CAR_Public/100601.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, June 1, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 106

                            Headlines

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Settles Shareholder Lawsuit for $12 Million
ARGENTINA: 2nd Cir. Says Bondholder Payments Need Recalculation
BP PLC: New Orleans Hotel Owners Sue to Recoup Oil Spill Losses
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Sued for Unlawful Collection of Blood Samples
COLLEEN KARIS: Recalls 380 Basketball Chair & Ottoman Sets

COST PLUS: Recalls 14,000 Moroccan Tea Glasses
CVS CAREMARK: Remains a Defendant in Lawsuit by John Lauriello
CVS CAREMARK: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Pennsylvania
CVS CAREMARK: Continues to Defend Eight FLSA Violations Suits
CVS CAREMARK: Faces Securities Suit in Rhode Island

FAIRRIELD HENRY: Tenants Sue Landlord in Wake of Apartment Fire
HIND FASHIONS: Recalls 200 Boys' Hooded Jackets
HOOTERS OF ROSEVILLE: Sued for Alleged Weight Discrimination
HOOVER INC: Recalls 108,000 Upright Vacuum Cleaners
LOLLYTOGS LTD: Recalls 23,000 Children's Hooded Jackets

MAXFIELD AND OBERTON: Recalls 175,000 Buckyballs(R) Magnet Sets
MCNEIL CONSUMER: Sold Unsafe Children's Drugs, Ill. Suit Claims
MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Certification of Digitek Class is Denied
NEW CINGULAR: 9th Circuit Revives Breach of Contract Suit
RADIAN GROUP: Court Dismisses Amended Consolidated Complaint

RADIAN GROUP: Continues to Defend ERISA Violation Suit in Penn.
S. ROTHSCHILD & COMPANY: Recalls 13,500 Girls' Coats
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Settles Six Class Action Merger-Related Suits
SOUTH KENDALL: Chinese Drywall Class Certified in Miami, Fla.
TELETECH HOLDINGS: Final Approval of Settlement Remains Pending

UNITED STATES: Extension to June 15 in Indian Trust Fund Case
UNITED WESTERN: Wants Second Amended Complaint Dismissed
VITACOST.COM INC: Saxena White File Shareholder Suit in S.D. Fla.
WYETH-AYERST: Canadian High Court Allows Premarin Suit to Proceed

                            *********

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Settles Shareholder Lawsuit for $12 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
On May 26, 2010, Abercrombie & Fitch Co. entered into an
agreement in principle with the litigants in the consolidated
federal securities law litigation styled Robert Ross vs.
Abercrombie & Fitch Company, et al.  Pursuant to the agreement in
principle, the parties have agreed to settle all outstanding
claims, as a class action, for $12 million, including all
attorneys' fees and other costs and expenses. The full settlement
amount is to be paid by the Company's insurers.  The agreement in
principle is subject to definitive documentation, notice to the
class and final approval by the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio.


ARGENTINA: 2nd Cir. Says Bondholder Payments Need Recalculation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit tossed a $2.24 billion damage
award to tens of thousands of investors who held defaulted
Argentine bonds, calling the amount "inflated" and telling a
federal judge to calculate payouts that "more closely reflect the
losses class members experienced."

A severe economic crisis in the 1990s caused the Republic of
Argentina to default on roughly $80 billion to $100 billion of
sovereign debt in 2001.  Investors filed eight class actions,
though an exact damage amount was elusive, as investors bought at
different times and through different markets.

Class counsel nonetheless urged the district court to award
aggregate damages to the whole class based on expert testimony.

Argentina resisted this method of calculation, claiming it would
lead to bloated, inaccurate judgments based on sparse
information. It acknowledged that it owed investors money, but
argued that judgments should be based on individualized proof of
damages, not global estimates.

But it unable to convince U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa, who
said the judgments were based on "very good estimates" and
awarded investors $2.24 billion.

The Manhattan-based federal appeals court found the awards
"improper."

"The district court did not explain how it calculated the class-
wide awards," Judge Barrington Parker wrote.  "Nonetheless, it
acknowledged, on the record, that its estimates were likely
inflated."

The lower court justified the inflated judgments on the basis
that Argentina would generally refuse to pay any judgment against
it, so the investors were unlikely to see the money.

"However practical this approach might have been," Parker wrote,
"we conclude that it was improper."

The court remanded in part, telling Judge Griesa to "consider
alternative approaches that will set damages awards that more
closely reflect the losses class members experienced."  

A copy of the decision in Seijas, et al. v. The Republic of
Argentina, Docket Nos. 09-cv-00332, 09-cv-00335, 09-cv-00338,
09-cv-00345-, 09-cv-00371, 09-cv-00373, 09-cv-00374 and 09-cv-
00375 (2nd Cir.), is available at:

     http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?6374

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Bertrand C. Sellier, Esq.
          Mark D. Harris, Esq.
          William H. Weisman, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          1585 Broadway
          New York, NY 10036-8299
          Telephone: 212-969-3000

               - and -

          Guillermo A. Gleizer, Esq.
          19 W 34th St., Suite 914
          New York, NY 10001-0000
          Telephone: 646-233-4097

               - and -

          Howard Sirota, Esq.
          Saul Roffe, Esq.
          SIROTA & SIROTA LLP
          125 Beach 128th St.
          Belle Harbor, NY 11694
          Telephone: 212-425-9055

               - and -

          LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN LLP
          61 Broadway, Suite 501
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: 212-608-1900

The Republic of Argentina is represented by:

          Jonathan I. Blackman, Esq.
          Carmine D. Boccuzzi, Esq.
          Christopher P. Moore, Esq.
          CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP
          One Liberty Plaza
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: 212-225-2000

                             *   *   *   

Bondholder Michael Diaz, Jr., managing partner at Miami-based
Diaz Reus & Targ, LLP, wasted no time clarifying that this ruling
is a significant victory for the plaintiffs rather than the
government of Argentina

On May 27, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit rejected a claim by Argentina that U.S.
District Court Judge Thomas Griesa improperly certified eight
individual classes of plaintiffs seeking more than 2.2 billion
dollars in damages.
"With this ruling, the plaintiffs are one significant step closer
to ending their long fight with Argentina," said Diaz. "By
approving Judge Griesa's certification of the classes, the
appellate court has ended all debate regarding the propriety of
the classes, how they were constituted, and their ability to
adequately represent the interests of bondholders."

Diaz added that the appellate court's decision reiterated
Argentina's liability -- a point even Argentina concedes. The
ruling also cited the need to search for the Republic of
Argentina's assets, and the importance of providing relief to
small investors as key factors in favor of Judge Griesa's
decision to certify the classes. The appellate court did ask
Judge Griesa to explain how he calculated each of the judgments
awarded to the eight plaintiff classes.

"The notion that this constitutes a victory for Argentina is
preposterous," said Carlos F. Gonzalez who, together with Diaz
and Guillermo Gleizer, represents the plaintiffs. Gonzalez noted
that the appellate court "vacated the judgments so that the
district court could further explain how it calculated the amount
Argentina owed under each of the eight judgments at issue."
The parties will next meet in court on June 8. "At that hearing,
the plaintiffs will make it clear that Argentina remains liable
to bondholders and will, in the end, have to pay," said Diaz.
"Nothing is stopping Judge Griesa from entering the same judgment
on remand after explaining his basis for calculating the $2.2
billion award he previously granted."

Diaz Reus -- http://www.diazreus.com/-- is an international law  
firm focusing on trade and business transactions, complex
commercial, civil, and criminal litigation and arbitration
matters, operating offices in Miami; Shanghai, China; Frankfurt,
Germany; Caracas, Venezuela, and Mexico City, Mexico and
affiliate offices in Colombia and Brazil.


BP PLC: New Orleans Hotel Owners Sue to Recoup Oil Spill Losses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Mowbray at The Times-Picayune reports that in a sign of
mounting concern about the economic impact of the oil spill,
several New Orleans hotels filed a class action suit in federal
court last week against BP, saying that damage to the Louisiana
seafood industry will tarnish the attractiveness of New Orleans
as a tourism destination and could lead to lost profits.

Named plaintiffs include the Bourbon Orleans, Astor Crowne Plaza,
Marriott Convention Center, Wyndham Riverfront, St. Louis, St.
Ann Marie Antoinette and the Dauphine Orleans hotels, most of
which are owned by investor groups led by Joe Jaeger, president
of Mechanical Construction Co.

The hotels say they expect their earnings capacity to be damaged.
"Plaintiffs and many members of the Proposed Class have invested
significant time, money and other resources into branding,
marketing and/or advertising the New Orleans metropolitan area as
an attractive tourist destination for many reasons, including its
reputation for plentiful, fresh seafood and/or, in particular,
local seafood, Louisiana seafood, and/or seafood from the Gulf of
Mexico," the suit reads.

A group of restaurants including 1179 and Franky & Johnny filed a
similar suit last week saying that they are having difficulty
obtaining local seafood, are paying more money for it, and are
losing customers.

Kelly Schulz, vice president of communications and public
relations at the New Orleans Metropolitan Convention and Visitors
Bureau said with a busy convention month this month, member
companies aren't reporting losing business, but they say that
they haven't been receiving as many inquiries since the oil
spill.

The convention bureau is trying to remind potential visitors that
New Orleans is inland from the areas affected by the spill, and
that restaurants are still open and making adjustments as
necessary. But, she noted, the local tourism industry employs
70,000 people and is driven by perceptions, and is deeply
concerned about the spill.

The Louisiana Office of Tourism is working on a report
quantifying the impact of the oil spill on the state's tourism
industry. It is expected to be ready in early June.
Last week, BP announced a $15 million grant to the State of
Louisiana for tourism marketing. Lieutenant Governor Scott
Angelle's office is working on how to allocate that money around
the state.

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 provides for economic damages even
if a business doesn't have oil at its doorstep, but one major
question of the litigation shaping up around the April 20
Deepwater Horizon rig explosion and subsequent oil leak into the
Gulf of Mexico is how far away from the coast courts will grant
indirect economic damages.


BRITISH COLUMBIA: Sued for Unlawful Collection of Blood Samples
---------------------------------------------------------------
Darryl Greer at Courthouse News Service reports that a mother has
filed a class action accusing British Columbia's Provincial
Health Services Authority of collecting blood samples from every
infant born in B.C. and the Yukon since 1999 without permission.

Natalie Docherty and her two children, identified as L.D. and
E.D., say the agency collected blood samples from the infants
before sending them off to a lab to test for "18 detectable
disorders."  The samples were later sent to a storage facility
where the authority holds nearly 800,000 sample cards, which are
accessed by researchers for "unknown research and testing
purposes," the complaint states.

"Potential users of the blood sample cards include law
enforcement personnel and agencies, coroners, health regulators
and health insurers," the complaint states.  "The blood sample
storage facility amounts to a legally unauthorized fully
functional DNA database.  Expansion of the range of information
that can be extracted from blood is reasonably foreseeable."

The agency allegedly failed to tell parents that the blood
samples would be used for anything other than testing for
diseases and conditions, and failed to get patients' consent to
store the samples.

The plaintiffs want the blood samples destroyed and demand
damages for breach of privacy and breach of their rights against
unlawful search and seizure.

A copy of the Complaint in L.D., et al. v. Provincial Health
Services Authority, Case No. _____ (B.C. Sup. Ct.), is available
at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/27/Provincial%20Health.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
  
          Jason B. Gratl, Esq.
          GRATL & COMPANY, BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS
          302-556 Beatty St.
          Vancouver, BC V6B 2L3
          Telephone: 604-694-1919


COLLEEN KARIS: Recalls 380 Basketball Chair & Ottoman Sets
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Colleen Karis Designs LLC, of Los Angeles, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 380 All-Star Basketball Chair and
Ottoman Sets.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Surface paints on the lettering on both sides of the basketball
chair could contain excessive levels of lead, which is a
violation of the federal lead paint standard.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves the vinyl chair is round in shape to
resemble a basketball, orange/brown in color and measures about
20 inches in diameter.  "All-Star" is printed on both sides in
black. "Colleen Karis Designs" is printed on a tag on the bottom
of the chair.  The ottoman is orange/brown in color and has a
black stripe.  Pictures of the recalled products are available
at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10245.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
homeGoods stores nationwide from February 2009 through April 2010
for about $50.

Consumers should immediately take the chair and ottoman away from
children and return the chair and ottoman set to Colleen Karis
Designs for a full refund.  For additional information, contact
Colleen Karis Designs toll-free at (866) 278-7938 between 10:00
a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit
the firm's web site at http://www.colleenkarisdesigns.com/


COST PLUS: Recalls 14,000 Moroccan Tea Glasses
----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Cost Plus Inc., of Oakland, Calif., announced a voluntary recall
of about 14,000 Moroccan tea glasses.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The Moroccan tea glasses contain excessive levels of lead in the
exterior coloring.  Lead is toxic if ingested by young children
and can cause adverse health effects.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

The recalled Moroccan tea glasses were sold in 7-ounce and 11.25-
ounce sizes.  The glasses have an etched graphic design on the
outside of the glass and were sold in assorted colors such as
blue, green, and red.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10249.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Morocco and sold
through Cost Plus/World Market stores nationwide from June 2009
through November 2009 for about $5 for the 7-ounce tea glass and
about $6 for the 11.25-ounce tea glass.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled tea glasses
for food or beverage and return the glasses to any Cost
Plus/World Market store for a full refund.  For additional
information, contact Cost Plus toll-free at (877) 967-5362
between 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m., Eastern Time, any day or visit
the firm's Web site at http://www.worldmarket.com/


CVS CAREMARK: Remains a Defendant in Lawsuit by John Lauriello
--------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Caremark Corporation remains a defendant in a putative class
action lawsuit filed by John Lauriello and pending in the Alabama
state court.  

Caremark was named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in
October 2003 in Alabama state court by John Lauriello,
purportedly on behalf of participants in the 1999 settlement of
various securities class action and derivative lawsuits against
Caremark and others.  Other defendants include insurance
companies that provided coverage to Caremark with respect to the
settled lawsuits.

The Lauriello lawsuit seeks approximately $3.2 billion in
compensatory damages plus other non-specified damages based on
allegations that the amount of insurance coverage available for
the settled lawsuits was misrepresented and suppressed.

A similar lawsuit was filed in November 2003 by Frank McArthur,
also in Alabama state court, naming as defendants Caremark,
several insurance companies, attorneys and law firms involved in
the 1999 settlement.  This lawsuit was stayed as a later-filed
class action, but McArthur was subsequently allowed to intervene
in the Lauriello action.

The attorneys and law firms named as defendants in McArthur's
intervention pleadings have been dismissed from the case, and
discovery on class certification and adequacy issues is underway.

No further updates were reported in the company's May 4, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

CVS Caremark Corporation -- http://info.cvscaremark.com/-- is  
the largest pharmacy health care provider in the United States.  
Through its integrated offerings across the entire spectrum of
pharmacy care, the company is uniquely positioned to provide
greater access to engage plan members in behaviors that improve
their health, and to lower overall health care costs for health
plans, plan sponsors and their members.  CVS Caremark is a market
leader in mail order pharmacy, retail pharmacy, specialty
pharmacy, and retail clinics, and is a leading provider of
Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Plans.  As one of the country's
largest pharmacy benefits managers (PBMs), the company provides
access to a network of more than 64,000 pharmacies, including
over 7,000 CVS/pharmacy(R) stores that provide unparalleled
service and capabilities.  The company's clinical expertise
includes one of the industry's most comprehensive disease
management programs.


CVS CAREMARK: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suit in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Caremark Corporation continues to defend the consolidated
action captioned In Re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust
Litigation.

Various lawsuits have been filed alleging that Caremark has
violated applicable antitrust laws in establishing and
maintaining retail pharmacy networks for client health plans.

In August 2003, Bellevue Drug Co., Robert Schreiber, Inc. d/b/a
Burns Pharmacy and Rehn-Huerbinger Drug Co. d/b/a Parkway Drugs
#4, together with Pharmacy Freedom Fund and the National
Community Pharmacists Association filed a putative class action
against Caremark in Pennsylvania federal court, seeking treble
damages and injunctive relief.  The claims were initially sent to
arbitration based on contract terms between the pharmacies and
Caremark.

In October 2003, two independent pharmacies, North Jackson
Pharmacy, Inc. and C&C, Inc. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs, Inc.
filed a putative class action complaint in Alabama federal court
against Caremark and two PBM competitors, seeking treble damages
and injunctive relief.  One of these cases was transferred to
Illinois federal court, and the other case was sent to
arbitration based on contract terms between the pharmacies and
Caremark.  The arbitration was then stayed by the parties pending
developments in the court case.

In August 2006, the Bellevue case and the North Jackson Pharmacy
case were transferred to Pennsylvania federal court by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated and
consolidated proceedings with other cases before the panel,
including cases against other PBMs.

Caremark appealed a decision which vacated the order compelling
arbitration and staying the proceedings in the Bellevue case and,
following the appeal, the Court of Appeals reinstated the order
compelling arbitration.

Motions for class certification in the coordinated cases within
the multidistrict litigation, including the North Jackson
Pharmacy case, remain pending.

No further updates were reported in the company's May 4, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

CVS Caremark Corporation -- http://info.cvscaremark.com/-- is  
the largest pharmacy health care provider in the United States.  
Through its integrated offerings across the entire spectrum of
pharmacy care, the company is uniquely positioned to provide
greater access to engage plan members in behaviors that improve
their health, and to lower overall health care costs for health
plans, plan sponsors and their members.  CVS Caremark is a market
leader in mail order pharmacy, retail pharmacy, specialty
pharmacy, and retail clinics, and is a leading provider of
Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Plans.  As one of the country's
largest pharmacy benefits managers (PBMs), the company provides
access to a network of more than 64,000 pharmacies, including
over 7,000 CVS/pharmacy(R) stores that provide unparalleled
service and capabilities.  The company's clinical expertise
includes one of the industry's most comprehensive disease
management programs.


CVS CAREMARK: Continues to Defend Eight FLSA Violations Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Caremark Corporation continues to defend eight putative
collective or class action lawsuits alleging violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Since March 2009, the company has been named in a series of eight
putative collective or class action lawsuits filed in federal
courts in Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, New York and Rhode
Island, purportedly on behalf of current and former assistant
store managers working in the company's stores at various
locations outside California.

The lawsuits allege that the company failed to pay overtime to
assistant store managers as required under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and under certain state statutes.  The lawsuits
also seek other relief, including liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, costs and injunctive relief arising out of the state and
federal claims for overtime pay.

No further updates were reported in the company's May 4, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

CVS Caremark Corporation -- http://info.cvscaremark.com/-- is  
the largest pharmacy health care provider in the United States.  
Through its integrated offerings across the entire spectrum of
pharmacy care, the company is uniquely positioned to provide
greater access to engage plan members in behaviors that improve
their health, and to lower overall health care costs for health
plans, plan sponsors and their members.  CVS Caremark is a market
leader in mail order pharmacy, retail pharmacy, specialty
pharmacy, and retail clinics, and is a leading provider of
Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Plans.  As one of the country's
largest pharmacy benefits managers (PBMs), the company provides
access to a network of more than 64,000 pharmacies, including
over 7,000 CVS/pharmacy(R) stores that provide unparalleled
service and capabilities.  The company's clinical expertise
includes one of the industry's most comprehensive disease
management programs.


CVS CAREMARK: Faces Securities Suit in Rhode Island
---------------------------------------------------
CVS Caremark Corporation faces a securities class action lawsuit
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode
Island, according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2010.

In November 2009, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of CVS Caremark Corporation
stock between May 5, 2009 and Nov. 4, 2009.

The lawsuit names the company and certain officers as defendants
and includes allegations of securities fraud relating to public
disclosures made by the company concerning the PBM business and
allegations of insider trading.

CVS Caremark Corporation -- http://info.cvscaremark.com/-- is  
the largest pharmacy health care provider in the United States.  
Through its integrated offerings across the entire spectrum of
pharmacy care, the company is uniquely positioned to provide
greater access to engage plan members in behaviors that improve
their health, and to lower overall health care costs for health
plans, plan sponsors and their members.  CVS Caremark is a market
leader in mail order pharmacy, retail pharmacy, specialty
pharmacy, and retail clinics, and is a leading provider of
Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Plans.  As one of the country's
largest pharmacy benefits managers (PBMs), the company provides
access to a network of more than 64,000 pharmacies, including
over 7,000 CVS/pharmacy(R) stores that provide unparalleled
service and capabilities.  The company's clinical expertise
includes one of the industry's most comprehensive disease
management programs.


FAIRRIELD HENRY: Tenants Sue Landlord in Wake of Apartment Fire
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Simcox at The Chestnut Hill Local reports that almost one
year ago, an apartment building located in the Roxborough area of
Philadelphia, Pa., was set ablaze by a resident member of Project
Transition -- a for-profit program that places adults with
psychiatric problems in apartments, allowing them to live
independently while receiving treatment. Last week, residents of
Henry on the Park apartments filed a class-action lawsuit against
their landlord and Project Transition.

The lawsuit, filed by a cross-section of residents from the Henry
on the Park community, alleges "inadequate security and poor
safety for its residents," according to the press release from
David Woloshin, the residents' attorney.

In the morning hours of July 14, 2009, fire broke out at Henry on
the Park apartments, 7901 Henry Ave. Later, Patricia
Gilberthrope, a Project Transition resident at Henry on the Park,
was charged with arson and other offenses in connection with the
incident, according to the press release, but she has yet to
stand trial because of her mental state.

It was not until the fire, and ensuing news reports, that
residents learned that Project Transition was placing clients at
Henry on the Park, according to the complaint.

Henry on the Park began leasing apartments to Project Transition,
"sometime in 2008 or 2009," according to the press release, and
did so "because it was economically beneficial," according to the
complaint.

Plaintiffs in the case are Ty Oehrtman, Esta Jo Schifter, Harriet
Zozofsky, Randolph Cornell, Wilhelmina Bell and Mary Toelke,
according to the complaint.

Defendants named in the lawsuit are Faifield Henry LLC, the
corporate entity that owns Henry on the Park, Connecticut General
Life Insurance Company, JPI Management Services LLC, Project
Transition and Y.A.P.A Apartment Living Program, Inc., the parent
company of Project Transition.

The office at Henry on the Park apartments did not return calls
for a comment on the lawsuit.

Woloshin said the purpose of the lawsuit is to ensure the safety
of Henry on the Park's residents.

"Well, the ultimate goal is - number one - to ensure that safety
and security is addressed in a more professional, diligent
manner," Woloshin said. "And - number two - not only the
correction but also to be compensated for the damages."

Claims of negligence by the landlord and Project Transition make
up a large portion of the lawsuit. Numerous allegations are
listed on the criminal complaint, including the landlord's
failure to protect and inform the residents of the actions of
Project Transition members.

The landlord's failure to keep buildings up to code and Project
Transition's "failure to adequately supervise, monitor and/or
control the Project Transition patients that reside at Henry on
the Park," are also included in the complaint.

According to Woloshin, the residents do not disagree with Project
Transition's philosophy.

"In some respects it's a good philosophy, but when you are doing
that in an apartment complex you have to do it the right way,"
Woloshin said.

Requests for comment from Project Transition were made to
executive director Paul Keisling, but there was no response by
press time.

Ty Oehrtman, president of the Henry on the Park Residents
Association also reiterated the residents' support for Project
Transition.

"It's not being here," Oehrtman said of Project Transition, "as
much as that they are here safely and securely and everyone's
best interest is protected and secured.

Oehrtman described several situations that he said made residents
feel uneasy. Incidents including heavy foot traffic around
certain apartments, people loitering in common areas, people
loitering and peering in windows of cars throughout the parking
lot, overheard conversations about exchanging medications and
women feeling as if they are being watched and almost stalked.

This is not the only lawsuit between these parties. In a
currently active case, Fairfield Henry LLC filed a lawsuit
against Project Transition for the property damages caused by the
fire, stating that Project Transition failed to supervise
Patricia Gilberthrope. In response, Project Transition filed a
counter claim, Woloshin said.

"The lawsuit will determine who was at fault," Woloshin said.
"Somebody obviously has to take responsibility for this fire and
ultimately the property damage - about $2 million, by the way."

Oehrtman lived in the apartment next-door to where the fire was
started. He said he was displaced for three and a half weeks
before relocating, and everything he owned was either restored or
replaced because of severe smoke damage.

Project Transition also has participants similarly situated at
Chestnut Hill Village, where tenants have also reported being
harassed. According to the complaint, however, Project Transition
was evicted from Chestnut Hill Village, and its former tenants
were relocated to Henry on the Park.

At this point, the defendants will have time to respond to the
complaint, either confirming or denying the allegations, Woloshin
said, and the lawsuit will proceed from there.


HIND FASHIONS: Recalls 200 Boys' Hooded Jackets
-----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Hind Fashions, of New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of
about 200 Boys' Hooded Jackets.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The jackets have a drawstring through the hood which can pose a
strangulation hazard to children.  In February 1996, CPSC issued
guidelines (which were incorporated into an industry voluntary
standard in 1997) to help prevent children from strangling or
getting entangled on the neck and waist drawstrings in upper
garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves boys' hooded jackets with drawstrings that
are blue suede on the outside and have fur lining on the inside.
"Hind Leather" is printed on the tag on the back of the neck.  
They were sold in sizes 6 through 12.  This recall also involves
a black quilted leather hooded jacket with drawstrings that has
fur surrounding the hood.  "Lil' Phat" is printed on the tag on
the back of the neck.  They were sold in sizes small, medium and
large.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10244.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Burlington Coat Factory stores nationwide January 2006 through
September 2009 for between $30 and $90.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the
garment to eliminate the hazard or return the garment to Hind
Fashions or Burlington Coat Factory for a full refund.  For
additional information, contact Hind Fashions toll-free at (888)
643-4463 between 11:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday.


HOOTERS OF ROSEVILLE: Sued for Alleged Weight Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Beahm at FindLaw.com reports that Hooters is being sued by
a former employee who says that she was bullied by management
about her weight. Now with her attorney, Richard Bernstein, she
is fighting back with a lawsuit in Macomb County, Michigan.

Former Hooters waitress Cassandra Smith has filed a lawsuit
against Hooters of America Inc., alleging discrimination
involving their famous Hooters uniforms. Smith alleges that she
had received good reviews and a promotion to shift leader, before
a meeting where she was placed on "weight probation," and told to
join a gym and improve her looks.

According to the complaint in Smith v. Hooters of Roseville,
Inc., et al, Case No. 10-2213-CD (Mich. Cir. Ct., Macomb Cty.),
Cassandra, 5'8" tall and 132.5 pounds, was counseled about the
fit of her uniform and advised that she needed to lose weight so
she would fit better into the size extra-small uniform she was
required to wear. She was allegedly told by management "to call
them personally if she had trouble making her uniform fit, and
also that they would understand if she could not succeed, and
therefore, wanted to quit her job."

The defendants allegedly shared Smith's weight with other Hooters
workers, which resulted in an "intensely humiliating, deeply
offensive, untenable" work environment, forcing her to resign.
The complaint states that Hooter's actions are a violation of the
Michigan Elliot Larsen Civil Rights Act for weights and gender
discrimination.

Hooters said in a statement that it does not enforce any weight
requirement, and denies the "baseless and self-serving" charges.

The complaint seeks an award of damages in excess of $25,000,
including recovery for lost wages, emotional distress and
exemplary damages.


HOOVER INC: Recalls 108,000 Upright Vacuum Cleaners
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Hoover Inc., of Glenwillow, Ohio, announced a voluntary recall of
about 108,000 Hoover(R) WindTunnel T-Series(TM) Bagless Upright
Vacuum Cleaners with Cord Rewind Feature.

The power cord is not properly routed or securely seated in the
cord rewind assembly allowing the power cord to be pulled loose.
This poses fire and shock hazards.

Hoover has received three reports of minor burns to carpet and
furniture and one report of a minor burn to a consumer's hand.

This recall involves Hoover(R) WindTunnel T-Series(TM) Bagless
Upright vacuum cleaners with the cord rewind feature.  This
feature enables the cord to wind inside the vacuum for storage.
The following model numbers and manufacturing codes are included
in the recall.

   Model Numbers           Manufacturing code ends with
   ------------            ----------------------------
   UH70110  UH70120                  HO9A O9A
   UH70200  UH70205                  JO9A KO9A
   UH70210

Vacuums with the manufacturing code KO9A followed by a green dot
are not included in this recall.  Vacuum cleaners with the cord
rewind feature sold after November 2009 and with any other
manufacturing code are not included in this recall.  The model
number and manufacturing code can be found on a label on the
lower rear part of the vacuum cleaner.   Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10248.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and sold
through Mass merchandisers, department stores and independent
vacuum retailers nationwide and online from August 2009 through
May 2010 for between $100 and $160.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled vacuum
cleaners and contact Hoover for a free repair.  For additional
information, contact Hoover toll-free at (888) 891-2054 between
8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.hoover.com/tseriesrewindrecall/


LOLLYTOGS LTD: Recalls 23,000 Children's Hooded Jackets
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Lollytogs Ltd., of New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall
of about 23,000 Rim Rocka Boys' Hooded Jackets and Pelle Pelle
Girls' Hooded Jackets.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The jackets have a drawstring through the hood and the vests have
a drawstring through the waist which can pose strangulation and
entanglement hazards to young children.  In February 1996, CPSC
issued guidelines (which were incorporated into an industry
voluntary standard in 1997) to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist drawstrings
in upper garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves boys' Rim Rocka hooded sweatshirts that are
black or navy blue with red and white trim or gray and white trim
and have a large number embroidered on the front of the
sweatshirt.  The drawstrings are attached at the hood.  They have
an emblem on the left shoulder that reads "RR". T here is a tag
at the back of the neck that reads "Rim Rocka" OFFICIAL SPORTS
APPAREL".  This recall also involves girls' Pelle Pelle hooded
jackets that have a zipper front that zippers to the top of the
hood.  They come in either pink or white with pictures of bottle
caps printed on the hood and sleeves.  It reads "Soda Club pelle
pelle" on the top right of the sweatshirt.  The tag at the back
of the neck of the sweatshirt reads "pelle pelle".  The
drawstrings are attached at the waist. The sweatshirts were sold
in sizes 2T-14.  Pictures of the recalled products are available
at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10250.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Pakistan and
Bangladesh and sold through Burlington Coat Factory stores and at
various small retailers nationwide from February 2008 through
September 2009 for about $14.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the
garment to eliminate the hazard or return the garment to the
place of purchase for a refund or credit.  For additional
information, contact Lollytogs at (800) 637-9035 between 9:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit
the firm's website at http://www.ltapparel.com/


MAXFIELD AND OBERTON: Recalls 175,000 Buckyballs(R) Magnet Sets
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Buckyballs(R) High Powered Magnets Sets, announced a voluntary
recall of about 175,000 Buckyballs(R) High Powered Magnets Sets.  
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The high powered magnets sets were labeled "Ages 13+" and do not
meet the mandatory toy standard F963-08 (effective August 17,
2009) which requires that such powerful magnets are not sold for
children under 14.  Magnets found by young children can be
swallowed or aspirated.  If more than one magnet is swallowed,
the magnets can attract each other and cause intestinal
perforations or blockages, which can be fatal.

The firm has received two reports of children swallowing one or
more magnets.  No injuries were reported.

This recall involves the Buckyballs(R) high powered magnets sets
labeled "Ages 13+".  The set contains 216 powerful rare earth
magnets.  It is intended to build unlimited shapes and patterns.
Since March 2010, Buckyballs(R) high powered magnets sets were
labeled "Keep Away From All Children" and are not being recalled.  
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10251.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
a variety of stores, including stores selling children's toys,
stationery and office supplies and various online sites from
March 2009 through March 2010.

Consumers should take the Buckyballs(R) high powered magnets sets
labeled "Ages 13+" away from children under 14 immediately and
contact Maxfield and Oberton for instructions on receiving a
refund upon return of a complete set of magnets.  For additional
information, contact Maxfield and Oberton at (888) 847-8716
between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Central Time, Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's website at
http://www.maxfieldandobertonsafety.com/


MCNEIL CONSUMER: Sold Unsafe Children's Drugs, Ill. Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that drug maker
McNeil Consumer Healthcare and parent company Johnson & Johnson
were cited for 20 major violations at manufacturing plants for
children's pain and allergy medicines, "exposing innocent
children . . . to dangerous products which never should have been
sold," a class claims in Federal Court.  The drug makers then
compounded the injury by offering consumers "worthless coupons"
for replacements of the recalled drugs when and if they arrive on
store shelves, the lawsuit states.

Lead plaintiff John Smith of Melrose Park, Ill., bought
Children's Tylenol, one of four drugs yanked from the market
after federal regulators found 20 violations at plants making the
drug.

The other drugs recalled by the firms are Children's Motrin,
Children's Zyrtec and Children's Benadryl.

Mr. Smith claims the bond of trust between consumers and the drug
companies was broken on May 4, after federal regulators announced
McNeil had been "flagrantly violating the rules and regulations
set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration" to protect children
from harmful drug products.

In their report, detailing an inspection of McNeil's facilities
in Fort Washington, Pa., regulators noted such "major
deficiencies" as an absence of laboratory controls based on sound
scientific practice, failure to inspect containers to assure
weights and measures of the medicines were accurate, and a
routine failure to review any unexplained discrepancies that were
found in the drug batches.

Mr. Smith says the drug companies then botched the recall by
establishing a system that effectively ensures that at least some
impacted consumers -- those who might have thrown the drugs away
or otherwise don't have the detailed information about their
product that the firms are demanding -- will not be able to get
refunds.

As a result, McNeil is offering only "select" consumers "the
opportunity to request a refund or a high value coupon for a free
replacement when the products become available again," the
complaint states.

Mr. Smith claims such coupons are worthless to consumers today,
as McNeil has stopped manufacturing the drugs and "assumes
wrongly that all consumers will want to purchase the company's
children's product at some uncertain future date."

On a related note, lawmakers in Washington have scheduled a
hearing Thursday to look into the recall, and three others
initiated by the companies over the past seven months.

Among those expected to testify before the House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform is Colleen Goggins, the worldwide
chairwoman for Johnson & Johnson.  A panel of Food and Drug
Administration officials will also be at the hearing.

Plaintiffs demand compensatory, treble and punitive damages,
disgorgement of the profits from the sale of the drugs, cash
refunds for purchases, and injunctive and declaratory relief.

A copy of the Complaint in Smith v. McNeil Consumer Healthcare,
et al., Case No. 10-cv-03198 (N.D. Ill.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/05/27/McNeil.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Monica R. Kelly, Esq.
          Manuel von Ribbeck, Esq.
          RIBBECK LAW CHARTERERD
          505 N. Lake Shore Dr., Suite 102
          Lake Point Tower
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: 312-822-9999
          E-mail: monicakelly@ribbecklaw.com
                  manuelribbeck@ribbecklaw.com


MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Certification of Digitek Class is Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris at LegalNewsLine.com reports that U.S. Judge Joseph
Goodwin sternly rejected a consumer class action over Digitek
heart medicine last week.  

"There is a big imbalance between common and individual issues,"
Goodwin wrote in an order denying class certification. "Complex
conflict of law questions are involved."

Goodwin presides over pretrial proceedings in Digitek suits from
federal courts around the nation by appointment of the U. S.
Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation.

Litigation started in 2008, after manufacturer Actavis Totowa
discovered 20 double strength pills from a plant in Little Falls,
New Jersey, and recalled a whole batch.

Plaintiffs also sued distributor Mylan Pharmaceuticals, three of
its subsidiaries, and distributor UDL Laboratories.

Some claimed personal injuries, including wrongful death, while
others claimed economic losses.

In six economic loss cases, Fred Thompson of the Motley Rice firm
in Mount Pleasant, S.C., moved to certify class actions under
state consumer fraud laws.

Goodwin looked for similarities among the six and didn't find
many.

Alan Chambers of New Jersey sought to recover $15 in copayments
and the cost of a doctor's appointment that he scheduled prior to
the recall.

Dale Campbell of Pennsylvania claimed he suffered dizziness,
nausea and palpitations as a result of taking Digitek.

"He was never told as much by a physician." Goodwin wrote.

Willie Wilburn of Illinois claimed weakness, dizziness, bad
memory and fatigue.

"She has never told a doctor she thought Digitek hurt her,"
Goodwin wrote.

He wrote that she seeks to recover evaluation and testing costs,
and reimbursement for two $5 copayments.

Peter Konek of Kansas, who received a replacement prescription a
day after the recall, seeks $2.21 in reimbursement for 17 tablets
he didn't swallow.

"He candidly admits that Digitek did its job for him," Goodwin
wrote.

William Lange of Kentucky seeks fuel costs for two trips to a
drug store less than a mile from his home, plus a $10 copayment
for a prescription and the cost of seeing a doctor.

The sixth case involves two plaintiffs, with Judy Whitaker of
Kentucky blaming Digitek for her mother's death and Lorena Ard of
Indiana blaming it for economic damage.

Thompson proposed to apply New Jersey law to all economic loss
claims because all harm occurred there.

Goodwin rejected his logic.

"The state in which each claimant was injured has an overriding
interest in having its laws applied to redress any wrong done,"
he wrote. "The transactions at issue here relate only minimally
to New Jersey."

He wrote that Kansas consumer protection law didn't appear to
contemplate claims by those injured beyond its borders.

"I decline to expand beyond this line drawn by the Kansas
Legislature," he wrote.

He similarly discarded West Virginia and Kentucky laws.

He also ruled that plaintiffs were not typical of the class they
sought to represent.

"Differences are bound to arise between the representatives and
the class," he wrote. "There are even differences between the
representatives themselves."

He wrote that some class members used all their Digitek prior to
the recall.

"After doing so, they experienced a physical benefit far
outweighing any minimal economic loss associated with discarding
the remaining dose or few doses they had left," he wrote.

Those who visited doctors after the recall might have experienced
general symptoms that would have prompted a visit anyway, he
wrote.

Although Thompson tried to identify a common question in the
safety of pills Actavis recalled, Goodwin found the issue
fragmented and individualized.

Not one double thick tablet has been identified as having reached
the market, he wrote.

He wrote that if he certified a class, he would have to look at
the purpose and timing of each doctor visit and maybe apportion
the copayment depending on the outcome.

"That would require an unfathomable amount of resources," he
wrote.

Plaintiffs sought new glasses, toll charges, insurance premiums,
"and even the cost of two enemas," he wrote.

"The plaintiffs try to sweep this concern aside. Our court of
appeals will not," he wrote.

He wrote that he and colleagues in state courts have taken great
care to track Digitek litigation for a just and efficient
resolution.

"Adding a complex certified class to these already complicated
state and federal proceedings makes little sense," he wrote.


NEW CINGULAR: 9th Circuit Revives Breach of Contract Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has revived a class action accusing
New Cingular Wireless of breaching the contracts of AT&T
customers who were forced to sign up for New Cingular cell phone
service after Cingular merged with AT&T.

Lead plaintiff Kennith Shroyer claimed his cell-phone service was
severely degraded after AT&T Wireless Services merged with
Cingular Wireless in 2004 to form New Cingular Wireless.

He said New Cingular disregarded its obligations under customers'
existing AT&T contracts by providing inadequate cell-phone
service and by forcing him to sign up for a different contract in
order to keep the former quality of service.

He sued for breach of contract, fraud and deceit, and unfair
competition, and demanded a declaratory judgment.

Mr. Shroyer lost in the district court, but the Pasadena-based
appellate panel said his contract claim could proceed.

"Shroyer sufficiently states a claim that New Cingular breached
its contract with him," Judge William Canby wrote.

"He alleges that his service degraded after the merger, in
violation of AT&T's promise in the contract.  He also alleges
that, by requiring Shroyer to sign up for a different contract
with the merged company and pay additional expenses in order to
maintain the former quality of service, New Cingular required
additional consideration from Shroyer before it would perform its
preexisting contractual duty.  Finally, he alleges that this
conduct was in violation of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing."

The court reinstated the contract claim, but upheld dismissal of
the remaining claims.

A copy of the Opinion in Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless
Services, Inc., et al., No. 08-55028 (9th Cir.), is available at:

     http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?6375

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by;

          Robert K. Friedl, Esq.
          KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP
          2361 Rosecrans Ave., 4th Floor
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: 310-536-1000

               - and -

          William R. Weinstein, Esq.
          SANFORD, WITTELS & HEISLER, LLP
          1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: 646-723-2947

New Cingular Wireless Services and Inc. and AT&T Corporation are
represented by:

          Steven P. Rice, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING LLP
          3 Park Plaza, 20th Floor
          Irvine, CA 92614-8505
          Telephone: 949-263-8400


RADIAN GROUP: Court Dismisses Amended Consolidated Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has dismissed the amended complaint against Radian Group Inc.,
according to the company's May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010.

In August and September 2007, two purported stockholder class
action lawsuits, Cortese v. Radian Group Inc. and Maslar v.
Radian Group Inc., were filed against Radian Group and individual
defendants.

The complaints, which are substantially similar, allege that the
company was aware of and failed to disclose the actual financial
condition of C-BASS prior to its declaration of a material
impairment to its investment in C-BASS.

On Jan. 30, 2008, the court ordered that the cases be
consolidated into In re Radian Securities Litigation.

On April 16, 2008, a consolidated and amended complaint was
filed, adding one additional defendant.

On June 6, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss this case,
which was granted on April 9, 2009.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 10, 2009.

On May 3, 2010, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss
the amended complaint and dismissed this case with prejudice.

Radian Group Inc. -- http://www.radian.biz/-- headquartered in  
Philadelphia, provides private mortgage insurance and related
risk mitigation products and services to mortgage lenders
nationwide through its principal operating subsidiary, Radian
Guaranty Inc.  These services help promote and preserve
homeownership opportunities for homebuyers, while protecting
lenders from default-related losses on residential first
mortgages and facilitating the sale of low-downpayment mortgages
in the secondary market.


RADIAN GROUP: Continues to Defend ERISA Violation Suit in Penn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Radian Group Inc. continues to defend a purported class action
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Securities
Act.

In April 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
Radian Group, the Compensation and Human Resources Committee of
the company's board of directors and individual defendants in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The complaint alleges violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Securities Act as it relates to the company's Savings
Incentive Plan.  The named plaintiff is a former employee of the
company.

On July 25, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss this
case, which was granted on July 16, 2009, dismissing the
complaint without prejudice.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Aug. 17, 2009.

No further updates were reported in the company's May 4, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

Radian Group Inc. -- http://www.radian.biz/-- headquartered in  
Philadelphia, provides private mortgage insurance and related
risk mitigation products and services to mortgage lenders
nationwide through its principal operating subsidiary, Radian
Guaranty Inc.  These services help promote and preserve
homeownership opportunities for homebuyers, while protecting
lenders from default-related losses on residential first
mortgages and facilitating the sale of low-downpayment mortgages
in the secondary market.


S. ROTHSCHILD & COMPANY: Recalls 13,500 Girls' Coats
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
S. Rothschild & Company Inc., of New York, N.Y., announced a
voluntary recall of about 13,500 Girls' coats.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

Strings on the detachable cape can pose a strangulation hazard to
young children. In February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines (which
were incorporated into an industry voluntary standard in 1997) to
help prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on the
neck and waist drawstrings in upper garments, such as jackets and
sweatshirts.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves S. Rothschild girls' wool coats with a
detachable cape.  The coats were sold in pink, red, blue and
vanilla with a faux fur cape and in charcoal and vanilla with a
faux fur trimmed cape.  Two faux pompoms are attached to the end
of strings that hang from the cape.  The sewn-in neck tag reads,
"ROTHSCHILD SINCE 1881."


   Style Numbers                            Sizes
   -------------                            -----
   36321, 37321, W37321, 38321M          Infant to 4T

   56321. 56321F, 56321Y, 57321,
   57321F, W57321, 58321M                  4 to 6X

   76321, 77321, 78321M                    7 to 16

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10246.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Guatemala and sold
through Burlington Coat Factory, Famous Barr, Filene's Basement,
Parisian and other retail stores nationwide from September 2006
through September 2009 for between $70 and $100.

Consumers should immediately remove the strings from the cape or
remove the detachable cape to eliminate the hazard.  Consumers
can also return the cape to S. Rothschild for a free repair.  For
additional information, contact S. Rothschild at (800) 223-2664
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's website at http://www.srothschild.com/


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Settles Six Class Action Merger-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
RTT News reports that natural gas and oil companies SandRidge
Energy, Inc., and Arena Resources Inc. inked an agreement in
principle last week to settle six of nine class action suits
filed against Arena, which also name SandRidge, relating to the
proposed merger of Arena with a wholly owned subsidiaryof
SandRidge.  Under the settlement agreement, the early April
merger agreement reached between the companies was amended by the
two parties, accompanied by a commitment to furnish information
in addition to the Joint Proxy Statement Prospectus.

The companies said the remaining three lawsuits, filed in
Oklahoma County State District Court had been stayed.

A definitive merger agreement between SandRidge, a wholly owned
subsidiary of SandRidge, and Arena, was entered into on April 4,
2010. Under the agreement, Arena would be merged into such wholly
owned subsidiary of SandRidge and Arena stockholders would
receive 4.7771 shares of SandRidge common stock and $2.50 in cash
for each share of Arena common stock. Stockholders were to
pronounce a decision on the move at a special meeting of
stockholders, slated for June 8, 2010.

The settlement agreement announced Thursday was subject to court
approval, said both companies, while highlighting that the court
might not approve the proposed settlement or that any ultimate
settlement would be in terms of the present settlement agreement.

As per the terms of the agreement, the two companies agreed to
settle all the already raised and also possible claims by the
proposed plaintiff class relating to the proposed merger.
Amending the merger agreement, the companies said any termination
fee in either direction arising from specified events, would be
optionally payable by the payor in cash or in shares of the
payor's common stock.

Under the settlement agreement, neither SandRidge or Arena were
prohibited from engaging in negotiations and sharing of
information, with a third party, making a takeover proposal to
either of the companies.The settlement agreement does not
encumber a third party, making a takeover offer to either of the
companies, to enter into a confidentiality agreement.

Both the companies were obligated to keep the other informed, as
to any offer received, and were bound to reveal the identity of
the proposer and provide a copy of the proposal.

Further, both companies had matching rights to any superior
proposal received by the other, for a period of three business
days. Both companies also undertook to make additional
disclosures in a Current Report on Form 8-K, supplementing the
Joint Proxy Statement Prospectus, that was first mailed to
stockholders of each company on or about May 7, 2010.


SOUTH KENDALL: Chinese Drywall Class Certified in Miami, Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Brinkmann at the South Florida Business Journal reports that
Miami-Dade County Circuit Judge Joseph Farina has certified the
nation's first Chinese drywall class action lawsuit.

The case originally pitted homeowners Jason and Melissa Harrell,
who lived in the Keys Gate subdivision in Homestead, against a
string of drywall manufacturers and distributors.

"There is some sort of justice that a Florida court is the first
to certify a class because the majority of people suffering with
Chinese drywall are from Florida," said attorney Victor Diaz of
Podhurst Orseck, who is representing the Harrells.

The case could include 152 similarly situated homeowners.
However, the class is limited to those living in the Keys Gate
subdivision. Still, it could serve as a bellwether for future
cases.

"This really instills confidence in our justice system," Jason
Harrell said after the ruling. "I'm surprised and pleased at how
fast this has come to trial."

The Harrells and their two children were forced to move out of
their home last year after discovering the drywall problem, which
they believe made their children sick. They are renting a home
nearby.

The Harrells purchased their $360,000 home, in the Pine Isles
portion of Keys Gate, from South Kendall Construction Corp. in
January 2008. South Kendall Construction is a defendant. The
company's owner, Patrick Gleber, sought bankruptcy protection in
February.

During the construction boom, several Florida builders imported
drywall from China. It is alleged the drywall was made with
materials that emit harmful sulfur compounds into the air,
causing extensive electrical damage. Residents have complained of
respiratory and other health problems.

Another issue that needs to be addressed before the trial is the
unsealing of depositions taken from representatives of one of the
defendants Miami-based Banner Supply.

Diaz said he will prove during the trial that Banner sold
drywall, knowing it was defective, as early as 2006, an
allegation Banner has denied.

According to the judge's order, the following issues will be
determined in the case:

     -- Whether the Chinese drywall in the plaintiffs' homes is
        defective.

     -- Whether Banner Supply is liable in negligence or
        supplying and/or distributing the Chinese manufactured
        drywall.

     -- Whether all defendants are strictly liable for  
        selling/distributing Chinese drywall.

     -- Whether the drywall damaged the plaintiffs' homes.

     -- Whether the homes were purchased from South Kendall
        and/or its affiliates.

     -- Whether South Kendall and/or its affiliates breached the
        statutory implied warranty of liability in selling homes
        containing Chinese drywall.

Other defendants are Palm Isles Holdings LLC and Keys Gate
Realty.

A 21-day period to find additional members of the class began
last Thursday; they have another 21 days to respond.

As a result, the trial, originally set for June 7, has been
pushed back. Instead, another local Chinese drywall case will be
heard on June 7, a first for Miami. Homeowners Armin and Lisa
Seifart are plaintiffs against similar defendants. Ervin Gonzalez
of Colson Hicks Eidson is the Seifarts' attorney.

A recent report published by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission found that drywall imported from China between 2004
and 2006 emits higher levels of sulfur gases than domestic
supplies.


TELETECH HOLDINGS: Final Approval of Settlement Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
TeleTech Holdings, Inc., continues to await final approval from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York of
the settlement agreement in the matter In re: TeleTech
Litigation, according to the company's May 5, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010.

On Jan. 25, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed entitled
Beasley v. TeleTech Holdings, Inc., et al. against TeleTech,
certain current directors and officers and others alleging
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act,
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act.

The complaint alleges, among other things, false and misleading
statements in the Registration Statement and Prospectus in
connection with:

     (i) a March 2007 secondary offering of common stock and

    (ii) various disclosures made and periodic reports filed by
         the company between Feb. 8, 2007 and Nov. 8, 2007.

On Feb. 25, 2008, a second nearly identical class action
complaint, entitled Brown v. TeleTech Holdings, Inc., et al., was
filed in the same court.

On May 19, 2008, the actions were consolidated under the caption
In re: TeleTech Litigation and lead plaintiff and lead counsel
were approved.

On Oct. 21, 2009, the company and the other defendants named
executed a stipulation of settlement with the lead plaintiffs to
settle the consolidated class action lawsuit.

The Court has preliminarily approved the settlement and has set a
hearing on final approval on June 11, 2010.

The company paid $225,000 of the total settlement amount, which
is included in Other accrued expenses in the Consolidated Balance
Sheet, and the rest of the settlement amount will be covered by
the company's insurance carriers.

TeleTech Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.teletech.com/-- is a  
global provider of onshore, offshore and work-from-home business
process outsourcing services focusing on customer and enterprise
management, and technology enabled solutions.  The company
provides around the clock integrated global solution that spans
people, process, technology and infrastructure for governments
and private sector clients in the automotive, broadband, cable,
financial services, government, healthcare, logistics, media and
entertainment, retail, technology, travel, wireline and wireless
communication industries.  As of Dec. 31, 2009, the company
provided services from nearly 35,600 workstations across 68
delivery centers in 16 countries. TeleTech Holdings, Inc. has
approximately 90 global clients.  The company performs a variety
of BPO services for its clients and support approximately 270 BPO
programs.


UNITED STATES: Extension to June 15 in Indian Trust Fund Case
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a lead plaintiff for Indian
landowners involved in a class-action lawsuit against the
government says participants have agreed to extend the deadline
for resolving the case until June 15.

Lack of movement on Capitol Hill appeared to place the $3.4
billion settlement in jeopardy. But the House approved it on
Friday as part of a package of tax cuts and benefit extensions.

Elousie Cobell, of the Blackfeet Tribe, said the extension gives
the Senate an opportunity to do the same after its Memorial Day
recess.

Cobell announced the agreement Friday - the day a federal judge
previously had set as the deadline for congressional action.

Plaintiffs say the government breached its responsibility to
manage assets belonging to American Indians. The settlement would
result in recovery payments for more than 300,000 Indians.


UNITED WESTERN: Wants Second Amended Complaint Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
United Western Bancorp, Inc., has filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint on behalf of those who lost substantial
sums of money entrusted to qualified intermediaries, one of which
was an individual named Edward Okun, according to the company's
May 4, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2010.

The Bank received a class action complaint styled Anita Hunter
et. al. v. Citibank, N.A. et al. including United Western Bank,
in July of 2009 brought by seven named plaintiffs on behalf of a
class of approximately 330 similarly situated people residing
throughout the United States, each of whom lost substantial sums
of money (Exchange Funds) entrusted to seven qualified
intermediaries (QIs) to facilitate their respective Internal
Revenue Code Section 1031 Exchanges.

According to the complaint, the QIs were controlled by an
individual named Edward Okun and certain other individuals who
would gain access to the Exchange Funds and convert the Exchange
Funds for their own use for personal gain.

The plaintiffs seek class certification for all similarly
situated plaintiffs who lost Exchange Funds when they placed such
funds using the QIs.  One of the QIs maintained accounts at the
Bank for the purpose of holding Exchange Funds.

With respect to plaintiffs' claims against the Bank, plaintiffs
alleged, among other things, that the Bank knowingly aided and
abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by Mr. Okun by facilitating
wire transfers of Exchange Funds from accounts at the QI at the
Bank to accounts controlled by Mr. Okun and his related entities
at other financial institutions.

On Oct. 2, 2009, the Bank filed a Motion to Dismiss with the
court requesting the court to dismiss all plaintiffs' claims
against the Bank since the Bank successfully initiated the QI's
wire transfers, and therefore, the Bank cannot be held liable
under U.C.C. Article 4-A.

On Feb. 3, 2010, the court granted the Bank's Motion to Dismiss
agreeing with the Bank that the Bank cannot be held liable under
U.C.C. Article 4-A; and furthermore, that all common law claims
against the Bank are preempted by U.C.C Article 4-A. While the
court dismissed the Bank from the action, it granted the
plaintiffs with leave to amend the complaint.

On March 3, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
with the court against the Bank and other defendants, making
these allegations specifically against the Bank:

     (i) aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty by means
         of non-electronic transfers;

    (ii) aiding and abetting fraud by means of non-electronic
         transfers;

   (iii) aiding and abetting fraud;

    (iv) conversion and aiding and abetting conversion by means
         of non-electronic transfers;

     (v) conversion;

    (vi) aiding and abetting a conversion;

   (vii) contractual interference;

  (viii) negligence and

    (ix) violations of U.C.C. Article 4-A.

On April 9, 2010, the Bank filed its Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint.

United Western Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.uwbancorp.com/-- is a  
unitary thrift holding company.  The company, through its
principal subsidiary, United Western Bank is focused on expanding
its community-based network across Colorado's Front Range market
and mountain communities.  The Colorado Front Range area spans
the eastern slope of Colorado's Rocky Mountains, from Pueblo to
Fort Collins, and includes the metropolitan Denver marketplace,
as well as certain mountain communities.  During the year ending
Dec. 31, 2008, the company had seven full service banking
locations in the metropolitan Denver marketplace and a loan
production office servicing the Aspen and Roaring Fork Valley
market areas.


VITACOST.COM INC: Saxena White File Shareholder Suit in S.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In a class action filed on Monday, May 24, 2010, Boca Raton-based
Vitacost.com, Inc., and several of its executives and directors,
including its CEO and CFO, were sued for violations of the
federal securities laws, including securities fraud.  Vitacost
operates as an online retailer and direct marketer of vitamins
and other health products. According to the lawsuit, the
Company's executives, among other violations, artificially
inflated Vitacost stock by releasing false and misleading
information regarding the Company's financial results and
business prospects. As a result of these violations, Vitacost
shareholders lost millions of dollars in damages.

Saxena White P.A. commenced the class action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of
all persons or entities who purchased shares of Vitacost common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Initial Public
Offering commencing on or about September 24, 2009 (the "IPO")
and on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between
September 24, 2009 and April 20, 2010, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements
concerning Vitacost's financial performance were materially false
and misleading and failed to disclose: (1) that the Company was
starting a product-mix shift away from their traditional high-
margin proprietary products; (2) that Vitacost inflated demand
for its proprietary products; (3) that the Company was pushing
out excess product to customers so that it could mask declining
demand; (4) that Vitacost was experiencing logistical issues at
its own plants; (5) that the Company lacked significant oversight
processes and procedures and utilized ineffective operations
software, despite knowing that those issues existed; (6) that, as
a result, Vitacost's financial results were materially inflated
at all relevant times; (7) that the Company lacked adequate
internal and financial controls; and (8) that Vitacost's
projections regarding future growth lacked in any reasonable
basis when made.

On April 20, 2010, after the close of the market, Vitacost issued
a press release in which it announced updated guidance for
revenue and earnings per share for the first quarter ending on
March 31, 2010 and full year 2010. Contrary to the defendants'
prior statements in which they emphasized the Company's strong
business prospects and growth strategies, Vitacost slashed its
first-quarter and full-year profit and revenue estimates, citing
disappointing sales along with manufacturing problems. On this
news, shares of Vitacost stock plunged $3.02 per share, or 24
percent, to close on April 21, 2010 at $9.54 per share on
unusually heavy volume.

If you purchased Vitacost stock between September 24, 2009 and
April 20, 2010, you may contact Joe White or Greg Stone at Saxena
White P.A. to discuss your rights and interests.

If you purchased Vitacost shares in the Class Period, including
purchases made pursuant to the September 24, 2009 Initial Public
Offering, and wish to apply to be the lead plaintiff in this
action, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the Court no
later than July 23, 2010. You may contact Saxena White P.A. to
discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff
and your interest in the class action. Please note that you may
also retain counsel of your choice and need not take any action
at this time to be a class member.

Saxena White P.A., which has offices in Boca Raton and Boston,
specializes in prosecuting securities fraud and complex class
actions on behalf of institutions and individuals. Currently
serving as lead counsel in numerous securities fraud class
actions nationwide, the firm has recovered hundreds of millions
of dollars on behalf of injured investors and is active in major
litigation pending in federal and state courts throughout the
United States.

A copy of the Complaint in Miyahira v. Vitacost.com, Inc., et
al., Case No. 10-cv-80644 (S.D. Fla.), is available at
http://www.saxenawhite.com/and the Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maya Saxena, Esq.
          Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
          Christopher S. Jones, Esq.
          Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          2424 N. Federal Highway, Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: 561-394-3399
          E-mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com
                  jwhite@saxenawhite.com
                  cjones@saxenawhite.com
                  lhooker@saxenawhite.com

               - and -  

          Katharine M. Ryan, Esq.
          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
          995 Old Eagle School Rd., Ste. 311
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: 484-588-5516


WYETH-AYERST: Canadian High Court Allows Premarin Suit to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Janice Tibbetts at Canwest News Service reports that hundreds of
British Columbia women claim they got breast cancer after taking
the drugs Premarin and Premplus, which are designed to ease
symptoms of menopause.

The Supreme Court of Canada has cleared the way for a class-
action lawsuit against the U.S. maker of hormone-replacement
drugs that have been blamed for causing breast cancer.

The court, without giving reasons, declined Thursday to hear an
appeal from Wyeth-Ayerst International, which contends a Canadian
court has no jurisdiction over a foreign company.

Hundreds of British Columbia women claim they got breast cancer
after taking the drugs Premarin and Premplus, which are designed
to ease symptoms of menopause.

Dianna Stanway of Sechelt, B.C., is the lead plaintiff in the
case, which must now be certified in court as a class-action.

The court's refusal to consider Wyeth-Ayerst's appeal effectively
upholds a December 2009 ruling in the British Columbia Court of
Appeal, which declined to release the American firm from
potential liability.

The ruling paved the way for the American defendant to be named
in the class action, alongside its smaller Canadian counterpart,
Wyeth Canada

The appeal court concluded that naming the U.S. firm in the
action ensures that a fuller picture will emerge about what
Wyeth-Ayerst knew about the drug and what it publicly revealed.

Premarin and Premplus were widely consumed by North American
women to alleviate such symptoms as hot flashes and night sweats,
until studies linked the drug to breast cancer in 2002.

Wyeth-Ayerst faces similar lawsuits in the United States.

Stanway alleges that the firm and its Canadian subsidiary are
responsible for negligent manufacturing, testing, marketing,
labelling, distribution, promotion, and sales of Premarin and
Premplus in British Columbia and elsewhere, and that they failed
to warn about the dangers of the drugs.

                            *********

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  * * *