CAR_Public/100503.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Monday, May 3, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 85

                            Headlines

200 WEST 15TH: Accused of Violating Rent Stabilization Law
ACTIVISION: Employees Sue Game Publisher for Unpaid Royalties
BANK OF AMERICA: Accused in N.Y. Suit of Racial Discrimination
BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL: Recalls 1,500 BRP Ski-Doo Snowmobiles
CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE: Accused of Violating N.M. Children's Code

CITY OF LOS ANGELES: Accused of Overcharging Victims of Crime
CLARK-REED CO: Plaintiff Takes Last Stab at Relacore Class Action
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH: Breach of Employment Contracts Alleged
CORNELL COS: Being Sold for Too Little, Texas Suit Claims
DISCOUNT SCHOOL: Recalls 3,000 Double Egg Shakers

GENE WHEELER: Charged With Labor Code Violations
GENERAL MOTORS: Accused of Underpaying Service Contract Refunds
GOGO SPORTS: Recalls 2,400 Children's Hooded Sweatshirts
HERB THYME: Accused in California Suit of Fraud
ICON HEALTH: Recalls 33,000 Inversion Benches Due to Fall Hazard

JO-ANN STORES: To Pay $50,000 Penalty for Lead Paint Ban Violation
MERRILL LYNCH: Motion to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint Pending
MERRILL LYNCH: Plaintiffs in Two Suits Appeal Dismissal Ruling
MERRILL LYNCH: "DeBlasio" Plaintiffs Withdraw Plan to Appeal
MERRILL LYNCH: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending

MERRILL LYNCH: Defends Suit by Iron Workers in New York
MERRILL LYNCH: Faces "Dornfest" Lawsuit in New York
MERRILL LYNCH: MLPF&S Dismissed as Defendant in "Newby" Suit
MERRILL LYNCH: Court Okays Summary Judgment for Plaintiffs
MERRILL LYNCH: "Tipsword" Suit Against MLPF&S Remains Stayed

MERRILL LYNCH: Wants Clancy-Gernon Consolidated with Tipsword
MERRILL LYNCH: BofA's Motion to Dismiss Complaint Still Pending
MERRILL LYNCH: Motion to Dismiss "Lehman" Litigation Pending
MERRILL LYNCH: Court Okays Settlement in "Louisiana Sheriffs'"
MERRILL LYNCH: Motion to Dismiss MBS-Related Suit Still Pending

NOVELL INC: Notices of Appeal Filed on Settlement Final Approval
OCEAN MANAGEMENT: Recalls 20,000 Buoyancy Compensators
OHIO EDUCATION: Settles Retiree Healthcare Lawsuit for $3.75 Mil.
ROSETTA STONE: Accused in Calif. Suit of Not Paying Overtime
SONY COMPUTER: PlayStation 3 Owner Sues for OS Option Removal

TRANSITIONS OPTICAL: Accused in Wash. of Anticompetitive Conduct
VIVENDI SA: Paris Appeals Court Won't Block French Participation
WALLDESIGN INCORPORATED: Labor Code Violations Alleged

                            *********

200 WEST 15TH: Accused of Violating Rent Stabilization Law
----------------------------------------------------------
Eric De Hoff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. 200 West 15th L.L.C., Case No. 650333/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New
York Cty. Apr. 26, 2010), accuses the owner of the apartment
building located at 215 West 15th Street in New York City of
improperly and unlawfully charging its tenants market rate rents
for its rental units far in excess of present rent stabilization
levels, while at the same time pocketing huge sums in New York
City tax benefits that are expressly conditioned on maintaining
the apartments as rent stabilized, in violation of the Rent
Stabilization Law.  Mr. De Hoff says that the landlord has been
receiving real estate tax benefits under New York City's J-51
property tax abatement and exemption program (for rehabilitation
work to the building) for roughly the past six years.  Mr. De
Hoff is seeking money damages and attorneys' fees for the rent
overcharges.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William C. Rand, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND
          228 East 45th Street, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 286-1425    
          E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com    

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          E-mail: NYJG@aol.com


ACTIVISION: Employees Sue Game Publisher for Unpaid Royalties
-------------------------------------------------------------
AttackOfTheFanBoy.com reports that publishing giant Activision
has been slapped with a class action lawsuit brought forth by
Infinity Ward employees and ex-employees, calling for an upwards
of $500 million in unpaid royalties and punitive damages.  A
total of 38 plaintiffs are involved in the suit, collectively
referring to themselves as the "Infinity Ward Employee Group."

The suit alleges that Activision purposely withheld royalties "in
an attempt to force employees of Infinity Ward to continue to
work at a job that many of them did not want just so Activision
could force them to complete the development, production and
delivery of Modern Warfare 3."

Specifically, the suit seeks to recover between $75 million and
$125 million in compensatory damages.  That comes on top of $75
million to $500 million in punitive damages, bringing the grand
total of damages and entitled bonuses sought to over half a
billion.  That figure, of course, represents a best and worst
case scenario for the plaintiffs and Activision respectively.


BANK OF AMERICA: Accused in N.Y. Suit of Racial Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action accuses Bank
of America of racial discrimination in its Global Commercial
Banking Group, in Manhattan Federal Court.

The Plaintiffs in Donaldson, et al. v. Bank of America Corp., et
al., Case No. 10-cv-03506 (S.D.N.Y.) (Stein, J.), are represented
by:

          Douglas H. Wigdor, Esq.
          THOMPSON WIGDOR AND GILLY
          85 Fifth Avenue, 5th floor
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: 212-257-6800
          E-mail: dwigdor@twglaw.com


BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL: Recalls 1,500 BRP Ski-Doo Snowmobiles
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc., of Quebec, Canada and BRP
Finland Oy, of Finland, announced a voluntary recall of about
1,500 BRP Ski-Doo snowmobiles.  Consumers should stop using the
product immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The drive pulley bolts on the snowmobiles can break due to oil
contamination during the assembly process.  This can cause debris
to come off the vehicle and act as projectiles, posing a
laceration hazard to riders or bystanders.

BRP has received three reports of projectiles flying off of the
snowmobiles, including one report of a minor foot injury.

The recall involves Ski-Doo model year 2009-2010 SKANDIC SWT V-
800 and model year 2010 GSX 1200, GTX 1200, MXZ 1200, and
Renegade 1200 Snowmobiles.  The model name and number are
displayed on the engine compartment and the serial number is on
the right side of the vehicle below the seat on the frame.  
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10732.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Canada and Finland and
sold through Ski-Doo dealerships nationwide from July 2008
through February 2010 for between $8,000 and $9,000.

Consumers should stop using these snowmobiles immediately and
contact their local Ski-Doo snowmobile dealer to schedule a free
repair.  All known owners of the recalled snowmobiles have been
directly notified about this recall by mail.  For additional
information, call BRP at (800) 366-6992 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.brp.com/


CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE: Accused of Violating N.M. Children's Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims
Albuquerque Police violate a state law that prohibits placing a
child younger than 11 in adult handcuffs.  It also accuses
Albuquerque of battering a 10-year-old girl, in Bernalillo County
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in C.G. v. The City of Albuquerque, et
al., Case No. 201005252 (N.M. Dist. Ct., Bernalillo Cty.)
(Butkus, J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/28/CivRts.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph P. Kennedy, Esq.
          Shannon Kennedy, Esq.
          THE KENNEDY LAW FIRM
          1000 Second St. NW
          Albuquerque, NM 87102


CITY OF LOS ANGELES: Accused of Overcharging Victims of Crime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mira Spajic, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. BC436233 (Calif. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 20, 2010), accuses the City of Los
Angeles and its Chief of Police Charles Beck of violating the
California Public Records Act Government Code Sec. 6253 by
charging crime victims, other than victims of domestic violence,
a flat administrative fee of $23.00 for copies of crime reports,
even though by statute, as a public agency, the L.A.P.D. can only
charge direct costs, and not indirect costs, of document
duplication.  As evidence of this unlawful practice, Ms. Spajic
relates that the City required crime victims to pay the same rate
regardless of the size of the report, and that because they were
so harmed, are entitled to receive compensatory damages,
including attorneys' fees.

The Plaintiff demands a jury trial and is represented by:

          Mike Arias, Esq.
          Mark A. Ozzello, Esq.
          Mikael H. Stahle, Esq.
          ARIAS OZZELLO & GIGNAC LLP
          6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90045-1558
          Telephone: (310) 670-1600

               - and -

          Eugene Feldman, Esq.
          EUGENE FELDMAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW, APC
          555 Pier Ave., Suite 4
          Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
          Telephone: (310) 372-4636

               - and -

          Steven S. Derelian, Esq.
          RUSSAKOW, RYAN & JOHNSON
          225 South Lake Ave., 10th Floor
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 683-8869


CLARK-REED CO: Plaintiff Takes Last Stab at Relacore Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Booth at the New Jersey Law Journal reports that a lawyer
for dissatisfied users of the dietary supplement Relacore took
his third and probably final shot Tuesday at getting class action
treatment for the suit, which alleges the manufacturer made false
claims about the drug's effectiveness in cutting belly fat and
stress.

Two lower New Jersey courts have held that there are too many
possible variables to satisfy the class action requirement that
questions of law or fact common to the class predominate over
questions affecting only individual members.

But plaintiffs lawyer Jeffrey Carton told the state Supreme Court
that both courts were wrong: that the common variable is
manufacturer Carter-Reed Co.'s fraud on consumers. "These people
spent their hard-earned money on a worthless product, thanks to a
slick mass media advertising campaign," said Carton, of White
Plains, N.J.'s Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz.

The suit, Lee v. Carter-Reed Co., A-38-09, seeks certification of
a class comprised of all New Jersey residents who bought Relacore
since it came to market in 2002.

The marketing campaign for Relacore varied over time. Some
advertisements claimed the drug could reduce belly fat while
others touted its ability to reduce stress, enhance mood or fight
metabolic syndrome.

Lead plaintiff Melissa Lee alleges she bought Relacore in April
2004 after seeing an ad that claimed it would reduce belly fat,
but after using it for 90 days, at $39.99 for each month's
supply, her waistline actually increased.

Her complaint, filed in Union County, N.J., in 2004, includes
claims under the Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to -166, and
common law claims for fraud, unjust enrichment and breach of
express and implied warranty.

Superior Court Judge Katherine Dupuis denied certification after
identifying 14 individual factors that would necessitate an
evidentiary hearing for each class member on the fraud claims.

Those factors included the reason for buying Relacore, which
advertisements induced the purchase, whether buyers were
influenced by a personal recommendation, how the buyers'
underlying health might have affected the product's efficacy, how
much they paid and whether they sought or obtained a refund.

Relacore users might have bought the product for different
reasons and been disappointed in different ways by its alleged
failure to measure up to the advertised promises, Dupuis said.

She identified additional issues on the other claims, such as
whether class members received any benefit, on the unjust
enrichment claim, and whether timely notice to the seller was
provided, on the express warranty.

Appellate Division Judges Mary Catherine Cuff, Clarkson Fisher
Jr. and Linda Baxter affirmed Dupuis' ruling, though
acknowledging that the relatively small losses suffered by class
members, roughly $40 to $120, made it unlikely they would sue
individually.

On Tuesday, Carton said the court should reject the trial and
appeals judges' concerns about the manageability of the case.
"The lower courts have turned their backs on Ms. Lee and the
others," he said. "Without the [class action] remedy the Consumer
Fraud Act affords, these wrongs might go unvindicated."

Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto said there was no way to tell why
individual members of the putative class bought the drug because
of the varied reasons for which it was marketed.

Carton stated again that all of the claims boil down to one
central allegation -- fraudulent advertising for a product that
did nothing that was advertised.

"Not one of the defendants offered any testimony that the product
actually worked," he said. "Class action is the superior
mechanism for this type of action."

Carter-Reed's lawyer, Gary Bendinger, told the court it should
not bend the rules for granting class status.

"Plaintiff conceded below that two essential elements, causal
nexus and loss, could not be proven class-wide," said Bendinger,
of Howrey in New York.

Relacore, he said, had "multi-faceted purposes" that make it
impossible for there to be one class of plaintiffs with a common
complaint.

"Plaintiff is asking . . . for a presumption to be substituted
for causal nexus and loss," said Bendinger. Nothing in the CFA
... permits an expedient presumption," he said.

Justice Barry Albin said that if people are taken in by an
"unconscionable" ad campaign that violated the CFA, they are
entitled to compensation.

That would be the case only if everyone in the case took the
product for the same reason, Bendinger said.

Rivera-Soto asked what remedies the plaintiffs would have,
considering that their individual financial losses make it
unlikely that they would go to court individually.

"You have the Attorney General, the [Federal Trade Commission],"
Bendinger said. "There are other government agencies whose
responsibility it is to protect consumers from deceptive
advertising."

"So you're better off having multiple misrepresentations. Would
that be right?" asked Chief Justice Stuart Rabner.

"Companies are allowed to market their products as they see fit,"
Bendinger replied.


COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH: Breach of Employment Contracts Alleged
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Richard, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Comprehensive Health Management, Inc., Case No. 2010-L-004885  
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. Apr. 26, 2010), accuses the WellCare
Health Plans, Inc., subsidiary of breaching its contracts of
employment by placing him and other agents-in-training on
furlough and not calling them back to work after the furlough
period.  He says that, while still in training, he learned that
Comprehensive was under investigation by Central Management
Services, Inc., a branch of the federal government, and a branch
of the Social Security Administration.  Later CMS directed
Comprehensive to suspend enrollments in Medicare health plans by
March 7, 2009.  On that date, Mr. Richard says, Comprehensive
informed him and other agents-in-training that they had been
placed on involuntary, unpaid furlough.  In compliance with the
furlough agreement he did not sell any Medicare health plans
during the furlough or work for any of Comprehensive's
competitors.  When he returned to Comprehensive in November 2009,
he was told that none of the agents-in-training were being called
back to work.  Mr. Richard and the other plaintiffs seek breach
of contract damages and all consequential and punitive damages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Steven Platt, Esq.
          ARNOLD AND KADJAN
          19 W. Jackson, 3rd Flr.
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 236-0415
          E-mail: Lsplatt@arnoldandkadjan.com


CORNELL COS: Being Sold for Too Little, Texas Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Cornell Cos. are selling
themselves too cheaply to The GEO Group, for 1.3 GEO share for
each Cornell share, or 1 GEO share plus $6 per Cornell share, a
$685 million deal, shareholders say in Harris County Court,
Houston.

A copy of the Complaint in Shelby v. Cornell Companies, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2010-26261 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Harris Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/28/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael P. Ridulfo, Esq.
          Angela Offerman, Esq.
          BROWN MCCARROLL, L.L.P.
          1111 Bagby, 47th Floor
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: 713-529-3100

               - and -

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: 610-667-6200


DISCOUNT SCHOOL: Recalls 3,000 Double Egg Shakers
-------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Discount School Supply, of Monterey, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 3,000 Double Egg Shakers.  Consumers
should stop using the product immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

Surface paint on the red eggs contains excessive levels of lead,
violating the federal lead paint standard.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves egg shakers sold in packages of two.  The
words "Double Eggs" and "Breeded to produce great sound" are
printed on the front of the package.  Only the red eggs are
subject to the violation of the lead paint standard.  A Picture
of the recalled product is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10731.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold
through discount School Supply stores nationwide from April 2009
through December 2009 for about $3.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled eggs away from
children and contact Discount School Supply for a purchase
credit. For more information, contact Discount School Supply at
(800) 606-3807 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Pacific Time,
Monday though Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.discountschoolsupply.com/


GENE WHEELER: Charged With Labor Code Violations
------------------------------------------------
Galdino Valencia Diaz, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Gene Wheeler Farms, Inc., Case No. BC436235 (Calif.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty. Apr. 20, 2010), accuses the
agricultural supplier of failing to pay wages for all hours
worked, improper payment of overtime and double time wages,
failing to provide meal and rest break premium wages, not  
providing accurate wage statements, and failing to timely pay
final wages, in violation of the Labor Code and the Bus. & Prof.
Code.  Mr. Diaz worked as an hourly, non-exempt employee for Gene
Wheeler and is no longer an employee of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Jose M. Cristobal, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8383 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 840
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (323) 653-0086


GENERAL MOTORS: Accused of Underpaying Service Contract Refunds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Massey at The Southeast Texas Record reports that with
alleged claims likely to top more than $5 million, a recent class
action accuses General Motors of underpaying the prorated refunds
of cancelled extended warranty plans.

As class representative, Jimmy Hendon filed a lawsuit against
General Motors Co. and General Motors LLC on April 21 in the
Beaumont Division of the Eastern District of Texas.

The plaintiff states that he purchased a new 2006 Chevy Avalanche
on Aug. 21, 2006, which came with the GM standard 36 month,
36,000 mile factory warranty.

At the time of purchase, he also bought a GM Major Guard Vehicle
Service Contract, which extended the standard factory warranty an
additional 12 months and 44,000 miles.

Hendon canceled the contract in June 2009 with 18,483 miles
remaining on the warranty.

According to the complaint, GM calculated his refund by taking
the remaining miles divided by the 80,000 total miles, resulting
in a $295 refund. Hendon claims GM should have calculated his
refund by dividing his remaining miles by the 44,000-mile
extension, resulting in a $580 refund.

The lawsuit argues that GM is improperly calculating the prorated
cancellation refunds by dividing the remaining miles or days by
the total number of miles or days in the factory warranty, plus
the extension.

The suit claims GM should be prorating the canceled refund by
dividing the remaining miles or days by the number of miles or
days that the service contract extended the factory warranty.

Class members are owners, lessees and/or operators of GM
vehicles, who have purchased, then canceled extended warranty
plans from GM.

The plaintiff claims the defendant breached its contractual
obligation by improper calculation of the prorated refund and by
underpaying the class members.

The class action is asking for damages for the underpayment, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest, attorney's fees, interest
and costs.

Houston attorneys Michael A. Caddell, Cynthia B. Chapman and Cory
S. Fein of Caddell & Chapman PC and Beaumont attorney Mitchell A.
Toups of Weller, Green, Toups & Terrell LLP are representing the
plaintiff in Hendon v. General Motors, Case No. 10-cv-00227 (E.D.
Tex.) (Heartfield, J.).


GOGO SPORTS: Recalls 2,400 Children's Hooded Sweatshirts
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Gogo Sports Inc., of San Francisco, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 2,400 Children's hooded sweatshirts with
drawstrings.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The sweatshirts have a drawstring through the hood that can pose
a strangulation hazard to children.  In February 1996, CPSC
issued guidelines 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 three styles of children hooded sweatshirts
with drawstrings.  The zippered sweatshirts were sold in sizes XS
through 3XL.  The HAY style sweatshirts were sold in black, navy,
light grey, charcoal grey and pink.  The HKK style sweatshirts
were sold in black, navy, light blue, light grey, pink and red.
The JMK sweatshirts are reversible microfiber with polar fleece
lining and a removable hood with elastic or retractable
drawstrings.  Style JMK was sold in black only. The sweatshirts
have sewn-in neck tag that reads "Gogo Sports" and city names
printed across the front of the garment.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10209.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
clothing retail stores in California, Colorado, Hawaii and New
Mexico from January 2008 through December 2009 for between $14
and $27.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstring from the
sweatshirts to eliminate the hazard.  For additional information,
contact Gogo Sports toll-free at (877) 785-1915 between 9:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.gogofleece.com/


HERB THYME: Accused in California Suit of Fraud
-----------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Banicki at Courthouse News Service reports that
California's largest herb merchant, HerbThyme Farms, "played
California consumers for fools," by selling conventionally grown
herbs as organic at bumped-up prices, a class action claims in
Superior Court.

Named plaintiff Michelle Quesada says HerbThyme Farms is the
largest grower, shipper and marketer of herbs in California.

"But that wasn't enough.  So when HerbThyme's profits grew at a
slower rate than the company wanted, it turned to fraud,"
according to the complaint.

Compton-based HerbThyme took advantage of the organic foods
movement when it "slapped higher price tags on its products, and
turned a tidy -- albeit illicit -- profit" for conventionally
grown herbs it labeled as "Fresh Organic," the complaint states.

HerbThyme owns a number of large farms where it grows produce
conventionally, and a much smaller organic farm, according to the
complaint.  It distributes to grocery stores across the country.

The class seeks restitution, damages and an injunction, alleging
unjust enrichment, fraud and violations of the California
business and consumer laws.

The case is Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc., et al., Case No.
BC436557 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.).

The Plaintiffs is represented by:

          Raymond P. Boucher, Esq.
          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          Michael C. Eyerly, Esq.
          KIESEL BUCHER LARSON, LLP
          8648 Wilshire Blvd.
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Telephone: 310-854-4444
          E-mail: boucher@kbla.com
                  kiesel@kbla.com
                  eyerly@kbla.com

               - and -

          Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
          WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC
          1540 Broadway, 37th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: 212-447-7070
          E-mail: ekallas@wdklaw.com

               - and -

          Neville Johnson, Esq.
          JOHNSON & JOHNSON LLP
          439 N. Canon Dr., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: 310-975-1080
          E-mail: njohnson@jjllplaw.com


ICON HEALTH: Recalls 33,000 Inversion Benches Due to Fall Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
ICON Health & Fitness Inc., of Logan, Utah, announced a voluntary
recall of about 33,000 Nordic Track Revitalize, Gold's Gym, and
Weider Club Inversion Benches.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The ankle clamp can release unexpectedly or the strap used to
limit rotation can break, posing a fall hazard to consumers.

ICON Health & Fitness has received 75 reports of incidents
involving the strap breaking or the ankle clamp releasing,
including 23 injuries, some of which were to the head and neck.

This recall involves the Nordic Track Revitalize Inversion Bench
2.0 model 831.14895.0, Gold's Gym Inversion System models
GGBE0867.0 and GGCCBE0867.0 and Weider Club Inversion System
model WEBE0878.0.  The model number is located under the backrest
of the bench.  The inversion systems consist of a frame with a
backrest, headrest and leg clamp assembly.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10210.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
sporting good stores, Walmart, Sears and other retailers
nationwide from April 2008 through February 2009 for between $200
and $300.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled inversion
benches and contact Icon Health & Fitness for a free repair kit.  
For additional information, contact ICON Health & Fitness toll-
free at (866) 506-9095 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Mountain
Time, Monday through Friday, or visit the company's website at
http://www.iconfitness.com/


JO-ANN STORES: To Pay $50,000 Penalty for Lead Paint Ban Violation
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced that Jo-Ann
Stores Inc., of Hudson, Ohio, has agreed to pay a $50,000 civil
penalty for allegedly importing and selling children's products
that violated the federal lead paint ban.

The penalty settlement, which has been provisionally accepted by
the Commission, resolves CPSC staff allegations that Jo-Ann
Stores knowingly imported and sold Robbie Ducky(TM) children's
products that contained lead paint in excess of the federal
government's regulatory limit from January through November 2007.  
At the time of the violations, the federal limit on lead in paint
was 600 ppm (0.06 percent).

As a result of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of
2008, the regulatory limit on lead in paint and surface coatings
was reduced in August 2009 from 600 ppm (0.06 percent) to 90 ppm
(.009 percent).

These Robbie Ducky(TM) children's products allegedly violated the
federal lead paint ban and were later recalled by Jo-Ann Stores:

    * Robbie Ducky(TM) children's watering cans-6,000 recalled on
      August 28, 2007

    * Robbie Ducky(TM) children's toy rakes-16,000 recalled on
      September 26, 2007

    * Robbie Ducky(TM) children's toy rakes-An additional 97,000
      toy rakes were recalled on October 25, 2007

    * Robbie Ducky(TM) holiday water globes-60 recalled on
      December 13, 2007

In agreeing to the settlement, Jo-Ann Stores denies CPSC's
allegations that it violated federal law.


MERRILL LYNCH: Motion to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.'s motion to dismiss a second amended
consolidated complaint relating to its auction rate securities,
remains pending.

On March 25, 2008, a putative class action, Burton v. Merrill
Lynch & Co., Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York against ML & Co. and
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. (MLPF&S), on behalf of
persons who purchased and continue to hold ARS offered for sale
by MLPF&S between March 25, 2003 and Feb. 13, 2008.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that MLPF&S failed to
disclose material facts about ARS.

A similar action, captioned Stanton v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.,
et al., was filed the next day in the same court.

On Oct. 31, 2008, the two cases were consolidated under the
caption In Re Merrill Lynch Auction Rate Securities Litigation,
and on Dec. 10, 2008, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class
action amended complaint.

Plaintiffs seek to recover alleged losses in the market value of
ARS allegedly caused by the decision of Merrill Lynch to
discontinue supporting auctions for the ARS.

On Feb. 27, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

On May 22, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
consolidated complaint.

On July 24, 2009, Merrill Lynch filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended consolidated complaint.

No further updates were reported in the company's March 11, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provide
investment, financing, insurance, and related services to
individuals and institutions on a global basis through its
broker, dealer, banking and other financial services
subsidiaries.


MERRILL LYNCH: Plaintiffs in Two Suits Appeal Dismissal Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in two purported class actions where Merrill Lynch &
Co. Inc., is a defendant, are appealing the ruling of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissing
the cases, according to the company's March 11, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Sept. 4, 2008, plaintiffs filed two purported class actions
under the antitrust laws against over a dozen defendants,
including Merrill Lynch.

The two class actions are:

     (1) Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Maryland v.
         Citigroup, Inc., et al.; and

     (2) Russell Mayfield, et al. v. Citigroup, Inc., et al.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants colluded in connection with
their ARS practices.

The plaintiffs in City Council of Baltimore seek to represent a
class of issuers of auction rate securities (ARS) underwritten by
the defendants between May 12, 2003 and Feb. 13, 2008, who seek
to recover the alleged above-market interest payments they claim
they were forced to make when Merrill Lynch and others allegedly
discontinued supporting ARS.  The plaintiffs who also purchased
ARS also seek to recover claimed losses in the market value of
those securities allegedly caused by the decision of the
financial institutions to discontinue supporting auctions for the
securities.  These plaintiffs seek treble damages and seek to
rescind at par their purchases of ARS.

The plaintiffs in Mayfield seek to represent a class of persons
who acquired ARS directly from defendants and who held those
securities as of Feb. 13, 2008.  Plaintiffs seek to recover
alleged losses in the market value of ARS allegedly caused by the
decision of Merrill Lynch and others to discontinue supporting
auctions for the securities.  Plaintiffs seek treble damages and
seek to rescind at par their purchases of ARS.

On Jan. 15, 2009, defendants, including Merrill Lynch, moved to
dismiss the complaints.

On Jan. 25, 2010, the District Court dismissed the two cases with
prejudice.

On March 1, 2010, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provide
investment, financing, insurance, and related services to
individuals and institutions on a global basis through its
broker, dealer, banking and other financial services
subsidiaries.


MERRILL LYNCH: "DeBlasio" Plaintiffs Withdraw Plan to Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the matter DeBlasio v. Merrill Lynch, et al.,
withdrew their notice of intent to appeal the dismissal of their
purported class action following a settlement, according to the
company's March 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

On Jan. 12, 2007, a purported class action was brought against
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. (MLPF&S) and other
securities firms in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging that their bank sweep programs
violated state law because their terms were not adequately
disclosed to customers.

On May 1, 2007, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which
added additional defendants.  On Nov. 12, 2007, defendants filed
motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

On July 27, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York entered an order dismissing the complaint
with prejudice.  The plaintiffs filed a notice of intent to
appeal the court's decision.

Plaintiffs withdrew their notice of intent to appeal following a
settlement among the parties in December 2009 for an amount that
was not material to Merrill Lynch's consolidated financial
statements.

Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provide
investment, financing, insurance, and related services to
individuals and institutions on a global basis through its
broker, dealer, banking and other financial services
subsidiaries.


MERRILL LYNCH: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated
amended class action complaint remains pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, according
to the company's March 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

On Sept. 25, 2009, plaintiffs in the securities actions
consolidated under the caption In re Bank of America Securities,
Derivative and Employment Retirement Income Security Act
Litigation filed a consolidated amended class action complaint.

The amended complaint is brought on behalf of a purported class,
which consists of purchasers of Bank of America common and
preferred securities between Sept. 15, 2008 and Jan. 21, 2009,
holders of Bank of America's common stock or Series B Preferred
Stock as of Oct. 10, 2008, and purchasers of Bank of America's
common stock issued in the offering that occurred on or about
Oct. 7, 2008, and names as defendants Bank of America, Merrill
Lynch and certain of their present or former directors, officers
and affiliates.

As to Merrill Lynch, the amended complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and SEC rules promulgated thereunder, based on, among other
things, alleged false statements and omissions related to the
financial condition and 2008 fourth quarter losses experienced by
Merrill Lynch and bonus payments to Merrill Lynch employees.

The amended complaint also alleges violations of Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 against Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. (MLPF&S) based on, among other
things, alleged false statements and omissions related to bonus
payments to Merrill Lynch employees and the benefits and impact
of the merger on Bank of America in connection with an Oct. 7,
2008, secondary offering of Bank of America common stock.

The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

On Nov. 24, 2009, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended class action complaint.

Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provide
investment, financing, insurance, and related services to
individuals and institutions on a global basis through its
broker, dealer, banking and other financial services
subsidiaries.


MERRILL LYNCH: Defends Suit by Iron Workers in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., defends a purported class action styled
Iron Workers of Western Pennsylvania Pension Plan v. Bank of
America Corp., et al., according to the company's March 11, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On Dec. 22, 2009, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch and certain of
their current and former officers were named in a purported class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, Iron Workers of Western Pennsylvania Pension Plan v.
Bank of America Corp., et al.

The action is purportedly brought on behalf all persons who
purchased or acquired certain Corporation debt securities between
Sept. 15, 2008, and Jan. 21, 2009, and alleges that defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and SEC rules promulgated thereunder, based on, among
other things, alleged false statements and omissions related to:

     (i) the financial condition and 2008 fourth quarter losses
         experienced by Bank of America and Merrill Lynch;

    (ii) due diligence conducted by Bank of America in
         connection with its acquisition of Merrill Lynch;

   (iii) bonus payments to Merrill Lynch employees; and

    (iv) Bank of America's contacts with government officials
         regarding Bank of America's consideration of invoking
         the material adverse change clause in the merger
         agreement and the possibility of obtaining government
         assistance in completing the acquisition of Merrill
         Lynch.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

The parties in the securities actions in the In re Bank of
America Securities, Derivative and Employment Retirement Income
Security Act Litigation have requested that the District Court
consolidate this action with their actions.

Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provide
investment, financing, insurance, and related services to
individuals and institutions on a global basis through its
broker, dealer, banking and other financial services
subsidiaries.


MERRILL LYNCH: Faces "Dornfest" Lawsuit in New York
---------------------------------------------------
Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., faces a purported class action styled
Dornfest v. Bank of America Corp., et al., pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, according
to the company's March 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

On Jan. 13, 2010, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch and certain of
Bank of America's current and former officers and directors were
named in a purported class action.

The action is purportedly brought on behalf of investors in Bank
of America option contracts between Sept. 15, 2008, and Jan. 22,
2009, and alleges that during the class period approximately 9.5
million Bank of America call option contracts and approximately 8
million Bank of America put option contracts were already traded
on seven of the Options Clearing Corporation exchanges.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC rules
promulgated thereunder, based on, among other things, alleged
false statements and omissions related to:

     (i) the financial condition and 2008 fourth quarter losses
         experienced by Bank of America and Merrill Lynch;

    (ii) due diligence conducted by Bank of America in
         connection with its acquisition of Merrill Lynch;

   (iii) bonus payments to Merrill Lynch employees; and

    (iv) certain defendants' contacts with government officials
         regarding Bank of America's consideration of invoking
         the material adverse change clause in the merger
         agreement and the possibility of Bank of America
         obtaining additional government assistance in
         completing the acquisition of Merrill Lynch.

The plaintiff class allegedly suffered damages because they
invested in Bank of America option contracts at allegedly
artificially inflated prices and were adversely affected as the
artificial inflation was removed from the market price of the
securities.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other
relief.

Plaintiffs in the securities actions in the In re Bank of America
Securities, Derivative and Employment Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) Litigation have requested that the District Court
consolidate this action with their actions.

Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provide
investment, financing, insurance, and related services to
individuals and institutions on a global basis through its
broker, dealer, banking and other financial services
subsidiaries.


MERRILL LYNCH: MLPF&S Dismissed as Defendant in "Newby" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has
dismissed ML & Co. and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.
(MLPF&S) from the matter Newby v. Enron Corp. et al., according
to Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.'s March 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On April 8, 2002, ML & Co. and MLPF&S (collectively Merrill
Lynch) were added as defendants in a consolidated class action,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas on behalf of certain purchasers of Enron's publicly traded
equity and debt securities.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that Merrill Lynch
engaged in improper transactions that helped Enron misrepresent
its earnings and revenues.

On March 5, 2009, the court granted Merrill Lynch's motion for
summary judgment and dismissed the claims against Merrill Lynch
with prejudice.  Subsequently, the lead plaintiff, Merrill Lynch
and certain other defendants filed a motion to dismiss and for
entry of final judgment.

The court granted the motion on Dec. 2, 2009, and dismissed all
claims against Merrill Lynch with prejudice.

Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provide
investment, financing, insurance, and related services to
individuals and institutions on a global basis through its
broker, dealer, banking and other financial services
subsidiaries.


MERRILL LYNCH: Court Okays Summary Judgment for Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, granted the
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in the matter Fred C.
Dames Funeral Homes, Inc., et al., v. Daniel W. Hynes, the
Illinois Office of the Comptroller, et al., according to Merrill
Lynch & Co. Inc.'s March 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

On July 7, 2009, a purported class action was filed on behalf of
certain funeral directors who are seeking to void the Consent
Order in its entirety, and are asking for a declaratory judgment
against the Illinois Comptroller, the Department, MLPF&S, MLLA
and Merrill Lynch Bank & Trust Co., FSB that only certain terms
of the Consent Order are unenforceable; an injunction against the
Department and the IOC from taking further action; and recovery
of attorneys' fees.

The plaintiffs, IOC and Department filed cross-motions for
summary judgment that focus on the authority of the IOC and
Department to enter into the Consent Order or impose other
regulatory actions in connection with the IFDA trust.

On Feb. 24, 2010, the Circuit Court entered a Memorandum Opinion
and Order, granting the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment
and denying the IOC's and Department's motions for summary
judgment, and finding that the Department and IOC lacked
authority to enter into the Consent Order to the extent it
affected the rights of non-regulated third parties.

Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provide
investment, financing, insurance, and related services to
individuals and institutions on a global basis through its
broker, dealer, banking and other financial services
subsidiaries.





MERRILL LYNCH: "Tipsword" Suit Against MLPF&S Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action where Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith Inc. (MLPF&S), is a defendant remains stayed.

On June 16, 2009, a purported class action on behalf of a
proposed class of pre-need contract holders, David Tipsword as
Trustee of Mildred E. Tipsword Trust, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. I.F.D.A. Services Inc., et
al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois against MLPF&S, among other defendants.
The complaint alleges that MLPF&S breached purported fiduciary
duties and committed negligence.  MLPF&S has filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint, with prejudice.

Prior to considering the motion of MLPF&S, however, the District
Court, pursuant to the motion of IFDA, IFDA Services, and
affiliated officers and directors of IFDA, entered an order
staying the action in all respects, including MLPF&S's motion to
dismiss.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages
for the class, attorneys' fees and costs.

No further updates were reported in Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.'s
March 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provide
investment, financing, insurance, and related services to
individuals and institutions on a global basis through its
broker, dealer, banking and other financial services
subsidiaries.


MERRILL LYNCH: Wants Clancy-Gernon Consolidated with Tipsword
-------------------------------------------------------------
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. (MLPF&S), seeks to
consolidate the matter Clancy-Gernon Funeral Home, Inc., et al.
v. MLPF&S, et al., with David Tipsword as Trustee of Mildred E.
Tipsword Trust, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. I.F.D.A. Services Inc., et al., according
to Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.'s March 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2009.

On June 30, 2009, a purported class action on behalf of a
proposed class of funeral directors was filed in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, alleging that MLPF&S and MLLA,
among other defendants, committed consumer fraud, civil
conspiracy, unjust enrichment, and conversion.

MLPF&S and MLLA removed the complaint to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to the Circuit Court
for Cook County or to transfer the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  MLPF&S and MLLA
opposed the motion.

On or about Nov. 17, 2009, the District Court denied the motion
to remand, but granted the motion to transfer the case to the
Southern District.

On or about Dec. 23, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois.

The second amended complaint seeks unspecified damages,
declaratory relief, disgorgement of all fees, commissions and
"revenues" received by MLPF&S and MLLA, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and an accounting.

On Jan. 26, 2010, MLPF&S filed a motion to consolidate the
Clancy-Gernon action with the Tipsword action, and to extend the
stay entered in the Tipsword action to the combined proceedings.

Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provide
investment, financing, insurance, and related services to
individuals and institutions on a global basis through its
broker, dealer, banking and other financial services
subsidiaries.


MERRILL LYNCH: BofA's Motion to Dismiss Complaint Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation's motion to dismiss a consolidated
amended complaint remains pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, according to Merrill Lynch &
Co. Inc.'s March 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31,
2009.

On Jan. 20, 2009, MLPF&S in its capacity as underwriter, along
with IndyMac MBS, IndyMac ABS, and other underwriters and
individuals, was named as a defendant in a putative class action
complaint, entitled IBEW Local 103 v. Indymac MBS et al., filed
in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, by purchasers of IndyMac mortgage pass-through
certificates.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that
the mortgage loans underlying these securities were improperly
underwritten and failed to comply with the guidelines and
processes described in the applicable registration statements and
prospectus supplements, in violation of Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and seeks unspecified compensatory
damages and rescission, among other relief.

On May 14, 2009 and June 29, 2009, two new putative class action
complaints, entitled Police & Fire Retirement System of the City
of Detroit v. IndyMac MBS, Inc., et al. and Wyoming State
Treasurer, et al. v. John Olinski, et al., respectively, were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  MLPF&S was not named a defendant in either of these cases.  
The allegations, claims, and remedies sought in these cases are
substantially similar to those in the IBEW Local 103 case, which
named MLPF&S as a defendant.

On July 29, 2009, Police & Fire Retirement System of the City of
Detroit v. IndyMac MBS, Inc., et al. and Wyoming State Treasurer,
et al. v. John Olinski, et al., were consolidated by the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed on Oct. 9, 2009.

The consolidated complaint named Bank of America, and not MLPF&S,
as a defendant based on an allegation that Bank of America is the
"successor-in-interest" to MLPF&S.

Prior to the consolidation of these matters, the IBEW Local 103
v. IndyMac MBS et al. case was voluntarily dismissed by
plaintiffs, and its allegations and claims are incorporated into
the consolidated amended complaint.

A motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint was filed
on Nov. 23, 2009.

Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provide
investment, financing, insurance, and related services to
individuals and institutions on a global basis through its
broker, dealer, banking and other financial services
subsidiaries.


MERRILL LYNCH: Motion to Dismiss "Lehman" Litigation Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss a consolidated amended complaint where
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. (MLPF&S), is a
defendant remains pending.

Beginning in September 2008, MLPF&S, among other underwriters and
individuals, was named as a defendant in several putative class
action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York and state courts in Arkansas,
California, New York and Texas.

Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants violated
Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making false
or misleading disclosures in connection with various debt and
convertible stock offerings of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc.,
and seek unspecified damages.

All cases against the defendants have now been transferred or
conditionally transferred to the multi-district litigation
captioned In re Lehman Brothers Securities and ERISA Litigation
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

MLPF&S and other defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint.

No further updates were reported in Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.'s
March 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provide
investment, financing, insurance, and related services to
individuals and institutions on a global basis through its
broker, dealer, banking and other financial services
subsidiaries.


MERRILL LYNCH: Court Okays Settlement in "Louisiana Sheriffs'"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
gave its final approval to the settlement agreement in the matter
Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund v. Conway, et al.,
according to the company's March 11, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2009.

On Oct. 3, 2008, a putative class action was filed against
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Merrill Lynch Capital Trust I, Merrill
Lynch Capital Trust II, Merrill Lynch Capital Trust III, MLPF&S
(collectively the Merrill Lynch entities), and certain present
and former Merrill Lynch officers and directors, and underwriters
in New York Supreme Court, New York County.

The complaint seeks relief on behalf of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired debt securities issued by the Merrill Lynch
entities pursuant to a shelf registration statement dated March
31, 2006.

The complaint alleged that prospectuses misstated the financial
condition of the Merrill Lynch entities and failed to disclose
their exposure to losses from investments tied to subprime and
other mortgages, as well as their liability arising from their
participation in the auction rate securities (ARS) market.

On Oct. 22, 2008, the action was removed to federal court and on
Nov. 5, 2008 it was accepted as a related case to In re Merrill
Lynch & Co., Inc. Securities, Derivative, and ERISA Litigation.

On April 21, 2009, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle the Louisiana Sheriffs' matter for an amount that was
not material to Merrill Lynch's consolidated financial statements
and dismiss all claims with prejudice.

On Nov. 30, 2009, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement.

Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provide
investment, financing, insurance, and related services to
individuals and institutions on a global basis through its
broker, dealer, banking and other financial services
subsidiaries.


MERRILL LYNCH: Motion to Dismiss MBS-Related Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated
amended complaint relating to the sale of mortgage-backed
securities remains pending.

Beginning in December 2008, Merrill Lynch and affiliated entities
and others were named in four putative class actions arising out
of the underwriting and sale of more than $55 billion of
mortgage-backed securities.

The four class actions are:

     (1) Connecticut Carpenters Pension Fund, et al. v. Merrill
         Lynch & Co., Inc., et al.;

     (2) Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund v. Credit-Based
         Asset Servicing and Securitization LLC, et al.;

     (3) Public Employees' Ret. System of Mississippi v. Merrill
         Lynch & Co. Inc.; and

     (4) Wyoming State Treasurer v. Merrill Lynch &  Co. Inc.

The complaints alleged, among other things, that the relevant
registration statements and accompanying prospectuses or
prospectus supplements misrepresented or omitted material facts
regarding the underwriting standards used to originate the
mortgages in the mortgage pools underlying the MBS, the process
by which the mortgage pools were acquired, and the appraisals of
the homes secured by the mortgages.

Plaintiffs seek to recover alleged losses in the market value of
the MBS allegedly caused by the performance of the underlying
mortgages or to rescind their purchases of the MBS.

These cases were consolidated under the caption Public Employees'
Ret. System of Mississippi v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. and, on
May 20, 2009, a consolidated amended complaint was filed.

On June 17, 2009, Merrill Lynch filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

No further updates were reported in the company's March 11, 2010,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended Dec. 31, 2009.

Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provide
investment, financing, insurance, and related services to
individuals and institutions on a global basis through its
broker, dealer, banking and other financial services
subsidiaries.


NOVELL INC: Notices of Appeal Filed on Settlement Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain parties in a consolidated amended class action complaint
against SilverStream, which Novell, Inc., acquired in July 2002,
have filed notices of appeal on the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York's final approval of the settlement
agreement, according to the company's March 11, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Jan. 31, 2009.

SilverStream and several of its former officers and directors, as
well as the underwriters who handled SilverStream's two public
offerings, were named as defendants in several class action
complaints that were filed on behalf of certain former
stockholders of SilverStream who purchased shares of SilverStream
common stock between Aug. 16, 1999, and Dec. 6, 2000.

These complaints are closely related to several hundred other
complaints that the same plaintiffs have brought against other
issuers and underwriters.

These complaints all allege violations of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.

In particular, they allege, among other things, that there was
undisclosed compensation received by the underwriters of the
public offerings of all of the issuers, including SilverStream.

A Consolidated Amended Complaint with respect to all of these
complaints was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern
District of New York, on April 19, 2002.

Various parties participated in settlement discussions and
reached a proposed settlement agreement.

This agreement received preliminary approval from the Court in
June 2009.

After notice to the plaintiff class, the settlement agreement
received final approval from the Court on Sept. 10, 2009.

Certain parties have filed Notices of Appeal from the Court's
decision.

Novell, Inc. -- http://www.novell.com/-- through its  
infrastructure software and ecosystem of business partnerships,
integrate mixed information technology (IT) environments,
allowing people and technology to work as one.  The company has
four segments: Open Platform Solutions, Identity and Security
Management, Systems and Resource Management, and Workgroup.


OCEAN MANAGEMENT: Recalls 20,000 Buoyancy Compensators
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Ocean Management Systems Inc., of Middletown, N.Y., announced a
voluntary recall of about 20,000 Buoyancy Compensators used for
Scuba Diving.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The buoyancy compensator seal ring could crack, posing a drowning
hazard to divers.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves buoyancy compensators with the following
model numbers.  Buoyancy compensators provide buoyancy control
for scuba divers by allowing them to inflate or deflate the
devices. The compensators were sold in black or red.  "OMS" is
printed on the front inside of the compensators.  Item and serial
numbers are printed on the warning label located in the non-
inflation area of the buoyancy compensator.  A list of serial
numbers included in this recall is available from the firm.

  Item Number       Description
  -----------       -----------
  BC-TCPS- B        TACOPS(R) BC ; Black
  BC-TCPS-R         TACOPS(R) BC ; Red
  BC116-32B16 B     Non retraction single tank BC 32 lb. lift/Black
  BC116-32R         Non retraction single tank BC 32 lb. lift/Red
  BC-LGS45          Larry Green Signature Series 45 lb. lift BC
  BC-LGS70          Larry Green Signature Series 70 lb. lift BC
  BC118 - K         Dual Bladder BC [inflated] 94 lb. lift Black or Red
  BC115 - KB        Dual Bladder BC, 60 lb. lift in Black
  BC115 - KR        Dual Bladder BC, 60 lb. lift in Red
  BC118 - K         Dual Bladder BC [deflated] 94 lb. lift Black or Red
  BC117 - K45       Single Bladder BC 45 lb. lift / Black
  BC117CR - K45     Chemically Resistant 45 lb. lift / Black
  BC117 - K60       Single Bladder BC, 60 lb. lift / Black
  BC117 - KB        Single Bladder BC, 94 lb. lift / Black
  BC117 - KR        Single Bladder BC, 94 lb. lift / Red
  BC116-45B         Non-retraction Single Bladder BC 45 lb. lift/Black
  BC116-60B         Non-retraction Single Bladder BC 60 lb. lift/Black
  BC116-60R         Non-retraction Single Bladder BC 60 lb. lift/Red
  BC116-60C         Chemically Resistant 60 lb. lift / Black

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10208.html

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
through dive stores nationwide from May 2006 through August 2008
for about $400.

Consumers should immediately stop using the diving equipment and
contact Ocean Management Systems to receive a free repair.  For
additional information, contact Ocean Management Systems toll-
free at (877) 791-0315 between 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, visit the firm's website at
http://www.omsdive.com/or E-mail the firm at recall@omsdive.com


OHIO EDUCATION: Settles Retiree Healthcare Lawsuit for $3.75 Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tanya Hutchins at nbc4i.com reports that the Ohio Education
Association is settling a $3.75 million class action suit pending
in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

Four retired staff employees from OEA say they were notified in
2004 that they would not receive health benefits after they
turned 65 years old.

In 2005, they filed the class action suit, which now includes 158
people.

Ms. Hutchins reports that 335 people could ultimately benefit
from the settlement because it affects people who are 65 now,
people who are retired but not yet 65 and people who are not
retired but will be entitled to the benefits when they reach that
age, according to David Cook, Esq., a lawyer representing the
plaintiffs.

Mr. Cook says the case was originally dismissed, then won when it
reached the U.S. Court of Appeals.  He says in cases like this,
union members often fare better than non-union members and anyone
with a contract needs to read it carefully.

"See if it contains provisions that give you benefits after you
retire and in particular, if those benefits are directly linked
to you receiving a pension," Cook said.

He says OEA originally said the organization had a legal right to
terminate the benefits and that the contracts did not bind them.

When contacted for this story, OEA issued the following
statement:  "The class action lawsuit resulted from a lack of
clear contractual language that the Ohio Education Association
(OEA) could reasonably rely on to justify the purchase of health
care benefits for OEA retirees over the age of 65 years old.  The
only court decision issued through the history of the case was
issued by the federal district court in favor of OEA.  Based upon
the Plaintiff's appeal of the district court's decision, the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's
decision on the basis that the factual issues could not be
decided by the lower court without a trial.  Immediately prior to
the start of what would be a long, costly and complex trial, the
parties were able to reach settlement of all issues. The OEA is
pleased that the parties could achieve a settlement of the
lawsuit that allows OEA to provide appropriate benefits to its
retirees while also allowing OEA to meet its financial
obligations to its members."

The Garden City Group, Inc., maintains a Web site at:

     http://www.praterclassactionsettlement.com/index.php3

providing further information about Prater, et al. v. Ohio
Education Association, Case No. 04-cv-01077 (S.D. Ohio) (Sargus,
J.).  

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David M. Cook, Esq.
          Ellen M. Grachek, Esq.
          Jennie G. Arnold, Esq.
          COOK, PORTUNE & LOGOTHETIS, LLC
          22 West Ninth Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: 513-721-0444
          E-mail: dcook@dmcllc.com
                  egrachek@dmcllc.com
                  jarnold@dmcllc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          M.J. Asensio, Esq.
          Rodger L. Eckelberry, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
          65 East State Street, Suite 2100
          Columbus, Ohio 43215
          Telephone: (614) 228-1541
          E-mail: masensio@bakerlaw.com
                  reckelberry@bakerlaw.com


ROSETTA STONE: Accused in Calif. Suit of Not Paying Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Rosetta Stone, the language
company, stiffs managers for overtime, a class action claims in
Alameda County Court, Oakland.

A copy of the Complaint in Pierce, et al. v. Rosetta Stone Ltd.,
et al., Case No. RG10511660 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/28/RosettaStone.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Timothy P. Rumberger, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES of TIMOTHY P. RUMBERGER
          2161 Shattuck Ave., Suite 200
          Berkeley, CA 94704-1313
          Telephone: 510-841-5500
          E-mail: tim@rumbergerlaw.com


SONY COMPUTER: PlayStation 3 Owner Sues for OS Option Removal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael McWhertor at kotaku.com reports that in early April, Sony
issued a new software update for the PlayStation 3 that
eliminated the option to install an alternate operating system,
like Linux, to the console. Now, a California man is suing Sony
Computer Entertainment over the change.

PlayStation 3 firmware 3.21 -- a mandatory update -- went live on
April 1, removing the "Install Other OS" feature present in the
original version of the console. Sony Computer Entertainment reps
said the decision to eliminate the feature was "due to security
concerns," that dropping a secondary operating system would "help
ensure that PS3 owners will continue to have access to the broad
range of gaming and entertainment content from SCE and its
content partners on a more secure system."

Plaintiff Anthony Ventura takes issue with that decision in a
suit filed against SCEA in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  The suit filed on his behalf
believes the change "reflected Sony's concerns that the Other OS
feature might be used by 'hackers' to copy and/or steal gaming
and other content."

"Sony's decision to force users to disable the Other OS function
was based on its own interest and was made at the expense of its
customers," reads the complaint.

The class action suit was brought on behalf of "a nationwide
class of all persons who purchased a PS3 during the period
November 17, 2006 and March 27, 2010 and who did not resell their
PS3" during that time.

The suit claims that the "Install Other OS" function was
"extremely valuable." According to the suit, the plaintiff he has
not yet installed the latest firmware update so that he can
continue to use the Other OS feature. The suit also notes that
PS3 owners who choose not to update their firmware cannot access
the PlayStation Network, play PS3 games online, nor can they play
new games or Blu-ray videos that require firmware 3.21.

Ventura's suit against the PlayStation maker seeks "damages for
Plaintiff and each class member, including but not limited to
compensatory damages; restitution; injunctive relief; attorneys'
fees; and the cost of this suit." Specific sums are not listed,
although court documents note "the amount in controversy is in
excess of $5 million."

A copy of the Complaint in Ventura v. Sony Computer Entertainment
America, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-01811 (N.D. Calif.), is available
at http://is.gd/bNk31

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rebecca Coll, Esq.
          David J. Meiselman, Esq.
          Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq.
          D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
          Jerome Noll, Esq.
          MEISELMAN, DENLEA, PACKMAN, CARTON & EBERZ P.C.
          1311 Mamaroneck Ave.
          White Plains, NY 10605
          Telephone: 914-517-5000
          E-mail: rcoll@mdpcelaw.com


TRANSITIONS OPTICAL: Accused in Wash. of Anticompetitive Conduct
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Transitions Optical and
Essilor of America conspired to monopolize the U.S. market for
photochromic corrective lenses, according to a federal antitrust
class action in Seattle.

A copy of the Complaint in Arthur L. Cartier Optics v.
Transitions Optical, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-00694 (W.D.
Wash.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/28/Antitrust.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark A. Griffin, Esq.
          Raymond J. Farrow, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Ave., Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Telephone: 206-623-1900
          E-mail: mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com
                  rfarrow@kellerrohrback.com
               
               - and -

          J. Douglas Richards, Esq.
          Daniel A. Small, Esq.
          Kit A. Pierson, Esq.
          Benjamin D. Brown, Esq.
          Christopher J. Cormier, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Ave., NW, Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: 202-408-4600
          E-mail: drichards@cohenmilstein.com
                  dsmall@cohenmilstein.com
                  kpierson@cohenmilstein.com
                  bbrown@cohenmilstein.com
                  ccormier@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Mark Samson, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK P.L.C.
          3101 North Central Ave., Suite 1400
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: 602-248-0088
          E-mail: msamson@kellerrohrback.com


VIVENDI SA: Paris Appeals Court Won't Block French Participation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dow Jones reports that the Paris court of appeal has rejected
French media conglomerate Vivendi SA's application for a ruling
that French shareholders shouldn't participate in a U.S. class
action.

In February, in In re Vivendi Universal, S.A., Securities
Litigation, Case No. 02-cv-5571 (S.D.N.Y.) (Holwell, J.), a U.S.
jury found Vivendi liable for misstatements about its financial
health in 2001 and 2002.

"Vivendi regrets that the Court of Appeal has decided not to make
a ruling at this stage on the question of whether American class
actions were in accordance with French public policy," Vivendi
said.

Vivendi noted that no judgment on the matter has yet been
rendered in the U.S.

Leila Abboud at Reuters reports that Vivendi's lawyer Herve
Pisani said that the essential debate over whether the French
investors should be included in the U.S. case remained open.  The
company can continue to make its case on that point before the
U.S. judge, he told Reuters, regardless of today's decision in
France.  Vivendi can also appeal the decision, which could drag
out the process several years.

Vivendi has already set aside 550 million euros ($726 million) to
cover a possible payout.  But, Ms. Abboud relates, analysts worry
that the cost to the company could end up being much larger,
perhaps in the billions.


WALLDESIGN INCORPORATED: Labor Code Violations Alleged
------------------------------------------------------
Jose Hernandez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. WallDesign Incorporated, Case No. 30-2010-00364818
(Calif. Super. Ct., Orange Cty. Apr. 20, 2010), accuses the
residential subcontractor of failing to: (i) pay overtime wages,
(ii) pay the prevailing wage rate, (iii) provide meal and rest
breaks, (iv) pay wages upon termination, and (v) furnish accurate
itemized wage statements upon payment of wages, in violation of
the Labor Code and the Bus. & Prof. Code.  Mr. Hernandez was
employed as a construction worker at various construction sites
of the Defendant throughout California from 2000 to August of
2009.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis M. Marlin, Esq.
          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Stephen P. O'Dell, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
          3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92602
          Telephone: (714) 669-4900

               - and -

          Michelle West, Esq.
          ROBINSON, CALCAGNIE & ROBINSON
          620 Newport Center Dr., 7th Floor
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 720-1288

                            *********

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  * * *