/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110202.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, February 2, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 23


ACCURAY INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Still Pending
ADOBE SYSTEMS: Court Dismisses Consolidated Suit Over Omniture Buy
BLUE CROSS: March 2 Class Action Consolidation Hearing Set
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Class Action in Conn.
GENOPTIX INC: Being Sold to Novartis for Too Little, Suit Claims

HARRIS CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: Appeal of Batesville Suit Dismissal Pending
HOUSEHOLD GOODS: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay
INTELIUS: Accused of Publishing False Criminal Records
KEE ACTION: Recalls 1,400 BT SA-17 Paintball Gun/Marker

KV PHARMA: Class Action Over Adulterated Medicine May Proceed
LENNOX INDUSTRIES: June 2 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
MICROSOFT CORP: Appeal From Certification of Canadian Suit Pending
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Sued for Violations of Federal Antitrust Laws
NETFLIX INC: Sued for Violation of Calif. Customer Records Act

NOVARTIS AG: US Unit Remains a Defendant in Zelnorm Suit in Canada
NOVARTIS AG: Conference on NPC Certiorari Petition Set for Feb. 18
NOVARTIS AG: Dismissal of Texas State Class Suits on Appeal
PHILIPS ELECTRONICS: May 2 Hearing on BPA Baby Bottle Settlement
RCA RUBBER: Sued for Terminating Retiree Medical Benefits

REDBOX AUTOMATED: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Gets New Counsel
SMURFIT-STONE: D&Os Sued for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
SYMANTEC CORP: Sued Over Deceptive Sale of "Download Insurance"
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Recognizes $7MM Net Gain on Adjusted Reserves
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Appeal Pending on Dealer Lawsuit Verdict

UPONOR INC: May Face Class Action Over Pex Plumbing Fittings
VIACOM: Agrees to Settle Class Action for $2.75 Million

* Lawsuit Filings in Madison County Down by 125 Cases in 2010


ACCURAY INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Still Pending
Accuray Incorporated's motion to dismiss an amended complaint
filed by plaintiffs in a consolidated securities class action
lawsuit in California remains pending.

On July 22, 2009, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors and officers.  On August 7, 2009 and August 9, 2009, two
securities class action complaints, both similar to the one filed
on July 22, 2009, were filed against the same defendants in the
same court.  These three actions were consolidated.  The
consolidated complaint generally alleges that the Company and the
individual defendants made false or misleading public statements
regarding the Company's operations and seek unspecified monetary
damages and other relief.  On August 31, 2010, the Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint and
granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint.  On
September 27, 2010, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  The
amended complaint names the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors as defendants and generally alleges
that the defendants made false or misleading public statements
regarding the Company's operations.  The amended complaint seeks
unspecified monetary damages and other relief.  Defendants have
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

No updates were reported in the Company's Jan. 27, 2011, Form 10-Q
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended December 31, 2010.

ADOBE SYSTEMS: Court Dismisses Consolidated Suit Over Omniture Buy
A Utah court has dismissed a consolidated class action against
Adobe Systems Inc. at a November 2010 hearing, according to the
Company's Jan. 27, 2010, Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 3, 2010.

Between September 23, 2009 and September 25, 2009, three putative
class action lawsuits were filed in the Fourth Judicial District
Court for Utah County, Provo Department, State of Utah, seeking to
enjoin Adobe's acquisition of Omniture, Inc. and to recover
damages in the event the transaction were to close.  The cases
were captioned Miner v. Omniture, Inc., et. al., Barrell v.
Omniture, Inc. et. al., and Lodhia v. Omniture, Inc. et al.  At a
hearing on October 20, 2009, the court consolidated the Miner,
Barrell, and Lodhia cases into a single case under the Lodhia
caption and denied the plaintiffs' motion to preliminarily enjoin
the closing of the transaction.  On December 30, 2009, the
plaintiffs served the defendants with a consolidated amended
complaint for damages arising out of the closing of the
transaction. In the consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs
alleged that the members of Omniture's board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties to Omniture's stockholders by failing to
seek the highest possible price for Omniture and that both Adobe
and Omniture induced or aided and abetted in the alleged breach.
The plaintiffs also alleged that the Schedule 14D-9
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement filed by Omniture on
September 24, 2009 in connection with the transaction contained
inadequate disclosures and was materially misleading.  Plaintiffs
sought unspecified damages on behalf of the former public
stockholders of Omniture.  On March 8, 2010, Adobe and the other
defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim.  The court heard oral argument on the motion in November
2010 and the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
complaint with prejudice.

Adobe Systems Incorporated -- http://www.adobe.com/-- is a
diversified software companies.  The company offers a line of
creative, business and mobile software and services used by
creative professionals, knowledge workers, consumers, original
equipment manufacturer (OEM) partners, developers and enterprises
for creating, managing, delivering and engaging with content and
experiences across multiple operating systems, devices and media.

BLUE CROSS: March 2 Class Action Consolidation Hearing Set
Chad Halcom, writing for Crain's Detroit Business, reports a
recent pile-on of prospective class-action lawsuits against Blue
Cross Blue Shield of Michigan over its favorable charging
agreements with health care providers could merge into one more
orderly case in weeks, attorneys said.

At least four lawsuits seeking more than $20 million in combined
damages have been filed since October against the insurance
company over its "most favored nation" contracts with hospitals,
although one case already has been dismissed and a fifth case is
still taking shape.

Most-favored nation agreements are billing arrangements Blue Cross
allegedly began making with Michigan's 131 hospitals in 2007,
either for the carrier to match any price a competing private
insurer pays on medical services or requiring hospitals to charge
competitors more than Blue Cross -- usually by a set percentage.

But is there one cohesive class that can be made out of four

"It's a real chess game right now, with all of the competing
interests," said Gregory Drutchas, principal at Detroit-based
Kitch Drutchas Wagner Valitutti & Sherbrook PC and head of its
health care practice.  "There's probably not a county in this
state that some attorney couldn't find a plaintiff -- employer or
insurer. But consolidating all the cases could mix some winners
with some losers, or spoil the whole case.

"I'm sure Blue Cross has some lawyers who are really thinking out
every move here.  Because what you do very early on could set the
whole tone."

All of the cases filed so far largely mirror the U.S. Department
of Justice and Michigan attorney general's joint antitrust lawsuit
against Blue Cross but seek specific damages on behalf of other
insurers or insured businesses.  Attorneys in most, if not all, of
the lawsuits expect to appear March 2 before U.S. District Judge
Denise Page Hood on a motion for consolidation.

"We are going to have to prove some of the same things, but the
government is after injunctive relief to stop the practice, and we
have specific monetary damages to assert," said Jason Thompson,
partner at Sommers Schwartz PC and chairman of its complex
litigation department, who brought the latest class-action lawsuit
on behalf of the City of Pontiac earlier this month.

Pontiac, which is self-insured and has used Humana Inc. as a
third-party claims administrator since ending its Blue Cross
relationship in 2008, is now suing the insurer and 22 Michigan
hospitals alleged to have "most favored nation-plus" agreements
with Blue Cross in a lawsuit before U.S. District Judge Steven

The plus agreements allegedly caused hospitals to charge Blue
Cross' competitors more than 20 percent above Blue Cross for
services at William Beaumont Hospitals in Royal Oak and St. John
Providence Health System in Warren, to as much as 39 percent more
at Covenant Medical Center in Saginaw, according to government and
class-action lawsuits.

More conventional most-favored nation agreements allegedly
required only that Blue Cross get a billing rate at least equal to
any other insurer.

Also suing are Hillsdale-based The Shane Group Inc. and Bradley
Veneberg of Munising in an Oct. 29 lawsuit, and the Michigan
Regional Council of Carpenters Employee Assistance Fund along with
the Abatement Workers National Health and Welfare Fund and Monroe
Plumbers & Pipefitter Local 671 Welfare Fund in a Dec. 8 lawsuit.

A fourth case over most-favored nation status was filed Nov. 22 by
Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance Co. but withdrawn the same week;
Haverford, Pa.-based Chimicles & Tikellis LLP is seeking
plaintiffs who received care at any of at least 18 Michigan
hospitals for a "potential" lawsuit against Blue Cross.

"We continue to believe the government's lawsuit is deficient and
should be dismissed. (And) while we haven't responded formally to
the civil suits, our position is that they ignore the benefits of
negotiating for the deepest possible discounts for Michigan
customers," said Helen Stojic, director of corporate affairs for
the Blues.

"Piggyback plaintiff lawsuits are not a surprise or unusual in
these circumstances."

The Justice Department and attorney general found that in 2007
Blue Cross had threatened to cut payments up to 16% to 45 small
and rural hospitals if they did not take most-favored nation

Blue Cross made a motion to dismiss that case, which is up for a
hearing before Judge Hood on March 2.  Judge Hood also expects to
hear a motion to consolidate all the prospective class actions and
appoint a lead counsel later the same day, and plaintiff attorneys
said they are in an ongoing dialogue about combining their

Andrew Wachler, president of Wachler & Associates PC in Royal Oak,
said the Blues could mount an argument that a dispute over billing
rates belongs before the state Office of Financial and Insurance
Regulation, not in court, under the state Public Act 350 of 1980,
which creates a method for administrative appeals.

"If you show that the Blues failed to serve a class or fulfill its
duties under (that law), you can file an administrative appeal to
require the Blues to change their policies," he said.  "I think
you could challenge them there on something like this, but then
you wouldn't make as much money as you could by challenging the
practice this way."

COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Class Action in Conn.
Scott+Scott LLP on Jan 28 disclosed that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of purchasers of certain mortgage-backed
securities sponsored by affiliates of Countrywide Financial
Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc. (collectively, "Countrywide") and related trusts (the
"Issuing Trusts"), issued between 2005 and 2007.  The class action
complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933
(the "Securities Act"), Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") and the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act, was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the action, you must
move the Court no later than March 30, 2011.  Any member of the
investor class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of its choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this action
or have questions concerning this notice or your rights, please

          Telephone: (800) 404-7770
                     (860) 537-5537
          E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com
          Web site: http://www.scott-scott.com/

for more information.  There is no cost or fee to you.

The Complaint alleges claims under the Securities Act and Exchange
Act on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the
following Countrywide mortgage pass-through certificates (the
"Class"): Alternative Loan Trust Certificates CWALT 2005-43, CWALT
2007-1T1, CWALT 2007-12T1 and CWALT 2007-25 issued by CWALT, Inc.
("CWALT"); and Mortgage Pass-Through Trust Certificates CWHL 2006-
HYB2, CWHL 2006-12, CWHL 2007-J2 and CWHL 2007-17 by CWMBS, Inc.
("CWMBS") (collectively referred to as the "Certificates").  The
Complaint alleges that Countrywide, including certain officers and
directors of CWALT and CWMBS, misrepresented the quality of the
underlying mortgages that had been pooled and placed in the
issuing trusts in each of the Certificates' offering documents.
The Complaint also alleges that Countrywide did not follow the
underwriting and appraisal standards described in the Registration
Statements and Prospectus Supplements when issuing mortgages to
borrowers.  Moreover, the mortgages held by the Issuing Trusts and
underlying the Certificates were issued based on appraisals that
overstated the value of the underlying properties, thereby
exposing the Issuing Trusts and the Class to greater risk of
losses in the event of foreclosure.  As a result of the material
misrepresentations and omissions in the Registration Statements
and Prospectus Supplements, the Class purchased securities that
were far riskier investments than represented.

According to the Complaint, by mid-2007 the mortgages held by the
Issuing Trusts and underlying the Certificates began suffering
accelerating delinquencies and defaults.  The defaults led to real
estate foreclosures, which revealed that many borrowers did not
have sufficient financial resources to satisfy their mortgage
payments and that the properties underlying the mortgages were
worth materially less than the loans issued.  The representations
made in the Registration Statements and Prospectus Supplements
were materially false and misleading because at the time of the
Certificates offerings, Countrywide's underwriting standards were
not designed to evaluate borrowers' ability to repay their loans
or to accurately assess the value of the mortgaged property
underlying the Certificates.  These adverse factors were not
revealed and/or adequately addressed in the offering documents.
Had the Class known these truths, they would not have purchased
the Certificates, or they would not have purchased them at the
prices that were paid.

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals and other entities worldwide.

GENOPTIX INC: Being Sold to Novartis for Too Little, Suit Claims
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders says Carlsbad-
based Genoptix is selling itself too cheaply to Novartis, for
$25 a share or $470 million.

A copy of the Complaint in Schwitters v. Genoptix, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 37-2011-00050783 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty.), is
available at:


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank K. Johnson, Esq.
          Shawn E. Fields, Esq.
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1720
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0063

               - and -

          Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
          8117 Preston Road, Suite 300
          Dallas, TX 75225
          Telephone: (214) 706-9314

               - and -

          Patrick W. Powers, Esq.
          Campbell Centre II
          8150 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1575
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 239-8900

HARRIS CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
Harris Corp. and its subsidiary continue to defend a consolidated
federal securities class action complaint filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware, according to the
company's Jan. 27, 2011, Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2010.

Harris Stratex Networks, Inc. (now known as Aviat Networks, Inc.)
and certain of its current and former officers and directors,
including certain current Harris officers, were named as
defendants in a federal securities class action complaint filed on
September 15, 2008, in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware by plaintiff Norfolk County Retirement System
on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of HSTX securities
from January 29, 2007 to July 30, 2008, including shareholders of
Stratex Networks, Inc. who exchanged shares of Stratex for shares
of HSTX as part of the combination between Stratex and the
Company's former Microwave Communications Division to form HSTX.
Similar complaints were filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware on October 6, 2008 and October 30,
2008.  The complaints were consolidated in a slightly expanded
complaint filed on July 29, 2009 that, among other things, added
Harris Corporation as a defendant.  This action relates to public
disclosures made by HSTX on January 30, 2007 and July 30, 2008,
which included the restatement of HSTX's financial statements for
the first three fiscal quarters of its fiscal 2008 and for its
fiscal years ended June 29, 2007, June 30, 2006 and July 1, 2005
due to accounting errors.  The consolidated complaint alleged
violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and of Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as violations of
Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act, and sought, among
other relief, determinations that the action is a proper class
action, unspecified compensatory damages and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs.

The Company believes that the defendants have meritorious defenses
to these actions and the defendants intend to defend the
litigation vigorously.

HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: Appeal of Batesville Suit Dismissal Pending
An appeal of a court ruling dismissing claims filed against Hill-
Rom Holdings, Inc., in a lawsuit over casket purchases remains

In 2005 the Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc. and a number of
individual consumer casket purchasers filed a purported class
action antitrust lawsuit on behalf of certain consumer purchasers
of Batesville(R) caskets against the Company and its former
Batesville Casket Company, Inc. subsidiary (now wholly-owned by
Hillenbrand, Inc.), and three national funeral home businesses.

The district court has dismissed the claims and denied class
certification, but in October 2010, these decisions were appealed
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  If
the plaintiffs were to succeed in reversing the district court's
dismissal of the claims, but not the denial of class
certification, then the plaintiffs would be able to pursue
individual damages claims: the alleged overcharges on the
plaintiffs' individual casket purchases, which would be trebled as
a matter of law, plus reasonable attorneys fees and costs.

If the plaintiffs were to (1) succeed in reversing the district
court's dismissal of the claims, (2) succeed in reversing the
district court order denying class certification and certify a
class, and (3) prevail at trial, then the damages awarded to the
plaintiffs, which would be trebled as a matter of law, could have
a significant material adverse effect on the Company's results of
operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.  The plaintiffs
in the FCA Action filed a report indicating that they are seeking
damages ranging from approximately $947.0 million to approximately
$1.46 billion before trebling on behalf of the purported class of
consumers they seek to represent, based on claims of approximately
one million casket purchases by the purported class members.

The Company and Hillenbrand, Inc., have entered into a Judgment
Sharing Agreement that apportions the costs and any potential
liabilities associated with this litigation between them.

The Company believes that it has committed no wrongdoing as
alleged by the plaintiffs and that it has meritorious defenses to
class certification and to plaintiffs' underlying allegations and
damage theories.

No updates were reported in the Company's Jan. 27, 2011, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2010.

HOUSEHOLD GOODS: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Okay
Truckinginfo reports a federal court has preliminarily approved a
class action lawsuit settlement against several van lines for
allegedly violating antitrust regulations.

The Household Goods Movers Antitrust class action lawsuit concerns
the assessment of fuel surcharges on certain interstate shipments
of household goods.  Plaintiffs in the case allege that the
defendants set an inflated price for fuel surcharges charged to
shippers for those shipments under a tariff named Tariff 400N.
The defendants in the class action lawsuit -- American Moving &
Storage, Atlas Van Lines, Mayflower Transit, United Van Lines or
Wheaton Van Lines -- deny any wrongdoing but have agreed to a $40
million class action settlement resolve the litigation, claims the
law firm initiating the litigation.

The violations of the Tariff allegedly took place from March 19,
2003 through December 31, 2007.

INTELIUS: Accused of Publishing False Criminal Records
Chie Akiba at Courthouse News Service reports that a class action
accuses Intelius, a software and "information commerce" company,
of publishing false criminal records through its Date Check smart
phone app.  Paul Geller claims Date Check defamed him by reporting
he has "18 criminal records," though his only legal infraction was
a traffic ticket that was dismissed after traffic school.  What's
more, Mr. Geller says, Date Check spits out different records on
different smart phones, and has an incentive to publish incorrect
information, as it charges money for a supposedly more thorough

Intelius claims that its Date Check app allows users to check a
person's criminal record by entering their name, phone number or
email address.

But Mr. Geller, as class representative, says Intelius "published
false, salacious, and/or misleading statements indicating that
plaintiff and the class members had criminal records when they did

And the result comes up differently, depending on the smart phone,
according to the Superior Court complaint.

"Intelius markets the Date Check app as a software tool to
'instantly check for criminal convictions and sex offenses,'"
Mr. Geller says.  Citing information from Intelius' website, the
complaint states that Intelius pushes its Date Check app so people
can check out the people they date.

"Today's dating scene it tough to navigate, which is why Intelius
developed Date Check, a free mobile app that deciphers fact from
fiction in the palm of your hand," the complaint states,
attributing the citation to the intelius.com web site, on Jan. 21.
Still quoting from the website, the complaint continues: "Simply
enter a name, phone number or email address and instantly get
accurate and comprehensive results.  With features like Sleaze
Detector, Compatibility, $$$, Interests and Living Situation, you
can be in the know on the go.  'Look up before you hook up.'"

Mr. Geller claims that he used the app on his Android smart phone
on Dec. 20, 2010, and was misinformed that he had 16 criminal

When he checked again on Jan. 17, he says, "this time the app
reported that he had '18 criminal records.'"

But "in reality, plaintiff has no criminal records," Mr. Geller
says.  "Mr. Geller had one traffic infraction in 2002 which was
dismissed after he attended traffic school.

"Intelius knows that Mr. Geller and numerous others in its system
do not have criminal records, and yet it reports the contrary.
When Mr. Geller's phone number is entered into the Date Check app
on an iPhone, the system indicated that he had '2 Infraction
Records,' '0 Felony Records,' '0 Misdemeanor Records,' '0
Violation Records,' and '0 Traffic Records.'"

Intelius markets itself as an "information commerce company,"
according to the complaint.  Mr. Geller says Intelius has "an
incentive for allowing false information about persons' criminal
records in its database(s).  In order for a person to determine
exactly what the 'criminal records' are they may run a more
comprehensive search.  However, Intelius charges between $14.95
and $19.95 for such a search.  Based on information and belief, a
large number of persons who run the Date Check app on a person and
see that the person has a criminal record, then also pay Intelius
to see the content of that record.

"Moreover, the purchased report oftentimes contains different
information than reported on the Date Check app.  For instance,
the paid-for report on plaintiff, which cost $14.95, showed that
he had no criminal records and only a single traffic ticket."

Mr. Geller seeks an injunction and punitive damages for
defamation, consumer law violations and unfair business practices.

Mr. Geller is represented by:

          David Parisi, Esq.
          15233 Valleyheart Drive
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 990-1299

KEE ACTION: Recalls 1,400 BT SA-17 Paintball Gun/Marker
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
KEE Action Sports LLC, of Sewell, N.J., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,400 BT SA-17 Paintball Gun/Marker.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise

When users attempt to pierce the CO2 cartridge by closing the
lever to the cartridge chamber, the cartridge can fly out of the
marker, posing an injury hazard to consumers.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves paintball gun/marker made of aluminum and
resembles a pistol.  It is black with model number BT SA-17
printed on both sides.  It uses a horizontally-fed magazine and
requires a 12g CO2 cartridge.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at:


The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold through
paintball fields/arenas, stores and retailers from May 2010
through August 2010 for about $130.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled paintball
markers.  Consumers can return the markers to KEE or the retailer
from which the product was purchased for a free repair or contact
KEE for the repair parts and installation instructions.  For
additional information, contact KEE Action Sports at (800) 220-
3222 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Central Time, or visit KEE's
customer service Web site at http://www.paintballsolutions.com/

KV PHARMA: Class Action Over Adulterated Medicine May Proceed
Stephanie Maniscalco, writing for Dolan Media Newswires, reports a
consumer who bought adulterated medicine could continue with his
state law claims against a Missouri drug manufacturer, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit has held.

The 8th Circuit reined in the controversial use of preemption by
reversing a district court decision that the consumer's Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act claims were preempted by federal law.

The state law claims were not impliedly preempted, the court
found, relying on the 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Wyeth v.

"The Court's comments in Wyeth regarding drugs and drug labeling
strongly imply that field preemption does not apply in the present
case.  Specifically, in relating the history of federal regulation
of drugs and drug labeling, the Court recognized that when
Congress first enacted the Federal Food and Drugs Act, Congress
'supplemented the protection for consumers already provided by
state regulation and common-law liability,'" Judge Lavenski R.
Smith wrote, citing Wyeth.

"When Congress enacted an express preemption provision for medical
devices, it declined to do so for prescription drugs . . . Nor has
Congress ever provided a federal remedy for consumers harmed by
ineffective drugs," the 8th Circuit explained.

Adulterated drug

Allen LeFaivre, a purchaser of a hypertension medication, sought
actual and punitive damages in a class action against Missouri-
based KV Pharmaceutical.  The lawsuit came after the Food and Drug
Administration filed a complaint against the company for failing
to meet FDA standards.

KV stipulated that it had sold drugs that were "adulterated,"
meaning they did not meet federal manufacturing requirements.
Since proper quality control procedures were not used, the
manufacturer destroyed the remaining stock of the drug and issued
a recall to retail outlets, but not to individual consumers.

Mr. LeFaivre alleged a breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability and violations of the MMPA.  He argued that the
medicine was not "merchantable," because it was adulterated, and
that the manufacturer concealed this fact when selling the drug in

KV moved to dismiss the case, arguing that Mr. LeFaivre's claims
were essentially claims for violations of federal regulations and
that no private cause of action existed.

The 8th Circuit, however, found that the "federal statutory or
regulatory scheme" was not "so pervasive in scope that it occupies
the field."

"To the contrary, 'the FDA [has] traditionally regarded state law
as a complementary form of drug regulation' and has 'long
maintained that state law offers an additional, and important,
layer of consumer protection that complements FDA regulation,'"
Judge Smith wrote.

The 8th Circuit also noted that it was not physically impossible
for KV to comply with both the state and federal law in this case.

The case is LeFaivre v. KV Pharmaceutical Company, et al.

LENNOX INDUSTRIES: June 2 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
A Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California involving Superior and Lennox brand single pane, sealed
glass front fireplaces.  Eligible consumers who have one or more
Superior or Lennox brand single-pane sealed glass front gas
fireplaces can now file a claim to get benefits.

Generally, with some exceptions, a consumer is considered a member
of the Settlement Class and is eligible to file a claim for
benefits if he or she is a resident of the US (including
California), who owns a home or other residential property that
was purchased for personal, family, or household purposes, and
whose home has one or more Superior or Lennox brand single-pane
sealed glass front gas fireplaces installed between February 6,
2004 and January 11, 2011.  Also included are residents of
California who own a home or other residential property for
personal, family, or household purposes, and whose home has one or
more Superior single-pane sealed glass front gas fireplaces that
were installed between March 1, 2003 and February 5, 2004.

In accordance with the claims process, Settlement Class members
who submit a valid claim will be provided with a protective screen
that is intended to reduce the risk of burns to the skin by
preventing direct contact with the glass front.  Eligible
Settlement Class members will also receive supplemental
information about the safety of their fireplace(s) and a warning
sticker to place on their fireplace control(s).  Settlement Class
members must file a claim to receive these benefits.

More details about the Settlement and how to file a claim are
available at http://www.LennoxHearthClass.com/or by calling 1-

The legal rights of Settlement Class members will be affected
regardless of whether they take any action.  Settlement Class
members that do nothing will stay in the Class, will not get any
benefits, and will give up their right to sue the Defendants for
the claims being resolved by this Settlement.  Settlement Class
members that want to keep their right to sue the Defendants about
the claims in this case must exclude themselves from the
Settlement by no later than May 2, 2011.  Those wishing to stay in
the Settlement Class may object to the Settlement no later than
May 2, 2011.  Those wishing to stay in the Settlement Class and
obtain benefits must submit claim forms no later than August 1,
2011 or 60 days after the final approval hearing, whichever comes

The Court has scheduled a final approval hearing for June 2, 2011.
At that hearing, the Court will consider whether to grant final
approval of the Settlement and award attorneys' fees.  All
potential Settlement Class members are encouraged to visit
http://www.LennoxHearthClass.com/or call 1-877-896-4837 to
determine if they are included in the Settlement and to obtain
information about their legal rights.  To receive updates to their
mobile phone, Settlement Class members can also text "Lennox" to
41513.  Standard text messaging rates may apply.

MICROSOFT CORP: Appeal From Certification of Canadian Suit Pending
Microsoft Corporation's appeal from a Canadian court's
certification of a class action lawsuit remains pending, according
to the Company's Jan. 27, 2011 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31,

A large number of antitrust and unfair competition class action
lawsuits were filed against Microsoft in various state, federal,
and Canadian courts on behalf of various classes of direct and
indirect purchasers of its PC operating system and certain other
software products.  The Company obtained dismissals of damages
claims of indirect purchasers under federal law and in 15 states.
Courts refused to certify classes in two additional states.  The
Company have reached agreements to settle all claims that have
been made to date in 19 states and the District of Columbia.

The settlements in all states have received final court approval.
Under the settlements, generally class members can obtain vouchers
that entitle them to be reimbursed for purchases of a wide variety
of platform-neutral computer hardware and software.  The total
value of vouchers that Microsoft may issue varies by state.  The
Company will make available to certain schools a percentage of
those vouchers that are not issued or claimed.  The total value of
vouchers the Company ultimately issue will depend on the number of
class members who make claims and are issued vouchers.  The
maximum value of vouchers to be issued is approximately $2.7
billion.  The actual costs of these settlements will be less than
that maximum amount, depending on the number of class members and
schools that are issued and redeem vouchers.  The Company estimate
the total cost to resolve all of the state overcharge class action
cases will range between $1.9 billion and $2.0 billion.  At
December 31, 2010, the Company has recorded a liability related to
these claims of approximately $593 million, which reflects its
estimated exposure of $1.9 billion less payments made to date of
approximately $1.3 billion mostly for vouchers, legal fees, and
administrative expenses.

The three cases pending in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec,
Canada have not been settled.  In March 2010, the court in the
British Columbia case certified it as a class action.  The Company
has appealed this ruling.  The other two actions have been stayed.

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Sued for Violations of Federal Antitrust Laws
Oscar P. Robertson, Tate George, and Ray Ellis, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00388 (N.D. Calif.
January 26, 2011), bring claims against the NCAA, Electronics
Arts, Inc., and Collegiate Licensing Company, the NCAA's licensing
arm, for violations of the federal antitrust laws.

The former college athletes said defendants NCAA, Electronics
Arts, Inc., and Collegiate Licensing Company (the NCAA's licensing
arm), engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy and a group
boycott/refusal to deal that has unlawfully foreclosed class
members from receiving compensation "in connection with the
commercial exploitation of their images, likenesses and/or names
following their cessation of intercollegiate athletic
competition."  The plaintiffs also set forth a claim for unjust
enrichment and request that the Court require the defendants to
provide an accounting of ill-gotten gains and the monies
unlawfully withheld from the antitrust class members.

Mr. Robertson competed on the University of Cincinnati's men's
basketball team in the 1957-58, 1958-59, and 1959-60 seasons, and
was the first player in history to lead the NCAA in scoring for
three straight years.  Mr. Robertson also played 10 years with the
Cincinnati Royals and 4 years with the Milwaukee Bucks in the
National Basketball Association, and is generally considered the
greatest all-around player in the history of the sport.

Mr. George was a starting guard of the University of Connecticut's
basketball team beginning in the 1986-87 through 1989-90 seasons,
and is the school's all-time career assist leader.  He also played
for five seasons in the NBA.  Mr. Ellis was a defensive back of
The Ohio State University's football team from the 1976 through
1979 seasons, including in the 1980 Rose Bowl Game.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stanley M. Chesley, Esq.
          W.B. (Bill) Markovtis, Esq.
          1513 Fourth & Vine Tower
          1 West Fourth Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 621-0267
          E-mail: stanchesley@wsbclaw.com

               - and -

          Michael P. Lehrmann, Esq.
          Jon T. King, Esq.
          Arthur N. Bailey, Jr., Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

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

NETFLIX INC: Sued for Violation of Calif. Customer Records Act
Jeff Milans, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Netflix, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-00379 (N.D. Calif.
January 26, 2011), accuses Netflix of unlawfully retaining its
subscribers' personally identifiable information and video
programming viewing histories after subscribers have canceled
their subscriptions, in violation of the Video Privacy Protection
Act and the California Customer Records Act.  The Complaint says
defendant continues to profit from selling Plaintiff and the
Class' information to third parties.

Netflix owns and operates the Web site www.Netflix.com, which
provides streaming video via the Internet and online video rental
services to over 10 million subscribers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean Reis, Esq.
          30021 Tomas Street, Suite 300
          Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
          Telephone: (949) 459-2124
          E-mail: sreis@edelson.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          William C. Gray, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com

NOVARTIS AG: US Unit Remains a Defendant in Zelnorm Suit in Canada
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, a subsidiary of Novartis AG,
together with other Novartis subsidiaries are defendants in
approximately 135 cases brought in US and Canadian courts in which
plaintiffs claim to have experienced cardiovascular injuries after
being treated with Zelnorm, a medicine for irritable bowel
syndrome and chronic constipation.

A purported national class action was filed against a Novartis
subsidiary in Canada. A statement to defend was filed in this
action, according to Novartis' Jan. 27, 2010, Form 20-F filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2010.

In May 2010, NPC reached a tentative agreement to settle 124
cases, which is contingent on obtaining consents from the
individual plaintiffs. NPC is still waiting for such consents. One
trial is currently scheduled for April 2011.

NOVARTIS AG: Conference on NPC Certiorari Petition Set for Feb. 18
The U.S. Supreme Court will hold a conference on Feb. 18, 2010, to
consider a certiorari petition filed by Novartis Pharmaceuticals
Corporation, a subsidiary of Novartis AG, according to Novartis'
Jan. 27, 2010, Form 20-F filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Certain pharmaceutical sales representatives filed suit in a state
court in California and in the US Federal District Court for the
Southern District of New York (SDNY) against NPC alleging that NPC
violated wage and hour laws by misclassifying the pharmaceutical
sales representatives as "exempt" employees, and by failing to pay
overtime compensation. These lawsuits were consolidated and
certified as a class action. They are part of a number of actions
pending against pharmaceutical companies that challenge the
industry's long-term practice of treating pharmaceutical sales
representatives as salaried employees.

In January 2009, the SDNY held that the pharmaceutical sales
representatives were not entitled to overtime pay under the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act and corresponding state wage and
hour laws. Plaintiffs appealed that judgment to the US Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit). Amicus briefs
supporting the plaintiffs' position were filed by the National
Employment Lawyers Association and by the US Department of Labor,
and the US Chamber of Commerce filed a brief in support of NPC. On
July 6, 2010, the Second Circuit vacated the judgment of the SDNY
and remanded the case to the SDNY for further proceedings. On
August 2, 2010, the remand mandate was stayed because NPC had
decided to appeal the Second Circuit's opinion to the US Supreme
Court. On October 4, 2010, NPC filed its petition for a writ of
certiorari with the US Supreme Court. Amicus briefs in support of
NPC's certiorari petition were filed on November 5, 2010, by the
US Chamber of Commerce and Pharmaceutical Research and
Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). The conference during which the
US Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to grant or deny
NPC's petition is currently expected to take place on February 18,

NOVARTIS AG: Dismissal of Texas State Class Suits on Appeal
Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal of class action lawsuits
against Novartis AG filed in Texas state courts, according to
Novartis' Jan. 27, 2010, Form 20-F filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010.

Beginning on January 7, 2010, shareholder class action complaints
relating to the Alcon transactions announced on January 4, 2010,
were filed against Novartis AG and others by minority shareholders
of Alcon, Inc. These actions were filed in the SDNY, in the US
Federal District Courts for the Eastern District of New York
(EDNY) and the Northern District of Texas (NDTX) and in several
Texas state courts. The case in the EDNY was voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice by the plaintiffs on March 18, 2010. The case in
the NDTX was transferred to the SDNY and formally consolidated
with the actions pending there on June 25, 2010. In the SDNY,
Novartis AG's motion to dismiss all cases pending there based on
the doctrine of forum non conveniens (FNC) was granted on May 24,
2010, and the case was formally dismissed on July 2, 2010.  On
July 14, 2010, plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Second
Circuit. On January 5, 2011, plaintiffs moved to dismiss this
appeal. On January 6, 2011, the Second Circuit granted plaintiffs'
motion and dismissed this appeal. The actions pending in Texas
state courts were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in a
Multi District Litigation on April 16, 2010. Novartis AG's motion
to dismiss the consolidated Texas state court actions based on FNC
was filed on June 30, 2010.

On November 17, 2010, Novartis AG's motion was granted and all
Texas state court class actions were dismissed. On December 17,
2010, plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Texas Fifth
District Court of Appeals.

PHILIPS ELECTRONICS: May 2 Hearing on BPA Baby Bottle Settlement

If You Purchased or Received as a Gift an Avent or Philips Avent
Branded Baby Bottle or Sippy Cup between January 1, 2001 to the
Present, You May Be Entitled to a Refund or Voucher from a
Proposed Class Action Settlement.

A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit
involving certain Avent and Philips Avent branded plastic baby
bottles and sippy cups that were sold in the United States.  The
lawsuit claims that Philips Electronics North America Corporation
("Philips") and other companies ("Defendants") violated the law by
making, marketing and selling plastic baby bottles and sippy cups
without adequately disclosing to consumers that the bottles and
cups contained the chemical Bisphenol-A (BPA) and without
disclosing the potential health risks associated with BPA
exposure.  Philips denies any wrongdoing and contends that it
adequately disclosed the presence of minute traces of BPA in the
products.  The proposed settlement will provide refunds and/or
vouchers to certain "Settlement Class Members" who submit "Claim
Forms."  If you are a Settlement Class Member, you must submit a
Claim Form to get a check or voucher.  Claim Forms can be obtained
at http://www.PhilipsBPASettlement.com/or by calling 1-866-730-
1621.  A federal court authorized this notice.  Before any money
is paid, the Court will have a hearing to decide whether to
approve the proposed settlement.

Am I a Class Member?

You are a Settlement Class Member if you purchased or acquired
(including by gift) certain Avent or Philips Avent branded baby
bottles and sippy cups made with polycarbonate plastic that
contained BPA including the Airflex Natural Feeding Bottles (4 oz,
9 oz, or 11 oz), Avent Natural Feeding Bottle or Feeding Bottle (4
oz, 9oz or 11 oz), and Avent Magic Cup (7 oz or 9 oz).

What Does the Proposed Settlement Provide?

Philips agreed to provide refunds and/or vouchers for Settlement
Class Members.  Philips also agreed not to sell baby bottles and
sippy cups containing BPA in the United States for a period of
four years, subject to certain exceptions, which are also
explained on the website.  Visit the settlement website
at http://www.PhilipsBPASettlement.com/to read more about the
factors that determine the amount of the refunds and/or vouchers.

What Are My Options?

To qualify for a refund or voucher, you must mail, fax or email
a Claim Form to the Claims Administrator by July 16, 2011.  In
order to participate, you will be required to provide certain
information.  If you don't wish to be in the proposed settlement,
you may exclude yourself from the Settlement Class by notifying
the Claims Administrator by April 11, 2011.  Or you may stay in
and object to the proposed settlement by April 11, 2011.  Visit
http://www.PhilipsBPASettlement.com/or call 1-866-730-
1621 for more details about the proposed settlement, your rights,
and how to file a Claim Form.

Do I have a Lawyer in this Case?

The Court assigned the following attorneys to represent you and
the other Settlement Class Members:

         Edith Kallas, Esq.
         Whatley Drake & Kallas LLC
         1540 Broadway, 37th Floor
         New York, NY 10036

              - and -

         Thomas V. Bender, Esq.
         Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan, PC
         2500 City Center Square
         1100 Main Street
         PO Box 26188
         Kansas City, MO 64196

Together the lawyers are called "Co-Lead Counsel." You will not be
charged for these lawyers.  If you want to be represented by your
own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense.

You are also represented by the "Plaintiffs," whom the Court
assigned to serve as "Class Representatives" for you and the other
Class Members.

The Court will hold a hearing at 1:00 p.m. on May 2, 2011 at the
United States District Court, located at 900 East Fourth Street in
Kansas City, Missouri, to consider whether to approve the proposed
settlement, and whether to grant Co-Lead Counsel's request for
$2.5 million in attorneys' fees and expenses and to pay $1,000 in
"incentive payments" to the Settlement Class Representatives, to
which Philips does not object. You do not have to attend the

For more information, go to: http://www.PhilipsBPASettlement.com/
OR call 1-866-730-1621


RCA RUBBER: Sued for Terminating Retiree Medical Benefits
Liz Potocsnak at Courthouse News Service reports that RCA Rubber
Co. of America, which prides itself on being a fourth-generation
American-owned family business, killed the benefits of retirees of
its wholly owned subsidiary, and benefits for their spouses, the
retirees claim in a federal class action.

From the time it opened in 1956 until it shut down in 2005, co-
defendant Pulaski Rubber Co. was a wholly owned subsidiary of RCA,
the lawsuit states.

RCA was in charge of the workers' retirement plan when it decided
to rob them of what took decades of work to earn, they say, and
the company violated a labor agreement in doing so.

"Over decades of service at Pulaski's facility, the retirees
earned rights to receive retiree medical benefits.  Rights to
these benefits were created through collective bargaining between
Pulaski and the union that had represented the retirees while they
were employed."

The workers were represented by the United Steel, Paper and
Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and
Service Workers International Union.

"On or about August 16, 2010, however, RCA President Sherri D.
Price sent letters to retirees and spouses on RCA letterhead
announcing that effective November 1, 2010, RCA and Pulaski would
'no longer provide medical insurance benefits to retirees and
their dependents from The Pulaski Rubber Company,'" the complaint

The class claims the termination of their benefits violates their
collective bargaining agreement, ERISA, and is a breach of
fiduciary duty.

A copy of the Complaint in Cheatham, et al. v. The R.C.A. Rubber
Company of America, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00006 (M.D. Tenn.), is
available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lynn Agee, Esq.
          AGEE, VAN ATTA, & OWENS, LLC
          3340 Perimeter Hill Dr.
          Nashville, TN 37211
          Telephone: (615) 834-8590

               - and -

          William T. Payne, Esq.
          Jonathan K. Cohn, Esq.
          17th Floor, Allegheny Building
          429 Forbes Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-8400

REDBOX AUTOMATED: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Gets New Counsel
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports a
proposed lead plaintiff in a pending class action against Redbox
Automated Retail Inc. once again has a new law firm representing

Attorney Jeffrey Millar is part of the legal team representing
Laurie Piechur against the company that owns DVD rental kiosks.

Mr. Millar asked last year that the court substitute Brent Coon &
Associates for Saville and Flint of Glen Carbon, the firm
Mr. Millar left Brent Coon to join.

It appears Mr. Millar has again changed firms, according to an
order signed Jan. 21 by St. Clair County Associate Judge Andrew

In that filing, Judge Gleeson allowed Saville and Flint to
withdraw from Ms. Piechur's suit.

The Millar Law Firm of St. Charles, Mo. was substituted as
plaintiff's counsel.

Ms. Piechur proposes to lead a nationwide class of DVD rental
customers who claim that Redbox charged unfair late fees.

Redbox denies the claims in the suit and has unsuccessfully tried
to have the suit thrown out.

The suit seeks over $350,000 in damages and costs.

The suit has not been certified.

Mr. Millar asked for the Saville & Flint substitution in September

St. Clair County Circuit Judge Robert LeChien granted the request.

Mr. Millar was once a member of the Lakin Law Firm -- now
LakinChapman LLC of Wood River.

Mr. Millar left Lakin to join Brent Coon, based in Beaumont,

The other members of Ms. Piechur's legal team include Thomas and
Peter Maag and others.

Robert Sprague, Eric Brandfonbrener and others represent Redbox.

The case is St. Clair case number 09-L-562.

SMURFIT-STONE: D&Os Sued for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
Matthew Gold, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation, et al., Case No.
2011-CH-03371 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. January 26, 2011), accuses
Smurfit, its Board of Directors, and Rock-Tenn Company of directly
breaching or aiding the other defendants' breaches of their
fiduciary duties to Smurfit's public shareholders in connection
with their efforts to complete the sale of the Company to Rock-
Tenn via an unfair process and at an unfair price.

Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Smurfit will become a wholly
owned subsidiary of RockTenn.  For each share of Smurfit common
stock, Smurfit stockholders will be entitled to receive 0.30605
shares of RockTenn common stock and $17.50 in cash, representing
50% cash and 50% stock.  The aggregate consideration is $35 per
Smurfit common share.  The consideration represents a 27% premium
to Smurfit-Stone's closing stock price on January 21, 2011.

The aggregate purchase price being paid for Smurfit-Stone's equity
in the transaction is approximately $3.5 billion, consisting of
approximately $1.8 billion of cash and the issuance 30.9 million
shares of RockTenn common stock.  Following the acquisition,
RockTenn shareholders will own approximately 56% and Smurfit
shareholders will own 44% of the combined company.  In addition to
the equity consideration, RockTenn will assume Smurfit's net debt
and pension liabilities.

The transaction is expected to close in the second calendar
quarter of 2011 and is subject to customary closing conditions,
regulatory approvals, as well as approval by both RockTenn and
Smurfit stockholders.

Mr. Gold is a shareholder of Smurfit, a company which manufactures
paperboard and paper-based packaging in North America.  Defendant
Rock-Tenn manufactures and sells packaging products, recycled
paperboard, containerboard, bleached paperboard, and merchandising
displays worldwide.

Mr. Gold relates that Smurfit recently emerged from bankruptcy in
July 2010, and as a result is well-positioned to return profits to
shareholders over the near term.  Mr. Gold says Smurfit's
valuation as it emerged from bankruptcy, based on "what it told
its creditors their shares would be worth upon reemergence", far
exceeds the valuation of the Company as a result of the proposed
acquisition.  Mr. Gold adds that the proposed acquisition will
allow Rock-Tenn to tap the Midwest and West Coast markets in the
United States, thus becoming the No. 2 North American producer of
containerboard and the No. 2 producer of coated recycled board,
with combined annual revenues of $9 billion.

The Complaint says that the process followed by the Board of
Directors leading to the proposed sale "was fraught with conflicts
of interest and designed to provide benefits to Company insiders
to the detriment of the Company's public shareholders."

According to the Complaint:

1) The "quick sale", a mere 7 months from the Company's emergence
   from bankruptcy, will cash out the equity interests of the
   Company's Chief Executive Officer, defendant Patrick Moore, who
   was set to retire, per agreement with Company, no more than
   nine months after the Company successfully emerged from
   bankruptcy.  Mr. Moore was to remain on the Board, and as a
   Company insider would not have been able to cash out his equity

2. Certain other members of the Company's Board, as yet
   unidentified, secured ongoing Board positions with Rock-Tenn.

3. In order to "lock up the proposed acquisition to ensure their
   receipt of these benefits", the Board agreed to several
   preclusive deal protection devices in the Agreement and Plan of
   Merger with Rock-Tenn that effectively prevent competing
   bidders from coming forward, including: (i) a no-shop clause
   that prevents the Company from sharing confidential Company
   information or even communicating with potential competing
   bidders; (ii) a termination fee that requires the Company to
   pay Rock-Tenn $120 million if the proposed acquisition is
   terminated in favor of a superior proposal; (iii) matching
   rights and information rights that provide Rock-Tenn with three
   business days to match any competing proposal and require the
   Company to inform Rock-Tenn about any indication of interest
   received by the Company; and (iv) a provision that requires the
   Company to keep in place any existing standstill agreements.

Mr. Gold explains that in a transaction that will result in a
change of corporate control, shareholders are entitled to receive
a significant premium.  Thus, Mr. Gold asks the Court to enjoin
the  defendants from consummating the proposed acquisition, unless
and until the Company adopts and implements a procedure or process
to obtain the highest possible price for shareholders.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leigh R. Lasky, Esq.
          Norman Rifkind, Esq.
          Amelia S. Newton, Esq.
          LASKY & RIFKIND, LTD.
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1320
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 634-0057

               - and -

          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          A. Rick Atwoo, Jr., Esq.
          David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
          David A. Knotts, Esq.
          Eun Jin Lee, Esq.
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058

               - and -

          Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
          8117 Preston Road, Suite 300
          Dallas, TX 75225
          Telephone: (214) 706-9314

               - and -

          Patrick W. Powers, Esq.
          Campbell Centre II
          8150 North Central Expressway, Suite 1575
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 239-8900

SYMANTEC CORP: Sued Over Deceptive Sale of "Download Insurance"
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Symantec automatically charges customers for "download insurance,"
a useless service that provides nothing they didn't buy without

A copy of the Complaint in Khoday, et al. v. Symantec Corp., et
al., Case No. 11-cv-00180 (D. Minn.), is available at:


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: 612-596-4097
          E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
          Victoria S. Nugent, Esq.
          Whitney R. Case, Esq.
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Richard Wentz, Esq.
          Jean Wentz, Esq.
          2955 East Hillcrest Drive, Suite 123
          Thousand Oaks, CA 91362
          Telephone: (805) 374-0060
          E-mail: rick.wentz@gmail.com

               - and -

          Lee S. Shalov, Esq.
          260 Madison Ave., 17th Floor
          Telephone: (212) 239-4340

TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Recognizes $7MM Net Gain on Adjusted Reserves
During the fiscal quarter ended December 24, 2010, certain
contingencies related to the previously disclosed settlement of
the Stumpf v. Tyco International Ltd. class action lawsuit
elapsed, according to the Company's Jan. 27, 2011 Form 10-Q filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 24, 2010.

The Stumpf matter, which was subject to the liability sharing
provisions of the Separation and Distribution Agreement with
Covidien and Tyco Electronics, had previously received final court
approval for its settlement. As a result of the lapsing of time
periods for certain class members to state a claim against the
Company, the Company adjusted its remaining reserve for this and
other legacy securities matters and recognized a net gain of $7
million during the quarter ended December 24, 2010.  Since June
2007, the Company has resolved substantially all other non-tax
legacy claims related to securities fraud and similar matters,
with the exception of the claims related to former management and
Mr. Frank Walsh Jr., a former director.

TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Appeal Pending on Dealer Lawsuit Verdict
An appeal from a court verdict in favor of Tyco International
Ltd.'s ADT Worldwide segment in a class action lawsuit remains
pending, according to the Company's Jan. 27, 2011 Form 10-Q filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 24, 2010.

In 2002, the SEC's Division of Enforcement conducted an
investigation related to past accounting practices for dealer
connect fees that ADT had charged to its authorized dealers upon
purchasing customer accounts.  The investigation related to
accounting practices employed by the Company's former management,
which were discontinued in 2003.  Although the Company settled
with the SEC in 2006, a number of former dealers and related
parties have filed lawsuits against the Company, including a class
action lawsuit filed in the District Court of Arapahoe County,
Colorado, alleging breach of contract and other claims related to
ADT's decision to terminate certain authorized dealers in 2002 and
2003.  In February 2010, the Court granted a directed verdict in
ADT's favor dismissing a number of the plaintiffs' key claims.
The plaintiffs have appealed this verdict.  While it is not
possible at this time to predict the final outcome of these
lawsuits, the Company does not believe these claims will have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial position,
results of operations or cash flows.

UPONOR INC: May Face Class Action Over Pex Plumbing Fittings
Class Action.org has released a consumer alert regarding the Pex
brass plumbing fittings sold by Uponor Inc. and its wholly-owned
subsidiary Radiant Technology (RTI).  Allegedly, these plumbing
fittings are defective and can fail sooner than expected, causing
significant water damage.  The brass plumbing fittings in question
are inserted into cross linked polyethylene (PEX) tubing and are
stamped on the side with "P Pex" or "MB Pex".  If your plumbing
system has been installed with these fittings and you have noticed
leaking or other problems, you may be able to recover compensation
for damages resulting from your Uponor Pex failure.  Visit
complete the free case evaluation form to find out if you can
participate in an Uponor class action lawsuit.

Due to issues with the brass fittings cracking and leaking, Uponor
Inc. sued the company that manufactured these products.  In this
case, Uponor admitted in court filings that the fittings were "not
merchantable," "unreasonably dangerous," and "defective."
However, according to a putative class action complaint, the
Minnesota-based company has refused to replace all affected
systems or otherwise compensate residential and commercial
property owners as required under their product warranties.

If your home or business has suffered property damage due to
Uponor Pex failure, you may be able to participate in an Uponor
class action lawsuit to recover compensation.  An Uponor class
action lawsuit would afford property owners the opportunity to
collectively bring a claim in court for damage caused by water
leaks. To find out if you can participate in an Uponor lawsuit,
visit Class Action.org today.  The Uponor class action lawyers
working with the site are offering this online legal consultation
at no cost and remain dedicated to consumers who were affected by
faulty products.

Class Action.org is dedicated to protecting consumers and
investors in class actions and complex litigation throughout the
United States.  Class Action.org keeps consumers informed about
product alerts, recalls, and emerging litigation and helps them
take action against the manufacturers of defective products,
drugs, and medical devices. Information about consumer fraud
issues and environmental hazards is also available on the site.
Visit http://www.classaction.org/today for a no cost, no
obligation case evaluation and information about your consumer

VIACOM: Agrees to Settle Class Action for $2.75 Million
Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports
Viacom and Black Entertainment Television have agreed to fork over
$2.75 million to resolve a pending class action lawsuit from the
owners of sound recordings.

The class action was led by The Music Force, which commenced
action in New York federal court in early 2009 over alleged
copyright infringement.  Specifically, the plaintiffs contended
that BET had failed to secure proper "sync" licenses on many of
its programs, including BET Impressions, Jazz Visions, and Lifted.
TV and movie producers typically need to secure such licenses in
order to pair copyrighted music with moving images.

The settlement still needs to be blessed by the judge in the case.

If approved, a Web site will be set up so that class members can
access the agreement, ask questions, and review the process for
making claims.

* Lawsuit Filings in Madison County Down by 125 Cases in 2010
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
the number of lawsuits seeking damages of more than $50,000 filed
in Madison County declined between 2009 and 2010 by 125 cases.

According to the annual filings report released on Jan. 27 by the
Madison County Circuit Clerk's office, there were 1,418 suits with
damages topping the $50,000 mark filed in 2009.  In 2010, there
were 1,293 suits filed in the court's Law Division.

The Jan. 27 report did not include a breakdown of how many
asbestos, medical malpractice and class action cases were filed in
the 1,293 suits of 2010.

A report released earlier this month by the clerk's office
provided an unofficial tally of 752 asbestos cases, 15 medical
malpractice cases and nine class action cases.

Madison County's low-mark for major lawsuit filings -- in recent
years -- came in 1998, when there were 946 suits filed.

The number of lawsuits peaked in 2003 with 2,102 at the height of
Madison County's class action boom.

No year since then has come near that mark in terms of the number
of filings.

One of the 2010 class actions that has since settled was filed
against the owners of the Blimpie sandwiches chain on claims that
it advertised double-meat on its sandwiches and didn't deliver.

Notable trials that took place in 2010 included:

    * A defense verdict in favor of Ford Motor Company in a suit
      over a Chicago man's mesothelioma and his wife's loss of
      consortium claims in March.  Plaintiffs Larry and Meta
      Williams sought more than $1 million in damages.

    * A more than $3 million verdict won by plaintiffs Thomas and
      Betty Edwards for injuries Mr. Edwards suffered when a
      fellow truck driver lost part of his rig on a Missouri

    * A more than $1 million verdict for Guy Webb and his niece
      Misty Webb against Union Pacific Railroad Company.  Mr. Webb
      was injured when he drove his truck onto a set of Missouri
      train tracks and it was hit by a Union Pacific train.  His
      brother James Webb Jr. was killed in the accident.

    * Dr. James Dalla Riva won a medical malpractice case filed by
      a former patient Penny Keller.  Ms. Keller claimed that
      Dr. Dalla Riva was negligent when he performed surgery on
      her and caused her to develop a bowel condition.

    * 3M Company won a benzene suit filed by aircraft mechanic
      Veto Kleinaitis.  Mr. Kleinaitis claimed that years of
      exposure to benzene traces in 3M products caused him to
      develop lymphoma.


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

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

Copyright 2011.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

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

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

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

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *