---

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

            Monday, November 22, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 230

                             Headlines

AGL RESOURCES: GNG Suit Still Pending in Georgia State Court
AK STEEL: "West" Suit Resolved Following Payment to Counsel
AK STEEL: Class Certification Motion Pending in "Schumacher" Suit
AK STEEL: "Patrick" & "Lipker" Suits Remain Pending
AK STEEL: Steel Pricing Class Suits Remain Pending

AK STEEL: Fairness Hearing on Butler Retiree Settlement on Jan. 10
ALTRIA GROUP: Faces 7,707 Pending Engle Progeny Cases
ALTRIA GROUP: Faces 9 Pending Smoking Class Actions & Litigation
ALTRIA GROUP: Faces 30 Pending "Lights/Ultra Lights" Class Actions
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: CO2 Nuisance Suit Pending in U.S. Supreme Court

ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Continues to Defend Against NY Securities Suit
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Motion to Dismiss Tronox Suit Remains Pending
ARTHROCARE CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Texas
ATLAS AIR: Pre-Trial Discovery in New York Suit Still Ongoing
ATLAS ENERGY: Class Action Law Firm Investigates Chevron Sale

AVMED HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Customer Data Theft
BOK FINANCIAL: Unit Named in SemGroup Energy Shareholder Suit
BOK FINANCIAL: Expects Overdraft Practices Claims To Be Resolved
BRITISH AIRWAYS: Cartel Case May Spur US-Style Class Suits in UK
BUCYRUS INTERNATIONAL: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims

CAREER EDUCATION: Inks $40M Settlement of "Amador" & "Adams" Suits
CAREER EDUCATION: Awaits Ruling on Class Certification Motion
CAREER EDUCATION: Discovery Still Ongoing in "Schuster" Suit
CAREER EDUCATION: Motion for Class Certification Due by Jan. 28
CAREER EDUCATION: Faces Two False Text Message Advertising Suits

CLEARWIRE CORP: Accused in Washington Suit of "Throttling"
CONSOL Energy: Awaits Supreme Court Decision on "Comer" Suit
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Seventh Suit for Invasion of Privacy
FIDELITY MANAGEMENT: Faces Class Action Suit Over 401(k) Fees
FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal on DBCP Suit Termination in Hawaii Pending

FRESH DEL MONTE: Remains a Defendant in Four Pineapple Class Suits
GSI GROUP: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for February 16
ORACLE CORP: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Class Action
MARTIN GUAJARDO: Sued for Defrauding Immigrant Clients
MGIC INVESTMENT: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Amend Complaint

NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Toxic CDOs
PPG INDUSTRIES: Inks $6 Million Settlement of Antitrust Suit
RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Calif. Court Dismisses 2009 Securities Suit
ROCK OF AGES: Says Second Swenson Merger-Related Suit Has No Merit
SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC: Writ of Mandamus Pending in "Comer" Suit

USA TRUCK: Petition for Removal of "Cerdenia" Suit Is Pending
WESTMONT LIVING: Faces Class Action Over Stolen Drugs



                             *********

AGL RESOURCES: GNG Suit Still Pending in Georgia State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
In February 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior
Court of Fulton County in the State of Georgia against Georgia
Natural Gas, of which AGL Resources Inc. has an 85% interest,
alleging that it charged its customers on variable rate plan
prices for natural gas that were in excess of the published price,
failed to give proper notice regarding the availability of
potentially lower price plans and that it changed its methodology
for computing variable rates. This lawsuit was dismissed in
September 2008.

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the lawsuit and, in May
2009, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's
order.

In June 2009, GNG filed a petition for reconsideration with the
Georgia Supreme Court. In October 2009, the Georgia Supreme Court
agreed to review the Court of Appeals' decision and held oral
arguments in January 2010. In March 2010 the Georgia Supreme Court
upheld the Court of Appeals' decision. The case has been remanded
back to the Superior Court of Fulton County for further
proceedings.

GNG asserts that no violation of law or Georgia Commission rules
has occurred. The Company said the case has not had, and is not
expected to have, a material impact on its results of operation or
financial condition.

No further updates were reported in AGL Resources Inc.'s Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2010.


AK STEEL: "West" Suit Resolved Following Payment to Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation's liability in an ERISA class action
lawsuit has been completely resolved following payments made as
required by court orders, according to the company's Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2010.

On January 2, 2002, John D. West, a former employee, filed a class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio against the AK Steel Corporation Retirement
Accumulation Pension Plan, or AK RAPP, and the AK Steel
Corporation Benefit Plans Administrative Committee.

Mr. West claimed that the method used under the AK RAPP to
determine lump sum distributions does not comply with the
Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and resulted in
underpayment of benefits to him and the other class members.  The
District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff class and on March
29, 2006, entered an amended final judgment against the defendants
in the amount of $37.6 million in damages and $7.3 million in
prejudgment interest, for a total of approximately $44.9 million,
with post judgment interest accruing at the rate of 4.7% per annum
until paid.  The defendants appealed, but their appeals ultimately
were unsuccessful.

Pursuant to an agreed order, on April 1, 2009, defendants paid the
sum of approximately $51.5 million into a court-approved interest
bearing account. The funds used to make this payment were from the
AK Steel Master Pension Trust (the "Trust").  The payment ended
defendants' liability to the class members pursuant to the
judgment in this matter, including with respect to interest which
accrues on the judgment. It did not, however, resolve defendants'
liability with respect to a claim for attorneys' fees by
plaintiffs' counsel.  On August 31, 2009, the court granted a
motion filed by plaintiffs' counsel for a statutory award of fees,
awarding fees in the approximate amount of $1.4 million.  The
court denied a motion that sought a separate award of fees in the
amount of 28% of the funds already paid into the court.

On September 15, 2009, plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion to amend
the order granting an award of attorneys' fees.  On November 18,
2009, the Court issued an order directing distribution to the
class members in the amount of approximately $51.3 million.  This
amount is part of the approximately $51.5 million previously paid
from the Trust to a court-approved interest bearing account (the
difference between the amounts representing Court-approved
payments to the Fund Administrator).  On December 16, 2009, the
Court denied plaintiffs' motion to amend the order granting an
award of attorneys' fees, leaving intact the August 31, 2009 award
of approximately $1.4 million.  No appeal of the December 16 order
was filed and in January 2010 the approximately $1.4 million in
attorneys' fees were paid to class counsel, concluding the
Company's obligations with respect to this litigation.

On June 22, 2010, the Court issued an order directing certain
funds be returned to the Trust because such funds had not been
claimed by class members.  Pursuant to the order, on July 9, 2010,
$0.2 was returned to the Trust.  On August 25, 2010, plaintiffs
filed an unopposed motion to return an additional amount of
approximately $0.1 million to the Trust consisting of interest
earned by, and taxes refunded to, the fund and not designated for
disbursement to class members.  The Court granted the motion and
on September 8, 2010 approximately $0.1 million was returned to
the Trust, leaving the Fund Administrator holding no funds with
respect to this action.

On August 25, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking, and the
Court granted an additional award of attorneys' fees to
plaintiffs' counsel in the amount of $0.1 million.  This amount
represented work done by plaintiffs' counsel in connection with
administration of the Fund and disbursements to class members.
This amount was paid to plaintiffs' counsel on September 1, 2010.
Such payments should conclude the activity in this litigation and
resolve completely defendants' liability in connection with this
litigation.


AK STEEL: Class Certification Motion Pending in "Schumacher" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation is awaiting a ruling on a motion for
class certification filed by William Schumacher in Ohio, according
to the company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 1, 2010.

On October 20, 2009, Mr. Schumacher filed a purported class action
against the AK Steel Corporation Retirement Accumulation Pension
Plan, or AK RAPP, and the AK Steel Corporation Benefit Plans
Administrative Committee in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 1:09cv794.

The complaint alleges that the method used under the AK RAPP to
determine lump sum distributions does not comply with ERISA and
the Internal Revenue Code and resulted in underpayment of benefits
to him and the other class members.  Plaintiff and the other
purportedly similarly situated individuals on whose behalf
plaintiff filed suit were excluded by the Court in 2005 from the
West litigation based on previous releases of claims they had
executed in favor of the Company.

On January 11, 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Complaint based upon a statute of limitations ground.  That motion
was denied on March 8, 2010, and defendants filed their answer to
the complaint on March 22, 2010.  On August 11, 2010, plaintiff
filed his motion for class certification.  Defendant filed its
response in opposition to the motion for class certification on
September 17, 2010.  That motion remains pending.  No trial date
has yet been set.

The defendants intend to contest this matter vigorously.


AK STEEL: "Patrick" & "Lipker" Suits Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2010, that the class action
lawsuits filed by Judith A. Patrick and Margaret Lipker,
separately, remain pending.

On October 20, 2005, Judith A. Patrick and another plaintiff filed
a purported class action against AK Steel and the AK Steel
Corporation Benefit Plans Administrative Committee in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No.
1:05-cv-681.

The complaint alleges that the defendants incorrectly calculated
the amount of surviving spouse benefits due to be paid to the
plaintiffs under the applicable pension plan.  On December 19,
2005, the defendants filed their answer to the complaint. The
parties subsequently filed cross-motions for summary judgment on
the issue of whether the applicable plan language had been
properly interpreted.  On September 28, 2007, the United States
Magistrate Judge assigned to the case issued a Report and
Recommendation in which he recommended that the plaintiffs' motion
for partial summary judgment be granted and that the defendants'
motion be denied.  The defendants filed timely objections to the
Magistrate's Report and Recommendation.  On March 31, 2008, the
court issued an order adopting the Magistrate's recommendation and
granting partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the issue
of plan interpretation.  The plaintiffs' motion for class
certification was granted by the Court on October 27, 2008.  The
case is proceeding with respect to discovery on the issue of
damages.  No trial date has been set.

On May 27, 2009, a case asserting a claim similar to the one filed
in the Patrick Litigation was filed against AK Steel by Margaret
Lipker in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky, Case No. 09-00050.

The Complaint in the Lipker Litigation alleged that AK Steel
incorrectly calculated the amount of Ms. Lipker's surviving spouse
benefits due to be paid under the applicable pension plan (which
was a different plan from that at issue in the Patrick
Litigation).

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.  On Feb. 23,
2010, the Court in the Lipker Litigation granted plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment and found that Ms. Lipker is entitled
to a surviving spouse benefit of approximately $463 per month.

AK Steel appealed that February 23, 2010, decision to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on March 11, 2010,
Case No. 10-5298.  The issues in the appeal have been fully
briefed by the parties.  In addition, counsel representing the
plaintiffs in the Patrick Litigation filed an amicus curiae brief
on July 20, 2010, on the ground that the decision in the Lipker
Litigation could impact the merits of the issues in the Patrick
Litigation.  The amicus curiae brief requested the Court of
Appeals to affirm the district court's decision in the Lipker
Litigation on the issue of plan interpretation and liability.

The defendants intend to contest both of these matters vigorously.


AK STEEL: Steel Pricing Class Suits Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------
In September and October 2008, several companies filed purported
class actions in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, against nine steel manufacturers, including
AK Steel Holding Corporation.  The case numbers for these actions
are 08CV5214, 08CV5371, 08CV5468, 08CV5633, 08CV5700, 08CV5942 and
08CV6197.  An additional action, case number 10CV04236, was filed
on July 8, 2010.

The plaintiffs are companies which claim to have purchased steel
products, directly or indirectly, from one or more of the
defendants and they purport to file the actions on behalf of all
persons and entities who purchased steel products for delivery or
pickup in the United States from any of the named defendants at
any time from at least as early as January 2005 to the present.
The complaints allege that the defendant steel producers have
conspired to restrict output and to fix, raise, stabilize and
maintain artificially high prices with respect to steel products
in the United States.

On January 2, 2009, the defendants filed motions to dismiss all of
the claims set forth in the Complaints.  On June 12, 2009, the
court issued an Order denying the defendants' motions to dismiss.
Discovery has commenced.  No trial date has been set.

AK Holding intends to contest this matter vigorously.

No further updates were reported in the company's Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2010.


AK STEEL: Fairness Hearing on Butler Retiree Settlement on Jan. 10
------------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing on the settlements AK Steel Holding Corporation
entered into with retirees will be held on January 10, 2011,
according to the company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 1, 2010.

On June 18, 2009, three former hourly members of the Butler Armco
Independent Union filed a purported class action against AK Steel
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, Case No. 1-09CV00423, alleging that AK Steel did not have a
right to make changes to their healthcare benefits.  On June 29,
2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

The named plaintiffs in the 2009 Retiree Action seek, among other
things, injunctive relief for themselves and the other members of
a proposed class, including an order retroactively rescinding
certain changes to retiree healthcare benefits negotiated by AK
Steel with its union.  The proposed class the plaintiffs sought to
represent would consist of all union-represented retirees of AK
Steel other than those retirees who were included in the class
covered by the Middletown Works Retiree Healthcare Benefits
Litigation described below.  On August 21, 2009, AK Steel filed an
answer to the amended complaint and filed a motion for summary
judgment which, if granted in full, would end the litigation.  On
September 14, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment and responded to defendant's motion.  On October 14,
2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction,
seeking to prevent certain scheduled January 2010 changes to
retiree healthcare from taking effect.  On November 25, 2009, AK
Steel filed its opposition to the motion for a preliminary
injunction, opposition to plaintiffs' motion for partial summary
judgment, and reply in support of its motion for summary judgment.
A hearing on the pending motions was held on December 8, 2009.
During the course of the hearing, plaintiffs' counsel notified the
court that the pending motion for a preliminary injunction was
limited to retirees from the Company's Butler Works in Butler,
Pennsylvania.  On January 29, 2010, the trial court issued an
opinion and order granting plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary
injunction and barring the Company from effecting any further
benefit reductions or new healthcare charges for Butler Works
hourly retirees until final judgment in the case.

On February 2, 2010, AK Steel filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit seeking a
reversal of the decision to grant the preliminary injunction.   If
AK Steel were unable to obtain a reversal of the decision to
impose the preliminary injunction, either in connection with the
final judgment by the trial court or through appeal, then the
negotiated changes to retiree healthcare for the Company's Butler
Works retirees would be rescinded and the Company's other
postretirement benefit obligations would increase by approximately
$145.0 million as of December 31, 2010, based upon current
valuation assumptions.  This amount reflects the value of the
estimated additional healthcare and welfare benefits the Company
would pay out with respect to the Butler hourly retirees.

In the third quarter of 2010, the Company reached a tentative
settlement agreement with the Butler Works hourly retirees who
initiated the litigation.  The appeal pending in the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals has been stayed pending finalization of the
Hourly Class Settlement.  The participants in the Hourly Class
Settlement consist generally of all retirees and their surviving
spouses who worked for AK Steel at Butler Works and retired from
AK Steel on or before December 31, 2006.  Pursuant to the Hourly
Class Settlement, AK Steel will continue to provide company-paid
health and life insurance to Hourly Class Members through
December 31, 2014, and will make combined lump sum payments
totaling $86.0 million to a Voluntary Employees Beneficiary
Association trust and to plaintiffs' counsel.  More specifically,
AK Steel will make three cash contributions to the VEBA Trust as
follows:  $21.4 million on August 1, 2011; $30.0 million on
July 31, 2012; and $26.0 million on July 31, 2013.  The balance of
the $86.0 million in lump sum payments will be paid to plaintiffs'
attorneys to cover plaintiffs' obligations with respect to
attorneys' fees.  Effective January 1, 2015, AK Steel will
transfer to the VEBA Trust all OPEB obligations owed to the Hourly
Class Members under the Company's applicable health and welfare
plans and will have no further liability for any claims incurred
by the Hourly Class Members after December, 31, 2014, relating to
their OPEB obligations.  The VEBA Trust will be utilized to fund
all such future OPEB obligations to the Hourly Class Members.
Trustees of the VEBA will determine the scope of the benefits to
be provided to the Hourly Class Members.

After reaching the Hourly Class Settlement, the Company was
notified that a separate group of retirees from the Butler Works
who were previously salaried employees and who had been members of
the Butler Armco Independent Salaried Union also were asserting
similar claims and desired to settle those claims on a basis
similar to the settlement with the hourly employees. The
participants in this group consist generally of all retirees and
their surviving spouses who worked for AK Steel at Butler Works
and retired from AK Steel between January 1, 1985, and on or
before September 30, 2006.  If the Salaried Class Members were to
prevail on their claims, the Company's other postretirement
benefit obligation would increase by approximately $8.5 million as
of December 31, 2010, based upon current valuation assumptions.
This amount reflects the value of the estimated additional
healthcare and welfare benefits the Company would pay out with
respect to the Salaried Class Members.  After negotiation with
counsel representing the Salaried Class Members, the Company also
reached a tentative settlement agreement with the Salaried Class
Members.  The stay of the appeal pending in the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals pending finalization of the Hourly Class
Settlement also applies to the Salaried Class Settlement.

Pursuant to the Salaried Class Settlement, AK Steel will continue
to provide company-paid health and life insurance to Salaried
Class Members through December 31, 2014, and will make combined
lump sum payments totaling $5.0 million to a VEBA Trust and to
plaintiffs' counsel.  AK Steel will make three cash contributions
to the VEBA Trust as follows: approximately $1.1 million on
August 1, 2011; approximately $1.7 million on July 31, 2012; and
approximately $1.7 million on July 31, 2013.  The balance of the
$5.0 million in lump sum payments will be paid to plaintiffs'
attorneys to cover plaintiffs' obligations with respect to
attorneys' fees.  Effective January 1, 2015, AK Steel will
transfer to the VEBA Trust all OPEB obligations owed to the
Salaried Class Members under the Company's applicable health and
welfare plans and will have no further liability for any claims
incurred by the Salaried Class Members after December 31, 2014,
relating to their OPEB obligations.  The VEBA Trust will be
utilized to fund all such future OPEB obligations to the Salaried
Class Members.  Trustees of the VEBA will determine the scope of
the benefits to be provided to the Salaried Class Members.

The tentative settlements with both the Hourly Class Members and
the Salaried Class Members are subject to approval by the Court.
In connection with those settlements, on September 17, 2010, the
plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion to File a Second Amended
Complaint and an Unopposed Amended Motion for an Order
Conditionally Certifying Classes, and the parties jointly filed a
Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement
Agreements and Proposed Class Notice.  On September 24, 2010, the
Court held a hearing on these motions and issued orders granting
the joint motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement, conditionally certifying the two classes, and allowing
the filing of a second amended complaint.  Notice of the
settlements was sent to all Hourly Class Members and Salaried
Class Members on October 1, 2010.  The Class Members will be given
the opportunity to object to their respective settlement in
writing and at a hearing conducted by the Court to determine
whether to approve the settlements.  The deadline for filing
objections to the settlements was November 15, 2010.

A fairness hearing with respect to the settlements has been
scheduled for January 10, 2011.  The Court will decide after that
hearing whether or not to grant final approval of each settlement.

If the Court does grant final approval of a particular settlement,
a judgment approving that settlement will be entered.  A Judgment
approving a settlement may be appealed to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  If such an appeal is still
pending at the time a payment is due from AK Steel to the VEBA
Trust under the terms of a settlement, the payment will not occur
until the Judgment approving the settlement is final and not
subject to further appeals or judicial review.

As of September 30, 2010, the Company's total OPEB liability for
all of its retirees was approximately $785.0 million.  Assuming a
Judgment approving both settlements is entered, if and when that
occurs the Company's total OPEB liability (prior to any funding of
the VEBA Trust) is projected to increase by approximately $36.0
million, and there would be a one-time charge of approximately
$14.0 million, based upon current valuation assumptions.  The
remaining portion of the plan amendment would be amortized over
approximately five years.  Once a settlement is final and no
longer subject to appeal, the Company's only remaining liability
with respect to the OPEB obligations to the Class Members will be
to provide existing company-paid health and life insurance to
Class Members through December 31, 2014, and to contribute the
payments due to the VEBA Trust under the settlements. The Company
will have no other liability or responsibility with respect to
OPEB obligations to the Class Members.  After payment of each of
the annual contributions due to the VEBA Trust under the terms of
the settlements, the Company's total OPEB liability will be
further reduced by the amount of each payment.

If the Judgment is not affirmed on appeal, the Company resumes
responsibility, in whole or in part (depending upon the terms of
the judicial decision reversing, vacating or modifying the
Judgment) for the OPEB obligations to some or all of the Class
Members.  Under such circumstances, the Company's total OPEB
liability would increase accordingly, but the Company cannot
reliably project at this time the amount of that increase because
it is dependent upon the specific terms of the judicial decision.
At that point, as to any such OPEB obligations for which the
Company has resumed responsibility as a result of the judicial
decision, AK Steel would restart the retiree litigation and seek
to judicially enforce what it continues to believe is its
contractual right to reduce OPEB benefits provided to any Class
Members as to whom the settlement no longer applies.

For accounting purposes, a settlement of the Company's OPEB
obligations related to the Class Members will be deemed to have
occurred when AK Steel makes the last payment called for under the
Settlement.


ALTRIA GROUP: Faces 7,707 Pending Engle Progeny Cases
-----------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission that as of October 25, 2010, approximately
7,707 Engle progeny cases were pending against its subsidiary
Philip Morris USA Inc.

In July 2000, in the second phase of the Engle smoking and health
class action in Florida, a jury returned a verdict assessing
punitive damages totaling approximately $145 billion against
various defendants, including $74 billion against PM USA.
Following entry of judgment, PM USA posted a bond in the amount of
$100 million and appealed.

In May 2001, the trial court approved a stipulation providing that
execution of the punitive damages component of the Engle judgment
will remain stayed against PM USA and the other participating
defendants through the completion of all judicial review. As a
result of the stipulation, PM USA placed $500 million into a
separate interest-bearing escrow account that, regardless of the
outcome of the judicial review, will be paid to the court and the
court will determine how to allocate or distribute it consistent
with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. In July 2001, PM USA also
placed $1.2 billion into an interest-bearing escrow account, which
was returned to PM USA in December 2007. In addition, the $100
million bond related to the case has been discharged. In
connection with the stipulation, PM USA recorded a $500 million
pre-tax charge in its consolidated statement of earnings for the
quarter ended March 31, 2001. In May 2003, the Florida Third
District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment entered by the
trial court and instructed the trial court to order the
decertification of the class. Plaintiffs petitioned the Florida
Supreme Court for further review.

In July 2006, the Florida Supreme Court ordered that the punitive
damages award be vacated, that the class approved by the trial
court be decertified, and that members of the decertified class
could file individual actions against defendants within one year
of issuance of the mandate. The court further declared the
following Phase I findings are entitled to res judicata effect in
such individual actions brought within one year of the issuance of
the mandate: (i) that smoking causes various diseases; (ii) that
nicotine in cigarettes is addictive; (iii) that defendants'
cigarettes were defective and unreasonably dangerous; (iv) that
defendants concealed or omitted material information not otherwise
known or available knowing that the material was false or
misleading or failed to disclose a material fact concerning the
health effects or addictive nature of smoking; (v) that defendants
agreed to misrepresent information regarding the health effects or
addictive nature of cigarettes with the intention of causing the
public to rely on this information to their detriment; (vi) that
defendants agreed to conceal or omit information regarding the
health effects of cigarettes or their addictive nature with the
intention that smokers would rely on the information to their
detriment; (vii) that all defendants sold or supplied cigarettes
that were defective; and (viii) that defendants were negligent.
The court also reinstated compensatory damages awards totaling
approximately $6.9 million to two individual plaintiffs and found
that a third plaintiff's claim was barred by the statute of
limitations. In February 2008, PM USA paid a total of $2,964,685,
which represents its share of compensatory damages and interest to
the two individual plaintiffs identified in the Florida Supreme
Court's order.

In August 2006, PM USA sought rehearing from the Florida Supreme
Court on parts of its July 2006 opinion, including the ruling that
certain jury findings have res judicata effect in subsequent
individual trials timely brought by Engle class members. The
rehearing motion also asked, among other things, that legal errors
that were raised but not expressly ruled upon in the Third
District Court of Appeal or in the Florida Supreme Court now be
addressed. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for rehearing in August
2006 seeking clarification of the applicability of the statute of
limitations to non-members of the decertified class. In December
2006, the Florida Supreme Court refused to revise its July 2006
ruling, except that it revised the set of Phase I findings
entitled to res judicata effect by excluding finding (v) listed
above (relating to agreement to misrepresent information), and
added the finding that defendants sold or supplied cigarettes
that, at the time of sale or supply, did not conform to the
representations of fact made by defendants. In January 2007, the
Florida Supreme Court issued the mandate from its revised opinion.
Defendants then filed a motion with the Florida Third District
Court of Appeal requesting that the court address legal errors
that were previously raised by defendants but have not yet been
addressed either by the Third District Court of Appeal or by the
Florida Supreme Court. In February 2007, the Third District Court
of Appeal denied defendants' motion. In May 2007, defendants'
motion for a partial stay of the mandate pending the completion of
appellate review was denied by the Third District Court of Appeal.
In May 2007, defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari
with the United States Supreme Court. In October 2007, the United
States Supreme Court denied defendants' petition. In November
2007, the United States Supreme Court denied defendants' petition
for rehearing from the denial of their petition for writ of
certiorari.

The deadline for filing Engle progeny cases, as required by the
Florida Supreme Court's decision, expired in January 2008. As of
October 25, 2010, approximately 7,707 cases (3,286 state court
cases and 4,421 federal court cases) were pending against PM USA
or Altria Group, Inc. asserting individual claims by or on behalf
of approximately 9,400 plaintiffs (4,980 state court plaintiffs
and 4,420 federal court plaintiffs). It is possible that some of
these cases are duplicates. Some of these cases have been removed
from various Florida state courts to the federal district courts
in Florida, while others were filed in federal court. In July
2007, PM USA and other defendants requested that the multi-
district litigation panel order the transfer of all such cases
pending in the federal courts, as well as any other Engle progeny
cases that may be filed, to the Middle District of Florida for
pretrial coordination. The panel denied this request in December
2007. In October 2007, attorneys for plaintiffs filed a motion to
consolidate all pending and future cases filed in the state trial
court in Hillsborough County. The court denied this motion in
November 2007. In February 2008, the trial court decertified the
class except for purposes of the May 2001 bond stipulation, and
formally vacated the punitive damages award pursuant to the
Florida Supreme Court's mandate. In April 2008, the trial court
ruled that certain defendants, including PM USA, lacked standing
with respect to allocation of the funds escrowed under the May
2001 bond stipulation and will receive no credit at this time from
the $500 million paid by PM USA against any future punitive
damages awards in cases brought by former Engle class members.
In May 2008, the trial court, among other things, decertified the
limited class maintained for purposes of the May 2001 bond
stipulation and, in July 2008, severed the remaining plaintiffs'
claims except for those of Howard Engle. The only remaining
plaintiff in the Engle case, Howard Engle, voluntarily dismissed
his claims with prejudice. In July 2008, attorneys for a putative
former Engle class member petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to
permit members of the Engle class additional time to file
individual lawsuits. The Florida Supreme Court denied this
petition in January 2009.

Three federal district courts (in the Merlob, Brown and Burr
cases) ruled that the findings in the first phase of the Engle
proceedings cannot be used to satisfy elements of plaintiffs'
claims, and two of those rulings (Brown and Burr) were certified
by the trial court for interlocutory review. The certification in
both cases was granted by the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit and the appeals were consolidated. In
February 2009, the appeal in Burr was dismissed for lack of
prosecution. On July 22, 2010, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that
plaintiffs do not have an unlimited right to use the findings from
the original Engle trial to meet their burden of establishing the
elements of their claims at trial. Rather, plaintiffs may only use
the findings to establish those specific facts, if any, that they
demonstrate with a reasonable degree of certainty were actually
decided by the original Engle jury. The Eleventh Circuit remanded
the case to the district court to determine what specific factual
findings the Engle jury actually made. Engle progeny cases pending
in the federal district courts in the Middle District of Florida
asserting individual claims by or on behalf of approximately 4,420
plaintiffs had been stayed pending the Eleventh Circuit's review.
These cases were returned to the federal trial courts in which
they were filed for further proceedings.

In June 2009, Florida amended its existing bond cap statute by
adding a $200 million bond cap that applies to all Engle progeny
lawsuits in the aggregate and establishes individual bond caps for
individual Engle progeny cases in amounts that vary depending on
the number of judgments in effect at a given time. The
legislation, which became effective in June 2009, applies to
judgments entered after the effective date and remains in effect
until December 31, 2012. Plaintiffs in three Engle progeny cases
against R.J. Reynolds in Alachua County, Florida (Alexander,
Townsend and Hall) have challenged the constitutionality of the
bond cap statute. The Florida Attorney General has intervened in
these cases in defense of the constitutionality of the statute.
Argument in these cases was heard on September 10, 2010.
Plaintiffs in one Engle progeny case against PM USA and R.J.
Reynolds in Hillsborough County (Douglas) have also challenged the
constitutionality of the bond cap statute.

                       Engle Progeny Trial Results

As of October 25, 2010, sixteen Engle progeny cases involving PM
USA have resulted in verdicts since the Florida Supreme Court
Engle decision. Nine verdicts (Hess, Barbanell, Campbell, Naugle,
Douglas, R. Cohen, Putney, Tate and Piendle) were returned in
favor of plaintiffs and seven verdicts were returned in favor of
PM USA (Gelep, Kalyvas, Gil de Rubio, Warrick, Willis, Frazier and
C. Campbell).  In addition, there have been a number of mistrials,
only some of which have resulted in new trials as of October 25,
2010.

In Lukacs, a case that was tried to verdict before the Florida
Supreme Court Engle decision, the Florida Third District Court of
Appeal in March 2010 affirmed per curiam the trial court decision
without issuing an opinion. Under Florida procedure, further
review of a per curiam affirmance without opinion by the Florida
Supreme Court is generally prohibited. In April 2010, defendants
filed their petition for rehearing with the Court of Appeal. In
May 2010, the Court of Appeal denied the defendants' petition. The
defendants paid the judgment in June 2010.

In May 2010, the jury returned a verdict in favor of PM USA in the
Gil de Rubio case. In June 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for a
new trial.

On October 4, 2010 (Warrick), October 6, 2010 (Willis), and
October 15, 2010 (Frazier and C. Campbell), juries in four Engle
progeny cases returned verdicts in favor of PM USA. The plaintiffs
in the Warrick, Willis and Frazier cases have filed motions for a
new trial.


ALTRIA GROUP: Faces 9 Pending Smoking Class Actions & Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission that as of October 25, 2010, it faces nine
pending Smoking and Health Class Actions and Aggregated Claims
Litigation.

Altria included as one case the 649 civil actions (of which 370
are actions against its subsidiary Philip Morris USA Inc.) that
are proposed to be tried in a single proceeding in West Virginia
(In re: Tobacco Litigation).  John Middleton Co. and U.S.
Smokeless Tobacco Company LLC were named as defendants in this
action but they, along with other non-cigarette manufacturers,
have been severed from this case.  The West Virginia Supreme Court
of Appeals has ruled that the United States Constitution does not
preclude a trial in two phases in this case.  Under the current
trial plan, issues related to defendants' conduct and plaintiffs'
entitlement to punitive damages would be determined in the first
phase. The second phase would consist of individual trials to
determine liability, if any, as well as compensatory and punitive
damages, if any. The trial court has moved the trial from Kanawha
County to Ohio County, West Virginia and has scheduled the case
for trial in March 2011.

Since the dismissal in May 1996 of a purported nationwide class
action brought on behalf of allegedly addicted smokers, plaintiffs
have filed numerous putative smoking and health class action suits
in various state and federal courts. In general, these cases
purport to be brought on behalf of residents of a particular state
or states (although a few cases purport to be nationwide in scope)
and raise addiction claims and, in many cases, claims of physical
injury as well.

Class certification has been denied or reversed by courts in 58
smoking and health class actions involving PM USA in Arkansas (1),
the District of Columbia (2), Florida (2), Illinois (3), Iowa (1),
Kansas (1), Louisiana (1), Maryland (1), Michigan (1), Minnesota
(1), Nevada (29), New Jersey (6), New York (2), Ohio (1), Oklahoma
(1), Pennsylvania (1), Puerto Rico (1), South Carolina (1), Texas
(1) and Wisconsin (1).

PM USA and Altria Group, Inc., are named as defendants, along with
other cigarette manufacturers, in six actions filed in the
Canadian provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan
and British Columbia. In Saskatchewan and British Columbia,
plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of individuals who
suffer or have suffered from various diseases including chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart disease or cancer
after smoking defendants' cigarettes. In the actions filed in
Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, plaintiffs seek certification
of classes of all individuals who smoked defendants' cigarettes.


ALTRIA GROUP: Faces 30 Pending "Lights/Ultra Lights" Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission that as of October 25, 2010, the company and
its subsidiary Philip Morris USA, Inc., face 30 pending
"Lights/Ultra Lights" Class Actions, down from 33 a year ago.

Plaintiffs in certain pending matters seek certification of their
cases as class actions and allege, among other things, that the
uses of the terms "Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute
deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law fraud, or RICO
violations, and seek injunctive and equitable relief, including
restitution and, in certain cases, punitive damages. These class
actions have been brought against PM USA and, in certain
instances, Altria Group, Inc. or its subsidiaries, on behalf of
individuals who purchased and consumed various brands of
cigarettes, including Marlboro Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights,
Virginia Slims Lights and Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge
Lights. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of
misrepresentation, lack of causation, injury, and damages, the
statute of limitations, express preemption by the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act and implied preemption by
the policies and directives of the FTC, non-liability under state
statutory provisions exempting conduct that complies with federal
regulatory directives, and the First Amendment.

As of October 25, 2010, a total of 29 such cases were pending in
the United States. Fifteen of these cases were pending in a
multidistrict litigation proceeding in a single U.S. federal
court. These cases were pending in various U.S. state courts. In
addition, a purported "Lights" class action is pending against PM
USA in Israel. Other entities have stated that they are
considering filing such actions against Altria Group, Inc. and PM
USA.  In the one "Lights" case pending in Israel, hearings on
plaintiffs' motion for class certification were held in November
and December 2008.

                            The Good Case

In May 2006, a federal trial court in Maine granted PM USA's
motion for summary judgment in Good, a purported "Lights" class
action, on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims are preempted by
the FCLAA and dismissed the case. In August 2007, the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the district
court's grant of PM USA's motion for summary judgment on federal
preemption grounds and remanded the case to district court. The
district court stayed the case pending the United States Supreme
Court's ruling on defendants' petition for writ of certiorari with
the United States Supreme Court, which was granted in January
2008. The case was stayed pending the United States Supreme
Court's decision. In December 2008, the United States Supreme
Court ruled that plaintiffs' claims are not barred by federal
preemption. Although the Court rejected the argument that the
FTC's actions were so extensive with respect to the descriptors
that the state law claims were barred as a matter of federal law,
the Court's decision was limited: it did not address the ultimate
merits of plaintiffs' claim, the viability of the action as a
class action, or other state law issues. The case has been
returned to the federal court in Maine for further proceedings and
has been consolidated with other federal cases in the
multidistrict litigation proceeding.

      Certain Developments Since December 2008 Good Decision

Since the December 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Good, and
through October 25, 2010, twenty-three "Lights" class actions were
served upon PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. These twenty-three cases
were filed in 15 states and the District of Columbia. All of these
cases either were filed in federal court or were removed to
federal court by PM USA.

A number of "Lights" class actions have been transferred and
consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
before the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine for
pretrial proceedings. As of October 25, 2010, fifteen cases
against Altria Group, Inc. and/or PM USA were pending in or
awaiting transfer to the MDL proceeding. These cases, and the
states in which each originated, are: Biundo (Illinois), Corse
(Tennessee), Domaingue (New York), Good (Maine), Haubrich
(Pennsylvania), Mirick (Mississippi), Mulford (New Mexico),
Parsons (District of Columbia), Phillips (Ohio), Slater (District
of Columbia), Tang (New York), Tyrer (California), Watson
(Arkansas), Williams (Arkansas) and Wyatt (formerly Nikolic)
(Wisconsin).

In November 2009, plaintiffs in the MDL proceeding filed a motion
seeking collateral estoppel effect from the findings in the case
brought by the Department of Justice, which motion was denied in
March 2010. In January 2010, PM USA filed a motion for summary
judgment regarding plaintiffs' claims for purchases made after
December 1, 2002. In March 2010, PM USA filed additional summary
judgment motions, and plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. In May 2010, and on July 26, 2010, and September
16, 2010, the district court denied all of PM USA's summary
judgment motions. The court has not yet ruled on plaintiff's
motion for class certification. Argument was held on July 21,
2010.

                    "Lights" Cases Dismissed,
             Not Certified or Ordered De-Certified

To date, 15 courts in 16 "Lights" cases have refused to certify
class actions, dismissed class action allegations, reversed prior
class certification decisions or have entered judgment in favor of
PM USA.

Trial courts in Arizona, Illinois, Kansas, New Jersey, New Mexico,
Oregon, Tennessee and Washington have refused to grant class
certification or have dismissed plaintiffs' class action
allegations. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a case in Michigan
after a trial court dismissed the claims plaintiffs asserted under
the Michigan Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection Act.

Several appellate courts have issued rulings that either affirmed
rulings in favor of Altria Group, Inc. and/or PM USA or reversed
rulings entered in favor of plaintiffs. In Florida, an
intermediate appellate court overturned an order by a trial court
that granted class certification in Hines. The Florida Supreme
Court denied review in January 2008. The Supreme Court of Illinois
has overturned a judgment that awarded damages to a certified
class in the Price case.  In Louisiana, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed a purported "Lights" class
action brought in Louisiana federal court (Sullivan) on the
grounds that plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the FCLAA. In
New York, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit overturned a decision by a New York trial court in Schwab
that denied defendants' summary judgment motions and granted
plaintiffs' motion for certification of a nationwide class of all
United States residents that purchased cigarettes in the United
States that were labeled "Light" or "Lights." On July 13, 2010,
plaintiffs in Schwab voluntarily dismissed the case with
prejudice. In Ohio, the Ohio Supreme Court overturned class
certifications in the Marrone and Phillips cases. Plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed both cases in August 2009. The Supreme Court
of Washington denied a motion for interlocutory review filed by
the plaintiffs in the Davies case that sought review of an order
by the trial court that refused to certify a class. Plaintiffs
subsequently voluntarily dismissed the Davies case with prejudice.
Plaintiffs in the New Mexico case (Mulford) renewed their motion
for class certification, which motion was denied by the federal
district court in March 2009, with leave to file a new motion for
class certification.

In Oregon (Pearson), a state court denied plaintiff's motion for
interlocutory review of the trial court's refusal to certify a
class. In February 2007, PM USA filed a motion for summary
judgment based on federal preemption and the Oregon statutory
exemption. In September 2007, the district court granted PM USA's
motion based on express preemption under the FCLAA, and plaintiffs
appealed this dismissal and the class certification denial to the
Oregon Court of Appeals. Argument was held in April 2010.

In Cleary, which was pending in an Illinois federal court, the
district court dismissed plaintiffs' "Lights" claims against one
defendant and denied plaintiffs' request to remand the case to
state court. In September 2009, the court issued its ruling on PM
USA's and the remaining defendants' motion for summary judgment as
to all "Lights" claims. The court granted the motion as to all
defendants except PM USA. As to PM USA, the court granted the
motion as to all "Lights" and other low tar brands other than
Marlboro Lights. As to Marlboro Lights, the court ordered briefing
on why the 2002 state court order dismissing the Marlboro Lights
claims should not be vacated based upon Good. In January 2010, the
court vacated the previous dismissal. In February 2010, the court
granted summary judgment in favor of defendants as to all claims
except for the Marlboro Lights claims, based on the statute of
limitations and deficiencies relating to the named plaintiffs. In
June 2010, the court granted summary judgment in favor of all
defendants on all remaining claims, dismissing the case. On
July 20, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration with
the district court, which was denied on July 23, 2010. On August
20, 2010, plaintiffs filed an appeal with the United States Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

                        Other Developments

In December 2009, the state trial court in the Holmes case
(pending in Delaware), denied PM USA's motion for summary judgment
based on an exemption provision in the Delaware Consumer Fraud
Act.

In June 2007, the United States Supreme Court reversed the lower
court rulings in the Watson case that denied plaintiffs' motion to
have the case heard in a state, as opposed to federal, trial
court. The Supreme Court rejected defendant's contention that the
case must be tried in federal court under the "federal officer"
statute. The case was removed to federal court in Arkansas and the
case was transferred to the MDL proceeding. On October 18, 2010,
the JPMDL denied plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state
court and to vacate the transfer order.
In New Hampshire (Lawrence), plaintiffs have petitioned the state
trial court to certify a class. Argument was held on September 14,
2010.

                         The Price Case

Trial in the Price case commenced in state court in Illinois in
January 2003, and in March 2003, the judge found in favor of the
plaintiff class and awarded $7.1 billion in compensatory damages
and $3 billion in punitive damages against PM USA. In connection
with the judgment, PM USA deposited into escrow various forms of
collateral, including cash and negotiable instruments. In December
2005, the Illinois Supreme Court issued its judgment, reversing
the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and
directing the trial court to dismiss the case. In May 2006, the
Illinois Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' motion for re-hearing,
in November 2006, the United States Supreme Court denied
plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari and, in December 2006,
the Circuit Court of Madison County enforced the Illinois Supreme
Court's mandate and dismissed the case with prejudice. In January
2007, plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate or withhold judgment
based upon the United States Supreme Court's grant of the petition
for writ of certiorari in Watson. In May 2007, PM USA filed
applications for a writ of mandamus or a supervisory order with
the Illinois Supreme Court seeking an order compelling the lower
courts to deny plaintiffs' motion to vacate and/or withhold
judgment. In August 2007, the Illinois Supreme Court granted PM
USA's motion for supervisory order and the trial court dismissed
plaintiff's motion to vacate or withhold judgment. The collateral
that PM USA deposited into escrow after the initial 2003 judgment
was released and returned to PM USA.

In December 2008, plaintiffs filed with the trial court a petition
for relief from the final judgment that was entered in favor of PM
USA. Specifically, plaintiffs sought to vacate the 2005 Illinois
Supreme Court judgment, contending that the United States Supreme
Court's December 2008 decision in Good demonstrated that the
Illinois Supreme Court's decision was "inaccurate." PM USA filed a
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' petition and, in February 2009, the
trial court granted PM USA's motion. In March 2009, the Price
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Fifth Judicial
District of the Appellate Court of Illinois. Argument was held in
February 2010.

In June 2009, the plaintiff in an individual smoker lawsuit
(Kelly) brought on behalf of an alleged smoker of "Lights"
cigarettes in Madison County, Illinois state court filed a motion
seeking a declaration that (1) his claims under the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act are not barred by the exemption in that statute
based on his assertion that the Illinois Supreme Court's decision
in Price is no longer good law in light of the decisions by the
U.S. Supreme Court in Good and Watson, and (2) their claims are
not preempted in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
Good. In September 2009, the court granted plaintiff's motion as
to federal preemption, but denied it with respect to the state
statutory exemption.

             State Trial Court Class Certifications

State trial courts have certified classes against PM USA in
Massachusetts (Aspinall), Minnesota (Curtis), and Missouri
(Larsen, formerly Craft). Significant developments in these cases
include:

   * Aspinall: In August 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court affirmed the class certification order. In August 2006, the
trial court denied PM USA's motion for summary judgment and
granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the defenses of
federal preemption and a state law exemption to Massachusetts'
consumer protection statute. On motion of the parties, the trial
court subsequently reported its decision to deny summary judgment
to the appeals court for review and stayed further proceedings
pending completion of the appellate review. In December 2008,
subsequent to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Good,
the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an order
requesting that the parties advise the court within 30 days
whether the Good decision is dispositive of federal preemption
issues pending on appeal. In January 2009, PM USA notified the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that Good is dispositive of
the federal preemption issues on appeal, but requested further
briefing on the state law statutory exemption issue. In March
2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order
denying summary judgment to PM USA and granting the plaintiffs'
cross-motion. In January 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial
summary judgment as to liability claiming collateral estoppel from
the findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice.

   * Curtis: In April 2005, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied PM
USA's petition for interlocutory review of the trial court's class
certification order. In October 2009, the trial court denied
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, filed in February
2009, claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the case
brought by the Department of Justice. In October 2009, the trial
court granted PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment, filed
in August 2009, as to all consumer protection counts and, in
December 2009, dismissed the case in its entirety. Both sides have
appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Argument was heard on
October 7, 2010.

   * Larsen: In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed
the class certification order. In December 2009, the trial court
denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the period during
which potential class members can qualify to become part of the
class. The class period remains 1995-2003. In January 2010, PM USA
filed a motion for partial summary judgment regarding plaintiffs'
request for punitive damages, which motion was denied on June 28,
2010. In April 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment
as to an element of liability in the case, claiming collateral
estoppel from the findings in the case brought by the Department
of Justice. Argument was held on July 27, 2010. Also on July 27,
2010, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of Altria Group,
Inc. as a defendant in the case. PM USA remains a defendant. The
case is tentatively set for trial in September 2011.


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: CO2 Nuisance Suit Pending in U.S. Supreme Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
American Electric Power Company, Inc., said in a Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2010, that it remains a
defendant in a putative class action by Mississippi residents
asserting that CO2 emissions exacerbated the effects of Hurricane
Katrina.

In 2004, eight states and the City of New York filed an action in
Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York
against AEP, American Electric Power Service Corporation, Cinergy
Corp, Xcel Energy, Southern Company and Tennessee Valley
Authority.  The Natural Resources Defense Council, on behalf of
three special interest groups, filed a similar complaint against
the same defendants.  The actions allege that CO2 emissions from
the defendants' power plants constitute a public nuisance under
federal common law due to impacts of global warming and sought
injunctive relief in the form of specific emission reduction
commitments from the defendants.  The trial court dismissed the
lawsuits.

In September 2009, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a
ruling on appeal remanding the cases to the Federal District Court
for the Southern District of New York.  The Second Circuit held
that the issues of climate change and global warming do not raise
political questions and that Congress' refusal to regulate CO2
emissions does not mean that plaintiffs must wait for an initial
policy determination by Congress or the President's administration
to secure the relief sought in their complaints.  The court stated
that Congress could enact comprehensive legislation to regulate
CO2 emissions or that the Federal EPA could regulate CO2 emissions
under existing CAA authorities and that either of these actions
could override any decision made by the district court under
federal common law.  The Second Circuit did not rule on whether
the plaintiffs could proceed with their state common law nuisance
claims.  The defendants' petition for rehearing was denied. The
Company believes the actions are without merit and intend to
continue to defend against the claims.  The defendants, excluding
TVA, filed a petition for review with the U.S. Supreme Court in
August 2010.  The Solicitor General filed a brief in support of
the petition on behalf of TVA.  Responses to the petition are due
in November 2010.

In October 2009, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a
decision by the Federal District Court for the District of
Mississippi dismissing state common law nuisance claims in a
putative class action by Mississippi residents asserting that CO2
emissions exacerbated the effects of Hurricane Katrina.  The Fifth
Circuit held that there was no exclusive commitment of the common
law issues raised in plaintiffs' complaint to a coordinate branch
of government and that no initial policy determination was
required to adjudicate these claims.  The court granted petitions
for rehearing.  An additional recusal left the Fifth Circuit
without a quorum to reconsider the decision and the appeal was
dismissed, leaving the district court's decision in place.  The
Company was initially dismissed from this case without prejudice,
but are named as a defendant in a pending fourth amended
complaint.  Plaintiffs filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme
Court asking the court to remand the case to the Fifth Circuit and
reinstate the panel decision.  Responses to the petition are due
in November 2010.

Management said it is unable to determine a range of potential
losses that are reasonably possible of occurring.


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Continues to Defend Against NY Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation said in a Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 1, 2010, that it continues to
defend itself against a class action lawsuit related to Deepwater
Horizon events.

In June 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purported purchasers of the Company's stock between
June 12, 2009, and June 9, 2010, against Anadarko and certain of
its officers. The complaint alleges causes of action arising
pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for purported
misstatements and omissions regarding, among other things, the
Company's liability related to the Deepwater Horizon events. The
plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
including interest thereon, as well as litigation fees and costs.

In April 2010, the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico, in which
Anadarko holds a 25% non-operating interest, discovered
hydrocarbon accumulations. During suspension operations, the well
blew out, an explosion occurred on the Deepwater Horizon drilling
rig, and the drilling rig sank, resulting in the release of
hydrocarbons into the Gulf of Mexico. Eleven people lost their
lives in the explosion and subsequent fire, and others sustained
personal injuries. Response and clean-up efforts are being
conducted by BP Exploration & Production Inc., the operator and
65% owner of the well, and by other parties, all under the
direction of the Unified Command of the United States Coast Guard.
On July 15, 2010, after several attempts to contain the oil spill,
BP successfully installed a capping stack that shut in the well
and prevented the further release of hydrocarbons. Installation of
the capping stack was a temporary solution that was followed by a
successful "static kill" cementing operation completed on
August 5, 2010. The Macondo well was permanently plugged on
September 19, 2010, when BP completed a "bottom kill" cementing
operation in connection with the successful interception of the
well by a relief well. Investigations by the federal government
and other parties into the cause of the well blowout, explosion,
and resulting oil spill, as well as other matters arising from or
relating to these events, are ongoing.


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Motion to Dismiss Tronox Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation said in a Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 1, 2010, that it continues to
defend itself in a class action complaint filed by Tronox, Inc.,
shareholders.

A consolidated class action complaint has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purported purchasers of Tronox's equity and debt
securities between November 21, 2005, and January 12, 2009,
against Anadarko, Kerr-McGee, several former Kerr-McGee officers
and directors, several former Tronox officers and directors and
Ernst & Young LLP. The complaint alleges causes of action arising
pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for purported
misstatements and omissions regarding, among other things,
Tronox's environmental-remediation and tort claim liabilities.

The plaintiffs allege that these purported misstatements and
omissions are contained in certain of Tronox's public filings,
including in connection with Tronox's initial public offering. The
plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
including interest thereon, as well as litigation fees and costs.

Anadarko, Kerr-McGee and other defendants moved to dismiss the
class action complaint and in June 2010, the Court issued an
opinion and order dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint against
Anadarko, but granted the plaintiffs leave to re-plead their
claims. The court further granted in part and denied in part the
motions to dismiss by Kerr-McGee and certain of its former
officers and directors, but permitted plaintiffs leave to re-plead
certain of the dismissed claims. Plaintiffs' amended complaint was
filed in July 2010. In August 2010, Anadarko moved to dismiss
plaintiffs' complaint in whole and Kerr-McGee moved to dismiss
plaintiffs' allegations against it in part. The plaintiffs have
responded to both motions. Anadarko and Kerr-McGee will file
respective briefs in reply during the fourth quarter of 2010.

Anadarko said it intends to continue to defend itself vigorously.


ARTHROCARE CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Texas
------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 4, 2008, a putative securities class action was filed in
Federal court in the Southern District of Florida against
ArthroCare Corp. and certain of its former executive officers,
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Plaintiffs allege that
the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing false
and misleading financial statements and making material
misrepresentations regarding the Company's internal controls,
business, and financial results.  On October 28, 2008, the court
granted the Company's motion to transfer this case to the U.S.
District Court, Western District of Texas. (McIlvaine v.
ArthroCare, et al).

On July 25, 2008, a putative securities class action was filed in
Federal court in the Western District of Texas against the
Company, and certain of its current and former executive officers,
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs allege that
the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing false
and misleading financial statements and making material
misrepresentations regarding the Company's internal controls,
business, and financial results. (Strong v. ArthroCare, et al).

On August 7, 2008, a derivative action was filed in Federal court
in the Southern District of Florida against the Company and its
then-current directors alleging breach of fiduciary duty based on
the Company's alleged improper revenue recognition, improper
reporting of such revenue in SEC filings and press releases,
failure to maintain adequate internal controls, and failure to
supervise management. On October 14, 2008, the court granted the
Company's motion to transfer this case to the U.S. District Court,
Western District of Texas. (Weil v. Baker, et al).

On March 4, 2009, a derivative action was filed in Federal court
in the Western District of Texas against the Company's current
directors, a former director, certain of its current and former
executive officers and other employees and PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP alleging (i) disgorgement under Section 304 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act; (ii) violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5; (iii) breach of fiduciary duty; (iv) abuse of
control; (v) gross mismanagement of the Company; (vi) waste of
corporate assets; (vii) insider trading; and (viii) unjust
enrichment. (King v. Baker, et al).

On April 29, 2009, a derivative action was filed in Federal court
in the Western District of Texas against the Company's current
directors and a former director alleging breach of fiduciary duty
based on the Company's improper revenue recognition, improper
reporting of such revenue in SEC filings and press releases,
failure to maintain adequate internal controls, and failure to
supervise management. (Barron v. Baker, et al).

On October 28, 2008, and thereafter, the two putative securities
class actions and the shareholder derivative actions were
consolidated and designated: In Re ArthroCare Corporation
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-00574-SS (consolidated)
in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas.

On Dec. 10, 2008, Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Plaintiffs' counsel
were appointed in the putative consolidated securities class
action. The Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint on December 18, 2009, seeking unspecified
monetary damages and interest.  ArthroCare filed a Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on
February 16, 2010.

On July 20, 2010, the federal court issued a ruling granting in
part and denying in part ArthroCare's Motion to Dismiss,
permitting certain claims related to statements after December 11,
2007 to continue.

No further updates were reported in the company's November 1,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


ATLAS AIR: Pre-Trial Discovery in New York Suit Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-trial discovery is still ongoing in connection with a
consolidated class action lawsuit filed over Atlas Air Worldwide
Holdings Inc.'s alleged manipulation of market price for air cargo
services, according to the company's November 1, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On September 2, 2010, Polar Air Cargo LLC entered into a plea
agreement with the United States Department of Justice relating to
the previously disclosed DOJ investigation concerning alleged
manipulation by cargo carriers of fuel surcharges and other rate
components for air cargo services.  Under the terms of the
agreement, Old Polar will pay a fine of $17.4 million, payable in
five annual installments.  The plea agreement is subject to court
approval and the fine relates to an alleged agreement by Old Polar
with respect to fuel surcharges on cargo shipped from the United
States to Australia during the time period from January 2000
through April 2003.

During the second quarter of 2010, the Company recorded a $17.4
million provision for this matter.  The hearing on the plea
agreement before the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia was scheduled to resume on November 15, 2010.

As a result of the DOJ Investigation, the Company and Old Polar
have been named defendants, along with a number of other cargo
carriers, in several class actions in the United States arising
from allegations about the pricing practices of a number of air
cargo carriers that have now been consolidated for pre-trial
purposes in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.  The consolidated complaint alleges, among
other things, that the defendants, including the Company and Old
Polar, manipulated the market price for air cargo services sold
domestically and abroad through the use of surcharges, in
violation of United States, state, and European Union antitrust
laws.  The suit seeks treble damages and injunctive relief.

The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint, and on
September 26, 2008, the Magistrate Judge who heard the motion to
dismiss issued a decision recommending that the Federal District
Court Judge grant the defendants' motion to dismiss.  The
Magistrate Judge recommended that plaintiffs' claims based on the
United States antitrust laws be dismissed without prejudice so
that plaintiffs have an opportunity to cure the defects in their
complaint by pleading more specific facts, if they have any,
relevant to their federal claims. The Magistrate Judge recommended
that the plaintiffs' claims based on state and European Union laws
be dismissed with prejudice. Both plaintiffs and defendants
objected to portions of the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation.

On August 21, 2009, the Federal District Court Judge issued an
opinion and order, accepting the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, except for the Magistrate Judge's recommendation
that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, instead
maintaining the claims under the United States antitrust laws on
the grounds that the consolidated complaint was sufficiently
detailed to withstand a motion to dismiss.  Old Polar and the
other defendants moved for reconsideration of that portion of the
Federal District Court Judge's decision which motion was denied on
March 22, 2010.

Pre-trial discovery is currently in progress, although the DOJ has
recently moved to intervene and stay much of the pre-trial
discovery for five months while it concludes its investigation.


ATLAS ENERGY: Class Action Law Firm Investigates Chevron Sale
-------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Lurie, a national class action and shareholder rights law
firm with offices in New York City and Los Angeles, is
investigating possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other
violations of law by members of the Board of Directors of Atlas
Energy, Inc. arising from its proposed sale to Chevron
Corporation.

Under the terms of the transaction, Atlas shareholders will
receive $38.25 for each share of Atlas stock they hold and a pro-
rata distribution of over 41 million units of Atlas Pipeline
Holdings, L.P. following certain restructuring transactions to be
completed immediately prior to completion of the transaction.  The
total value of the transaction is approximately $4.3 billion,
including Atlas's outstanding debt.

Weiss & Lurie is investigating whether Atlas's Board acted in the
best interests of shareholders in approving the proposed
transaction and whether Atlas's Board properly sought to maximize
shareholder value.

If you own common stock in Atlas and would like more information
about your rights as a shareholder or additional information
concerning our investigation, please contact:

          Julia J. Sun, Esq.
          WEISS & LURIE
          The Fred F. French Building
          551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600
          New York, NY 10176
          Telephone: (888) 593-4771.
          E-mail at infony@weisslurie.com

Weiss & Lurie has litigated hundreds of stockholder class and
derivative actions for violations of corporate and fiduciary
duties.  We have recovered over a billion dollars for defrauded
institutions and individuals and obtained important corporate
governance in these cases.  If you have information or would like
legal advice concerning possible corporate wrongdoing (such as
insider trading, waste of corporate assets, accounting fraud, or
issuing materially misleading press releases or SEC filings),
consumer fraud (such as false advertising, defective products, or
other deceptive business practices), or anti-trust violations,
please email us at infony@weisslurie.com or fill out the form on
our Web site, http://www.weisslurie.com/contact/report_fraud


AVMED HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Customer Data Theft
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action filed Wednesday in Florida seeks redress for AvMed
Health Plans allowing millions of its customers' personal medical
data to be compromised.  AvMed acknowledged earlier that it left
laptop computers, containing millions of its members' confidential
medical records, unattended.  These laptops were subsequently
stolen and AvMed's members' personal records were compromised.
The records contained AvMed members' names, home addresses, phone
numbers, Social Security Numbers, as well as other highly
sensitive medical history data such as diagnosis information,
medical procedure and prescription information.

Compounding the damage to its members, AvMed repeatedly
underestimated the gravity of the theft and had to make subsequent
admissions about the vast quantity of data stolen.  Initially,
AvMed contacted only 280,000 members to warn them of the dangers
that accompanied the data loss.  However, AvMed made numerous
subsequent revisions and finally estimated that approximately 1.2
million of its members' private health records had been breached.

"This is easily one of the largest medical record breaches in
history, and the disastrous consequences may plague those affected
for their lifetimes," says Plaintiff's attorney, Bill Gray of
Edelson McGuire, LLC.  "We believe that AvMed did not follow
government-mandated HIPPA protocols.  Merely taking the time to
encrypt their laptops, likely would have obviated any harm done by
this theft.  It is mind-boggling that such simple procedures were
not done to protect AvMed's customers, who placed their trust in
their insurance company to protect their highly personal
information." Jay Edelson added, "I cannot imagine anyone trusting
their personal information to AvMed at this time."  Edelson
McGuire recently brought suit against the popular Facebook
application developer, Zynga, on behalf of consumers alleging
privacy violations.

Mr. Gray is joined in the suit by Jay Edelson, Steven Teppler, and
Ari Scharg of Edelson McGuire, and Ed Normand and Diego Madrigal
III of Wooten, Kimbrough and Normand, P.A.

                       About Edelson McGuire

Edelson McGuire is a commercial litigation and legal and political
consulting firm with attorneys in Illinois, New York, California,
and Florida.  The firm's attorneys have been recognized as leaders
in these fields by state and federal legislatures, national and
international media groups, the courts and their peers.  They have
testified before the United States Senate on class action issues
and have repeatedly been asked to work on federal and state
legislation and policy issues involving banking, cellular
telephony and consumer privacy.  Their class settlements are
collectively worth over one billion dollars and have changed the
consumer protection policies of numerous industries.

CONTACT:  Bill Gray, Esq.
          Edelson McGuire
          Telephone: +1-312-572-7212
          E-mail: wgray@edelson.com


BOK FINANCIAL: Unit Named in SemGroup Energy Shareholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation said in a Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 1, 2010, that its affiliate, BOSC,
Inc., has been joined as defendant in a class action filed by
shareholders of SemGroup Energy Partners, LP.

BOSC has been joined as a defendant in a putative class action
brought on behalf of unit holders of SemGroup Energy Partners, LP
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma.  The lawsuit is brought pursuant to Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 against all of the
underwriters of issuances of partnership units in the Initial
Public Offering in July 2007 and in a Secondary Offering in
January 2008.  BOSC underwrote $6.25 million of units in the
Initial Public Offering.  BOSC was not an underwriter in the
Secondary Offering.  Counsel for BOSC believes BOSC has valid
defenses to the claims asserted in the litigation and management
does not anticipate any material loss.


BOK FINANCIAL: Expects Overdraft Practices Claims To Be Resolved
----------------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation said in a Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010, filed with U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 1, 2010, that it anticipates the claims
related to an affiliate bank's alleged  overdraft practices will
be resolved without material loss to the company.

In September and October, Bank of Oklahoma, National Association
was named as a defendant in three putative class actions alleging
that the manner in which the bank posted charges to its consumer
demand deposit accounts breached an implied obligation of good
faith and fair dealing and violates the Oklahoma Consumer
Protection Act.  The actions also allege that the manner in which
the bank posted charges to its consumer demand deposit accounts is
unconscionable, constitutes conversion, and unjustly enriches the
bank.  Two of the actions are pending in the District Court of
Tulsa County.  The third action is pending in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.  Each of the
three actions seeks to establish a class consisting of all
consumer customers of the bank.  The amount claimed by the
plaintiffs has not been determined, but could be material.

The federal lawsuit, while initially filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, has been
conditionally transferred for pretrial purposes to multi-district
litigation in the Southern District of Florida in which numerous
other putative class actions regarding overdraft fees are pending
against financial institutions.  The consolidation in the multi-
district litigation is for pre-trial discovery and motion
proceedings.  The three actions are pending on motions to dismiss
the complaints.

Management has been advised by counsel that, in its opinion, the
Company's overdraft practices meet all requirements of law and the
Company has substantial defenses to the claims.  Based on
currently available information, management anticipates the claims
will be resolved without material loss to the Company.


BRITISH AIRWAYS: Cartel Case May Spur US-Style Class Suits in UK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Larson, writing for Bloomberg News, reports British Airways
Plc and other carriers accused of fixing cargo prices could face
U.S.-style class-action suits in the U.K. for the first time if a
court eases rules on customers joining together to sue, lawyers
say.

A victory in the appeal by two flower shippers who were denied the
right to form a group to sue British Airways "has the potential to
mushroom dramatically," by making it cheaper and faster to seek
damages in Britain against companies that collude to inflate
prices, antitrust lawyer Frances Murphy said.

"Some might refer to such a ruling as an Americanization of the
English civil procedure," Ms. Murphy, who leads the antitrust
practice at Jones Day LLP in London and isn't involved in the
case, said in an interview.  If the request is granted, it could
lead to "protracted litigation with indirect purchasers, all
claiming to have suffered some degree of loss."

The Court of Appeal, which is expected to rule tomorrow, could
allow direct and indirect customers of British Airways to join the
same class in suing -- a group that could run into the hundreds of
thousands.  The decision comes a week after British Airways and 10
other carriers were fined a total of 799.4 million euros ($1.08
billion) by the European Union following a three-year probe of the
cartel.

Pleaded Guilty

In 2007, the London-based company pleaded guilty in the U.S. to
related charges and was fined $300 million.

While civil suits by groups of customers are common in the U.S.,
the cases are rare in the U.K. and haven't been done on the scale
sought in this case, said Becket McGrath, a competition lawyer
with Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP.

A ruling in favor of the flower shippers "would show that it's
possible to adopt a class-action model in the U.K. without waiting
for legislative changes," Mr. McGrath said.  "It would be a
significant means of aggregating claims and making litigation
worthwhile."

British Airways' spokesman Tony Cane declined to comment
specifically on the case by the flower shippers, Emerald Supplies
Ltd. and Southern Glass House Produce Ltd.

"We will continue to contest any class actions brought by cargo
customers," Mr. Cane said in an interview.

If the customers win their appeal and are allowed to form a class
to sue the airline, the court would be loosening a rule that has
been around for more than a century and bringing the U.K. closer
to the U.S. in terms of recovery for customers, said Jonathan
Hitchin, a lawyer at Allen & Overy LLP in London.

'Suffered'

"In some cases, the class could be enormous," Mr. Hitchin said in
an interview.  "It would demonstrate that there is a widely
available remedy for those who have suffered as a result of cartel
behavior."

The flower shippers appealed after an April 2009 ruling by Judge
Andrew Morritt in the High Court in London, who denied their
request because the proposed group was too ill-defined and had too
many potential conflicts.

"The grounds on which the High Court chucked the request are not
convincing," Mr. McGrath said.

Scott Campbell, a lawyer from the firm Hausfeld & Co. LLP who
represents clients suing British Airways, said that about 200
customers want to be represented by the flower companies.  He said
the potential class "must be in the hundreds of thousands of
individual claims."

British Airways in July asked the court to add Air France-KLM
Group, Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. and 30 others as defendants to
protect itself against payments it may be ordered to make in the
case.  The court is still considering the request.

Emerald Action

"This very much makes the Emerald action the hub of cargo cartel
litigation in the EU," Mr. Campbell said in an e-mail, referring
to the name of one of the flower companies.

British Airways isn't the only carrier facing civil cartel claims.
Air France and its Dutch Martinair unit were sued in September in
the Netherlands for as much as 500 million euros over the
carriers' alleged involvement in the cartel.

About 300 shipping customers, including Royal Philips Electronics
NV and Ericsson AB, joined the Dutch case claiming that they paid
too much for services in Europe from 2000 to 2006, according to
Claims Funding International Plc, the Dublin-based company that
organized the case.

The European Commission said last month it is considering
expanding the use of group lawsuits for customers affected by
antitrust violations in all of the EU's 27 nations.


BUCYRUS INTERNATIONAL: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling Bucyrus
International too cheaply through an unfair process to
Caterpillar, for $92 a share or $8.6 billion, shareholders claim
in Milwaukee County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Greenberg v. Bucyrus International,
Inc., et al., Case No. 10CV0192342 (Wis. Cir. Ct., Milwaukee
Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/17/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Guri Ademi, Esq.
          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          David J. Syrios, Esq.
          Corey M. Mather, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: 866-264-3995

               - and -

          Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
          James S. Notis, Esq.
          Kelly A. Noto, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          560 Sylvan Avenue
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: 201-567-7377


CAREER EDUCATION: Inks $40M Settlement of "Amador" & "Adams" Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation entered into a settlement with a
total consideration of $40 million in resolution of the claims
raised by plaintiffs in Amador, et al. v. California Culinary
Academy and Career Education Corporation; and Adams, et al. v.
California Culinary Academy and Career Education Corporation,
according to the company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 2, 2010.

On September 27, 2007, Allison Amador and 36 other current and
former students of the California Culinary Academy filed a
complaint in the California Superior Court in San Francisco.
Plaintiffs plead their original complaint as a putative class
action and allege four causes of action: fraud; constructive
fraud; violation of the California Unfair Competition Law; and
violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Plaintiffs contend that CCA made a variety of misrepresentations
to them, primarily oral, during the admissions process. The
alleged misrepresentations relate generally to the school's
reputation, the value of the education, the competitiveness of the
admissions process, and the students' employment prospects upon
graduation, including the accuracy of statistics published by CCA.
On April 3, 2008, the same counsel representing plaintiffs in the
Amador action filed the Adams action on behalf of Jennifer Adams
and several other unnamed members of the Amador putative class.
The Adams action also is styled as a class action and is based on
the same allegations underlying the Amador action and attempts to
plead the same four causes of action pled in the Amador action.
The Adams action has been deemed related to the Amador action and
is being handled by the same judge. The Adams action has been
stayed.

Plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint on or about March 19,
2010 alleging the same causes of action, but included a new claim
based on violations of the California Education Code, which was
recently reinstated by the California legislature. Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss this new claim. The motion was taken
under submission by the Court and has not been ruled on.

In October 2010, the parties reached agreement on all the material
terms of a settlement and executed a formal settlement agreement
as of November 1, 2010. The settlement is subject to court
approval. The monetary component of the settlement involves
payment by the Company of approximately $40.0 million to pay
claims by all students who enrolled in CCA and/or graduated from
CCA from September 28, 2003 through October 8, 2008. The payment
includes plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and certain expenses to be
incurred in connection with the implementation of the settlement.

During the third quarter of 2010, the Company recorded a pretax
charge of $40.0 million which represents its best estimate of the
loss related to this matter.


CAREER EDUCATION: Awaits Ruling on Class Certification Motion
-------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation is awaiting a ruling on the class
certification motion pending in Lilley, et al. v. Career Education
Corporation, et al., according to the company's Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2010.

On February 11, 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, naming as defendants
Career Education Corporation and Sanford-Brown College, Inc.
Plaintiffs filed amended complaints on September 5, 2008 and
September 24, 2010.  The five plaintiffs named in the amended
complaint are former students who attended a medical assistant
program at Sanford-Brown College located in Collinsville,
Illinois.  The class is alleged to be all persons who enrolled in
that program since July 1, 2003.  The amended class action
complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of the Illinois
Private Business and Vocational Schools Act, for alleged unfair
conduct and deceptive conduct under the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act, as well as common law claims
of fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent omission.

In the amended complaint filed on September 24, 2010, the
plaintiffs allege that the school's enrollment agreements
contained false and misleading information regarding placement
statistics, job opportunities and salaries and that Admissions,
Financial Aid and Career Services personnel used standardized
materials that allegedly contained false and/or deceptive
information. Plaintiffs also allege that the school misused a
standardized admissions test to determine program placement when
the test was not intended for that purpose; failed to provide
allegedly statutorily required loan repayment information; and
misrepresented the transferability of credits. Plaintiffs seek
compensatory, treble and punitive damages, disgorgement and
restitution of all tuition monies received from medical assistant
students, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
October 20, 2010. On October 27, 2010 the Court granted
defendants' motion with respect to plaintiffs' fraudulent omission
claims. The Court denied the Motion with respect to the statutory
claims under the Private Schools Act and the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act and the common law fraudulent misrepresentation claim.
Defendants' brief in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class
certification is expected to be filed on November 5, 2010. The
Court has set a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class
certification for November 15, 2010.


CAREER EDUCATION: Discovery Still Ongoing in "Schuster" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2010, that discover is
ongoing in Schuster, et al. v. Western Culinary Institute, Ltd.
and Career Education Corporation.

On March 5, 2008, original named plaintiffs Shannon Gozzi and
Megan Koehnen filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of the State
of Oregon in and for Multnomah County. Plaintiffs filed the
complaint individually and as a putative class action and alleged
two claims for equitable relief: violation of Oregon's Unlawful
Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on April 10, 2008, which added two claims for
money damages: fraud and breach of contract. Plaintiffs allege
that Western Culinary Institute, Ltd., made a variety of
misrepresentations to them, relating generally to WCI's placement
statistics, students' employment prospects upon graduation from
WCI, the value and quality of an education at WCI, and the amount
of tuition students could expect to pay as compared to salaries
they may earn after graduation.

On May 21, 2008, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in
which they simply changed the statement "Claims Subject to
Mandatory Arbitration" on the caption to "Claims Not Subject to
Mandatory Arbitration". WCI and CEC filed an answer on June 13,
2008 and WCI subsequently moved to dismiss certain of plaintiffs'
claims under Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act; that motion
was granted on September 12, 2008. Shannon Gozzi subsequently
withdrew as a named plaintiff and is now asserting claims merely
as an absent class member, and former named plaintiff Meghan
Koehnen's claims have been dismissed. Jennifer Schuster became a
Plaintiff, and when Ms. Koehnen's claims were dismissed, she
became the sole named Plaintiff.

Ms. Schuster filed a third amended complaint on November 20, 2008.
Defendants filed an answer on December 5, 2008. Plaintiffs filed
their most recent pleading, a fourth amended complaint, on
September 2, 2009, and Defendants filed an answer on October 15,
2009.

The parties completed written discovery on class issues.
Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on
August 31, 2009, and oral argument on the motion was heard on
October 29, 2009. On February 5, 2010, the Court entered a formal
order granting class certification on part of the UTPA and fraud
claims purportedly based on omissions, denying certification of
the rest of those claims and denying certification of the breach
of contract and unjust enrichment claims. On April 30, 2010, the
Court addressed the issue of whether the class should include
students who enrolled prior to March 5, 2006, provided that they
were attending the school on or after March 6, 2006. Defendants
argued that the class cannot include pre-March 6, 2006 enrollees
(two years prior to the filing of the lawsuit, corresponding with
the two year statute of limitations on the fraud claim) because of
the individual questions associated with determining whether the
statute of limitations may be tolled. The Court agreed with
Defendants' position and limited the class as Defendants
suggested. Because Ms. Schuster was not a member of the certified
class (she enrolled before March 5, 2006), Plaintiff's counsel is
proposing to substitute in a new class representative for her
named Nathan Surrett. The parties are negotiating the terms of
that potential substitution, allowing WCI the right to challenge
whether the new class representative is adequate (with Plaintiff
retaining the burden of proof on that issue). Class notice has not
been sent due to the complications associated with the impending
withdrawal of the named Plaintiff and potential substitution of a
new plaintiff.

The parties are currently engaged in merits discovery. The class
will consist of students who enrolled at WCI between March 5, 2006
and March 1, 2010, excluding those who dropped out or were
dismissed from the school for academic reasons.


CAREER EDUCATION: Motion for Class Certification Due by Jan. 28
---------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2010, that plaintiffs in
Vasquez, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and
Career Education Corporation has until January 28, 2011, to file
their motion for class certification.

On June 23, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
Los Angeles County Superior Court entitled Daniel Vasquez and
Cherish Herndon v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and
Career Education Corporation. The plaintiffs allege causes of
action for fraud, constructive fraud, violation of the California
Unfair Competition Law and violation of the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiffs allege improper conduct in
connection with the admissions process during the alleged class
period. The alleged class is defined as including "all persons who
purchased educational services from California School of Culinary
Arts, Inc., or graduated from CSCA, within the limitations periods
applicable to the herein alleged causes of action (including,
without limitation, the period following the filing of the
action)."

Defendants successfully demurred to the constructive fraud claim
and the Court has dismissed it. The parties are engaged in class
discovery. The Court has set a deadline of January 28, 2011 for
plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification.


CAREER EDUCATION: Faces Two False Text Message Advertising Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation is facing two class action lawsuits
-- Fahey, et al v. Career Education Corporation; Rojas, et al v.
Career Education Corporation -- involving unauthorized text
message advertising, according to the company's Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2010.

On August 4, 2010, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, by Sheila Fahey
alleging that she had received an unauthorized text message
advertisement in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act. On September 3, 2010, CEC removed this case to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

On August 18, 2010, the same counsel representing plaintiffs in
the Fahey action filed a similar lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of Sergio
Rojas containing similar allegations. Mr. Rojas, like Ms. Fahey,
seeks class certification of his claims. The alleged classes are
defined to include persons who received unauthorized text message
advertisements from CEC. Mr. Rojas and Ms. Fahey seek an award
trebling the statutory damages to the class members, together with
costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.


CLEARWIRE CORP: Accused in Washington Suit of "Throttling"
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
that Clearwire promises "fast" and "always on" wireless Internet
service, but "purposefully slows the connection of its users
because it cannot accommodate the high volume of traffic."

A copy of the Complaint in Dennings v. Clearwire Corporation,
Case No. 10-cv-01859 (W.D. Wash.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/17/Internet.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cliff Cantor, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CLIFFORD A. CANTOR, P.C.
          627 208th Ave. SE
          Sammamish, WA 98074-7033
          Telephone: 425-868-7813
          E-mail: cacantor@comcast.net

               - and -

          Sanford P. Dumain, Esq.
          Peter E. Seidman, Esq.
          Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
          Roland Riggs, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          E-mail: sdumain@milberg.com
                  pseidman@milberg.com
                  arado@milberg.com
                  rriggs@milberg.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          Kim E. Richman, Esq.
          REESE RICHMAN LLP
          875 Avenue of the Americas, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 579-4625


CONSOL Energy: Awaits Supreme Court Decision on "Comer" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against CONSOL Energy Inc.
are still awaiting the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on their
request for a Writ of Mandamus, according to the company's
November 1, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

A class action lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi styled Comer v. CONSOL Energy, et
al. on April 21, 2006. The suit names a multitude of energy
producers, chemical manufacturers, and public utilities as
defendants. The action is a claim for the enhanced damages
suffered in Hurricane Katrina allegedly due to global warming
caused by defendants' supposed contribution to greenhouse gases.

The trial court dismissed the case and plaintiffs appealed. The
appellate court reversed and the defendants sought rehearing en
banc. Rehearing en banc was granted, but a number of judges
recused themselves and there was no longer a quorum. As a result,
the trial court's dismissal was reinstated. The Plaintiffs are
seeking a Writ of Mandamus from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Until the Supreme Court decides the appeal, it is not possible to
evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or to estimate
the range of potential loss.

CONSOL Energy believes that the case is without merit and intends
to defend it vigorously. CONSOL Energy cannot predict the ultimate
outcome, however, if damages were awarded to plaintiffs, the
result may be material to the financial position, results of
operations and cash flows of CONSOL Energy.


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Seventh Suit for Invasion of Privacy
--------------------------------------------------------
Karen Bryant and Christopher Brock, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Facebook, Inc., and Zynga Game
Network, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-05192 (N.D. Calif. November 16,
2010), accuse Facebook, a social networking Web site, and Zynga,
the dominant Facebook game designer, of sharing users' personal
information with outside companies without the users' consent, in
violation of the Electronic Communications and Privacy Act, the
Federal Stored Communications Act, California's Computer Crime
Law, and California's Unfair Competition Law.

Karen Bryant, a resident of San Francisco, in California, and
Christopher Brock, a resident of New York City, are both
Facebook users who play Zynga games on Facebook.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Dylan Hughes, Esq.
          David Stein, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com

               - and -

          Philip S. Friedman, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN LAW OFFICES, PLLC
          2401 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 410
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 293-4175
          E-mail: psf@consumerlawhelp.com

               - and -

          Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
          Daniel A. Small, Esq.
          Stefanie Ramirez, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com

Coverage of Graf v. Zynga Game Network, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-04680
(N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Tues.,
October 26, 2010; coverage of Albini v. Zynga Game Network, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 10-cv-04732 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class
Action Reporter on Wednesday, October 27, 2010; coverage of Gudac
v. Zynga Game Network, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-04793 (N.D. Calif.),
appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Friday, October 29, 2010;
coverage of Schreiber v. Zynga Game Network, Inc., Case No.
10-cv-04794 (N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter
on Friday, October 29, 2010; coverage of Carmel-Jessup v.
Facebook, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-04930 (N.D. Calif.),
appeared in the Class Action Reporter on Tuesday, November 9,
2010; and coverage of Phee v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 10-cv-04935
(N.D. Calif.), appeared in the Class Action Reporter on
November 9, 2010.


FIDELITY MANAGEMENT: Faces Class Action Suit Over 401(k) Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Jim Gallagher and The Kansas City Star
report Timothy Hendron, who is believed to have gone on a
homicidal rampage at his workplace Thursday, was suing his
employer and Fidelity Management Trust Co., the mutual fund giant.
He claimed that he and fellow employees were victimized by
excessive fees charged in their 401(k) retirement plan.

Mr. Hendron, of Webster Groves, was one of four named plaintiffs
in a class-action suit brought against their employer, ABB Inc.,
and Fidelity.  The suit was seeking money for 12,800 employees
participating in the company's retirement plan.

Fidelity, the big Boston-based mutual fund company, administered
ABB's 401(k) plan.  Basically, the suit claimed that Fidelity was
charging excessive and undisclosed fees to employees' retirement
accounts, and ABB let Fidelity get away with it.

Both Fidelity and ABB deny the allegations.

Mr. Hendron's lawyers, at the St. Louis firm of Schlichter, Bogard
& Denton, have filed at least 11 similar suits against various
companies across the nation.

The suit involves $1.5 billion in investments held by ABB workers
as of 2005.  Despite that number, Mr. Hendron probably would not
have been in for a large windfall if the suit were successful.
Fees charged by funds in large 401(k) plans rarely exceed 2
percent a year and are often much lower.  The suit involved only a
portion of those fees.

"Once divided among the participants, it's going to be a
relatively small recovery," said Peter Wiedenbeck, a professor of
law at Washington University and a specialist in employee benefits
law.  "The big stake benefits the lawyers."

Mr. Wiedenbeck noted that the law forbids employers from
retaliating against employees who file suits such as this one.

A trial of the suit began Tuesday in federal court in Kansas City.
It continued Thursday as if nothing had happened.  The St. Louis
attack wasn't mentioned in the courtroom as Judge Nanette K.
Laughrey heard technical testimony on financial issues.

During breaks, well-dressed lawyers and observers checked on their
cell phones and Blackberries for news of the shooting.  The judge
is hearing the case without a jury.

Mr. Hendron's lawyer, Jerome Schlichter, declined to comment when
approached at the courthouse by a Kansas City Star reporter.
Mr. Hendron had been listed as a potential witness in the trial.

410(k) plans typically offer investors a variety of mutual funds
to choose from.  Like other suits filed by the Schlichter firm,
Mr. Hendron's case involved the complex way that mutual fund
companies are paid.  All funds charge expenses to cover the cost
of trading stocks and bonds, administrative costs and compensation
for the fund management company.  The expenses are deducted from
investors' fund accounts.

Companies with billions in employee retirement funds can negotiate
lower fees than those charged to small investors.  The suit claims
that ABB failed to negotiate a good deal when it brought in
Fidelity to help run its employee retirement plan.

ABB "squandered the plan's enormous buying power" by letting
Fidelity offer the same mutual funds available to the public
rather than demanding a lower-cost versions of the funds,
according to the suit.

The plaintiffs also claim that Fidelity collected fees without
adequately disclosing the reason.  They claim that Fidelity sent
stock trades through its own brokerage operation, which charged
the funds too much money.  Fidelity also demanded money from non-
Fidelity funds that wanted to be included among the options in
ABB's 401(k) plan, the suit charges.  The funds then passed on
those fees to ABB employees.

The plaintiffs charge that Fidelity provided free services to an
investment plan for highly paid ABB executives because it was
making so much money on the employees' retirement plan.

Anne Crowley, spokeswoman for Fidelity, declined to discuss
specifics, but she said the firm did nothing wrong.  "We believe
we provide valuable service for 401(k) clients," she said.  "Fees
charged and compensation collected are reasonable."

Such suits are becoming more common. "We've seen a lot of action
on this specific issue in the last couple of years," said
Mr. Wiedenbeck, the law professor.  "The central theme is that,
given the amount of investment involved, the charges were
unreasonably high."

It's still unclear how courts will deal with such claims, he said.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal on DBCP Suit Termination in Hawaii Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended October 1, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 2, 2010, that a notice of appeal
is pending relating to the termination of a suit alleging injuries
arising from exposure to dibromochloropropane in Hawaii.

Beginning in December 1993, certain of the Company's U.S.
subsidiaries were named among the defendants in a number of
actions in courts in Texas, Louisiana, Hawaii, California and the
Philippines involving claims by numerous non-U.S. plaintiffs
alleging that they were injured as a result of exposure to a
nematocide containing the chemical dibromochloropropane -- DBCP --
during the period 1965 to 1990. As a result of a settlement
entered into in December 1998, the remaining unresolved DBCP
claims against the Company's U.S. subsidiaries are pending in
Louisiana and California.

In 1997, plaintiffs from Costa Rica and Guatemala named certain of
the Company's U.S. subsidiaries in a purported class action in
Hawaii. The action was dismissed by a federal district court on
grounds of forum non conveniens in favor of the courts of the
plaintiffs' home countries and the plaintiffs appealed this
decision. On April 22, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the
plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal, thereby remanding the action
to the Hawaiian state court.

On April 27, 2007, the Company's U.S. subsidiaries named in the
action, which do not have ties to Hawaii, filed a motion to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed these subsidiaries from the action on
June 28, 2007.

On February 19, 2008, plaintiffs moved to certify a worldwide
class of farm workers allegedly injured from exposure to DBCP,
which motion was denied on July 15, 2008. At a hearing held on
June 9, 2009, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the
Company's remaining U.S. subsidiaries with ties to Hawaii, holding
that the claims of the remaining plaintiffs are time-barred.  A
final judgment dismissing all remaining claims and terminating the
action was entered on July 28, 2010.

On August 24, 2010, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Remains a Defendant in Four Pineapple Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc., and its subsidiaries remain a
defendant in four "pineapple" class action lawsuits, according to
the company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 1, 2010,
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 2,
2010.

On August 2, 2004, a consolidated complaint was filed against two
of the Company's subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. This consolidated action was
brought as a putative class action on behalf of all direct and
indirect purchasers of Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet pineapples
from March 1, 1996 through the present and merges four actions
brought by fruit wholesalers and two actions brought by individual
consumers.  The consolidated complaint alleges claims for: (i)
monopolization and attempted monopolization; (ii) restraint of
trade; (iii) unfair and deceptive trade practices; and (iv) unjust
enrichment.  On May 27, 2005, the Company's subsidiaries filed a
motion to dismiss the indirect and direct purchasers' claims for
unjust enrichment. On June 29, 2005, plaintiffs filed a joint
motion for class certification. On February 20, 2008, the court
denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification of the indirect
purchasers and only granted class certification of the direct
purchasers' claims for monopolization and attempted
monopolization, which was uncontested by the Company's
subsidiaries. Also on February 20, 2008, the court granted the
motion of the Company's subsidiaries to dismiss the direct
purchasers' claims for unjust enrichment and denied as moot the
motion to dismiss the indirect purchasers' state law claims on the
basis of the court's denial of plaintiffs' motion for class
certification of the indirect purchasers.  On August 13, 2008, the
Company's subsidiaries filed a motion for summary judgment on
plaintiffs' remaining claims. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to
the motion on October 6, 2008, which the Company's subsidiaries
replied to on December 8, 2008. On September 30, 2009, the court
granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of the Company's
subsidiaries.  On October 29, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal.  Plaintiffs' appellate brief was filed on March 9, 2010,
and the Company's subsidiaries' appellate brief was filed on
July 9, 2010.

On March 5, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative
class action complaint against the Company's subsidiaries in the
state court of Tennessee on behalf of consumers who purchased
(other than for resale) Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet pineapples
in Tennessee from March 1, 1996 to May 6, 2003. The complaint
alleges violations of the Tennessee Trade Practices Act and the
Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. On February 18, 2005, the
Company's subsidiaries filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On
May 15, 2006, the court granted the motion in part, dismissing
plaintiffs' claim under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.

Between March 17, 2004 and March 18, 2004, three alleged
individual consumers separately filed putative class action
complaints against the Company and its subsidiaries in the state
court of California on behalf of residents of California who
purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet
pineapples between March 1, 1996 and May 6, 2003. On November 9,
2005, the three actions were consolidated under one amended
complaint with a single claim for unfair competition in violation
of the California Business and Professional Code. On September 26,
2008, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class action. The
Company and its subsidiaries filed an opposition on February 13,
2009, to which plaintiffs filed a reply on May 11, 2009. At the
hearing held on May 20, 2009, the court issued a tentative opinion
granting certification based on a California Supreme Court
decision issued on May 19, 2009, but requested further briefing.
The Company and plaintiffs have served supplemental briefs in
response. On August 20, 2009, the court reversed its tentative
opinion of May 20, 2009 and denied class certification. At the
rescheduled case management conference held on September 23, 2009,
the court denied plaintiffs' request seeking withdrawal of the
court's class certification denial. On October 19, 2009,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court's order denying
class certification.

On April 19, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative
class action complaint against the Company's subsidiaries in the
state court of Florida on behalf of Florida residents who
purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet
pineapples between March 1, 1996 and May 6, 2003. The only
surviving claim under the amended complaint alleges violations of
the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act relating only
to pineapples purchased since April 19, 2000. The Company's
subsidiaries filed an answer to the remaining claim of the amended
complaint on October 12, 2006. On August 5, 2008, plaintiffs filed
a motion to certify a class action. The company's subsidiaries
filed an opposition on January 22, 2009 to which plaintiffs filed
a reply on May 11, 2009.


GSI GROUP: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for February 16
----------------------------------------------------------
A Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses, and Settlement
Fairness Hearing has been issued in a litigation brought against
GSI Group Inc.

      UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT COURT OF


                          MASSACHUSETTS

WILTOLD TRZECIAKOWSKI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,

                               v.

GSI GROUP INC., SERGIO EDELSTEIN and ROBERT BOWEN, Defendants.

                       NO. 08-CV-12065-GAO

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
THE COMMON STOCK OF GSI GROUP INC. BETWEEN FEBRUARY 27, 2007 AND
JUNE 30, 2009, INCLUSIVE, AND WHO WERE DAMAGED THEREBY (THE
"CLASS").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that this Class Action is pending and that
a settlement of it for Three Million Two-Hundred and Fifty
Thousand Dollars ($3,250,000) has been proposed.  A hearing will
be held before the Honorable George A. O'Toole, Jr. in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in
Courtroom 9, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, Massachusetts, 02210, at
2:00 p.m., on February 16, 2011 to determine whether: (1) the
proposed settlement should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable and adequate; (2) Lead Counsel's application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, and a case
contribution payment to the Lead Plaintiff, should be approved;
and (3) the claims against Defendants should be dismissed with
prejudice.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT
FUND.  If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of
Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Motion for Attorneys' Fees
and Reimbursement of Expenses and Settlement Fairness Hearing (the
"Notice") and Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim")
you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting:

  GSI Group Securities Litigation
  c/o Strategic Claims Services
  P.O. Box 230
  600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 3
  Media, PA 19063

  or at http://www.strategicclaims.net/

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim,
may be made to Lead Counsel:

  Lisa M. Mezzetti
  S. Douglas Bunch
  COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
  1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
  West Tower, Suite 500
  Washington, D.C. 20005

To participate in the Settlement, you must submit a Proof of Claim
no later than March 11, 2011.  As more fully described in the
Notice, the deadline for submitting objections to the Settlement
and requests for exclusions from the Class is February 2, 2011;
they must be received by this date.

Further information may also be obtained by directing your inquiry
in writing to the Claims Administrator, Strategic Claims Services,
at the address listed above. Please do not contact the Court.

BY ORDER OF THE COURT.


ORACLE CORP: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Barry B. Burr, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports a
federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld the dismissal of a
class-action lawsuit against Oracle Corp. by Nursing Home Pension
Fund, Local 144, which claimed CEO Lawrence Ellison made false
statements to boost the stock price during an economic downturn
following the technology bubble almost 10 years ago.

The New York-based pension fund did not develop sufficient
evidence to reasonably show that their investment losses were
caused by the market's reaction to alleged fraud by Mr. Ellison
and other Oracle executives, "as opposed to Oracle's poor
financial health generally," wrote Judge Richard C. Tallman of the
U.S. Appellate Court in San Francisco, upholding the June 2009
dismissal by U.S. District Court in San Francisco.

The alleged losses for members of the class action involved
billions of dollars from a drop in market capitalization, said
Sanford Svetcov, partner with the law firm of Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd, which represented the nursing home fund, the lead
plaintiff in the case.

The pension fund's specific investment losses "have yet to be
determined by the court," Mr. Svetcov said, who had no further
details on the fund's Oracle investment.

The size of the pension fund could not be learned by press time.

Pension fund officials and their attorneys were "disappointed" by
the ruling, Mr. Svetcov said in an interview.

They are considering an appeal to the full appellate court,
Mr. Svetcov said, noting it has to be filed by Nov. 30.

The suit, filed in March 2001, alleged the losses occurred between
Dec. 14, 2000, and March 1, 2001.


MARTIN GUAJARDO: Sued for Defrauding Immigrant Clients
------------------------------------------------------
Drew Himmelstein, writing for Millbrae Patch, reports a civil case
and a class action lawsuit have been brought against Martin
Guajardo and his law firm for practicing without a license and
misleading clients.

Disbarred immigration attorney Martin Resendez Guajardo defrauded
thousands of Bay Area immigrant clients over his 35-year career,
overcharging them as he made unrealistic promises about their
cases while providing negligent representation, according to two
lawsuits filed in San Francisco Superior Court this morning.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera announced at a press
conference in City Hall that his office is suing Mr. Guajardo for
unfair business practices and requested a preliminary injunction
to force Mr. Guajardo to stop practicing law and notify his
clients that he is no longer a licensed attorney.

"In every case, money was taken out of their pocket and work was
not done," Mr. Herrera said.  "There are a great many people in
this country on all sides of the immigration debate who agree that
people need their rights protected."

Mr. Guajardo had clients from all over the Bay Area and from every
immigrant community, including the Latino, Indian and Russian
communities, Mr. Herrera said.  Though his main office is in the
San Francisco Financial District, an advertisement on Craigslist
indicated that he is hiring staff for an office in Sunnyvale.

According to Mr. Herrera, Mr. Guajardo was able to convince
clients he would hand them the American Dream.

"When someone is pursuing a dream, you grab onto hope,"
Mr. Herrera said.

Mr. Herrera portrayed Mr. Guajardo as a "wonderful marketer" who
drove expensive cars and plastered the city with ads.  He set up
his office near the immigration court downtown and made
extravagant promises to clients who were facing deportation orders
and other immigration issues.  He charged them exorbitant fees,
but gave bad advice and often failed to take appropriate legal
action, Mr. Herrera said.

"In some ways, if you do a bad job, it's a perfect situation: your
client is deported," said Lynne Hermle, a lawyer with Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe who filed a class action suit Thursday
morning on behalf of Mr. Guajardo's clients.

Mark Silverman, director of immigration policy at the Immigrant
Legal Resource Center, said he encountered cases where Guajardo
was charging clients $60,000 or $70,000 for work that would
normally be billed at $6,000 to $10,000.

"When this case is done, you will see the fancy cars and expensive
suits of Mr. Guajardo were paid for by the sweat and tears of
people at their most vulnerable," said David Campos, member of the
San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

The city attorney's suit also names attorney Christopher Stender,
Mr. Guajardo's alleged partner, and the Immigration Practice
Group, the firm Herrera says Mr. Guajardo founded on the day
before he voluntarily resigned from the California State Bar.

The California State Bar suspended Mr. Guajardo three times and
the Ninth Circuit disciplined him twice in the 1990s for
misconduct against clients, according to the city attorney's
complaint.  The misconduct includes cases where Mr. Guajardo
neglected to return client money and where he didn't take action
on cases for which he had been hired.  Eventually, the Board of
Immigration Appeals barred Mr. Guajardo from appearing before
them.

In 2008, facing further disciplinary action, Mr. Guajardo
voluntarily resigned from the California State Bar.  Though
Christopher Stender was the attorney of record at the Immigration
Practice Group, Mr. Herrera alleges that Mr. Guajardo regularly
met with clients and provided legal advice.  He did not inform
clients that he was no longer a licensed attorney, as required by
law.

The lawsuits are focused on these last two years of Mr. Guajardo's
career, when he allegedly continued to practice law without a
license and misled clients.

There are currently three named plaintiffs in the class action
lawsuit, but Orrick will add more as further complainants come
forward, Ms. Hermle said.  Mr. Guajardo's former clients are
invited to a workshop at UC Hastings on Dec. 1 to consult with
lawyers about their experiences.  Services will be provided in
English, Spanish, Hindi, French, Cantonese and Mandarin.

Former clients can also call (415) 773-4266 for more information
about the class action lawsuit.

City officials stressed it's important that immigrants realize
there are reputable resources available to them.

"If your attorney asks you to lie or do something unethical, walk
away," said Anoop Prasad, staff attorney with the Asian Law
Caucus.

Further Resources:

If you believe you were a victim of Martin Guajardo, Christopher
Stender or the Immigration Practice Group, you can attend a free,
confidential workshop for victims on Dec. 1 from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30
p.m. at UC Hastings College of the Law, Louis B. Mayer Lounge, 200
McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA.  Services will be provided
in English, Spanish, Hindi, French, Cantonese and Mandarin.

Or, call Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe for further information
about the class action lawsuit: (415) 773-4266


MGIC INVESTMENT: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Amend Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
MGIC Investment Corporation said in a Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 1, 2010, that it is awaiting a
ruling on a motion filed by plaintiffs for leave to amend a
consolidated class action complaint.

Five previously-filed purported class action complaints filed
against the Company and several of its executive officers were
consolidated in March 2009 in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin and Fulton County Employees'
Retirement System was appointed as the lead plaintiff. The lead
plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on June 22,
2009.

The Company said that due in part to its length and structure, it
is difficult to summarize briefly the allegations in the Complaint
but it appears the allegations are that the Company and its
officers named in the Complaint violated the federal securities
laws by misrepresenting or failing to disclose material
information about (i) loss development in its insurance in force,
and (ii) C-BASS, including its liquidity.  The Company's motion to
dismiss the Complaint was granted on February 18, 2010. On
March 18, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an
amended complaint. Attached to this motion was a proposed Amended
Complaint. The Amended Complaint alleges that the Company and two
of its officers named in the Amended Complaint violated the
federal securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to disclose
material information about C-BASS, including its liquidity, and by
failing to properly account for the company's investment in C-
BASS. The Amended Complaint also names two officers of C-BASS with
respect to the Amended Complaint's allegations regarding C-BASS.
The purported class period covered by the Amended Complaint begins
on February 6, 2007 and ends on August 13, 2007. The Amended
Complaint seeks damages based on purchases of the Company's stock
during this time period at prices that were allegedly inflated as
a result of the purported violations of federal securities laws.

On April 12, 2010, the Company filed a motion in opposition to
Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend its complaint. The Company
said it is unable to predict the outcome of these consolidated
cases or estimate its associated expenses or possible losses. The
Company stated that other lawsuits alleging violations of the
securities laws could be brought against it.


NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Toxic CDOs
------------------------------------------------------
James Thompson, writing for SmartCompany.com.au, reports
Melbourne-based law firm Maurice Blackburn was set to launch a
$450 million class action against National Australia Bank on
behalf of shareholders, who claim the bank took too long to
disclose the fact it holds $1.1 billion worth of collateralized
debt obligations, the toxic debt instruments at the heart of the
2008 banking crisis.

Meanwhile, a group of former St George Bank managers have launched
action against their former employer in the Federal Court over the
non-payment of bonuses they say they are entitled to.

The NAB lawsuit, which was set to be filed in the Victorian
Supreme Court on Thursday, November 18, comes almost two-and-a-
half years after NAB first revealed its real exposure to the CDOs.

In May 2008, with the GFC in full swing, the bank booked a $181
million provision against the CDOs, but just three months later
announced it would take an $830 million provision against the $1.1
billion portfolio.

The announcement sent NAB shares falling 16% in two days to
$25.80.  The shares are still trading just below $25.

The lawsuit is open to shareholders who purchased NAB shares
between January 1, 2008 and July 25, 2008.

"We are not saying NAB was right or wrong for buying these
things," Maurice Blackburn lawyers Andrew Watson told the
Australian Financial Review.

"It may or may not have been sensible.  What we are saying is that
when there are trends going on for a year, NAB should have told
the sharemarket earlier."

In the St George case, a group of former St George managers have
filed a Federal Court action claiming they were denied generous
retention bonuses in 2008.

The managers says then St George chief Paul Fegan promised the
bonuses if earnings per share growth hit 8-10% and say that as
earnings per shares were 8.3% that year, there were entitled to
get their bonuses.

But the bank says the target was changed to 10.1% at a special
directors meeting after Mr. Fegan had told the bankers their
targets.

A lawyer for the managers said they would "plead deceit" on the
basis of "recklessness".

The case returns to court on December 16.


PPG INDUSTRIES: Inks $6 Million Settlement of Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc., said in a Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 1, 2010, that it reached an agreement
settling a consolidated class action lawsuit for $6 million.

Several complaints were filed in late 2007 and early 2008 in
different federal courts naming PPG and other flat glass producers
as defendants in purported antitrust class actions. The complaints
allege that the defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain and
stabilize the price and the terms and conditions of sale of flat
glass in the United States in violation of federal antitrust laws.

In June 2008, these cases were consolidated into one federal court
class action in Pittsburgh, Pa. In the consolidated complaint, the
plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants
from future violations of the federal antitrust laws, unspecified
compensatory damages, including treble damages, and the recovery
of their litigation costs. Many allegations in the complaints are
similar to those raised in proceedings by the European Commission
in which fines were levied against other flat glass producers
arising out of alleged antitrust violations. PPG is not involved
in any of the proceedings in Europe. PPG divested its European
flat glass business in 1998. A complaint containing allegations
substantially similar to the U.S. litigation and seeking
compensatory and punitive damages in amounts to be determined by
the court was filed in the Superior Court in Windsor, Ontario,
Canada in August 2008 regarding the sale of flat glass in Canada.

In the third quarter of 2010, the other defendants in these cases
agreed to settlements. Although PPG is aware of no wrongdoing or
conduct on its part in the operation of its flat glass business
that violated any antitrust laws, in order to avoid the ongoing
expense of this protracted case, as well as the risks and
uncertainties associated with complex litigation involving jury
trials, in the third quarter of 2010 PPG reached an agreement in
principle to resolve these flat glass antitrust matters for
approximately $6 million. The charge for these matters was
recorded in Other charges for the three and nine month periods
ending September 30, 2010.


RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Calif. Court Dismisses 2009 Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2010, that the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California has entered
a final judgment dismissing a consolidated securities class action
filed against the company in February 2009.

On February 6, 2009, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was commenced in the Court, naming as defendants the Company and
certain of its officers, directors and underwriters for its
February 2008 stock offering. An additional purported securities
class action lawsuit containing similar allegations was
subsequently filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on February 20, 2009. By order of
the Court dated March 19, 2009, the two lawsuits were consolidated
into a single action.

On June 9, 2009, the Court issued an order naming the Inter-Local
Pension Fund GCC/IBT as lead plaintiff and Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP (formerly Coughlin Stoia) as lead counsel. The lead
plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on July 24, 2009. The
Company filed a motion to dismiss on September 8, 2009. On
December 21, 2009, the Court granted the Company's motion and
dismissed the consolidated complaint with leave to amend.

Plaintiff filed its consolidated amended complaint on January 27,
2010. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933
and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
allegedly false and misleading statements made by the Company
related to the results of the Phase 2a clinical trial of its
product candidate fostamatinib. The plaintiffs seek damages,
including rescission or rescissory damages for purchasers in the
stock offering, an award of their costs and injunctive and/or
equitable relief for purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period between December 13, 2007 and February 9, 2009,
including purchasers in the stock offering. The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on
February 16, 2010.  On August 24, 2010, the Court issued an order
granting the Company's motion and dismissed the consolidated
complaint with leave to amend.

On September 22, 2010, plaintiff filed a notice informing the
Court that it will not amend its complaint and requested that the
Court enter a final judgment.  On October 28, 2010, plaintiff
submitted a proposed judgment requesting entry of a final judgment
in favor of the defendants.  On November 1, 2010, the Court
entered a final judgment.  Now that a final judgment has been
entered in the action, plaintiff may and is expected to appeal the
Court's decision to grant the Company's motion to dismiss.


ROCK OF AGES: Says Second Swenson Merger-Related Suit Has No Merit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rock of Ages Corporation said in a Form 8-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2010 that it has
been named defendant in a second purported class action related to
its merger with Swenson Granite Company LLC and Granite
Acquisition LLC.

On Friday evening, October 29, 2010, the Company became aware that
a second purported class action, in addition to the Semon
litigation, was filed on October 27, 2010, in the United States
District Court for the District of Vermont. The new action,
Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust v. Rock of Ages Corp. et al.,
names as defendants the Company, each of its current directors,
Swenson Granite and Granite Acquisition, which is wholly owned by
Swenson Granite. None of the defendants have yet been served. The
plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties in approving the
previously announced merger agreement among the Company, Swenson
Granite and Granite Acquisition, LLC, providing for the
acquisition of the Company through a merger of Granite
Acquisition, LLC with and into the Company, with the Company
surviving the merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Swenson
Granite. Plaintiff further alleges that Swenson Granite and
Granite Acquisition, LLC aided and abetted such breaches of duty.
The plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin the proposed
merger, or alternatively, to rescind the transaction in the event
it is consummated.

The Company believes the complaint is without merit and plans a
vigorous defense.


SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC: Writ of Mandamus Pending in "Comer" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Southwestern Public Service Company said in a Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010, filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 1, 2010, that a writ of
mandamus is pending in the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Comer
vs. Xcel Energy Inc., et al.

In 2006, Xcel Energy, the parent company of SPS, received notice
of a purported class action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court
in the Southern District of Mississippi.  The lawsuit, titled
Comer vs. Xcel Energy Inc., et al., names more than 45 oil,
chemical and utility companies, including Xcel Energy, as
defendants and alleges that defendants' CO2 emissions "were a
proximate and direct cause of the increase in the destructive
capacity of Hurricane Katrina."  Plaintiffs allege negligence and
public and private nuisance and seek damages related to the loss
resulting from the hurricane.

Xcel Energy believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself against these claims.  In August 2007,
the court dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety against all
defendants on constitutional grounds.  Plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

In October 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
reversed the district court decision, in part, concluding that the
plaintiffs pleaded sufficient facts to overcome the constitutional
challenges that formed the basis for dismissal by the district
court.  A subsequent petition by defendants, including Xcel
Energy, for en banc review was granted.  On May 28, 2010, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that it lacked an en
banc quorum of nine active members to hear the case.  It dismissed
the appeal, which resulted in the reinstatement of the district
court's opinion dismissing the case.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed with the U.S. Supreme Court a writ
of mandamus, which is a procedure requesting the court to order
the Fifth Circuit to review plaintiffs' earlier appeal.  SPS said
it intends to oppose this request.


USA TRUCK: Petition for Removal of "Cerdenia" Suit Is Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
USA Truck, Inc.'s petition for removal of a class action lawsuit
from state court to federal court remains pending, according to
the company's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010,
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 1,
2010.

On July 2, 2010, a former driver employee filed a lawsuit against
the company titled Hermes Cerdenia vs. USA Truck, Inc. in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Bernardino, alleging various violations of the California Labor
Code and seeking certification of the suit as a class action to
include "all individuals currently and formerly employed in
California as drivers, or other similarly titled positions."

The Company has filed a petition seeking to remove the case to the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California and has filed an answer denying the plaintiff's
allegations. The petition for removal is currently pending before
the court.  The lawsuit seeks monetary damages for the alleged
violations.


WESTMONT LIVING: Faces Class Action Over Stolen Drugs
-----------------------------------------------------
Lien Hoang, writing for The Press Tribune, reports Westmont Living
is facing a class action lawsuit for allowing nurse Marlene Delp,
64, to steal drugs from more than 50 seniors to feed her
painkiller addiction.

The family of Loretta Drewno call April a hell month.

Ms. Drewno, 88, lived a happily undisturbed life at the Terraces
of Roseville, playing bingo with girlfriends, having her hair done
and watching films.

But in the month of hell, Ms. Drewno began to hallucinate.  With
no explanation, she developed fear, paranoia, excruciating pain
and then, paralysis.  She thought she was dying.

Terraces employees told her she had six months to live and a
priest gave Ms. Drewno her last rites.

Then, as if by magic, the symptoms disappeared.

"It was like someone came with a wand," daughter Sue Fone said.

But the only change was that Ms. Fone resumed administering
lymphedema medicine to her mother -- something she had stopped
doing at the behest of Ms. Delp.

Now Ms. Fone, who believes the Terraces nurse stole her mother's
medication, is a primary plaintiff in litigation against Westmont
Living, which runs the senior home.

The proposed class-action lawsuit charges La Jolla-based Westmont
with "egregious neglect" because its "officers, directors and/or
managing agents both directly and indirectly authorized and hid
the reckless neglect suffered."

Westmont lawyer Reuben Jacobson said, "We vigorously dispute
that," adding that Ms. Delp's actions ran counter to the company's
morals and policies.

As details emerge that Ms. Delp had similar problems at her prior
employer, one other family said it is suing Westmont privately,
but the company said it hasn't been served that lawsuit.

From med room to jail cell

On Oct. 27, Ms. Delp pleaded no contest to felony drug possession
and elder abuse.  Police had arrested the registered nurse Aug. 18
at the Terraces, 707 Sunrise Ave.  There, officers found in her
apartment medication prescribed to 28 people, including 19
Terraces residents.

The day of her arrest, Ms. Delp was "cooperative and respectful"
but resisted handing over a garbage bag filled with prescription
bottles until the thought of handcuffs unnerved her.

"Delp then asked me if she gave me the bag would I not take her to
jail," Roseville Detective Jeff Kool wrote in his report.

A team of investigators discovered Ms. Delp was polishing off
roughly 15 pills a day, holding onto a cache of drugs long after
they should have been destroyed.  She gave residents over-the-
counter pills in place of their prescriptions and took medication
from some seniors to give to others.  When confronted with the
discrepancies, Ms. Delp displaced blame to family members.

Drugs she reportedly abused include morphine, the narcotic
hydrocodone and painkillers propoxyphen and Vicodin.

Mr. Kool concluded that "Delp used her title and position to abuse
the system," which he called a "travesty."

'Mentally scarred'

As a nurse, Ms. Fone said she understood addiction, but her mother
should not have paid for Ms. Delp's problems.

Although Ms. Drewno has improved, her family believes she is
"mentally scarred."  She lost much of the freedom she had at the
Terraces, now depending on caregivers and afraid to admit
strangers in her new nursing home.  She has trouble articulating
thoughts, but is aware of her deteriorating mind.

"Marlene did this to me," she would say again and again.

Fellow plaintiff Nancy Joan Williams, who has Parkinson's, also
noticed in August that Ms. Delp was not giving her proper
medication.  Her condition degenerated for weeks until one day,
she found herself paralyzed.

Ms. Williams is back to normal after family restored her original
pill regimen, but is looking for a new home.

"Abusing the elderly like that is a chicken s--- crime," daughter
Deborah Hudson said.

She and others represented by Sacramento attorney Mark Redmond
hope their case will serve a public good.

"The goal is to deter nurses and caregivers from ever considering
the temptation of taking resident medications," Mr. Redmond said.

From Beverly Hills to Roseville

Another goal is to encourage coworkers to speak up, which
Christopher Rodriguez tried to do in 2008.

He worked on the night medtech team at Oakdale Heights in Beverly
Hills, reporting to Ms. Delp, who worked there before the
Terraces.  Oakdale coworkers have now come forward to say she
abused not only drugs but alcohol.

Mr. Rodriguez said he noticed medicine disappear periodically
during his time on Oakdale's night medtech team.  When he told
Ms. Delp, she blamed the morning team -- which is exactly what
Roseville employees say she did at the Terraces.

Ms. Delp also drank at the retirement home, said Rodriguez, whose
claim was repeated by former Oakdale chef's assistant Daniel
Morris.  Though he drank whiskey with Ms. Delp and a group of
coworkers at her office after hours and was seen as a friend,
Morris said she had an alcohol addiction.

She seemed to possess an incessant "bad mood," Mr. Morris said,
"but if you get to know her, she's much better than her exterior."

Still, he added, "There were a lot of question marks when it came
to her personality."

Cover up?

But Ms. Delp's abrasive nature did not rival that of her boss Mary
Murphy, who has faced flak on all sides for a "nasty" and
"aggressive" reputation.  As executive director, Ms. Murphy hired
Ms. Delp in both Roseville and Beverly Hills.

Ms. Murphy is the key actor that could define Ms. Delp's crime as
either an individual act -- which Westmont asserts -- or as a
systemic ill implicating multiple players, which the lawsuit
alleges.

She has been fingered for concealing Ms. Delp's abuse, which she
staunchly denies.

In a February meeting, a Terraces employee played for Ms. Murphy a
voicemail in which Ms. Delp OK'd giving one patient's medication
to another.

The employee told police that Ms. Murphy said at the time: "Oh my
God she's caught.  Now how am I going to cover this up?"

Ms. Murphy then said Ms. Delp had years of experience and knew
what she was doing.

After the nurse's arrest, Ms. Murphy told investigators such pill
swapping would elicit "immediate termination."

But in an interview with the Press Tribune, Ms. Murphy repeated
what she told police: She dealt with hundreds of residents and
employees and didn't remember the February meeting.

Ms. Murphy said the accusations against her are "absolutely not
true."

"I respected her and trusted her, and that's what I told Roseville
police I was guilty of," she said.  "That's why this betrayal hurt
so badly."

She expressed continued shock as the Press Tribune informed her of
Delp's developments, which Ms. Murphy said she stopped following
after Westmont fired her with Ms. Delp.

Despite impressions that they were close, Ms. Murphy distanced
herself from her former employee.

"I would not say we were friends," she said. "Professionally we
were friends, but we did not socialize outside of work."

Day in court

Ms. Murphy didn't seem to convince police, however.  In his
report, Mr. Kool said, "I believe Murphy was being dishonest and
trying to cover up for Delp . . .  and did absolutely nothing to
rectify the situation and protect the elderly."

The investigation found that Ms. Delp stopped medtechs from
counting pills, which she would administer or claim to destroy out
of her bedroom.  She sometimes failed to watch residents swallow
their medication, and forced staff to sign off on false reports.

Ms. Delp and her public defender, Bill Boyce, did not return
repeated requests for comment.

Westmont's lawyer Reuben Jacobson said that after letting Ms. Delp
go, the facility reviewed its procedures and came up with "a clean
bill of health."

In hiring the nurse, he said, Westmont verified her license and
fingerprinted her, but did no drug test.

At her sentencing Dec. 22, Ms. Delp faces three years formal
probation and 8-12 months in the Placer County jail, thanks to her
plea deal.  Families from whom Ms. Delp stole drugs have been
attending her court appearances.

"We sit across the aisle so Marlene knows we're there," Ms. Fone
said.

She will be at court for the sentencing, as well.

                             *********

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

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