CAR_Public/110426.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, April 26, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 81

                             Headlines

400 RESTAURANT: Sued for Failing to Provide Spread of Hours Pay
ACTIVE LEISURE: Recalls 19T Tents Due to Fire Hazard
AT&T INC: Washington Supreme Court Refuses to Certify Class Action
AUSTRALIA: Military Abuse Class Action May Burden Taxpayers
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Libor Manipulation

CHINA INTELLIGENT: May 31 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
COOPER TOOLS: Recalls 69,000 Stained Glass Soldering Irons
COULTER VENTURES: Recalls 5,500 Rogue Fitness Barbell Brackets
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDIC: Watchdog Warns About Hip Implant Class Action
FASHIONVIEWS INC: Recalls 4T Sleepwear Over Flammability Standards

GUNNS: Shareholders Launch Class Action Over Poor Disclosure
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Amended "Perlmutter" Suit Still Pending
MIDWEST-CBK: Recalls 10T Wrist Rattles & Baby Booties
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Faces "Pittman" Lawsuit in Delaware Court
MTD CONSUMER: Recalls 4,300 Riding Lawn Mowers Due to Fire Hazard

MY MICHELLE: Recalls 90T Girl's Tops Due to Risk of Lead Exposure
MYSPACE INC: Sued for Sharing Users' Information Without Consent
QDS INCORPORATED: Sued for Filing Collection Cases Sans License
PUDA COAL: Accused of Violating Federal Securities Laws
PUDA COAL: Faces 2nd Suit Over Securities Law Violations

PUDA COAL: Faces 3rd Suit Over Securities Law Violations
PUDA COAL: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
REDKEN 5TH AVENUE: Recalls 1-Mil. Guts Spray Mousse Foam Cans
SPRINT TELECOM: Landowners File Class Action Over Cable
URBAN OUTFITTERS: May 31  Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set

WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Recalls 28,700 Units of Hot Chocolate Pots




                             *********


400 RESTAURANT: Sued for Failing to Provide Spread of Hours Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Martinez Rivera and Dayana Depena, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. 400 Restaurant Group Corp., d/b/a
Sofrito Restaurant, Sazon, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-02567
(S.D.N.Y. April 15, 2011), assert violations of the wage-and-hour
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201
et seq., and violations of the New York Labor Law, Article 6,
Sections 190 et seq., and Article 19, Sections 650 et seq., and
the supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations.

Specifically, plaintiffs accuse defendants of failing to pay
minimum wages for all hours worked, failing to correctly
compensate for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, failing
to provide spread of hours pay as required by the NYLL,
misappropriating service charges or gratuities, failing to
maintain accurate time and pay records, and making unlawful
deductions from the wages of plaintiffs.

Defendant 400 Restaurant Group owns and operates Sofrito, a posh
Latin hotspot located in Midtown East Manhattan that serves high-
end Puerto Rican cuisine.  Sazon, Inc., owns and operates Sazon, a
sister restaurant of Sofrito, located in Lower Manhattan which
also serves high-end Puerto Rican cuisine.

Plaintiff Kevin Martinez Rivera, a resident of Astoria, New York,
was employed by Sofrito as a server, a food service worker, from
approximately April 2007 to April 2008 and from March 2009 to
April 2011.  Plaintiff Dayana Depena, a resident of Woodside, New
York, was employed by Sofrito and Sazon as a bartender from
September 2009 until February 11, 2011.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
          Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375


ACTIVE LEISURE: Recalls 19T Tents Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------
Active Leisure Inc., of Yinzhou, Ningbo, China, conducted a
voluntary product safety recall of about 19,000 Active Leisure
folding canopy tents, 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.

The tents do not meet the flammability label claim on the unit,
posing a fire hazard to consumers.  No injuries have been
reported.

The recall includes Active Leisure 10' by 10' folding canopy
tents.  Item number 544803 is printed on the original packaging
near the bar code.  The tents have a metal frame covered in white
fabric.  The tents are sold exclusively at Costco stores
nationwide from January 2011 through February 2011 for about $190.
The tents are manufactured in China.

Pictures of the recalled Active Leisure tent and tent packaging
are available at:

      http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11732.html

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled canopy tents
and return them to any Costco store for a full refund.  For more
information, contact Active Leisure toll-free at (877) 730-1583
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday ET.


AT&T INC: Washington Supreme Court Refuses to Certify Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for LegalNewsline, reports that The
Washington Supreme Court elected not to certify a class of
plaintiffs suing AT&T over extra charges because it would place
too big a burden on the company.

The court, in an opinion released on April 14, said the difference
in laws between states made certifying a nationwide class of
plaintiffs imprudent.  However, it seemed to suggest that
plaintiffs could file statewide class actions in their respective
states, much like a class in California has already done.

The lawsuit was brought over charges the plaintiffs said were not
specified and increased without their approvals.  AT&T was making
the charge to recover Universal Service Fund contributions from
its customers but listed the charge as either "Other Charges &
Credits" or "Taxes, Surcharges & Regulatory Fees."  The USF
subsidizes phone and Internet service to low-income and rural
areas.

The court said customers decided which venue in which they would
bring their claims when they chose their area codes.

"The customer's area code is left to the discretion of the
customer, and this area code often corresponds with the customer's
place of residence," says the opinion, authored by Chief Justice
Barbara Madsen.

"In effect, the customer selected which forum's law would apply
when he requested phone service from AT&T.  AT&T should not now be
forced to face the enormous cost and complexity presented by a
nationwide class action when it conscionably included choice of
law provisions in its customers' contracts and the choice of forum
is dictated by the consumer."

King County Superior Court Judge Douglass North denied the motion
for class certification, but the state Court of Appeals overturned
that decision.  Madsen wrote that the Court of Appeals' decision
"flies in the face" of federal law regarding nationwide class
actions.

"The choice of law provisions in this case will do more than cause
variations in damages," she added.  "The availability of the
voluntary payment doctrine in some states could abrogate AT&T's
liability to customers in those states who voluntarily paid the
UCC after receiving the informational flyer detailing their
responsibility for its payment."

Justices Charles Johnson, Mary Fairhurst, Gerry Alexander and
James Johnson joined in Madsen's opinion.  Justice Richard Sanders
dissented, and was joined by justices Susan Owens and Debra
Stephens.

Sanders' opinion notes that the Court of Appeals wrote that
differing state law issues in the nationwide class could be
resolved through the creation of subclasses.

"The claims in every state involve the nature of the UCC, an
apparent nationwide approach to charging fees in relation to the
UCC, omissions or the same or similar misrepresentations to
further that approach, and the same defendant corporation,"
Sanders wrote.

"A nationwide suit avoids a 50-fold redundancy of litigation,
which will substantially increase the costs of the litigation to
both parties, particularly attorney fees; result in redundant
re-litigation of the same issues; and saddle the judiciary of all
50 states with significant costs to redundantly try statewide
class actions based on the actions of a single Washington
corporation."

Justice Tom Chambers agreed that state law differences could be
managed, but concurred with the majority that "the proximate cause
standard . . . is the proper analytical device to determine
whether the defendant's wrongful conduct caused the plaintiffs'
injury."


AUSTRALIA: Military Abuse Class Action May Burden Taxpayers
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that Defense Minister
Stephen Smith has admitted there is a "distinct possibility"
taxpayers could be liable if a class action against defense
succeeds.

In the wake of the Skype scandal, many former defense employees
have come forward with allegations of rape, sexual assault and
bastardization inside defense.

Some of the claims date back to the 1960s and the era of the
Vietnam war.

The rush of anecdotes has led to independent senator Nick Xenophon
suggesting he will help form a class action law suit against
defense.

"I have met with them and am happy to work with them on this
issue," Senator Xenophon told the media.

"I will help facilitate getting lawyers involved in a potential
class action lawsuit."

Mr. Smith, a former lawyer, was open on what a class action could
deliver.

"There is a distinct possibility, either in individual cases or
more generally that through the department of defense or through
the services, there is a Commonwealth liability here," Mr. Smith
told Network Ten on April 17.

He called for calm on an issue that has ballooned from the initial
scandal of a female cadet at the Australian Defence Force Academy
being secretly filmed while having sex.

"We do need to take it sensibly, carefully, step-by-step,"
Mr. Smith said.

The Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia is warning the costs
of such action could "be phenomenal".

"There is only a limited bucket of funds," association president
Ron Coxon said on April 17.

Mr. Coxon raised the possibility that in some cases the
perpetrator may be dead.

Australia Defence Association chief Neil James, a regular
spokesman on defense matters, said the issue was becoming
increasingly complex.

"It's a really difficult area," Mr. James said.

"Not all of the complaints may be valid, while some of them may be
a little exaggerated."

Comment was sought from opposition defense spokesman David
Johnston.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Libor Manipulation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Vanderford, writing for Law360, reports an investor in
London Interbank Offered Rate-indexed securities filed a class
action against Bank of America Corp., UBS AG and other major banks
on April 19 in Illinois, claiming they cost the market billions by
manipulating the Libor to hide their weaknesses.

Sixteen big banks indirectly set the Libor by reporting what
interest rate they thought they would get if they borrowed money
from other banks.  Fearful that the market would see how fragile
their positions were during the financial crisis if they told the
truth about their estimated borrowing costs, 12 of those banks
lied in their reports to Reuters, which calculates the rate,
plaintiff Richard Hershey said in a complaint filed in an Illinois
federal court.

The suit appears to be the first investor suit to arise out of the
bourgeoning Libor scandal.  Earlier, three European investment
firms sued Libor-reporting banks in New York court over the
alleged scheme.

Apart from Bank of America and UBS, the defendants are Deutsche
Bank AG, Credit Suisse Group AG, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., HSBC
Holdings PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, Lloyds Banking Group PLC, Westlb
AG, Royal Bank Of Scotland Group PLC, The Norinchukin Bank and
Citibank NA.

"Defendants engaged in secret and surreptitious activities in
order to manipulate Libor rates to artificial levels," Mr. Hershey
said.

Because many securities are indexed to Libor, the alleged
manipulation cost investors billions, or perhaps trillions, of
dollars, he claims.

Mr. Hershey, who traded in Chicago Mercantile Exchange Eurodollar
futures that were indexed to Libor, alleges the manipulation
happened from as early as 2006 to at least 2009, violating the
Commodity Exchange Act.

The defendants all had an incentive to lie when they reported
their estimated interbank borrowing rates, since none wanted to
appear weak as the financial crisis evolved, Mr. Hershey asserts.

"They were loath to disclose the true risk premium that the market
was attaching them during the financial crisis," he said.

"Disclosing that the market was charging any individual bank a
much higher interest rate than the others would have shown the
market that the bank was at greater risk of default than the
others," Mr. Hershey said.

The banks also might have used their knowledge about the spread
between what the Libor rate should be and what it was to guide
their trading desks who dealt in Libor-indexed securities, the
plaintiff claims.

News reports as early as 2008 suggested that the Libor rate might
have been wrong by as much as 30 basis points.  The regulators'
investigations into banks, though, did not become publicly known
until March, when UBS disclosed it was being probed in a U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filing, Mr. Hershey alleges.

A Bank of America representative declined to comment.
Representatives for the other banks did not immediately respond to
requests for comment, or could not be reached.

Mr. Hershey is represented by The Law Offices of Douglas M.
Chalmers PC and Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart PC.

Counsel information for the defendants was not immediately
available.

The case is Hershey et al. v. Credit Suisse Group AG et al., case
number 1:11-cv-02625, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.


CHINA INTELLIGENT: May 31 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
disclosed that class action lawsuits have been brought on behalf
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities
of China Intelligent Lighting and Electronics, Inc. between
June 18, 2010 and March 29, 2011, inclusive, including all persons
who purchased China Intelligent common stock in the Company's
initial public offering on or around June 18, 2010.

If you purchased or acquired China Intelligent securities during
the Class Period or pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO, you may
move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than
May 31, 2011.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
Your share of any recovery in the litigation will not be affected
by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.
You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel
in the actions.

China Intelligent shareholders who wish to learn more about the
actions and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff may visit
Lieff Cabraser's Web site at http://is.gd/FXyqS6or contact Sharon
Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll free at (800) 541-7358.

Background on China Intelligent Securities Class Litigation

The actions are brought against China Intelligent, certain of its
officers and directors, the underwriters of its IPO, and its
auditors, for violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  China Intelligent, headquartered
in Huizhou City, Guangdong in the People's Republic of China,
engages in research, development, assembling, marketing and sales
of intelligent lighting products, including LED, residential,
commercial, outdoor, and municipal engineering lighting products.

The actions allege that during the Class Period, defendants
misrepresented and omitted material information regarding China
Intelligent's financial condition.  Specifically, defendants
failed to disclose that China Intelligent engaged in fraudulent
accounting practices and, as a result, its financial statements
issued during the Class Period were materially false and
misleading.

On March 29, 2011 the Company issued a press release announcing
the resignation of its auditor, MaloneBailey, LLP.  According to
the press release, MB indicated that its resignation was "due to
accounting fraud involving forging of the Company's accounting
records and forging bank statements, in addition to other
discrepancies identified in the Company's accounts receivable."
In addition, the press release stated that MB "believed that the
accounting records of the Company have been falsified, which
constitutes an illegal act."  MB also reportedly found that "the
discrepancies could indicate a material error in previously issued
financial statements" and, therefore, "it could no longer support
its opinion related to the Company's financial statements for the
year ended and as of Dec. 31, 2009."

China Intelligent also disclosed the resignation of a member of
its Board of Directors and that the Company had received a
preliminary information request from NYSE Amex.  Moreover, the
Company revealed that the Securities and Exchange Commission had
launched an investigation into potential material misstatements or
omissions by the Company concerning its financial statements, and
that the SEC had served the Company a subpoena for documents.

On April 7, 2011, China Intelligent disclosed that it had been
notified by NYSE Amex of its intention to delist the Company's
common stock immediately.

                       About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP --
http://www.lieffcabraser.com/-- is a law firm committed to
advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate
responsibility.  It has offices in San Francisco, New York and
Nashville.


COOPER TOOLS: Recalls 69,000 Stained Glass Soldering Irons
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Cooper Tools LLC of Apex, N.C., announced a voluntary recall of
about 69,000 units of Soldering Irons.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.
It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The power cord can break at the flex point where the cord attaches
to the handle, posing a burn hazard to consumers.  Cooper Tools
has received three reports of the power cord breaking at the flex
point, resulting in three reports of minor burns.

The recalled product is a 100 watt, 120 volt stained glass
soldering iron with "Weller" and the model number W100PG, W100P3
or W100PGMX written on the light blue handle.  The model number is
located under the Weller brand name on the iron's handle.  Only
certain date codes are included in the recall.

The product is sold at authorized distributors nationwide from
August 2006 to May 2010 for between $50 and $60.  The product is
manufactured in Mexico.

A picture of the recalled Soldering Iron is available at:

      http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11190.html

Consumers should immediately stop using this product and contact
Cooper Tools to send the product to the company for an inspection
and a free replacement soldering iron.  For additional
information, contact Cooper Tools at (800) 476-3030 between 8 a.m.
and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site
at http://www.cooperhandtools.com/


COULTER VENTURES: Recalls 5,500 Rogue Fitness Barbell Brackets
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Coulter Ventures LLC dba Rogue Fitness, of Columbus, Ohio,
announced a voluntary recall of about 5,500 Rogue Fitness Barbell
Brackets.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The weld between the bracket and the pin that holds the barbell
bracket in place on a weightlifting rack can break, causing the
weights to fall, and posing an injury hazard to consumers.
Coulter Ventures has received three reports of the weld between
the bracket and the pin breaking, including one report of a
consumer who received a sprained wrist.

The recall involves Rogue Fitness J-Cup brackets used to hold
barbells on weightlifting racks.  The black metal brackets are
used with the Rogue Fitness SPX Squat Press Stand, R-3 Racks, R-4
Racks and Infinity Rigs.  The product is manufactured by Columbus
Machine Works Inc., of Columbus, Ohio, and sold exclusively at
Rogue Fitness's Web site, http://www.roguefitness.com/from March
2009 through December 2010 for about $40.  They were also sold as
part of weightlifting racks and stands for between $350 and
$3,400.

A picture of the recalled barbell bracket is available at:

      http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11193.html

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled barbell
brackets and contact Coulter to receive free replacement brackets.
For additional information, contact Coulter toll-free at (888)
454-6925 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, visit
the firm's Web site at http://www.roguefitness.com/or e-mail the
firm at qc@roguefitness.com


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDIC: Watchdog Warns About Hip Implant Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The US Drug Watchdog says, "We have just learned that only a small
fraction of recipients of the recalled ASR DePuy hip implant have
been identified.  In response we are going to dramatically ramp up
our efforts to get the word out to all recalled ASR DePuy hip
implant victims.  At the same time we will increase our efforts
attempting to explain the differences between presenting a
recalled ASR DePuy hip implant as an individual case in state
court, as opposed to a giant national class action, or what they
call an MDL."  The group says, "If you are already signed up with
a law firm related to the ASR DePuy recalled artificial hip
implant tragedy, we are urging you to call your attorney, and ask
if your case is going to be part of a national class action, an
MDL, or if they will prosecute your case individually in state
court.  If the law firm says class action, please call us
immediately, and we will find you, or your loved one a law firm
that will prosecute the case on an individual basis in a state
court.  Nothing is more important to us than trying to get
recalled ASR DePuy hip implant victims the best possible help, and
we are devoted to the idea of the help being meaningful and
significant."  The US Drug Watchdog now wants to hear from all
recipients of a recalled ASR DePuy hip implant to make certain
they get treated in the best possible way.  For more information
about the DePuy hip implant recall please call the US Drug
Watchdog at 866-714-6466, or contact the group via its Web site at
http://USDrugWatchdog.com/

According to the US Drug Watchdog, "Symptoms of the recalled ASR
DePuy hip implant possible failure include pain in the hip region,
problem while walking or the inability to walk, swelling of the
hip, discomfort in the hip area, and lack of flexibility in the
hip area."

The US Drug Watchdog is the premier private pharmaceutical and
medical device watchdog in the United States.  The group says,
"Tragically the Internet is loaded with misleading ads about ASR
DePuy hip implant compensation, lawsuits, or class actions;
unfortunately most of the attorneys or law firms advertising for
help with the ASR DePuy hip implant failures are middlemen
marketing law firms -- not the actual trial law firms that will
prosecute these cases."  They say, "We want to make certain all
ASR DePuy hip implant victims get to the actual trial law firms or
attorneys that have the best record in achieving superior results
for their clients -- period -- no middleman marketing law firms or
attorneys."  For more information please contact the US Drug
Watchdog anytime at 866-714-6466, or contact the group via its
Web site at http://USDrugWatchdog.com/

Ohio Southern Federal District Court Case Number MDL No. 2197


FASHIONVIEWS INC: Recalls 4T Sleepwear Over Flammability Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Fashionviews Inc., of New Rochelle, NY, announced a voluntary
recall of about 4,000 P.Jamas children's sleepwear.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The garments fail to meet federal flammability standards for
children's sleepwear, posing a risk of burn injury to children.
No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves all styles of P.Jamas brand name children's
sleepwear including nightgowns and two-piece shirt/pant sets sold
in children's sizes XS through XL.  A garment label with the name
P.Jamas in blue lettering on a white background is sewn to the
center back of the garments.  The children's sleepwear is 100
percent cotton woven or knit fabrics.  The garments are in a
variety of pastel colors in solid, stripe or plaid patterns.  Some
nightgowns are hand smocked and some pajamas are trimmed in piping
or rickrack.

The products are sold at boutique shops nationwide and the
http://www.p-jamas.com/Web site from January 2006 through October
2010 for between about $50 and $100.  The products were
manufactured in Peru and Bolivia.

Pictures of the products are available at:

      http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11191.html

Consumers should stop using the recalled sleepwear immediately and
return the product to the retailer where purchased for a full
refund.  For additional information, contact P.Jamas toll-free at
(888) 554-6495 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday,
visit the company's Web site at http://www.p-jamas.com/or e-mail
contactus@p-jamas.com


GUNNS: Shareholders Launch Class Action Over Poor Disclosure
------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that shareholders in the Tasmanian timber company
Gunns have launched a class action in the Federal Court saying
they lost millions of dollars due to the poor disclosure of the
company's accounts.

Shareholders claim they should have been warned that Gunns'
financial results for the first half of 2010 were going to be very
poor compared to the period before.

Gunns reported a $30 million fall in net profit which was almost
100 per cent lower than the same time the year before.

Lawyers from Maurice Blackburn are representing 300 shareholders.

They allege that Gunns did not comply with the Corporations Act's
requirement of continuous disclosure.

Senior Associate Jason Geisker says shareholders argue they should
have been warned.

"The class action relates to the disastrous first half 2010
results that Gunns had and their failure to inform the market as
to the poor results prior to their results announcement on 20
February," he said.

"We also say in failing to make a statement to the market about
the dismal results that it engaged in misleading and deceptive
conduct."

Former Gunns boss John Gay could be called as a witness.

A spokesman for Gunns says it will rigorously defend the lawsuit.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Amended "Perlmutter" Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc., continues to face an amended purported
class action lawsuit pending in California, according to the
Company's April 20, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2011.

On August 6, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Perlmutter v. Intuitive Surgical et al., No. CV10-3451, was filed
against the Company and seven of its current and former officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages on
behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock between February 1, 2008, and
January 7, 2009.  The complaint alleges that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by making allegedly false and
misleading statements and omitting certain material facts in the
Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

On February 15, 2011, the Police Retirement System of St. Louis
was appointed Lead Plaintiff in the case pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  An amended complaint
was filed on April 15, 2011, making allegations substantially
similar to the original allegations.


MIDWEST-CBK: Recalls 10T Wrist Rattles & Baby Booties
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Midwest-CBK Inc., of Union City, Tenn., announced
a voluntary recall of more than 10,000 wrist rattles and 11,000
pairs of baby booties in the United States and 600 wrist rattles
and 700 pairs of baby booties 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 pom-poms attached to the wrist rattles and booties can detach,
posing a choking hazard.  The firm has received one report of a
pom-pom detaching from the wrist rattle.  No injuries have been
reported.

The recall involves the Monkeez & Friends(TM) wrist rattles and
baby booties. The wrist rattles and the booties are made of
knitted yarn and have a monkey head and a pom-pom attached. Both
come in multiple color combinations.  The products are sold by
gift stores, drug stores, decor outlets and variety stores
nationwide from June 2009 through March 2011.  The wrist rattles
sold for about $5 and the booties sold for about $13.  The
products are manufactured in China.

Pictures of the recalled wrist rattles and booties are available
at:

      http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11196.html

Consumers should immediately take these recalled products away
from children and return them to the store where they were
purchased or to Midwest-CBK for a full refund.  If you are unable
to return the product to the store where it was purchased, contact
Midwest-CBK to receive a prepaid shipping label.  For additional
information, contact Midwest-CBK toll-free at (800) 394-4225
between 7:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT, Monday through Friday.


MONEYGRAM INT'L: Faces "Pittman" Lawsuit in Delaware Court
----------------------------------------------------------
MoneyGram International, Inc., is facing a purported class action
lawsuit filed by its stockholder, Willie R. Pittman, in Delaware,
according to the Company's April 19, 2011, Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On April 15, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware by Willie R. Pittman purporting to be a
class action complaint on behalf of all shareholders and a
shareholder derivative complaint against MoneyGram International,
Inc., Thomas H. Lee Partners, L.P., the Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
and each of the Company's directors.  Ms. Pittman alleges in her
complaint that she is a stockholder of the Company and asserts,
among other things, (i) breach of fiduciary duty and disclosure
claims against the Company's directors, THL and Goldman Sachs,
(ii) breach of the Company's certificate of incorporation claims
against the Company, THL and Goldman Sachs, and (iii) claims for
aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties against Goldman
Sachs.  Ms. Pittman purports to sue on her own behalf and on
behalf of the Company and its stockholders.  Ms. Pittman seeks to,
among other things, enjoin or rescind the proposed
recapitalization of the Company, pursuant to which, among other
things, subject to the terms and conditions in the
recapitalization agreement, certain affiliates and co-investors of
THL will convert all of their shares of Series B Preferred Stock
of the Company into common stock of the Company and certain
affiliates of Goldman Sachs will convert all of their shares of
Series B-1 Preferred Stock of the Company into shares of Series D
Preferred Stock of the Company.

The Company says it intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously,
including opposing the request to enjoin the recapitalization.


MTD CONSUMER: Recalls 4,300 Riding Lawn Mowers Due to Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MTD Consumer Group Inc, of Cleveland, Ohio, conducted a voluntary
recall of about 4,300 Cub Cadet riding lawn mowers, 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.

A fuel leak can occur near the rear mounting screws on the bottom
of the fuel tank, posing a fire hazard.  No incidents have been
reported.

The recalled 2011 Cub Cadet zero turn riding lawn mowers, intended
for both commercial and private use, have yellow and black steel
frames.  They sold under the following brand names and model
numbers:

     Model                              Factory Model Numbers
     -----                              ---------------------
     Cub Cadet Z Force 48                    17BF3AGV010
     Cub Cadet Z Force 54                    17BF3AGX010
     Cub Cadet Z-Force-S 46                  17AF5BHH010
     Cub Cadet Z-Force-S 48                  17AF5BHB010
     Cub Cadet Z-Force-S 54                  17AF5GHC010
     Cub Cadet Z-Force-S 60                  17AF5GHD010
     Cub Cadet Z-Force Commercial 48         53AH5FJB050
     Cub Cadet Z-Force Commercial 60         53AH5FJD050
     Cub Cadet Tank L48                      53AH8CTB050
     Cub Cadet Tank L60                      53AH8CTD050

Model number, serial number and date of manufacturer are printed
on a label located under the front of the driver's seat. The
serial number range and date of manufacture (DOM) of affected
mowers are 1A101ZXXXXX (DOM 01/2011) through 1C091ZXXXXX (DOM
03/2011). Date of manufacture appears on the label.

The products are sold by Cub Cadet dealers nationwide from
February 2011 through March 2011 for between $3,600 to $7,000.
The products are manufactured in the United States.

Pictures of the recalled Riding Lawn Mower are available at:

      http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11733.html

Consumers should immediately stop using the mowers and store them
outside. Consumers should contact their local Cub Cadet dealer to
schedule an appointment for a free repair.  For more information,
contact Cub Cadet toll-free at (888) 848-6038 between 8 a.m. and 5
p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.cubcadet.com/


MY MICHELLE: Recalls 90T Girl's Tops Due to Risk of Lead Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
My Michelle, of New York, announced a voluntary recall of about
90,000 Girl's Tops.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The jewelry and decorative trim attached to the girl's garments
contain high levels of lead.  Lead is toxic if ingested by young
children and can cause adverse health effects.  No injuries have
been reported.

The recall involves girl's tops and dresses sold in sizes small to
extra large and 7 to 16.  The garments were sold in various styles
including: tops with beaded necklaces attached to the collar and
tops with metallic beads attached to the collar.  All styles of
the tops and dresses have a black tag on the collar with pink
print that reads "mymichelle."  The tops are sold at Burlington
Coat Factory, Dillard's, J.C. Penney, Kohl's, Army and Air Force
Exchange (AAFES), K & G Fashion Superstore and other retail stores
nationwide from January 2011 through March 2011 for about $38.
The tops are manufactured in Vietnam.

Pictures of the recalled girl's tops are available at:

      http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11195.html

Consumers should immediately take the recalled garments away from
children and contact My Michelle for information on receiving a
full refund.  For additional information, contact My Michelle at
(800) 960-8791 between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday,
or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.mymichellerecall.com/
Consumers can also email the firm at
customerservice@mymichellerecall.com


MYSPACE INC: Sued for Sharing Users' Information Without Consent
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlo Diokno at The Pop Herald, citing a Bloomberg News report,
says MySpace, News Corp's struggling social networking site, is
being accused of sharing users information with third-party
aggregators without consent.  News Corp declined to comment, the
news added.

The class-action lawsuit filed in Eastern District of New York by
New York law firms Milberg LLP and Reese Richman LLP is seeking
unspecified damages from the once-popular social networking
destination for "knowingly [serving] as and [profiting] handsomely
from being a conduit through which details of the most intimate
aspects of its members' lives, as reflected in their Internet
browsing history and otherwise, are transmitted to data
aggregators, who package the information into profiles and sell it
like any other commodity to advertisers."

Aside from the lawsuit, the report also revealed that Rupert
Murdoch's News Corp is currently in talks to give Vevo.com the
control over MySpace, which is considered as one of the biggest
victims of the popularity of Facebook.com.  MySpace is still
popular when it comes to music and video streaming, but faced a
traffic decline of at least 29% last quarter compared to the
site's 2010 Q4 performance.

News Corp bought MySpace in July 2005 for US$580 million.


QDS INCORPORATED: Sued for Filing Collection Cases Sans License
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alonzo Patterson, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. QDS, Incorporated, d/b/a Federal Resource Corporation,
Case No. 2011-CH-14295 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., April 15, 2011),
alleges violation of the Illinois Collection Agency Act, 225 ILCS
425/1 et seq., and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act,
815 ILCS 505/1 et seq.  Specifically, plaintiff accuses QDS of
operating a collection agency without a license required under
ICAA.  QDS did not obtain a license until September 30, 2010, the
Complaint avers.

QDS, Incorporated, is a "collection agency" subject to the ICAA.
Plaintiff Alonzo Patterson is a resident of Cook County, Illinois.

QDS, while unlicensed, filed two collection lawsuits against the
plaintiff in the Circuit Court of Cook County to collect alleged
debts incurred for personal, family or household purposes, the
first on February 2, 2011, and the second, on July 26, 2010.  The
first case was dismissed by agreement on June 23, 2010.  A
judgment was entered for plaintiff, dismissing the second case, on
February 24, 2011.  Plaintiff avers that he expended time and
money as a result of these lawsuits.

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200



PUDA COAL: Accused of Violating Federal Securities Laws
-------------------------------------------------------
Harriet Goldstein, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Puda Coal, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-02598
(S.D.N.Y. April 15, 2011), is filed on behalf of purchasers of
Puda securities between November 13, 2009, and April 11, 2011,
inclusive, including purchasers of the Company's securities
who acquired their securities pursuant or traceable to the
Company's equity offering on December 8, 2010, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
Securities Act of 1933.

Puda is a supplier of premium cleaned coal used to produce coke
for steel manufacturing in China.  The Company states that its
"operations are conducted exclusively by an entity in China,
Shanxi Puda Coal Group Co., Ltd, which it controls through
90% indirect equity ownership."

Plaintiff Goldstein purchased Puda securities at artificially
inflated prices during the class period.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Puda and
certain of its directors and officers failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's financial well-being, business
relationships and operations.  Specifically, defendants failed to
disclose or indicate the following: (1) that the Company's
Chairman had engaged in unauthorized transfers of the ownership of
Puda subsidiary Shanxi Coal; (2) that such transfers were not
disclosed to investors, and in fact ran counter to the statements
made by defendants; (3) that the Company's ownership stake in
Shanxi Coal was substantially less than what it detailed to
investors; (4) that the Company had improperly consolidated Shanxi
Coal's financial results into Puda's financial results; (5) that
the Company lacked adequate internal controls; (6) that, as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times; and (7)
that, as a result of the foregoing, the materials disseminated in
connection with the December 8, 2010 equity offering were
materially misleading when issued.

As a result of defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, plaintiff and other class members suffered damages.

Plaintiff relates that on April 8, 2011, investors were
"astounded" when a report surfaced detailing illicit and
unreported transactions by the Company's Chairman, Ming Zhao.
Specifically, the report revealed that in 2009, Mr. Ming Zhao
transferred ownership of Shanxi Coal to himself without obtaining
shareholder approval.  Mr. Ming Zhao, plaintiff adds, accomplished
this with the help of his brother, Yao Zhao.  Then in 2010, Mr.
Ming Zhao sold 49% of Shanxi Coal to a Chinese private equity firm
for $37.2 million, and pledged the remaining 51% of Shanxi Coal to
the private equity fund as security for a $379 million loan (which
was subsequently increased to $530 million) at a 14.5% annual
interest rate, in order to finance the development of coal mines.
At no time were the Company's shareholders ever informed or made
aware of these occurrences.  Therefore, during the class period,
Puda became nothing more than a shell corporation with no
operating entity.  Moreover, at no time during the class period
did Puda have the stake in Shanxi Coal that it continuously told
investors that it owned.

Upon the release of these revelations, shares of the Company's
stock fell $3.10 per share, or over 34%, to close on
April 8, 2011, at $6.00 per share, on unusually heavy
trading volume.  Trading of the Company's shares was subsequently
halted on April 11, 2011.

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Curtis V. Trinko, Esq.
          Jennifer Traystman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP
          16 West 46th St., 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 490-9550
          E-mail: ctrinko@trinko.com
                  jtraystman@trinko.com

               - and -

          D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
          David M. Promisloff, Esq.
          Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.
          BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          E-mail: skaskela@btkmc.com
                  dpromisloff@btkmc.com
                  abell@btkmc.com

               - and -

          Myron Harris, Esq.
          South 106-Park Towne Place
          22nd & Benjamin Franklin Pkwy.
          Philadelphia, PA 19130
          Telephone: (215) 567-5333


PUDA COAL: Faces 2nd Suit Over Securities Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Lionel Tallant, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Puda Coal, Inc., et al, Case No. 11-cv-02608
(S.D.N.Y. April 15, 2011), is filed on behalf of purchasers of
Puda's securities between November 13, 2009, and April 11, 2011,
inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the class period, defendants
made false or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects, including: (1) that defendant Ming Zhao, Puda's
Chairman of the Board, had transferred ownership/shares of SPCG to
himself through a series of transactions; (2) that Mr. Zhao had
sold 49% of SPCG; (3) that Mr. Zhao had pledged a 51% interest in
SPCG as collateral for a three year loan; (4) that, as a result,
Puda did not possess the ownership interests in SPCG that the
Company claimed to possess; (5) that the Company lacked adequate
internal and financial controls; and (6) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

As a result of defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, plaintiff and other class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

Puda, through its indirect equity ownership in Shanxi Puda Coal
Group Co., Ltd., its sole operating subsidiary, supplies
metallurgical coking coal to the industrial sector in the People's
Republic of China.

The Complaint says that on April 8, 2011, a research report was
published on the internet alleging various undisclosed
transactions by Mr. Zhao, which transferred ownership/shares of
SPCG.  Specifically, the report alleged that through a series of
transactions beginning in September 2009, Mr. Zhao improperly
transferred SPCG to himself in July 2010, sold 49% of the interest
in SPCG for RMB245 million ($37.1 million), and later pledged the
remaining 51% interest in the SPCG as collateral for a three year
loan for RMB2.5 billion ($379 million).

On this news, the Company's shares declined $3.10 per share, or
nearly 33%, to close on April 8, 2011, at $14.47 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.  Trading of the Company's shares
was subsequently halted.

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Fei-Lu Qian, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  flqian@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310)201-9150
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215) 638-4847


PUDA COAL: Faces 3rd Suit Over Securities Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Steven Weissmann, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Puda Coal, Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-02609
(S.D.N.Y. April 15, 2011), is filed on behalf of purchasers of
Puda's securities between November 13, 2009, and April 11, 2011,
inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Excahnge Act of 1934.

Puda, through its indirect equity ownership in Shanxi Puda Coal
Group Co., Ltd., its sole operating subsidiary, supplies
metallurgical coking coal to the industrial sector in the People's
Republic of China.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the class period, defendants
made false or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects, including: (1) that defendant Ming Zhao, Puda's
Chairman of the Board, had transferred ownership/shares of SPCG to
himself through a series of transactions; (2) that defendant Zhao
had sold 49% of SPCG; (3) that defendant Zhao had pledged a 51%
interest in SPCG as collateral for a three year loan; (4) that, as
a result, Puda did not possess the ownership interests in SPCG
that the Company claimed to possess; (5) that the Company lacked
adequate internal and financial controls; and (6) that, as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, plaintiff and other class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

Mr. Weissmann relates that on April 8, 2011, a research report was
published on the internet alleging various undisclosed
transactions by Mr. Zhao, which transferred ownership/shares of
SPCG.  Specifically, the April 8, 2011, report alleged that
through a series of transactions beginning in September 2009, Mr.
Zhao improperly transferred SPCG to himself in July 2010, sold 49%
of the interest in SPCG for RMB245 million ($37.1 million), and
later pledged the remaining 51% interest in the SPCG as collateral
for a three year loan for RMB2.5 billion ($379 million).

On this news, the Company's shares declined $3.10 per share, or
nearly 33%, to close on April 8, 2011, at $14.47 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.  Trading of the Company's shares
was subsequently halted.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Fei-Lu Qian, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  flqian@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


PUDA COAL: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, representing investors of Puda
Coal, Inc., has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased the
securities of Puda between Nov. 13, 2009, and April 11, 2011,
inclusive.

Puda, through its indirect equity ownership in Shanxi Puda Coal
Group Co., Ltd., its sole operating subsidiary, supplies
metallurgical coking coal to the industrial sector in the People's
Republic of China.  The Complaint alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose,
among other things: (1) that the Company's Chairman, Ming Zhao,
had transferred ownership/shares of SPCG to himself through a
series of transactions; (2) that Zhao had sold 49% of SPCG; (3)
that, as a result, Puda did not possess the ownership interests in
SPCG that the Company claimed to possess; (4) that the Company
lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) that, as
a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.  Until a
class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you
retain one.  If you purchased Puda securities between Nov. 13,
2009, and April 11, 2011, you have certain rights and have 60 days
from April 14, 2011, to move for lead plaintiff status.  To be a
member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and
you may retain counsel of your choice.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact:

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215)638-4847
          Toll-Free: (888)638-4847
          E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/


REDKEN 5TH AVENUE: Recalls 1-Mil. Guts Spray Mousse Foam Cans
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Redken 5th Avenue NYC of New York, announced a voluntary recall of
about 1 million Spray Mousse Foam Cans.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.
It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The aerosol container's liner can corrode over time, posing a risk
of the cans rupturing and expelling its contents.  Redken has
received 41 reports of cans rupturing. No injuries have been
reported.

The recall involves Redken Guts 10 Volume Spray Mousse Foam sold
in 10.58- and 2-ounce size cans.  The hair styling product was
sold in a silver container with black writing.  "Redken" and "10"
are printed on the front of the product.  The product can be
identified by a lot code printed on the bottom of the can.  Lot
codes included in this recall include:

    * Any can with lot codes that does not contain a G or H as the
third digit

    * Any can with the following lot codes: 32G10Y, 32G11Y,
32G20Y, 32G21Y, 32G23Y, 32G40Y, 32G41Y, 32G60Y, 32G61Y, 32G62Y,
32G70Y

The Spray Mousse Foam Cans, made in the U.S., are sold at hair
salons and beauty supply stores nationwide from January 1998
through February 2011 for between $4 and $16.

A picture of the recalled mousse foam spray can is available at:

      http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11194.html

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled mousse,
record the product's lot code then discard the contents by
spraying it into a waste container in a well ventilated area.
Prior to disposing of the container, consumers should obtain the
lot code from the container, then contact Redken for information
on receiving a refund of the purchase price.  For additional
information, contact Redken toll-free at (888) 241-9504 between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.redken.com/


SPRINT TELECOM: Landowners File Class Action Over Cable
-------------------------------------------------------
John Hult, writing for The Argus Leader, reports that a retired
Canton farmer has joined a class-action lawsuit against Sprint
Telecommunications that alleges the company piggybacked on
railroad rights-of-way while installing fiber-optic cable instead
of paying landowners a fair price.

The lawsuit is the latest in a nationwide series of class-action
lawsuits against Kansas-based Sprint and a handful of other
telecommunications companies.

For decades, Sprint has paid railroad companies for the right to
bury fiber-optic, coaxial and copper cable next to railroad
tracks.

Landowners who have sued the company say a railroad easement does
not translate into a telecom easement and that Sprint should have
negotiated with individual property owners instead.

Milo Knutson owns farmland north of Canton that his two sons
operate.  A rail line cuts through it, and there's fiber-optic
cable buried there.  His lawsuit asks that he and anyone similarly
situated in South Dakota be paid damages for Sprint's failure to
negotiate.

Mr. Knutson didn't know he had cable on his property until he got
a letter telling him so.  A group of lawyers from Minnesota,
Indiana and Washington, D.C., are pushing for a national class-
action lawsuit against Sprint, and Mr. Knutson's farm is one of a
handful in southeastern South Dakota where cable had been buried
without an owner's permission.

"They wanted somebody from South Dakota," Mr. Knutson said.  "I
didn't know much about it."

Mr. Knutson's decision to join could affect others both in and out
of South Dakota, however.  He's one of more than 100 landowners in
46 states who have attached their names to the lawsuit, according
to Minneapolis lawyer Dan Millea.

There are 68 miles of Sprint cable along a Burlington Northern
Santa Fe rail line from the Minnesota border near Sioux Falls and
south through Canton.  From there, it zig-zags back and forth
through Iowa and South Dakota on the way to Sioux City, Mr. Millea
said.

If the case is settled, landowners along the South Dakota route
could be entitled to damages equal to the price paid for each foot
of cable to the railroad companies.  The prices vary nationwide,
Mr. Millea said, but range from 13 cents to $2.60 per foot.

"If you're a rancher and you've got a couple of miles of railroad
running though your property, it can add up," Mr. Millea said.

Landowners in Idaho could see those payments soon.

Sprint and Level 3 Communications agreed to settle earlier this
year, and the legal team behind that state's lawsuit is using a
Web site to collect claims from affected landowners in preparation
for a hearing to determine the final settlement amount.

Lawyers for Level 3 and Sprint did not return calls for comment.

Mr. Millea has heard the arguments during years of litigation,
however: The U.S. needs an infrastructure for high-speed Internet
access, and telecommunications companies couldn't have negotiated
for rights-of-way with individual landowners without slowing
progress and forcing customers and businesses who rely on
connectivity to wait, too.

"They say the country needs this network, and we don't dispute
that," Mr. Millea said.  "But they did have an obligation to these
landowners.  We've kind of come in here on the back end of this to
make partial amends."


URBAN OUTFITTERS: May 31  Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP has filed the first and only class
action suit against Urban Outfitters, Inc. that alleges violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of purchasers of
Urban Outfitters common stock during the period November 15, 2010
through March 7, 2011, inclusive.

The Lead Plaintiff deadline is May 31, 2011.  The case is pending
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  A copy of the complaint may be obtained from Kaplan
Fox or the Court.

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants
discussed an emerging shift in fashion trends that Defendants
represented was an opportunity for the Company and represented to
investors that the Company would be able to manage the trend, that
Company had effective inventory management controls and systems,
and that Urban Outfitters inventory would "grow more in-line with
sales growth."

It is alleged, however, that by the beginning of the Class Period,
Defendants knew, or had reason to know, that the Company was not
managing the shift in fashion trends because: (1) the Company's
inventories were increasing materially more than sales, (2) sales
at the Company's namesake Urban Outfitters store and Anthropologie
division were materially declining due to lack of customer demand,
especially for women's apparel, and (3) as a result, the Company
was forced to mark down the price of inventory which materially
adversely affected the Company's margins and financial results for
the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2011.

The Complaint further alleges that on March 7, 2011, investors in
Urban Outfitters' stock learned the truth about the Company when,
after the close of trading, Defendants disclosed the Company's
financial results for the quarter ended January 31, 2011.  Among
other things, the Company disclosed i) earnings of $75 million or
$0.45 per share for the fourth quarter, which was approximately
13% less than the $0.52 per share expected by analysts; ii) that
gross profit margin materially declined, primarily due to
increased merchandise markdowns to clear seasonal inventory
associated with changing women's apparel fashion trends; and iii)
retail inventories increased by 10% at cost while total comparable
store inventory increased by 4% at cost and total inventories grew
by $43 million or 23%, on a year-over-year basis.

On March 8, 2011, Urban Outfitters shares declined from a close on
March 7, 2011 of $37.99 per share, to close at $31.66 per share, a
decline of $6.33 per share or approximately 17% on heavier than
usual volume.

If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court
no later than May 31, 2011 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the
Class.  You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to
share in any possible recovery.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class and is
represented by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.  Our firm, with
offices in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and New
Jersey, has many years of experience in prosecuting investor class
actions and actions involving financial fraud.  For more
information about Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, or to review a copy
of the complaint filed in this action, you may visit our Web site
at http://www.kaplanfox.com/

If you have any questions about this Notice, the action, your
rights, or your interests, please contact:

          Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (800) 290-1952
                     (212) 687-1980
          E-mail: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com


WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Recalls 28,700 Units of Hot Chocolate Pots
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Williams-Sonoma Inc., of San Francisco, Calif.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 28,000 units of Hot
chocolate pots in the United States and 700 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 handle of the hot chocolate pot can break off during use,
posing burn and laceration hazards.  Williams-Sonoma has received
28 reports of handles breaking off of the pots, including eight
reports of injuries involving minor burns or cuts.

The recall involves the Whirly Whip hot chocolate pots sold
individually as item number 2981454 or 4986535, and as part of the
Whirly Whip hot chocolate pot gift set item number 3021714.  The
item number can be found on the product's box, below the bar code.
The pot is made of white porcelain and has a red handle.  The lid
has a red knob and a frother attached to the underside of the lid
knob.

The product is imported by ICI USA, LLC, of Seattle, Wash., and
sold Williams-Sonoma stores nationwide, online at
http://www.williams-sonoma.com/and through Williams-Sonoma
catalogs from October 2010 through January 2011 for between $30
and $40.  The product is manufactured in China.

A picture of the recalled hot chocolate pot is available at:

      http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11189.html

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled hot chocolate
pots and either return the product to any Williams-Sonoma store or
contact Williams-Sonoma for instructions on how to return the
product for a full refund.  For additional information, contact
Williams-Sonoma toll-free at (855) 643-4206 between 4 a.m. and
9 p.m. PT seven days a week or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.williams-sonoma.com/


                            *********

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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Leah
Felisilda, Noemi Irene A. Adala, 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  * * *