

U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman found the plaintiffs failed
to meet their burden under any of the counts in the complaint.

He noted in his ruling the plaintiffs' position on issues in the
case had changed over the course of the litigation. At one point,
the plaintiffs claimed that Abbott's hospital products division
was chosen because its employees were the oldest group of any
Abbott division and thus Abbott was motivated to spin it off to
reduce retiree benefits, Gettleman wrote in the decision.
Plaintiffs later altered that position to claim that Abbott
examined other divisions, but only those with older employees, he
said.

For the plaintiffs to succeed in the case, the court would have
had to find the motivating purpose of the spinoff was to deprive
Abbott's hospital products division employees of their retirement
or medical benefits, Gettleman wrote. To do so the court would
have had to find the testimony of Abbott and Hospira executives
"was not credible, and that the board minutes and supporting
materials of Abbott, Hospira and their advisors . . . were
fabricated and inaccurate," he wrote. "The court cannot do so
because it finds that the testimony by these witnesses was highly
credible, internally consistent and amply corroborated by the
unquestionably authentic documentary evidence."

Among plaintiffs in the case were Myla Nauman. She told the
Chicago Sun-Times last year she had looked forward to retiring
early and starting a new career thanks to great benefits she had
working for Abbott that included a pension and retiree health
care. Nauman said she'd be receiving an estimated $5,000 to
$6,000 a month less in pension benefits and would have to pay at
least $1,000 a month to get retiree health coverage, as she
alleged improper action by Abbott and Hospira.

"The court's ruling vindicates Abbott's position that the
creation of Hospira was a strategic decision designed to position
both companies for long-term success," Abbott said Friday in a
statement.

"Hospira has delivered a total return to shareholders of nearly
100 percent since its creation as a separate public company.

"Potential employee benefit savings never factored into the
decision to create Hospira."

Hospira welcomed the ruling.

"We're pleased with the court's ruling, which validates our long-
held position that Hospira acted in compliance with the law at
all times," said Hospira spokeswoman Stacey Eisen.

The plaintiffs in the case have not yet decided whether they will
appeal, according to their attorney, Steve Sprenger.

"Our clients are very disappointed in the judge's ruling, but
we'll review the opinion carefully over the coming weeks and
decide what legal strategy to pursue at that time," Sprenger
said.


AUBREY FERRAO: Four Fiddler's Creek Golfers Say Fees Mishandled
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aisling Swift at NaplesNews.com reports from Fort Myers, Fla.,
that four men who purchased golf memberships at Fiddler's Creek
have filed a class-action lawsuit against developer Aubrey
Ferrao, accusing him of pocketing $10 million in membership fees
that were to be held in escrow.

The lawsuit, filed last week in U.S. District Court in Fort
Myers, contends Ferrao engaged in a scheme of illegal, unfair,
unlawful and deceptive business practices by orchestrating a plan
to embezzle escrow funds and not reporting that income in his
taxes.

It alleges he set up "myriad layers of corporate entities" as his
alter-ego to protect himself from individual liability and to
help him embezzle golf club initiation deposits.

It's the latest in litigation against Fiddler's Creek, which was
sued nearly a year ago based on the same allegations. That
lawsuit, filed by golfers Glenn and Dawn Vician and Richard and
Kristi Lohmeyer, settled in December. A motion filed by the
plaintiffs said Fiddler's Creek LLC, Gulf Bay, GBP Development
LLC and its other related companies agreed to settle for a
"substantial" amount of money.

But Fiddler's Creek filed documents in February calling that
motion a "sham" and filed a memorandum objecting to any mention
of a settlement, which was to remain under seal, its terms
confidential.

"It is clear that the plaintiffs maliciously and intentionally
filed the sham pleadings simply to disclose to the public that
they had received financial consideration under the settlement
agreement and had not merely dismissed the pending litigation,"
wrote Ricardo Reyes, the lawyer for Ferrao, Fiddler's Creek and
his other companies.

"Defendants' motivation was to embarrass the plaintiffs and
further injure the business reputation of Fiddler's Creek," he
wrote, noting that Ferrao was dismissed from the lawsuit.
"Notably, what plaintiffs failed to mention was that they were
paid no compensation for the ridiculous claims of conversion or
theft of deposits. Nothing was obtained for the purported class
members."

Reyes objected to allowing the plaintiffs to file the settlement
agreement because it was already sealed and U.S. District Court
Judge John E. Steele granted that. The case remained closed.

The new lawsuit attempts to reopen the litigation, focusing now
on Ferrao, who was dismissed from the earlier lawsuit. That's
because Fiddler's Creek and its related companies filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in February.

In the new lawsuit, golfers Matthew Suffoletto, Raymond David,
Steven Taub and Stephen Shulman accuse Ferrao of embezzling golf
deposits that were to be held in escrow until all golf facilities
at Fiddler's Creek were completed at the development off Collier
Boulevard near Marco Island.

Those facilities include two championship eighteen-hole golf
courses, one designed by Arthur Hills; a driving and practice
putting green; a roughly 30,000-square-foot clubhouse with a
mixed grill room, lounge, pro shop and a men's and women's locker
room. Members are now using a temporary clubhouse, but the
website says a new one is pending.

The deposits that were to be held in escrow, the new lawsuit
says, were security that the promises would be fulfilled. But
because they were never held in escrow and were spent, it says,
golfers are being deprived of the money necessary to complete all
golf facilities.

The new lawsuits says one of Ferrao's lawyers, Ricardo Reyes,
admitted last fall that none of the Fiddler's Creek entities
owned by Ferrao declared any income relating to the golf
initiation deposit funds that were taken out of escrow.

"Ferrao had at least 28 corporate entities and partnerships that
he operated . . . file a single, consolidated tax return, so that
all tax benefits and revenues flowed directly and ultimately to
Ferrao, and Ferrao and the companies that he controlled failed
and refused to pay any income taxes on the millions of dollars of
golf deposit revenues that Ferrao ultimately took control of and
spent," the 46-page complaint alleges.

The complaint lists all Ferrao's companies related to Fiddler's
Creek -- GBP Development Ltd., FC Golf Ltd., 951 Land Holdings
Ltd. -- and allege Fiddler's Creek LLC is a successor developer
of Fiddler's Creek and was used by Ferrao, the chief executive
officer and owner, to orchestrate his schemes. It maintains those
entities protected him and facilitated his embezzlement scheme.

Through power of attorney, Ferrao had "vast powers" and access to
take and spend and transfer the golf initiation deposits, the
lawsuit says, alleging he employs escrow agents he has complete
control over because they aren't independent.

The lawsuit says Ferro published or caused to be published
misleading, false and deceptive marketing information to induce
and deceive buyers to purchase homes and put down golf deposits.

Those deposits were based on the homes and communities, according
to the complaint, which says Suffoletto's deposit was $37,500;
Taub paid $90,000; David put down $40,000, and Shulman, a former
golf member, paid $75,000.

By creating a non-legal entity called The Golf Club at Fiddler's
Creek, the lawsuit says, Ferrao was able to transfer funds
without accountability. And as a public relations gimmick, the
complaint says, Gulf Bay created an advisory board composed of
homeowners who had paid the deposits, but it has no real
authority and is limited to providing advice on club operations
to Gulf Bay, which, in turn, gave the board limited information
about club operations.

On May 7, the advisory board called a meeting to request
information from principals of The Golf Club At Fiddler's Creek
about the status of the escrow account, according to the
complaint, which says, a company principal, Joseph Parisi,
informed the board there were no longer any golf initiation
deposits in the account.

Certain club members also received a letter from Ferrao's
companies, telling them he had not deposited those funds into an
escrow account.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages under claims that include
corporate conversion, breach of fiduciary duty and piercing the
corporate veil. Corporations usually are treated as separate
legal entities solely responsible for the debts they incur and
the sole beneficiaries of credit they're owed. A corporate veil
treats rights or duties of a corporation as the rights or
liabilities of its shareholders or directors.

The lawsuit says the four represent the class of more than 200
people, golfers who became members and paid a deposit after Jan.
1, 2000, and who did not receive a refund. It says their claims
exceed $10 million and that no other class-action lawsuit has
been filed in the past three years that has been certified as a
class-action suit: the other lawsuit was settled before that
occurred.

A copy of the Complaint in Suffoletto, et al. v. Ferrao, Case No.
10-cv-00241 (M.D. Fla.), is available at:

     http://media.naplesnews.com/media/static/FiddlerCreekFraudFerrao.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert E. Stochel, Esq.
          HOFFMAN & STOCHEL
          One Professional Center, Suite 306
          Crown Point, IN 46307
          Telephone: 219-662-0165
          E-mail: res@reslaw.org

               - and -  

          Glenn S. Vician, Esq.
          8605 Broadway
          Merrillville, IN 46410
          Telephone: 219-769-6671
          E-mail: glennvician2@bhbvonline.com

               - and -  

          Eric John Vasquez, Esq.
          900 6th Ave. S., Suite 201
          Naples, FL 34102
          Telephone: 239-430-0999
          E-mail: evasquez@ejvlawoffice.com


BERNARD L. MADOFF: C.D. Calif. Dismissed Investors' SEC Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad at The National Law Journal reports that a
federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit alleging that the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission is liable to investors for
failing to detect Bernard Madoff's $50 billion Ponzi scheme.

The judge ruled last week that the agency acted within its
discretion.

"Plaintiffs in this case largely fail to identify any mandatory
'policies' or 'practices' that were violated in this case," wrote
U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the Central District of
California. "Their Complaint and their moving papers do not
contain any attempt to rebut the government's preliminary showing
that the SEC retained discretion to decide when to investigate,
how to investigate, and whether or not to take enforcement
actions."

The investors sued in December under the Federal Tort Claims Act
(FTCA), alleging that the SEC "owes a duty of reasonable care to
all members of the general public including all investors in U.S.
financial markets who are foreseeably endangered by its conduct."
The suit cited the SEC Office of Inspector General's report last
year detailing how the agency failed to uncover Madoff's scheme.

The investors asserted in their complaint that SEC investigators
ignored numerous red flags and tips regarding Madoff. When they
finally launched investigations, they failed to communicate among
one another about their conclusions, the investors alleged.

Specifically, they claimed that the SEC failed to coordinate its
investigations, failed to follow up with third parties about
Madoff's practices, assigned inexperienced staffers to the case
and failed to follow its own internal procedures.

The Department of Justice moved to dismiss, arguing that the
court lacked jurisdiction to hear FTCA claims under the statute's
"discretionary function exemption," which bars tort actions
against federal officers who commit discretionary acts in the
course of their jobs.

In granting dismissal of the case, Wilson relied on court
precedent as well as statutory and regulatory language.

One of the investors, Richard Gordon, a solo practitioner in
Beverly Hills, Calif., representing himself in the case, did not
return a call for comment. The other, Philip J. Dichter of Philip
J. Dichter Law Offices in Malibu, Calif., who represents his
family's investment partnership in the case, declined to comment
about the judge's order or whether he planned to file an amended
complaint within the next 30 days.

He said that his family lost a "significant sum" investing with
Madoff. He also said his case is one of three alleging similar
claims against the U.S. government over the SEC's failure to
discover Madoff's Ponzi scheme.

Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller declined to comment.


CITY OF MARKHAM: Suit Complains About Unlawful Detention Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Markham, Ill., lets its cops
detain people without warrant for 72 hours before presenting them
to a judge, according to a constitutional class action in Chicago
Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Whitted v. City of Markham, Illinois,
Case No. 10-cv-02445 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:
     
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/22/CivRts.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth N. Flaxman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH N. FLAXMAN P.C.
          200 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: 312-427-3200


COBY ELECTRONICS: Recalls 32,600 Rechargeable Batteries
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Coby Electronics Corp., of Lake Success, N.Y., announced a
voluntary recall of about 32,600; 13,000 previously recalled in
October 2008 and 19,600 in October 2009; rechargeable batteries
sold with portable DVD/CD/MP3 players.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The rechargeable batteries can overheat, posing a fire hazard to
consumers.

Coby Electronics has received 22 reports of the battery
overheating.  Eighteen additional incidents of the battery
overheating in the TF-DVD 1020 model, 17 of which resulted in
property damage ranging from minor up to $9,650.  No additional
incidents have been reported for the TF-DVD 8501 model.  

The recall involves Coby DVD/CD/MP3 players with product numbers
TF-DVD 1020 and TF-DVD 8501.  "Coby" is printed on the front
cover and the product number is on the bottom of the unit.  The
serial numbers on the recalled rechargeable batteries are printed
on a label on the following batteries:

     Product Number      Serial Number              Description
     -------------       -------------              -----------
     TF-DVD 1020         DG240043D503000001-1006    Swivel screen
                         DG240006D503000001-400
                         DG240039D603000001-3000
                         DG240111D603000001-2000
                         DG240143D602000001-3000
                         DG240106D602000001-2000
                         DG240106D702000001-2000
                         DG240183D942000001-100
                         DG240071DB02000001-1400
                         DG240115D702000001-2500

     TF-DVD 8501         Begin with "HY"            8-1/2 inch
                                                    screen

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10205.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
discount, electronics, music, toy, office supply stores and
distributors of electronic products nationwide.  The TF-DVD 1020
units were sold from May 2007 through July 2008 for about $168.  
The TF-DVD 8501 units were sold from January 2007 through
September 2009 for between $140 and $275.

Consumers should immediately stop using the players with the
recalled batteries and contact the firm to arrange for a free
replacement battery.  After removing the recalled batteries from
the unit, consumers can continue to use it with the AC or DC
power adapter.  For additional information, contact Coby
Electronics toll-free at (866) 945-2629 between 8:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.cobyusa.com/


COUNTRYWIDE FINANIAL: Investors Reportedly Settle for $600 Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jef Feeley and Edvard Pettersson at Bloomberg News report that
Countrywide Financial Corp. investors, led by a group of New York
retirement funds, have agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit
for more than $600 million, a person familiar with the case said.

U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer in Los Angeles in December
certified a class of investors who bought Countrywide shares or
certain debt securities from March 12, 2004, to March 7, 2008.
The U.S. appeals court in San Francisco on April 19 denied the
defendants permission to appeal that ruling. No settlement papers
have been filed.

Shirley Norton, a spokeswoman for Bank of America Corp., which
acquired Countrywide in 2008, declined to comment. Jennifer
Bankston, a spokeswoman for Labaton Sucharow LLP, the firm
representing the pension funds, said mediation between the
parties took place this month and declined to comment on the
settlement.

The New York State Common Retirement Fund and five New York City
pension funds claimed former Countrywide Chief Executive Officer
Angelo Mozilo and other executives hid from them that the company
was fueling its growth by letting underwriting standards
deteriorate. Bank of America acquired Calabasas, California-based
Countrywide, which was the biggest U.S. home lender, in July of
2008.

The Daily Journal, a Los Angeles legal newspaper, first reported
the settlement.

                           SEC Lawsuit

Mozilo, 71, is also a defendant, together with two other former
Countrywide executives, in a U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission lawsuit alleging he publicly reassured investors about
the quality of the company's home loans while he issued "dire"
internal warnings and sold about $140 million of his own
Countrywide shares.

He wrote in an e-mail in September 2006 that Countrywide was
"flying blind" and had "no way" to determine the risks of some
adjustable-rate mortgages, according to the SEC complaint filed
in June.

David Siegel, a lawyer for Mozilo, didn't immediately return a
call seeking comment.

The class-action lawsuit names 50 defendants, including Goldman
Sachs Group Inc., Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and 23
other Countrywide underwriters. It also named the auditing firm
KPMG LLP. The underwriters and KPMG are accused of securities-law
violations and not fraud.

Dean Kitchens, a lawyer representing the underwriters, and Todd
Gordinier, a lawyer representing KPMG, didn't immediately return
calls seeking comment.

The case is In re Countrywide Financial Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-05295 (C.D. Calif.).


CSC HOLDINGS: Sued for Sending Spam E-mail Ads to Subscribers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that CSC Holdings (Cablevision
Systems Corp.) sends spam email ads to its cable subscribers, in
violation of contract, a class action claims in Nassau County
Court, N.Y.

A copy of the Complaint in Holster v. CSC Holdings, LLC, Index
No. _______, (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/23/Cyberpain.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd C. Bank, Esq.
          119-40 Union Turnpike, 4th Floor
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: 718-520-7125


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: D.C. Cir. Says Medicaid Fines Were Improper
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CCH Medicaid reports that the District Court committed plain
error when it imposed daily fines for the refusal of the District
of Columbia Medicaid agency to negotiate beyond the 10-day period
required by its 2006 order.  The 2006 order required the parties
to give 10 days' notice before asking the court to enforce or
construe the order and provided "During that 10-day period, the
parties shall negotiate in good faith in an effort to resolve the
dispute."  The assessment of fines for 126 consecutive days of
refusal to negotiate was not consistent with the order and was
overturned.  However, the Medicaid agency waived its objections
to the assessment of daily fines for other violations because it
failed to raise them in the trial court.  The schedule of fines
for particular violations in the 2006 order gave the agency clear
notice of the penalties for violations, and the agency had the
power to avoid the fines by complying with the order.  Salazar v.
District of Columbia, D.C. Cir., April 9, 2010.  


FLEMING & ASSOCIATES: Accused of Overcharging FenPhen Clients
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford at Courthouse News Service reports that three
plaintiffs in a FenPhen drug liability class action say their law
firm overcharged clients, taking more than $29 million for heart
tests it performed on "tens of thousands" of potential clients
who did not even join in the lawsuit.  The three women sued
George Fleming and Fleming & Associates in Harris County Court.

Plaintiffs Rebecca Wilson, Debbie McCullars-Vanderford and
DeLaine Anderson-Carpenter say Mr. Fleming and his firm charged
all their more than 8,000 FenPhen clients "approximately 54
percent of their total recovery as fees and expenses."

Wyeth's diet drug FenPhen was removed from the market in 1997
when it was found to be associated with heart disease.

"Under the guise of a 'study' by a Utah cardiologist named Dr.
Paul Hopkins, Fleming devised a plan to charge clients, without
their knowledge or informed consent, tens of millions of dollars
Fleming and F&A spent for echocardiograms that turned out to be
negative," according to the complaint.

The women say the "study" gave Mr. Fleming cover to "transform
millions in unrecoverable costs" he spent trying to round up
clients.

They claim that Mr. Fleming also defrauded clients by keeping
millions of dollars in inflated fees for postage, copies, court
costs, court reporters, experts, research, travel and interest
from banks that financed his firm's activities.

The women say these fees had nothing to do with each individual
client's case.

"In fact, defendants did not provide clients with any detailed
breakdown of $40 million plus in total expenses that defendants
charged to clients," the complaint states.

According to their settlement agreement, Wyeth told Mr. Fleming
and his firm they would not recover attorney's fees unless 95
percent of their clients agreed to accept the settlement amounts,
the three women say.  They add that Wyeth said it would "not be
involved in any way in allocating the money between Fleming and
F&A's clients."

To persuade his clients to accept the offer, Mr. Fleming included
false statements in the settlement documents, claiming the
settlement was based on "Wyeth's conclusions regarding the
grouping, subgrouping and level of recovery of each of our
clients," according to the complaint.

Mr. Fleming fired his lead lawyer for the FenPhen litigation, who
told him that the "negative echocardiogram" charges were
inappropriate, and not fully disclosed by the settlement
materials, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs seek exemplary damages, alleging breach of
contract, fraud and conversion.

A copy of the Complaint in Wilson, et al. v. Fleming, et al.,
Case No. 2010-25097 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Harris Cty.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/23/FenPhenFees.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles B. Kirklin, Esq.
          Stephen R. Kirklin, Esq.
          THE KIRKLIN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          12600 N. Featherwood Dr., Suite 225
          Houston, TX 77034
          Telephone: 713-571-8300


FLORIDA METROPOLITAN: Accused of Violating Texas Education Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Florida Metropolitan
University and Corinthian Colleges solicit students in Texas for
Everest University Online but are not approved to operate in
Texas, a class action claims in Travis County Court, Austin.

A copy of the Complaint in Reed v. Florida Metropolitan
University, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-001266 (Tex. Dist. Ct.,
Travis Cty.), is available at:
          
     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/23/Corinthian.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:
                    
          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Nicole C. Mayer, Esq.
          Jillian L. Estes, Esq.
          Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
          JAMES, HOYER, NEWCOMER, SMILJANICH & YANCHUNIS, P.A.
          One Urban Centre, Suite 550
          4830 W. Kennedy Blvd.
          Tampa, FL 33609
          Telephone: 813-286-4100
          E-mail: jyanchunis@jameshoyer.com


GLOBAL CASH: Notice of $5.8 Million Shareholder Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
                   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                        DISTRICT OF NEVADA

In re                           )
GLOBAL CASH ACCESS HOLDINGS,    ) Case No. 2:08-CV-01320-JCM-PAL
INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION     )

           SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION,
          PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, AND HEARING ON PROPOSED
     SETTLEMENT AND REQUEST FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES

TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
    GLOBAL CASH ACCESS HOLDINGS, INC. COMMON STOCK FROM SEPTEMBER
    22, 2005 THROUGH NOVEMBER 14, 2007, INCLUSIVE ("THE CLASS")

     YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the Lead Plaintiff in the
above-captioned federal securities class action (the "Action")
has reached a proposed settlement with the defendants, Global
Cash Access Holdings, Inc., Kirk Sanford, Harry C. Hagerty, III,
Walter G. Kortschak, Charles J. Fitzgerald, E. Miles Kilburn,
William H. Harris, Karim Maskatiya, Robert Cucinotta, Summit
Partners L.P., M&C International, Goldman, Sachs & Co., J.P.
Morgan Securities Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Banc of America
Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Cowen and Company,
LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Wachovia Capital Markets,
LLC, and Deloitte & Touche LLP (collectively, the "Defendants"),
whereby (1) Defendants will cause a total of $5,875,000 to be
paid for the benefit of the Class, and (2) the Class members will
dismiss and release certain claims against the Defendants and
certain persons and entities associated with the Defendants (the
"Settlement").

     A hearing will be held on June 25, 2010, at 10:00 a.m.,
before the Honorable James C. Mahan in the in the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada, Lloyd D. George United
States Courthouse, 333 S. Las Vegas Blvd., Las Vegas, NV 89101,
to determine (1) whether this Action should be certified as a
class action for purposes of the Settlement; (2) whether the
Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate;
(3) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against
the Defendants and the claims against the Defendants and certain
associated persons released; and (4) whether the application(s)
submitted by Lead Plaintiff and/or its counsel for attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of expenses should be granted.

     IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR
RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE
SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS. To participate in the Settlement, you will
be required to submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form no later
than July 24, 2010. If you are a Class member and do not submit a
proper Claim Form, you will not share in the Settlement but you
nevertheless will be bound by the Final Order and Judgment of the
Court, unless you exclude yourself from the Class and the
Settlement. To exclude yourself from the Class and the
Settlement, you must submit a request for exclusion postmarked no
later than June 4, 2010. Any objections to the Settlement must be
filed by June 4, 2010.

     If you have not yet received a Proof of Claim form and a
full printed Notice Of Pendency Of Class Action, Proposed
Settlement Of Class Action, And Hearing On Proposed Settlement
And Request For Attorneys' Fees And Expenses, you may obtain
copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator:

          Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation
          c/o Analytics Inc., Claims Administrator
          P.O. Box 2004
          Chanhassen, MN 55317-2004
          Telephone: 1-866-810-8520 (toll free)

     Inquiries, other than requests for copies of the Notice and
Claim Form or for inclusion on the mailing list for future
notices, may be directed to Lead Counsel for the Class:

          Mary S. Thomas, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          1201 N. Market St.
          Wilmington, DE 19801

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF NEVADA.


HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Bondholders Extract $133.5 Mil. from UBS & E&Y
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Retirement Systems of Alabama, the court-appointed Lead
Plaintiff of a class of bond purchasers of HealthSouth
Corporation, reached separate class action settlements with UBS
AG, UBS Warburg LLC, Benjamin D. Lorello, William C. McGahan and
Howard Capek and with Ernst & Young LLP.  The total consideration
to be paid in the UBS settlement is $100 million in cash and E&Y
has agreed to pay $33.5 million in cash, for a total of $133.5
million.  These settlements follow an earlier settlement with
HealthSouth and its former outside directors valued at
approximately $90 million for the bond class.  Bond purchasers
will also receive approximately 5% of the recovery achieved in
Alabama state court in a separate action brought on behalf of
HealthSouth against UBS and Richard Scrushy.  To date, the
plaintiffs in that action have achieved a $100 million settlement
with UBS and a $2.8 billion judgment against former HealthSouth
founder Richard Scrushy.  The total settlement for injured
HealthSouth bond purchasers will be in excess of $230 million.
RSA believes that this is an outstanding recovery for the class
in that it should recoup over a third of bond purchaser damages.

The UBS and E&Y settlement funds will be distributed to
HealthSouth bond purchasers in a consolidated securities class
action presently pending before the Honorable Karon Owen Bowdre
in United States District Court in Birmingham, Alabama.

"We are excited to announce this excellent result for the
HealthSouth bond investors we represent," said RSA's Chief
Executive Officer, David Bronner. "These settlements were
achieved after years of vigorous prosecution, resulting in the
recent certification of a class of bond purchasers by the court,"
said Bronner. "We believe these substantial settlements reflect a
great result for bond purchasers who were damaged as a result of
the massive fraud at HealthSouth."

The UBS settlement was negotiated under the supervision of court-
appointed mediator Professor Eric Green. Both the UBS and E&Y
settlements must be reviewed and approved by Judge Bowdre, after
notice to the class.

The bond purchaser class is represented in the litigation and
settlement proceedings by Cunningham Bounds, LLC of Mobile,
Alabama, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP of New York
and Donaldson & Guin, LLC of Birmingham, Alabama. Bill Kelley,
RSA Counsel, supervised these firms throughout the litigation and
settlement proceedings.

The Retirement Systems of Alabama -- http://www.rsa-al.gov/is  
represented by Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.


ILLINOIS: Suit Says Forced Unionization of Care Providers Wrong
---------------------------------------------------------------
With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation
attorneys, a group of home-based personal care providers today
filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court against Governor
Pat Quinn and union officials for their efforts to force Illinois
personal care providers under unwanted union boss control.

The suit stems from an executive order issued by disgraced
former-Governor Rod Blagojevich shortly after his election, later
codified, in which over 20,000 personal care providers who care
for individuals with disabilities were designated as "public
employees" of the state of Illinois for the purpose of granting
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) bosses monopoly
"representation" and forced dues privileges over them.

Following the Rod Blagojevich blueprint of forced unionism, Quinn
signed an executive order last June that made an additional 4,500
home-based personal care providers susceptible to unwanted union
boss bargaining and political "representation." Not
coincidentally, Quinn received the SEIU union bosses' political
endorsement and support during his recent closely-contested
primary campaign for the Democratic nomination for Governor.

The additional 4,500 home-care providers who are not yet under
union control soundly rejected union membership by a two-to-one
margin in a mail-in vote. However, per Quinn's executive order,
the home-care providers may again be subject to out-of-state SEIU
and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME) union organizers making "home visits" attempting to
organize the home-care providers through coercive "card check"
unionization tactics.

Pam Harris, Gordon Stiefel, and several other home-care providers
-- with assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation --
filed the federal suit on behalf of all of Illinois's providers
unionized by Blagojevich and on behalf of home-care providers
threatened by forced unionism as a result of Quinn's executive
order.

"My primary concern is that someone else will be telling me how
to best care for my son," said Harris, who provides personal care
for her adult son and is the lead plaintiff in the suit. "Union
dues would be a deduction from what we have available to provide
for my son's needs. And then I would be giving my money to a
union to exercise their political muscle on issues I may
vehemently disagree with."

The class-action suit challenges the forced-unionism scheme on
the grounds that it violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantees
of free political expression and association.

"This scheme is nothing more than pure political payback" said
Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director of the National Right
to Work Foundation. "In effect Governor Quinn is picking the
lobbyists of Illinois's personal care providers, all in exchange
for the union bosses' support and political contributions."

A copy of the Complaint in Harris, et al. v. Quinn, et al., Case
No. 10-cv-02477 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.nrtw.org/files/nrtw/Illinois_Provider_Complaint.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William L. Messenger, Esq.
          NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION
          8001 Braddock Road, Suite 600
          Springfield, VA 22160
          Telephone: (703) 321-8510
          E-mail: wlm@nrtw.org

               - and -  

          Michael Haugh. Esq.
          VEVERKA ROSEN & HAUGH
          180 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 372-3665
          E-mail: verohalaw@prodigy.net


J.M. BRIGHT: Sued for Failing to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
John Smith, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Margaret Matkowska, Jozef Medyk, and J.M. Bright, Inc., Case No.
2010-CH-17467 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. Apr. 22, 2010), accuses
J.M. Bright of not paying overtime compensation, encouraging
employees to work "off-the-clock", and not keeping true and
accurate time records for all hours worked, in violation of
Illinois wage and hour laws.  Mr. Smith works as an hourly paid,
non-exempt employee for J.M. Bright.  Mr. Smith says that Ms.
Matkowska and Mr. Medyk manage J.M. Bright's day-to-day business
operation.  J.M. Bright employs porters who are outsourced to
perform work at various big box retailers in Chicago.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua M. Martin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF J.M. MARTIN, LTD.
          14 North Peoria St., Suite 2-C
          Chicago, IL 60607
          Telephone: (312) 698-8764


JOTUL AS: Recalls 200 SCAN Andersen 10 Wood Burning Stoves
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Jotul AS, Fredrikstad, Norway, announced a voluntary recall of
about 200 SCAN Andersen 10 Wood Burning Stoves.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The stove's door can dislodge and fall from its hinges, posing a
risk of injury to consumers.

Three incidents were reported to the firm including one report of
a bruised foot.

The recalled SCAN Andersen 10 wood burning stoves have serial
numbers from 7951 through 8267.  The serial number is printed on
a label applied to the rear panel of the stove.  These units are
freestanding, black, cast iron stoves with a single front load
door with glass pane.  Dimensions are 35"H x 26 2/8" W x 16" D.  
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10202.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Norway and sold
through company dealers and distributors throughout the U.S. and
Canada from March 2009 to February 2010.

Consumers should contact their dealer for a hinge replacement kit
and to arrange for a free professional installation.  For more
information contact Jotul North America at (800) 797-5912, ext.
108 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's recall Web page at
http://www.jotul.com/



LOUISIANA CITIZEN: 4th Cir. Tosses $35 Mil. Katrina Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Mowbray at The Times-Picayune reports that in a unanimous
decision, a five-judge panel on the state Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeal threw out a $35 million settlement of a class action
against Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp. over its
handling of hurricane claims, saying that the parties made an
improper "end-run" around a rival class action at the expense of
its plaintiffs.

Throwing out the October 2008 settlement means that plaintiffs
who had been waiting for money in that suit, Toni Swain Orrill v.
AIG et al, may have to wait a little longer. But the many
plaintiffs who also fall into the definition of a rival suit,
Geraldine Oubre et al v. Louisiana Citizens Fair Plan, could
stand to collect more money than they would have been awarded in
Orrill.

Policyholders have been caught in the crossfire for the past year
and a half in an dispute between two rival groups of plaintiff
attorneys with similar suits pending in courts in two different
parishes. The dispute got so heated that a fight broke out in
Orleans Parish Civil District Court in December 2008.

The Oubre suit was certified first as a class action and dealt
with Katrina and Rita victims whose claims were not adjusted by
Citizens within 30 days as required by law. The Orrill case dealt
with Katrina victims whose claims were not adjusted or paid in a
timely manner.

But with a trial date looming for the Oubre in the 24th Judicial
District Court in Jefferson Parish in early 2009, Citizens and
the counsel for the Orrill case confected a settlement in October
2008 that the Oubre attorneys said improperly absorbed much of
their class and came up with a cheap deal that benefitted
Citizens rather than policyholders.

In the settlement, which was approved by Orleans Parish Civil
District Court Judge Kern Reese in March 2009, the parties to the
deal expanded the definition of Orrill to include both Katrina
and Rita victims, and purported to release the claims dealt with
under Oubre.

The Orrill deal was for $35 million, but the first $5 million
would go to the plaintiffs attorneys and the remaining $30
million would offer as many as 30,000 people $1,000 apiece for
their troubles, but in reality only 13,000 people were expected
to participate, costing $13 million, allowing the remaining $17
million to be returned to Citizens, reducing it to an $18 million
deal.

The Oubre attorneys said it was unfair for the Orrill attorneys
to raid their class, and that the Oubre plaintiffs were being
sold short because their claims were worth $5,000 under Louisiana
law, and they planned to pursue it. Indeed, Jefferson Parish
Judge Henry Sullivan awarded $92.8 million to 18,573
policyholders in the Oubre case where Citizens took more than 30
days to start adjusting their claims, or $5,000 apiece.

An appeal in the Oubre case will be heard by the state Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeal on May 3.

The clash left the two rival suits, which applied to
policyholders around the state even though they were taking place
in parish court, on hold for the past year, leaving policyholders
as the losers.

But last week, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vindicated the
position laid out by the Oubre attorneys and delivered a strong
rebuke to Citizens for trying to short-circuit the case.

"This Court also finds it curious that Citizens negotiated with
Orrill counsel to settle all outstanding claims, when, at the
time of the settlement negotiations, Orrill counsel did not
represent all outstanding claimants. It is also troubling that
despite the ongoing negotiations with Oubre counsel, Citizens did
not disclose to Judge Sullivan that it was attempting to settle
all claims with one fell swoop. Again, we are cognizant that
Orrill and Oubre were being litigated in two different venues,
however, candidness with a court is a benchmark of ethical
conduct. Counsel for Citizens was less than candid with the Oubre
court," the opinion concludes.

John Wortman, the chief executive of Louisiana Citizens, was
disappointed the settlement didn't hold. "Obviously we're
disappointed in the decision. We thought the settlement was fair.
We're examining our options as we speak," Wortman said. "Most
likely, we'll appeal."

Madro Bandaries, the lead attorney in the Orrill case didn't see
any legal basis for the decision, and was already at work on
filing writ applications to the Louisiana Supreme Court.

"Show me in there where they cited any law, or any reversible
error," he said. "No matter how I read the judgment, I can't see
how the Fourth Circuit found that the trial court was in manifest
error in its ruling."

But Fred Herman, an attorney on the Oubre case, said he thought
that a unanimous opinion from a five-judge panel was pretty
solid.

"We were saying all along it represented a back-door, reverse
auction," Herman said. "That's apparently the same way the court
felt."

He's looking forward to the May 3 court date in the Oubre case,
which could potentially affirm Judge Sullivan's award and allow
the Oubre attorneys to move ahead on getting resolution on other
batches of Citizens claims that fall into their class action.


MEDICINOVA INC: Proposed Settlement in Avigen Transaction Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
            SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                     FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

THE PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE FUNDS,        )
individually and on behalf of all     )
others similarly situated,            )
                                      )
               Plaintiff,             )
                                      )
     v.                               ) Case No. RG09470224
                                      )
AVIGEN, INC.; ZOLA HOROVITZ;          )
JOHN K.A. PRENDERGAST; KENNETH        )
CHAHINE; RICHARD WALLACE; JAN K.      )
OHRSTROM; STEPHEN G. DILLY; and       )
MEDICINOVA, INC.,                     )
                                      )
               Defendants.            )

                                                                         
          NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

This notice (the "Notice") provides you with important
information in connection with the settlement (the "Settlement")
of a civil action concerning the acquisition of Avigen, Inc.
("Avigen") by MediciNova, Inc. ("MediciNova"). Your legal rights
may be affected by this Notice and the proceedings in this
litigation, whether you act or do not act. You should read this
Notice carefully.

     -- This Notice is dated April 23, 2010 (the "Notice Date").

     -- This Notice is being published pursuant to an Order of
the Superior Court of California, Alameda County, granting
preliminary approval of the Stipulation of Settlement (the
"Stipulation"), dated March 11, 2010, by and among the Settling
Parties (defined below). This is not a solicitation from a
lawyer.

     -- The Settlement resolves a case filed in this Court as a
proposed class action (the "Action") that raised the issues of
whether the directors of Avigen fulfilled their fiduciary duties
to the stockholders of Avigen when Avigen entered into a merger
agreement with MediciNova (the "Transaction"), including whether
the Forms S-4 as amended filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC") on September 17, 2009 and October 23,
2009, provided adequate disclosures to the stockholders of Avigen
with regard to the Transaction.

     -- The Settlement provides for the disclosure of additional
information by Avigen and MediciNova. Plaintiff believes the
disclosure of such information was necessary in order for Avigen
shareholders to make an informed vote on the Transaction.
Defendants do not believe that any additional disclosures were
necessary.

     -- Your legal rights and options are explained in this
Notice.

     -- The Court in charge of this case must decide whether to
approve the Settlement.

BASIC INFORMATION

1. Why Did I Get This Notice?

You or someone in your family may have held shares of Avigen
common stock at some time from August 20, 2009 through and
including December 18, 2009, the Closing Date as defined in the
Agreement and Plan of Merger between Avigen and MediciNova (the
"Merger Agreement").

The Court sent you this Notice because you have a right to know
about a proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit before the
Court decides whether to approve the settlement.

This Notice explains the lawsuit, the Settlement and your legal
rights.

The Court in charge of the case is the Superior Court of
California for Alameda County, and the case is known as The
Pennsylvania Avenue Funds v. Avigen, Inc., et al., Case No.
RG09470224 (the "Action"). Zola Horovitz, John K.A. Prendergast,
Kenneth Chahine, Richard Wallace, Jan K. Ohrstrom, Stephen G.
Dilly (collectively the "Individual Defendants"), Avigen, Inc.
("Avigen") and MediciNova, Inc. ("MediciNova") are collectively
called "the Defendants."

2. What Is This Lawsuit About?

This case was brought as a class action alleging that certain of
the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the
shareholders of Avigen common stock in connection with the
acquisition of Avigen by MediciNova. Plaintiff sought to stop the
Defendants from proceeding with the acquisition and alleged
omission of information necessary for Avigen shareholders to make
an informed vote on the Transaction and/or monetary relief.
Defendants contend that the allegations have no merit. In the
interests of settlement and avoiding the time, expense and
inconvenience of litigation, among other considerations,
Defendants agreed to provide certain additional disclosures to
Avigen shareholders about the Transaction.

3. Why Is This a Class Action?

In a class action, one or more people called class
representatives (in this case The Pennsylvania Avenue Funds) sue
on behalf of people and entities who have similar claims. Here,
these people and/or entities are collectively called a Class or
Class Members. One court resolves the issues for all Class
Members.

4. Why Is There a Settlement?

The Court did not decide in favor of Plaintiff or Defendants.
Instead, both sides agreed to a Settlement, thereby avoiding the
cost of a trial.

While Plaintiff originally sought injunctive and monetary relief,
after filing its suit, Plaintiff, through its Counsel's
investigation, believed that obtaining additional monetary relief
on behalf of Avigen shareholders would have been difficult
because of the hurdles in showing that: (a) the consideration
offered in the Merger was insufficient in light of the additional
Contingent Payment Right ("CPR") provided with the cash and/or
Convertible Notes, and (b) Avigen's approval of the Merger was
unreasonable given the Company's financial situation. Plaintiff,
however, continued to believe that Defendants had not made proper
disclosures in their original and amended Form S-4 in advance of
the shareholder vote, particularly with regard to disclosing the
details and considerations involved in the Board's process in
approving the Merger. After arm's length negotiations, Plaintiff
and Defendants agreed on the substantive terms of a Settlement
that would provide additional disclosures to Avigen shareholders
(as detailed below) before the close of the shareholder vote.
These additional disclosures were provided to shareholders on
November 18, 2009.

Before agreeing to finalize the Settlement, Plaintiff's Counsel
negotiated for the right to conduct discovery to confirm that the
material terms of the Transaction were fair. Following completion
of that discovery, which included a review of documents and
interviewing Avigen's former Chief Executive Officer under oath,
Plaintiff's Counsel determined that the additional disclosures
that Defendants agreed to provide to shareholders were sufficient
to allow Avigen shareholders to make an informed vote on the
Transaction, and that the share price paid in connection with the
Transaction was within the acceptable range of consideration for
the shares of the Company.

In addition, Plaintiff and Defendants considered the following
factors favoring Settlement:

     -- the uncertainty of the legal issues underlying the
allegations in the litigation;

     -- the assurance that Avigen's shareholders obtained
benefits regardless of the outcome of further litigation;

     -- the economy of costs/exposure reduction for the benefit
of the Parties;

     -- the costs of continued litigation; and

     -- the prevailing consideration in all compromises and
settlements that the parties weigh the advantages and benefits of
settlement against the risks of loss.

5. How Do I Know if I am Part of the Settlement?

The Class includes all persons or entities who held Avigen stock,
either of record or beneficially, at any time between August 20,
2009, through and including December 18, 2009, including all such
persons' or entities' respective successors in-interest,
predecessors, representatives, trustees, executors,
administrators, heirs, assigns or transferees, immediate and
remote and any person or entity acting for or on behalf of, or
claiming under any of them, and each of them. Excluded from the
Class are Defendants, Defendants' Affiliates, members of the
immediate family of any Individual Defendant, any entity in which
a Defendant has or had a controlling interest, directors and
officers of Avigen and their legal representatives, heirs,
successors, or assigns of any such excluded Person or entity.

THE SETTLEMENT BENEFITS

6. What Does the Settlement Provide?

Plaintiff has alleged that the Defendants failed to disclose to
shareholders certain material information relating to the
Transaction. To settle the lawsuit, Defendants made available to
Avigen's shareholders additional information related to the
Transaction, and amended the Preliminary Form S-4 Registration
Statement in a relevant manner by adding significant additional
information to pages 13, 74, 75, 83, 88, 92, 93 and 236 of the
Definitive Form S-4 Registration Statement filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission.

The disclosures included additional information about the
following:

(a) Merger proposals Avigen received from parties other than
MediciNova, including the value of the consideration offered in
these proposals, disclosing the terms of various offers Avigen
received as of March is 7, 2009;

(b) Potential conflicts of interests or financial incentives of
any members of Avigen's Board of Directors in connection with the
Proposed Transaction, disclosing the specific payments Avigen's
Directors and executive officers would receive under the
Management Transition Plan;

(c) The data inputs used by Ladenburg Thalman & Co. Inc.
("Ladenburg") in its analyses in connection with preparing its
Fairness Opinion for the Proposed Transaction, disclosing the 14
specific partnering transactions Ladenburg analyzed;

(d) The values and methodology RBC Capital Markets Corporation
("RBC") used to estimate the values of certain assets relating to
its liquidation analysis of Avigen, disclosing the values of: (i)
Avigen's AV411 intellectual property as $3.0 million (based upon
the non-binding term sheet for the cash purchase of AV411 that
had been submitted by Suitor A on June 22, 2009), (ii) the
Genzyme milestone as $6.0 million, and (iii) the amount withheld
from initial distribution to Avigen stockholders for additional
liabilities and expenses as approximately $4.0 million;

(e) The reasons the Avigen board of directors terminated
discussions relating to a proposed merger on March 25, 2009 after
determining that such proposal was "not feasible" in light of
Biotechnology Value Fund's ("BVF") position on the potential
transactions, disclosing the reasoning that BVF owned 30% of
Avigen's stock and that BVF would only support a transaction with
a structure that allowed Avigen's stockholders to receive
primarily cash for their stock;

(f) The factors and inputs RBC used in its Black-Scholes
valuation analysis of the Convertible Notes offered in the
Proposed Transaction, disclosing MediciNova's stock price of
$7.12 per share (the closing price of MediciNova common stock on
August 17, 2009), exercise price of $6.80, term of 1.5 years,
risk-free rate of 1.06 percent, and standard deviation estimate
of 0.69; and

(g) The liquidity and transferability of the Convertible Notes
offered in the Proposed Transaction, disclosing that the
Convertible Notes would be generally transferable without
restriction under the securities laws but that there was
currently no trading market for the Convertible Notes, which
could have an effect on the Notes' liquidity and trading prices.

7. What Does It Mean to Be Part of the Class?

If you are in the Class, that means you cannot sue or be part of
any other lawsuit against the Defendants or their affiliates
about the legal issues in this case. Defendants and their
affiliates means each of the Defendants and/or their respective
families' past and present affiliates, parent entities,
associates, subsidiaries or general partners, limited partnership
partners and partnerships, and each and all of their respective
past, present or future officers, directors, stockholders,
agents, representatives, employees, attorneys, legal counsel,
financial or investment advisors, persons who provided opinions
relating to the Transaction, appraisers, and any other advisors,
consultants, accountants, investment and commercial bankers,
commercial bank lenders, trustees, engineers, agents, insurers,
co-insurers and reinsurers, heirs, executors, trustees, general
or limited partners or partnerships, limited liability companies,
members and managers; and each of their respective heirs,
executors, personal or legal representatives, estates,
administrators, predecessors, successors and assigns (the
"Released Persons").

If you are in the Class that also means that all of the Court's
orders will apply to you and legally bind you. In addition, if
the Court approves the settlement, you will lose all claims,
rights and causes of action, whether legal or equitable or any
other type, known or unknown, you or any Class Member ever had,
now have, or hereafter can, shall, or may have, arising from the
acts, omissions or failures to act occurring prior to the
Settlement, whether directly, derivatively, representatively or
in any other capacity against any of the Defendants or their
affiliates, by reason of, or arising out of, or relating to, or
in connection with: (i) the claims or allegations asserted by
Plaintiff in the Action, and any other facts, matters,
transactions, actions or conduct, actual, alleged or that could
have been alleged in this case; (ii) the Transaction or the
Merger Agreement; (iii) any other agreements, contracts, actions
or approvals relating to the foregoing; (iv) the fiduciary
obligations of any of the Defendants or Released Persons in
connection with the Transaction or the Merger Agreement; (v) the
negotiations in connection with the Transaction or the Merger
Agreement; or (vi) any disclosures made by or disclosure
obligations of any of the Released Persons, to any party,
including but not limited to the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC") in connection with the Transaction or the
Merger Agreement ("Released Claims"). The Defendants believe that
no such claims exist but, if you are in the Class, you will not
be able to pursue any such claims, if and to the extent they
exist. The Settlement does not affect or release any statutory
appraisal rights that may pertain to any Avigen shareholder under
applicable law.

THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU

8. Do I Have a Lawyer in This Case?

The law firm of FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP represents you and other
Class Members. The lawyers at this firm are called Plaintiff's
Counsel. You will not be charged for these lawyers. If you want
to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your
own expense.

9. How Will the Lawyers Be Paid?

Defendants have agreed to pay and not to oppose Plaintiffs
Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and expenses, not to
exceed $140,000, and an award to the named Plaintiff for its time
and expenses in prosecuting the litigation, totaling no more than
$2,500. The amounts awarded will be subject to Court approval.
The attorneys' fees and expenses will be the only payment to
Plaintiff's Counsel for their efforts in achieving this
Settlement and for their risk in undertaking this representation
on a wholly contingent basis.

EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT

If you do not want to be included in this settlement and you want
to keep any right you may have to sue or continue to sue the
Defendants and the other Released Persons on your own about the
Released Claims, then you must take steps to exclude yourself--
or as it is sometimes referred to, you must "opt out" of the
settlement Class.

10. How do I exclude myself from the proposed settlement?

To exclude yourself from the settlement Class, you must send a
letter by mail stating that you "request exclusion from the Class
in The Pennsylvania Avenue Funds v. Avigen, Inc., et al., Case
No. RG09470224." Be sure to include your name, address, telephone
number, your signature, and the number of shares of Avigen common
stock that you held at any time from August 20, 2009 through and
including December 18, 2009. Mail the letter to the Court, with a
copy to the following three different places such that it is
received no later than June 7, 2010 by:

     Counsel for Plaintiff:

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          100 Bush St., Suite 1450
          San Francisco, CA 94104

     Counsel for Defendants Avigen, Inc., Zola Horovitz, John
     K.A. Prendergast, Kenneth Chahine, Richard Wallace, Jan K.
     Ohrstrom, and Stephen G. Dilly:

          William S. Freeman, Esq.
          COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP
          Five Palo Alto Square
          3000 El Camino Real
          Palo Alto, CA 94306
          
     Counsel for Defendant MediciNova, Inc.:

          Matthew L. Larrabee
          DECHERT LLP
          One Maritime Plaza, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3513

You cannot exclude yourself by telephone, by fax or by e-mail. If
you ask to be excluded, you will not be included in the
Settlement, and you cannot object to the Settlement. You will not
be legally bound by anything that happens in this lawsuit, and
you may be able to sue Defendants and the other Released Persons
about the Released Claims in the future.

11. If I do not exclude myself, can I sue Defendants and the
other Released Persons later for the Released Claims?

No. Unless you exclude yourself, you give up any rights to sue
Defendants and the other Released Persons, or to enforce any
existing judgments against any of the Released Persons, for any
and all Released Claims. If you have a pending lawsuit against
Defendants or the other Released Persons, speak to your lawyer in
that case immediately, to determine if you have to exclude
yourself from this Class to continue your own lawsuit. Remember,
the exclusion deadline is June 7, 2010.

OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT

You can tell the Court that you do not agree with the Settlement
or some part of it if you consider it necessary.

12. What is the difference between objecting and excluding?

Objecting is simply telling the Court that you do not like
something about the proposed settlement. You can object only if
you stay in the Class. Excluding yourself is telling the Court
that you do not want to be part of the Class. If you exclude
yourself, you have no basis to object because the case no longer
affects you.

13. How Do I Tell the Court that I Object to the Settlement?

If you are a Class Member, you can object to the Settlement if
you do not like any part of it. You can give reasons why you
think the Court should not approve it. The Court will consider
your views. To object, you must send a letter saying that you
object to the Settlement in The Pennsylvania Avenue Funds v.
Avigen, Inc., et al., Case No. RG09470224. Be sure to include
your name, address, telephone number, your signature, the number
of shares of Avigen common stock that you held at any time from
August 20, 2009 through and including December 18, 2009, and the
reasons you object to the Settlement. Mail the objection to the
Court, with a copy to the following three different places
[indicated above] such that it is received no later than) June
17, 2010. . . .

THE COURT'S FAIRNESS HEARING

The Court will hold a hearing to decide whether to approve the
Settlement. You may attend and you may ask to speak, but you do
not have to.

14. When and Where WM the Court Decide Whether to Approve the
Settlement?

A Final Fairness Hearing will be held before Judge Steven A.
Brick on June 24, 2010, in Department 17 of the Alameda County
Superior Court, located at 1221 Oak Street, Oakland, California
94612. At this hearing, the Court will consider whether the
Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. If there are
objections, the Court will consider them. The Court will listen
to people who have asked to speak at the hearing. The Court may
decide these issues at the hearing or take them under
consideration. We do not know how long the Court's decision will
take.

15. Do I Have to Come to the Hearing?

No. Plaintiff's' Counsel will answer questions the Court may
have. But you are welcome to come at your own expense. If you
send an objection, you don't have to come to Court to talk about
it. As long as you submitted your written objection on time, the
Court will consider it. You may also pay your own lawyer to
attend, but it is not necessary.

16. May I Speak at the Hearing?

You may ask the Court for permission to speak at the fairness
hearing. To do so, you must send a letter saying that it is your
intention to appear in The Pennsylvania Avenue Funds v. Avigen,
Inc., et al., Case No. RG09470224. Be sure to include your name,
address, telephone number, and your signature. Your letter
stating your intent to appear must be received no later than June
17, 2010 by the Clerk of the Court, Plaintiff s' Counsel, and
Defendants' counsel, at the four addresses listed in question 10.

GETTING MORE INFORMATION

17. Are There More Details About the Settlement?

This Notice summarizes the proposed Settlement. More details are
in the Stipulation of Settlement entered into as of March 11,
2010. You can download a copy of the complaint, Stipulation of
Settlement, Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement, and
other documents related to the Settlement by visiting Finkelstein
Thompson LLP's website at http://www.finkelsteinthompson.com/ or  
by visiting the Public Access Website of the Superior Court of
California, County of Alameda, at
http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/domainweb/html/index.html

18. How Do I Get More Information?

Further information regarding the Action and this Settlement may
be obtained by contacting FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP. . . .

          DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE

DATED: April 6, 2010              BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
                                  OF CALIFORNIA, ALAMEDA COUNTY


PHASE FORWARD: Being Sold to Oracle for Too Little, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Phase Forward is selling
itself too cheaply to Oracle, for $17 a share, or $685 million,
shareholders say in Middlesex Superior Court, Woburn, Mass.

A copy of the Complaint in Ehrlich, et al. v. Phase Forward Inc.,
et al., Case No 10-1463 (Mass. Super. Ct., Middlesex Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/22/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq.
          Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
          SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
          53 State St.
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: 617-439-3939
          E-mail: tshapiro@shulaw.com   
                  astewart@shulaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan M. Stein, Esq.
          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Cullin A. O'Brien, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 E. Palmetto Park Rd., Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: 561-750-3000
          E-mail: jstein@rgrdlaw.com   
                  sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com   
                  cobrien@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Randall Baron, Esq.
          David Wissbroecker, Esq.
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619-231-1058
          E-mail: randyb@rgrdlaw.com   
                  dwissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com


POLAR BEAR: Recalls 300 Children's Hooded Sweatshirts
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Polar Bear Gift Shop, of Anchorage, Alaska,
announced a voluntary recall of about 300 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 on the neck and waist drawstrings
in upper garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves children's hooded sweatshirts sold in sizes
small through extra large.  "John Moose" and "Alaska" screen
print logos are printed on the front of the yellow sweatshirts.  
The "Gaxiani" brand name and RN# 55774 are sewn on the neck tag
inside of the garment.

The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and sold
through Polar Bear Gift Shop in Anchorage, Alaska from February
2008 through August 2009 for about $15.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstring to eliminate
the hazard.  Consumers can also return the sweatshirt to Polar
Bear Gift Shop for a full refund.  For additional information,
contact Polar Bear Gift Shop collect at (907) 274-4387 between
8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through Friday or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.polarbeargifts.net/


RCN CORP: Notifies Customers of Broadband P2P Traffic Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Bode at DSLreports.com relates that RCN has sent e-mails to
its customers informing them that the company has settled a class
action lawsuit against the carrier for impeding user P2P traffic.
The plaintiff in Chin v. RCN Corporation, Case No. 08-cv-_____
(S.D.N.Y.) (Sullivan, J.), accused RCN of "delaying or blocking"
broadband subscriber traffic.  The e-mail informs RCN users that
the settlement still needs court approval and that RCN
"vigorously denies" any wrong doing despite agreeing to settle.  
From the e-mail:

     In this lawsuit, the plaintiff claims that RCN Corporation
     ("RCN""), without the knowledge or awareness of RCN
     broadband Internet subscribers, intentionally interfered
     with the subscribers' ability to use the Internet by
     delaying or blocking their Internet use and transmissions.
     Specifically, plaintiff alleges that RCN engaged in certain
     Internet network management practices ("Network Management
     Practices") which hindered or barred RCN broadband Internet
     subscribers' ability to engage in peer-to-peer ("P2P")
     transmissions through the use of P2P programs and protocols.
     Plaintiff further claims that these alleged practices
     materially and adversely affected RCN broadband Internet      
     subscribers. RCN vigorously denies plaintiff's allegations.

The settlement e-mail also informs users that as part of the
settlement, RCN has agreed to "cease and desist" all network
management practices which specifically affect P2P Internet
traffic for a period of eighteen months.

Jenna Greene at The Blog of LegalTimes says that's a curious
concession -- RCN has promised not to do something it already
didn't do.  

The settlement awards class counsel fees of up to $520,000, plus
$20,000 in expenses.  The named plaintiff, Sabrina Chin, gets
$3,000.

The settlement must be approved by Judge Richard Sullivan.


REED ELSEVIER: Recusal Sought Against Judges in Lexis-Nexis Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Holness at Courthouse News Service reports that a
lawyer attacking the monopoly on local e-filing granted to Lexis-
Nexis by Atlanta judges sought to recuse all local judges from
hearing a class action challenging the fees imposed by the
European-based publisher.  "All would be directly affected by the
outcome of the litigation," Shuli Green argued Thursday, adding
that retention of the case would result in "actual impropriety or
the appearance of impropriety."

Ms. Green is part of a team of lawyers pursuing a three-year
quest to upend an e-filing deal made between the judges and the
giant European publisher Reed Elsevier that earned well over 1
billion euros last year.

"This class action arises from an illegal scheme enacted by
defendant Reed Elsevier Inc. dba Lexis-Nexis Courtlink Inc. and
defendant Fulton County to impose an unlawful, mandatory e-filing
system upon litigants in Fulton County State and Superior Court
and to charge excessive and unauthorized fees in connection
therewith," the complaint states.

The mass recusal motion was heard by an outside judge, DeKalb
County Superior Court Judge Robert J. Castellani.

Herb Shellhouse, representing Fulton County, said the motion
should be denied, as the supporting affidavit did not clearly
state "the facts and reasons for the belief that bias or
prejudice exists."

He added that "two of the judges were not even on the bench on
June 1, 2006, when the e-filing system started."

Ms. Green replied that her opponent had misconstrued the law.  
She said plaintiffs need not show actual bias to succeed, but
that merely the appearance of bias would suffice.

During the hearing, Ms. Green moved from the recusal motion to
launch a wider assault on the e-filing deal, saying it violates
the letter of Georgia's law and violates basic rights under the
Constitution.  Mr. Shellhouse answered that the county's deal
will be "vindicated," but he argued that the case should be
thrown out in the meantime.

The underlying challenge states that "Fulton County has
participated in the illegal scheme by promulgating a 'pilot
program' authorizing Lexis' unlawful mandatory e-filing scheme
and excessive fees without the statutory authority to do so."


SAFECO: Protective Order Limiting Use of Medical Records
--------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris at The Madison County Record reports that lawyers
will get to read private medical and financial records of
strangers as they decide who joins a multi-state class action
against insurer Safeco.

On April 14, two LakinChapman lawyers and two for Safeco asked
Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder to protect patient
records from everyone but them.

"If disclosed and made available to the public in the absence of
a protective order, such disclosure could violate patient policy
rights under federal and state law," they wrote.

"Such documents and information to be provided or exchanged by
the parties or non-parties and other discovery (including oral
depositions) may contain or refer to such information or other
material that may be private and confidential," they wrote.

They wrote they may seek information on patient health and
confidential services. They may also seek personally identifiable
financial information, policyholder information and other private
and confidential information.

Jonathan Piper and Andrew Kuhlmann of LakinChapman proposed the
order along with Cari Dawson and Tiffany Powers, of Alston and
Bird in Atlanta, for Safeco.

Last year, Crowder certified chiropractor Ryan Bemis to represent
a class claiming Safeco improperly reduced medical payouts under
property and casualty policies.

The class includes any person Safeco insured in 14 states since
1997, if the person submitted a claim that Safeco reduced through
Ingenix software.

Crowder gathered Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio,
South Dakota, Texas, Wisconsin and West Virginia into the action.


SIGMA PHARMACEUTICALS: CLF Funding Potential Shareholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Greenblat at The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Sigma
Pharmaceuticals may face a damages claim of more than $200
million from shareholders over its shock full-year loss and
alleged breach of continuous disclosure obligations.

Tom Tarasewicz, the vice-president of the US litigation funder
Comprehensive Legal Funding, said Australian institutional
shareholders in Sigma approached his firm last month. They were
concerned about the healthcare company's long trading halt and
the end-of-year adjustments it was about to make to its 2010
accounts.

Speaking to BusinessDay in his first Australian interview, Mr
Tarasewicz said law company Slater & Gordon was still several
weeks from finalising its investigation into Sigma's financial
woes, which included nearly $500 million in goodwill write-downs,
but at this stage the shareholder case looked strong.

"Based on what we have seen so far . . . we are confident, but it
always hinges on the detail," Mr Tarasewicz said. "If there is
good demand [from plaintiffs signing up] and the damages are
where we think they might be, it will probably be north of $200
million."

A damages bill above $200 million would be nearly half of Sigma's
market capitalisation of $572 million or almost three times its
2009 full-year profit.

CLF, of Dallas, has a long history of launching and funding
successful class action lawsuits in Australia. It was behind a
successful court battle against the failed Opes Prime
Stockbroking and is funding one of two investor lawsuits against
property trust Centro. It is also considering a class action
against listed property trust GPT.

CLF's founder and head is a Las Vegas plaintiff lawyer, Reagan
Silber, who also is a telecommunications entrepreneur, World
Series poker player, Hollywood film producer and property
developer. In the 1990s, he was instrumental in helping
Australian women claim millions of dollars in compensation for
faulty breast implants made by the US corporation Dow Corning.

On the damages claim against Sigma, Mr Tarasewicz said CLF was
approached by representatives of several disgruntled institutions
in March after Sigma had been put into a trading halt.

"We did a little bit of due diligence on our own and felt that it
was worthy to spend some money to have Slater & Gordon formally
start an investigatory process," he said.

Sigma asked for its shares to be suspended from trade on February
25. The halt was not lifted until March 31 when the company
admitted a string of asset impairments would wipe away its
profits for the year and produce a 2010 loss of $389 million.

Only months earlier, Sigma had raised $297 million in fresh
capital, telling investors at the time it would beat the net
profit of $80 million recorded last year. Crucially, at the time
of the capital raising there was no mention of the deterioration
in the value of its assets or drugs businesses that led to a
decision last month to record $424.23 million in write-downs and
$52 million in other non-recurring items.

The class action will turn on why Sigma's ills were not disclosed
to investors when the raising was struck and whether the company
had breached its continuous disclosure obligations under stock
exchange listing rules.

Some experts argue the month-long trading halt could have added
to the harm to investors.

Sigma shares lost nearly 60 per cent to 38 on the day trading
resumed.



SMALL SMILES: Dental Clinic Sued for Doing Unnecessary Procedures
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mika Highsmith at Channel 11 WTOL-TV reports that Toledo, Ohio,
attorney Charlie Contrada is looking for anyone else who may feel
victimized by a local dental clinic.

He filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court against Small
Smiles dental clinic. The suit claims employees performed
unnecessary procedures on children to collect Medicaid.  The
class action suit is in addition to an existing lawsuit by the
attorney general.

Dozens of patients in Toledo have come forward saying their
children had several teeth removed for what they perceived as no
reason.  The parents claim they were not allowed in the room
where children got procedures and that they were threatened with
calls to child protection agencies.

Mr. Contrada says some of the children were in a lot of pain.
"We're trying to get monetary rewards for these parents," he
said.  "The kids were agonized, tied down.  Some came out crying,
and some fear seeing anyone in a white coat."

In a statement, the company responded only to the attorney
general's lawsuit.  It reads, "This comprehensive resolution
allows us to build on the improvements implemented since the
company was acquired in September 2006."  The company declined to
comment on this new class-action lawsuit.

For anyone who feels they have been victimized by the dental
clinic, Mr. Contrada suggests they contact him at:

          Charles V. Contrada, Esq.
          CONTRADA & ASSOCIATES
          6641 Sylvania Avenue, Suite 8
          Sylvania, Ohio 43560
          Telephone: (419) 841-4400
          E-mail: charlie@contrada.net

He says it is not too late to join the class action suit.


SONY OPTIARC: Tenth Optical Disc Drive Price-Fixing Suit Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Jane Garland, Laura Allen, V. Carlos Palmeri, M.D., and
Thomas Lewis, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated v. Sony Optiarc, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-01703
(N.D. Calif. Apr. 21, 2010), accuses the optical disc drive
distributor of conspiring to fix the price of optical disc drive
products sold in the United States, resulting to artificially
inflated prices of ODD products sold in the market.  

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Casey A. Hatton, Esq.
          WILKES & MCHUGH
          3780 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 220
          Long Beach, CA 90806
          Telephone: (562) 424-3003

Coverage of Slavin v. Sony Optiarc, Inc., et al., Case No.
10-cv-01291 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter
on Mon., Apr. 5, 2010; coverage of Herman v. Sony Corporation, et
al., Case No. 10-cv-01362 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class
Action Reporter on Tues., Apr. 6, 2010; coverage of Bay Area
Systems, LLC v. Sony Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01403
(N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Thurs.,
Apr. 8, 2010; coverage of Carney v. Sony Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-01406 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action
Reporter on Fri., Apr. 10, 2010; coverage of Tabatabai v. Sony
Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01450 (N.D. Calif.), appeared
in the Class Action Reporter on Monday, Apr. 12, 2010; coverage
of Wagner v. Sony Optiarc, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-01451
(N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Monday,
Apr. 12, 2010; coverage of Berezin v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al., Case
No. 10-cv-01533 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action
Reporter on Wed., Apr. 14, 2010, coverage of Friedson v. Sony
Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01574 (N.D. Calif.), appeared
in the Class Action Reporter on Mon., Apr. 19, 2010; and coverage
of The Stereo Shop v. Samsung Storage Technology Corp., et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-01603 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action
Reporter on Mon., Apr. 20, 2010.


SONY CORP: Eleventh Optical Disc Drive Price-Fixing Suit Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cullen Byrne, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Sony Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01722 (N.D. Calif.
Apr. 22, 2010), accuses the multinational conglomerate of
conspiring to fix the price of optical disc drive products sold
in the United States, resulting to inflated prices for optical
disc drive products in the market, in violation of state
antitrust and consumer protection laws.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William H. Parish, Esq.
          PARISH & SMALL
          1919 Grand Canal Blvd., Suite A-5
          Stockton, CA 95207
          Telephone: (209) 952-1992

Coverage of Slavin v. Sony Optiarc, Inc., et al., Case No.
10-cv-01291 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter
on Mon., Apr. 5, 2010; coverage of Herman v. Sony Corporation, et
al., Case No. 10-cv-01362 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class
Action Reporter on Tues., Apr. 6, 2010; coverage of Bay Area
Systems, LLC v. Sony Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01403
(N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Thurs.,
Apr. 8, 2010; coverage of Carney v. Sony Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-01406 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action
Reporter on Fri., Apr. 10, 2010; coverage of Tabatabai v. Sony
Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01450 (N.D. Calif.), appeared
in the Class Action Reporter on Monday, Apr. 12, 2010; coverage
of Wagner v. Sony Optiarc, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-01451
(N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Mon.,
Apr. 12, 2010; coverage of Berezin v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al., Case
No. 10-cv-01533 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action
Reporter on Wed., Apr. 14, 2010, coverage of Friedson v. Sony
Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01574 (N.D. Calif.), appeared
in the Class Action Reporter on Mon., Apr. 19, 2010; coverage of
The Stereo Shop v. Samsung Storage Technology Corp., et al., Case
No. 10-cv-01603 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action
Reporter on Mon., Apr. 20, 2010; and coverage of Garland, et al.
v. Sony Optiarc, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-01703 (N.D.
Calif.), appears in today's edition of the Class Action Reporter.


SONY OPTIARC: Twelfth Optical Disc Drive Price-Fixing Suit Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Daley, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Sony Optiarc, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-01727 (N.D. Calif.
Apr. 22, 2010), accuses the optical disc drive distributor of
conspiring to fix the price of optical disc drive products sold
in the United States, resulting to artificially inflated prices
for optical disc drive products sold in the market, in violation
of antitrust and consumer protection laws.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert J. Prata, Esq.
          Todd A. Daley, Esq.
          Cassandra J. Zappaterreno, Esq.
          PRATA & DALEY LLP
          515 South Figueroa St., Suite 1515
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 622-5600
          E-mail: rprata@pratadaley.com
                  tdaley@pratadaley.com
                  czappaterreno@pratadaley.com

Coverage of Slavin v. Sony Optiarc, Inc., et al., Case No.
10-cv-01291 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter
on Mon., Apr. 5, 2010; coverage of Herman v. Sony Corporation, et
al., Case No. 10-cv-01362 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class
Action Reporter on Tues., Apr. 6, 2010; coverage of Bay Area
Systems, LLC v. Sony Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01403
(N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Thurs.,
Apr. 8, 2010; coverage of Carney v. Sony Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 10-cv-01406 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action
Reporter on Fri., Apr. 10, 2010; coverage of Tabatabai v. Sony
Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01450 (N.D. Calif.), appeared
in the Class Action Reporter on Mon., Apr. 12, 2010; coverage
of Wagner v. Sony Optiarc, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-01451
(N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Mon.,
Apr. 12, 2010; coverage of Berezin v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al., Case
No. 10-cv-01533 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action
Reporter on Wed., Apr. 14, 2010, coverage of Friedson v. Sony
Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-01574 (N.D. Calif.), appeared
in the Class Action Reporter on Mon., Apr. 19, 2010; coverage of
The Stereo Shop v. Samsung Storage Technology Corp., et al., Case
No. 10-cv-01603 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action
Reporter on Mon., Apr. 20, 2010; and coverage of Garland, et al.
v. Sony Optiarc, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-01703 (N.D.
Calif.), and Byrne v. Sony Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-
01722 (N.D. Calif.), appear in today's edition of the Class
Action Reporter.


SPRINT: Hearing in 11-Year-Old Madison County Suit Set for Today
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood at The Madison County Record reports that an eleven
year-old national class action case against Sprint is set for
case management April 28 before Madison County Circuit Judge
David Hylla.

Proceedings in the case have been stayed twice since April 2009
as the Madison County court awaits word on a move for joint
approval of the case's settlement.

According to the case files, attorneys for the at least 400,000-
member nationwide class and Sprint reached 48 separate settlement
agreements in 2008.

They moved in Massachusetts' court to approve the agreements
jointly. As of October 2009, that final approval had not been
granted and the Madison County case remained stayed.

In an order from February 2010, Hylla wrote that the parties have
informed him that appellate actions in the case are under way,
although the order is unclear as to where and what those actions
are.

The class action, encompassing 21 states, is over Sprint's
allegedly improper installation of telecommunications lines in
railway easements that exceed the rights of the easements.

The case had originally been assigned to then-Madison County
Circuit Judge Phillip Kardis.

Sprint is represented by Gordon Broom, Troy Bozarth and others.

Lead plaintiff in the case, Ronald Poor, is represented by
Elizabeth Heller.

The other lead plaintiffs, Kenneth House and Willaredt Acres
Inc., are represented by David Antognoli.

Amended plaintiffs Gail and Sallie Shore were dismissed from the
case.

An intervenor in the case, John Issacs of Parke County, Ind., is
represented by Heller.

The case is Madison case number 1999-L-421.


SRS CONSTRUCTION: Diversion of Trust Funds Alleged in N.Y. Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Benco Interiors Inc., on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated v. SRS Construction Services, Inc., Case No. 601013/2010
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. Apr. 20, 2010), asserts breach of
agreement and Article 3A of the Lien Law of the State of New
York.

Benco says it supplied materials and performed interior
construction work for SRS at various locations in exchange for
monetary consideration, and that the work was completed by it and
approved and accepted by SRS and the project owners without
objection.  Benco relates that despite demands for payment, SRS
has not paid the balance of $112,785 due and owing to it for
labor and materials installed at the projects.

Benco further alleges that SRS has received monies from the
project owners in payment for the performance by SRS of its
contracts and that SRS has diverted trust funds received by it as
trustee for purposes other than those permitted under Article 3A
of the Lien Law of the State of New York.

Benco is bringing this complaint on behalf of itself and other
trust fund beneficiaries of Lien Law trusts of which SRS is a
trustee, as a class action under Civil Practice Law Rules Sec.
901, et seq., because Section 77 of the Lien Law of the State of
New York requires it.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael M. Rabinowitz, Esq.
          RABINOWITZ & GALINA
          94 Willis Avenue
          Mineola, NY 11501
          Telephone: (516) 739-8222


T&S PLASTERING: Construction Worker Sues for Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Clark at KCBD-TV reports that a Lubbock, Tex., man has
filed a class action lawsuit against a Wolfforth, Tex., company
called T&S Plastering.  Robert Johnson claims that he and other
employees were not paid properly for overtime, which he claims is
a violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

The lawsuit says in part, "Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff one
and a half times the regular rate of pay for the hours that he
worked over 40 hours per week."  

Mr. Johnson is suing on behalf of himself and "on behalf of all
others similarly situated."  T&S Plastering has not yet filed
their side of the story in court records.


TRENDSET ORIGINALS: Recalls 2,400 Girls' Hooded Jackets
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Trendset Originals LLC, of New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary
recall of about 2,400 Girls' hooded jackets.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The hooded jackets have a drawstring through the hood that can
pose a strangulation hazard to children.  The sweater jackets
have a drawstring through the waist that can pose an entanglement
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 on the neck and waist drawstrings in upper garments,
such as jackets and sweatshirts.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves two styles of girls' jackets.  The Shampoo
brand jackets are denim with a pink hood and sleeves, and were
sold in sizes 5/6, 7/8, 10/12 and 14/16.  The Marci & Me brand
sweater jackets are black or tan and were sold in sizes 7/8,
10/12 and 14/16.  The tag at the neck reads "Shampoo" or "Marci &
Me."  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10201.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and Bangladesh
and sold through Burlington Coat Factory stores nationwide from
September 2007 through September 2009 for between $11 and $13.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the
jackets to eliminate the hazard.  Consumers can also return the
jackets to any Burlington Coat Factory store for a full refund.
For additional information, contact Trendset Originals at (800)
908-8308 between 9:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.trendsetny.com/


TROPICAL BEDDING: Recalls 15,000 Mattress Sets
----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Tropical Bedding Mfg., of Caguas, Puerto Rico, announced a
voluntary recall of about 15,000 Mattress Sets (Mattresses and
Mattresses with Foundations).  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The mattress sets fail to meet mandatory federal open flame
standard and pose a fire hazard to consumers.  

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves crib and bunkie mattresses and mattress sets
(mattresses and mattresses with foundations) in sizes twin, full,
queen and king.  The crib and bunkie mattresses do not have any
labels.  The other mattresses have "Classics," "Classics II,"
"Imagine," "Sweet Mysteries," "Treasures," or "Comfort Dream"
printed on a label located at the top of the foot of the
mattress. The "Classics" model manufactured between August 2008
and April 2009 is not included in this recall.  This model has a
federal label attached that includes the date of manufacture and
"Classics."  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10200.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Puerto Rico and sold
through city Mattress and furniture stores in Puerto Rico from
July 2007 through September 2009 for between $30 and $135.

Consumers should stop using the mattresses immediately and return
them to Tropical Bedding Mfg. for a refund.  For additional
information, contact Carmen Martinez at (787) 586-1139 between
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.


UNITED STATES: E.D. Tenn. Lawsuit Says Obamacare Unconstitutional
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shreeve v. Obama, Case No. 10-cv-00071 (E.D. Tenn.), alleges that
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. Law 111-148,
referred to in the lawsuit as Obamacare) is unconstitutional and
unenforceable.  Mr. Shreeve asserts that enactment of this
legislation was an abuse of authority by the legislative and
executive branches, violates the 10th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, and is a breach of duties contained in the oaths of
office to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution taken by
President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

     http://www.obamacareclassaction.com/obamacare-complaint.pdf

Mr. Irion is soliciting additional plaintiffs at his case-
specific Web site, and says he'll make a decision by early-August
about whether to amend the lawsuit to make it a class action
proceeding.  

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Van R. Irion, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CAN R. IRION, PLLC
          9040 Executive Park Drive, Suite 223
          Knoxville, TN 37923

Mr. Irion is currently running for Congress, hoping to capture
the House seat representing the Third Congressional District in
Tennessee currently occupied by Zach Wamp, who was one of the 212
Representatives voting against the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act.  


VATICAN: Targeted, with Pope, in Suit Filed in Milwaukee, Wis.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tresa Baldas at The National Law Journal reports that a  lawsuit
now accuses the pope himself of wrongdoing.  A federal suit,
filed last week in Milwaukee, Wis., alleges that Pope Benedict
XVI and senior Vatican officials covered up allegations that a
Wisconsin priest molested at least 200 children at a school for
the deaf in suburban Milwaukee.

The lawsuit contends that the Rev. Lawrence Murphy, while
teaching at St. John's School for the Deaf from 1950 to 1974,
sexually abused about 200 boys at the school. The alleged abuse
included incidents in the confessional, where Murphy allegedly
solicited sex from the students. Murphy died in 1998.

The lead plaintiff, identified in court papers as John Doe 16 of
Illinois, contends that he was abused over a number of years,
that he wrote two letters to Vatican officials in 1995 reporting
the abuse, and that nothing was done.

The plaintiff's lawyer, Jeff Anderson, said, "He implored the
cardinal to read the letter to the pope and to take action, and
it fell on silent and deaf ears."

Anderson of Jeff Anderson & Associates in St. Paul, Minn., is
seeking injunctive relief, hoping to force the Vatican to open
what he claims are confidential files that contain details of
priest abuse allegations and monetary settlements. He is also
seeking unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial.

"We are attempting to pierce a fortress, a sovereign state, that
demands and requires absolute secrecy, putting the reputation of
the clergy and the Catholic Church above the well-being of the
kids," said Anderson, who recently told The Washington Post that
he's filed more than 1,500 lawsuits against the church during his
career.

Anderson said he is trying to hold the pope accountable because,
as he sees it, "the pope's in charge." He said, "The pope is the
guy who is demanding these [secrecy] protocols. The pope is the
guy who is ultimately responsible for this and has to be held
accountable."

The Vatican had no comment on the lawsuit.

Anderson admitted he's facing an "enormous legal challenge" --
the state of the Vatican City can claim sovereign immunity. But
he said he could overcome that defense with two legal arguments.

Under a tort exception, he plans to argue that because the
Catholic Church allegedly engaged in systematic activity that
injured a large number of people in the United States, it
subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the United States and can
be held liable here.

Under a commercial activity exception, he plans to argue that the
Catholic Church is a massive business organization, commercially
present in the United States, and therefore not immune from
litigation.

The defendants are the pope, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Cardinal
Angelo Sodano and the Vatican City. Bertone was deputy to
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope, at the time of the
allegedly inadequate investigation in the mid-1990s.

The lawsuit claims that Ratzinger, Bertone and Sodano all knew
about the allegations against Murphy, but kept them secret.


WELLS FARGO: Overdraft Fee Trial Underway in N.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
Dan Levine at The Recorder reports that banks routinely process
their customers' debit card purchases to maximize overdraft fees
is an allegation that's sure to make a juror's blood boil.

But it will be up to U.S. District Judge William Alsup to decide
a California class action accusing Wells Fargo of the practice.
The bank is squaring off in a bench trial that started Monday
against lawyers from Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, and
plaintiff damages estimates top $300 million.

The trial holds added significance because of a much larger
multidistrict class action against multiple banks in Florida.
Because the San Francisco case was close enough to trial when the
Florida case hit the docket, it was allowed to remain before
Alsup. And while lawyers on both sides of the Florida class
action stress important differences between the two matters,
they'll still be paying attention.

The lead plaintiff lawyer in the Florida case, Miami-based Robert
Gilbert of Alters Boldt Brown Rash & Culmo, will be in San
Francisco to attend the trial.  

"The outcome of the trial is going to send somewhat of a wake-up
call to everyone, on both sides," he said.

Alsup certified a class of plaintiffs who allege Wells Fargo
manipulated their debit charges. Instead of posting each
transaction chronologically, the bank deducted their largest
charges first, they say, thus drawing down their available
balances much more rapidly. Once the money was gone, each
subsequent debit would incur its own overdraft fee.

After multiple rounds of summary judgment motions, though, the
most substantial remaining claim is a state law unfair business
practices count. That doesn't carry a jury trial requirement.

Settlement negotiations before U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero
did not pan out, and lawyers for both sides told Alsup on Monday
that further negotiation would be fruitless. Richard Heimann is
leading the Lieff Cabraser team, along with Barry Himmelstein,
who declined to comment. They are also part of the plaintiffs'
executive committee in the Florida litigation.

San Francisco-based Covington & Burling partner Sonya Winner
represents Wells Fargo in both cases. She declined to comment on
the strategic interplay between them.

The multidistrict class action involves many more claims than the
California one, said Laurence Hutt, a Los Angeles-based Arnold &
Porter partner who represents Bank of America in the Florida
case. The record is also much less developed, as discovery has
not yet begun, he said.

Plus, each bank differs in terms of what disclosures they made to
their customers when opening their accounts, Hutt said, which
could place each defendant in markedly different postures.

"For all those reasons, is there a ripple effect [from the San
Francisco case]? Well, sure," he said. "Is it going to control
things one way or another? It's too soon to know."

Last September, Chase said it would begin processing debit
transactions in the order received, rather than reordering them
by size. And last month, Bank of America said it would no longer
charge overdraft fees on debit transactions.

Plaintiffs in San Francisco submitted an expert report with
several different damages scenarios, ranging from about $69
million to $351 million.  

The trial is expected to last around two weeks.

                            *********

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  * * *