CAR_Public/081008.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, October 8, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 200

                            Headlines

ANALOG DEVICES: Mass. Court Mulls Dismissal Bid in ERISA Lawsuit
[Redacted Oct. 9, 2008]
BRISTOL-MYERS: Steuben County Cashes in on AWP Suit, Report Says
CANADIAN GOVERNMENT: Courts Reject Lawsuits Over Failed Implants
CARDINAL HEALTH: Calif. Court OKs $4M Settlement in "Pilkington"

CELLCYTE GENETICS: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Wash.
CHICO'S FAS: Faces California Lawsuit Over Personal Information
DEVRY INC: Plaintiffs in "Daghlian" Appeal Dismissal of Claims
DICK'S SPORTING: Working to Settle FLSA Lawsuits Pending in N.Y.
FEMA: Court Allows Toxic Trailer Suits to Proceed Against Agency

FIMALAC S.A.: Class Action in the U.S. Definitively Withdrawn
FIMALAC: Indiana Pension Fund is Securities Suit Lead Plaintiff
GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces Ill. Lawsuit Over Ineffective Steroids
JC PENNEY: Cheated on Round-Trip Plane Tickets, Calif. Suit Says
MICROSOFT: Class Lawyers to Use 'Windows Update' in Vista Suit

MORGAN KEEGAN: Faces Several Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Tenn.
PICCELL WIRELESS: Sued Over Roaming Rates Not Stated in Contract
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Settles Ohio's AIG-Related Suit for $97M
R.J. REYNOLDS: Calif. Court Considers Appeal in "Brown" Lawsuit
R.J. REYNOLDS: Discovery Ongoing in "Smith" Lawsuit in Kansas

R.J. REYNOLDS: Faces Ill., Mo., Minn., Fla., N.Y. "Lights" Cases
R.J. REYNOLDS: "Turner" Suit Still Pending in Illinois Court
R.J. REYNOLDS: Ill. Court Yet to Certify Class in "Cleary" Case
R.J. REYNOLDS: Mo. Court Stays Proceedings in "Lights" Lawsuits
R.J. REYNOLDS: New Mexico Court Yet to Rule on "Romero" Appeal

R.J. REYNOLDS: Mediation Fails to Resolve "Tatum" Lawsuit
R.J. REYNOLDS: Second Circuit Decertifies Class in "Schwab" Case
R.J. REYNOLDS: To Appeal Trial Court's Verdict in "Scott" Case
R.J. REYNOLDS: Artists' Suit Over "Unauthorized" Ad is Pending
R.J. REYNOLDS: Tobacco Lawsuits Still Pending in La., W.Va., Mo.

R.J. REYNOLDS: "Daniels" Lawsuit Dismissal Becomes Final
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Howard" Lawsuit Remains Stayed in Illinios
TRISTAR FOOD: Recalls Lanmao Drinks for Possible Health Risk
WACHOVIA BANK: Faces Lawsuit in California Over Overdraft Fees


                     New Securities Fraud Cases

CARTER'S INC: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in Georgia
HARRIS STRATEX: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Brodsky Smith Files Securities Lawsuit
NOVATEL WIRELESS: Shuman Law Files California Securities Lawsuit
SPECTRANETICS CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Lawsuit


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences



                           *********


ANALOG DEVICES: Mass. Court Mulls Dismissal Bid in ERISA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has
yet to rule on a motion seeking the dismissal of a purported
class action lawsuit filed against Analog Devices, Inc., which
alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.

The purported class action complaint was filed on Oct. 13, 2006,
before the Court on behalf of participants in the company's
Investment Partnership Plan from Oct. 5, 2000, to the present.

The complaint named as defendants the company, certain of its
officers and directors, and its Investment Partnership Plan
Administration Committee.

Specifically, the complaint alleges purported violations of
federal law in connection with the company's option granting
practices during the years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, including
breaches of fiduciary duties owed to participants and
beneficiaries of the company's Investment Partnership Plan under
ERISA.  It seeks unspecified monetary damages, as well as
equitable and injunctive relief.

On Nov. 22, 2006, the company and the individual defendants
filed motions to dismiss the complaint.  On Jan. 8, 2007, the
plaintiff filed memoranda in opposition to the dismissal
requests.  The company and the individual defendants then filed
further memoranda in support of their dismissal motions.

The court heard the company's motion to dismiss on Jan. 30,
2008.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Aug. 19, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 2, 2008.

The suit is "Bendaoud v. Hodgson, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
11873-NG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Judge Nancy Gertner, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq. (ted@shulaw.com)
         Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq. (tshapiro@shulaw.com)
         Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP
         53 State Street
         Boston, MA 02108
         Phone: 617-439-3939
         Fax: 617-439-0134

Representing the defendants is:

         Jeffrey B. Rudman, Esq. (jeffrey.rudman@wilmerhale.com)
         Wilmer Hale LLP
         60 State Street
         Boston, MA 02109
         Phone: 617-526-6912
         Fax: 617-526-5000


[Redacted Oct. 9, 2008]


BRISTOL-MYERS: Steuben County Cashes in on AWP Suit, Report Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steuben County is cashing in on a class action lawsuit filed
against dozens of pharmaceutical companies, charging Bristol-
Myers Squibb Co. and other firms of inflating prescription drug
prices, WETM 18 Elmira reports.

In 2005, Bristol-Myers, together with many other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, is a defendant in a number of private class
actions, as well as suits brought by the attorneys general of
numerous states.  Steuben was one of 45 counties named in the
suit.

In these actions, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants
caused the average wholesale prices (AWPs) of their products to
be inflated, thereby injuring government programs, entities and
persons who paid or reimbursed for prescription drugs based on
AWPs.

According to The Leader, the county will soon get more than
$53,000 from Bristol Meyers as part of a settlement of the suit.
The county attorney expects this to be only the first of many
future settlements.

Headquartered in New York, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is a
global biopharmaceutical and related health care products
company.  The Company is engaged in the discovery, development,
licensing, manufacturing, marketing, distribution and sale of
pharmaceuticals and related health care products.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT: Courts Reject Lawsuits Over Failed Implants
----------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian courts threw out two separate cases filed against the
Canadian government in connection with unsuccessful implants.

Specifically, the Ontario Court of Appeals has rejected a class-
action lawsuit filed by thousands of women who suffered injuries
after their silicone breast implants ruptured, Business
Insurance reports.

In addition, Ontario's highest court recently dismissed a
separate class action lawsuit launched by people whose jaw
implants disintegrated.

In both instances, the Court of Appeals said manufacturers, not
government officials, are responsible for product safety and
reliability, the report notes.

According to Business Insurance, the breast implant lawsuit,
captioned "Attis vs. Canada Health," alleged that Health Canada
failed to test, ban or recall the implants or warn the
appellants about the hazards of the devices.  Dow Corning Corp.
and other manufacturers also were named as defendants in this
suit.

The report says that the judge upheld an earlier ruling that the
federal agency did not directly misrepresent or assure the long-
term safety of the Dow Corning silicone gel breast implants to
individual consumers.

"It is impossible for Health Canada to regulate on behalf of
individuals directly," the judge wrote in his decision.

The report points out that the jaw implant case, captioned
"Drady vs. Canada Health," alleged that Health Canada failed to
issue warnings or take action to remove the devices from the
market, after disclosing the implants could break down.

"The job of the government is to govern, and in the course of
doing so, to make broad-based policy decisions for the public
collectively," Justice Susan Lang wrote for the panel.


CARDINAL HEALTH: Calif. Court OKs $4M Settlement in "Pilkington"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
gave preliminary approval to a $4.0 settlement in the matter,
"Carol Pilkington v. Cardinal Health Inc., et al., Case No.
2:03-cv-02446-RGK-RC," which was filed against Cardinal Health,
Inc., Syncor International Corp., and certain Syncor officers
and employees.

Initially, several class-action lawsuits were filed against
Cardinal Health, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.  The suits are:

     -- "Pilkington v. Cardinal Health, et al.," which was
        filed on April 8, 2003, against the company, Syncor
        and certain officers and employees of the company by a
        purported participant in the Syncor Employees' Savings
        and Stock Ownership Plan.

     -- "Donna Brown, et al. v. Syncor International Corp., et
        al.," which was filed on Sept. 11, 2003, against the
        company, Syncor and certain individual defendants.

     -- "Thompson v. Syncor International Corp., et al.,"
        which was filed on Jan. 14, 2004, against the company,
        Syncor and certain individual defendants.

Each of these actions was brought in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.  These suits were
subsequently consolidated.

A consolidated complaint was filed on Feb. 24, 2004, against
Syncor and certain former Syncor officers, directors and
employees.  The consolidated complaint alleges that the
defendants breached certain fiduciary duties owed under ERISA
based on the same underlying allegations of improper and
unlawful conduct alleged in the federal securities litigation.

The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified money damages and
other unspecified relief against the defendants.

On April 26, 2004, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  In August 2004, the court granted in
part and denied in part defendants' dismissal motions.

Specifically, the court dismissed, without prejudice, all claims
against individual defendants Ed Burgos and Sheila Coop, all
claims alleging co-fiduciary liability against all defendants,
and all claims alleging that the individual defendants had
conflicts of interest precluding them from properly exercising
their fiduciary duties under ERISA.

A claim for breach of the duty to prudently manage plan assets
was upheld against Syncor, and a claim for breach of the alleged
duty to "monitor" the performance of Syncor's Plan
Administrative Committee was upheld against individual
defendants Monty Fu and Robert Funari.

On Jan. 10, 2006, Syncor and the other parties entered into a
term sheet to settle the litigation for a cash payment of
$4.0 million and payment of an additional amount not to exceed
$4.0 million for litigation fees and expenses and reported the
settlement to the District Court.

Also on Jan. 10, 2006, the District Court entered summary
judgment in favor of all the defendants on all remaining claims.

Consistent with that ruling, on Jan. 11, 2006, the District
Court entered a final order dismissing the case and the lead
plaintiff appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

On Feb. 19, 2008, the Court of Appeals entered an order
reversing the District Court's dismissal of the plaintiffs'
claims and remanded the case to the District Court to hold a
hearing to review the fairness of the settlement agreement.

On June 25, 2008, the parties submitted the settlement agreement
to the District Court for preliminary approval.  On July 29,
2008, the District Court preliminarily approved the $4.0
settlement amount, but ordered the parties to revise the
attorneys' fees to not exceed 33 1/3% of the settlement amount,
according to Cardinal Health's Aug. 26, 2008 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Carol Pilkington v. Cardinal Health Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:03-cv-02446-RGK-RC," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Judge R. Gary Klausner,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Christopher Kim, Esq. (christopher.kim@lrklawyers.com)
         Lisa J. Yang, Esq. (lisa.yang@lrklawyers.com)
         Lim Ruger & Kim
         1055 W 7th St, Ste 2800
         Los Angeles, CA 90017
         Phone: 213-955-9500

              - and -

         Edward Chang, Esq. (echang@sbclasslaw.com)
         Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. (jmeltzer@sbclasslaw.com)
         Schiffrin and Barroway
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: 610-667-7706

Representing the defendants is:

         Ted Allan Gehring, Esq.
         Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
         333 S. Grand Ave., 45th Fl.
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
         Phone: 213-229-7000


CELLCYTE GENETICS: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Wash.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcyte Genetics Corp. is facing a consolidated securities
fraud class-action lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, according to the company's
Aug. 19, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Initially, three shareholder lawsuits were filed against the
company, all of which were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington, under the captions:

       -- "Armbruster v. Cellcyte Genetics Corporation, et. Al,
          Case No. C08-0047,"

       -- "Tolerico v. Cellcyte Genetics Corporation, et. al.,
          Case No. C08-0163," and

       -- "Pruitt v. Cellcyte Genetics Corporation, et. al.,
          Case No. C08-0178."

Gary Reys and Ronald Berninger are also named in all three
lawsuits, and John Fluke (who was appointed to the board during
its regular quarterly board meeting held on June 1, 2007) is
named in the Tolerico lawsuit.

In July 2008, an amended lawsuit, consolidating all three
lawsuits was filed, and John Fluke was not named a defendant in
the consolidated complaint.

The amended consolidated complaint alleges, inter alia, that the
company, and its officers and directors filed misleading
statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
regarding the company's products, and that the company posted
misleading information regarding an officer on its website.

The lawsuits claim that investors purchased our stock based on
the alleged misleading statements and the plaintiffs are seeking
monetary relief.

The suit is "Armbruster v. CellCyte Genetics Corporation et al.,
Case No. 2:08-cv-00047-RSL," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington, Judge Robert S. Lasnik,
presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq. (steve@hbsslaw.com)
          Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
          1301 5th Ave., Ste. 2900
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Phone: 206-623-7292

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          (denright@finkelsteinthompson.com)
          Finkelstein Thompson LLP
          1050 30th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20007
          Phone: 202-337-8000

               - and -

          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. (lsarko@kellerrohrback.com)
          Keller Rohrback
          1201 3rd Ave., Ste. 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Phone: 206-623-1900
          Fax: 206-623-3384

Representing the defendants is:

          William Randolph Squires, III, Esq.
          (rsquires@corrcronin.com)
          Corr Cronin
          1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3900
          Seattle, WA 98154
          Phone: 206-625-8600
          Fax: 206-625-0900


CHICO'S FAS: Faces California Lawsuit Over Personal Information
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. is facing a putative class-action suit filed
in June 2008 in the Superior Court for the State of California,
County of San Diego, entitled, "Michele L. Massey Haefner v.
Chico's FAS, Inc."

The complaint alleges that the company, in violation of
California law, requested or required customers to provide
personal information in conjunction with credit card
transactions.  The company filed an answer denying the material
allegations of the complaint, according to the company's
Aug. 26, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 2, 2008.

Chico's FAS, Inc. -- http://www.chicos.com/-- is a specialty
retailer of private-label, casual-to-dressy clothing, intimates,
complementary accessories and other non-clothing gift items.


DEVRY INC: Plaintiffs in "Daghlian" Appeal Dismissal of Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter "Saro Daghlian v. DeVry University,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00994-MMM-PJW," are appealing a
ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California that granted motions for summary judgment filed by
defendants DeVry Inc. and DeVry Universtiy Inc. in the lawsuit.

Saro Daghlian, a former student at a California DeVry University
campus, filed a lawsuit over the defendants' alleged violations
of state education laws.  Originally, Ms. Daghlian brought the
putative class action suit in the California state district
court for the County of Los Angeles.  The case was removed to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Mr. Daghlian alleges that DeVry's materials distributed to
students did not comply with California state statutes including
a California Education Code requirement to provide a specified
statement to prospective students concerning the transferability
of credits.

On June 11, 2007, the District Court issued an order certifying
a class under the California Unfair Competition Law, California
Business & Professions Code, section 17200 (UCL), comprised of
students who enrolled and paid tuition at a California DeVry
school in the four years prior to the date when the suit was
filed.

In October 2007, at DeVry's request, the Court entered a Summary
Judgment and dismissed all of Mr. Daghlian's class claims under
the UCL, on the grounds that the statutory provisions of the
California Education Code underlying Mr. Daghlian's claims
unconstitutionally discriminated against out-of-state regionally
accredited universities, in violation of the Dormant Commerce
Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.

The Court also entered judgment in DeVry's favor on Mr.
Daghlian's individual claim under the California Education Code.
Mr. DeVry had contended that the California Education Code
compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment.

In additionally, the Court vacated the existing trial schedule
and granted DeVry leave to file a second motion for summary
judgment directed to Mr. Daghlian's remaining individual claims
under the UCL and False Advertising Law.

On Jan. 8, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The company reported further development regarding the matter in
its Aug. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Saro Daghlian v. DeVry University, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-00994-MMM-PJW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Judge Margaret M.
Morrow, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Michael D. Braun, Esq.
         Braun Law Group
         12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920
         Los Angeles, CA 90025
         Phone: 310-442-7755
         e-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com

              - and -

         Janet Lindner Spielberg, Esq. (jlspielberg@jlslp.com)
         Janet L. Spielberg Law Offices
         12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400
         Los Angeles, CA 90025
         Phone: 310-392-8801

Representing the defendants is:

         Van T. Lam, Esq.
         Reed Smith
         355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
         Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514
         Phone: 213-457-8000


DICK'S SPORTING: Working to Settle FLSA Lawsuits Pending in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. continues to seek for the settlement
of two purported class actions that accuse it of failing to pay
overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The cases were filed in May and November 2005 with the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York.  They are
captioned:

       -- "Tamara Barrus v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. and
          Galyan’s Trading Company, Inc.," and

       -- "Daniel Parks v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc."

Because until September 2006 none of these cases were certified
as class actions, the company deemed them to be claims that were
incidental to its business.

In September and October 2006, respectively, a magistrate judge
for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York
conditionally certified classes for notice purposes under the
FLSA in the Barrus and Parks cases, which the court upheld.

In the Barrus case, the parties and the Court agreed to stay the
litigation pending an attempt to resolve all claims through
mediation.

Mediation sessions were held in April and August 2007.  The
parties to the Barrus case have continued to work through the
mediator's office in an effort to determine whether the matter
can be resolved through settlement.

In the Parks case, the parties and the court have also agreed to
stay the litigation pending an attempt to resolve all claims
through mediation.  A mediation session was held in March 2008
and the parties have agreed to continue discussions to determine
whether this matter can be resolved through settlement.

The company reported no development in the matter in its
Aug. 26, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 2, 2008.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. --
http://www.dickssportinggoods.com/-- is a full-line sporting
goods retailer that offers an assortment of brand name sporting
goods equipment, apparel and footwear in a specialty store
environment.


FEMA: Court Allows Toxic Trailer Suits to Proceed Against Agency
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court recently found that evidence suggests that the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) failed to promptly
investigate complaints about formaldehyde levels in trailers
distributed in 2005 to Gulf Coast hurricane victims,
AboutLawsuits.com reports.  The court therefore denied a motion
to dismiss the agency from toxic trailer lawsuits filed by the
victims.

The report recounts that about 800 people have filed class
action suits alleging severe injuries caused by high levels of
formaldehyde in the trailers given to them by FEMA after
hurricanes Rita and Katrina.  These lawsuits allege that FEMA
only established minimal requirements for manufacturers and
recreational vehicle dealers when they purchased 140,000
trailers for people who were displaced from their homes due to
the hurricanes.  The plaintiffs further allege that FEMA failed
to take steps to ensure that the trailers were safe to live in.

AboutLawsuits.com relates that during the months after the
victims started to receive and stay in the trailers, many of
them started complaining of problems such as difficulty
breathing and burning in the eyes, nose and mouth.  According to
the report, a CDC investigation revealed that the trailers were
toxic, with high levels of formaldehyde exposing roughly 300,000
people, including children, to a risk of injury.

The report further relates that high levels of formaldehyde were
found in pressed wood products, such as particle board and
plywood, which were used in the construction of the FEMA
trailers.  In warm weather, the wood let out toxic fumes, and
poor ventilation caused people living in the trailers to
experience prolonged exposure to the toxic chemical.

In July 2008, FEMA lawyers asked the Court to dismiss the agency
from the toxic trailer lawsuits, saying that the agency should
be immune from liability.  However, the victims' lawyers argued
that FEMA's negligence went "hand in hand" with the negligence
of the manufacturers.

Subsequently, in a 48-page ruling issued last week, U.S.
District Judge Kurt Engelhardt sided with the plaintiffs and
denied FEMA's dismissal motion.  "Indeed, the evidence shows
that FEMA initially ignored the potential formaldehyde problem
and neglected to conduct testing in fear that such testing would
imply FEMA's ownership of the issue," Judge Engelhardt said.

However, Judge Engelhardt has not yet ruled on the request to
certify a toxic FEMA trailer class action suit on behalf of all
individuals exposed to the high levels of formaldehyde.


FIMALAC S.A.: Class Action in the U.S. Definitively Withdrawn
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fimalac, S.A., announced that a class action lawsuit filed
against the company in the United States has been definitively
withdrawn without condition by the plaintiff.

As announced on July 3, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed
in the U.S. on behalf of a single U.S. shareholder of FIMALAC
against Fimalac, Fitch Group, and certain of their officers and
directors.

Fimalac is a France-based international financial services
company, providing financial ratings and enterprise risk
management solutions.


FIMALAC: Indiana Pension Fund is Securities Suit Lead Plaintiff
---------------------------------------------------------------
On September 5, 2008, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York appointed the Indiana Laborers
Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and approved the union's
selection of lead counsel in the securities class action filed
against Fimalac, S.A., Standford Law School Securities Class
Action ClearingHouse reports.

Fimalac is a France-based international financial services
company, providing financial ratings and enterprise risk
management solutions.

On July 1, 2008, a law firm press release announced that a class
action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all U.S. citizens or residents who
purchased Fimalac, S.A.  The complaint charges Fimalac and
certain of its officers and directors with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Fitch Ratings, Ltd., a majority owned subsidiary of Fimalac,
assigns credit ratings to structured finance transactions.  The
complaint alleges that, at the start of the Class Period,
Fitch's core business practice of rating residential mortgage-
backed securities and collateralized debt obligation
transactions was extremely profitable for Fitch, which enabled
it to report strong growth, which, in turn, drove Fimalac's
stock price to a Class Period high of EUR80.98 per share on
May 22, 2007.

According to the complaint, however, the defendants failed to
disclose to the investors during the class period that:

     (i) the information upon which Fitch based its ratings of
         RMBS and CDOs was misleading and in many cases
         fraudulent;

    (ii) to continue to collect fees for its ratings, Fitch was
         applying lax standards or no standards at all when
         issuing its RMBS and CDO ratings; and

   (iii) Fitch was failing to monitor the credit quality of RMBS
         and CDOs after issuing its initial ratings, as Fitch
         was obligated to do, and many of these securities had
         deteriorated badly after Fitch had issued its ratings.

Fitch is now under investigation by the New York Attorney
General, the Connecticut Attorney General, the Ohio Attorney
General and the SEC as a result of its practices of rating
billions of dollars of securities without a reasonable basis for
doing so and Fimalac's stock is trading at approximately 50% of
its Class Period high.

The suit is "Indiana Laborers' Pension Fund, et al. v. Firmalac,
S.A., et al., Docket Number: 08-CV-05994," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.


GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces Ill. Lawsuit Over Ineffective Steroids
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Nutrition Centers is facing a class-action complaint
before the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, over
allegations that it sells 19 ineffective steroid products that
are either ineffective or illegal, CourtHouse News Service
reports.

This consumer class action suit arises from GNC's sale of
certain steroid hormones that GNC knows are ineffective for
their intended, marketed and ordinary purpose.  If the steroid
hormones marketed and sold by GNC were effective for such
purpose, they would be illegal anabolic steroids under Illinois
and federal law.  GNC is thus marketing and selling either snake
oil or illegal controlled substances.

"The utter lack of value to consumers who purchase steroid
hormone products from GNC lies at the heart of this case.  GNC
unfairly and deceptively masks this lack of value through
knowing concealments, false implications and affirmative
misrepresentations."

The plaintiffs bring this class action claim pursuant to 735
ILCS Section 5/2-801 et seq. on behalf of thousands of people
geographically dispersed throughout the State as to make joinder
impracticable.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether GNC's conduct in omitting material facts in
         connection with its sale of steroid hormone products,
         including the fact that the products are ineffective
         and would be illegal if effective, constitutes a
         violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act;

     (b) whether GNC was unjustly enriched by its sale of
         steroid hormone products; and

     (c) whether plaintiffs and the class are entitled to
         injunctive relief and damages as a result of their
         purchase of the steroid hormone products and, if so,
         the proper measure of the damages.

The plaintiffs request that the court enter judgment:

     -- certifying this action as a class action with the named
        plaintiffs as class representatives and their attorneys
        as class counsel on behalf of the class;

     -- requiring GNC to return all amounts paid by the class
        for GNC's steroid hormone products;

     -- awarding punitive and exemplary damages, including
        attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses of conducting this
        action; and

     -- granting such other and further relief as the court
        deems just and proper.

The suit is "Tyron Stephens, et al. v. General Nutrition
Companies, Inc., Case No 08CH37097," filed in the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          John Goldsmith, Esq.
          Katie Brinson Hinton, Esq.
          Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin Frye, O'Neill & Mullis
          PA
          101 E. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 2700
          P.O. box 1102
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: 813-223-7474


JC PENNEY: Cheated on Round-Trip Plane Tickets, Calif. Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
J.C. Penney and Levi Strauss are facing a class-action complaint
filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court over allegations that
the companies cheated customers of round-trip plane tickets by
failing to disclose a long list of restrictions in a promotion
for people who bought $125 worth of Dockers, CourtHouse News
Service reports.

Also sued is Togram LLC, which processes promos.

The plaintiffs say "hundreds, if not thousands" of people were
cheated of tickets.

The plaintiffs contend that they were required to buy tickets
for "additional passengers" at "standard airfare;" that they had
to list two choices for departures, three for destinations, and
three alternative dates; and that they had to agree to "Terms
and Conditions" without being told what the Terms and Conditions
were, among other things.  They say they were told, falsely,
that they had filled out the applications incorrectly, that
tickets were "no longer available," and so on.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Daniel Germain, Esq.
          Rosman & Germain LLP
          16311 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Phone: 818-788-0877
          Fax: 818-788-0885


MICROSOFT: Class Lawyers to Use 'Windows Update' in Vista Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawyers estimate that there are 15 million
consumers eligible to participate in a lawsuit alleging that
Microsoft Corp. allowed PC makers to label PCs with "Windows
Vista Capable" stickers when the computers could run only the
most bare-bones version of the operating system, Consumer
Affairs reports.

According to Consumer Affairs, the lawyers are hoping to notify
and contact all 15 million potential plaintiffs by using an
automatic Windows Update.  Windows Updates, the report relates,
are normally used to provide PC owners with periodic software
and system updates and attorneys at Gordon Tilden Thomas &
Cordell in Seattle think the updates would be an ideal way to
contact the potential plaintiffs.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 25, 2008, Judge
Marsha Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington granted class-action status to the
lawsuit filed against Microsoft over allegations that the
company unjustly enriched itself by promoting PCs as "Windows
Vista Capable" even if they are not.  According to the CAR
report, the slogan was emblazoned on PCs during the 2006 holiday
shopping season as part of a campaign by Microsoft to maintain
sales of Windows XP computers after the launch of Windows Vista
was delayed.

A subsequent CAR report on March 13, 2008, stated that Microsoft
appealed against the court's decision affording class action
status to the Vista lawsuit.  However, in a brief order dated
April 21, 2008, the the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected
Microsoft's request to overturn Judge Pechman's decision.

According to the update by Consumer Affairs, the plaintiffs'
lawyers are using Microsoft's argument against the company.
Microsoft, the report relates, has repeatedly said it cannot
identify the people who bought PCs under its Vista Capable
marketing campaign in 2006 and early 2007.  Therefore, the
plaintiffs' attorneys say the Windows Update is the perfect way
to reach these individuals.

The report notes that an expert employed by the lawyers said in
a court filing that it would take Microsoft just "one to two man
hours to complete the program, address quality assurance issues,
tag and upload the Update as ready for distribution."

Consumer Affairs further says that, in a motion submitted to
Judge Pechman, the lawyers sketched out a notification plan
that, besides a Windows update, would include print ads in
publications such as USA Today and banner ads on sites including
Yahoo.com and MSN.

The lawyers have also asked Judge Pechman for a summary judgment
that one aspect of Microsoft's program was an "unfair and
deceptive" act under the Consumer Protection Act, the report
adds.

The suit is "Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00475-
MJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Judge Marsha J. Pechman, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          Gordon Tilden Thomas & Cordell, LLP
          1001 4th Ave., Ste. 4000, Seattle, WA 98154
          Phone: 206-467-6477
          Fax: 206-467-6292
          e-mail: office@gmtlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.gordontilden.com/
          e-mail: office@gordontilden.com


MORGAN KEEGAN: Faces Several Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Tenn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
     SAN DIEGO, Oct. 6, 2008 -- Several class action lawsuits
have been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee against Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc.,
Morgan Keegan Asset Management, Inc., Regions Financial
Corporation and related companies and officers and directors.

     The plaintiffs are persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the shares of certain closed-end mutual funds offered
by Regions Morgan Keegan Trust, including shares of the RMK
Multi-Sector High Income Fund, Inc. (the "RHY Fund"), the RMK
Advantage Income Fund (the "RMA Fund"), the RMK Strategic Income
Fund (the "RSF Fund") and the RMK High Income Fund (the "RMH
Fund") (collectively referred to as the "Funds"), pursuant and
traceable to the Funds' false and misleading Registration
Statements and Prospectuses during the period December 6, 2004,
through February 6, 2008, and purchasers of any of the Funds
during the period from December 8, 2006, through December 5,
2007.

     The complaints charge the Funds' registrants, the Funds'
administrator, Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc., the Funds'
adviser, Morgan Keegan Asset Management, Inc., Regions Financial
Corp. and certain of Morgan Keegan's officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

     The complaints allege that the defendants issued materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Funds' portfolios
and financial results.  As a result of defendants' false
statements, the Funds' shares traded at artificially inflated
prices.

     According to the complaints, portions of the Funds'
portfolios were invested in collateralized debt obligations
("CDOs"), including CDOs backed by subprime mortgages to high-
risk borrowers.  For years, shares of the Funds traded within
narrow ranges.  Then in early March 2007, as the subprime crisis
began to emerge, the Funds began to trend lower as the market
learned of their exposure to the subprime market.  Nonetheless,
shares of the Funds continued to trade at artificially inflated
prices as the full extent of the Funds' exposure had not yet
been revealed.  As late as the summer of 2007, as the housing
and credit crisis deepened, the Funds continued to play down and
conceal the Funds' growing exposure to the problems in the
subprime market. Beginning in early July 2007, the Funds began
to acknowledge serious problems in their portfolios related to
the Funds' exposure to the subprime market.

     On November 7, 2007, Portfolio Manager James C. Kelsoe
wrote a letter to investors in which he acknowledged further
problems the portfolios faced due to the deterioration in the
housing sector and the subprime mortgage crisis.  The shares
continued to collapse subsequent to these announcements as the
impact of the risky holdings in the Funds' portfolios became
more apparent to the market.

     As a result of these disclosures, the price of the Funds'
shares collapsed.  For example, RMH Fund shares closed at $4.20
per share on February 6, 2007, a decline of 70% from early July
2007.

     According to the complaints, the true facts which were
omitted from the Registration Statements/Prospectuses or were
known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period were as follows:

     (a) the Funds lacked adequate controls and hedges to
         minimize the risk of loss from mortgage delinquencies
         which affected a large part of their portfolios;

     (b) the extent of the Funds' liquidity risk due to the
         illiquid nature of a large portion of the Funds'
         portfolios was omitted;

     (c) the extent of the Funds' risk exposure to mortgage-
         backed assets was misstated; and

     (d) the extent to which the Funds' portfolios were subject
         to fair value procedures was misstated.

     Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Funds pursuant
and traceable to the Funds' Registration Statements and
Prospectuses or who purchased shares of the Funds during the
Class Period.

     The first complaint related to this matter is "Willis, et.
al. v. Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc., et al., No. 07-cv-2830-
SHM-dkv."

For more information, contact the plaintiffs' counsel at:

          Darren Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
          Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
          Phone: 800-449-4900
                 619-231-1058


PICCELL WIRELESS: Sued Over Roaming Rates Not Stated in Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------
Six named plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the United States
District Court against international cell phone provider PicCell
Wireless for allegedly charging roaming rates not expressed in
the subscriber's contract, Josh Katzenstein writes for Minnesota
Daily.

The report explains that Seattle-based PicCell offers phone
services in more than 25 countries to help students studying
abroad and world travelers.  The company also offers phones for
rent or sale and service packages tailored for those going
abroad.

Attorneys from Schroeter, Goldmark and Bender, a Seattle-based
firm, filed the suit against the company on Sept. 25.

According to Minnesota Daily, one of the plaintiffs, Molly
Blocker, a former University student, claims that she owes
$1,377.41 between late fees and unpaid bills from a London study
abroad trip.  Ms. Blocker, now a first-semester nursing student
at North Hennepin Community College, accused PicCell Wireless of
charging roaming rates not expressed in her contract.

"There would be times on my bill that it said a call lasted zero
seconds, but I was charged varying amounts," Ms. Blocker said.

The billing information was available online, and Ms. Blocker
said she noticed the problems when she began to travel away from
where she was studying in London.  "They had given us a rate
sheet so I had personally tracked how much I thought I would owe
and it was over double that when I received my bill," she said,
adding that her bill was only available online.

Ms. Blocker also narrated that she receives e-mails about her
balance and that she subsequently canceled her credit card to
prevent PicCell from taking the money.

According to the complaint, the billing sheets feature the
currency of the particular country the user is traveling to.
The complaint also said that PicCell, whose mission is to "make
it easy and affordable for anyone to have and use a wireless
device while they are abroad," misled the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory, statutory and treble
damages, which could increase the award up to three times.  They
also want a declaration from PicCell that it violated a
Washington consumer protection and fair credit act.

Adam Berger, Esq., of Schroeter, Goldmark and Bender, is the
lead attorney on the case.  He told Minnesota Daily that "One of
the reasons we believe that this is an important suit is because
it affects study abroad students . . . who don't necessarily
have the experience to know when a company is misleading them."

Mr. Berger also said that the company charged illegal invisible
fees.  The rates on the contract were in euros or pounds, but
people saw the charges on credit cards in dollars, he said.
Since the charges switch in currency, PicCell can invisibly
change the exchange rate, but if the company had mentioned a
rate increase, it would not be a legal concern, Mr. Berger
added.

Mr. Berger also said that the company, which he said has around
30,000 customers, and its attorneys have not yet answered the
complaint.  However, he expects PicCell to reply in the coming
weeks, he stated.

The trial may not start until 2010 because cases usually see a
trial 18 months after being filed, Mr. Berger explained to
Minnesota Daily.


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Settles Ohio's AIG-Related Suit for $97M
----------------------------------------------------------------
PricewaterhouseCoopers agreed to pay $97.5 million to the state
of Ohio to settle a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of
investors in troubled insurer American International Group,
which uses PwC as its independent auditor, Alan Rappeport writes
for CFO.com.

According to the report, the "partial" settlement came after the
Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, the State Teachers
Retirement System, and the Ohio Police and Pension Fund filed a
lawsuit seeking damages for investors who bought AIG securities
from 1999 to 2005.  In the complaint, PwC was accused of
violating securities laws relating to a market division scheme
allegedly involving AIG that was disclosed in 2004 and improper
accounting for reinsurance and other transactions.

In May 2005, AIG's accounting problems led to a $3.9-billion
restatement, and removal of former CEO Maurice Greenberg, the
report recounts.

The settlement is among the 10 highest to be paid by an
accounting firm to settle a securities fraud class action
lawsuit, CFO.com relates, citing Nancy Rogers, Ohio's attorney
general.  The arrangement, however, still needs to be approved
by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
in Manhattan.

"This important settlement represents a tremendous result for
investors," Chris Geidner, principal assistant attorney general,
said.  "We are pleased with this milestone and will continue to
vigorously pursue investors' claims against the remaining
defendants in the case."

"We have decided to settle the case at this stage to avoid the
enormous litigation costs that would be incurred if the case
continued against the firm, while at the same time eliminating
any potential exposure," PwC spokeswoman Steve Silber told The
Columbus Dispatch.  "The settlement does not contain an
admission of wrongdoing by the firm, and we continue to believe
that our work was in accordance with professional standards."

The report points out that AIG currently is facing another
lawsuit filed in May by the Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension
Fund.  The Florida fund accused the insurer of manipulating the
market by making false statements about its financial health
before disclosing a first quarter loss of $7.8 billion.  PwC is
not implicated in that lawsuit and in February it gave a warning
sign of AIG's problems when it found that there was a "material
weakness in its internal control" relating to the accounting of
its credit default swaps portfolio.

Last month, the report recalls, the U.S. government agreed to an
$85-billion bail out of AIG in exchange for warrants to purchase
80% of the company, which is selling off several units of its
business to repay the loan.


R.J. REYNOLDS: Calif. Court Considers Appeal in "Brown" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court has yet to rule on on appeal
regarding the decertification of a class-action lawsuit entitled
"Brown v. American Tobacco Co., Inc.," which names major U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. --
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Reynolds American, Inc. -- as
defendants.

The case was filed on April 11, 2001, before the Superior Court
in San Diego County, California.  The presiding judge granted in
part the plaintiffs' motion for certification of a class
composed of California residents who smoked at least one of the
defendants' cigarettes from June 10, 1993, through April 23,
2001, and who were exposed to the defendants' marketing and
advertising activities in California.  The suit is seeking to
recover restitution, disgorgement of profits and other equitable
relief under California Business and Professions Code Section
17200 et seq. and Section 17500 et seq.

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

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

On Nov. 1, 2006, the plaintiffs' petition for review with the
California Supreme Court was granted.  Supplemental briefing is
complete.  A decision on the matter is pending, according to the
company's Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is a holding company.  It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco
and Conwood.  RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane,
Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co.,
LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC,
which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies.
The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,  The Conwood segment consists of the
Conwood companies and Lane.  RAI's wholly owned operating
subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All
Other.


R.J. REYNOLDS: Discovery Ongoing in "Smith" Lawsuit in Kansas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in an antitrust class-action lawsuit,
captioned "Smith v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc.," which names major
U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co. -- a wholly-owned subsidiary of Reynolds American, Inc. --
as defendants.

The suit was filed in Seward County District in Kansas in
February 2000 over allegations that the defendants participated
in a conspiracy to fix or maintain the price of cigarettes sold
in the U.S.  The plaintiffs are seeking to recover an
unspecified amount in actual and punitive damages.

The court granted class certification to the suit on Nov. 15,
2001.  On Dec. 17, 2007, the Seward County District Court stayed
the matter.

The parties currently are engaged in discovery, according to the
company's Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is a holding company.  It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco
and Conwood.  RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane,
Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co.,
LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC,
which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies.
The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,  The Conwood segment consists of the
Conwood companies and Lane.  RAI's wholly owned operating
subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All
Other.


R.J. REYNOLDS: Faces Ill., Mo., Minn., Fla., N.Y. "Lights" Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a unit of Reynolds American, Inc.,
and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., are facing several
"lights" class-action cases in Illinois, Missouri, Minnesota,
Florida, and New York.

Specifically, two cases are pending in Illinois, two in
Missouri, two in Minnesota, one in Florida, and another one in
New York.

The classes in these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to
$75,000 per class member for compensatory and punitive damages,
injunctive and other forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and
costs from RJR Tobacco and B&W.

In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made
false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were lower
in tar and nicotine and were less hazardous or less mutagenic
than other cigarettes.  The cases typically are filed pursuant
to state consumer protection and related statutes, according to
the company's Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is a holding company.  It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco
and Conwood.  RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane,
Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co.,
LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC,
which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies.
The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,  The Conwood segment consists of the
Conwood companies and Lane.  RAI's wholly owned operating
subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All
Other.


R.J. REYNOLDS: "Turner" Suit Still Pending in Illinois Court
------------------------------------------------------------
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. -- a unit of Reynolds American, Inc.
-- continued to face a lawsuit entitled "Turner v. R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co."

The lawsuit was filed in February 2000 before the Circuit Court
in Madison County, Illinois.  A judge certified a class on
Nov. 14, 2001.

The class in the case generally seek to recover $50,000 to
$75,000 per class member for compensatory and punitive damages,
injunctive and other forms of relief, and attorneys fees and
costs from the defendants.

In general, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false
and misleading claims that lights cigarettes were lower in tar
and nicotine and were less hazardous or less mutagenic than
other cigarettes.

On June 6, 2003, R.J. Reynolds filed a motion to stay the case
pending Philip Morris' appeal in a related matter, entitled
"Price v. Philip Morris Inc."  However, the judge denied the
stay request.

The Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals also denied R.J.
Reynolds' emergency stay/supremacy order request.  Yet, on
Nov. 5, 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court granted R.J. Reynolds'
motion for a stay pending the court's final appeal decision in
"Price."

On Oct. 11, 2007, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals
dismissed R.J. Reynolds' appeal and remanded the case to the
circuit court.

The company reported no further development regarding the matter
in its Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is a holding company.  It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco
and Conwood.  RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane,
Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co.,
LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC,
which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies.
The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,  The Conwood segment consists of the
Conwood companies and Lane.  RAI's wholly owned operating
subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All
Other.


R.J. REYNOLDS: Ill. Court Yet to Certify Class in "Cleary" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois has yet to rule on a
motion seeking class-action status in "Cleary v. Philip Morris,
Inc.," which names as defendants major U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. -- a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Reynolds American, Inc.

The case was filed in June 1998.  The action is brought on
behalf of persons who have allegedly been injured by:

      -- the defendants' purported conspiracy pursuant to which
         defendants concealed material facts regarding the
         addictive nature of nicotine;

      -- the defendants' alleged acts of targeting its
         advertising and marketing to minors; and

      -- the defendants' claimed breach of the public right to
         defendants' compliance with the laws prohibiting the
         distribution of cigarettes to minors.

The plaintiffs request that the defendants be required to
disgorge all profits unjustly received through its sale of
cigarettes to the plaintiffs and the class, which in no event
will be greater than $75,000 each, inclusive of punitive
damages, interest and costs.

In April 2005, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.

On Feb. 3, 2006, a hearing was held in connection with a motion
by the defendants' to dismiss the case.  The court later
dismissed two counts -- public nuisance and unjust enrichment --
in the case.

On April 5, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider
certain of the findings in the court's earlier ruling regarding
the defendants' dismissal motion.  The plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration was granted in part and denied in part.  Yet,
the court stated that reconsideration would not revive the
plaintiffs' public nuisance and unjust enrichment claims because
they still cannot allege a special or separate harm.  The court
merely reconsidered certain components of its analysis, but did
not modify its original decision.

On July 11, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  A hearing was held on Sept. 6, 2007, but no
order has yet been entered.

The company reported no further development regarding the case
in its Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is a holding company.  It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco
and Conwood.  RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane,
Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co.,
LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC,
which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies.
The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,  The Conwood segment consists of the
Conwood companies and Lane.  RAI's wholly owned operating
subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All
Other.


R.J. REYNOLDS: Mo. Court Stays Proceedings in "Lights" Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, stayed several
purported "lights" class-action lawsuits pending against R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co., a unit of Reynolds American, Inc., and
Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc.

                       Collora Litigation

The lawsuit captioned "Collora v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co." is
a case filed in May 2000 in Circuit Court, St. Louis County,
Missouri, in which a judge certified a class on Dec. 31, 2003.

On April 9, 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
reassign "Collora," and two other cases -- "Craft v. Philip
Morris Companies, Inc." and "Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp." -- to a single general division.

                        Black Litigation

The "Black" case is a suit filed in November 2000 in the same
court in Missouri.  Brown & Williamson removed the case to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on
Sept. 23, 2005.

On Oct. 25, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, which
was granted on March 17, 2006.

On April 16, 2008, the court stayed the two cases pending U.S.
Supreme Court review in "Good v. Altria Group, Inc.," a "lights"
class-action lawsuit pending against Altria Group, Inc., and its
subsidiary, Philip Morris USA, Inc., as defendants, according to
the company's Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is a holding company.  It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco
and Conwood.  RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane,
Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co.,
LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC,
which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies.
The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,  The Conwood segment consists of the
Conwood companies and Lane.  RAI's wholly owned operating
subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All
Other.


R.J. REYNOLDS: New Mexico Court Yet to Rule on "Romero" Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court in Rio Arriba County, New Mexico, has yet to
rule on an appeal in the antitrust class action suit captioned
"Romero v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc.," which names major U.S.
Cigarette manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. --
a wholly owned subsidiary of Reynolds American, Inc. -- as
defendants.

The suit, which was filed in April 2000 and granted class-action
status on May 14, 2003, alleges that the defendants conspired to
fix, raise, advance and stabilize prices for cigarettes in the
State of New Mexico from at least as early as Jan. 1, 1998,
through the present.  It is seeking to recover an amount not to
exceed $74,000 per class member in actual and punitive damages,
exclusive of interest and costs.

On June 30, 2006, the court granted the defendants' motion for
summary judgment.  In August 2006, the plaintiff appealed this
decision to the New Mexico Court of Appeals.

The parties completed briefing of the issues on appeal on
Aug. 27, 2007, and are awaiting a decision.

The company reported no further development regarding the matter
in its Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is a holding company.  It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco
and Conwood.  RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane,
Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co.,
LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC,
which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies.
The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,  The Conwood segment consists of the
Conwood companies and Lane.  RAI's wholly owned operating
subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All
Other.


R.J. REYNOLDS: Mediation Fails to Resolve "Tatum" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the matter "Tatum v. The RJR Pension Investment
Committee," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina and names as defendant R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Reynolds
American, Inc., have failed to reach a resolution for the case.

An employee of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco filed the class action suit
on May 13, 2002, alleging that the defendants -- R.J. Reynolds,
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Inc., The R.J.R. Pension
Investment Committee of the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Capital
Investment Plan and the RJR Pension Investment Committee --
violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The actions about which the plaintiff complains stem from a
decision made in 1999 by RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp.,
subsequently renamed Nabisco Group Holdings Corp., referred to
as NGH, to spin off RJR, thereby separating NGH's tobacco
business and food business.

As part of the spin-off, the 401(k) plan for the previously
related entities had to be divided into two separate plans for
the now separate tobacco and food businesses.

The plaintiff contends that the defendants violated ERISA by not
overriding an amendment to RJR's 401(k) plan requiring that,
prior to Feb. 1, 2000, the stock funds of the companies involved
in the food business, NGH and Nabisco Holdings Corp., be
eliminated as investment options from RJR's 401(k) plan.

In his complaint, the plaintiff requests, among other things,
that the court require the defendants to pay as damages to the
RJR 401(k) plan an amount equal to the subsequent appreciation
that was purportedly lost as a result of the liquidation of the
NGH and Nabisco funds.

On July 29, 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
case, which motion the court granted in December 2003.  On
Jan. 7, 2004, the plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which, in December
2004, reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for further
proceedings.  On Jan. 20, 2005, the defendants filed a second
motion to dismiss the case on other grounds.

On March 7, 2007, the court granted the plaintiff leave to file
an amended complaint and denied all pending motions as moot.  On
April 6, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.

On May 31, 2007, the court granted the motion in part and denied
it in part, dismissing all claims against the RJR Employee
Benefits Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee.
The remaining defendants filed their answer and affirmative
defenses on June 14, 2007.

In June 2007, the plaintiff sought to amend the complaint to add
as parties the six members of the RJR Pension Investment
Committee and the RJR Employee Benefits Committee.

In November 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification.  This motion is fully briefed.

On March 13, 2008, the court denied the plaintiff's class
certification motion, and the plaintiff thereafter filed a
motion for reconsideration.  On May 20, 2008, the court denied
the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.

Subsequently, the Court ordered mediation, which occurred on
July 10, 2008.  However, no resolution of the case was reached
at that time, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "Tatum v. R.J.R. Pension, et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-
00373-NCT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina under Judge N.C. Tilley, Jr.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Lisa Belenky, Esq.
         Lewis Feinberg Renaker & Jackson, P.C.,
         1330 Broadway, Ste. 1800
         Oakland, CA 94612
         Phone: 510-839-6824

         Robert M. Elliot, Esq. (rmelliot@epmlaw.com)
         Elliot Pishko Morgan, P.A.
         426 Old Salem Rd.
         Winston-Salem, NC 27101
         Phone: 336-724-2828
         Fax: 336-714-4499

              - and -

         James M. Fingerg, Esq.
         Leiff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
         275 Battery St., 30th Floor
         San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
         Phone: 415-956-1000

Representing the defendants is:

         Adam H. Charnes, Esq. (acharnes@kilpatrickstockton.com)
         Kilpatrick Stockton, L.L.P.
         1001 W. Fourth St.
         Winston-Salem, NC 27101
         Phone: 336-607-7382
         Fax: 336-734-2602


R.J. REYNOLDS: Second Circuit Decertifies Class in "Schwab" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decertified the
class in a purported class-action suit captioned "[Schwab]
McLaughlin v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-
01945-JBW-SMG," which names R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a wholly
owned subsidiary of Reynolds American, Inc., and several other
tobacco manufacturers, as defendants.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on May 11, 2004.  In it, the plaintiffs
seek compensatory and treble damages against each defendant,
jointly and severally, for all losses and damages suffered as a
result of the defendants' alleged wrongdoings complained of,
including pre- and post-judgment interest, costs and
disbursements of the action, including attorneys' fees and
experts' fees and costs.

The plaintiffs also seek temporary, preliminary and permanent
equitable and injunctive relief, including enjoining future
wrongdoing, rescission, disgorgement of the defendants' ill-
gotten funds, and attaching, impounding or imposing a
constructive trust upon or otherwise restricting the proceeds of
the defendants' ill-gotten funds.

The plaintiffs brought the case pursuant to the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, challenging the
practices of the defendants in connection with the
manufacturing, marketing, advertising, promotion, distribution
and sale of cigarettes that were labeled as "lights" or "light."
They have estimated damages to the class to be in the hundreds
of billions of dollars.  Any damages awarded to the plaintiffs
based on defendants violation of the RICO statute would be
trebled.

On Sept. 25, 2006, the court issued its decision, among other
things, granting class certification.

On Nov. 16, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit granted the defendants' motions to stay the district
court proceedings and for review of the class certification
ruling.

On April 3, 2008, the Second Circuit decertified the class.  The
case was returned to the trial court for further proceedings,
according to the company's Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.

The suit is "[Schwab] McLaughlin v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:04-cv-01945-JBW-SMG," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Jack B.
Weinstein, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. (lnussbaum@kaplanfox.com)
         Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
         805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Phone: 212-687-1980
         Fax: 212-687-1980

              - and -

         William P. Butterfield, Esq. (wbutterfield@cmht.com)
         Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
         1100 New York Ave. NW, Ste. 500, West Tower
         Washington, D.C. 20005
         Phone: 202-408-4600
         Fax: 202-408-4699

Representing the defendants are:

         Mark A. Belasic, Esq. (mabelasic@jonesday.com)
         Jones Day
         901 Lakeside Avenue, North Point
         Cleveland, OH 44114
         Phone: 216-586-3939
         Fax: 216-579-0212

              - and -

         Peter A. Bellacosa, Esq.
         (peter_bellacosa@ny.kirkland.com)
         Kirkland & Ellis
         Citigroup Center
         153 East 53rd Street
         New York, NY 10022-4675
         Phone: 212-446-4800
         Fax: 212-446-4900


R.J. REYNOLDS: To Appeal Trial Court's Verdict in "Scott" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of Reynolds
American, Inc., plans to appeal a trial court's decision in the
matter "Scott v. American Tobacco Co." to the Louisiana Court of
Appeals as one of the defendants.

The case was filed in May 1996 before the District Court,
Orleans Parish, Louisiana.  On Nov. 5, 1998, the trial court
certified a medical monitoring or smoking cessation class of
Louisiana residents who were smokers on or before May 24, 1996.

The action, which seeks to recover an unspecified amount of
compensatory and punitive damages, was also filed against major
U.S. cigarette manufacturers.  The plaintiffs allege that their
use of the defendants' products caused them to become addicted
to nicotine.

Opening statements occurred on Jan. 21, 2003.  On July 28, 2003,
the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants on the
plaintiffs' claim for medical monitoring and found that
cigarettes were not defectively designed.

However, the jury also made certain findings against the
defendants on claims relating to fraud, conspiracy, marketing to
minors and smoking cessation.  Notwithstanding these findings,
this portion of the trial did not determine liability as to any
class member or class representative.

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

On March 31, 2004, phase two of the trial began to address only
the scope and cost of smoking cessation programs.  On May 21,
2004, the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $591 million
on the class's claim for a smoking cessation program.

On Sept. 29, 2004, the defendants posted a $50-million bond,
pursuant to legislation that limits the amount of the bond to
$50 million collectively for MSA signatories, and noticed their
appeal.  R.J. Reynolds posted $25 million towards the bond.

On Feb. 7, 2007, the Louisiana Court of Appeals upheld the class
certification and found the defendants responsible for funding
smoking cessation for eligible class members.

The appellate court ruled, however, that the defendants were not
liable for any post-1988 claims, rejected the award of
prejudgment interest and struck eight of the twelve components
of the smoking cessation program.  In particular, the appellate
court ruled that no class member, who began smoking after Sept.
1, 1988, could receive any relief, and that only those smokers,
whose claims accrued on or before Sept. 1, 1988, would be
eligible for the smoking cessation program.

The plaintiffs have expressly represented to the trial court
that none of their claims accrued before 1988 and that the class
claims did not accrue until around 1996, when the case was
filed.

There is currently no final judgment for a specific amount of
damages, and the appellate court remanded the case to the trial
court for further proceedings, which will likely lead to
additional appellate review if any new judgment is entered.

On March 2, 2007, the defendants' application for rehearing and
clarification was denied.  The defendants' application for writ
of certiorari with the Louisiana Supreme Court was denied on
Jan. 7, 2008.  The defendants' petition for writ of certiorari
with the U.S. Supreme Court was denied on June 10, 2008.

On July 21, 2008, the trial court entered an amended judgment in
the case.  The court found that the defendants are jointly and
severally liable for funding the cost of a court-supervised
smoking cessation program and ordered the defendants to deposit
approximately $263 million, together with interest from June 30,
2004, into a trust for the funding of the program.

The court also stated that it would favorably consider a motion
to return to the defendants a portion of unused funds at the
close of each program year in the event the monies allocated for
the preceding program year were not fully expended because of a
reduction in class size or underutilization by the remaining
plaintiffs.

The defendants will appeal this judgment to the Louisiana Court
of Appeals, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is a holding company.  It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco
and Conwood.  RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane,
Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co.,
LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC,
which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies.
The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,  The Conwood segment consists of the
Conwood companies and Lane.  RAI's wholly owned operating
subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All
Other.


R.J. REYNOLDS: Artists' Suit Over "Unauthorized" Ad is Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of Reynolds
American, Inc., and Wenner Media are still facing a purported
class-action lawsuit for allegedly using the names of an Oakland
band and a group from Toronto in a cigarette ad without
authorization.

The suit was filed in Alameda County Superior Court by Xiu Xiu
of Oakland and F----d Up of Toronto.  R.J. Reynolds makes the
Camel cigarettes featured in the ads.  Wenner Media publishes
the Rolling Stone magazine that carried the ad insert.  The suit
claims defendants used the bands' names for commercial advantage
and unfair business practices (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 7,
2008).

The ad was ran in in the Nov. 15, 2007, fortieth anniversary
issue of Rolling Stone.

The suit was filed by San Francisco attorney Christopher Hun,
Esq., on behalf of the two groups.  He is seeking class-action
status for the case so that members from more than 150 bands
featured in the ad could join the suit.

The suit states that the publication of the groups' names
without their authorization, consent or prior knowledge was
illegal.  The two artists groups filed the class-action suit on
Dec. 17, 2007, claiming that their mention in the editorial
section violated their right of publicity.  They seek to recover
actual damages in the amount of $750 per violation, per
plaintiff and per each class member and punitive damages in an
unspecified amount.

The suit was filed in Alameda County because the issue of
Rolling Stone was at all material times marketed, distributed
and sold in Alameda County.  It says members of the two groups
have suffered "embarrassment, shock and anger" because the ad
makes it seem like they are endorsing a commercial product that
many of them have taken a stand against.

The company reported no further development regarding in the
matter in its Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is a holding company.  It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco
and Conwood.  RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane,
Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co.,
LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC,
which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies.
The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,  The Conwood segment consists of the
Conwood companies and Lane.  RAI's wholly owned operating
subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All
Other.


R.J. REYNOLDS: Tobacco Lawsuits Still Pending in La., W.Va., Mo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of Reynolds
American, Inc., is till facing three tobacco lawsuits that are
either stayed or have limited activity.

                        Young Litigation

"Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc." was filed in November 1997
before the Circuit Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana.  It is an
Environmental Tobacco Smoke class-action suit against U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds and Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., and parent companies of U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, on behalf of all residents of Louisiana
who, though not themselves cigarette smokers, have been exposed
to secondhand smoke from cigarettes which were manufactured by
the defendants, and who suffer injury as a result of that
exposure.  The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount
of compensatory and punitive damages.

On Oct. 13, 2004, the trial court stayed this case pending the
outcome of the appeal in a related case entitled "Scott v.
American Tobacco Co., Inc."

                       Parsons Litigation

The case captioned "Parsons v. A C & S, Inc.," was filed in
February 1998 before the Circuit Court, Ohio County, West
Virginia.  In it, the plaintiff sued asbestos manufacturers,
U.S. Cigarette manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds and Brown
& Williamson Holdings, Inc., and parent companies of U.S.
Cigarette manufacturers, seeking to recover $1,000,000 in
compensatory and punitive damages individually and an
unspecified amount for the class in both compensatory and
punitive damages.

The plaintiff alleges that her use of tobacco products and
exposure to asbestos products caused her to develop lung cancer
and to become addicted to tobacco.

The case has been stayed pending a final resolution of the
plaintiffs' motion to refer tobacco litigation to the judicial
panel on multi-district litigation filed in "In Re: Tobacco
Litigation," which is pending with the the Supreme Court of
Appeals of West Virginia.

On Dec. 26, 2000, three defendants -- Nitral Liquidators, Inc.;
Desseaux Corp. of North American; and Armstrong World Industries
-- filed bankruptcy petitions before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware, "In re Armstrong World Industries,
Inc."

Pursuant to section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, "Parsons" is
automatically stayed with respect to all defendants.

                        Jones Litigation

The litigation captioned "Jones v. American Tobacco Co., Inc.,"
was filed in December 1998 before the Circuit Court, Jackson
County, Missouri.  The defendants removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri on Feb. 16,
1999.

The suit was brought against major U.S. cigarette manufacturers,
including R.J. Reynolds and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc.,
on behalf of tobacco product users and purchasers on behalf of
all similarly situated Missouri consumers.

The plaintiffs allege that their use of the defendants' tobacco
products has caused them to become addicted to nicotine.  The
plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory
and punitive damages.

The case was remanded to the Circuit Court on Feb. 17, 1999.
There has been limited activity in this case.

The company reported no further development regarding the cases
in its Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is a holding company.  It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco
and Conwood.  RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane,
Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co.,
LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC,
which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies.
The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,  The Conwood segment consists of the
Conwood companies and Lane.  RAI's wholly owned operating
subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All
Other.


R.J. REYNOLDS: "Daniels" Lawsuit Dismissal Becomes Final
--------------------------------------------------------
A petition for writ of certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court
that was filed by the plaintiffs in the matter captioned
"Daniels v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc.," which names the major
U.S. Cigarette manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of Reynolds American, Inc., has
been denied

The lawsuit was filed in April 1998 before the Superior Court,
San Diego County, California.  On Nov. 30, 2000, a judge
certified -- based on a California unfair business practices
statute -- a class consisting of all persons who, as California
resident minors, smoked one or more cigarettes in California
between April 2, 1994, and Dec. 1, 1999.

The suit is seeking to recover an unspecified amount of
compensatory and punitive damages, restitution to each member of
the class and to the general public, and an injunction
prohibiting the defendants from engaging in further violation of
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 and
Section 17500.  It alleges that due to the deceptive practices
of the defendants, they became addicted to cigarettes as
teenagers.

The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment
on preemption and First Amendment grounds and dismissed the suit
on Oct. 21, 2002.

The plaintiffs appealed the trial court's dismissal.  And on
Oct. 6, 2004, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial
court's decision.  On Aug. 2, 2007, the California Supreme Court
affirmed the California Court of Appeal's ruling.

On Nov. 30, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.  On March 17, 2008, the
plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S.
Supreme Court was denied, according to the company's Aug. 4,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is a holding company.  It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco
and Conwood.  RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane,
Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co.,
LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC,
which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies.
The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,  The Conwood segment consists of the
Conwood companies and Lane.  RAI's wholly owned operating
subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All
Other.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Howard" Lawsuit Remains Stayed in Illinios
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the stay
order issued in the class action suit captioned "Howard v. Brown
& Williamson Tobacco Corp.," which named an affiliate of
Reynolds American, Inc., as a defendant.

The class in the case generally seeks to recover $50,000 to
$75,000 per member for compensatory and punitive damages,
injunctive and other forms of relief, and attorneys fees and
costs from the defendants.

In general, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false
and misleading claims that lights cigarettes were lower in tar
and nicotine and were less hazardous or less mutagenic than
other cigarettes.

The suit was filed in February 2000 with the Circuit Court,
Madison County, Illinois.  A judge certified a class on Dec. 18,
2001.

On June 6, 2003, the trial judge issued an order staying all
proceedings pending resolution of Philip Morris' appeal in the
matter "Price v. Philip Morris Inc."

The plaintiffs appealed this stay order to the Illinois Fifth
District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Circuit Court's
stay order on Aug. 19, 2005.

The company reported no further development regarding the matter
in its Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.

Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/--
is a holding company.  It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco
and Conwood.  RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane,
Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co.,
LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC,
which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies.
The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,  The Conwood segment consists of the
Conwood companies and Lane.  RAI's wholly owned operating
subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All
Other.


TRISTAR FOOD: Recalls Lanmao Drinks for Possible Health Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
     October 3, 2008 -- Tristar Food, Jersey City, NJ is
initiating a nationwide recall of all of their 100 ml plastic
bottle packages of Blue Cat Flavor Drink (Lanmao) because it may
be contaminated with Melamine.

     Consumers who have the product which is being recalled
should stop using it immediately.  If consumers have questions
about possible health risks, they should contact their doctor.

     Product was distributed nationwide in Asian grocery stores.

     The product comes in 100 ml plastic bottles package with a
BESTBEFORE date.  There are four flavors printed in Chinese:

     1. Strawberry, with red strawberry picture on the bottle.
     2. Sweet Orange, with orange picture on the bottle
     3. Pineapple, with green pineapple picture on the bottle
     4. Peach, with pink peach picture on the bottle

All packaging has a logo of blue cat on the back of the bottle
and the word "blue cat" (in Chinese) on the front.

     No illnesses associated with this product have been
reported to date.

     The recall was initiated after FDA testing discovered that
the products were found to contain Melamine.

     Consumers who have purchased Blue Cat Flavor Drink (Lanmao)
are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full
refund.  Consumers with questions may contact the company at
201-938-2590, Monday to Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Eastern
Standard Time.


WACHOVIA BANK: Faces Lawsuit in California Over Overdraft Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wachovia Bank is facing a class-action complaint filed in San
Francisco District Court over allegations that it charges
customers overdraft fees though they have sufficient funds to
cover the withdrawals, CourtHouse News Service reports.

The CourtHouse News Service did not report on any other updates
or details regarding the case.

Based in Charlotte, North Carolina, Wachovia Corporation
(NYSE:WB) -- http://www.wachovia.com/-- is one of the nation's
diversified financial services companies, with assets of
$808.9 billion and market capitalization of $53.8 billion at
March 31, 2008.


                     New Securities Fraud Cases

CARTER'S INC: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
     BALA CYNWYD, PA, Oct. 6, 2008 -- Law offices of Brodsky &
Smith, LLC, filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of
all persons who purchased the common stock of Carter's, Inc.,
between February 21, 2006, and July 24, 2007.

     The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating
the price of Carter's.

For more information, contact:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: 877-LEGAL-90


HARRIS STRATEX: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     RADNOR, Pa., Oct. 6, 2008 -- The law firm of Schiffrin
Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, gave notice that a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on behalf of all purchasers of securities
of Harris Stratex Networks, Inc., from January 29, 2007, to
July 30, 2008, inclusive including shareholders of Stratex
Networks, Inc., who exchanged shares of Stratex Networks, Inc.,
for shares of Harris Stratex pursuant or traceable to the
Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus.

     The Complaint charges Harris Stratex and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Harris Stratex
designs, manufactures, and sells a range of wireless networking
products, solutions, and services to mobile and fixed telephone
service providers, private network operators, government
agencies, transportation and utility companies, public safety
agencies, and broadcast system operators.

     More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company had understated its cost of sales;

     (2) that the Company had misstated its pre- tax income from
         2005 through 2008;

     (3) that the Company's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles;

     (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
         controls;

     (5) that the Company's financial statements were materially
         false and misleading at all relevant times; and

     (6) that the Company's Registration Statement was false and
         misleading at all relevant times.

     On July 30, 2008, the Company announced that it had
discovered serious accounting errors which caused the reported
financial statements for fiscal years 2005 through 2007 and the
first three quarters of 2008 to be incorrect.  The Company
stated that these financial statements should no longer be
relied upon, and that the Company would restate its financial
statements for all of these periods.  The Company further stated
its belief that these errors were the result of one or more
material weaknesses in its system of internal controls, and that
the cumulative effect of these errors would decrease the
Company's previously reported pre-tax income by between
approximately $18 million and $25 million.  Upon the release of
this news, shares of the Company's stock fell $3.89 per share,
or 34.61 percent, to close on July 31, 2008, at $7.35 per share,
on unusually heavy trading volume.

     The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class
members.

For more information, contact:

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          David M. Promisloff, Esq.
          Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free)
                 1-610-667-7706
          e-mail: info@sbtklaw.com


MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Brodsky Smith Files Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     BALA CYNWYD, PA, Oct. 6, 2008 -- Law offices of Brodsky &
Smith, LLC, filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of all
persons who purchased the common stock of Medicis Pharmaceutical
Corp. between October 30, 2003, and September 24, 2008.

     The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating
the price of Medicis.

For more information, contact:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          Brodsky & Smith, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Phone: 877-LEGAL-90


NOVATEL WIRELESS: Shuman Law Files California Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
     BOULDER, Colo., Oct. 6, 2008 -- The Shuman Law Firm filed a
lawsuit seeking class action status in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf
of those who purchased the common stock of Novatel Wireless Inc.
between February 5, 2007, and August 19, 2008.

     The Complaint charges that Novatel and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
issuing materially false statements.  Specifically, defendants
failed to disclose that Novatel was recognizing revenue in
violation of its own revenue cut-off procedures and Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles, thus rendering the Company's
publicly reported financial results materially false.  The
defendants also misrepresented the status of an internal
accounting review by the Company's Audit Committee.

     On May 13, 2008, defendants represented that Novatel was
unable to file its Form 10-Q with the SEC on time because of a
review of a single customer contract which they represented was
"substantially completed today."

     On August 19, 2008, defendants admitted that the review was
still ongoing, that it involved at least six transactions
representing $9.1 million in revenue, and that when the review
was completed a decision would be made as to whether a
restatement would be required.

     Interested parties may move the court no later than
November 17, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Kip B. Shuman, Esq. (kip@shumanlawfirm.com)
          Rusty E. Glenn, Esq. (rusty@shumanlawfirm.com)
          The Shuman Law Firm
          885 Arapahoe Avenue
          Boulder, CO 80203
          Phone: 866-974-8626
          Fax: 303-484-4886
          Web site: http://www.shumanlawfirm.com/


SPECTRANETICS CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
     NEW YORK, NY, Oct. 6, 2008  -- Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC, filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado against The
Spectranetics Corporation and various individuals on behalf of
purchasers of Spectranetics who purchased common stock between
April 19, 2007, and September 4, 2008.

     According to the complaint, the true facts, which were
known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were as follows:

     (1) that the Company lacked effective regulatory compliance
         controls;

     (2) that the Company was illegally and extensively
         marketing its laser and catheters for uses that had not
         been approved by the FDA;

     (3) that the Company failed to report to the FDA that tests
         found its laser caused significant damage to stents it
         was using in the clinical trial;

     (4) that the company illegally tested several products on
         patients without FDA approval;

     (5) that the Company lacked effective internal controls;
         and

     (6) as a result of the above, the Company's financial
         results were materially inflated.

     Interested parties may move the court no later than
November 24, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.

For more information, contact:

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          Eitan Kimelman
          Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Phone: 212-697-6484


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
October 15-16, 2008
  STRUCTURED FINANCE AND DERIVATIVES LITIGATION CONFERENCE
    BVR Legal/Mealey's Conferences
      Lighthouse Executive Conference Center & Theater
        New York, New York
          Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

October 20-21, 2008
  SECURITIES LITIGATION & ENFORCEMENT INSTITUTE
    Practising Law Institute
      San Francisco, California
        Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710

October 21-22, 2008
  AUCTION RATE SECURITIES
    American Conference Institute
      Helmsley Park Lane Hotel
        New York, New York
          Phone: 888-224-2480

October 23-24, 2008
  Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
    Mass Torts Made Perfect
      Bellagio, Las Vegas
        Phone: 1-800-320-2227

October 27-28, 2008
  POSITIONING THE CLASS ACTION DEFENSE FOR EARLY SUCCESS
    American Conference Institute
      FireSky Resort & Spa, Scottsdale, Arizona
        Phone: 888-224-2480

October 28-29, 2008
  WAGE & HOUR LITIGATION
    American Conference Institute
      Sheraton Fisherman's Wharf
        San Francisco, California
          Phone: 888-224-2480

October 28-29, 2008
  SUBPRIME LITIGATION & ENFORCEMENT
    American Conference Institute
      Millennium Broadway\u2008Hotel
        New York, New York
          Phone: 888-224-2480

October 29-30, 2008
  AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCT LIABILITY
    American Conference Institute
      Sutton Place Hotel, Chicago, Illinois
        Phone: 888-224-2480

October 30-31, 2008
  SECURITIES FILINGS
    Practising Law Institute
      Gleacher Center
        Chicago, Illinois
          Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710

November 5-7, 2008
  COMPREHENSIVE CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CLAIMS & COVERAGE CONFERENCE
    BVR Legal/Mealey's Conferences
      Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino
        Las Vegas, Nevada
          Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

November 6-7, 2008
  BAD FAITH LITIGATION CONFERENCE
    BVR Legal/Mealey's Conferences
      Harvard Club
        New York, New York
          Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

November 6-7, 2008
  SECURITIES FILINGS
    Practising Law Institute
      San Francisco, California
        Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710

November 7, 2008
  NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON CLASS ACTIONS
    American Bar Association
      New York
        Phone: 800-285-2221

November 11, 2008
  MANAGING COMPLEX LITIGATION: LEGAL STRATEGIES AND BEST
    PRACTICES IN "HIGH-STAKES" CASES
      Practising Law Institute
        New York, New York
          Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710

November 12-14, 2008
  SECURITIES REGULATION INSTITUTE
    Practising Law Institute
      New York Hilton, New York
        Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710

November 13, 2008
  BAD FAITH LITIGATION DEFENSE COUNSEL SUMMIT
    American Conference Institute
      Hyatt Regency Grand Cypress, Orlando, Florida
        Contact: 888-224-2480

November 17-18, 2008
  LIFE INSURANCE IN THE SECONDARY MARKET CONFERENCE
    BVR Legal/Mealey's Conferences
      Rittenhouse Hotel
        Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
          Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

December 4-5, 2008
  ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WHERE IS IT GOING? WHEN WILL IT END?
    American Law Institute - American Bar Association
      St. Anthony Hotel
        San Antonio, Texas
          Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS

December 4-5, 2008
  FOOD\u2010BORNE ILLNESS LITIGATION
    American Conference Institute
      TBC, Phoenix, Arizona
        Phone: 888-224-2480

December 9-11, 2008
  DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
    American Conference Institute
      Millennium Broadway Hotel, New York
        Phone: 888-224-2480

December 17-18, 2008
  TOP 10 INSURANCE ISSUES CONFERENCE
    BVR Legal/Mealey's Conferences
      Loews Hotel
        Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
          Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

January 21-22, 2009
  14TH ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY INSURANCE
    American Conference Institute
      TBD, New York, New York
        Phone: 888-224-2480

May 18-19, 2009
  5TH ANNUAL IN-HOUSE COUNSEL FORUM ON PHARMACEUTICAL ANTITRUST
    American Conference Institute
      TBD, Washington, District of Columbia
        Phone: 888-224-2480

July 9-10, 2009
  CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2009: PROSECUTION AND
    DEFENSE STRATEGIES
      Practising Law Institute
        New York
          Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710

July 9-10, 2009
  INSURANCE INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LITIGATION
    American Law Institute - American Bar Association
      Langham Hotel
        Boston, Massachusetts
          Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS

* Online Teleconferences
------------------------
October 21, 2008
  EFFECTIVE USE & TIMING OF FINANCIAL EXPERTS IN COMMERCIAL
    LITIGATION
      BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences
        Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

October 22, 2008
  COMPELLING STATISTICAL EVIDENCE: MINING, MODELING AND
    PRESENTING QUANTITATIVE FINANCIAL EVIDENCE TO JURIES
      BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences
        Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

October 29, 2008
  LOW-LEVEL EXPOSURE CASES IN LEAD LITIGATION
    BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences
      Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

October 30, 2008
  MRSA AND HOSPITAL INFECTIONS: THE NEXT WAVE OF CLASS
    INFECTIONS
      BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences
        Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

October 30, 2008
  LITIGATION HOLD LETTERS
    American Law Institute - American Bar Association
      Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS

November 5, 2008
  UNDERSTANDING THE EXPOSURE RISK FROM ASBESTOS IN SOILS
    BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences
      Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

November 7, 2008
  WAGE AND HOUR LITIGATION
    American Law Institute - American Bar Association
      Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS

November 19, 2008
  BENZENE
    BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences
      Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

November 19, 2008
  FALSE CLAIMS ACT & PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: AN UPDATE
    American Law Institute - American Bar Association
      Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS

November 20, 2008
  FASB UPDATE: CONVERGENCE, VOLATILITY & POTENTIAL LIABILITIES
    BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences
      Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963

December 4-5, 2008
  ASBESTOS LITIGATION
    American Law Institute - American Bar Association
      Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS

December 13, 2008
  MEALEY'S FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE
    Mealeys Seminars
      Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
        e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
  (2004)
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
       Phone: 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
  (2005)
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
  (2007)
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 26TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
  (2008)
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

DIRECT AND CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXPERTS
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

GOVERNMENT TORT LIABILITY: CLAIMS, LITIGATION & RECENT
  DEVELOPMENTS
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
  YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING
  WRITTEN DISCOVERY
    CEB Online
      e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
        Phone: 1-800-232-3444

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
  CEB Online
    e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
      Phone: 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
  LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
    Online Streaming Video
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY-PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
  LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
    Online Streaming Video
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
  LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
    Online Streaming Video
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
  Big Class Action
    e-mail: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECOVERIES
  Big Class Action
    e-mail: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
  LawCommerce.Com/Law Education Institute
    e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
  Online Streaming Video
    LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
      e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
  LawCommerce.Com
    e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
  SALES AND ADVERSTISING
    American Bar Association
      Phone: 800-285-2221
        e-mail: abacle@abanet.org






                            *********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter.  Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********

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.  Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Janice M. Mendoza, Freya Natasha F.
Dy, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2008.  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  * * *