/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/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 * * *