CAR_Public/110331.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, March 31, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 64

                             Headlines

ALABAMA: ACLU Files Class Action Over State Prison HIV Policy
ANDREW BOLT: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Action
AVIVA PLC: Continues to Defend Class Action Suits
BIMINI CAPITAL: Dismissal of Securities Class Action Now Final
CELESTICA INC: Awaits Ruling on Appeal From Class Suit Dismissal

CHAMPION ENTERPRISES: Joins Accord Over Hurricane Housing Lawsuit
DELTA ENTERPRISE: Issues 2nd Recall of "Safety Peg" Drop-Side Crib
DISH NETWORK: Sued for Violation of Colo. Consumer Protection Act
ELDERS INSURANCE: Flood Victims Mull Class Action
FINISAR CORP: May 16 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set

FIRST FUNDS: Accused of Charging Excessive Cash Advance Interest
GERBER LEGENDARY: Recalls 103T Combo Axe Due to Laceration Hazard
HMI NICKEL: Files Class Action Over "Mining-Related Gang Rapes"
HOME DEPOT: Awaits Ruling on Appeal From Dismissal of ERISA Suit
ISTAR FINANCIAL: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in New York

KINGSMAN FIREPLACES: Recalls 40 Fireplaces Over Laceration Hazard
LASKO PRODUCTS: Recalls 4.8MM Box Fans Due to Fire Hazard
MI WINDOWS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Windows
MICHAELS STORES: Expects "Carson" Case to be Remanded to San Diego
MICHAELS STORES: Aaron Brothers Unit Still Defends Wage Suits

MICHAELS STORES: Reaches Tentative Settlement of "Rattray" Suit
MONEY MART: Class Action Lawyers' $20MM Fee Demand Denied
NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Faces Class Action in Minn. Over Lockout
OCEAN TECHNOLOGY: Recalls 1,700 Guardian Full-Face Diving Masks
ONLINE RETAILERS: Collier County Gets $550,000 From Settlement

PALM HARBOR: Joins Accord Over Hurricane Housing Lawsuit
PETSMART INC: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in "Pet Food" Case in U.S.
POWER BALANCE: Enters Into Agreement to Resolve Class Action
RADWARE LTD: Awaits Ruling on Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Accused of Selling Defective Cell Phones

SCOTCH CORP: Recalls 74,760 Instant Power Toilet Bowl Restorer
SONY COMPUTER: Other OS Feature Removed to Save Money, Suit Says
STARBUCKS CORP: Baristas Awarded Summary Judgment in Tip Suit
TOMOTHERAPY INC: Being Sold for Too Little, Wis. Suit Claims
TOYS "R" US: Paid $17 Million in Class Suit Settlement in March

UNIVERSAL LEAF: Farmers File Class Action Over Tobacco Contract
WOODSTOCK APARTMENT: Fire Victims Mull Class Action v. Owner

* NZ Law Firm Urges Investors to File Suit v. Failed Firms



                             *********


ALABAMA: ACLU Files Class Action Over State Prison HIV Policy
-------------------------------------------------------------
WBRC reports that the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama
has filed a federal class action lawsuit.  The suit says a state
policy that segregates prisoners with HIV from the rest of the
prison population is discriminatory and illegal.  The suit also
says this segregation keeps HIV positive prisoners from
participating in critical prison programs and jobs.

The lawsuit also accused the program of denying access for these
prisoners to rehabilitative and community re-entry programs and
may result in their serving longer sentences.

The department also requires all men with HIV to wear white
armbands that publicly discloses their health status, which is in
violation of medical ethics and international human rights law.


ANDREW BOLT: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Norrie Ross, writing for Herald Sun, reports that an activist told
a racial vilification hearing on March 28 that she received no
financial benefit from being an Aborigine, contrary to the
suggestion of Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt.

Pat Eatock said that she had worked for only 6 1/2 of the past 35
years and lived in a one-bedroom housing commission flat and did
not own a car.

Mr. Bolt had written that as a "white Aborigine" with a Scottish
mother Ms Eatock had thrived as an Aboriginal bureaucrat, activist
and academic.

In cross examination Neil Young, QC, for Mr. Bolt, suggested that
Ms. Eatock's online biography stated she did not become an
Aboriginal activist until she was 19 or 20 and it contained a list
of significant achievements.

Ms. Eatock, who was a member of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy in the
early '70s, told the Federal Court she was a pensioner and said no
one would regard her as a high achiever.  "Where's my mansion?
Where's my car?" she said.

Nine individuals have taken a class action against Mr. Bolt under
the Racial Discrimination Act.

They claim Mr. Bolt implied in articles and blogs that that they
were "professional Aborigines" who self-identified with the
thinnest strand of their racial make-up to gain financial and
other benefits to the detriment of other Aborigines.

Mr. Bolt's defense is that he is not a racist and abhors racism,
and his articles were a comment on people who chose to be
Aboriginal, an undesirable social trend that emphasized racial
differences rather than a common humanity.

The nine taking the action are Ms Eatock, former ATSIC member
Geoff Clark, artist Bindi Cole, academic Larissa Behrendt, author
Anita Heiss, health worker Leeanne Enoch, native title expert
Graham Atkinson, academic Wayne Atkinson and lawyer Mark McMillan.

Ms. Cole said she identified as being Aboriginal for as long as
she could remember and her identity had been heavily influenced by
her paternal grandmother, who drilled it into her.

She said that Mr. Bolt was trying to take away her identity when
he wrote that she chose "the one identity open to her that has
political and career clout".

Mr. Young suggested that there was a debate in the community on
racial identity and on her Web site she described herself as being
of "English-Jewish" and Aboriginal descent.

"We're all talking about opinion here," she said.

Opening the case Ron Merkel, QC, told the Federal Court that a
person's racial identity was not determined by the color of their
skin.  He said Mr. Bolt's views were insulting and hurtful and
were a throwback to the days when people were categorized as
"half-caste" and "quarter caste".

Mr. Merkel said the case was not about free speech and Bolt could
have expressed views on the subject of Aboriginal identity without
attacking the nine members of the class action.

He said the articles had questioned their Aboriginality and their
right to receive taxpayer-financed grants.  "What he says is that
if you don't look Aboriginal, then you don't have to be,"
Mr. Merkel said.

"He is living in a mindset frozen in history, frozen in a period
of time."

The nine plaintiffs are seeking an apology but Mr Merkel said they
may also seek financial compensation.

The case before Justice Mordy Bromberg was expected to continue on
March 29.


AVIVA PLC: Continues to Defend Class Action Suits
-------------------------------------------------
Aviva PLC, in a March 24, 2011, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010, disclosed that it is a defendant in several
class actions in several jurisdictions.

The Company and its affiliates have been named as defendants in
lawsuits (both class actions and individual lawsuits).  The
Company has been subject to regulatory investigations or
examinations in the various jurisdictions where it does business.
These actions arise in various contexts including in connection
with its activities as an insurer, securities issuer, employer,
investment adviser, investor and taxpayer.  Certain of these
lawsuits and investigations seek significant or unspecified
amounts of damages (including punitive damages), and certain of
the regulatory authorities involved in these proceedings have
substantial powers over the conduct and operations of the
Company's business.  Due to the nature of certain of these
lawsuits and investigations, the Company says it cannot make an
estimate of loss or predict with any certainty the potential
impact of these suits or investigations on its business, financial
condition or results of operations.


BIMINI CAPITAL: Dismissal of Securities Class Action Now Final
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bimini Capital Management, Inc., obtained in December 2010 a Final
Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice of a securities
class action lawsuit after the Company made payments in compliance
of a settlement, according to the Company's March 24, 2011, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

On September 17, 2007, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida by William Kornfeld
against Bimini Capital, certain of its current and former officers
and directors, Flagstone Securities, LLC and BB&T Capital Markets
alleging various violations of the federal securities laws and
seeking class action certification.  At a mediation held on
February 12, 2010, the parties reached a tentative settlement of
this matter for $2.35 million. The Company had accrued
approximately $0.5 million related to the settlement.  This amount
represented the remainder of the $1.0 million retention that the
Company was required to pay under the terms of its Directors and
Officers insurance policy. On October 14, 2010, the remaining $0.4
million of the accrual was remitted to an escrow account
established for the plaintiffs to be included in the settlement
fund. The remainder of the settlement will be paid by the
Company's insurance carrier.  A written stipulation of settlement
was presented to the Court and a preliminary approval was granted
on September 10, 2010.  Notices were sent to members of the Class
in order to provide the members of the class an opportunity to opt
out of the settlement.  Members had until November 11, 2010 to
elect out of the settlement. A final fairness hearing was held
December 9, 2010.  Since the requisite percentage of members (5%)
did not opt out of the settlement, the settlement became final. A
Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice was issued by
the Court on December 14, 2010.


CELESTICA INC: Awaits Ruling on Appeal From Class Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Celestica, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on an appeal filed by
plaintiffs regarding the dismissal of their class action lawsuit
in New York, according to the Company's March 24, 2011, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In 2007, securities class action lawsuits were commenced against
the Company and its former Chief Executive and Chief Financial
Officers in the United States District Court of the Southern
District of New York by certain individuals, on behalf of
themselves and other unnamed purchasers of the Company's stock,
claiming that they were purchasers of the Company's stock during
the period January 27, 2005 through January 30, 2007. The
plaintiffs allege violations of United States federal securities
laws and seek unspecified damages. They allege that during the
purported period the Company made statements concerning its actual
and anticipated future financial results that failed to disclose
certain purportedly material adverse information with respect to
demand and inventory in the Company's Mexican operations and the
Company's information technology and communications divisions. In
an amended complaint, the plaintiffs added one of the Company's
directors and Onex Corporation as defendants. All defendants filed
motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On October 14, 2010, the
United States District Court issued a memorandum decision and
order granting the defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint in its entirety. The plaintiffs have filed a
notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit of the dismissal of its claims against the Company,
its former Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officers, but are
not appealing the dismissal of its claims against one of the
Company's directors and Onex Corporation. The briefing process on
the appeal has not yet commenced. A parallel class proceeding
remains against the Company and its former Chief Executive and
Chief Financial Officers in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice,
but neither leave nor certification of the action has been granted
by that court. The Company believes that the allegations in the
claim and the appeal are without merit and intends to defend
against them vigorously. However, there can be no assurance that
the outcome of the litigation will be favorable to the Company or
that it will not have a material adverse impact on its financial
position or liquidity. In addition, the Company may incur
substantial litigation expenses in defending both the Canadian
claim and the appeal. The Company says it has liability insurance
coverage that may cover some of its litigation expenses, potential
judgments or settlement costs.


CHAMPION ENTERPRISES: Joins Accord Over Hurricane Housing Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Feintzeig, writing for Dow Jones Daily Bankruptcy Review,
reports that Palm Harbor Homes Inc. and Champion Enterprises Inc.
are among 34 businesses that have struck a deal to resolve a
lawsuit currently pending in Louisiana district court.

The companies provided emergency housing to victims of Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita.  Under the deal, the companies intend to pay
$2.625 million to settle claims that they exposed individuals to
hazardous levels of formaldehyde.  DBR relates Palm Harbor and
Champion are seeking bankruptcy court permission to participate in
the settlement.

DBR relates that Palm Harbor's insurer would contribute $50,000 to
the $2.625 million fund, leaving Palm Harbor free to use its own
funds for other uses.

DBR notes Palm Harbor faces 46,500 claims stemming from the
lawsuit.  All of these would be resolved under the settlement.

According to DBR, Palm Harbor has warned that absent the
settlement, its officers would be forced to divert their time and
energy away from the bankruptcy case to handle the Louisiana
litigation.  It also cautioned that the company might not be able
to fund the continuing costs of litigating the matter.

DBR notes that no papers have yet been filed in Champion's
bankruptcy case, now known as CEI Liquidation Estates, but the
settlement specifies that Champion too requires clearance from the
bankruptcy court.

DBR relates the bankruptcy court is set to consider approving Palm
Harbor's participation in the settlement at a hearing April 19.

                      About Palm Harbor Homes

Addison, Texas-based Palm Harbor Homes, Inc. --
http://www.palmharbor.com/-- manufactures and markets factory-
built homes.  The Company markets nationwide through vertically
integrated operations, encompassing manufactured and modular
housing, financing and insurance.

Palm Harbor, along with affiliates, filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No. 10-13850) on
Nov. 29, 2010.  It disclosed $321,263,000 in total assets and
$280,343,000 in total debts.

Brian Cejka at Alvarez & Marsal is the Debtors' chief
restructuring officer.  Raymond James and Associates, Inc., is the
Debtors' investment banker.  Alvarez & Marshal North America, LLC,
is the Debtors' financial advisor.  BMC Group, Inc., is the
Debtors' claims agent.  Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP serves
as counsel to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.

Following a court-approved sale process, Palm Harbor in March 2011
sold its business for $85.25 million to Fleetwood Enterprises
Inc., a venture between Cavco Industries Inc. and a fund advised
by Third Avenue Management LLC.  Fleetwood is providing up to
$55 million in secured financing for Palm Harbor's reorganization.

                    About Champion Enterprises

Troy, Michigan-based Champion Enterprises, Inc., and its
subsidiaries were international manufacturers of factory-built
homes and steel-framed modular buildings, with operations in the
United States, Canada and the United Kingdom.  Buildings
constructed by Champion and its subsidiaries consisted of both
single and multi-module units designed for either commercial or
residential purposes.  Champion products ranged from single-module
HUD-Code homes to sophisticated commercial structures such as
hotels.

The Company filed for Chapter 11 protection on Nov. 15, 2009
(Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 09-14019).  The Company's affiliates also
filed separate bankruptcy petitions.  James E. O'Neill, Esq.,
Laura Davis Jones, Esq., Mark M. Billion, Esq., Timothy P. Cairns,
Esq., at Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, assist Champion in its
restructuring effort.  The Company disclosed $576,527,000 in asset
and $521,337,000 in liabilities as of October 3, 2009.

In March 2010, Champion Enterprises received final court approval
to sell its domestic and international operations.  An investor
group consisting of affiliates of Centerbridge Partners, L.P., MAK
Capital Fund LP and Sankaty Advisors, LLC invested $50 million in
new capital to support the operations and growth initiatives of
the new company.  The transaction was supported by a group of
Champion's existing lenders who, together with the lead investors,
agreed to exchange 100% of existing debt under Champion's pre-
petition and DIP senior secured credit agreements for equity in
the new company and a $40 million senior secured five year note.

Champion's bankruptcy case has been renamed CEI Liquidation
Estates following the closing of the sale.


DELTA ENTERPRISE: Issues 2nd Recall of "Safety Peg" Drop-Side Crib
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Delta Enterprise
Corp., of New York, N.Y. are re-announcing the 2008 recall of more
than 985,000 drop-side cribs with "Crib Trigger Lock and Safety
Peg" hardware.  In January 2011, CPSC and Delta learned of a 2009
death in which 7-month-old girl from Colorado Springs, Colo.
became entrapped and suffocated between the detached drop-side and
mattress of her recalled crib.  The crib was purchased secondhand
and re-assembled without safety pegs in the bottom tracks.

Missing safety pegs can create a situation where the crib's drop-
side rail disengages from the track. This can create a hazardous
space in which an infant can become entrapped and suffocate.

At the time of the October 2008 recall, CPSC notified consumers
about the death of an 8-month-old girl who became entrapped and
suffocated when the drop side of the crib detached.  The crib
involved in this incident also was re-assembled without safety
pegs.  At the time of the October 2008 recall announcement, there
were reports of two entrapments and nine detachments in cribs
without safety pegs.

"Buying or accepting cribs second hand can be risky," said CPSC
Chairman Inez Tenenbaum. "Second hand cribs may not come with all
of the necessary parts that are needed to make sure your baby is
safe. We urge parents and caregivers to use caution and to be
aware that new rules established by CPSC will bring safer cribs to
the market this summer."

This re-announcement involves cribs that were made in Taiwan and
Indonesia. The cribs were sold at major retail stores including
Kmart, Target and Walmart between January 1995 and December 2005
(through September 2007 for model 4624) for about $100.

Delta's name and address is printed on the mattress support boards
and the Delta logo is on the crib's top teether rail. Model
numbers are located on the top of the mattress support board. This
announcement includes the following 49 crib models with "Crib
Trigger Lock with Safety Peg" drop-side hardware:

    * 4320, 4340;
    * 4500, 4520, 4530, 4532, 4540, 4542, 4550, 4551, 4580;
    * 4600, 4620, 4624 -- production dates January 2006 thru
      November 2007, 4640, 4660, 4720, 4735, 4742, 4750 --
      production dates January 1995 thru December 2000;
    * 4760, 4770, 4780, 4790;
    * 4820, 4840, 4850, 4860, 4880, 4890, 4892; and
    * 4900, 4910, 4920, 4925-2, 4925-6, 4930, 4940, 4943, 4944,
      4947, 4948, 4949, 4950, 4958, 4963, 4968, 4969, 4980.

Pictures of Recalled Drop-Side Cribs are available at:

      http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11179.html

CPSC urges parents and caregivers to immediately stop using cribs
that are missing a safety peg on either leg of the drop side and
contact Delta to receive a free, easy-to-install repair kit.  Call
Delta toll-free at (800) 816-5304 anytime or visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.cribrecallcenter.com/to order the free repair
kit.

Parents and caregivers are encouraged to find a safe, alternative
sleep environment for their child until the repair kit, with new
safety pegs, is safely installed on the recalled cribs.


DISH NETWORK: Sued for Violation of Colo. Consumer Protection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nansee Parker and Phong Pham, on behalf of themselves v. Dish
Network Corporation, et al., Case No. 11-cv-01457 (N.D. Calif.
March 25, 2011), assert claims for breach of contract, breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust
enrichment, and violation of Colorado's Consumer Protection Act,
Colo. Rev. Stat. Section 6-1-105, et seq.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that while they were still
within the first year of their 2-year contracts, Dish, without
warning, raised their monthly rates up to 20%, thus forcing them
to choose between paying an early termination fee (if they cancel)
or acquiescing to the higher monthly rates.  Plaintiffs relate
that prior to signing up, they were made to believe that during
the first year of their 2-year contracts, they would pay a lower
fixed fee, after which the price would return to the current going
rate for the package.

Plaintiff Nansee Parker, a citizen and resident of San Francisco
County, California, signed a 2-year contract with Dish in
March 2010, after she saw an advertisement offering a fixed lower
price for the first year.  Ms. Parker says that before she signed
up for her 24-month subscription, she was never told that Dish
planned to increase her prices.

Plaintiff Phong Pham, a citizen and resident of San Bernadino
County, California, entered into a 2-year contract in November
2010.  In February 2011 he found that his credit card was debited
about $5 more than normal.  When he complained, he was told that
Dish only agreed to discount the regular price by $15, and that it
could raise the regular price at any time.

Defendant DISH Network Corporation, a Nevada corporation, directly
and through its subsidiaries, provides satellite-based television
service in the United States and provides receivers and other
equipment needed to access that service.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Dylan Hughes, Esq.
          David Stein, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com
                  dsh@girardgibbs.com
                  dks@girardgibbs.com

               - and -

          Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
          Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
          Stefanie M. Ramirez, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLLPLLC
          1100 New York Ave., NW
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005-3964
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com
                  dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com
                  sramirez@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Richard B. Wentz, Esq.
          Jean W. Wentz, Esq.
          THE WENTZ LAW FIRM
          82955 East Hillcrest Drive, Suite 123
          Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
          Telephone: (805) 374-0060


ELDERS INSURANCE: Flood Victims Mull Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Paul Tatnell, writing for Herald Sun, reports that flood victims
intend to launch a class action against "mean-hearted" insurers.

Businesses, home owners and farmers in Charlton, severely damaged
in the January floods, said they were prepared to fight for the
money they desperately need to get their lives back on track.

Some insurance claims have been denied because insurers believed
damage in the Mallee town was caused by flooded rivers.

But insurers don't agree on the cause of damage.  In one Charlton
street those insured with RACV, APIA and CGU have had their claims
paid after experts found rainwater had damaged their properties.

But people with AAMI and Elders Insurance were knocked back
because experts blamed floodwater.

Charlton's flood recovery committee is discussing a class action
with law firm Maurice Blackburn and Associates.

"People would feel let down that they have to fight this and would
feel really disappointed about the inconsistencies in the
insurance companies' findings," committee spokesman John Harley
said.

"Some residents' claims are being covered and some would feel
angry that they live across the road and they are not covered.

"Mine was paid out and I actually feel guilty."

Charlton resident Andrew McGurk and his fiancee Abbey face an
$80,000 repair bill for their home.

Mr. McGurk said rain water damaged his home before the nearby
Avoca River came through but Elders Insurance refused to pay.

"We only bought the house 18 months ago and there is no way we can
afford (repairs).  We will join the class action," he said.

Pensioner Graham Anderson, 74, faces a $100,000 repair bill after
AAMI rejected his claim.

His daughter Kathryn Egan said: "The home's doors don't even close
and half the home's power is out.  Without the insurance I really
don't know what we are going to do."

An Elders Insurance spokeswoman said it was "open to considering
any new information" that may prove it was rainwater, not floods,
that damaged its customers' homes.

AAMI refused to back down on its no-payment policy, saying it was
not uncommon for insurers to disagree on claims.


FINISAR CORP: May 16 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Finisar Corporation during the period between Dec. 2, 2010 and
March 8, 2011, inclusive.

No class has yet been certified in the above action. Members of
the Class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel
chosen by the lead plaintiff.  If you wish to choose counsel to
represent you and the Class, you must apply to be appointed lead
plaintiff no later than May 16, 2011 and be selected by the Court.
The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and participate in
important decisions including whether to accept a settlement and
how much of a settlement to accept for the Class in the action.
The lead plaintiff will be selected from among applicants claiming
the largest loss from investment in the Company during the Class
Period. You are not required to have sold your shares to seek
damages or to serve as a Lead Plaintiff.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company's failure
to disclose during the Class Period that Finisar's recent revenue
growth was due to an oversupply of inventory in the market and
that the Company would be unable to sustain its strong growth due
to increased pricing pressures and a slowdown in business from
China.  As a result of defendants' false statements, Finisar's
stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class
Period, reaching a high of $43.23 per share on Feb. 14, 2011.

Then, on March 8, 2011, after the market closed, Finisar issued a
press release announcing its third quarter fiscal year 2011
results.  The Company reported earnings of $18.8 million, or $0.22
diluted earnings per share, and revenue of $263.0 million.  The
Company further reported its fourth quarter 2011 revenues would be
in the range of $235 to $250 million, lower than analysts'
estimates.  On this news, Finisar's stock fell $15.43 per share to
close at $24.61 per share on March 9, 2011, a one-day decline of
nearly 39%.

The true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed
from the investing public during the Class Period, were as
follows: (a) Finisar's recent revenue surge was not due solely to
organic growth from real end-market demand, but rather it was
partially due to an inventory build by the Company's customers;
(b) Finisar was experiencing increasing pricing pressures due to
intense competition in the industry and, as a result, it was
forced to concede to steep discounts in order to retain certain of
its customers; (c) Finisar was experiencing a serious slowdown in
business from China, which would have a detrimental effect on the
Company's ability to continue growing at unprecedented rates; and
(d) Finisar failed to disclose known trends and uncertainties as
required by SEC regulations concerning its revenue growth rate.

If you have suffered a net loss for all transactions in Finisar
Corporation securities during the Class Period (including shares
or possibly calls purchased during, but not sold until after the
end of the Class Period or possibly put options sold but not
covered until after the end of the Class Period), you may obtain
additional information about this lawsuit and your ability to
become a lead plaintiff by contacting Brower Piven at
http://www.browerpiven.com/by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com/
by calling 410/415-6616, or at Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, 1925 Old Valley Road, Stevenson, Maryland 21153.
Attorneys at Brower Piven have combined experience litigating
securities and class action cases of over 60 years.  If you choose
to retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your
choice.  You need take no action at this time to be a member of
the class.

CONTACT: Charles J. Piven, Esq.
         Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
         Stevenson, Maryland
         Telephone: 410/415-6616


FIRST FUNDS: Accused of Charging Excessive Cash Advance Interest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that First Funds and Principis
Capital charge usurious, illegal interest of 30% to more than 100%
on merchant cash advances, a class action claims in San Bernardino
County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Cycles U.S., LLC, et al. v. First
Funds, LLC, et al., Case No. 1102500 (Calif. Super. Ct., San
Bernardino Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/28/Merchant.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James F. Clapp, Esq.
          Zach P. Dostart, Esq.
          DOSTART CLAPP & COVENEY, LLP
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 970
          San Diego, CA 92122-1253
          Telephone: 858-623-4200
          E-mail: jclapp@sdlaw.com
                  zdostart@sdlaw.com

               - and -

          J. Daniel Holsenback, Esq.
          HOLSENBACK APC
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 970
          San Diego, CA 92122-1253
          Telephone: 619-269-4634
          E-mail: dan@holsenbackapc.com


GERBER LEGENDARY: Recalls 103T Combo Axe Due to Laceration Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Gerber Legendary Blades, of Portland, Ore., a division of Fiskars
Brands Inc., of Madison, Wis., announced a voluntary recall of
about 103,000 Gerber(R) Gator(R) Combo Axe.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.
It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The knife in the axe handle can come out when the axe is used for
chopping or hammering, posing a laceration hazard to the user.

Gerber has received five reports of laceration injuries. All
required stitches.

The recall involves the Gerber Gator Combo Axe, which has a 7-inch
knife in the hollow axe handle.  The axe is approximately 8.75
inches long with an axe head that is 4.75 inches x 2.7 inches. The
axe handle is marked with the "Gerber" trademark.  The Gerber
Combo Axe II, which holds a saw in a longer axe handle, is not
included in this recall.

The recalled Combo Axe were sold at retail stores nationwide,
including The Sportsman's Guide, Dick's Sporting Goods and Bass
Pro Shops/American Rod & Gun and online since March 2005 for
around $28 to $60.  The products were manufactured in Taiwan.

Pictures of recalled Combo Axe with a knife in the handle is
available at:

      http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11182.html

Consumers should immediately remove the knife from the axe handle
and contact Gerber to receive a free handle cap, which will hold
the knife in the axe handle during transport and storage,
instructions for the use of the handle cap, and a warning label to
affix on the axe head.  For more information, contact Gerber
Legendary Blades toll-free at (877) 314-9130 between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m. PT, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.gerbergear.com/


HMI NICKEL: Files Class Action Over "Mining-Related Gang Rapes"
---------------------------------------------------------------
QMI Agency reports that a group of women have filed a class-action
lawsuit against a Canadian-owned mining company over what they
call "mining-related gang rapes" in Guatemala.

Rosa Elbira Coc Ich and 10 other Mayan Q'eqchi' women filed the
lawsuit against HMI Nickel and its corporate owner, HudBay
Minerals, on Monday in Ontario.

The women allege they were gang raped on Jan. 17, 2007, near HMI's
mine in El Estor by mine security personnel, police and military
as part of an eviction operation. The allegations have not been
proven in court.

A HudBay spokesman did not immediately return calls seeking
comment.

HMI ordered armed evictions of Mayan Q'eqchi' families from their
farms and homes in relation to its Fenix mining project, according
to a release issued by lawyers representing the women.

The lawsuit, which has yet to receive class-action status, seeks
$11 million in general damages and $44 million in punitive
damages.


HOME DEPOT: Awaits Ruling on Appeal From Dismissal of ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Home Depot, Inc., is awaiting a ruling on an appeal filed by
plaintiffs regarding the dismissal of their purported class action
lawsuit, according to the Company's March 24, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended January 30, 2011.

In the second and third quarters of fiscal 2006, three purported,
but uncertified, class actions were filed against the Company, The
Home Depot FutureBuilder Administrative Committee and certain of
the Company's current and former directors and employees alleging
breach of fiduciary duty in violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 in connection with the Company's
return-to-vendor and stock option practices. These actions were
joined into one case in 2007, and the joint amended complaint
seeks certification as a class action, unspecified damages, costs,
attorney's fees and equitable and injunctive relief. On June 7,
2010, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
in Atlanta granted with prejudice Home Depot's motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' third amended complaint. On June 28, 2010, plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit. Although the Company cannot predict the outcome
of this matter, it does not expect the outcome to have a material
adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition or results
of operations.


ISTAR FINANCIAL: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
iStar Financial, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
consolidated class action lawsuit in New York, according to the
Company's March 24, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

In April 2008, two putative class action complaints were filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York naming the Company and certain of its current and former
executive officers as defendants and alleging violations of
federal securities laws. Both suits were purportedly filed on
behalf of the same putative class of investors who purchased
Common Stock in the Company's December 13, 2007 public offering.
The two complaints were consolidated in a single proceeding on
April 30, 2008.

On November 17, 2008, Plumbers Union Local No. 12 Pension Fund and
Citiline Holdings, Inc. were appointed Lead Plaintiffs to pursue
the Citiline Action. Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint on February 2, 2009, purportedly on behalf of a putative
class of investors who purchased the Company's Common Stock
between December 6, 2007 and March 6, 2008. The Complaint named as
defendants the Company, certain of its current and former
executive officers, and certain investment banks who served as
underwriters in the Company's Offering. The Complaint reasserted
claims for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act, and added claims for alleged violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs allege
the defendants made certain material misstatements and omissions
relating to the Company's continuing operations, including the
value of the Company's loan portfolio and certain debt securities
held by the Company. The Complaint seeks certification as a class
action, unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and
attorneys fees, and rescission of the public offering. No class
has been certified. The Company and its current and former
officers filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on April 27, 2009
and, on March 26, 2010, the Court issued its order granting, in
part, the dismissal of certain Securities Act claims against
certain of the Company's current and former officers, but denying
the motion as to all claims asserted against the Company.
Accordingly, the discovery process has commenced. The Company
believes the Citiline Action has no merit and intends to continue
defending itself vigorously against it.


KINGSMAN FIREPLACES: Recalls 40 Fireplaces Over Laceration Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kingsman Fireplaces, of Canada, voluntarily recalled about 40 gas
fireplaces in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission.  Consumers should stop using the product immediately
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

Delayed ignition can cause the fireplace's propane gas to explode
and break or shatter the glass door.  This poses a laceration
hazard to consumers nearby.

Kingsman Fireplaces has received two reports of fireplace glass
doors breaking. No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves direct vent gas fireplaces sold under the name
"Skyline Marquis collection." They run on propane gas. The
following model numbers are being recalled. The model number is on
the rating plate located on the bottom of the fireplace near the
valve control.

                           Model Numbers
                           -------------
     MQRB3328LP     MQRB3328LPE     MQRB3328LPT     MQRB3328LPTE
     MQRB4236LP     MQRB4236LPE     MQRB4236LPT     MQRB4236LPTE

Pictures of recalled gas fireplace are available at:

      http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11729.html

Authorized distributors and specialty fireplace stores nationwide
from April 2008 through December 2010 for between $1,700 and
$2,900.  The products were manufactured in Canada.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled fireplaces
and turn off the gas supply to the fireplace.  Contact Kingsman
Fireplaces to schedule a free repair.  For additional information,
contact Kingsman Fireplaces toll-free at (855) 593-3304 between
8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's
Web site at http://www.marquisfireplaces.net


LASKO PRODUCTS: Recalls 4.8MM Box Fans Due to Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Lasko Products Inc., of West Chester, Pa., announced a voluntary
recall of about 4.8 million units of box fans.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

An electrical failure in the fan's motor poses a fire hazard to
consumers.  Lasko has received seven reports of fires associated
with motor failures, including two house fires and one barn fire,
resulting in extensive property damage. No injuries have been
reported.

The recall involves Lasko box fans with model numbers 3720, 3723,
and 3733 and Galaxy box fans with model number 4733 that have date
"2002-03" or "2003-04" stamped on the bottom of the metal frame.
"Lasko" or "Galaxy" is printed on the front of the fan.  The model
number is either stamped or printed on the bottom of the fans.

The recalled box fans were sold at mass merchandisers nationwide
from July 2002 through December 2005 for between $12 and $25.  The
fans were manufactured in the United States.

Pictures of recalled box fans are available at:

      http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11183.html

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled fans and
contact Lasko to receive a free fused plug safety adapter.  For
additional information, contact Lasko toll free at (877) 445-1314
anytime or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.laskoproducts.com/


MI WINDOWS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Windows
-----------------------------------------------------
NewsInferno reports that a consumer in North Carolina has filed a
class action against MI Windows and Doors Inc. of Pennsylvania,
claiming the company's 8500/3500 single hung windows are
defective, and allowed water intrusion which caused property
damage.  The lawsuit charges MI Windows and Doors with negligence,
breach of express warranty and violations of the North Carolina
Unfair and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

The MI Windows and Doors class action lawsuit was filed last
July by Joseph DeBlaker in North Carolina Superior Court,
Mecklenburg County.  MI Windows and Doors had moved to have the
complaint dismissed, but in an order dated March 24, 2011, that
motion was denied by the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division.

According to the lawsuit, the 8500/3500 single hung windows
contain a defect that results in loss of seal at the bead along
the bottom of the double pane glass.  This allows water to enter
the inside of the window, as well as the structures that are
fitted with these windows.  This water intrusion can lead to the
formation of mineral deposits and mold, as well as damage to other
property within the home.  The lawsuit further alleges that owners
of homes containing these windows have incurred substantial costs
for labor and installation of replacement windows.  They have also
had to repair or replace other property in their homes because the
windows allow water leaks to drip onto their walls and floors.
The values of homes fitted with these windows have also been
diminished because of the alleged defect and accompanying damage.

The class action complaint asserts that MI Windows and Doors knew
of this defect, but has not notified all homeowners or offered any
remedy.  MI Windows and Doors does not include the labor or
installation costs associated with window replacement in its
warranty coverage for the 8500/3500 single hung windows.  The
warranty also does not provide warranty coverage for subsequent
purchasers of homes fitted with these windows, according to the
filing.  Because Plaintiff DeBlaker is not the original owner of
his home, MI Windows and Doors' warranty will not cover his cost
for replacement windows.

The MI Windows and Doors class action lawsuit alleges that despite
the defect in the 8500/3500 single hung windows, the company
marketed, advertised and warranted that they were fit for ordinary
purposes, and free from defects in materials and workmanship.


MICHAELS STORES: Expects "Carson" Case to be Remanded to San Diego
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc., is expecting a class action lawsuit filed
by Linda Carson to be remanded to a San Diego Court, according to
the Company's March 24, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
January 29, 2011.

On August 15, 2008, Linda Carson, a consumer, filed a purported
class action proceeding against Michaels Stores, Inc. in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, on behalf of
herself and all similarly-situated California consumers. The
Carson suit alleges that Michaels unlawfully requested and
recorded personally identifiable information (i.e., her zip code)
as part of a credit card transaction. The plaintiff sought
statutory penalties, costs, interest, and attorneys' fees. The
Company contested certification of this claim as a class action
and filed a motion to dismiss the claim. On March 9, 2009, the
Court dismissed the case with prejudice. The plaintiff appealed
this decision to the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth
District, San Diego. On July 22, 2010, the Court of Appeal upheld
the dismissal of the case. The plaintiff appealed this decision to
the Supreme Court of California. On September 29, 2010, the
California Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's petition for
review; however, it stayed any further proceedings in the case
until another similar zip code case pending before the court,
Pineda v. Williams-Sonoma, was decided.  On February 10, 2011, the
California Supreme Court ruled, in the Williams-Sonoma case, that
zip codes are personally identifiable information and therefore
the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971, as amended prohibits
businesses from requesting or requiring zip codes in connection
with a credit card transaction.  The Company anticipates that the
Carson case will be remanded to the San Diego Superior Court for
further proceedings consistent with the California Supreme Court
decision.  The Company is reviewing the matter in light of this
recent decision and, at this time, it is unable to estimate a
range of loss, if any, in this case.

Additionally, since the California Supreme Court decision on
February 10, 2011, three additional purported class action
lawsuits alleging violations of the Song Act have been filed
against the Company: Carolyn Austin v. Michaels Stores, Inc. and
Tiffany Heon v. Michaels Stores, Inc., both in the San Diego
Superior Court and Sandra A. Rubinstein v. Michaels Stores, Inc.
in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
Central Division. The Company intends to vigorously defend each of
these cases and the Company are unable, at this time, to estimate
a range of loss, if any.


MICHAELS STORES: Aaron Brothers Unit Still Defends Wage Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Aaron Brothers,
Inc., continues to defend itself against a consolidated class
action lawsuit alleging failure to pay wages, according to the
Company's March 24, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
January 29, 2011.

On February 12, 2010, the Company was served with a lawsuit filed
on May 7, 2009 by Jose Tijero, a former assistant manager for
Aaron Brothers as a purported class action proceeding on behalf of
himself and all current and former hourly retail employees
employed by Aaron Brothers in California. On July 12, 2010, the
Company was served with a lawsuit filed on July 9, 2010 by Amanda
Godfrey, a former Aaron Brothers' hourly employee alleging similar
allegations as in the Tijero suit. On October 15, 2010, the cases
were consolidated and refiled in the United States District Court-
Northern District of California. These suits allege that Aaron
Brothers failed to pay all wages and overtime, failed to provide
its hourly employees with adequate meal and rest breaks (or
compensation in lieu thereof), failed to timely pay final wages,
unlawfully withheld wages and failed to provide accurate wage
statements and further alleges that the foregoing conduct was in
breach of various laws, including California's unfair competition
law. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages,
meal and rest break penalties, waiting time penalties, interest,
and attorneys' fees and costs. The Company filed a Motion to
Dismiss various claims and a hearing is set for March 29, 2011.
The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to
defend the lawsuit vigorously. The Company is unable to estimate a
range of loss, if any, in this case.


MICHAELS STORES: Reaches Tentative Settlement of "Rattray" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc., has reached a tentative settlement of a
class action lawsuit alleging violations of California's unfair
business practices laws, according to the Company's March 24,
2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended January 29, 2011.

On April 9, 2010, Ross Rattray, a consumer, filed a purported
class action proceeding against Michaels Stores, Inc., in the San
Diego Superior Court, on behalf of himself and all similarly-
situated California consumers. The Rattray suit alleges causes of
action for unlawful and unfair business practices and false
advertising under the California Business and Professions Code,
and a violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, for
misrepresentation that Michaels gift cards are not redeemable for
cash and for failure to disclose that the plaintiff could redeem
the unused cash balance on a gift card when the value fell below
$10.00. On March 15, 2011, the matter was mediated and a tentative
settlement agreement was reached with the plaintiff for an
immaterial amount, which is subject to Court approval.


MONEY MART: Class Action Lawyers' $20MM Fee Demand Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
Julius Melnitzer, writing for Financial Post, reports that the
Ontario Court of Appeal has denied a request for $20 million in
legal fees by four law firms representing the class in the
Money Mart criminal interest class action litigation.  The firms
originally requested $27 million, but were allowed only $14.5
million by Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul Perell in a ruling
last March.  The law firms involved were Sutts, Strosberg; Heenan
Blaikie; Paliare Roland Rothstein Rosenberg; and Koskie Minsky.
All were represented by Terrence O'Suillivan and James Renihan of
Lax O'Sullivan Scott.

"The decision in Smith v. Sutts, Strosberg goes through principles
under Ontario's statute but will likely have considerable impact
in class actions in all common law provinces as it turns, not on
Ontario's fee multiplier provisions, but rather on the contingency
fee provisions," says Barry Glaspell of Borden Ladner Gervais.


NAT'L FOOTBALL LEAGUE: Faces Class Action in Minn. Over Lockout
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the NFL's anticompetitive
contract injures retired and former football players who depend on
the defendants for pension and health benefits, a class led by
Carl Eller, Priest Holmes, Obafemi Ayanbadejo and Ryan Collins
claims in Minnesota Federal Court.

Claiming that they are being denied benefit levels that would have
existed in a competitive market, the players demand an injunction
against the NFL and 32 of its teams, as well as ruling that the
lockout violates the Sherman Act.

The class is represented by Mark Feinberg of Zelle, Hoffmann
Voelbel & Mason.

As the retirees filed their complaint Monday, the class of current
NFL players, led by Tom Brady, filed a reply memorandum in support
of their motion for a preliminary injunction against the lockout.

A copy of the Complaint in Eller, et al. v. National Football
League, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00748 (D. Min.), is available at:

     http://is.gd/4OHiif

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark J. Feinberg, Esq.
          Michael E. Jacobs, Esq.
          Shawn D. Stuckey, Esq.
          ZELLE HOFMMAN VOELBEL & MASON, LLP
          500 Washington Avenue, South, Suite 4000
          Minneapolis, MN 55415
          Telephone: (612) 339-2020
          E-mail: mfeinberg@zelle.com
                  mjacobs@zelle.com
                  sstuckey@zelle.com

               - and -

          Daniel S. Mason, Esq.
          ZELLE HOFMMAN VOELBEL & MASON, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 633-0700
          E-mail: damson@zelle.com

               - and -

          Samuel D. Heins, Esq.
          Vince J. Esades, Esq.
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
          310 Clifton Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          Telephone: (612) 338-4605
          E-mail: sheins@heinsmills.com
                  vesades@heinsmills.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          Hilary K. Scherrer, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com
                  hscherrer@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
          Jon T. King, Esq.
          Arthur N. Bailey, Jr., Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com
                  jking@hausfeldllp.com
                  abailey@hausfellp.com


OCEAN TECHNOLOGY: Recalls 1,700 Guardian Full-Face Diving Masks
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Undersea Systems International Inc., dba Ocean
Technology Systems, of Santa Ana, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,700 Guardian full-face diving masks in the U.S.
and 80 in Canada.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The purge assembly on the diving mask can disengage from the
regulator, resulting in loss of air to the diver. This poses a
drowning hazard to the consumer.

The firm has received one report of a disengaged assembly. No
injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Guardian full-face diving masks with serial
numbers 9051284 through 10070954. The serial number is printed on
the main regulator body. The diving masks were sold in various
colors.  The Ocean Technology Systems' logo is affixed to the
front of the mask.

The masks were sold by diving equipment retailers and direct sales
nationwide from September 2010 through November 2010 for about
$800.  The masks were manufactured in Taiwan.

A picture of recalled diving mask is available at:

      http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11180.html

Consumers should immediately stop using the diving masks and
contact Ocean Technology Systems for instructions on conducting a
test of the regulator and returning the masks for a free repair.
For additional information, contact Ocean Technology Systems toll-
free at (877) 270-1984 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.otscomm.com/ Consumers can also e-mail the firm at
recall@otscomm.com


ONLINE RETAILERS: Collier County Gets $550,000 From Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
NBC-2.com reports that Collier County joined a class action
lawsuit against online retailers who underpaid bed taxes to
Florida counties -- and won.  The county's Tourist Development
Council received over $550,000 from the settlement.

When you book a hotel room with an online travel agency like
Expedia or Travelocity, you pay a bed tax.  The online company
hands over some of that money to Collier County for hotels booked
in that jurisdiction; however, they only pay tax on the wholesale
amount, not the full retail price the consumer pays.

"For many years, we've been losing that revenue between the
wholesale and retail amount," Convention and Visitors Bureau
Executive Director Jack Wert said.  "There's often a sizable
difference between the two."

That's why Collier joined more than 20 other counties in a class
action lawsuit, led by Monroe County.

The 2009 lawsuit was decided in favor of the counties.  On
March 28, Mr. Wert delivered good financial news to the Tourist
Development Council.

"Collier County received part of that settlement," Mr. Wert said.

Collier's portion totaled $567,645.82.  That amounts to about four
percent of the TDC's annual $12.7 million budget.

The money has been split between several TDC funds, according to
the tourist tax ordinance.  About half of the amount goes to
maintaining beaches and parks.

"I'm glad that we got settlement now," Mr. Wert said.

There is talk in Florida's legislature making online agencies
exempt from paying the full tax in the future, according to
Mr. Wert.

Wert says the lawsuit just asks for a level playing field.

"It doesn't really make sense.  If I call the hotel direct and
make a booking and you do the same hotel online, I'm going to pay
more in taxes than you are," Mr. Wert explained.

The money hasn't been assigned to specific projects yet and may be
rolled over to next year.


PALM HARBOR: Joins Accord Over Hurricane Housing Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------


Rachel Feintzeig, writing for Dow Jones Daily Bankruptcy Review,
reports that Palm Harbor Homes Inc. and Champion Enterprises Inc.
are among 34 businesses that have struck a deal to resolve a
lawsuit currently pending in Louisiana district court.

The companies provided emergency housing to victims of Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita.  Under the deal, the companies intend to pay
$2.625 million to settle claims that they exposed individuals to
hazardous levels of formaldehyde.  DBR relates Palm Harbor and
Champion are seeking bankruptcy court permission to participate in
the settlement.

DBR relates that Palm Harbor's insurer would contribute $50,000 to
the $2.625 million fund, leaving Palm Harbor free to use its own
funds for other uses.

DBR notes Palm Harbor faces 46,500 claims stemming from the
lawsuit.  All of these would be resolved under the settlement.

According to DBR, Palm Harbor has warned that absent the
settlement, its officers would be forced to divert their time and
energy away from the bankruptcy case to handle the Louisiana
litigation.  It also cautioned that the company might not be able
to fund the continuing costs of litigating the matter.

DBR notes that no papers have yet been filed in Champion's
bankruptcy case, now known as CEI Liquidation Estates, but the
settlement specifies that Champion too requires clearance from the
bankruptcy court.

DBR relates the bankruptcy court is set to consider approving Palm
Harbor's participation in the settlement at a hearing April 19.

                      About Palm Harbor Homes

Addison, Texas-based Palm Harbor Homes, Inc. --
http://www.palmharbor.com/-- manufactures and markets factory-
built homes.  The Company markets nationwide through vertically
integrated operations, encompassing manufactured and modular
housing, financing and insurance.

Palm Harbor, along with affiliates, filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No. 10-13850) on
Nov. 29, 2010.  It disclosed $321,263,000 in total assets and
$280,343,000 in total debts.

Brian Cejka at Alvarez & Marsal is the Debtors' chief
restructuring officer.  Raymond James and Associates, Inc., is the
Debtors' investment banker.  Alvarez & Marshal North America, LLC,
is the Debtors' financial advisor.  BMC Group, Inc., is the
Debtors' claims agent.  Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP serves
as counsel to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.

Following a court-approved sale process, Palm Harbor in March 2011
sold its business for $85.25 million to Fleetwood Enterprises
Inc., a venture between Cavco Industries Inc. and a fund advised
by Third Avenue Management LLC.  Fleetwood is providing up to
$55 million in secured financing for Palm Harbor's reorganization.

                    About Champion Enterprises

Troy, Michigan-based Champion Enterprises, Inc., and its
subsidiaries were international manufacturers of factory-built
homes and steel-framed modular buildings, with operations in the
United States, Canada and the United Kingdom.  Buildings
constructed by Champion and its subsidiaries consisted of both
single and multi-module units designed for either commercial or
residential purposes.  Champion products ranged from single-module
HUD-Code homes to sophisticated commercial structures such as
hotels.

The Company filed for Chapter 11 protection on Nov. 15, 2009
(Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 09-14019).  The Company's affiliates also
filed separate bankruptcy petitions.  James E. O'Neill, Esq.,
Laura Davis Jones, Esq., Mark M. Billion, Esq., Timothy P. Cairns,
Esq., at Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP, assist Champion in its
restructuring effort.  The Company disclosed $576,527,000 in asset
and $521,337,000 in liabilities as of October 3, 2009.

In March 2010, Champion Enterprises received final court approval
to sell its domestic and international operations.  An investor
group consisting of affiliates of Centerbridge Partners, L.P., MAK
Capital Fund LP and Sankaty Advisors, LLC invested $50 million in
new capital to support the operations and growth initiatives of
the new company.  The transaction was supported by a group of
Champion's existing lenders who, together with the lead investors,
agreed to exchange 100% of existing debt under Champion's pre-
petition and DIP senior secured credit agreements for equity in
the new company and a $40 million senior secured five year note.

Champion's bankruptcy case has been renamed CEI Liquidation
Estates following the closing of the sale.


PETSMART INC: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in "Pet Food" Case in U.S.
----------------------------------------------------------------
PetSmart, Inc., is still awaiting a ruling on appeals made by
certain parties regarding court approval of the settlement of "pet
food" class action lawsuits in the United States, according to the
Company's March 24, 2011, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
January 30, 2011.

Beginning in March 2007, the Company was named as a party in the
following lawsuits arising from pet food recalls announced by
several manufacturers. The plaintiffs sued the major pet food
manufacturers and retailers claiming that their pets suffered
injury and/or death as a result of consuming allegedly
contaminated pet food and pet snack products.

   * Bruski v. Nutro Products, et al., USDC, N.D. IL (filed
     3/23/07);

   * Rozman v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, MN (filed 4/9/07);

   * Ford v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, S.D. CA (filed 4/23/07);

   * Wahl, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al., USDC, C.D. CA
     (filed 4/10/07);

   * Demith v. Nestle, et al., USDC, N.D. IL (filed 4/23/07);

   * Thompkins v. Menu Foods, et al., USDC, CO (filed 4/11/07);

   * McBain v. Menu Foods, et al., Judicial Centre of Regina,
     Canada (filed 7/11/07);

   * Dayman v. Hills Pet Nutrition Inc., et al., Ontario Superior
     Court of Justice (filed 8/8/07);

   * Esau v. Menu Foods, et al., Supreme Court of Newfoundland and
     Labrador (filed 9/5/07);

   * Ewasew v. Menu Foods, et al., Supreme Court of British
     Columbia (filed 3/23/07);

   * Silva v. Menu Foods, et al., Canada Province of Manitoba
     (filed 3/30/07); and

   * Powell v. Menu Foods, et al., Ontario Superior Court of
     Justice (filed 3/28/07).

By order dated June 28, 2007, the Bruski, Rozman, Ford, Wahl,
Demith and Thompkins cases were transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with other
pet food class actions under the federal rules for multi-district
litigation (In re: Pet Food Product Liability Litigation, Civil
No. 07-2867). The Canadian cases were not consolidated.

On May 21, 2008, the parties to the U.S. lawsuits comprising the
In re: Pet Food Product Liability Litigation and the Canadian
cases jointly submitted a comprehensive settlement arrangement for
court approval. Preliminary court approval was received from the
U.S. District Court on May 3, 2008, and from all of the Canadian
courts as of July 8, 2008. On October 14, 2008, the U.S. District
Court approved the settlement, and the Canadian courts gave final
approval on November 3, 2008.

Two different groups of objectors filed notices of appeal with
respect to the U.S. District Court's approval of the U.S.
settlement, and the Court of Appeals remanded one point of fact to
the motions judge for additional clarification. Once the point
remanded by the appeals court is addressed, these cases should be
resolved, and the Company continues to believe they will not have
a material adverse impact on the Company's consolidated financial
statements.

There have been no appeals filed in Canada.

No updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC filing.

PetSmart, Inc. -- http://www.petsmart.com/-- is a specialty
provider of products, services and solutions for the lifetime
needs of pets.  The company offers a line of products for all the
life stages of pets, and offers various pet services, including
professional grooming, training, boarding and day camp.  It also
offers pet products through an e-commerce site, PetSmart.com, as
well operates a pet community site, pets.com.


POWER BALANCE: Enters Into Agreement to Resolve Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Power Balance LLC disclosed on March 28 that it has entered into
an agreement to resolve a recent advertising-related class action
lawsuit, Batungbacal v. Power Balance LLC et al., which was filed
in a federal district court in California on Jan. 4, 2011.  Under
the terms of the agreement, Power Balance will provide full
refunds, plus an amount for shipping and handling, to dissatisfied
customers who join the class.  Power Balance will also make select
changes to product claims and the ways in which it advertises and
markets its products in order to better define the scope of its
marketing claims.  The agreement makes clear that there is no
acknowledgement, admission, liability, wrongdoing, noncompliance
or violation on the part of Power Balance.  Importantly, Power
Balance expects a series of related lawsuits to be resolved as a
result of this settlement.

"We are pleased to resolve these matters, which will enable Power
Balance to get back to the business of building a brand and
further developing our Performance Technology(TM)," said Nina
Freeland-Ringel, general counsel for Power Balance.  "As with many
early technologies, especially one involving Eastern origins, we
recognize the potential for confusion in the marketplace, and
concede we may have gotten ahead of ourselves with claims about
our first product.  While we have yet to fully document the
benefits of our initial product offering, we are wholly committed
to the continued development of Power Balance products in
association with athletes around the world."

Power Balance and counsel for the plaintiff in Batungbacal on
March 25 filed papers requesting the Court's preliminary approval
of the settlement.  This case and related lawsuits stem from a
similar matter involving Power Balance's Australian distributor
and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC),
which was resolved in December 2010.


RADWARE LTD: Awaits Ruling on Appeals From IPO Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Radware Ltd. is awaiting a ruling on two appeals made regarding a
court-approved settlement of IPO-related class action lawsuits in
New York, according to the Company's March 24, 2011, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

In December 2001, the Company, its Chairman Yehuda Zisapel, its
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director Roy Zisapel and
its Chief Financial Officer Meir Moshe and several underwriters in
the syndicates for the Company's September 30, 1999 initial public
offering and January 24, 2000, secondary offering, were named as
defendants in a class action complaint alleging violations of the
federal securities laws in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  The complaint sought
unspecified damages as a result of alleged violations of Section
11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended against all the
defendants and Section 15 of the Securities Act against the
Individual Defendants arising from activities purportedly engaged
in by the underwriters in connection with the Company's initial
public offering and secondary offering.  Plaintiffs allege that
the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in the
Company's initial public offering and secondary offering to
certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed
commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional
purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.
An amended complaint filed on April 19, 2002, which is now the
operative complaint, added a claim under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended against the Company
and a claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
Individual Defendants.  Plaintiffs allege that the prospectuses
for the Company's initial public offering and secondary offering
were false and misleading because they did not disclose these
arrangements.  The action is being coordinated with approximately
three hundred other nearly identical actions filed against other
companies before one judge in the district court.  On October 9,
2002, the Court dismissed the Individual Defendants from the case
without prejudice.  This dismissal disposed of the Section 15 and
20(a) control person claims without prejudice, since these claims
were asserted only against the Individual Defendants.

On December 5, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit vacated a decision by the district court granting
class certification in six "focus" cases, which are intended to
serve as test cases.  Plaintiffs selected these six cases, which
do not include the Company. On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit
denied a petition for rehearing filed by the plaintiffs, but noted
that the plaintiffs could ask the district court to certify more
narrow classes than those that were rejected.

Prior to the Second Circuit's decision, the majority of issuers,
including the Company, had submitted a settlement agreement to the
district court for approval.  In light of the Second Circuit
opinion, the parties agreed that the settlement could not be
approved. On June 25, 2007, the district court approved a
stipulation filed by the plaintiffs and the issuers that
terminated the proposed settlement. On August 14, 2007, the
plaintiffs filed amended complaints in the six focus cases.  The
six focus case issuers and the underwriters named as defendants in
the focus cases filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints
against them on November 14, 2007.  On September 27, 2007, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in the six focus
cases.  On March 26, 2008, the district court dismissed the
Section 11 claims of those members of the putative classes in the
focus cases who sold their securities for a price in excess of the
initial offering price and those who purchased outside the
previously certified class period.  With respect to all the other
claims, the motions to dismiss were denied. On October 10, 2008,
at the request of Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification was withdrawn, without prejudice.

The parties in the approximately 300 coordinated class actions,
including Radware, the underwriter defendants in the Radware class
action, and the plaintiffs in the Radware class action, have
reached a settlement. The insurers for the issuer defendants in
the coordinated cases will make the settlement payment on behalf
of the issuers, including Radware. On October 5, 2009, the court
granted final approval of the settlement and judgment was entered
on January 10, 2010. A group of three objectors filed a petition
to the Second Circuit seeking permission to appeal the District
Court's final approval order on the basis that the settlement
class is broader than the class previously rejected by the Second
Circuit in its December 5, 2006 order vacating the District
Court's certifying classes in the focus cases. Plaintiffs have
filed an opposition to the petition. In addition, six notices of
appeal to the Second Circuit have been filed by different groups
of objectors, including the objectors that filed the petition to
appeal. Two appeals are proceeding. The remaining objectors have
withdrawn their appeals with prejudice.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company says
it cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the matter.
Should the settlement not be approved and the Company is found
liable, the Company is, at this time, unable to estimate or
predict the potential damages that might be awarded, whether such
damages would be greater than the Company's insurance coverage,
and whether such damages would have a material impact on its
results of operations, cash flows or financial condition in any
future period.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Accused of Selling Defective Cell Phones
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Samsung sold defective cell
phones knowing they shut down at random, according to a federal
class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Amy Rothbaum v. Samsung Electronics
America, Inc. Case No. 11-CV-10509 (D. Mass.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/28/Samsung.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward F. Haber, Esq.
          Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
          SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
          53 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 439-3939
          E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com
                  astewart@shulaw.com


SCOTCH CORP: Recalls 74,760 Instant Power Toilet Bowl Restorer
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Scotch Corporation, of Dallas, Texas, announced a voluntary recall
of about 74,760 Instant Power(R) Toilet Bowl Restorer(TM).
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The contents can leak from the cap when the bottle is turned on
its side.  When this happens, the cleaner can come into contact
with consumers and property, posing a risk of chemical burns and
irritation to the skin and eyes.

Scotch has received seven reports of bottles leaking, resulting in
property damage. No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Instant Power Toilet Bowl Restorer cleaner
with model number 1803. The model number is printed the back of
the bottle next to the barcode. The toilet bowl restoring product
was sold in a grey plastic bottle with an orange cap. The words
"Guaranteed" and "Toilet Bowl Restorer" are printed on the bottle.

The recalled products were sold at True Value Hardware, Ace
Hardware, GEBO's and other retail stores nationwide between
February 2009 and January 2010 for about $5.  The products were
manufactured in the United States.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled Toilet Bowl
Restorer and contact Scotch for disposal instructions and a full
refund.  For additional information, contact Scotch Corporation at
(800) 613-4242 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday,
or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.scotchcorp.com/

Pictures of recalled toilet bowl restorers are available at:

      http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11178.html


SONY COMPUTER: Other OS Feature Removed to Save Money, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
IGN reports that an amended class action complaint filed against
Sony Computer Entertainment America this month is claiming the
company removed the 'Other OS' feature from the PlayStation 3 to
save money and not for security reasons.

In April 2010, SCEA removed the Other OS feature due to "security
concerns."  The complaint says the statement is a "fabrication,"
saying SCEA gave those reasons as a pretext so it could argue the
Warranty and Terms of Service allowed for the removal of the
feature.

"In reality, SCEI and SCEA removed this feature because it was
expensive to maintain (as they previously admitted when the
feature was removed from the "slim" models -- but which they
conveniently removed from SCEA's Web site); they were losing money
on every PS3 unit sold (due to poor decisions in the planning and
design of the Cell chip as noted above and given the PS3's extra
features); SCEA needed to promote and sell games to make their
money back on the loss-leading PS3 consoles (and there was no
profit in users utilizing the computer functions of the PS3); and
IBM wanted to sell its expensive servers utilizing the Cell
processor (users could cluster PS3s for the same purposes much
less expensively)."

The complaint also says it's "virtually impossible" to use the
'Other OS' for piracy.

"When the 'Other OS' feature is enabled, the software prevents the
proper operation of the gaming feature to avoid allowing the
features to interplay.  In order for a hacker to pirate a game, it
is necessary to perfectly emulate the operating system for which
the game is designed, including the API, which is the interface
for the game OS that supports all of the features of a game.

"However, when the Other OS is in use, the API and other hardware
features are blocked, including the graphics chip in the PS3,
which makes it impossible to run a pirated game on the Other OS.
As of January 2011, Sony had yet to identify a single instance in
which someone used the Other OS to pirate protected content."

Last month, the court dismissed all but one claim from the
original complaint filed in April 2010.  The judge still allowed
the plaintiff's "Computer Fraud and Abuse Act" claim because Sony
could not show that its use of the firmware update to remove the
'Other OS' feature was authorized.

"Sony's actions are like a car manufacturer telling a buyer that
it is going to remove the engine because it does not want to
service the part anymore and then telling the consumer, 'tough
luck, we are not going to give you a refund,'" said Co-Lead
counsel James Pizzirusso of Hausfeld in a statement.

"This type of activity is exactly what our country's consumer
protection laws were designed to protect against."

SCEA had until March 28 to issue a response.  A copy of the
amended complaint is available at http://is.gd/WZnOZm


STARBUCKS CORP: Baristas Awarded Summary Judgment in Tip Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that a class of
2,500 baristas was awarded summary judgment in Boston Federal
Court, in their claim that Starbucks doled out tips meant for them
to supervisors, in violation of the state's Tips Law.

The class includes baristas who worked at any Starbucks store in
Massachusetts between March 25, 2005 and Feb. 8, 2011.

Since the case was filed in 2008, Starbucks has claimed that its
supervisors are wait staff, not managers.  It claims that while
baristas and shift supervisors are part-time, hourly-wage
employees, store managers are full-time, salaried employees.

But U.S. Magistrate Judge Leo Sorokin rejected that argument, and
recommended granting class consolidation and summary judgment on
Feb. 8.

"Starbucks' shift supervisors have at least some managerial
responsibilities, and thus are not 'wait staff employees' as
defined by the statute," Judge Sorokin wrote in his report
recommending summary judgment for the baristas.

On Feb. 28, Starbucks objected to Judge Sorokin's findings,
writing in a memorandum that "The differences between the jobs of
baristas and shift supervisors are not significant . . .
Importantly, neither a barista nor a shift supervisor has the
power to compel obedience if a co-worker refuses his or her
direction or request."

Starbucks said that it "has long allowed the money that customers
leave in the containers positioned on the counters of every store
to be shared by baristas and shift supervisors -- but not by the
managers with control over them."

Nonetheless, U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton adopted the
magistrate judge's findings on March 18.

"This Court finds Magistrate Judge Sorokin's analysis and
statutory construction thorough and well-reasoned," Judge Gorton
said.  "Indeed, were the Court to hold otherwise, an employer
could readily insulate itself from class liability simply by
establishing a communal 'tip pool' for both managerial and non-
managerial employees.  Such an 'end run' clearly contravenes the
purpose of the Tips Law."

A copy of the Memorandum & Order in Matamoros, et al. v. Starbucks
Corporation, Case No. 08-cv-10772 (D. Mass.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/28/StarbucksRuling.pdf


TOMOTHERAPY INC: Being Sold for Too Little, Wis. Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling
TomoTherapy too cheaply to Accuray and Jaguar Acquisition, for
$277 million in a cash and stock deal, shareholders say.

A copy of the Complaint in Storch v. Tomotherapy Inc., et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-01183 (Wis. Cir. Ct., Dane Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/28/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          K. Scott Wagner, Esq.
          HALE & WAGNER, S.C.
          839 N. Jefferson Street, Suite 400
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 278-7000
          E-mail: ksw@halewagner.com

               - and -

          Marc M. Umeda, Esq.
          Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
          Arshan Amiri, Esq.
          Laurene E. Rosner, Esq.
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          E-mail: mumeda@robbinsumeda.com
                  soddo@robbinsumeda.com
                  aamiri@robbinsumeda.com
                  lrosner@robbinsumeda.com

               - and -

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          Jamie J. McKey, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, LLP
          3232 McKinney, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
                  jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com


TOYS "R" US: Paid $17 Million in Class Suit Settlement in March
---------------------------------------------------------------
Toys "R" Us, Inc., paid $17 million in March 2011 towards an
overall settlement of class action lawsuits filed by Internet
retailers, according to the Company's March 24, 2011, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended January 29, 2011.

On July 15, 2009, the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania granted the class plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in a consumer class action commenced in
January 2006, which was consolidated with an action brought by two
Internet retailers that was commenced in December 2005. Both
actions allege that Babies "R" Us agreed with certain baby product
manufacturers to impose, maintain and/or enforce minimum price
agreements in violation of antitrust laws. In addition, in
December 2009, a third Internet retailer filed a similar action
and another consumer class action was commenced making similar
allegations involving most of the same Defendants. In January
2011, the parties in the consumer class actions entered into a
settlement agreement, which has been preliminarily approved by the
District Court. As part of the settlement, in March 2011 the
Company made a payment of approximately $17 million towards the
overall settlement. In addition, in January 2011, the plaintiffs,
the Company and certain other Defendants in the Internet retailer
actions entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which the
Company made a payment of approximately $5 million towards the
overall settlement. In addition, on or about November 23, 2010,
the Company entered into a Stipulation with the Federal Trade
Commission ending the FTC's investigation related to the Company's
compliance with a 1998 FTC Final Order and settling all claims in
full. Pursuant to the settlement, the Company will pay
approximately $1 million as a civil penalty.


UNIVERSAL LEAF: Farmers File Class Action Over Tobacco Contract
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shawntaye Hopkins, writing for Kentucky.com reports that several
Kentucky farmers have filed a class-action lawsuit against a
leading tobacco merchant they say failed to honor contracts to
purchase burley tobacco from them at the end of the 2010 crop
year.

Now some of the farmers say they would rather leave the business
than gamble on tobacco.

The lawsuit, which was filed against Universal Leaf North America
last week in Harrison Circuit Court, says hundreds of farmers have
lost what amounts to millions.

Among the plaintiffs are Jerry Feagan of Berry, Steve Lang of
Cynthiana and Thomas Leach and Larry O'Neill, both of Dry Ridge,
who say agents of Universal Leaf North America refused to accept
tobacco, the lawsuit says.  They are seeking monetary damages to
be determined at trial.

Universal Corporation, which is based in Richmond, Va., is the
world's leading tobacco merchant and processor, the lawsuit said.
Universal Corporation is the parent company of ULNA, which is
based in Nashville, N.C., and registered to do business in
Kentucky.

A clerk who answered the phone for Universal Corporation said the
company's attorney does not answer questions about litigation.

According to the lawsuit filed on March 22, ULNA "unilaterally
decided to forgo the inspection process and almost universally
rejected the tobacco that it had contracted tobacco producers to
deliver to the Cynthiana, Kentucky receiving station."

Attorney Jack S. Gatlin said there was nothing in the farmers'
contracts that said the company could simply decide not to
purchase tobacco.  Mr. Gatlin discovered the situation when a
farmer approached him, worried about losing his farm and his house
because he had not received payments from the tobacco company.

He said tobacco farmers did not deserve to be treated the way
Universal Leaf treated them.  "A lot of people are financially
crippled by this," Mr. Gatlin said.

He said most of the farmers were told there was no longer a market
for the tobacco.  But "there's nowhere in that contract that says
they can just decide not to buy it," Mr. Gatlin said.

The law firm handling the case, Strauss & Troy in Cincinnati,
continues to search for others who were "betrayed by tobacco
companies."

Steve Lang signed a contract on April 8, 2010 that said ULNA
agreed to purchase 28,500 pounds of tobacco from him for a price
dependent on the grade the crop received at inspection, the
lawsuit says.  On Dec. 10, Mr. Lang delivered his crop to the
receiving station in Cynthiana but it was rejected by an ULNA
agent without "reasonable inspection."

Mr. Lang was able to sell his crop at open auction but lost more
than $15,000.

Reached by phone, Mr. Lang said he did not want to comment on the
case.  Mr. O'Neill, who could not be reached for comment, lost
more than $17,000, according to the lawsuit.

Messrs. Feagan, Leach and O'Neill signed similar contracts on
April 8 and faced similar roadblocks when they delivered crops to
the receiving station in Cynthiana.

Mr. Feagan produced high-quality burley tobacco, the lawsuit says,
but at the end of November 2010 a representative from ULNA visited
Mr. Feagan's farm and told him the company did not intend to
purchase the tobacco according to the price agreed upon in the
contract. Instead, the company offered Mr. Feagan 30 cents a
pound.

Mr. Feagan decided to sell his tobacco in an open auction at Clay
Tobacco Warehouse in Mt. Sterling.  A portion of Mr. Feagan's crop
sold in auction for 88 cents a pound.

Mr. Feagan returned to ULNA on Dec. 14 and asked them to purchase
the rest of his crop, the lawsuit said.  They purchased a portion
of the remaining crop. He returned to ULNA again in February and
his tobacco was refused without inspection.

He sold the rest of the crop at open auction.  But Mr. Feagan
suffered a loss of more than $10,000, according to the lawsuit.
In a telephone interview, Mr. Feagan said he lost $21,000.

"It was a very stressful winter, knowing we couldn't get our money
back," Mr. Feagan said.

Mr. Feagan, who also does construction work, said he no longer
plans to grow tobacco.  Mr. Leach also said he planned to leave
the business.

"That's always got me through six months of winter," Mr. Feagan
said. "So I don't know what I'm going to do this fall."

Thomas Leach, who is not the University of Kentucky sports
announcer, lost more than $14,000 because of ULNA breach of
contract, the lawsuit said.

"I worked all year and lost money," Mr. Leach said.  "Now you step
back and you have farm payments and other commitments.  What do
you do?"

Mr. Leach said it will be difficult to replace the money he's lost
and won't return to the tobacco industry.

It's an industry that has already suffered.  Tobacco production
has significantly declined over the years.

There were 8,112 tobacco farms in Kentucky in 2007, according to
the latest numbers available from the Kentucky Department of
Agriculture.  And 887 of those farms accounted for 75% of the
sales.

Kentucky produced 203 million pounds of tobacco in 2010 compared
to the 432 million pounds of burley tobacco alone that was
produced in 1975.

"It's a way of life coming to an end," Mr. Leach said.


WOODSTOCK APARTMENT: Fire Victims Mull Class Action v. Owner
------------------------------------------------------------
QMI Agency reports that one day after an explosion and fire
destroyed a Woodstock apartment building, plans are being laid for
a class-action lawsuit naming the building's owner.

Sharon Strosberg, a partner in a Toronto firm specializing in
lawsuits involving explosions, said she has received numerous
calls from victims affected by the fire.

It is possible a lawsuit may be filed as early as this week, and
damages could be in the multi-million dollar range, she said.
"Yes, that's possible."

Sutts Strosberg LLP and Falconer Charney LLP will co-represent
victims of the fire and explosion that left dozens homeless and
two missing and feared dead.

Ms. Strosberg said that, even though a cause of the blaze has yet
to be determined, it is not unusual to initiate legal action
almost immediately.

"I think people right now want to know what their rights are . . .
they call their insurer or they call a lawyer."

People affected by the fire, even if they did not live in the
apartment building, could be eligible to be compensated for any
uninsured losses, costs associated with evacuation, lost wages and
physical and emotional harm.

She urged anyone looking for information to call her at 519-561-
6244.


* NZ Law Firm Urges Investors to File Suit v. Failed Firms
----------------------------------------------------------
TVNZ, citing ONE News, reports that investors who lost hundreds of
millions of dollars in failed finance companies are being offered
a way to sue for those losses without risking any more money.

An Auckland law firm has joined forces with one of Australia's
biggest to invite investors to join a class action against the
trustees of the failed funds.

The law firm, Turner Hopkins, says there has been success in
similar cases in Australia and the US, and partner Andrew Hooker
is confident that could be repeated in New Zealand.

"Trustees are the watchdog appointed under the Securities Act,
they're meant to look after everyone's money," he told TVNZ's AMP
Business on March 28.

"Directors have liability, but we doubt many of them have too much
money, and financial advisors are in the same category.  We
believe the trustees are the most culpable."

Trustees are relied on to act honestly and carefully in dealing
with the investments of other people, and make decisions in the
best interests of a trust's beneficiaries.

Mr. Hooker said there is no precedent for bringing charges against
them in New Zealand.

"(It is) very unusual in New Zealand, firstly because we don't
have a class action regime here, this is a representative action.
But it's relatively common in shareholder and finance cases in
Australia," Mr. Hooker said.

His law firm has teamed up with Australian firm, Slater and
Gordon, which has just won a large settlement in a similar case.

Financial backing for the action is likely to come from a
litigation funding company which would take a cut of any proceeds
from the cases.

Mr. Hooker is encouraging investors to come forward if they want
to make a claim against their former trustees, but said
Bridgecorp, Capital and Merchant and Dominion Finance are already
in his sights.

Investors can register their interest through the Turner Hopkins
Web site.

Tim Rainey acts for 3000 Hanover investors, and the other firm,
Turner Hopkins, says it has had calls from hundreds of others.

They could become part of the representative action against
trustees, supported by Slater Gordon, where Australian Prime
Minister Julia Gillard was a partner.

Mr. Rainey said the trustees had very wide powers to investigate
and ask questions.

"And the issue that we're looking at is whether they exercised
those powers appropriately."

The Bridgecorp group of companies collapsed in mid-2007 owing
investors in its debt securities an estimated $486 million.

Capital and Merchant Finance was placed into receivership with the
company owed $167.1 million to approximately 7000 investors, while
Dominion Finance was sent to the receivers in 2008, owing $176.9
million to some 5900 investors, after it failed to negotiate a
moratorium.


                            *********

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.  Leah
Felisilda, Neil U. Lim, Rousel Elaine Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante,
Ronald Sy, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2011.  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  * * *