CAR_Public/100510.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 10, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 90

                            Headlines

AMERICAN HONDA: Nev. Suit Complains About Defective Radios
CELANESE CORP: CNA Holdings Remains a Defendant in Various Suits
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Defends Suits Over Billing Practices
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Continues to Defend Wage-Related Suits
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Opposes Certification in "Demmick" Suit

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Defends Suit Over Roaming Service
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Plaintiffs Appeal of Dismissal Pending
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: "Ruwe" Still Stayed Pending FCC Ruling
CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Sued for Improper Royalty Calculations
CONAGRA FOODS: Microwave Popcorn Flavoring Lawsuit Filed

CORRECTIONS CORP: Class in Violence Suit Can Seek Certification
E.I. DUPONT: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment in PFOA Suit
E.I. DUPONT: June 2010 Trial Date in NJ Suits to be Rescheduled
E.I. DUPONT: Continues to Defend Suit Over Zinc Smelter in Va.
EARL BRADLEY: Lawyers Seek Class Action Status in Sex Abuse Case

FERRO CORP: Continues to Defend Suit in California
FERRO CORP: Defends Five Indirect Purchasers Suits in Penn.
HUMANA INC: Eleventh Circuit Reverses Class Certification Ruling
HUMANA INC: Plaintiffs Withdraw Class Certification Plea
KLEAN KANTEEN: Recalls 1,302,000 Sport Cap 2.0 Water Bottle Spouts

MICHIGAN: Mich. Sup. Ct. Remands Public Defender Lawsuit
NIRVE SPORTS: Recalls 725 Chopper-Style Bicycles
OFFICE DEPOT: Appeal of Lead Plaintiff on Suit Dismissal Pending
PRICELINE.COM: Brevard Cty. Opts Out of Class Action Litigation
ROBERTA ROLLER: Recalls 9,200 Children's Kimono Robe

SPECIALIZED BICYCLE: Recalls 1,350 2010 Epic & Era Bicycles
TYCO INT'L: May 6 Hearing Set for "Stumpf" Settlement Approval
TYCO INT'L: Court Dismisses Key Claims in Suit Against ADT Unit
UNITIL CORP: Continues to Defend Amended "Bellerman" Complaint
VERISIGN INC: Court Gives Preliminary Approval to Settlement

VERISIGN INC: Appeal on Dismissal Bid in "Herbert" Still Pending
VERISIGN INC: "Bentley" Consumer Fraud Lawsuit Remains Stayed

                            *********

AMERICAN HONDA: Nev. Suit Complains About Defective Radios
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Honda
sold 2007-2009 model cars with defective radios and refuses to
fix them under warranty, in Las Vegas Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Koven v. American Honda Motor Co.,
Inc., Case No. 10-cv-00638 (D. Nev.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/05/Honda.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Adams, Esq.
          Assly Sayyar, Esq.
          ADAMS LAW GROUP, LTD.
          8681 W. Sahara Ave., Suite 280
          Las Vegas, NV 89117
          Tel: 702-838-7200
          E-mail: james@adamslawnevada.com
                  assly@adamslawnevada.com


CELANESE CORP: CNA Holdings Remains a Defendant in Various Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Celanese Corporation's U.S. subsidiary, CNA Holdings LLC, remains
a defendant in putative class actions seeking recovery for
alleged damages caused by leaking polybutylene plumbing,
according to the company's April 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

During the period between 1995 and 2001, CNA Holdings was named
as a defendant in these putative class actions:

     (a) Cox, et al. v. Hoechst Celanese Corporation, et al.,
         No. 94-0047 (Chancery Ct., Obion County, Tennessee)
          (class was certified);
     (b) Couture, et al. v. Shell Oil Company, et al.,
         No. 200-06-000001-985 (Quebec Superior Court, Canada);

     (c) Dilday, et al. v. Hoechst Celanese Corporation, et al.,
         No. 15187 (Chancery Ct., Weakley County, Tennessee);

     (d) Furlan v. Shell Oil Company, et al., No. C967239
         (British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry,
         Canada);

     (e) Gariepy, et al. v. Shell Oil Company, et al.,
         No. 30781/99 (Ontario Court General Division, Canada);

     (f) Shelter General Insurance Co., et al. v. Shell Oil
         Company, et al., No. 16809 (Chancery Ct., Weakley
         County, Tennessee);

     (g) St. Croix Ltd., et al. v. Shell Oil Company, et al.,
         No. 1997/467 (Territorial Ct., St. Croix Division, the
         US Virgin Islands); and

     (h) Tranter v. Shell Oil Company, et al., No. 46565/97
         (Ontario Court General Division, Canada).

In addition, between 1994 and 2008 CNA Holdings was named as a
defendant in numerous non-class actions filed in Arizona,
Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, Tennessee
and Texas, the US Virgin Islands and Canada of which ten are
currently pending.

In all of these actions, the plaintiffs have sought recovery for
alleged damages caused by leaking polybutylene plumbing.

Damage amounts have generally not been specified but these cases
generally do not involve (either individually or in the
aggregate) a large number of homes.

As of March 31, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2009, the company had
remaining accruals of $54 million and $55 million, respectively,
of which $1 million and $1 million, respectively, is included in
current Other liabilities in the unaudited consolidated balance
sheets with the remainder recorded in noncurrent Other
liabilities.  During the three months ended March 31, 2010, the
company recorded $11 million in plumbing claim recoveries.

Celanese Corporation -- http://www.celanese.com/-- as a global  
leader in the chemicals industry, makes products essential to
everyday living.  The compan's products, found in consumer and
industrial applications, are manufactured in North America,
Europe and Asia.  Net sales totaled $5.1 billion in 2009, with
approximately 73% generated outside of North America. Known for
operational excellence and execution of its business strategies,
Celanese delivers value to customers around the globe with
innovations and best-in-class technologies.  Based in Dallas,
Texas, the company employs approximately 7,400 employees
worldwide.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Defends Suits Over Billing Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
Cellco Partnership remains a defendant in various purported
consumer class actions, brought on behalf of customers throughout
the country, relating to its advertising, sales, billing and
collection practices, as well as Attorney General investigations
regarding such issues.

No additional information were disclosed in the company's April
28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Cellco Partnership is a Delaware general partnership formed on
Oct. 4, 1994.  Cellco Partnership does business as Verizon
Wireless.  The company's partners include subsidiaries of Verizon
Communications Inc., which own 55% of the partnership, and U.S.
subsidiaries of Vodafone Group Plc, which own 45% of the
partnership.  Verizon Communications and Vodafone are among the
world's leading telecommunications providers.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Continues to Defend Wage-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Cellco Partnership remains a defendant in various purported
collective actions, class actions and other matters brought on
behalf of employees and former employees relating to the payment
of wages, including claims for overtime pay.

No additional information were disclosed in the company's April
28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Cellco Partnership is a Delaware general partnership formed on
Oct. 4, 1994.  Cellco Partnership does business as Verizon
Wireless.  The company's partners include subsidiaries of Verizon
Communications Inc., which own 55% of the partnership, and U.S.
subsidiaries of Vodafone Group Plc, which own 45% of the
partnership.  Verizon Communications and Vodafone are among the
world's leading telecommunications providers.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Opposes Certification in "Demmick" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cellco Partnership continues to oppose class certification in the
matter Demmick, et al. v. Cellco Partnership.

The company is a defendant in a putative nationwide class action,
Demmick, et al. v. Cellco Partnership, filed May 11, 2006, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging
that:

     (i) while the company charge one rate for after-allowance
         minutes on the primary line in its Family SharePlan and
         a different, higher rate on the secondary lines, the
         company has an undisclosed policy of billing all after-
         allowance minutes at the higher per minute rate
         applicable to the secondary lines, and

    (ii) the company improperly billed for in-network calls that
         should have been provided without charge to certain
         subscribers.

Plaintiffs assert violations of the Federal Communications Act,
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the Maryland Consumer
Protection Act, as well as claims of breach of contract and
fraud.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages and
attorneys' fees.

The parties have completed class discovery.

Plaintiffs have moved for, and the company has opposed, class
certification.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Cellco Partnership is a Delaware general partnership formed on
Oct. 4, 1994.  Cellco Partnership does business as Verizon
Wireless.  The company's partners include subsidiaries of Verizon
Communications Inc., which own 55% of the partnership, and U.S.
subsidiaries of Vodafone Group Plc, which own 45% of the
partnership.  Verizon Communications and Vodafone are among the
world's leading telecommunications providers.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Defends Suit Over Roaming Service
-----------------------------------------------------
Cellco Partnership continues to defend a class action relating to
the company's roaming service advertised as free.

The company is a defendant in a putative nationwide class action,
Cowit et al. v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, filed
July 22, 2005, in the Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County,
Ohio, alleging that all roaming charges assessed by the company
under the America's Choice I plan were improper; that the company
improperly charge roaming for in-network calls advertised as
"free"; and that the company failed to disclose that roaming
service is unavailable under the America's Choice II plan.

The second amended complaint asserts claims of breach of
contract, fraud, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment,
conversion, negligent misrepresentation and violations of the
Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Ohio Consumer Sales
Practice Act.

The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and injunctive relief.

On Sept. 11, 2007, the trial court denied the company's motion to
dismiss the breach of contract claims.

On July 7, 2008, the court certified a nationwide class of
America's Choice II subscribers who allegedly were promised but
did not receive "free" roaming service, but denied certification
of the remaining putative classes.

The parties appealed the trial court's class certification order.

The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order on
April 3, 2009, and the Ohio Supreme Court denied the parties'
petitions for review.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Cellco Partnership is a Delaware general partnership formed on
Oct. 4, 1994.  Cellco Partnership does business as Verizon
Wireless.  The company's partners include subsidiaries of Verizon
Communications Inc., which own 55% of the partnership, and U.S.
subsidiaries of Vodafone Group Plc, which own 45% of the
partnership.  Verizon Communications and Vodafone are among the
world's leading telecommunications providers.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Plaintiffs Appeal of Dismissal Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of a statewide
class action relating to wireless phone use remains pending in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The company and various other wireless service providers and
phone manufacturers are defendants in a statewide class action
relating to wireless phone use, Farina, et al. v. Nokia Inc., et
al., U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, filed
April 19, 2001.

Plaintiff alleges that wireless phones are defective because
defendants fail to include a proper warning about alleged adverse
health effects, fail to encourage the use of a headset and fail
to include a headset with the phone.

Plaintiff also alleges that the sale of wireless phones without a
hands-free device facilitates the violation of certain state laws
restricting the use of wireless phones without a hands-free
device while operating a motor vehicle.

Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief requiring
defendants to provide headsets to all class members.

On Sept. 2, 2008, the District Court dismissed all claims on
preemption grounds.

Plaintiff's appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit is pending.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Cellco Partnership is a Delaware general partnership formed on
Oct. 4, 1994.  Cellco Partnership does business as Verizon
Wireless.  The company's partners include subsidiaries of Verizon
Communications Inc., which own 55% of the partnership, and U.S.
subsidiaries of Vodafone Group Plc, which own 45% of the
partnership.  Verizon Communications and Vodafone are among the
world's leading telecommunications providers.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: "Ruwe" Still Stayed Pending FCC Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
A putative statewide class action against Cellco Partnership
remains stayed pending the outcome of proceedings before the
Federal Communications Commission.

The company is a defendant in a putative statewide class action,
Ruwe v. Cellco Partnership, et al. (formerly Gellis v. Cellco
Partnership, et al.), filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on June 12, 2007.

Plaintiff in Ruwe challenges the legality of the company's $5
minimum late payment fee and $15 reconnect fee on behalf of a
class of California subscribers.

Plaintiff asserts violation of California Civil Code Section
1671, claims of deceptive practices under California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, unfair business practices under California
Business and Professional Code Section 17200 and unjust
enrichment.

Plaintiff seeks money damages, injunctive relief and attorneys'
fees.

The court has denied the company's motions to dismiss the
complaint on the ground that state regulation of the late fee and
reconnect fee are preempted by federal law.

On May 27, 2009, the company moved the court to stay the action
pending proceedings before the FCC.

The court granted the company's motion to stay the matter pending
the outcome of proceedings before the FCC on whether state-law
challenges to late fees are preempted by federal law.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Cellco Partnership is a Delaware general partnership formed on
Oct. 4, 1994.  Cellco Partnership does business as Verizon
Wireless.  The company's partners include subsidiaries of Verizon
Communications Inc., which own 55% of the partnership, and U.S.
subsidiaries of Vodafone Group Plc, which own 45% of the
partnership.  Verizon Communications and Vodafone are among the
world's leading telecommunications providers.


CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Sued for Improper Royalty Calculations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Chesapeake Appalachia,
NiSource, and Columbia Energy Group cheat property owners of
royalties, a class action claims in Abingdon, Va., Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Davis, et al. v. Chesapeake
Appalachia, LLC, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00023 (W.D. Va.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/05/GasnOil.pdf

The Plaintifs are represented by:

          Thomas L. Pruitt, Esq.
          PRUITT & CHILDRESS, PC
          1080 Walnut St.
          P.O. Box 1259
          Grundy, VA 24614
          Telephone: 276-935-7900
          E-mail: tlpruitt@pnc-law.com

               - and -

          Larry D. Moffet, Esq.
          DANIEL COKER HORTON & BELL, P.A.
          265 North Lamar Blvd., Suite R
          P.O. Box 1396
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: 662-232-8979
          E-mail: lmoffett@danielcoker.com

               - and -

          David Stellings, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson St., 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: 212-355-9500
          E-mail: dstellings@lchb.com

               - and -

          Charles Barrett, Esq.
          BARRETT & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          6518 Hwy. 100, Suite 210
          Nashville, TN 37205
          Telephone: 615-515-3393
          E-mail: cb@barrettandassociates.net

               - and -

          Don Barrett, Esq.
          Katherine Barrett Riley, Esq.
          BARRETT LAW OFFICE, P.A.
          404 Court Square North
          P.O. Drawer 987
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: 662-834-2376
          E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Mary E. McAlister, Esq.
          P.O. Box 354
          Madison, MS 39130
          Telephone: 601-506-9125
          E-mail: mcalister_m@bellsouth.net


CONAGRA FOODS: Microwave Popcorn Flavoring Lawsuit Filed
--------------------------------------------------------
Wendy R. Fleishmann and Elizabeth Alexander of the national
plaintiffs' law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and
Ken McClain of the Kansas City, Missouri law firm, Humphrey
Farrington and McClain, P.C., announced that Agnes Mercado, of
Queens County, New York, has filed a personal injury lawsuit
against ConAgra Foods, Inc., Givaudan Flavors Corp. and numerous
diacetyl manufacturers.

In April, 2010 Ms. Mercado was diagnosed with a severe lung
disease as a result of her exposure to ConAgra's microwave
popcorn which contained butter flavorings with added diacetyl.  
The disease is associated with inhaling butter flavoring vapors
and has been identified as bronchiolitis obliterans -- literally,
an obliteration of the lung's airways. Breathing tests can
identify difficulty in moving air in and out of the lungs, called
lung obstruction. In the case of bronchiolitis obliterans, that
obstruction is "fixed," meaning it doesn't respond to normal
asthma medications.

About her injury, Ms. Mercado stated, "I have always taken good
care of myself and never would have thought that something as
seemingly harmless as eating microwave popcorn would have hurt me
so badly."

The lawsuit charges that Ms. Mercado sustained a severe lung
disease after consuming microwave popcorn containing the butter
flavoring chemical diacetyl.  The chemical is used for the aroma
and taste in butter, some cheeses and snack and bakery products.  

Wendy Fleishman stated, "The product diacetyl has destroyed our
client's health.  It should never have been added to microwave
popcorn or any other food."  Ken McClain stated, "Unfortunately,
my firm represents consumers who have been diagnosed with
bronchiolitis obliterans.  The hazards were unknown by consumers
for far too long."

The complaint further alleges that exposure to butter flavoring
containing added diacetyl may cause other health problems
including asthma, bronchiectasis, chronic obstructed bronchitis,
pulmonary disease, emphysema, lung impairment as well as several
others.

                   Legal Resources for Individuals
                  Affected by Popcorn Lung Disease

Lieff Cabraser represents persons across America injured by the
chemical diacetyl.  If you would like to learn more about your
legal rights please visit:

          http://www.butterflavoringlunginjury.com/

There is no charge or obligation for our review of your case.

                       About Plaintiff Counsel

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP --
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/-- is a sixty-plus attorney law  
firm that has represented plaintiffs nationwide since 1972.  With
offices in New York, San Francisco, and Nashville, Lieff Cabraser
has a comprehensive and diverse practice, which includes
representing persons injured by contaminated foods.  The National
Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the top
plaintiffs' law firms in the nation for the past seven years.

To learn more about Humphrey Farrington & McClain, please visit
their Web site at http://www.hfmlegal.com/


CORRECTIONS CORP: Class in Violence Suit Can Seek Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Henderson at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge allowed a group of inmates to seek class-action status for
a lawsuit accusing the Corrections Corporation of America and 11
employees of failing to protect prisoners at the Idaho
Correctional Center, a prison that's so violent it's reportedly
dubbed "gladiator school."

Former inmate Marlin Riggs sued the CCA in Ada County Court,
claiming he told prison staff members that other inmates had
threatened him, but they told him to get back to his cell and
stop wasting their time.  Mr. Riggs said he was beaten by a gang
of inmates and found "lying in a pool of blood."  He also claimed
he was confined and denied medical treatment for 15 days after
the beating.

Mr. Riggs said employees of CCA, the Nashville-based contractor
hired to run the prison, ignored video evidence of more than 200
assaults that took place in the same part of the prison in 2008.

The CCA tried to block Mr. Riggs from turning his damages claim
into a class action.  It argued that Mr. Riggs is no longer an
inmate and is seeking monetary damages, even though the class
claims seek only an injunction.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Winmill allowed Mr. Riggs to proceed
with his bid for class certification, saying similar failure-to-
protect cases could be consolidated for possible early mediation.

Judge Winmill suggested that Riggs' case be tried before a jury
first, as his evidence of ongoing problems at the prison "would
clearly be relevant to the class claims for injunctive relief."

A hearing on the motion for class certification is scheduled for
May 27.

A copy of the Honorable B. Lynn Winmill's April 28, 2010, Order
in Riggs, et al. v. Valdez, et al., Case No. 09-cv-00010 (D.
Idaho), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/04/Boise%20ruling.pdf


E.I. DUPONT: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment in PFOA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported class action against E.I. DuPont de
Nemours and Company are appealing the final judgment entered in
favor of the company to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit, according to the company's April 27, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In the second quarter 2006, three purported class actions were
filed alleging that drinking water had been contaminated by
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in excess of 0.05 ppb due to
alleged releases from certain DuPont plants.

One of these cases was filed in West Virginia state court by
three individual plaintiffs on behalf of customers of the
Parkersburg City Water District, but was removed on DuPont's
motion to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
West Virginia.

In September 2008, the U.S. District Court ruled that the case
could not proceed as a class action.  Plaintiffs' appeal of the
ruling was denied.

In the second quarter 2009, the plaintiffs added a claim based on
public nuisance and moved for again class certification.   
In the third quarter 2009, the Court granted summary judgment in
DuPont's favor dismissing all claims brought by the three
plaintiffs, including public nuisance and class certification,
except for medical monitoring.  

In the fourth quarter 2009, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
medical monitoring claims.

The court entered final judgment for DuPont in January 2010.  In
the first quarter 2010, plaintiffs' appealed the final judgment
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company is a science-based products
and services company.  Founded in 1802, DuPont puts science to
work by creating sustainable solutions essential to a better,
safer, healthier life for people everywhere.  Operating in more
than 70 countries, DuPont offers a wide range of innovative
products and services for markets including agriculture and food;
building and construction; communications; and transportation.


E.I. DUPONT: June 2010 Trial Date in NJ Suits to be Rescheduled
---------------------------------------------------------------
A June 2010 trial date in two purported class actions against
E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company in New Jersey will be
rescheduled, according to the company's April 27, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

A purported class action was filed in federal court in New Jersey
on behalf of individuals who allegedly drank water contaminated
by releases from DuPont's Chambers Works plant in Deepwater, New
Jersey.

A second purported class action was filed in state court on
behalf of customers serviced primarily by the Pennsville Township
Water Department and was removed to New Jersey federal district
court on DuPont's motion.

The New Jersey cases have been combined for purposes of discovery
and the complaints have been amended to allege that drinking
water had been contaminated by PFOA in excess of 0.04 ppb.

In December 2008, the court denied class action status in both
cases, but ordered additional briefing on certain issues.

In October 2009, the Court granted class certification for
certain sub-classes regarding public and private nuisance claims,
while denying class certification for all other claims.  The
court also certified a legal question related to strict
liability.

In April 2010, the Court allowed plaintiffs in both cases to add
a claim under RCRA alleging "imminent and substantial
endangerment to health and or the environment."  The June 2010
trial date will be rescheduled.

E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company is a science-based products
and services company.  Founded in 1802, DuPont puts science to
work by creating sustainable solutions essential to a better,
safer, healthier life for people everywhere.  Operating in more
than 70 countries, DuPont offers a wide range of innovative
products and services for markets including agriculture and food;
building and construction; communications; and transportation.


E.I. DUPONT: Continues to Defend Suit Over Zinc Smelter in Va.
--------------------------------------------------------------
E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company continue to defend a suit
relating to its operation of a zinc smelter in spelter, West
Virginia, according to the company's April 27, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.

In September 2006, a West Virginia state court certified a class
action against DuPont that seeks relief including the provision
of remediation services and property value diminution damages for
7,000 residential properties in the vicinity of a closed zinc
smelter in Spelter, West Virginia.

The action also seeks medical monitoring for an undetermined
number of residents in the class area.

The smelter was owned and operated by at least three companies
between 1910 and 2001, including DuPont between 1928 and 1950.  
DuPont performed remedial measures at the request of the EPA in
the late 1990s and in 2001 repurchased the site to facilitate and
complete the remediation.

The fall 2007 trial was conducted in four phases: liability,
medical monitoring, property and punitive damages.  The jury
found against DuPont in all four phases awarding $55.5 million
for property remediation and $196.2 million in punitive damages.

In post trial motions, the court adopted the plaintiffs' forty-
year medical monitoring plan estimated by plaintiffs to cost $130
million and granted plaintiffs' attorneys legal fees of $127
million plus $8 million in expenses based on and included in the
total jury award.

In June 2008, DuPont filed its petitions for appeal with the West
Virginia Supreme Court seeking review of a number of issues
associated with the trial court's decisions before, during and
after the trial.

The Court issued its decision on March 26, 2010, affirming in
part and reversing in part the trial court.

The Court reversed the trial court's order granting summary
judgment to plaintiffs on the issue of statute of limitations and
ordered a new jury trial on the sole issue of when the plaintiffs
possessed requisite knowledge to trigger the running of the
statute.

If the jury determines that plaintiffs had or should have had
requisite knowledge more than 2 years prior to filing their case,
then the trial court must set aside the verdict and render
judgment in DuPont's favor.  Otherwise, the Court conditionally
affirmed the verdict, but reduced punitive damages to $97.7
million.  DuPont intends to petition the Court for a rehearing.

As of March 31, 2010, the company had recorded accruals of
$55 million, although given the uncertainties inherent in
litigation, there can be no assurance as to the final outcome.

E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company is a science-based products
and services company.  Founded in 1802, DuPont puts science to
work by creating sustainable solutions essential to a better,
safer, healthier life for people everywhere.  Operating in more
than 70 countries, DuPont offers a wide range of innovative
products and services for markets including agriculture and food;
building and construction; communications; and transportation.


EARL BRADLEY: Lawyers Seek Class Action Status in Sex Abuse Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cris Barrish at The News Journal reports that lawyers who have
filed lawsuits against alleged pedophile pediatrician Earl B.
Bradley and other defendants, including Beebe Medical Center and
the Medical Society of Delaware, are now seeking class-action
status for their cases and those of other possible victims.

Attorneys Bruce L. Hudson, Ben T. Castle and Craig A. Karsnitz
made the request in a lawsuit filed late Monday on behalf of Jane
Doe 30, a 12-year-old girl Bradley allegedly abused.

Hudson, who said he represents about 40 alleged victims, said
that if the court approves his petition, he would send out
notices to the 7,000 patients treated by Bradley during the 16
years he practiced in the Lewes and Milford areas.

The lawsuits Hudson has filed claim dereliction of duty by Beebe,
the medical society and some doctors for failing to report their
knowledge or suspicions of Bradley to Delaware's medical
disciplinary board, and for negligence in their oversight of
Bradley.

A class action allows plaintiffs with similar claims against
defendants to join together in pursuit of damages, allowing
courts to consolidate multiple cases into one. Many more lawsuits
are anticipated in the case of Bradley, who faces 529 counts of
raping or sexually abusing more than 103 children he treated over
an 11-year period ending in December.

Since his arrest Dec. 16, it has come to light that Bradley, 56,
was the subject of at least four separate investigations for
inappropriate contact with girls he treated dating back to 1994,
when he practiced in Philadelphia. Yet Bradley, who came to
Delaware when Beebe hired him late in 1994, was never disciplined
or arrested until state police locked him up nearly five months
ago.

Beebe investigated a 1996 report by a nurse who worked with him
that he used catheters to draw urine from girls, kissed and
hugged them and conducted questionable vaginal exams. Police and
prosecutors in Delaware also investigated him in 2005 and 2008
but did not charge him with any crimes.

Bradley's half-sister, Lynda Barnes, who worked for a period as
his office manager, also reported him to the medical society late
in 2004.

In court documents since his arrest, police have written that
Bradley recorded video of his crimes against children, including
forced intercourse and oral sex with girls as young as 3 months
old. Police seized video files from his BayBees Pediatrics office
near Lewes that they say showed hundreds of attacks.

In last week's court filing, Hudson and his partners in the
lawsuits wrote that Beebe does not object to a class action,
which must be approved by Superior Court.

Beebe officials said last month that the spate of lawsuits could
lead the hospital to seek bankruptcy protection from creditors,
and on Tuesday hospital attorney Michael M. Mustokoff agreed with
Hudson's assessment. "We have talked to some of the plaintiffs'
lawyers and we think it's a good thing with the number of
potential complaints out there and the magnitude of what Bradley
has done," Mustokoff said. "This will bring some order and
structure to the process."

"We will notify them of what's going on, ask if they were harmed
or believed they were, and inform them they might have a legal
right to be compensated," Hudson said. "They would contact us and
we would investigate" whether they would be included in the class
action.

Chase T. Brockstedt, a Lewes attorney who has filed one lawsuit
and is planning to file another soon, said he's not certain if
his clients would join a class action.

"One of the pros would be the management of the cases. It's going
to potentially eliminate extreme results, one way or the other,"
Brockstedt said. "The downside is that if a class gets certified
and everyone is made equal, you may have someone with a different
kind of damages, unless there's a mechanism to address that.
Everybody is going to be suffering different levels of emotional
distress."


FERRO CORP: Continues to Defend Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------
Ferro Corporation continues to defend a suit captioned
Competition Collision Center, LLC v. Crompton Corporation, et
al., Case No. CGC-040431278, pending in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the City and County of San Francisco

On May 6, 2004, the company was named in an indirect purchaser
class action in California seeking monetary damages and
injunctive relief relating to alleged violations of the antitrust
laws by the company and others participating in the plastics
additives industry.

The suit is currently in its early stages, according to the
company's April 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

Ferro Corporation -- http://www.ferro.com/-- is a leading global  
supplier of technology-based performance materials for
manufacturers.  Ferro materials enhance the performance of
products in a variety of end markets, including electronics,
solar energy, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, building and
renovation, appliances, automotive, household furnishings, and
industrial products.  Headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, Ferro has
approximately 5,200 employees globally and reported 2009 sales of
$1.7 billion.


FERRO CORP: Defends Five Indirect Purchasers Suits in Penn.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ferro Corporation continues to defend five indirect purchaser
class action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

On Aug. 4, 2005, the company was named an indirect purchaser
class action lawsuit captioned In Re Indirect Purchaser, Plastic
Additives Litigation, D.R. Ward Construction, et al., v. Rohm &
Haas Company, et al., Case No. 2:05-CV-04157-LDD, MDL No. 1684,
filed in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

In June 2008, the Company was named in four more indirect
purchaser class action lawsuits:

     (1) Defren v. Rohm & Haas Company, et al.,
         Case No. 2:08-CV-03702-LDD, filed June 12, 2008;

     (2) Zebrowski v. Rohm & Haas Company, et al.,
         Case No. 2:08-CV-04161-LDD, filed June 23, 2008;

     (3) Burg v. Rohm & Haas Company, et al.,
         Case No. 2:08-CV-04162-LDD, filed June 30, 2008; and

     (4) Miller v. Rohm & Haas Company, et al.,
         Case No. 2:08-CV-03701-LDD, filed June 18, 2008.

The four indirect purchaser cases filed in 2008 have been
transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The suits allege violations of the antitrust laws by the company
and others participating in the plastics additives industry.

The suits are currently in their early stages.

No further details were repored in the company's April 27, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Ferro Corporation -- http://www.ferro.com/-- is a leading global  
supplier of technology-based performance materials for
manufacturers.  Ferro materials enhance the performance of
products in a variety of end markets, including electronics,
solar energy, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, building and
renovation, appliances, automotive, household furnishings, and
industrial products.  Headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, Ferro has
approximately 5,200 employees globally and reported 2009 sales of
$1.7 billion.


HUMANA INC: Eleventh Circuit Reverses Class Certification Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has reversed
the ruling granting class certification in the matter Sacred
Heart Health System, Inc., et al. v. Humana Military Healthcare
Services Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-00062 MCR/EMT, according to
Humana Inc.'s April 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

Humana Military Healthcare Services, Inc., has been named as a
defendant in Sacred Heart Health System, Inc., et al. v. Humana
Military Healthcare Services Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-00062
MCR/EMT, a class action lawsuit filed on Feb. 5, 2007, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida
asserting contract and fraud claims against Humana Military.
The Sacred Heart Complaint alleges, among other things, that,
Humana Military breached its network agreements with a class of
hospitals, including the seven named plaintiffs, in six states
that contracted for reimbursement of outpatient services provided
to beneficiaries of the Department of Defense's TRICARE health
benefits program.

The Complaint alleges that Humana Military breached its network
agreements when it failed to reimburse the hospitals based on
negotiated discounts for non-surgical outpatient services
performed on or after Oct. 1, 1999, and instead reimbursed them
based on published CHAMPUS Maximum Allowable Charges (CMAC
rates).

Humana Military denies that it breached the network agreements
with the hospitals and asserted a number of defenses to these
claims.

The Complaint seeks, among other things, the following relief for
the purported class members:

     (i) damages as a result of the alleged breach of contract
         by Humana Military,

    (ii) taxable costs of the litigation,

   (iii) attorneys fees, and

    (iv) any other relief the court deems just and proper.

Separate and apart from the class relief, named plaintiff Sacred
Heart Health System Inc. requests damages and other relief the
court deems just and proper for its individual claim against
Humana Military for fraud in the inducement to contract.

On Sept. 25, 2008, the district court certified a class
consisting of all institutional healthcare service providers in
TRICARE former Regions 3 and 4 which had network agreements with
Humana Military to provide outpatient non-surgical services to
CHAMPUS/TRICARE beneficiaries as of Nov. 18, 1999, excluding
those network providers who contractually agreed with Humana
Military to submit any such disputes with Humana Military to
arbitration.

On Oct. 9, 2008, Humana Military petitioned the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(f) for permission to appeal on an
interlocutory basis.

On Nov. 14, 2008, the Court of Appeals granted Humana Military's
petition.

On Nov. 21, 2008, the district court stayed proceedings in the
case pending the result of the appeal on the class issue or until
further notice.

Oral argument before the Court of Appeals was held on Jan. 14,
2010.

On March 3, 2010, the Court of Appeals reversed the district
court's class certification order, and Humana Military is
awaiting a trial schedule for the proceedings.

Humana Inc. -- http://www.humana.com/-- is headquartered in  
Louisville, Kentucky, and is one of the nation's largest publicly
traded health and supplemental benefits companies, with
approximately 10.4 million medical members and 7.2 million
specialty members.  Humana is a full-service benefits solutions
company, offering a wide array of health, pharmacy and
supplemental benefit plans for employer groups, government
programs and individuals.


HUMANA INC: Plaintiffs Withdraw Class Certification Plea
--------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter Southeast Georgia Regional Medical
Center, et al. v. Humana Military Healthcare Services, Inc., have
withdrawn their motion for class certification, according to
Humana Inc.'s April 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March
31, 2010.

On March 2, 2009, in a case styled Southeast Georgia Regional
Medical Center, et al. v. Humana Military Healthcare Services,
Inc., the named plaintiffs filed an arbitration demand, seeking
relief on the same grounds as the plaintiffs in the Sacred Heart
litigation.

The arbitration plaintiffs originally sought certification of a
class consisting of all institutional healthcare service
providers who had contracts with Humana Military to provide
outpatient non-surgical services and whose agreements provided
for dispute resolution through arbitration.

Humana Military submitted its response to the demand for
arbitration on May 1, 2009.

The plaintiffs have subsequently withdrawn their motion for class
certification, and Humana Military is awaiting a trial schedule
for the proceedings.

Humana Inc. -- http://www.humana.com/-- is headquartered in  
Louisville, Kentucky, and is one of the nation's largest publicly
traded health and supplemental benefits companies, with
approximately 10.4 million medical members and 7.2 million
specialty members.  Humana is a full-service benefits solutions
company, offering a wide array of health, pharmacy and
supplemental benefit plans for employer groups, government
programs and individuals.


KLEAN KANTEEN: Recalls 1,302,000 Sport Cap 2.0 Water Bottle Spouts
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Klean Kanteen Inc., of Chico, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1.2 million Sport Cap 2.0 water bottle spouts in
the United States and 102,000 in Canada.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The water bottle spouts can break or crack, posing a choking
hazard to children and adults.

The firm has received six reports of incidents of the water
bottle spouts breaking or cracking in children's mouths as they
were drinking from the bottles.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Sport Cap 2.0 water bottle spouts that are
made of black plastic and have an attachment loop.  "Klean
Kanteen" is stamped into the side of the cap.  A Picture of the
recalled product is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10218.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
outdoor sports stores, including LLBean, and grocery and
specialty stores nationwide, and on the Web at
http://www.llbean.com/from April 2009 through April 2010 for $5  
for the spout and between $15 and $28 when sold with a stainless
steel water bottle.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and
contact Klean Kanteen to receive a free mailing envelope to
return the water bottle spout and to receive a free replacement.  
For additional information, contact Klean Kanteen toll-free at
(877) 546-9063 anytime, or visit the firm's website at
http://www.kleankanteen.com/safetynotice/


MICHIGAN: Mich. Sup. Ct. Remands Public Defender Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Despite the extensive fanfare surrounding the Michigan Supreme
Court's decision to hear Duncan v. Michigan, No. 139345, the law
firm of Warner Norcross & Judd reports, the Court's remanded the
case involving constitutional challenges to the State's court-
appointed defense counsel program on procedural grounds.

In Duncan, the government moved to dismiss the plaintiff's
constitutional challenges to the funding and administration of
the court-appointed defense counsel programs in Berrien, Genesee,
and Muskegon counties on governmental immunity and other grounds.
The plaintiffs moved for class certification.

The Ingham County Circuit Court denied the government's motion
for summary disposition on the pleadings and granted the motion
for class certification. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial
court's decision in a lengthy decision.

The Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, but after
oral argument, the Court vacated the trial court's order granting
class certification and remanded the matter to the Ingham Circuit
Court for consideration of the motion in light of Henry v. Dow
Chemical Co., 484 Mich. 483 (2009).

The Court further affirmed denial of the government's motion for
summary disposition, albeit for different reasons. Citing the
fact that the case is still at the pleadings stage, the Court
concluded that the motion for summary disposition was premature.

The Court's order deprives the Court of Appeals' decision of
precedential and law-of-the-case effect, preserving the
government's arguments for summary disposition after discovery.


NIRVE SPORTS: Recalls 725 Chopper-Style Bicycles
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Nirve Sports Ltd., of Huntington Beach, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 725 Chopper-style bicycles: Red Star
100, Skulls 285 and Cannibal Chopper 340.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The bicycle stem on the handlebars can crack and cause the rider
to lose control, posing a risk of serious fall and injury.

Nirve Sports has received reports of cracked handlebar stems,
which all occurred during assembly of the bicycle.  No injuries
have been reported.

This recall involves three models: Red Star, Skulls and Cannibal
chopper-style bicycles with the model names printed on the chain
guard.  Red Star has a black finish; Skulls bear a skull graphic
and come in grey and black; and Cannibal bears a dragon graphic
and comes in a black finish.  Serial numbers are located on the
bottom of the bicycle between the pedals.  The recall involves
the following models, SKUs and Serial Numbers:

   Name of Model        SKU#    Serial Number Ranges
   -------------        ----    --------------------
   Red Star             3421    L8E0600576-L8E0600675

   Skulls               3433    L9E0200751-L9E0200810
                                L9E0201891-L9E0201900
                                L9E0201966-L9E0201972
                                L9E0400061-L9E0400120
                                L9E0500226-L9E0500285
                                L9E0700641-L9E0700700
                                L9E0701241-L9E0701255
                                L9E0701301-L9E0701315

   Cannibal             3434    L080405181-L080405240
                                L8E0901311-L8E0901370
                                L9E0300491-L9E0300560
                                L9E0202337-L9E0202344
                                L9E0400196-L9E0400255
                                L9E0601206-L9E0601265
                                L9E0602346-L9E0602365

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10221.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold though
Nirve Sports showroom, online and authorized dealers nationwide
from December 2008 through April 2009 for about $300 to $600.

Consumers should immediately stop riding the bicycles and return
them to the place of purchase for free repair.  For additional
information, contact Nirve Sports toll-free at (888) 296-4783
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's website at http://www.nirve.com/


OFFICE DEPOT: Appeal of Lead Plaintiff on Suit Dismissal Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of The New Mexico Educational Retirement Board, lead
plaintiff in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit against
Office Depot, Inc., remains pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida.

Initially, two putative class-action complaints were filed
against the company and certain of its executive officers,
alleging violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The allegations in the lawsuits, which were both filed in
November 2007, primarily relate to the accounting for vendor
program funds.

Each of the lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, and are captioned as:

       * Nichols v. Office Depot, Steve Odland and Patricia
         McKay, Case Number, 07-14348), filed on Nov. 6, 2007;
         and

       * Sheet Metal Worker Local 28 v. Office Depot, Steve
         Odland and Patricia McKay, Case Number, 07-81038),
         filed on Nov. 5, 2007.

On Jan. 4, 2008, certain parties in the Nichols case moved to
consolidate the two class action lawsuits.  On March 21, 2008,
the court entered an order consolidating the cases.  The lead
plaintiff in the consolidated case, the New Mexico Educational
Retirement Board, filed a consolidated amended complaint on
July 2, 2008.

On Sept. 2, 2008, Office Depot filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint on the basis that it fails to
state a claim.

On March 31, 2009, the court dismissed the Consolidated Amended
Complaint, but allowed the lead plaintiff leave to amend.  

On April 20, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint.

On May 21, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Consolidated Amended Complaint.

On Jan. 14, 2010, the Court dismissed the Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint.

On Feb. 9, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed a notice to appeal this
decision.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 27, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 27, 2010

The suit is Nichols v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., Case No.
07-cv-14348, (S.D. Fla.) (Hurley, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          David J. George, Esq.
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Phone: 561-750-3000
          Fax: 561-750-3364
          E-mail: dgeorge@csgrr.com

               - and -

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
          Alleghney Building
          429 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1618
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Phone: 412-338-2266

Representing the defendants is:

          Alvin F. Lindsay, III, Esq.
          Hogan & Hartson
          1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-459-6500
          Fax: 305-459-6550
          E-mail: aflindsay@hhlaw.com


PRICELINE.COM: Brevard Cty. Opts Out of Class Action Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
FloridaToday.com reports that Brevard County officials may opt
out of a class-action lawsuit seeking repayment for unpaid
tourist taxes from Internet travel companies.

Why?  Because the county filed its own similar lawsuit last fall
-- and Brevard lawyers believe they can win a separate, larger
multi-million-dollar judgment.

Monroe County leaders hope to assemble all 59 Florida counties
that charge a tourist bed tax in their class-action court fight
against Priceline, Expedia, Orbitz and other online travel
agencies.

On April 9, Brevard attorneys learned their county was listed as
a potential plaintiff. But this morning, County Attorney Scott
Knox will recommend that the Brevard County Commission decline
this legal avenue.

On average, class-action recoveries average less than 10 percent
of actual damages, according to a memo from Knox's office.

"Generally speaking, you can pretty well guess that the class-
action members are not going to get as much as if they would file
their own individual case," Knox said.

In October, the county filed suit in federal court in Orlando
against "the Priceline defendants" (Priceline.com and Travelweb),
"the Travelocity defendants" (Travelocity.com and Site59.com),
"the Expedia defendants" (Expedia, Hotels.com and Hotwire), and
"the Orbitz defendants" (Orbitz and Trip Network, which does
business as CheapTickets).

County attorneys allege that the Internet travel companies buy
Space Coast hotel rooms at a wholesale rate. Then the companies
sell the rooms to customers at more-expensive retail rates.

"In their transactions with consumers, the defendants charge the
applicable hotel room tax, but do not remit any such taxes to the
taxing authority," the complaint states.

Each defendant owes more than $75,000 in unpaid taxes, and the
total underpayment exceeds $1 million, the complaint states.

Brevard's hotel bed tax finances construction and maintenance of
Space Coast Stadium, improves beaches and promotes local tourism.

U.S. District Judge Gregory Presnell is presiding over the case,
which is scheduled to remain in the discovery phase through mid-
October.

Settlement mediation will begin in late October. If needed, a
jury trial -- expected to last 10 days -- is scheduled to start
April 4, 2011.


ROBERTA ROLLER: Recalls 9,200 Children's Kimono Robe
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Roberta Roller Rabbit by Roberta Freymann, of New York, N.Y.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 9,200 Roberta Roller Rabbit
Children's Kimono Robe, Lounge Sets and Slumber Short Sets.  
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The recalled sleepwear fails to meet the federal children's
sleepwear flammability standard, posing a burn hazard to
children.

No injuries or incidents have been reported

This recall involves long sleeved children's kimono robes, lounge
sets and slumber short sets.  The garments were sold in sizes 0
(12months), 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10.  A yellow label at the inside
neck reads "Roberta Roller Rabbit."  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10220.html

The recalled products were manufactured in India and sold though
Roberta Roller Rabbit retail stores in New York, N.Y.; East
Hampton, N.Y. and Santa Monica, Calif. from January 2005 through
February 2010 for $50.00.

Consumers should stop using the recalled robes and lounge sets
immediately and return them to a Roberta Roller Rabbit retail
store for a store credit.  For additional information, contact
Roberta Roller Rabbit toll-free at (877) 449-0604 between 9:30
a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or visit
the firm's website at http://www.RobertaRollerRabbit.com/


SPECIALIZED BICYCLE: Recalls 1,350 2010 Epic & Era Bicycles
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Specialized Bicycle Components Inc., of Morgan Hill, Calif.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 1,350 2010 26" Epic and 26"
Era Bicycles.

The shock absorber mount can break and the shock absorber can
make contact with the wheel spokes, posing a fall hazard to the
rider.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves alloy seat stays on the following 2010
Specialized Bicycle 26" Era and 26" Epic bicycles: 2010 Epic
Marathon Carbon, 2010 Epic Marathon Frame, 2010 Epic Expert
Carbon, 2010 Epic Expert, 2010 Epic Comp Carbon, 2010 Epic Comp,
2010 Era FSR Expert Carb, 2010 Era FSR Expert and 2010 Era FSR
Comp.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10219.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold
through authorized dealers nationwide from September 2009 through
October 2009 for between $2,000 through $5,500.

Consumers should immediately stop riding these bicycles and
contact a specialized dealer for a free repair.  For additional
information, contact Specialized Bicycle toll-free at
(877) 808-8154 between 9:00 a.m. and 5 p.m., Mountain Time,
Monday through Friday or visit the firm's web site at
http://www.specialized.com/


TYCO INT'L: May 6 Hearing Set for "Stumpf" Settlement Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
A May 6, 2010, hearing has been set to consider preliminary
approval of the settlement resolving the matter Stumpf v. Tyco
International Ltd., according to the company's April 27, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 26, 2010.

The matter arose from Tyco's July 2000 initial public offering of
common stock of TyCom Ltd, and alleged that the TyCom
registration statement and prospectus relating to the sale of
common stock were inaccurate, misleading and failed to disclose
facts necessary to make the registration statement and prospectus
not misleading.

The plaintiffs alleged that Tyco, among others, violated the
disclosure provisions of the federal securities laws.

The complaint further alleged the defendants violated securities
laws by making materially false and misleading statements and
omissions concerning, among other things, executive compensation,
TyCom's business prospects and Tyco's and TyCom's finances.

On May 6, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey will hear arguments on a motion requesting preliminary
approval of settlement of the Stumpf matter.

The proposed settlement is subject to final court approval and
the Court has not yet set a date for the final approval hearing.
If the settlement received final court approval, it will be
subject to the liability sharing provisions of the Separation and
Distribution Agreement with Covidien and Tyco Electronics.

Tyco International Ltd. -- http://www.tyco.com/-- is a  
diversified company that provides vital products and services to
customers around the world.  Tyco is a leading provider of
security products and services, fire protection and detection
products and services, valves and controls, and other industrial
products.  Tyco had 2009 revenue of more than $17 billion and has
more than 100,000 employees worldwide.  


TYCO INT'L: Court Dismisses Key Claims in Suit Against ADT Unit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Arapahoe County, Colorado, has dismissed a
number of the plaintiff's key claims in a class action suit
against ADT Worldwide, according to Tyco International Ltd.'s
April 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 26, 2010.

In 2002, the SEC's Division of Enforcement conducted an
investigation related to past accounting practices for dealer
connect fees that ADT Worldwide had charged to its authorized
dealers upon purchasing customer accounts.

The investigation related to accounting practices employed by the
company's former management, which were discontinued in 2003.  
Although the Company settled with the SEC in 2006, a number of
former dealers and related parties have filed lawsuits against
the company, including a class action lawsuit filed in the
District Court of Arapahoe County, Colorado, alleging breach of
contract and other claims related to ADT's decision to terminate
certain authorized dealers in 2002 and 2003.

In February 2010, the Court granted a directed verdict in ADT's
favor dismissing a number of the plaintiff's key claims.

Tyco International Ltd. -- http://www.tyco.com/-- is a  
diversified company that provides vital products and services to
customers around the world.  Tyco is a leading provider of
security products and services, fire protection and detection
products and services, valves and controls, and other industrial
products.  Tyco had 2009 revenue of more than $17 billion and has
more than 100,000 employees worldwide.  


UNITIL CORP: Continues to Defend Amended "Bellerman" Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Unitil Corp. continues to defend a putative class action
complaint captioned Bellerman v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light
Company, pending in the Worcester Superior Court in Worcester,
Massachusetts.

Fitchburg Gas is the company's wholly owned distribution utility
that provides both electric and natural gas service in the
greater Fitchburg area of north central Massachusetts.

A putative class action Complaint was filed against Fitchburg on
Jan. 7, 2009.

On April 1, 2009 an Amended Complaint was filed in Worcester
Superior Court and served on Fitchburg.

The Amended Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages
including the cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel
sources, emotional and physical pain and suffering and property
damages allegedly incurred by customers in connection with the
loss of electric service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's
service territory in December 2008.

The Amended Complaint includes M.G.L. ch. 93A claims for
purported unfair and deceptive trade practices related to the
December 2008 Storm.

On Sept. 4, 2009, the Superior Court issued its order on the
company's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, granting it in part
and denying it in part.

The company anticipates that the court will decide whether the
lawsuit is appropriate for class action treatment in the fall of
2010, according to the company's April 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2010.

Unitil Corp. -- http://www.unitil.com/-- is a public utility  
holding company. Unitil's principal business is the retail
distribution of both electricity and natural gas in New Hampshire
and Massachusetts, and the retail distribution of
natural gas in Maine.  Unitil has three retail distribution
utility subsidiaries: Unitil Energy Systems, Inc., Fitchburg Gas
and Electric Light Company, and Northern Utilities, Inc.
(Northern).  Unitil's retail distribution utilities serve
approximately 170,000 customers in their franchise areas.  
Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc. (Granite State), an
interstate natural gas transmission pipeline company, was
acquired by Unitil, along with Northern, from NiSource Inc. in
December 2008.  Unitil also provides energy brokering and
advisory services to large commercial and industrial customers
throughout the northeastern United States through its non-
regulated business segment, Unitil Resources, Inc. and its
subsidiary, Usource, LLC.


VERISIGN INC: Court Gives Preliminary Approval to Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has issued an order granting preliminary approval of the
settlement resolving a consolidated complaint against VeriSign,
Inc., according to the company's April 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2010.

On May 15, 2007, a putative class action styled Mykityshyn v.
Bidzos, et al., and VeriSign, was filed in Superior Court for the
State of California, Santa Clara County, naming VeriSign and
certain current and former officers and directors, alleging false
representations and disclosure failures regarding certain
historical stock option grants.

The plaintiff purports to represent all individuals who owned
VeriSign's common stock between April 3, 2002, and Aug. 9, 2006.

The complaint seeks rescission of amendments to the 1998 and 2006
Option Plans and the cancellation of shares added to the 1998
Option Plan.  The complaint also seeks to enjoin the company from
granting any stock options and from allowing the exercise of any
currently outstanding options granted under the 1998 and 2006
Option Plans.

The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, costs and attorneys fees.

The identical case was filed in the Superior Court for the State
of California, Santa Clara County under a separate name (Pace. v.
Bidzos, et al., and VeriSign) on June 19, 2007, and on October 3,
2007 (Mehdian v. Bidzos, et al.).

On Dec. 3, 2007, a consolidated complaint was filed in Superior
Court for the State of California, Santa Clara County.

The current directors and officers named in this consolidated
class action are D. James Bidzos, William L. Chenevich, Roger H.
Moore and Louis A. Simpson.  VeriSign and the individual
defendants dispute all of these claims.

Defendants' collective pleading challenges to the putative
consolidated class action complaint were granted with leave to
amend in August 2008.  By stipulation and Court order,
plaintiff's obligation to file an amended consolidated class
action complaint has been continued pending informal efforts by
the parties to resolve the action.

The parties have reached an agreement to resolve all of the
option grant related matters.

The Federal Action is subject to approval of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

On March 5, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California issued an order granting preliminary
approval of the settlement of the Federal Action.

A hearing for final approval is scheduled for June 2, 2010.

The parties have agreed that upon final approval of the
settlement and dismissal of the Federal Action the parallel state
court proceedings will be dismissed.  The settlement amount is
not significant.

VeriSign, Inc. -- http://www.verisign.com/-- is the trusted  
provider of Internet infrastructure services for the networked
world. Billions of times each day, VeriSign helps companies and
consumers all over the world engage in communications and
commerce with confidence.


VERISIGN INC: Appeal on Dismissal Bid in "Herbert" Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
VeriSign, Inc.'s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit an order issued by the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California denying the company's motion to
dismiss a purported consumer fraud class-action suit captioned
Karen Herbert et al. v. Endemol USA, et al., Case No. CV 07
3537FMC, is still pending.

Also named defendants in the complaint are:

     -- Endemol USA,
     -- Verisign, Inc.,
     -- M-Qube, Inc., and
     -- Don Jagoda Associates, Inc.

The named plaintiffs -- Karen Herbert, Judy Schenker, Jodi
Eberhart and Cheryl Bentley -- claim that the Internet
promotion, known as the "Lucky Case Game," which costs 99 cents
per text message, is a game of chance that offers a winner a
shot at "Deal or no Deal" Program, which offers a $1 million
grand prize.

At a predetermined time during each broadcast, six gold
briefcases (different from the in-studio contestants' cases) are
displayed on-air and an announcer invites home viewers to
participate in the Promotion by submitting the number one
through six that they believe corresponds to the winning gold
briefcase.  The game ends when one briefcase is opened on-air to
reveal that night's "Lucy Case."

The game allegedly involves the three elements of illegal
gambling: consideration, chance and prize.  Viewers of the
program enter the promotion via text message for which they incur
a premium text message fee, or via the Internet.  The
potential winners among eligible entrants are chosen at random,
and have the opportunity to win cash and other prizes.

The alleged illegal gambling game is broadcast during the show,
the plaintiffs say.

The plaintiffs further claim the show, broadcast nationwide from
California, violates California and Massachusetts laws against
gambling.

The defendants operate the "Lucky Case Game" Promotion, as
follows:

     (a) Endemol produces the "Deal or No Deal" Program which
         offers the "Lucky Case Game";

     (b) Don Jagoda designe the "Lucky Case Game," including its
         rules and conditions;

     (c) NBC broadcasts the "Deal or NO Deal" Program which
         offers the "Lucky Case Game";

     (d) Endemol, NBC, and Don Jagoda promote the "Lucky Case
         Game" during the broadcasr of "Deal or No Deal";

     (e) Endemol, NBC, and Don Jagoda promote the "Lucky Case
         Game" in advertisements for "Deal or No Deal" and the
         "Lucky Case Game";

     (f) Endemol, NBC, and Don Jagoda solicit thext message
         entries to the "Lucky Case Game";

     (g) NBC levies charges for premium text messages sent by
         entrants in the promotion;

     (h) VeriSign and M-Qube act as the billing agent for the
         promotion;

     (i) VeriSign and M-Qube aggregate all entrie, and randomly
         select and contact the potential prize winner amongst
         the entries correctly identifying the "Lucky Case";

     (j) VeriSign and M-Qube award and distribute prizes to
         winning entrants; and

     (k) Endemol, NBC, VeriSign and M-Qube sponsor the "Lucky
         Case Game."

The plaintiffs brought the nationwide class action suit pursuant
to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of
themselves and as representatives of a class consisting of all
persons in the U.S. who paid or incurred premium text message
charges in connection with entrance into the "Lucky Case Game,"
and who did not win a prize.

The plaintiffs brought the action in their individual capacities,  
and for the First and Second Causes of Action, as a
class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure on behalf of all persons and entities who have paid or
incurred premium text message charges in connection with entering
the "Lucky Case Game" Promotion, and who have not won
any prize.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     1. whether the "Lucky Case Game" constitutes illegal
        gambling;

     2. the extent of each defendants' participation in
        conducting the promotion;

     3. whether defendants' conduct violated California
        Business and Professions Section 17200;

     4. whether defendants' violations directly and proximately
        caused injury to plaintiffs and the class;

     5. the extent to which the injuries suffered by plaintiffs
        and the class are entitled to damages, restitution,
        disgorgement, or other monetary remedies;

     6. whether the "Lucky Case Game" constituted a gaming or
        related activity covered by Massachusetts General Laws
        ch. 137, Section 1:

     7. whether plaintiffs and class members are entitled to
        recover the amount of premium text messages paid to
        enter the "Lucky Case Game" in contract; and

     8. whether defendants should be enjoined from continuing
        the "Lucky Case Game."

The plaintiffs ask the court for:

     -- an order certifying the class;

     -- a judgment for plaintiffs and the class for restitution;

     -- a judgment for plaintiffs and the class for damages;

     -- a judgment for plaintiffs for treble damages;

     -- a preliminary and permanent injunction against
        conducting the "Lucy Case Game" Promotion;

     -- a declaration that the "Lucky Case Game" Promotion
        constitutes an illegal lottery and illegal gambling;

     -- reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to counsel for the
        class as may be just and proper; and

     -- such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

The company and the other defendants had sought to dismiss the
case, but this request was denied by the District Court.

The case is currently pending with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit awaiting resolution of the defendants'
petition for interlocutory appeal of the District Court's denial
of their dismissal motion.

A motion to dismiss ruling in Herbert is on appeal in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The suit is Karen Herbert, et al. v. Endemol USA, et al., Case
No. CV 07 3537FMC, (C.D. Calif.).

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Phone: 310-854-4444
          Fax: 310-854-0812
          E-mail: kiesel@kbla.com

          William A. Pannell, Esq.
          William A. Pannell, P.C.
          3460 Kingsboro Road, N.E., Suite TH5
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Phone: 404-353-2283
          E-mail: billpannell@mindspring.com

               - and -

          Kevin T. Moore, Esq.
          Kevin T. Moore, P.C.
          6111 Peachtree Dunwoody Road, N.E.
          Building C, Suite 201
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Phone: 770-396-3622
          E-mail: kaw30328@aol.com


VERISIGN INC: "Bentley" Consumer Fraud Lawsuit Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
A purported consumer fraud class-action suit captioned Cheryl
Bentley et al. v. NBC Universal Inc et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-
03647-FMC-VBK, remains stayed.

Initially, on June 5, 2007, plaintiff Cheryl Bentley, on behalf
of herself and a nationwide class of consumers, filed a
complaint against VeriSign, m-Qube Inc., and other defendants.  
The plaintiff alleges that the defendants collectively operate an
illegal lottery under the laws of multiple states by allowing
viewers of the NBC television show "The Apprentice" to incur
premium text message charges in order to participate in an
interactive television promotion called "Get Rich With Trump."

The company sought to dismiss the case, which request was denied
by the District Court.

No further updates were reported in the company's April 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The suit is Cheryl Bentley, et al. v. NBC Universal Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-03647-FMC-VBK, (C.D. Calif.) (Cooper, J.).

Representing the plaintiff are:

          Michiyo M. Furukawa, Esq.
          Milberg LLP
          One California Plaza
          300 South Grand Avenue Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-617-1200
          Fax: 213-617-1975
          E-mail: mfurukawa@milberg.com

               - and -

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          Kiesel Boucher Larson LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Phone: 310-854-4444
          Fax: 310-854-0812
          E-mail: kiesel@kbla.com

Representing the defendants are:

          Ronald L. Johnston, Esq.
          Arnold and Porter
          777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Phone: 213-243-4000
          E-mail: ronald_johnston@aporter.com

               - and -

          Chad S. Hummel, Esq.
          Manatt Phelps & Phillips
          11355 West Olympic Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614
          Phone: 310-312-4000
          E-mail: chummel@manatt.com

                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda, Joy A. Agravante,
Ronald Sy and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2010.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *