---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, November 11, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 223

                             Headlines

ANVIL MINING: 2004 Congo Massacre Survivors Launch Class Action
APPLE INC: Defends Consolidated Suit Over iPod iTunes
APPLE INC: Defends "Somers" Lawsuit in California
APPLE INC: Final Approval of Settlement in "Vogel" Suit Pending
ART TECHNOLOGY: Board Sued Over Sale to Oracle Corp.

BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Settles Class Action with Texas Rice Farmers
BRAZILIAN BLOWOUT: Baron & Budd Files Class Action in California
CANADA: Class Suit Mulled Over Veterans' Disability Benefits
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: NJ Court Certifies Class in "Demmick"
CHARLES SCHWAB: Terminates Settlement of Class Actions

DR PEPPER: Snapple Beverage Wants "Holk" Suit in NJ Re-Opened
DR PEPPER: Class Certification in NY Suit Against Snapple Denied
EA SPORTS: More Football Players Can Join Class Action
EXCO RESOURCES: Being Sold for Too Little, Texas Suit Claims
FORD MOTOR: To Provide Financial Advice Under Class Settlement

GENERAL MILLS: Accused in Mo. Suit of Not Paying Overtime
GENTIVA HEALTH: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
GMAC INC: Law Firms Sue Over Fraudulent Foreclosures
LORILLARD INC: Trial in "Brown" Suit Scheduled for May 2011
LORILLARD INC: "Cleary" Plaintiffs Appeal Remain Pending

LORILLARD INC: Dismissed from Virgin Islands "Calistro" Suit
MAINE & MARITIMES: Settlement Agreement in "Duplisea" Approved
MAINE & MARITIMES: "Johnson-Gee" Suit in Maine Dismissed
MATTEL INC: Fisher-Price Defends Five Suits in Canada Over Cribs
MATTEL INC: Certification Hearing in "Sharp" Case Adjourned

PRAXAIR INC: Defends Various Medical Monitoring Suits
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Remains a Defendant in "Adams" Action
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Defends "Dorion" Action in Alberta
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Semple" Suit v. RJR Pending in Nova Scotia
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Continues to Defend "Kunka" in Manitoba

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Defends "Bourassa" in British Columbia
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Defends "McDermid" Lawsuit in Canada
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Petition in "Scott" Action Due December 2
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Discovery in "Brown" Action Underway
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss on December 6

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Plaintiffs Appeal on "Seminal Lights" Pending
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Defends "Turner" Suit in Illinois
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Howard" Action Pending in Madison County
SANTA ANA: Class Action Suit Seeks Refund of Red Light Tickets
TEMPUR-PEDIC: Continues to Defend Securities Fraud Suit in Ga.

UNITED STATES: SEC Sued Over Negligence in Madoff Investigation
WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Sued Over Fraudulent Default Judgments
ZYNGA GAME: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action

* Fisher & Phillips Says Blanket Policies Increase Class Suit Risk
* Not Enough Merit to Bring Banks Under Class Actions, RBI Says
* Secret Docs on Benzodiazepines May Lead to Class Actions in UK
* Status Quo for German Securities Class Actions Prevails


                             *********

ANVIL MINING: 2004 Congo Massacre Survivors Launch Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Petrou, writing for Macleans.ca, reports an association
representing survivors of a 2004 massacre in the Democratic
Republic of Congo have launched a class action lawsuit against
Canadian company Anvil Mining Ltd.

The group, calling itself the "Canadian Association Against
Impunity," includes survivors and representatives of several NGOs.
It submitted a petition for a class action suit at the Quebec
Superior Court this morning.

The group alleges Anvil provided vehicles and planes to Congolese
troops who suppressed a small uprising in the mining town of
Kiwla, killing more than 70.

Anvil Mining has said it did allow Congolese troops to use its
vehicles but had no choice in the matter.  On Monday morning
Robert La Valliere, vice president of corporate affairs at Anvil,
told Maclean's he had no specific comments about the civil suit.
But Anvil has addressed similar allegations in the past and
considers itself cleared.

The Canadian Centre for International Justice is part of the
Canadian Association Against Impunity.

Anvil Mining is incorporated in Canada.  It has offices in
Montreal and Perth, Australia, and is listed on stock exchanges in
both countries.


APPLE INC: Defends Consolidated Suit Over iPod iTunes
-----------------------------------------------------
Apple Inc. continues to defend the matter captioned The Apple iPod
iTunes Antitrust Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.

The action is a consolidated case combining two cases previously
pending under the names Charoensak v. Apple Computer Inc.
(formerly Slattery v. Apple Computer Inc., filed on Jan. 3, 2005)
and Tucker v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed on July 21, 2006).

A Consolidated Complaint was filed on April 17, 2007, on behalf of
a purported class of direct purchasers of iPods and iTunes Store
content, alleging various claims including alleged unlawful tying
of music and video purchased on the iTunes Store with the purchase
of iPods and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly
market power.  The Court granted partial certification of
plaintiffs' monopolization claims and subsequently de-certified
these claims.

The Court also dismissed plaintiffs' tying claims.  Plaintiffs
subsequently filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint seeking
unspecified damages and other relief pursuant to Section 2 of the
Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Section 2), California Business &
Professions Code Section 16700 et seq. (the Cartwright Act),
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair
competition), the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and
California monopolization law, and preserving for appeal the
dismissed tying claims.  The Court dismissed all claims in the
Amended Consolidated Complaint other than the Sherman Act Section
2 and California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 claims.

No updates were reported in the company's Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Sept. 25, 2010.

Apple Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- designs, manufactures, and
markets personal computers, mobile communication devices, and
portable digital music and video players, and sells a variety of
related software, services, peripherals, and networking solutions.
The company sells its products worldwide through its online
stores, its retail stores, its direct sales force, and third-party
wholesalers, resellers, and value-added resellers.  In addition,
the company sells a variety of third-party Macintosh (Mac), iPhone
and iPod compatible products, including application software,
printers, storage devices, speakers, headphones, and various other
accessories and peripherals through its online and retail stores,
and digital content and applications through the iTunes Store.
The company sells to consumer, small and mid-sized business (SMB),
education, enterprise, government and creative customers.  In
December 2009, the company acquired digital music service Lala.


APPLE INC: Defends "Somers" Lawsuit in California
-------------------------------------------------
Apple Inc. continues to defend the matter Somers v. Apple Inc.,
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The complaint was filed on Dec. 31, 2007, on behalf of a purported
class of indirect purchasers, alleging various claims including
alleged unlawful tying of music and videos purchased on the iTunes
Store with the purchase of iPods and vice versa and unlawful
acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power under Sections
1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the Cartwright Act, California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition),
the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and California
monopolization law.

Plaintiff subsequently filed an Amended Complaint on behalf of
purported classes of indirect iPod purchasers and direct
purchasers of music from the iTunes Store, seeking unspecified
damages and other relief pursuant to Sherman Act Section 2 and
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200, and
preserving for appeal the dismissed tying claims, claims for the
overcharge of the iPod, and claims under the Cartwright Act,
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and common law monopolization.

No updates were reported in the company's Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Sept. 25, 2010.

Apple Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- designs, manufactures, and
markets personal computers, mobile communication devices, and
portable digital music and video players, and sells a variety of
related software, services, peripherals, and networking solutions.
The company sells its products worldwide through its online
stores, its retail stores, its direct sales force, and third-party
wholesalers, resellers, and value-added resellers.  In addition,
the company sells a variety of third-party Macintosh (Mac), iPhone
and iPod compatible products, including application software,
printers, storage devices, speakers, headphones, and various other
accessories and peripherals through its online and retail stores,
and digital content and applications through the iTunes Store.
The company sells to consumer, small and mid-sized business (SMB),
education, enterprise, government and creative customers.  In
December 2009, the company acquired digital music service Lala.


APPLE INC: Final Approval of Settlement in "Vogel" Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The final approval of the settlement agreement in the matter Vogel
et al. v. Jobs et al., is pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, according to Apple Inc.'s
Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 25, 2010.

On Aug. 24, 2006, plaintiffs filed a purported shareholder class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the company and certain current and former
officers and directors, alleging improper backdating of stock
option grants to maximize certain defendants' profits, failing to
properly account for those grants and issuing false financial
statements.

On June 27, 2008, plaintiffs filed another, similar purported
shareholder class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  Plaintiffs' First Amended
Consolidated Complaint, filed on March 22, 2010, asserts claims
for unspecified damages against the company and certain current
and former officers and directors under the federal securities
laws on behalf of a purported class of shareholders.  These cases
have been consolidated.

The parties have reached a settlement and have obtained
preliminary court approval.

Apple Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- designs, manufactures, and
markets personal computers, mobile communication devices, and
portable digital music and video players, and sells a variety of
related software, services, peripherals, and networking solutions.
The company sells its products worldwide through its online
stores, its retail stores, its direct sales force, and third-party
wholesalers, resellers, and value-added resellers.  In addition,
the company sells a variety of third-party Macintosh (Mac), iPhone
and iPod compatible products, including application software,
printers, storage devices, speakers, headphones, and various other
accessories and peripherals through its online and retail stores,
and digital content and applications through the iTunes Store.
The company sells to consumer, small and mid-sized business (SMB),
education, enterprise, government and creative customers.  In
December 2009, the company acquired digital music service Lala.


ART TECHNOLOGY: Board Sued Over Sale to Oracle Corp.
----------------------------------------------------
Gary Cronenwett, individually and on behalf of others similarly
siutated v. Art Technology Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 5955-
(Del. Ch. Ct. November 4, 2010), accuses ATG's board of directors
of breaching its fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
sale of ATG to Oracle Corporation and Amsterdam Sub Corporation, a
wholly owed subsidiary of Oracle, pursuant to which ATG's
shareholders will receive $6.00 in cash for each common share they
own, in an all-cash transaction valued at roughly $1 billion.

Mr. Cronenwett alleges that ATG's Board breached its fiduciary
duties to the shareholders, by, among others: (i) failing to
ensure that they will receive maximum value for their shares; (ii)
failing to conduct an appropriate sale process; (iii) agreeing to
onerous terms in the Merger Agreement; (iv) facilitating Company
directors and executive officers' entry into voting agreements
with Oracle; and (v) amending the Company's shareholder rights
plan to exclude Oracle and the proposed transaction from its
scope, thus favoring Oracle against potential competing bid.

The onerous terms described above include: (i) a "solicitation"
provision, and (ii) a $33.5 million termination fee and expenses
up to $5 million payable to Oracle if the Company terminates the
terminates Agreement.

The proposed transaction is expected to close by early 2011.

Cambridge, Mass.-based ATG develops and markets a range of e-
commerce software solutions and provides related services in
conjunction with its products.

Defendant Oracle is a software company that develops,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and services database and
middleware software, applications software and offers application
software.

Mr. Cronenwett also brings claims against Oracle and Amsterdam Sub
Corporation for aiding and breaching the Board's fiduciary duties,
saying that the Board's breach of their fiduciary duties would not
have occurred without the substantial assistance of Oracle and
Amsterdam Sub.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph A. Rosenthal, Esq.
          Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401
          P.O. Box 1070
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 656-4433

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          Joseph Russello, Esq.
          Carolina C. Torres, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Karl P. Barth, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1919 Eight Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292

               - and -

          Michael P. Lewis, Esq.
          LEVETOWN & JENKINS, LLP
          700 12th Street, NW, Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 379-4899


BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Settles Class Action with Texas Rice Farmers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Anstoetter, Esq., and Madeleine McDonough, Esq., at Shook,
Hardy & Bacon, LLP, writing for the firm's Food & Beverage
Litigation Update, Issue No. 369, dated October 22, 2010, report
that according to Bloomberg News' October 18 report, three days
after trial began in a lawsuit brought by Texas rice farmers over
losses they allegedly sustained when the price for U.S. long-grain
rice plunged on global markets after it was discovered that
conventional crops were contaminated with a genetically modified
seed, the parties settled the case.  In re Genetically Modified
Rice Litig., MDL No. 1811 (U.S. Dist. Ct., E.D. Mo., settled
October 15, 2010).  While continuing to maintain that it was not
negligent, defendant Bayer CropScience has apparently indicated
that it has been willing to settle the claims "on reasonable
terms" and was "pleased to be able to do so in this instance."

The Texas bellwether cases, consolidated with thousands of others
before a multidistrict litigation court, reportedly involved three
growers claiming some $430,000 in damages and unspecified punitive
damages.  The growers settled for $290,000, according to
CropScience CEO Bill Buckner.  The company has lost three trials
in federal court and three in state court, all involving similar
claims and all on appeal or undergoing review by post-trial
motion.  The total damages awarded to date exceed $50 million,
including $42.5 in punitive damages.  The settlement will not
affect the remaining 6,000 claims.

Shook, Hardy & Bacon attorneys assist food industry clients in
developing early assessment procedures that allow for quick
evaluation of potential liability and the most appropriate
response in the event of suspected product contamination or an
alleged food-borne safety outbreak.  The firm also counsels food
producers on labeling audits and other compliance issues, ranging
from recalls to facility inspections, subject to FDA, USDA and FTC
regulation.  SHB lawyers have served as general counsel for feed,
grain, chemical, and fertilizer associations and have testified
before state and federal legislative committees on agribusiness
issues.


BRAZILIAN BLOWOUT: Baron & Budd Files Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The national law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. has joined forces with
California-based attorney April Straus to file a class action
lawsuit against the seller of the hair-straightening product known
as Brazilian Blowout Solution on behalf of hair stylists and
others from around the country who purchased this product
believing it to be formaldehyde-free.  The filing was made in
California on November 5, 2010.

Brazilian Blowout is a popular, though expensive, hair treatment
that is offered in salons all over the country and appeals to
young, fashionable woman who want the long, silky look that
smoothing promises.  Because the product has been marketing as
"formaldehyde-free" even salons that pride themselves on organic
and natural treatments offer the product to their clientele.

Recent testing by the Oregon Health & Science University's Center
for Research on Occupational and Environmental Toxicology and
Oregon OSHA found between 6.3% and 11.8% formaldehyde in the
solution.  The Cosmetic Ingredient Review Expert Panel, a
monitoring agency for cosmetic safety, states that formaldehyde is
only safe at a level of less than 0.2%.

"Consumers, stylists, and salon owners have been misled about the
safety of Brazilian Blowouts," said Laura Baughman, a shareholder
at Baron & Budd.  "Our concern is that the formaldehyde in this
product causes not only a myriad of short-term health problems,
including skin irritation and breathing problems, but also that
thousands of people are unknowingly exposing themselves to high
levels of formaldehyde -- a known carcinogen."

Co-counsel April Strauss added: "These sorts of situations
demonstrate exactly why consumer protection laws are so important.
Hairstylists who work with Brazilian Blowout have the right to
know when they are being exposed to a product that contains
formaldehyde, and certainly shouldn't be told a product is
'formaldehyde-free' when it is not."

Baron & Budd has been a leader in Proposition 65 litigation,
having successfully negotiated a settlement to protect children
from diesel fumes and, most recently, taken a stand about the
disclosure of lead on the packaging of fruit juice, canned fruits,
and baby foods marketed to children.

Stylists who purchased Brazilian Blowout Solution or Brazilian
Blowout Acai Professional Smoothing Solution may call 800.946.9646
for more information.

                    About Baron & Budd, P.C.

Dallas-based Baron & Budd, P.C., with offices in Baton Rouge,
Austin, Los Angeles and Miami, -- http://baronandbudd.com/-- is a
nationally recognized law firm with a 30-year history of
"Protecting What's Right" for people, communities and businesses
harmed by negligence.  Baron & Budd's size and resources enable
the firm to take on large and complex cases.  The firm represents
individuals, government and business entities in areas as diverse
as water contamination, Gulf oil spill, Qui Tam, California
Proposition 65 violations, dangerous medications and medical
devices, Chinese drywall, insurance claims, commercial litigation,
securities fraud and asbestos-related illnesses such as
mesothelioma.


CANADA: Class Suit Mulled Over Veterans' Disability Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------
Nicki Thomas, writing for the Star, reports outgoing veterans
ombudsman Pat Stogran says he'll continue fighting for ailing
veterans.

The outgoing veterans ombudsman is prepared to launch a class-
action lawsuit against the government over a claims process he
says is wrongly denying disability benefits.

Mr. Stogran, who stepped down from the position Wednesday, told
the Star he has been approached by a private law firm about
pursuing legal action over decisions made by the Veterans Review
and Appeal Board regarding disability benefits.

"I have compelling evidence that they've elevated the standard of
proof," Mr. Stogran said Sunday evening, adding that a potential
lawsuit is in the very early stages but that he believes there
could be thousands of complainants.

His comments came at the same time as federal officials vowed to
quickly address mounting complaints about the lump-sum payments to
seriously wounded veterans.

Conservative MP Greg Kerr, the parliamentary secretary to Veterans
Affairs Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn, said the government is
planning to make the payouts "more flexible."

While the intent was good, the 2006 switch to lump-sum payments to
replace monthly disability payments has suffered from a "number of
problems," Mr. Kerr said.

"So we've listened and I think those changes will happen within
the next week or two," Mr. Kerr told CTV's Question Period on
Sunday.

Protests took place across Canada on Saturday to complain about
the government's treatment of veterans and gripes about the lump
sum took centre stage.  The Harper government also took heat
recently for unlawfully releasing a Gulf War veteran's medical
records.

"My argument throughout this whole period of revelations such as
invasion of privacy and all these other things is that the
veterans have not had a fair day in court," Mr. Stogran said.

He said the potential lawsuit would address the burden of proof in
disability pension and award review hearings.  Veterans are
supposed to be given the benefit of the doubt even if they lack
evidence for their claim, Mr. Stogran said.

"As long as you use sound logic and reasoning, if you present a
case that's plausible and it makes sense, you don't have to prove
that it's true," he said.

But instead, he said, adjudicators in some cases have weighed the
evidence as if it were a regular trial.

The legislation around veterans' disability claims was designed to
take into account circumstances that might prevent soldiers from
having documentation that completely supports their claim,
Mr. Stogran said.

"You're not going to break down in the middle of a nighttime
parachute assault . . . and asked to be evacuated to the unit aid
station so you can do paperwork for your sore back," he said,
adding that he considers the elevated burden of proof "a national
security issue."

"You don't want the soldiers overseas to be looking over their
shoulders and worried about generating the evidence or how they're
going to be able to prove a disability."

Mr. Stogran said he will take a low-profile after his successor,
Guy Parent, takes office on Remembrance Day.  But Mr. Stogran said
if he doesn't see movement on the issue, he is prepared to move
forward with the lawsuit.

"I am so committed to bringing fair treatment to the veterans and
I think this is the lynch pin of the whole thing," he said.


CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: NJ Court Certifies Class in "Demmick"
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has
certified a class in the matter Demmick, et al. v. Cellco
Partnership, according to the company's Oct. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

The company is a defendant in a putative nationwide class action,
filed May 11, 2006, alleging that (i) while the company charges
one rate for after-allowance minutes on the primary line in its
Family SharePlan and a different, higher rate on the secondary
lines, the company has an undisclosed policy of billing all after-
allowance minutes at the higher per minute rate applicable to the
secondary lines, and (ii) the company improperly billed for in-
network calls that should have been provided without charge to
certain subscribers.

On Sept. 8, 2010, the District Court certified a nationwide
"after-allowance" class with respect to plaintiffs' Federal
Communications Act and Declaratory Judgment Act claims, and New
Jersey and Maryland classes on the breach-of-contract claims.

The court also certified an "in-network" class, approving
nationwide class treatment of plaintiffs' FCA and DJA claims, and
a Maryland-only class asserting claims for breach of contract and
violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.

The company has petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit for interlocutory review of the District Court's
certification order.

Cellco Partnership -- http://www.verizonwireless.com/-- is a
wireless phone operator in terms of sales and subscribers (ahead
of top rival AT&T Mobility).  Serving about 90 million consumer,
business, and government customers nationwide under the Verizon
Wireless brand, the joint venture is controlled by Verizon
Communications (which owns 55% of the company); UK-based global
communications giant Vodafone Group owns the remaining share.
Offering both standard post-paid and prepaid subscriptions, it
distributes phones from manufacturers including Research in
Motion, LG, and Palm.  The company also offers mobile data
services, including text messaging, multimedia content (V CAST),
and Web access.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Terminates Settlement of Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------
Charles Schwab Investment Management and Charles Schwab & Co.,
Inc. on Monday notified counsel for the plaintiffs in a
consolidated class action lawsuit relating to the Schwab YieldPlus
Fund(R) that Schwab is invoking the termination provisions of the
settlement agreements in those actions.  Schwab has also filed
with the court a notice of withdrawal from the original motions
filed jointly by plaintiffs and defendants for final approval of
the settlements.  At this time, plaintiffs continue to support the
original motion for final approval, which remains pending and
subject to a hearing scheduled for mid-December.  The Charles
Schwab Corporation provided the following additional comments:

In the spring of 2010 after a lengthy and cooperative negotiation
with Plaintiffs' lawyers, Schwab agreed to a substantial
settlement of $235 million to settle all claims in the Yield Plus
class action proceedings, regardless of their merit.  Schwab was
fully prepared to contest the allegations at trial but wanted to
provide significant and speedy financial benefit to valued clients
who purchased or held the fund during the period covered by the
lawsuit and to put the matter behind us.  Plaintiffs' lawyers had
praised the settlement as one in which clients would receive "real
money" and "a high percentage of recovery."

Plaintiffs' recent assertions, that they continue to have the
right to sue on behalf of non-California class members, means that
none of the parties will receive the benefit of the agreement
originally negotiated.  As a result, Schwab has determined its
only option is to withdraw from the settlement and litigate the
case rather than subject the company and its shareholders to yet
more litigation over the same issues.  Schwab worked hard to
settle this case for the benefit of its clients and shareholders
and thought it had accomplished that goal.  Schwab agreed to a
generous settlement, but only in return for an end to all
litigation over the facts and claims alleged in the consolidated
complaints.  Now that Plaintiffs have asserted that Schwab is not
entitled to the primary benefit Schwab was to receive under the
settlement, Schwab has no choice but to withdraw from the joint
motions for final approval.

We look forward to a fair and complete hearing of the facts of
this matter in court where it will be clear that the decline of
the YieldPlus fund was caused by the credit crisis and
unprecedented housing market collapse of 2007-2008, not by any
Schwab wrongdoing.

Until the credit crisis, the YieldPlus Fund was consistently one
of the best performing funds in its category for eight years and
held a Morningstar 5-star rating from December 2004 through
September 2007.  Even in the face of the credit crisis, YieldPlus
shareholders lost, on average, only 7.5% of their investment when
dividends are counted.  Schwab looks forward to the opportunity to
prove at trial that the mortgage-backed securities investments
challenged by the plaintiffs, far from being the cause of harm to
fund investors, performed comparably and potentially better than
alternative investments such as corporate bonds and asset-backed
securities, during the credit crisis.

Schwab regrets that fund shareholders lost money in the fund
during the credit crisis and housing market collapse.  Indeed,
Charles R. Schwab, the company's founder and chairman, was the
largest individual shareholder of the fund and also suffered
losses.  Unfortunately, the recent assertions made by plaintiffs'
counsel have forced us to terminate the settlement, thereby
prolonging the litigation.  Under the circumstances termination is
the only viable option for the company and our shareholders.

                       About Charles Schwab

The Charles Schwab Corporation -- http://www.schwab.com/--
provides financial services, with more than 300 offices and 7.9
million client brokerage accounts, 1.5 million corporate
retirement plan participants, 665,000 banking accounts, and $1.47
trillion in client assets.  Through its operating subsidiaries,
the company provides a full range of securities brokerage,
banking, money management and financial advisory services to
individual investors and independent investment advisors.  Its
broker-dealer subsidiary, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (member SIPC,
http://www.sipc.org/), and affiliates offer a complete range of
investment services and products including an extensive selection
of mutual funds; financial planning and investment advice;
retirement plan and equity compensation plan services; referrals
to independent fee-based investment advisors; and custodial,
operational and trading support for independent, fee-based
investment advisors through its Advisor Services division.  Its
banking subsidiary, Charles Schwab Bank (member FDIC and an Equal
Housing Lender), provides banking and mortgage services and
products.


DR PEPPER: Snapple Beverage Wants "Holk" Suit in NJ Re-Opened
-------------------------------------------------------------
Snapple Beverage Corp. has moved that the suit filed by Stacy
Holk be re-opened, according to Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc.'s
Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Snapple Beverage has been sued in various jurisdictions generally
alleging that Snapple's labeling of certain of its drinks is
misleading and/or deceptive.  These cases have been filed as class
actions and, generally, seek unspecified damages on behalf of the
class, including enjoining Snapple from various labeling
practices, disgorging profits, reimbursing of monies paid for
product and treble damages.

In 2007, Snapple Beverage was sued by Stacy Holk in the U.S.
District Court, District of New Jersey.  Snapple filed a motion to
dismiss the Holk case on a variety of grounds.

In June 2008, the District Court granted Snapple's motion to
dismiss.  The plaintiff appealed and in August 2009, the appellate
court reversed the judgment and remanded to the District Court for
further proceedings.  Discovery and class certification
proceedings are complete.

In August 2010, the District Court stayed the case for six months
pending a referral to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by the
District Court in a similar, but unrelated, case pending in New
Jersey federal court.

In September 2010, the FDA declined the referral in the unrelated
New Jersey case.

Snapple has moved to re-open the case and decide class
certification.

Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. -- http://www.drpeppersnapple.com/
-- manufactures flavored beverages in North America and the
Caribbean.  The company has more than 50 brands.  The company has
6 of the top 10 non-cola soft drinks, and 9 of its 12 leading
brands are No. 1 in their flavor categories.  In addition to its
flagship Dr Pepper and Snapple brands, the company's portfolio
includes Sunkist soda, 7UP, A&W, Canada Dry, Crush, Mott's,
Squirt, Hawaiian Punch, Penafiel, Clamato, Schweppes, Venom
Energy, Rose's and Mr & Mrs T mixers.  The company is based in
Plano, Texas.


DR PEPPER: Class Certification in NY Suit Against Snapple Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has
denied the motion to certify a suit against Snapple Beverage Corp.
as a class action, according to Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc.'s
Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Snapple Beverage has been sued in various jurisdictions generally
alleging that Snapple's labeling of certain of its drinks is
misleading and/or deceptive.  These cases have been filed as class
actions and, generally, seek unspecified damages on behalf of the
class, including enjoining Snapple from various labeling
practices, disgorging profits, reimbursing of monies paid for
product and treble damages.

In 2007, the attorneys in the Stacy Holk case also filed an action
in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York on
behalf of plaintiffs, Evan Weiner and Timothy McCausland.
Discovery and class certification proceedings are complete.

The District Court did not stay this case pending the referral to
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in the unrelated New Jersey
case.

In August 2010, the District Court denied the plaintiffs' motion
to certify the case as a class action.  The plaintiffs' time to
appeal the denial of class certification has expired.  Snapple has
filed a motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' remaining
individual claims.

Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. -- http://www.drpeppersnapple.com/
-- manufactures flavored beverages in North America and the
Caribbean.  The company has more than 50 brands.  The company has
6 of the top 10 non-cola soft drinks, and 9 of its 12 leading
brands are No. 1 in their flavor categories.  In addition to its
flagship Dr Pepper and Snapple brands, the company's portfolio
includes Sunkist soda, 7UP, A&W, Canada Dry, Crush, Mott's,
Squirt, Hawaiian Punch, Penafiel, Clamato, Schweppes, Venom
Energy, Rose's and Mr & Mrs T mixers.  The company is based in
Plano, Texas.


EA SPORTS: More Football Players Can Join Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Jerry DeMarco, writing for CLIFFVIEW PILOT, reports Ryan Hart's
lawyers believe the former quarterback isn't the only Rutgers
football player who can sue EA Sports for using his likeness:
There are running backs, blockers, and others who they say deserve
compensation from the video game giant for using their images.

That includes hundreds of players who have worn a Scarlet Knights
jersey since the 2004 season (New Jersey has a 6-year statute of
limitations in such cases).

"Whoever is on that team has a case.  It doesn't matter if you're
the guy running down on kickoffs," attorney Timothy McIlwain told
CLIFFVIEW PILOT.

"If you're in the game, you should get compensated," the lawyer
added, unwittingly echoing EA's "It's in the game" motto.

EA argues in court papers that the NCAA Football games are
"expressive works" entitled to full First Amendment protection.

Similar actions have been filed in California, but in those cases
the defendants were the National Collegiate Athletic Association,
Mr. McIlwain said (California's statute of limitations is four
years).

"They are basically attacking the messenger instead of the person
producing the work," he told CLIFFVIEW PILOT.  "It's like having
Wonder Bread stealing your recipe and you end up suing the people
who stock the shelves.

"We're suing the person making the product and making money off
the product, not the person downstream."

Mr. McIlwain, of McKenna, McIlwain LLP, says Rutgers was "up and
coming" when a video game appeared featuring a quarterback who was
as tall and heavy as Mr. Hart, held and threw the ball the same --
and even wore a red jersey with his number -- among other
similarities.

The player is 6-foot-2 and 197 pounds, same as Mr. Hart, wears the
same left wrist band and helmet visor as him, and is from
Mr. Hart's home state: Florida.  What's more, once fans download
player rosters through an EA application, his name appears on the
back of the jersey.

That, Hart insists, is exploitation.  If he owned and used that
same likeness, he contends, he would have collected a huge chunk
of the $4 billion he claims EA raked in by using his image.

EA Sports had the case moved from state to federal court.  A
district court judge then ordered Mr. McIlwain and his partners to
refile their case with more evidence of their claims.  The
additional proofs include Rutgers game footage the lawyers claim
was used to make the video game.  The video includes several other
Scarlet Knights they say were also included.

Now that the material has been filed, U.S. District Court Judge
Freda L. Wolfson has allowed the case to proceed.  However, she
dismissed Mr. Hart's claim that EA violated his "right of
publicity."

Still, the judge conceded, Mr. Hart could have a case.

New Jersey's right of publicity "signifies the right of an
individual, especially a public figure or celebrity, to control
the commercial value and exploitation of his name and picture or
likeness and to prevent others from unfairly appropriating this
value for commercial benefit," Judge Wolfson wrote in her 21-page
opinion.

At the same time, the judge rejected Mr. Hart's claim of "unjust
enrichment," as well as his charge that EA, the NCAA and the
Collegiate Licensing Company (the NCAA's licensing arm) conspired
to exploit him, and that he was a victim of consumer fraud.

It wasn't all one-sided, however.  Judge Wolfson said EA's First
Amendment defense didn't hold water, and predicted it wouldn't if
Mr. Hart succeeds in getting an amended complaint to trial.

Other athletes have won similar cases, including a group of
retired NFL stars who collected a $26 million settlement after
suing the players union for letting EA use their identities in
"Madden NFL" without giving them a nickel.


EXCO RESOURCES: Being Sold for Too Little, Texas Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Exco shareholders claim its
directors are selling the company too cheaply to five Exco board
members, including T. Boone Pickens and CEO Douglas Miller, in a
class action in Dallas County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Hodges v. Miller, et al., Case No. 10-
14546 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Dallas Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/08/TBoone.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
          THE BILEK LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
          808 Travis, Suite 802
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 227-7720

               - and -

          U. Seth Ottensoser, Esq.
          Joseph R. Seidman, Jr., Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD L.L.P.
          10 East 40th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 779-1414


FORD MOTOR: To Provide Financial Advice Under Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports Ford Motor Co. would provide online
financial advice for its employees under a proposed settlement of
a federal lawsuit.

The non-cash settlement was reached in August but announced
Monday.  The U.S. District Court will hold a hearing Feb. 15 to
decide whether to approve the settlement.

Ford employees had filed a class-action lawsuit against the
company for keeping Ford stock as an investment option even as the
shares fell below $2 a share in 2009.

As part of the settlement, Ford will send a notice about the
importance of diversifying investments to retirement plan
participants once Ford stock reaches 20% or more of their
retirement plan holdings.


GENERAL MILLS: Accused in Mo. Suit of Not Paying Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that General Mills stiffed workers
for overtime and made them work off the clock, a class action
claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Johnson v. General Mills Inc., Case No.
10-cv-01104 (W.D. Mo.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/08/Employ.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles Jason Brown, Esq.
          BROWN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          204B US 169 Highway
          PO Box 125
          Trimble, MO 64492
          E-mail: kclawyerbrown@yahoo.com


GENTIVA HEALTH: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP has filed a class action suit against
Gentiva Health Services, Inc., (NASDAQ: GTIV) that alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of
purchasers of Gentiva common stock during the period July 31, 2008
through July 20, 2010, inclusive.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York (Civil Action No. 10-5064).  A copy
of the complaint may be obtained from Kaplan Fox or the Court.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants reported growth in revenue and earnings that were, in
large part, based on material increases in Medicare revenues and
admissions in the Company's Home Health segment, but that
defendants failed to disclose that the Company improperly
increased the number of in-home therapy visits to patients for the
purpose of triggering higher reimbursement rates under the
Medicare PPS.

The Complaint further alleges that on May 13, 2010, the Wall
Street Journal reported that the United States Senate Finance
Committee launched an investigation into the practices of
companies that provide in-home therapy visits reimbursed by
Medicare, including Gentiva and, that "[t]he committee is
investigating whether the companies deliberately boosted the
number of home therapy visits to trigger higher Medicare
reimbursements."  On May 14, 2010, the price of Gentiva shares
declined from a closing price on May 13, 2010 of $29.75 per share
to close at $27.55 per share, a decline of $2.20 per share or
approximately 7% on heavier than usual volume.

It is further alleged that on July 13, 2010, after the close of
trading, Gentiva disclosed that it was "informed by the Securities
and Exchange Commission that the Commission has commenced an
investigation relating to Gentiva's participation in the Medicare
Home Health Prospective Payment System (HH PPS).  The Company
believes the investigation is similar to the Commission's ongoing
investigations and the Senate Finance Committee inquiry previously
disclosed by Gentiva and other home health companies.  The
Commission requested that the company preserve all documents from
January 1, 2000 to the present relating to its participation."  On
July 13, 2010, the price of Gentiva shares closed at $22.30 per
share.  On July 14, 2010, during intra-day trading, the price of
Gentiva shares declined to $19.91 per share, a decline of 11%,
before closing at $21.99 per share, on heavier than usual volume.

Finally, it is alleged that on July 20, 2010, after the close of
trading, Gentiva disclosed its financial results for the fiscal
quarter ended July 4, 2010.  Among other things, the Company
disclosed that "in light of recent softness in home health
episodic volumes and the anticipated seasonality in third quarter
volumes as experienced by the Company historically, Gentiva has
reduced its full-year revenue guidance to a range of $1.20 billion
to $1.23 billion from its prior guidance of between $1.23 billion
to $1.26 billion."  On July 21, 2010, Gentiva shares declined from
a close on July 20, 2010 of $21.60 per share, to close at $19.96
per share, a decline of $1.64 per share or approximately 8% on
heavier than usual volume.  The next trading day, the price of
Gentiva shares declined an additional $0.56 per share, for a two
day decline of approximately 10%.

It is further alleged that during the Class Period, the Individual
Defendants collectively sold approximately 261,828 Gentiva shares
at artificially inflated prices for proceeds of approximately $6.3
million.

If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court
no later than 60 days from today 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


GMAC INC: Law Firms Sue Over Fraudulent Foreclosures
----------------------------------------------------
Mason, LLP., of Washington, D.C., and Tampa law firms Lash &
Wilcox, PL, and Kynes, Markman & Felman, P.A., have filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Huber, et al. v. GMAC, Civil Action No.
8:10-cv-02458-SCB-EAJ, on behalf of tens of thousands of Florida
homeowners who have allegedly been harmed by GMAC's use of
fraudulent affidavits and other documents in foreclosure
proceedings.  GMAC employees have admitted in sworn testimony to
signing whatever is put in front of them in foreclosure cases,
regardless of the accuracy of those documents, without personal
knowledge of the truth of what they are signing, without reviewing
the underlying documents to determine whether the documents are
accurate, and often not even in the presence of a notary.  As set
forth in the Complaint, each of the lead plaintiffs is a homeowner
facing foreclosure in whose cases GMAC has submitted affidavits
signed by one of these "robo-signers."

"It's easy to blame the borrowers," said Gary E. Mason, one of the
attorneys for the Florida homeowners, "but what about due process?
Homeowners have a constitutional right to be treated fairly. There
is nothing fair about false affidavits."

According to Geoffrey Huber, one of the plaintiffs, he discovered
a "robo-signed" affidavit had been filed in foreclosure
proceedings on the house he owns in Florida.  "I don't know how
they thought they legally could get away with this."

As set forth in the Complaint, GMAC's conduct in foreclosure cases
has resulted in severe financial and personal strain on
homeowners, declining home values, and increased deficiency
judgments for foreclosed-on homeowners.  The Complaint alleges
that the defects in virtually every foreclosure case filed in the
last several years are not mere "technicalities," nor just "sloppy
paperwork."  Indeed, one of the lead plaintiffs in this case
alleges that he was not actually in default at the time GMAC
initiated foreclosure proceedings.

The lawsuit seeks damages based on claims GMAC's actions violated
the homeowners' constitutional right to due process, was an abuse
of process, and was an unfair and deceptive practice.  The suit
also seeks a declaration that GMAC's fraudulent conduct may be
asserted as a defense to foreclosure and to preclude GMAC from
obtaining a deficiency judgment, and a declaration that the
fraudulent affidavits are legally void.

Mason LLP has extensive experience in representing plaintiffs in
complex class action litigation, including class actions arising
from violations of privacy, defective products, price fixing
conspiracies, wage and hour law violations, and toxic torts. Lash
& Wilcox, PL is a law firm specializing in consumer protection
actions.  Kynes, Markman & Felman, P.A. specializes in civil,
criminal, and appellate cases, as well as class actions.

Florida homeowners who have mortgages serviced by GMAC can obtain
additional information by contacting Gary E. Mason of Mason Law
Firm LLP 202-429-2290, or by email, gmason@masonlawdc.com

For a copy of the complaint, please visit
http://www.masonlawdc.com/


LORILLARD INC: Trial in "Brown" Suit Scheduled for May 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the matter Brown v. The American Tobacco Company, Inc.,
et al., is scheduled for May 2011.  Lorillard, Inc.'s principal
subsidiary, Lorillard Tobacco Company, is a defendant in the Brown
case, according to the company's Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2010.

In the class action case pending against Lorillard Tobacco, Brown
v. The American Tobacco Company, Inc., et al. (Superior Court, San
Diego County, California, filed June 10, 1997), the California
Supreme Court in 2009 vacated an order that had previously
decertified a class and returned Brown to the trial court for
further activity.

The trial court has informed the parties that it believes the
class previously certified in Brown has been reinstated as a
result of the California Supreme Court's ruling.  The class
previously certified in Brown is composed of residents of
California who smoked at least one of defendants' cigarettes
between June 10, 1993 and April 23, 2001 and who were exposed to
defendants' marketing and advertising activities in California.

The trial court also has ruled that it will permit plaintiffs to
assert claims regarding the allegedly fraudulent marketing of
"light" or "ultra-light" cigarettes.  Trial in Brown has been
scheduled for May 2011.  Trial dates are subject to change.

The company is not a defendant in Brown.

Lorillard, Inc. -- http://www.lorillard.com/-- is the third
largest manufacturer of cigarettes in the United States.  Founded
in 1760, Lorillard is the oldest continuously operating tobacco
company in the U.S. Newport, Lorillard's flagship menthol-flavored
premium cigarette brand, is the top selling menthol and second
largest selling cigarette in the U.S.  In addition to Newport, the
Lorillard product line has five additional brand families marketed
under the Kent, True, Maverick, Old Gold and Max brand names.
These six brands include 43 different product offerings which vary
in price, taste, flavor, length and packaging. Lorillard maintains
its headquarters and manufactures all of its products in
Greensboro, North Carolina.


LORILLARD INC: "Cleary" Plaintiffs Appeal Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the final judgment in the matter
Cleary v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., remains pending in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  Claims
asserted against Lorillard, Inc.'s principal subsidiary, Lorillard
Tobacco Company, had earlier been dismissed but that ruling was
included in the appeal, according to the company's Oct. 27, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

In a class action case pending against Lorillard Tobacco, Cleary
v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al. (U.S. District Court,
Northern District, Illinois, filed June 3, 1998), a court allowed
plaintiffs to amend their complaint in an existing class action to
assert claims on behalf of a subclass of individuals who purchased
"light" cigarettes from the defendants, but it subsequently
dismissed the "light" cigarettes claims asserted against Lorillard
Tobacco.

In June 2010, the court dismissed plaintiffs' remaining claims,
and it entered final judgment in defendants' favor.  Plaintiffs
have noticed an appeal from the final judgment, including the
prior ruling that dismissed plaintiffs' "lights" claims against
Lorillard Tobacco, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit.

The company is not a defendant in Cleary.

Lorillard, Inc. -- http://www.lorillard.com/-- is the third
largest manufacturer of cigarettes in the United States.  Founded
in 1760, Lorillard is the oldest continuously operating tobacco
company in the U.S.  Newport, Lorillard's flagship menthol-
flavored premium cigarette brand, is the top selling menthol and
second largest selling cigarette in the U.S.  In addition to
Newport, the Lorillard product line has five additional brand
families marketed under the Kent, True, Maverick, Old Gold and Max
brand names.  These six brands include 43 different product
offerings which vary in price, taste, flavor, length and
packaging.  Lorillard maintains its headquarters and manufactures
all of its products in Greensboro, North Carolina.


LORILLARD INC: Dismissed from Virgin Islands "Calistro" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc., and its principal subsidiary Lorillard Tobacco
Company, have been dismissed from the matter Calistro v. Altria
Group, Inc., et al., according to the company's Oct. 27, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

The suit was filed on July 7, 2010, in the U.S. District Court,
The Virgin Islands.  Plaintiffs seek medical monitoring on behalf
of residents of The Virgin Islands who smoke cigarettes.
Plaintiffs have dismissed both Lorillard Tobacco and the company
from this case.

Lorillard, Inc. -- http://www.lorillard.com/-- is the third
largest manufacturer of cigarettes in the United States.  Founded
in 1760, Lorillard is the oldest continuously operating tobacco
company in the U.S.  Newport, Lorillard's flagship menthol-
flavored premium cigarette brand, is the top selling menthol and
second largest selling cigarette in the U.S.  In addition to
Newport, the Lorillard product line has five additional brand
families marketed under the Kent, True, Maverick, Old Gold and Max
brand names.  These six brands include 43 different product
offerings which vary in price, taste, flavor, length and
packaging. Lorillard maintains its headquarters and manufactures
all of its products in Greensboro, North Carolina.


MAINE & MARITIMES: Settlement Agreement in "Duplisea" Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement agreement resolving the matter Duplisea v. Maine &
Maritimes Corporation, et al., has received court approval,
according to the company's Oct. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2010.

On March 12, 2010, the company announced that it had entered into
an agreement and plan of merger with BHE Holdings Inc., and BHE
Holding Sub One Inc.  BHE Holdings is the parent company of Bangor
Hydro-Electric Company, and is itself a wholly owned subsidiary of
Emera Inc.  Emera is also the parent company of Nova Scotia Power
Inc.

On March 16, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit related to the
proposed acquisition of MAM by BHE Holdings Inc., captioned
Duplisea v. Maine & Maritimes Corporation, et al., was filed in
the Maine Superior Court, Aroostook County, against MAM and each
of its directors individually, alleging breach of fiduciary duty
in connection with the Acquisition.

The State Action attempted to enjoin the proposed sale, but did
not seek financial penalties from the company.  Plaintiffs in the
State Action filed an amended complaint on April 22, 2010, and
transferred the State Action to the Maine Business and Consumer
Court in Sagadahoc County.

A purported class action lawsuit relating to the Acquisition,
captioned Johnson-Gee v. Maine & Maritimes Corporation, et al.,
was filed on April 16, 2010, in U.S. District Court in Maine,
against MAM, each of its directors individually, BHE Holdings
Inc., and BHE Holdings Sub One Inc.  The Federal Action asserted
nearly identical claims and was based on generally the same
allegations as the matter Duplisea v. Maine & Maritimes
Corporation, et al.

The company and the plaintiffs have settled these claims through a
settlement agreement which was approved on Sept. 23, 2010, by the
State Court.

Maine & Maritimes Corporation -- http://www.maineandmaritimes.com/
-- is the parent company of Maine Public Service Company, a
regulated electric transmission and distribution utility serving
approximately 36,000 electricity customer accounts in Northern
Maine.  MAM is also the parent company of MAM Utility Services
Group, an unregulated corporation that provides electrical
services, including transmission line and substation design and
construction. Corporate headquarters are located in Presque Isle,
Maine.


MAINE & MARITIMES: "Johnson-Gee" Suit in Maine Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
The matter Johnson-Gee v. Maine & Maritimes Corporation, et al.,
filed in the U.S. District Court in Maine, has been dismissed,
according to the company's Oct. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2010.

On March 12, 2010, the company announced that it had entered into
an agreement and plan of merger with BHE Holdings and BHE Holding
Sub One Inc.  BHE Holdings is the parent company of Bangor Hydro-
Electric Company, and is itself a wholly owned subsidiary of Emera
Inc.  Emera is also the parent company of Nova Scotia Power Inc.

A purported class action lawsuit relating to the Acquisition,
captioned Johnson-Gee v. Maine & Maritimes Corporation, et al.,
was filed on April 16, 2010, in U.S. District Court in Maine,
against MAM, each of its directors individually, BHE Holdings
Inc., and BHE Holdings Sub One Inc.  The Federal Action asserted
nearly identical claims and was based on generally the same
allegations as the matter Duplisea v. Maine & Maritimes
Corporation, et al.

The Federal Action was dismissed on Oct. 13, 2010.

Maine & Maritimes Corporation -- http://www.maineandmaritimes.com/
-- is the parent company of Maine Public Service Company, a
regulated electric transmission and distribution utility serving
approximately 36,000 electricity customer accounts in Northern
Maine.  MAM is also the parent company of MAM Utility Services
Group, an unregulated corporation that provides electrical
services, including transmission line and substation design and
construction. Corporate headquarters are located in Presque Isle,
Maine.


MATTEL INC: Fisher-Price Defends Five Suits in Canada Over Cribs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fisher-Price, Inc., remains a defendant in five proposed class
actions in Canada relating to the Stork Craft cribs, according to
Mattel, Inc.'s Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

In late November 2009, five proposed class actions were filed in
provincial superior courts in five different Canadian provinces
against Fisher-Price, Inc., and Fisher-Price Canada Inc. alleging
claims based on alleged manufacturing defects in drop-side cribs
manufactured by Stork Craft Manufacturing Inc., between 1993 and
2009, including Fisher-Price branded drop-side cribs manufactured
and sold by Stork Craft pursuant to a License Agreement with
Fisher-Price, Inc.

These claims follow product recalls of Stork Craft-manufactured
drop-side cribs in the United States and Canada.

Stork Craft and the corporate entities of a number of retailers,
including Wal-Mart, Sears, The Bay and Toys R' Us, also have been
named as defendants in the proposed class actions.

The five proposed class actions are:

     (1) Cedar Dodd v. Stork Craft Manufacturing Inc. et al.,
         filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on
         Nov. 24, 2009, Victoria Registry, Action No. 09 5327;

     (2) Amy St. Pierre et al. v. Fisher-Price Canada Inc.,
         et al., filed in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta
         on Nov. 24, 2009, Judicial District of Calgary, Action
         No. 0901-17700;

     (3) Kim Riel v. Stork Craft Manufacturing Inc. et al.,
         filed in the Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan, on
         Nov. 25, 2009, Judicial Centre of Regina, Q.B. No. 1794
         of 2009;

     (4) Tara Russell v. Stork Craft Manufacturing Inc. et al.,
         filed in the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba, on
         Nov. 25, 2009, Winnipeg Centre,
         File No. C1 09-01-63980; and

     (5) David Duong et al. v. Stork Craft Manufacturing Inc.
         et al., filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
         on Nov. 25, 2009, in Ottawa, Court File No. 09-46962.

The five proposed class actions are all brought by the same
plaintiff's law firm and the allegations are essentially the same.
Each of the proposed class actions is based on allegation that the
drop-side mechanisms used in the Stork Craft cribs are dangerously
defective in that they create a risk that infants will be injured
as result falling from or becoming entrapped in the crib.

The claims are based in negligence, waiver of tort and breach of
provincial sale of goods and consumer protection legislation.  The
claims seek damages for personal injury and economic loss,
including recovery of the purchase price paid for the cribs, as
well as an accounting, disgorgement or restitution of revenue
earned by the defendants from selling the cribs.  The claims
further seek exemplary, aggravated and punitive damages.

No amount of damages is specified in any of the claims, except the
Ontario claim which seeks C$1 million in general damages and CDN$1
million in special damages.  Each of the proposed class actions
seeks certification on behalf of a class consisting of all persons
(except defendants) that owned or purchased the drop-side cribs in
question.  No motion for certification has yet been filed in any
of the actions.

The License Agreement between Fisher-Price and Stork Craft
includes an indemnity clause whereby Stork Craft agreed to
indemnify Fisher-Price in respect of claims against Fisher-Price
relating to Stork Craft manufactured products.

While Mattel intends for Fisher-Price to seek indemnity from Stork
Craft to cover all costs related to these claims, there can be no
assurance that Fisher-Price ultimately would be successful in
obtaining full indemnity from Stork Craft.

All of the proposed class actions are at a preliminary stage.

Mattel, Inc. -- http://www.mattel.com/-- designs, manufactures
and markets toys and family products.  The Mattel family is
comprised of such best-selling brands as Barbie(R), the most
popular fashion doll ever introduced, Hot Wheels(R), Matchbox(R),
American Girl(R), Radica(R) and Tyco R/C(R), as well as Fisher-
Price(R) brands, including Little People(R), Power Wheels(R) and a
wide array of entertainment-inspired toy lines.  With worldwide
headquarters in El Segundo, Calif., Mattel employs approximately
27,000 people in 43 countries and territories and sells products
in more than 150 nations.


MATTEL INC: Certification Hearing in "Sharp" Case Adjourned
-----------------------------------------------------------
The scheduled November 2010 hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the matter Sharp v. Mattel Canada, has been
adjourned with no new hearing date scheduled, according to Mattel,
Inc.'s Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Since Sept. 26, 2007, eight proposed class actions have been filed
in the provincial superior courts of these Canadian provinces:

     (a) British Columbia (Trainor v. Fisher-Price, filed
         Sept. 26, 2007);

     (b) Alberta (Cairns v. Fisher-Price, filed Sept. 26, 2007);

     (c) Saskatchewan (Sharp v. Mattel Canada, filed Sept. 26,
         2007);

     (d) Quebec (El-Mousfi v. Mattel Canada, filed Sept. 27,
         2007, and Fortier v. Mattel Canada, filed Oct. 10,
         2007);

     (e) Ontario (Wiggins v. Mattel Canada, filed Sept. 28,
         2007);

     (f) New Brunswick (Travis v. Fisher-Price, filed Sept. 28,
         2007); and

     (g) Manitoba (Close v. Fisher-Price, filed October 3,
         2007).

Mattel, Fisher-Price, and Mattel Canada are defendants in all of
the actions, and Fisher-Price Canada is a defendant in two of the
actions (El-Mousfi and Wiggins).  All but one of the cases seek
certification of both a class of residents of that province and a
class of all other residents of Canada outside the province where
the action was filed.

The classes are generally defined similarly in all of the actions
to include both purchasers of the toys recalled by Mattel and
Fisher-Price in August and September 2007 and children, either
directly or through their parents as "next friends," who have had
contact with those toys.

The actions in Canada generally allege that defendants were
negligent in allowing their products to be manufactured and sold
with lead paint on the toys and negligent in the design of the
toys with small magnets, which led to the sale of defective
products.

The cases typically state claims in four categories: (i)
production of a defective product; (ii) misrepresentations; (iii)
negligence; and (iv) violations of consumer protection statutes.
Plaintiffs generally seek general and special damages, damages in
the amount of monies paid for testing of children based on alleged
exposure to lead, restitution of any amount of monies paid for
replacing recalled toys, disgorgement of benefits resulting from
recalled toys, aggravated and punitive damages, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, and an award of litigation costs and
attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs in all of the actions except one do
not specify the amount of damages sought.

In the Ontario action (Wiggins), plaintiff demands general damages
of CDN$75 million and special damages of Canadian dollar CDN$150
million, in addition to the other remedies.  In November 2007, the
class action suit commenced by Mr. Fortier was voluntarily
discontinued.

In December 2009, the Quebec court granted plaintiff's request in
the El-Mousfi action to discontinue that proceeding.

On Feb. 3, 2010, the plaintiff in the Saskatchewan action (Sharp)
served a notice of motion seeking certification of the action as a
class action.  That motion for certification, originally scheduled
to be heard in November 2010, has been adjourned with no new
hearing date scheduled.

Certification has not yet been sought in any of the other actions
in Canada.

All of the actions in Canada are at a preliminary stage.

Mattel, Inc. -- http://www.mattel.com/-- designs, manufactures
and markets toys and family products.  The Mattel family is
comprised of such best-selling brands as Barbie(R), the most
popular fashion doll ever introduced, Hot Wheels(R), Matchbox(R),
American Girl(R), Radica(R) and Tyco R/C(R), as well as Fisher-
Price(R) brands, including Little People(R), Power Wheels(R) and a
wide array of entertainment-inspired toy lines.  With worldwide
headquarters in El Segundo, Calif., Mattel employs approximately
27,000 people in 43 countries and territories and sells products
in more than 150 nations.


PRAXAIR INC: Defends Various Medical Monitoring Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
Praxair, Inc., is a defendant in various class actions for medical
monitoring in connection to the alleged exposure to manganese
contained in welding fumes.

Claims brought by welders alleging that exposure to manganese
contained in welding fumes caused neurological injury.  Praxair
has never manufactured welding consumables.  Such products were
manufactured prior to 1985 by a predecessor company of Praxair.

As of Sept. 30, 2010, Praxair was a co-defendant with many other
companies in lawsuits alleging personal injury caused by manganese
contained in welding fumes.  There were a total of 611 individual
claimants in these cases. The cases were pending in several state
and federal courts.  The federal cases have been transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for
coordinated pretrial proceedings.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified
compensatory and, in most instances, punitive damages.  In the
past, Praxair has either been dismissed from the cases with no
payment or has settled a few cases for nominal amounts.  These
claims raise numerous, individual issues that make them generally
unsuited for class action status.

Separately, various class actions for medical monitoring have been
proposed but none have been certified.

No further information was disclosed in the company's Oct. 27,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Praxair, Inc. -- http://www.praxair.com/-- is the largest
industrial gases company in North and South America, and one of
the largest worldwide, with 2009 sales of $9 billion.  The company
produces, sells and distributes atmospheric and process gases, and
high-performance surface coatings.  Praxair products, services and
technologies bring productivity and environmental benefits to a
wide variety of industries, including aerospace, chemicals, food
and beverage, electronics, energy, healthcare, manufacturing,
metals and others.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Remains a Defendant in "Adams" Action
------------------------------------------------------------
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company remains a defendant in the matter
Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council.

In Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case filed
in July 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan
against certain cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco,
the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all individuals who
were alive on July 10, 2009, and who have suffered, or who
currently suffer, from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,
emphysema, heart disease or cancer, after having smoked a minimum
of 25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed or
distributed by the defendants.

Plaintiffs allege fraud, fraudulent concealment, breach of
warranty, breach of warranty of merchantability and of fitness for
a particular purpose, failure to warn, design defects, negligence,
breach of a "special duty" to children and adolescents,
conspiracy, concert of action, and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory and aggravated damages; punitive
or exemplary damages; reimbursement of tobacco-related health-care
costs paid by the government; the right to waive the torts and
claim disgorgement of the amount of revenues or profits the
defendants received from the sale of tobacco products to putative
class members; interest pursuant to the Pre-judgment Interest Act
and other similar legislation; and other relief the court deems
just.

Pursuant to the terms of the 1999 sale of RJR Tobacco's
international tobacco business, RJR Tobacco has tendered the
defense of the action to Japan Tobacco Inc.  JTI, has, subject to
a reservation of rights, assumed RJR Tobacco's and its current or
former affiliates' liability, if any, and is defending the action.

Of the six putative Canadian class actions were filed against
various Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, only this is
being taken forward at this stage.

No further updates on the matter were disclosed in Reynolds
American Inc.'s Oct. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2010.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is
the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American
Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and
Niconovum AB.  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest
U.S. tobacco company.  The company's brands include five of the 10
best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,
Winston, Doral and Kool.  American Snuff Company, LLC is the
nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco
products.  Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi
Garrett.  American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety
of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including
Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-
own tobacco.  Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures
Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco
products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.
Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy
products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Defends "Dorion" Action in Alberta
---------------------------------------------------------
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company remains a defendant in the matter
Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council.

In Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case filed
in June 2009, in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta against
certain cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco, the
plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all individuals,
including their estates, dependants and family members, who
purchased or smoked cigarettes designed, manufactured, marketed or
distributed by the defendants.

Plaintiffs allege fraud, fraudulent concealment, breach of
warranty, breach of warranty of merchantability and of fitness for
a particular purpose, failure to warn, design defects, negligence,
breach of a "special duty" to children and adolescents,
conspiracy, concert of action, and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory and aggravated damages; punitive
or exemplary damages; reimbursement of tobacco-related health-care
costs paid by the government; the right to waive the torts and
claim disgorgement of the amount of revenues or profits the
defendants received from the sale of tobacco products to putative
class members; interest pursuant to the Pre-judgment Interest Act
and other similar legislation; and other relief the court deems
just.

Pursuant to the terms of the 1999 sale of RJR Tobacco's
international tobacco business, RJR Tobacco has tendered the
defense of the action to Japan Tobacco Inc.  JTI, has, subject to
a reservation of rights, assumed RJR Tobacco's and its current or
former affiliates' liability, if any, and is defending the action.

No further updates on the matter were disclosed in Reynolds
American Inc.'s Oct. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2010.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is
the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American
Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and
Niconovum AB.  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest
U.S. tobacco company.  The company's brands include five of the 10
best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,
Winston, Doral and Kool.  American Snuff Company, LLC is the
nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco
products.  Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi
Garrett.  American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety
of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including
Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-
own tobacco.  Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures
Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco
products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.
Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy
products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Semple" Suit v. RJR Pending in Nova Scotia
--------------------------------------------------------------
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company remains a defendant in the matter
Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council.

In Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case filed
in June 2009 in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia against certain
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco, the plaintiffs
brought the case on behalf of all individuals, including their
estates, dependants and family members, who purchased or smoked
cigarettes designed, manufactured, marketed or distributed by the
defendants for the period of January 1, 1954, to the expiry of the
opt out period as set by the court.

Plaintiffs allege fraud, fraudulent concealment, breach of
warranty, breach of warranty of merchantability and of fitness for
a particular purpose, failure to warn, design defects, negligence,
breach of a "special duty" to children and adolescents,
conspiracy, concert of action, and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory and aggravated damages; punitive
or exemplary damages; reimbursement of tobacco-related health-care
costs paid by the government; the right to waive the torts and
claim disgorgement of the amount of revenues or profits the
defendants received from the sale of tobacco products to putative
class members; interest pursuant to the Pre-judgment Interest Act
and other similar legislation; and other relief the court deems
just.

Pursuant to the terms of the 1999 sale of RJR Tobacco's
international tobacco business, RJR Tobacco has tendered the
defense of the action to Japan Tobacco Inc.  JTI, has, subject to
a reservation of rights, assumed RJR Tobacco's and its current or
former affiliates' liability, if any, and is defending the action.

No further updates on the matter were disclosed in Reynolds
American Inc.'s Oct. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is
the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American
Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and
Niconovum AB.  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest
U.S. tobacco company.  The company's brands include five of the 10
best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,
Winston, Doral and Kool.  American Snuff Company, LLC is the
nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco
products.  Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi
Garrett.  American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety
of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including
Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-
own tobacco.  Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures
Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco
products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.
Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy
products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Continues to Defend "Kunka" in Manitoba
--------------------------------------------------------------
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company remains a defendant in the matter
Kunka v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council.

In Kunka v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case filed
in 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba against Canadian
and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco
and one of its affiliates, the plaintiffs brought the case on
behalf of all individuals, including their estates, and their
dependants and family members, who purchased or smoked cigarettes
manufactured by the defendants.

Plaintiffs allege fraud, fraudulent concealment, breach of
warranty, breach of warranty of merchantability and of fitness for
a particular purpose, failure to warn, design defects, negligence,
breach of a "special duty" to children and adolescents,
conspiracy, concert of action, and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory and aggravated damages; punitive
or exemplary damages; reimbursement of tobacco-related health-care
costs paid by the government; the right to waive the torts and
claim disgorgement of the amount of revenues or profits the
defendants received from the sale of tobacco products to putative
class members; interest pursuant to the Pre-judgment Interest Act
and other similar legislation; and other relief the court deems
just.

Pursuant to the terms of the 1999 sale of RJR Tobacco's
international tobacco business, RJR Tobacco has tendered the
defense of the action to Japan Tobacco Inc.  JTI, has, subject to
a reservation of rights, assumed RJR Tobacco's and its current or
former affiliates' liability, if any, and is defending the action.

No further updates on the matter were disclosed in Reynolds
American Inc.'s Oct. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2010.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is
the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American
Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and
Niconovum AB.  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest
U.S. tobacco company.  The company's brands include five of the 10
best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,
Winston, Doral and Kool.  American Snuff Company, LLC is the
nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco
products.  Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi
Garrett.  American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety
of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including
Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-
own tobacco.  Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures
Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco
products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.
Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy
products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Defends "Bourassa" in British Columbia
-------------------------------------------------------------
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company defends the matter Bourassa v.
Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Oct. 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

The case was filed in June 2010 against Canadian and non-Canadian
tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its
affiliates, the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all
individuals, including their estates, who were alive on June 12,
2007, and who have suffered, or who currently suffer from chronic
respiratory diseases, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000
cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed, or
distributed by the defendants.

Plaintiffs allege fraud, fraudulent concealment, breach of
warranty, breach of warranty of merchantability and of fitness for
a particular purpose, failure to warn, design defects, negligence,
breach of a "special duty" to children and adolescents,
conspiracy, concert of action, and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory and aggravated damages; punitive
or exemplary damages; reimbursement of tobacco-related health-care
costs paid by the government; the right to waive the torts and
claim disgorgement of the amount of revenues or profits the
defendants received from the sale of tobacco products to putative
class members; interest pursuant to the Pre-judgment Interest Act
and other similar legislation; and other relief the court deems
just.

Pursuant to the terms of the 1999 sale of RJR Tobacco's
international tobacco business, RJR Tobacco has tendered the
defense of the action to Japan Tobacco Inc.  JTI, has, subject to
a reservation of rights, assumed RJR Tobacco's and its current or
former affiliates' liability, if any, and is defending the action.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is
the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American
Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and
Niconovum AB.  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest
U.S. tobacco company.  The company's brands include five of the 10
best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,
Winston, Doral and Kool.  American Snuff Company, LLC is the
nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco
products.  Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi
Garrett.  American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety
of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including
Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-
own tobacco.  Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures
Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco
products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.
Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy
products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Defends "McDermid" Lawsuit in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company defends the matter McDermid v.
Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Oct. 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

The case was filed in June 2010 against Canadian and non-Canadian
tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its
affiliates, the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all
individuals, including their estates, who were alive on June 12,
2007, and who have suffered, or who currently suffer from heart
disease, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes
designed, manufactured, imported, marketed, or distributed by the
defendants.

Plaintiffs allege fraud, fraudulent concealment, breach of
warranty, breach of warranty of merchantability and of fitness for
a particular purpose, failure to warn, design defects, negligence,
breach of a "special duty" to children and adolescents,
conspiracy, concert of action, and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory and aggravated damages; punitive
or exemplary damages; reimbursement of tobacco-related health-care
costs paid by the government; the right to waive the torts and
claim disgorgement of the amount of revenues or profits the
defendants received from the sale of tobacco products to putative
class members; interest pursuant to the Pre-judgment Interest Act
and other similar legislation; and other relief the court deems
just.

Pursuant to the terms of the 1999 sale of RJR Tobacco's
international tobacco business, RJR Tobacco has tendered the
defense of the action to Japan Tobacco Inc.  JTI, has, subject to
a reservation of rights, assumed RJR Tobacco's and its current or
former affiliates' liability, if any, and is defending the action.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is
the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American
Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and
Niconovum AB.  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest
U.S. tobacco company.  The company's brands include five of the 10
best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,
Winston, Doral and Kool.  American Snuff Company, LLC is the
nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco
products.  Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi
Garrett.  American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety
of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including
Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-
own tobacco.  Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures
Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco
products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.
Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy
products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Petition in "Scott" Action Due December 2
------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of the defendants in the matter Scott v. American
Tobacco Co. to file a petition for writ of certiorari is Dec. 2,
2010.  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is one of the defendants in
the action, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Oct. 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

On Nov. 5, 1998, in Scott v. American Tobacco Co., a case filed in
May 1996 in District Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, the trial
court certified a medical monitoring or smoking cessation class of
Louisiana residents who were smokers on or before May 24, 1996, in
an action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers,
including RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc.,
seeking to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory and
punitive damages.

On July 28, 2003, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the
defendants on the plaintiffs' claim for medical monitoring and
found that cigarettes were not defectively designed.  However, the
jury also made certain findings against the defendants on claims
relating to fraud, conspiracy, marketing to minors and smoking
cessation.  Notwithstanding these findings, this portion of the
trial did not determine liability as to any class member or class
representative.

What primarily remained in the case was a class-wide claim that
the defendants pay for a program to help people stop smoking.

On May 21, 2004, the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $591
million on the class's claim for a smoking cessation program.  On
Sept. 29, 2004, the defendants posted a $50 million bond, pursuant
to legislation that limits the amount of the bond to $50 million
collectively for MSA signatories, and noticed their appeal.

RJR Tobacco posted $25 million (the portions for RJR Tobacco and
B&W) towards the bond.

On Feb. 7, 2007, the Louisiana Court of Appeals upheld the class
certification and found the defendants responsible for funding
smoking cessation for eligible class members.  The appellate court
also ruled, however, that the defendants were not liable for any
post-1988 claims, rejected the award of prejudgment interest and
struck eight of the 12 components of the smoking cessation
program.

In particular, the appellate court ruled that no class member,
who began smoking after Sept. 1, 1988, could receive any relief,
and that only those smokers, whose claims accrued on or before
Sept. 1, 1988, would be eligible for the smoking cessation
program.  The plaintiffs have expressly represented to the trial
court that none of their claims accrued before 1988 and that the
class claims did not accrue until around 1996, when the case was
filed.

The defendants' application for writ of certiorari with the
Louisiana Supreme Court was denied on Jan. 7, 2008.

The defendants' petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S.
Supreme Court was denied on June 10, 2008.

On July 21, 2008, the trial court entered an amended judgment in
the case.  The court found that the defendants are jointly and
severally liable for funding the cost of a court-supervised
smoking cessation program and ordered the defendants to deposit
approximately $263 million together with interest from June 30,
2004, into a trust for the funding of the program.  The court also
stated that it would favorably consider a motion to return to
defendants a portion of unused funds at the close of each program
year in the event the monies allocated for the preceding program
year were not fully expended because of a reduction in class size
or underutilization by the remaining plaintiffs.

On Dec. 15, 2008, the trial court judge signed an order granting
the defendants an appeal from the amended judgment.  On April 23,
2010, the court of appeals amended but largely affirmed the trial
court's July 21, 2008 judgment.

The defendants' motion for rehearing was denied on May 12, 2010.

On Sept. 3, 2010, the defendants' application for writ of
certiorari or review with the Louisiana Supreme Court was denied.

On Sept. 10, 2010, the defendants' emergency motion to stay
execution of judgment in the Supreme Court of Louisiana was
denied.

On Sept. 24, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the defendant's
motion to stay the judgment pending applicants' timely filing, and
the Court's disposition, of a petition for writ of certiorari.
The deadline for the defendants to file a petition for writ of
certiorari is Dec. 2, 2010.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is
the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American
Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and
Niconovum AB.  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest
U.S. tobacco company.  The company's brands include five of the 10
best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,
Winston, Doral and Kool.  American Snuff Company, LLC is the
nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco
products.  Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi
Garrett.  American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety
of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including
Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-
own tobacco.  Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures
Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco
products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.
Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy
products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Discovery in "Brown" Action Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the matter Brown v. American Tobacco Co., is
underway, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Oct. 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

On April 11, 2001, in Brown v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case
filed in June 1997 in Superior Court, San Diego County,
California, the court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for
certification of a class composed of residents of California who
smoked at least one of the defendants' cigarettes from June 10,
1993 through April 23, 2001, and who were exposed to the
defendants' marketing and advertising activities in California.

The action was brought against the major U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., seeking to recover restitution,
disgorgement of profits and other equitable relief under
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. and
Section 17500 et seq.

Certification was granted as to the plaintiffs' claims that the
defendants violated Section 17200 of the California Business and
Professions Code pertaining to unfair competition.  The court,
however, refused to certify the class under the California Legal
Remedies Act and on the plaintiffs' common law claims.

On March 7, 2005, the court granted the defendants' motion to
decertify the class.  On Sept. 5, 2006, the California Court of
Appeal affirmed the judge's order decertifying the class.

On Nov. 1, 2006, the plaintiffs' petition for review with the
California Supreme Court was granted.

On May 18, 2009, the California Supreme Court reversed the
decision issued by the trial court and affirmed by the California
Court of Appeal that decertified the class to the extent that it
was based upon the conclusion that all class members were required
to demonstrate Proposition 64 standing, and remanded the case to
the trial court for further proceedings regarding whether the
class representatives have, or can demonstrate, standing.

On March 10, 2010, the California Superior Court found that the
plaintiffs' "lights" claims were not preempted by the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, rendered the court's Sept.
30, 2004 ruling on the issue no longer viable, and denied the
defendants' second motion for summary judgment.

Trial is scheduled to begin May 6, 2011.  The plaintiffs filed a
tenth amended complaint on September 10, 2010.  RJR Tobacco and
B&W filed their answers to the complaint on Oct. 13, 2010.
Discovery is underway.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is
the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American
Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and
Niconovum AB.  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest
U.S. tobacco company.  The company's brands include five of the 10
best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,
Winston, Doral and Kool.  American Snuff Company, LLC is the
nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco
products.  Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi
Garrett.  American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety
of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including
Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-
own tobacco.  Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures
Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco
products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.
Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy
products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss on December 6
-------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company's motion to dismiss
a third amended complaint in relation to Camel Cash certificates
is set for Dec. 6, 2010, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s
Oct. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

In Sateriale v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a class action filed
in November 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf
of all persons who tried unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash
certificates from 1991 through March 31, 2007, or who held Camel
Cash certificates as of March 31, 2007.

The plaintiffs allege that in response to the defendants' action
to discontinue redemption of Camel Cash as of March 31, 2007,
customers, like the plaintiffs, attempted to exchange their Camel
Cash for merchandise and that the defendants, however, did not
have any merchandise to exchange for Camel Cash.

The plaintiffs allege unfair business practices, deceptive
practices, breach of contract and promissory estoppel. The
plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, actual damages, costs and
expenses.

On Jan. 21, 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

On Feb. 22, 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

The class definition changed to a class consisting of all persons
who reside in the U.S. and tried unsuccessfully to redeem Camel
Cash certificates from Oct. 1, 2006 (six months before the
defendant ended the Camel Cash program) or who held Camel Cash
certificates as of March 31, 2007.  The plaintiffs also brought
the class on behalf of a proposed California subclass, consisting
of all California residents meeting the same criteria.

On May 3, 2010, RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint for lack of jurisdiction over subject matter and,
alternatively, for failure to state a claim was granted with leave
to amend.

On May 7, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
and on May 24, 2010, filed a corrected second amended complaint.

On July 12, 2010, RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss the corrected
second amended complaint was granted with leave to amend.

The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.  RJR Tobacco filed
a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' third amended complaint on
Sept. 20, 2010.

A hearing is scheduled for Dec. 6, 2010.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is
the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American
Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and
Niconovum AB.  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest
U.S. tobacco company.  The company's brands include five of the 10
best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,
Winston, Doral and Kool.  American Snuff Company, LLC is the
nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco
products.  Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi
Garrett.  American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety
of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including
Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-
own tobacco.  Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures
Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco
products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.
Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy
products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Plaintiffs Appeal on "Seminal Lights" Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the plaintiffs on the dismissal of their petition
for relief from judgment in a seminal "lights" class-action case
is pending, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Oct. 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

"Lights" class-action cases are pending against R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company or Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., in Illinois
(2), Missouri (2), Minnesota (2), New Mexico (1) and Arizona (1).
The classes in these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to
$75,000 per class member for compensatory and punitive damages,
injunctive and other forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and
costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W.

In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made
false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were lower in
tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less mutagenic than
other cigarettes.  The cases typically are filed pursuant to state
consumer protection and related statutes.

Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that
"lights" class-action case pending against Altria Group, Inc. and
Philip Morris USA, on Dec. 15, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court
decided that these claims are not preempted by the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade
Commission's historic regulation of the industry.  Since this
decision, a number of the stayed cases have become active again.

The seminal "lights" class-action case involves RJR Tobacco's
competitor, Philip Morris, Inc.  Trial began in Price v. Philip
Morris, Inc. in January 2003.

In March 2003, the trial judge entered judgment against Philip
Morris in the amount of $7.1 billion in compensatory damages and
$3 billion in punitive damages to the State of Illinois.

Based on Illinois law, the bond required to stay execution of the
judgment was set initially at $12 billion.  Philip Morris pursued
various avenues of relief from the $12 billion bond requirement.

In December 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the lower
court's decision and sent the case back to the trial court with
instructions to dismiss the case.

In December 2006, the defendant's motion to dismiss and for entry
of final judgment was granted, and the case was dismissed with
prejudice the same day.

On Dec. 18, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a petition for relief from
judgment, stating that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Good
v. Altria Group, Inc. rejected the basis for the reversal.  The
trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' petition for relief from judgment on Feb. 4, 2009.

On March 3, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth Judicial District, requesting a
reversal of the Feb. 4, 2009 order and remand to the circuit
court.  Oral argument occurred on Feb. 2, 2010.  A decision is
pending.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is
the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American
Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and
Niconovum AB.  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest
U.S. tobacco company.  The company's brands include five of the 10
best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,
Winston, Doral and Kool.  American Snuff Company, LLC is the
nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco
products.  Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi
Garrett.  American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety
of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including
Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-
own tobacco.  Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures
Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco
products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.
Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy
products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Defends "Turner" Suit in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company continues to defend the matter
Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., pending in the Circuit
Court, Madison County, Illinois.

"Lights" class-action cases are pending against R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company or Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., in Illinois
(2), Missouri (2), Minnesota (2), New Mexico (1) and Arizona (1).
The classes in these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to
$75,000 per class member for compensatory and punitive damages,
injunctive and other forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and
costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W.

In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made
false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were lower in
tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less mutagenic than
other cigarettes.  The cases typically are filed pursuant to state
consumer protection and related statutes.

Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that
"lights" class-action case pending against Altria Group, Inc. and
Philip Morris USA, on Dec. 15, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court
decided that these claims are not preempted by the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade
Commission's historic regulation of the industry.  Since this
decision, a number of the stayed cases have become active again.

In Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in February
2000 in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge certified
a class on Nov. 14, 2001.

On June 6, 2003, RJR Tobacco filed a motion to stay the case
pending Philip Morris's appeal of the Price v. Philip Morris Inc.
case, which the judge denied on July 11, 2003.  On Oct. 17, 2003,
the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals denied RJR Tobacco's
emergency stay/supremacy order request.

On Nov. 5, 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court granted RJR Tobacco's
motion for a stay pending the court's final appeal decision in
Price.

On Oct. 11, 2007, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals
dismissed RJR Tobacco's appeal of the court's denial of its
emergency stay/supremacy order request and remanded the case to
the circuit court.  There is currently no activity in the case,
according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Oct. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is
the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American
Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and
Niconovum AB.  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest
U.S. tobacco company.  The company's brands include five of the 10
best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,
Winston, Doral and Kool.  American Snuff Company, LLC is the
nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco
products.  Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi
Garrett.  American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety
of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including
Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-
own tobacco.  Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures
Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco
products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.
Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy
products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Howard" Action Pending in Madison County
------------------------------------------------------------
The matter Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., remains
pending in the Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois.

"Lights" class-action cases are pending against R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company or Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., in Illinois
(2), Missouri (2), Minnesota (2), New Mexico (1) and Arizona (1).
The classes in these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to
$75,000 per class member for compensatory and punitive damages,
injunctive and other forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and
costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W.

In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made
false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were lower in
tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less mutagenic than
other cigarettes.  The cases typically are filed pursuant to state
consumer protection and related statutes.

Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that
"lights" class-action case pending against Altria Group, Inc. and
Philip Morris USA, on Dec. 15, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court
decided that these claims are not preempted by the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade
Commission's historic regulation of the industry.  Since this
decision, a number of the stayed cases have become active again.

In Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., a case filed in
February 2000 in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge
certified a class on Dec. 18, 2001.

On June 6, 2003, the trial judge issued an order staying all
proceedings pending resolution of the Price v. Philip Morris, Inc.
case.  The plaintiffs appealed this stay order to the Illinois
Fifth District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Circuit
Court's stay order on Aug. 19, 2005.

There is currently no activity in the case, according to Reynolds
American Inc.'s Oct. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is
the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; American
Snuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; and
Niconovum AB.  R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest
U.S. tobacco company.  The company's brands include five of the 10
best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,
Winston, Doral and Kool.  American Snuff Company, LLC is the
nation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobacco
products.  Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and Levi
Garrett.  American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a variety
of tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, including
Winchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-
own tobacco.  Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufactures
Natural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobacco
products, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.
Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapy
products in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.


SANTA ANA: Class Action Suit Seeks Refund of Red Light Tickets
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal class action lawsuit seeks to take advantage of last
month's California Supreme Court's red light camera decision.  The
high court let stand a lower court ruling that invalidated
citations on the ground that the city of Santa Ana's failed to
provide the legally required warning periods before activating the
automated ticketing machines.  Motorist Robert Plumleigh was
forced to pay $480 on March 17, 2008 after a camera accused him of
turning right at a red light at one of the sixteen intersections
where the city failed to provide the required thirty-day warning
period.  He wants Santa Ana to refund all illegally issued
tickets.  US District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney on November 3
gave Mr. Plumleigh's lawyers an extra thirty days to file for
class certification.

"City defendants have not reimbursed the fines that they forced
and required plaintiffs pay, despite having issued the non-warning
automated traffic camera citations to plaintiffs prior to
instituting the thirty day warning notice period required under
California Vehicle Code, section 21455.5(b)," Mr. Plumleigh's
lawyer, Mark P. Pifko, wrote in his brief to the court.  "During
the relevant time period, city defendants violated plaintiffs' and
class members' rights under the Takings Clause of the California
Constitution by taking plaintiffs' and class members' private
property for public use without just compensation ascertained by a
jury."

The suit seeks a refund of every single ticket issued at those
sixteen intersections between May 2003 and November 25, 2009.
Last November, after losing on the warning issue in Orange County
Superior Court, the city finally decided to hold the required
warning periods at every intersection.  The class action suit
names as defendants Santa Ana Police Chief Paul M. Waters, City
Attorney Joseph W. Fletcher and Redflex Traffic Systems, the
Australian company in charge of the ticketing program.

"As a result of the Redflex defendants' conduct, including, but
not limited to, as discussed above, failing to comply with their
agreed upon contractual obligations and California law, plaintiffs
and class members have been harmed by Redflex defendants' unlawful
and unfair business acts and practices as alleged herein,
including but not necessarily limited to suffering injury in fact
and the loss of money and property," Mr. Pifko wrote.

Redflex in response filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that
it cannot be held liable for violating the warning period statute
because the law specifically applies to a "local jurisdiction,"
not to a private company.  Redflex also claims it has immunity
from prosecution because its acts were performed in conjunction
with official proceedings.  A hearing on a motion to dismiss is
scheduled for December 6.


TEMPUR-PEDIC: Continues to Defend Securities Fraud Suit in Ga.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tempur-Pedic International Inc. continues to defend Jacobs, et al.
v. Tempur-Pedic International, Inc., Case No. 07-cv-00002 (N.D.
Ga.) (Vining, J.), a class-action antitrust proceeding.

On Jan. 5, 2007 a purported class action was filed against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Rome Division.  The action alleges violations of federal
antitrust law arising from the pricing of Tempur-Pedic mattress
products by Tempur-Pedic North America and certain distributors.

The action further alleges a class of all purchasers of Tempur-
Pedic mattresses in the United States since Jan. 5, 2003 and seeks
damages and injunctive relief.

Count Two of the complaint was dismissed by the court on June 25,
2007 based on a motion filed by the company.  Then, following a
decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in "Leegin Creative
Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.," on June 28, 2007, the company
filed a motion to dismiss the remaining two counts of the
complaint on July 10, 2007.

On Dec. 11, 2007, that motion was granted and, as a result,
judgment was entered in favor of the company and the plaintiffs'
complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

On Dec. 21, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a "Motion to Alter or Amend
Judgment," which has been fully briefed.

On May 1, 2008, that motion was denied.  The Jacobs appealed the
dismissal of their claims, and the parties argued the appeal
before the U.S. Circuit Court for the Eleventh Circuit on Dec. 11,
2008.

The matter has been taken under advisement by the court.

No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Tempur-Pedic International Inc. -- http://www.tempurpedic.com/
-- is a manufacturer, marketer and distributor of mattresses and
pillows, which it sells in approximately 80 countries under the
TEMPUR and Tempur-Pedic brands.  The company has two operating
segments: Domestic and International.  The Domestic operating
segment consists of United States manufacturing facilities, whose
customers include its United States distribution subsidiary and
certain third party distributors in the Americas.  The
International segment consists of its manufacturing facility in
Denmark, whose customers include all of the company's distribution
subsidiaries and third party distributors outside the Domestic
segment.


UNITED STATES: SEC Sued Over Negligence in Madoff Investigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that a man who claims
he lost $2.5 million in Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme filed a
class action against the United States, on behalf of anyone whose
legitimate claims have been or will be denied by the Securities
and Exchange Commission, whose negligence the man blames for the
fiasco.

Jerry Guberman and his attorney claim the SEC was grossly
negligent in its pathetic investigations of Bernard L. Madoff
Investment Securities from November 1992 until December 2008 --
during which Mr. Madoff pulled off the largest known Ponzi scheme
in history.

Mr. Guberman says that despite the SEC's receipt of numerous tips
and complaints about Mr. Madoff's activities for 16 years, it was
only after Mr. Madoff confessed to his misdeeds in 2008, "as the
weight of increasing redemptions toppled his scheme," that his
crimes stopped.

"Specifically, the SEC repeatedly and grossly failed to apprise
itself of the basic facts concerning the allegations and failed to
undertake any reasonable efforts to understand the allegations in
the various complaints in order to determine what, if any action
was appropriate under the circumstances," the complaint states.

The SEC simply ignored the allegations "without any discernable
explanation or justification," according to the complaint.  "The
consequences for investors were disastrous."

Mr. Guberman seeks compensatory damages and costs.

Mr. Guberman is represented by:

          Gayti Kachroo, Esq.
          162 Edgell Rd.
          Framingham, MA 01701


WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Sued Over Fraudulent Default Judgments
--------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that World
Acceptance Corp. conspired with an attorney and a notary to get
fraudulent default judgments against borrowers, a class action
claims in St. Louis County Court.  The class claims World
Acceptance, which has more than 1,000 outlets, provided attorney
Steven Mandlman with generic loan verification pages, signed by a
World Acceptance branch manager, which Mr. Mandlman photocopied en
masse for notary Lori Swanson to sign and notarize.

The class adds that World Acceptance operates its 1,005 retail
locations in 11 states and Mexico, and that "the loans carry
interest rates which often exceed 150 percent. . . .  The interest
rates on the loans are considered usurious in the majority of
states, except the 11 states, including Missouri, in which WAC
operates."

The complaint states: "Swanston often notarized the documents with
blue ink creating the appearance that the entire document,
including the employee's signature, was original.  Mandlman then
attached these pages to thousands of petitions that he filed
throughout the State of Missouri."

The generic "verification pages" contained "no specific
information relating to any one account or defendant," the
complaint states.

Once a default judgment was obtained, named plaintiff Rance Reed
says, Mr. Mandlman served garnishments to collect the money.

"In the case of every proposed class member, the judge entering
the default judgment failed to recognize that the verification
contained a photocopied signature and fraudulent notarization,"
the complaint states.

World Acceptance makes high-interest, short-term loans, often
called payday loans.  The class claims the interest rates are so
high that only 11 states, including Missouri, allow World
Acceptance to operate in their jurisdictions.

The class consists of all Missourians who were sued by
Mr. Mandlman and World Acceptance after 2007, in which default
judgments were entered after the filing of notarized photocopied
verifications.  The class alleged conspiracy, unjust enrichment
and fraud upon the court.  It seeks compensatory damages, an
injunction prohibiting the defendants from collecting money
through garnishments and $10 million in punitive damages.

A copy of the Complaint in Reed v. World Acceptance Corporation of
Missouri, et al., Case No. _____ (Mo. Cir. Ct., Saint Louis Cty.),
is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/08/WAC.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neil Smith, Esq.
          THE SMITH LAW FIRM, LLC
          225 S. Meramec, Suite 532
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 725-4400
          E-mail: neil@neilsmithlaw.com


ZYNGA GAME: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge refused to dismiss a class action accusing online game
developer Zynga of duping Facebook users into giving advertisers
their phone and credit card numbers in exchange for "virtual
currency" used to play "FarmVille" and other games.

Lead plaintiff Rebecca Swift claimed that Zynga, creator of
"FarmVille," "Mafia Wars," "YoVille!" and other Facebook games,
misled her into giving her phone number and credit card
information to advertisers for some virtual cash.

Ms. Swift allegedly received a "code" to redeem for "YoCash,"
virtual currency used to make purchases in "YoVille!"

Ms. Swift said she was "not informed that providing her cell phone
number would result in charges to her cell phone bill."  She
claimed that since April 2009, $9.99 was charged to her cell phone
bill without her knowledge four times.

For more YoCash, Ms. Swift agreed to participate in a free trial
for a green tea herbal supplement, again providing the Zynga
advertiser with her credit card information.  Though she tried to
cancel the trial before it ended, Ms. Swift said she was charged
more than $165 for the products.

Zynga asked a federal judge to dismiss the class action, arguing
that it was not responsible for the actions of its third-party
advertisers.

U.S. District Judge Sandra Armstrong disagreed, ruling that Zynga
is not immune from suit and that Ms. Swift has "sufficiently
alleged Zynga's role in the fraudulent scheme."

Judge Armstrong concluded that because Zynga designs its games to
be more enjoyable with the accumulation of virtual money, "the
lure of virtual currency is the most important 'content' within
the special offer because, without it, it is unlikely any user
would ever participate in the offers."

A copy of the Order Denying Defendants' Motions to Dismiss First
Amended Complaint in Swift v. Zynga Game Network, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 09-cv-05443 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/08/Zynga.pdf


* Fisher & Phillips Says Blanket Policies Increase Class Suit Risk
------------------------------------------------------------------
Myra K. Creighton, Esq., at Fisher & Phillips LLP, writing for the
firm's Healthcare Update, Issue No. 4, dated November 2, 2010,
reports that generally, employees have not been successful in
trying to bring class actions under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.  The reason is that -- unlike Title VII or the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act -- it's not enough for an
employee to belong to a protected class.  Under the
nondiscrimination provisions of the ADA, an employee must be a
"qualified individual with a disability."  Determining whether the
class members are all qualified generally forecloses treating them
as a class.

On the other hand, the ADA's prohibition of pre-employment medical
examinations, does not require that the employee or applicant be a
qualified individual with a disability.  Neither does the section
of the law that requires that the results of such examinations be
kept confidential.  It requires only that the plaintiff be a job
applicant or an employee.  Thus, an employer that requires
applicants to submit to medical inquiries, or to medical
examinations that are not job related and consistent with business
necessity, stands a greater chance that a court will allow a class
action against it to proceed.

Bring On The Plaintiffs

On August 25, 2010, Renee Atkinson-Bush filed a class action
lawsuit against her former employer, Baltimore Washington Medical
Center (BWMC), which required employees who missed more than three
days in a row to submit to a medical examination before being
allowed to return to work.

Atkinson-Bush's physician had released her to return to light duty
work, which she had been doing for the year preceding her need for
leave. When the hospital's in-house physician examined her, he did
not have her job description, did not discuss her job
responsibilities with her, and did not discuss any possible
accommodations, according to the complaint.

A few days after the return-to-work examination, the hospital
advised Atkinson-Bush that the physician had placed her on
disability leave and would not permit her to return to work.
Additionally, according to the lawsuit, the in-house physician
discussed her medical condition with other BWMC employees in
violation of the ADA's confidentiality provision.  The complaint
seeks class treatment for all current and former employees during
the past three years who took three or more medical leave days.

A uniform policy like the one alleged above potentially violates
the ADA.  That's because the ADA permits an employer to make
medical inquiries of an employee and to require employees to
undergo fitness-for-duty examinations where job related and
consistent with business necessity.

"Job related" deals with the scope of the examination, while
"business necessity" deals with need.  Consequently, any medical
examination or inquiry must be narrowly-tailored to seek only that
information necessary to determine whether employees can perform
their job, whether they are a direct threat, whether they have a
disability, or whether an accommodation would allow them to
perform their essential job functions.  Blanket policies that
require employees to submit to a medical examination increase the
risk that the job-related and consistent-with-business-necessity
test will not be met.

The Commission's View

The EEOC has stated that the job-related and consistent-with-
business-necessity requirement may be met when the employer has a
reasonable belief, based on objective evidence, that 1) an
employee may pose a direct threat; or 2) an employee's ability to
perform essential job functions will be impaired by a medical
condition; and 3) when required by federal law.  The degree of
evidence necessary to support the fitness-for-duty examination may
vary depending on the functions of the job.  Jobs that involve
public safety, e.g., police officers, firefighters, physicians,
may require less evidence than less safety -- sensitive jobs.

Summing It Up

You may require a medical examination for an employee who has
requested an accommodation only in certain limited circumstances;
specifically, only if the information that the employee's
physician has provided is insufficient to establish that the
employee is disabled and needs a reasonable accommodation. But
before doing so, you must explain why the information provided is
insufficient and give the employee the opportunity to provide the
requisite information.  The best course of action to take in such
a situation is to prepare a medical inquiry to the employee's
physician to obtain the necessary information.


* Not Enough Merit to Bring Banks Under Class Actions, RBI Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Economic Times reports the Reserve Bank of India on Monday
said that there may not be "enough merit" to include banks under
the purview of class action suits.

The new Companies Bill, 2009, that seeks to replace the erstwhile
Companies Bill, 1956, has proposed to include banks under the
purview of class action suits.

However, the RBI said that since the revised system of Ombudsman
has served well to redress customers' grievances, there may not be
merit in bringing banks under the purview of class action suits.

"Since the revised system of Ombudsman scheme has served well as a
mechanism to provide quick and inexpensive redress of customers'
grievances against banks, there may not be enough merit in
extending the provision to banks under the new Bill," it said.


* Secret Docs on Benzodiazepines May Lead to Class Actions in UK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nina Lakhani, writing for The (U.K.) Independent on Sunday,
reports secret documents reveal that government-funded experts
were warned nearly 30 years ago that tranquillizers that were
later prescribed to millions of people could cause brain damage.

The Medical Research Council agreed in 1982 that there should be
large-scale studies to examine the long-term impact of
benzodiazepines after research by a leading psychiatrist showed
brain shrinkage in some patients similar to the effects of long-
term alcohol abuse.

However, no such work was ever carried out into the effects of
drugs such as Valium, Mogadon and Librium -- and doctors went on
prescribing them to patients for anxiety, stress, insomnia and
muscle spasms.

MPs and lawyers described the documents as a scandal, and
predicted they could lead the way to a class action costing
millions.  There are an estimated 1.5 million "involuntary
addicts" in the UK, and scores display symptoms consistent with
brain damage.

The MRC hosted a meeting of eminent experts and government
representatives in 1981 after research by Malcolm Lader, now
emeritus professor of the Institute of Psychiatry, showed brain
shrinkage occurred in some benzodiazepine patients.

Recommendations to carry out studies to examine long-term problems
associated with these drugs, which GPs prescribed more than 20
million times last year, were accepted by the MRC Neurosciences
Board in January 1982.

But then the trail goes dead.  The documents, which have been seen
by The Independent on Sunday and were marked "closed until 2014",
do not make it clear why no work to test Professor Lader's
findings properly was ever funded.  The Department of Health has
no record of the meeting.

Jim Dobbin, the chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for
Involuntary Tranquilliser Addiction, said: "Many victims have
lasting physical, cognitive and psychological problems even after
they have withdrawn.  We are seeking legal advice because we
believe these documents are the bombshell they have been waiting
for.  The MRC must justify why there was no proper follow-up to
Professor Lader's research, no safety committee, no study, nothing
to further explore the results.  We are talking about a huge
scandal here."

Catherine Hopkins, the legal director of Action against Medical
Accidents, added: "The failure to carry out research into the
effect of benzodiazepines has exposed huge numbers of people to
the risk of brain damage.  This research urgently needs to be
carried out, and if the results confirm the suspicions of the 1981
expert group, it could lead to one of the biggest group actions
for damages against the Government and the MRC ever seen in the
courts."

Initially advertised as completely harmless, benzodiazepines were
touted as the world's first wonder drug in the 1960s.  Within a
decade they became the UK's most commonly used medication.

Current guidelines for doctors say they should be prescribed for a
maximum of four weeks.  But some people become "involuntarily
addicted" within days, unable to stop without withdrawal symptoms
such as burning sensations, distorted vision, headaches and even
fatal seizures.

Some patients who have taken the pills for months or years have
enduring neurological pain, headaches, cognitive impairment and
memory loss.  But 30 years after the MRC first considered the
idea, there is no medical research to confirm whether this is down
to drug-induced brain damage or not.

Professor Lader said Saturday: "The results didn't surprise us
because we already knew long-term alcohol use could cause
permanent brain changes.  There should have been a really good,
large-scale study but I was never given the facilities or
resources to do it.

"I asked to set up a unit to research benzos but they turned me
down . . . they could have set-up a special safety committee, but
they didn't even do that.  I am not going to speculate why; I was
grateful for the support they did give me.  There were always
competing interests for the same resources, so maybe it wasn't
regarded as important enough."

He repeated the small study and found similar, inconclusive
results, but then gave up.  "I was getting on with other research
and didn't want to be labelled as the person who just pushed
benzos . . . I should have been more proactive . . . I assumed the
prescribing would peter out, but GPs are still swinging them
around like Smarties."

The MRC has funded around 20 benzodiazepine studies since 1982,
mainly in laboratory animals, but the critical questions posed by
Professor Lader in 1981 remain unanswered.

Heather Ashton, emeritus professor of clinical psychopharmacology
at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, set up the first NHS
withdrawal clinic in 1984.  In 1995 she submitted a research
proposal to the MRC to investigate the link between long-term
benzodiazepine use and permanent brain damage, using sophisticated
EEG and MRI scans, and cognitive testing in a randomized control
trial.  Her proposal was rejected.

There are a growing number of claims against individual doctors
for negligent prescribing benzodiazepines.  Ray Nimmo, prescribed
Valium as a muscle relaxant for stomach pain in 1984, received
GBP40,000 in an out-of-court settlement in 2002 after 12 years of
addiction.

In the 1980s 17,000 claimants began a class action against the
pharmaceutical manufacturers Roche Products and John Wyeth.
Procedural delays, technical motions and escalating costs
prevented the cases coming to trial.

A small group attempted to continue unrepresented as litigants in
person but failed.  The manufacturer's total costs, GBP35 million,
were awarded, but not enforced against one of those final
litigants, Michael Behan, who now works for Jim Dobbin MP.

Emma Jones, a solicitor at Leigh Day & Co, said: "We're aware of
earlier litigation against the drug companies which did not
succeed.  It is interesting that these documents may well have
been pertinent at that time.  It seems rather strange that such
information was kept 'hidden' for so long."

An MRC spokeswoman said: "The MRC Neurosciences Board accepted the
conclusions of Malcolm Lader's report on benzodiazepines.
Therefore the MRC was open to any research application that met
the required scientific standard . . . and continues to be
receptive to funding in this area.  The MRC funds only the highest
quality science as judged by peer review.  We do not fund research
which does not meet this quality standard."

Case study

Valerie Bell, 67 from Surrey, was prescribed lorazepam in 1984
after a panic attack.  She weaned herself off in 2007 but still
suffers from neurological pains in her head, neck and feet. No
brain scan has even been done.

"I was running two florist shops in Essex with my husband; we had
a great social life, and life was generally fantastic.  On yet
another diet, I had a panic attack at a party one night.  My
doctor said there was a wonderful new drug from the US, so I took
it without asking questions.  I didn't feel right straight away.
The doctor said it was my illness, increased the dose and added an
anti-depressant.  This went on for years, new pill after new pill.
Some days I couldn't even get out of bed.

I've seen 32 doctors but no one has said it could be the pills;
for years I believed these men in white coats and Armani suits.
When I decided enough was enough, it took me 15 years to come off:
five tapered withdrawals made me loopy, hearing voices, unable
even to make tea.  No human being should suffer like this.  We
lost our home and our businesses.  The drugs destroyed our lives."


* Status Quo for German Securities Class Actions Prevails
---------------------------------------------------------
Luke Green at RiskMetrics Group reports between 2001 and 2003 more
than 17,000 individual claims were filed in Germany in the
Deutsche Telekom AG case by hundreds of different attorneys.  The
claims alleged that Telekom AG made misstatements in two
prospectuses in 1999 and 2000 resulting in shareholder losses.
The logistical nightmare manifested by this onslaught of
litigation prompted the German legislature to consider a
collective action remedy for securities fraud cases that would
make adjudication of such cases more efficient, among other
considerations.  After rigorous debate, the legislature past into
law the Kapitalanleger-Musterverfahrensgesetz, popularly known as
the "KapMug" (Capital Investors' Model Proceeding Act).  The
KapMug, which established a so called "test case" class action
system, went into effect on November 1, 2005.  But, it included a
sunset clause that would render it ineffective as of Monday,
November 1, 2010.  However, according to the Winheller law firm,
the Bundestag (parliament of the Federal Republic of Germany)
approved amendments to the language of the KapMug to extend the
sunset clause to 2012.  Therefore, the status quo for securities
class actions in Germany will continue, at least until the fall of
2012.

U.S. v. German Securities Class Actions

The KapMug is similar to Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act in that it allows claims for damages due to false, misleading,
or omitted public statements in the capital markets.  However,
beyond the basic private right of action, the German class action
differs in many ways from the U.S. system.  The U.S. class action
system is an "opt-out" approach.  In other words, a case
settlement or judgment is binding against all members of the
plaintiff class whether they file a claim or not.  By contrast,
the German system is more like an "opt-in" system in the sense
that only claimants who choose to file an action are bound by the
case brought by the model claimant (the loose equivalent of a lead
plaintiff in the U.S.).  Thus, claimants in Germany must decide
whether to join the model case before there is a settlement or
judgment.  Likewise, in the U.S. the lead plaintiff and lead
counsel represent all members of the class and bear the risk of
litigation costs and expenses.  Thus, risk free, unnamed class
members can sit on the sidelines while the lead plaintiff and
counsel conduct the litigation.  If there is a settlement or
judgment the claimant can decide at that time whether to do
nothing, file a claim and recover a pro rata portion of the award,
or opt-out and pursue their own suit against the defendant.  By
contrast, in the German system there are no unnamed claimants.
Each claimant must hire their own counsel and file their own suit
in their own name even though common issues of law and fact may be
decided in a model case.  The model claimant cannot settle the
case on behalf of the other claimants as there is no true "class."
Settlement of all claims with the defendant requires unanimous
consent under the KapMug.

Other significant differences between the US and German systems
exist.  While compensatory damages are allowed, punitive damages
are not.  Thus, recoveries can often be lower than typically seen
in the U.S. Furthermore, contingency fees are available only in
special circumstances.  Attorneys are, therefore, not as
incentivized to file suit in Germany as they are in the U.S.
Arguably, this results in fewer cases.  Also, unlike the U.S.,
Germany follows the "loser pays" rule.  In the event of defeat,
claimants who join in the model case share the costs associated
with the model case.  And, individual claimants bear sole
responsibility for paying fees and costs if they lose in their
individual suits following adjudication of the model case.  As a
result, litigation funding/insurance is a common component in
these suits.  In funded cases the funder will incur all of the
risk of loss in exchange for a signed litigation funding
agreement, which entitles the funder to a percentage of the
claimant's individual recovery.

German Class Action Procedures

A brief explanation of the procedures in German class actions will
help to clarify the unique qualities of German class actions
mentioned above.  Under the KapMug both plaintiffs and defendants
can file an application with the trial court for the establishment
of a model case proceeding.  Admissible applications are publicly
announced by the lower district court in a special complaint
registry (the Federal Gazette) that can be accessed electronically
via the internet.  If at least ten applications are filed in
similar cases within four months the higher regional court will
appoint a model claimant.  Criteria for selecting a model claimant
include the amount of a party's claim and/or any agreement among
claimants designating a single model claimant.  Also, the court
will choose a case that exemplifies the majority of claims and
factual and legal issues.

Once a model claimant has been selected, the higher regional court
will hear evidence in the model case and decide the common issues
of law and fact.  While the model case is pending all proceedings
in lower courts whose outcome is contingent on the ruling of the
model case are suspended.  Suspension orders are served on the
claimants who are deemed summoned to the model proceedings as
interested parties.  Only interested parties are bound by the
model case judgment.  Parties who file their claim after the model
case has been initiated and who have not been summoned are not
bound by its ruling.  Although, a claimant filing a late claim can
join the model trial at a later date. A claimant may voluntarily
withdraw a claim.  However, if the time of withdrawal occurs after
the model proceedings have commenced the claimant is bound by the
model case ruling.

Ultimately, when the higher court rules on the model case a notice
will be sent lifting the stay on lower court proceedings.  The
ruling in the model case is binding on the lower courts as well as
the interested parties summoned.  The lower court will decide each
individual case pending before it on the basis of the model case
ruling.  In other words, applying the model findings of law and
fact, it will decide each case on its own factual merits and award
damages if warranted.

German Securities Class Actions Today

Thus far the German test case system has proven to be less than
swift at resolving collective securities disputes.  Securities
Litigation Watch is unaware of any case that has been fully
adjudicated through the laborious model case process.  Model
proceedings are still pending in the Deutsche Telekom AG case, for
example.  Likewise, the number of cases being litigated under the
KapMug has been relatively few by comparison to collective actions
in some other non-US countries.  It is difficult to say whether
the KapMug in its current form will survive beyond 2012.  But, it
appears likely that securities collective actions will continue on
in some form in Germany even if the KapMug fades away.  Although
Germany, like many other European countries, is hyper resistent to
U.S. style class actions, the need for a securities collective
action solution has not gone away.  Pressure from the EU may play
a role as well as recent studies by the EU Commission have
concluded that an EU-wide securities class action remedy is needed
to provide victimized shareholders with a realistic legal remedy.

                             *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *