CAR_Public/090305.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, March 5, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 45

                           Headlines

AT&T MOBILITY: Faces Lawsuit in Oklahoma Over Netbook Data Plan
AWP LITIGATION: April 27 Fairness Hearing Set for $21M Agreement
BAXTER INT'L: Faces Litigation Over Deaths From Heparin Drug
BP PLC: Wash. Court Dismisses Unit From Suit Over 2006 Oil Spill
CITY OF CHICAGO: Ill. Federal Judge Dismisses Protesters' Suit

DOW CHEMICAL: Michigan High Court Hears Appeal in Dioxin Lawsuit
KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: Fla. Firm Files Lawsuit Over Chinese Drywall
MICHAEL BAKER: Reaches Settlement in Securities Fraud Litigation
NORTH HUDSON: Board to Challenge Injunction in N.J. Litigation
OCA INC: La. Court Grants Final Approval to $6.5M Settlement

PARMALAT SPA: N.Y. Judge OKs $20M Settlement in Securities Suit
PIRELLI SPA: Seeks Dismissal of Marine Hose Litigation in Fla.
PUBLISHING COS: Supreme Court Hears Appeal in Freelancers' Case
QUALCOMM INC: Calif. Judge Dismisses Antitrust Suit Over Patents
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Appeal to Amended Order in Scott Suit Pending

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Mo. Lawsuits Over "Light Cigarettes" Pending
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Schwab" Suit Ongoing in N.Y. District Court
VISION AIRLINES: Denies Claims in Nevada Lawsuit Over Hazard Pay


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

NUTRACEA INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing


                           *********

AT&T MOBILITY: Faces Lawsuit in Oklahoma Over Netbook Data Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T Mobility, LLC, and RadioShack Corp. face a purported class-
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma over a 3G netbook data plan, Jeffrey Silva
of RCR Wireless News reports.

The suit captioned, "Parks v. AT&T Mobility LLC et al., Case No.
5:2009-cv-00212," was filed on Feb. 24, 2009 by Billie Parks,
who had received a bill for more than $5,000 after purchasing a
$100 netbook bundled with a two-year AT&T Mobility DataConnect
service contract, reports RCR Wireless News.

According to the lawsuit, "Although the customer service summary
informed plaintiff and other consumers that their first bill
might be higher than expected because of a $36 activation fee,
one month's service billed in advance, and prorated charges and
fees for the month when the customer signed up, neither
plaintiff nor other consumers were informed, nor could they have
reasonable discerned from the paper work that wireless Internet
usage exceeding 5GB per month would result in astronomical
charges running into the thousands of dollars."

The class-action complaint brought by Ms. Parks, who is
represented by the law firm of Thomas & Terrell, accuses AT&T
Mobility and RadioShack of common law fraud and violation of
state consumer protection acts in connection with allegedly
false, misleading and inaccurate advertising of the netbook
DataConnect plan, according to the RCR Wireless News report.

The suit seeks:

       -- recovery of all sums paid for additional charges under
          the AT&T Mobility DataConnect plan;

       -- rescission of the RadioShack/AT&T Mobility DataConnect
          contracts;

       -- unspecified damages due to alleged harm to plaintiff's
          credit;

       -- a temporary and permanent injunction forbidding the
          enforcement of the additional charges provision of the
          AT&T Mobility DataConnect contract;

       -- attorney fees and costs; and

       -- class-action certification of the suit.

The suit is "Parks v. AT&T Mobility LLC et al., Case No. 5:2009-
cv-00212," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma, Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti, presiding.

Representing the plaintiff is:

          J. David Terrell, Esq. (dave@tntlawyers.com)
          Thomas & Terrell PLLC
          3501 NW 63rd St.,
          Suite 301
          Oklahoma City, OK 73116
          Phone: 405-286-6353
          Fax: 405-286-6366


AWP LITIGATION: April 27 Fairness Hearing Set for $21M Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
     BOSTON, March 3 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Important
deadlines are approaching for class members of a proposed class
action settlement related to the average wholesale prices of
certain prescription drugs.  The United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts granted preliminary approval
of the Proposed Settlement in July 2008.

In the lawsuit, "In re: Pharmaceutical Industry Average
Wholesale Price Litigation, No. 01-CV-12257-PBS, MDL No. 1456,"
plaintiffs claimed that drug manufacturers unlawfully inflated
the published average wholesale price of certain drugs,
increasing what certain consumers and others paid.  The
defendants deny any wrongdoing.

     Consumers who paid percentage co-payments or full payments
for any of the covered drugs between January 1, 1991 and March
1, 2008 are eligible for money back.  (A percentage co-payment
varies with the cost of the drug; refunds are not available to
those who paid flat co-payments.)  Requests to be excluded from
the Settlement and objections to the Settlement must be
postmarked by March 16, 2009. Consumer Class Members must file
claims by May 1, 2009.

     The Proposed Settlement includes approximately $21.8
million for payments to consumers who file valid claims.
Qualifying consumers can get a minimum of $35 by certifying
under oath that they paid percentage co-payments for the covered
drugs.  Or, with receipts or bills for percentage co-payments
for the covered drugs, they can receive more money back.  For
some of the drugs, the payment is up to three times the amount
of the co-payment.

     The approximately 200 covered drugs are used for the
treatment of many medical conditions and are often, but not
always, injected in a doctor's office or clinic.  The drugs
include those for treatment of cancer, HIV, asthma, allergies,
infections, inflammation, pain, gastrointestinal, lung and blood
issues, and other conditions.

     The Defendants, 11 drug manufacturers, deny any wrongdoing,
and have stated that while they believe they have strong
defenses to the claims asserted, they have entered into the
Settlement as a reasonable way to resolve the litigation and
avoid the further expense, burden, and inconvenience that would
result if they continued to litigate.

     The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on April 27,
2009 at 2:00 p.m. to consider whether the Proposed Settlement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate and the motion for attorneys'
fees and expenses.

     For detailed information, including a list of all the
covered drugs and a claim form, call toll-free 1-877-465-8136,
visit http://www.AWPTrack2Settlement.com/,or write: AWP Track 2
Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 951, Minneapolis, MN 55440-
0951.


BAXTER INT'L: Faces Litigation Over Deaths From Heparin Drug
------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International, Inc. faces a purported class-action suit
in St. Clair County Circuit Court that was filed by a group of
people whose spouses have died from Heparin use, Kelly Holleran
of The Madison County Record reports.

Linda Chapman, whose deceased husband was given Heparin and died
of its use, is among a group of 28 suing Baxter over its
anticoagulant drug Heparin.  She and other plaintiffs will be
represented by John J. Driscoll, Esq. of St. Louis, by
Christopher Cueto, Esq., of Belleville and by Robert L. Salim,
Esq. of Nachitoches, La., according to The Madison County Record
report.

The plaintiffs generally allege that Baxter wrongfully allowed
the Heparin to be placed on the market and that it breached its
express warranties that Heparin had no dangerous side effects
and that its ingredients were manufactured in a plant in
accordance with FDA regulations, according to the complaint, a
copy of which was obtained by The Madison County Record.

According to the suit, Baxter represented to the plaintiffs and
their doctors that Heparin was safe and of merchantable quality
when the drug was not fit for its intended use.

The suit further states, "The Defendants knew or should have
known that it was foreseeable that users of their Heparin, such
as Plaintiffs' Decedents, would suffer injury or death as a
result of Defendants' failure to exercise ordinary care as
described in the foregoing," The Madison County Record reported.

In the six-count suit, Mrs. Chapman and the group of plaintiffs
are seeking a judgment in excess of $300,000, plus costs and
other relief deemed proper, reports The Madison County Record.


BP PLC: Wash. Court Dismisses Unit From Suit Over 2006 Oil Spill
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
dismissed BP PLC unit BP America, Inc. from a proposed
securities class-action lawsuit that accuses the oil giant of
obfuscating data prior to a major 2006 pipeline spill that
caused a drop in BP's stock price, Law360 reports.

In an opinion issued on Feb. 27, 2009, claims against BP America
and individual defendant Walter E. Massey were dropped,
according to the Law360 report.


CITY OF CHICAGO: Ill. Federal Judge Dismisses Protesters' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois dismissed a purported class-action
lawsuit against the City of Chicago over arrests at a 2003 anti-
war protest near the city's Magnificent Mile, The Associated
Press reports.

In addition, Judge Kendall also dismissed a countersuit from the
city that sought $1.5 million from the protesters for the cost
of police services, according to The Associated Press report.

The Associated Press reported that some 10,000 demonstrators
flooded the plaza near the city's federal courthouse in March
2003, shortly after the Iraq war began.  The protesters marched
to Lake Shore Drive, blocking traffic.

More than 500 people were detained.  About 300 were charged with
crimes.  All the charges were dropped, reports The Associated
Press.


DOW CHEMICAL: Michigan High Court Hears Appeal in Dioxin Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Michigan Supreme Court has recently heard Dow Chemical Co.'s
appeal of a lower court ruling in a purported class-action suit
by landowners who say their property was contaminated by dioxin
-- one of the most toxic chemicals known -- that allegedly came
from the company's Midland plant, Eartha Jane Melzer of The
Michigan Messenger reports.

Previously, the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld, in a divided
opinion, class-action status for a suit filed against Dow
Chemical Co. over dioxin contamination in the Tittabawassee
River basin (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 28, 2008).

The recently reformulated Michigan Supreme Court heard Dow's
appeal of the cases class action status.  Dow is arguing that
the group should not be designated as a class because the
individual properties have different levels of dioxin
contamination, according to The Michigan Messenger report.

Freeland couple Gary and Kathy Henry filed the suit in Saginaw
County Circuit Court seeking recovery of the value of their home
and property, which they believe has been made worthless by
dioxin contamination.  The couple soon was joined by hundreds of
others who signed the suit.

In October 2005, Saginaw Circuit Judge Leopold Borrello
certified the class.  He said that without joining all residents
in one class in one suit, courts would be clogged by individual
lawsuits.

But Dow asked the Michigan Court of Appeals to reverse the
ruling of Judge Borrello saying that residents claiming property
damage because of historic dioxin releases from Dow Chemical Co.
should be handled separately -- that each has its own issues
with which to contend (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 17, 2005).

Dow argued that each plaintiff should present and prove his or
her case separately because each is contaminated with varied
levels of dioxin, if at all, and therefore the impact on
property value and the impact on property owners' use varies.

In a ruling dated Jan. 24, 2008, Justice Karen M. Fort Hood
wrote that the previous Circuit Court ruling did not err in
allowing plaintiffs' class-action status.

Justice Patrick M. Meter wrote that a class action is
appropriate in regard to liability but that individual
proceedings are best to determine damages.

Justice Kirsten Frank Kelly dissented, noting some plaintiffs
had no dioxin contamination on their properties.

The class-action participants would include people who owned
property as of Feb. 1, 2002, in the 100-year flood plain
downstream from Dow's Midland plant, court records show.

The covered area generally is bounded on the west and south by
River and Stroebel, and the east and north by Midland, St.
Andrews and Michigan, documents said.


KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: Fla. Firm Files Lawsuit Over Chinese Drywall
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Colson Hicks Eidson filed a purported class-
action suit against manufacturers and installers of high-sulfur
Chinese drywall linked to odor and metal corrosion in some new
home construction, South Florida Business Journal reports.

The suit targets builders Taylor Morrison, TOUSA Homes, and
South Kendall Construction, along with Chinese manufacturer
Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin and several other manufacturing and
distributing companies, reports the South Florida Business
Journal.

South Florida Business Journal reported that named plaintiffs
include Karen Vickers, Jason Santiago and Felix Martinez of
Homestead, and two other plaintiffs with homes in Cape Coral and
Bonita Springs.

The lawsuit, filed on March 2, 2009, alleges Knauf Tianjin, and
its parent company, Knauf Gips, injured the plaintiffs with
"negligent design and manufacturing of an unreasonably dangerous
drywall," according to the South Florida Business Journal.


MICHAEL BAKER: Reaches Settlement in Securities Fraud Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
     PITTSBURGH, March 03, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Michael Baker
Corporation (NYSE Alternext US:BKR) announced that it has
reached an agreement in principle with the lead plaintiffs in
the previously disclosed class-action lawsuit against the
Company.  The settlement is subject to court approval after
notice to the class members.  The amount of the settlement,
which the Company did not disclose, will be covered in full by
the Company's insurance.

Michael Baker Corp. -- http://www.mbakercorp.com/-- provides
engineering and operations and maintenance services for its
clients' most complex challenges worldwide.  The firm's primary
business areas are aviation, defense, environmental, facilities,
geospatial, homeland security, municipal & civil, pipelines &
utilities, transportation, water, and oil & gas.  With more than
4,500 employees in over 50 offices across the United States and
internationally, Baker is focused on creating value by
delivering innovative and sustainable solutions for
infrastructure and the environment.


NORTH HUDSON: Board to Challenge Injunction in N.J. Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The executive board of the North Hudson Regional Fire & Rescue,
with the backing of the mayors of Guttenberg, North Bergen,
Union City, Weehawken and West New York, the towns that formed
the regional department in 1998, will challenge a Feb. 18, 2008
injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey in a class-action lawsuit brought by the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People, FireFighting
News.com reports.

FireFighting News.com previously reported that the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey has allowed a
discrimination suit against the North Hudson Regional Fire 38
Rescue service to proceed as a class-action case (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 27, 2009).

In a 33-page opinion, Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise certified a
class that could potentially be as large as 872 African-
Americans from the three counties who passed a state
administered exam for firefighters between 1999 and 2006,
according to FireFighting News.com.

FireFighting News.com reported that the same opinion also
temporarily barred the agency from hiring firefighters until it
expands its residency requirement to include all of Hudson,
Essex and Union counties.

                        Case Background

Peter J. Sampson and Eric Hsu of NorthJersey.com previously
reported that The National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP) filed a purported racial discrimination
class-action suit against North Hudson Regional Fire & Rescue
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 24, 2009).

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey on April 10, 2007.  Identified as plaintiffs in
the case are:

      -- NAACP;
      -- Newark Branch, NAACP;
      -- New Jersey State Conference, NAACP;
      -- Katrina Hall;
      -- Keith Reeves;
      -- Lamara Wapples; and
      -- Altarik White.

Generally, the suit alleges that the regional fire department,
which is serving North Bergen and four other Hudson County
municipalities, hasn't hired a single black firefighter since it
was created nearly nine years ago (Class Action Reporter, April
19, 2007).

It contends that that department's preference for recruiting and
hiring employees who are residents of North Bergen, Union City,
Weehawken, West New York, and Guttenberg discriminates against
African-Americans.

The suit pointed out that the five towns, which merged their
departments in 1998, had a combined population of about 195,000
residents at the time of the 2000 census with less than 5
percent of which is African-American.

According to the suit, the department is passing up qualified
candidates simply because they don't live in the towns.

Four of the plaintiffs, namely, Ms. Hall, Mr. Reeves, Ms.
Wapples, and Mr. White, passed the state's firefighter exam and
applied for entry-level positions with the department.

However, according to the suit, because of the residency
preference, the four individuals and other outsiders from
predominately black municipalities such as Newark, East Orange,
Irvington, Jersey City and Orange are denied opportunities.  The
suit pointed out that one black firefighter in 300-member
department was hired by North Bergen before the merger.

The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction barring North Hudson
Regional from discriminating against black candidates on the
basis of race and directing it to implement a vigorous
recruitment program designed to attract qualified minorities in
proportion to the labor market.

The suit is "The National Association For The Advancement Of
Colored People (NAACP) et al. v. North Hudson Regional Fire &
Rescue, Case No. 2:07-cv-01683-DRD-ES," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Dickinson
R. Debevoise presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          David H. Ben-Asher, Esq.
          Rabner, Allcorn, Baumgartner & Ben-Asher
          52 Upper Montclair Plaza,
          Montclair, NJ 07043
          Phone: 973-744-4000
          Web site: http://www.rabnerallcorn.com


OCA INC: La. Court Grants Final Approval to $6.5M Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
granted final approval to the proposed $6,500,000 settlement in
the matter, "In Re OCA Inc. Securities and Derivative
Litigation, Master File No. 05-2165," Law360 reports.

In an order issued on March 2, 2009, Judge Sarah S. Vance of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
granted final approval to the proposed settlement, according to
the Law360 report.

The settlement covers all persons who purchased the publicly
traded common stock or sold put options of OCA, Inc. during the
period from May 18, 2004 through June 6, 2005, inclusive (Class
Action Reporter, Nov. 21, 2008).

This lawsuit alleges that press releases and SEC filings of OCA
announcing financial results during the first three quarters of
2004 were false when issued because defendants knowingly or
recklessly misstated, among other things, revenues and
receivables, and accordingly, issued financial results not
prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles.

For more details, contact:

          OCA Securities Litigation Settlement
          c/o Analytics, Inc., Claims Administrator
          P.O. Box 2002
          Chanhassen MN 55317-2002
          Phone: 1-866-233-0122
          Web site: http://www.ocasecuritieslitigation.com

          Joel B. Strauss (jstrauss@kaplanfox.com)
          Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, New York 10022
          Phone: 800-290-1952 or 212-687-1980
          Fax: 212-687-7714

               - and -

          Paul R. Bessette, Esq.
          Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
          300 West 6th Street, Suite 2100
          Austin, TX 78701-3911
          300 West 6th Street, Suite 2100
          Austin, TX 78701-3911
          Phone: (512) 499-6250
          Fax: (512) 499-6290


PARMALAT SPA: N.Y. Judge OKs $20M Settlement in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lewis Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York signed off on a second settlement worth
about $20 million in stock in a securities fraud class-action
lawsuit against bankrupt Italian dairy giant Parmalat SpA and
its financial and accounting advisers, on top of a $50 million
agreement approved a year and a half ago.

The suit entitled, "In re Parmalat Securities Litigation, Case
No. 04-MD-1653 (LAK)," was filed against Parmalat Finanziaria
S.p.A., certain, former officers and directors of Parmalat,
Parmalat's former lawyers, Parmalat's former auditors and their
affiliates, and several financial institutions (Class Action
Reporter, Aug. 4, 2008).

On Dec. 19, 2003, it was announced that a EUR4-billion ($4.8-
million) Parmalat bank account did not exist, revealing an
alleged fraudulent financial scheme between Parmalat, the giant
international Italian dairy company, and several other
companies.

Parmalat investors sued in the U.S Court and claimed that the
defendants violated the U.S. federal securities laws through
their fraudulent activities that concealed Parmalat's true
financial condition and generated false and misleading financial
statements.  The alleged fraud resulted in the understatement of
Parmalat's debt by nearly $10 billion and the overstatement of
its net assets by more than $16 billion.

When this alleged fraud was disclosed, Parmalat filed for
bankruptcy, and the value of its stock and bonds dramatically
declined.

The lead plaintiffs in the matter are Hermes Focus Asset
Management Europe Limited, Cattolica Partecipazioni, S.p.A.,
Capital & Finance Asset Management, Societe Moderne des
Terrassements Parisiens and Solotrat.


PIRELLI SPA: Seeks Dismissal of Marine Hose Litigation in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pirelli SpA and two employees of Manuli Rubber Industries SpA,
all defendants in the multidistrict litigation that alleges
price-fixing in the marine hose industry, are seeking to toss
the accusations against them, arguing that the plaintiffs have
failed to allege any specific conduct in violation of the
applicable antitrust statutes, Law360 reports.

The three defendants moved for dismissal of the second amended
consolidated class-action complaint in separate motions filed on
March 2, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, according to the Law360 report.

In general, the suit is accusing several companies in the rubber
industry of "conspiring to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize
prices of Marine Hose" (Class Action Reporter, May 23, 2007).

Marine Hose is a flexible rubber hose used to transport oil
between ships, terminals, buoys and tanks (Class Action
Reporter, June 28, 2007).


PUBLISHING COS: Supreme Court Hears Appeal in Freelancers' Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court will consider reviving the $18 million
settlement of a dispute involving payment to freelance writers
for use of their work online, The Associated Press reports.

The settlement came in a class-action lawsuit filed by the
freelancers against publishers and database companies.  The U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had thrown the
agreement out, but on March 2, 2009, the high court agreed to
hear an appeal of that decision, reports The Associated Press.

The Associated Press reported that the proposed settlement
covers both freelancers who registered the copyright to their
works and those who didn't.  The appeals court said courts
generally do not have authority over infringement claims on
works that have not been copyrighted.

The lawsuit followed a Supreme Court ruling in 2001 that
freelance writers have online rights to their work.  The case
largely applied to articles, photographs and illustrations that
were produced 15 or more years ago, before freelance contracts
provided for the material's electronic use.

The case is "Reed Elsevier v. Pogebrin, 08-103," according to
The Associated Press.


QUALCOMM INC: Calif. Judge Dismisses Antitrust Suit Over Patents
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William Q. Hayes of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California has dismissed a proposed
antitrust class-action against Qualcomm, Inc. over cell phone
technology patents approved by standards-setting organizations,
ruling that the plaintiff was too far removed from the alleged
injury, Law360 reports.

In a decision issued on March 3, 2009, Judge Hayes granted
Qualcomm's motion to dismiss, tossing all of plaintiff Jesse
Meyer's allegations, according to the Law360 report.

The CourtHouse News Service previously reported that Qualcomm is
facing a class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California alleging it forced
cell phone price hikes by abusing its monopoly power (Class
Action Reporter, April 15, 2008).

The suit is a national class action brought under the Sherman
Act and the Cartwright Act on behalf of all persons who:

   (1) purchased one or more cellular devices that either
       contain the Wideband Code Division Access technology of
       that are compatible with the Universal Mobile
       Telecommunications System standard (the Device Class);
       and

   (2) purchased cellular service from any carrier in the United
       States which bundles its cellular service with subsidized
       UMTS-compliant devices (the Service Class).

According to the antitrust class-action complaint, after
inducing cell phone manufacturers to adopt its Wideband CDMA
technology as the industry standard, Qualcomm abused its
monopoly power and breached its promise to license the
technology "on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms" and
jacked up its licensing fees, forcing higher costs to consumers.

The plaintiffs claim that Qualcomm, "by its intentional
deception of private standards-determining organizations (SDOs)
has monopolized certain markets for cellular telephone
technology and components."  It did this by causing the
Universal Mobile Telecommunications System to adopt its WCDMA
"third generation technology" as the industry standard, the suit
states.

After cell phone companies invested "billions of dollars" in
adapting to the UMTS standard, "Qualcomm disregarded its FRAND
commitments (fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory) . . . (and)
coerced device manufacturers and service carriers who are locked
into the UMTS standard into paying supracompetitive (sic) prices
to license Qualcomm's WCDMA technology," the complaint states.

The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:

     (a) whether Qualcomm's patents are essential to
         manufacturing UMTS chipsets or UMTS devices;

     (b) whether Qualcomm patents are essential
         to manufacturing UMTS chipsets or UMTS devices to
         relevant manufacturers, and said manufacturers have
         relied on those representations;

     (c) whether Qualcomm represented or committed that it would
         license its patents on FRAND terms to SDO participant
         involved in the selection and formulation of the UMTS
         standard;

     (d) whether Qualcomm intentionally misrepresented that it
         would license its patents on FRAND terms to SDO
         participants involved in the selection and formulation
         of the UMTS standard;

     (e) whether Qualcomm has committed the UMTS Licensing
         Practices alleged;

     (f) whether the UMTS Licensing Practices alleged are fair,
         reasonable and non-discriminatory;

     (g) whether Qualcomm reneged on its commitments to license
         its UMTS patents on FRAND terms;

     (h) whether the UMTS Licensing Practices have anti-
         competitive effects, including supracompetitive pricing
         and impair non-price competition in the form of
         deterred innovation;

     (i) whether Qualcomm's UMTS Licensing Practices violate the
         Section 1 of the Sherman Act;

     (j) whether Qualcomm's UMTS Licensing Practices violate the
         Section 2 of the Sherman Act;

     (k) whether the UMTS Licensing Practices' anticompetitive
         effects are passed on to end consumers of UMTS devices;

     (l) what portion of end-user prices for UMTS devices are
         attributable to Qualcomm's anticompetitive conduct
         alleged;

     (m) whether UMTS Licensing creates a trust in violation of
         California's unfair competition law; and

     (n) whether plaintiff and the device class are entitled to
         relief, and the nature of such relief.

The plaintiffs ask the court to enter an order:

     -- certifying the suit as a class action and designating
        the plaintiff and his counsel as representatives of the
        Device and Service classes;

     -- awarding treble damages in an amount to be determined at
        trial;

     -- setting an injunction against further anticompetitive
        acts, and the costs of the suit, including reasonable
        attorneys' fees;

     -- providing equitable relief including an accounting, a
        constructive trust and restitution, in an amount to be
        determined at trial, and attorneys' fees; and

     -- awarding pre- and post-judgment interest.

The suit is "Jesse Meyer et al. v. Qualcomm, Inc., Case No. 08
CV 0655 WQH," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

          Alan Himmelfarb, Esq. (ahimmelfarb@kamberedelson.com)
          KamberEdelson, LLC
          2757 Leonis Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90058
          Phone: (323) 585-8696

          Jay Edelson, Esq. (jedelson@kamberedelson.com)
          Ethan Preston, Esq. (epreston@kamberedelson.com)
          KamberEdelson, LLC
          53 West Jackson Ave., Suite 550
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Phone: (312) 589-6370

               - and -

          Karin E. Fisch, Esq.
          Orin Kurtz, Esq.
          Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP
          212 East 29th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Phone: (212) 889-3700


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Appeal to Amended Order in Scott Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal to the amended judgment in favor of the class in the
Louisiana state court case styled, "Scott v. American Tobacco
Co.," which named a subsidiary of Reynolds American, Inc., as a
defendant, remains pending.

The suit was filed against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and
Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc.

In 2004, a jury in Scott returned a verdict in favor of the
"Louisiana class" for $591 million to establish a state-wide
smoking cessation program.

In 2007, the Louisiana Court of Appeals upheld class
certification, significantly reduced the scope of recovery, and
remanded the case for further proceedings.

The Louisiana and U.S. Supreme Courts denied the defendants'
applications for writ of certiorari.

In July 2008, the trial court entered an amended judgment in
favor of the class for approximately $263 million plus interest
from June 30, 2004.

On Dec. 15, 2008, the trial court signed the order for appeal of
the amended judgment.  The briefing schedule with the Court of
Appeals has not been set, according to the company's Feb. 23,
2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 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: Mo. Lawsuits Over "Light Cigarettes" Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two purported class-action suits over "light cigarettes" that
were filed in Missouri against entities affiliated with Reynolds
American, Inc., and several other manufacturers remain pending.

Reynolds American was incorporated as a holding company in the
state of North Carolina on Jan. 5, 2004, and its common stock is
listed on the NYSE under the symbol RAI.

On July 30, 2004, RAI combined the U.S. assets, liabilities and
operations of Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., formerly known
as Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., and referred to as B&W, an
indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of British American Tobacco
p.l.c., referred to as BAT, with R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a
wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.

These July 30, 2004, transactions generally are referred to as
the B&W business combination.  As a result of the B&W business
combination, B&W owns approximately 42% of RAIs outstanding
common stock, and previous RJR stockholders exchanged their
shares of RJR common stock for approximately 58% of RAIs
outstanding common stock.

                       Collora Litigation

The suit "Collora v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.," was filed with
the Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Missouri in May 2000.

On Dec. 31, 2003, a judge certified a class defined as "all
persons who purchased Defendants' Camel Lights, Camel Special
lights, Salem Lights and Winston Lights cigarettes in Missouri
for personal consumption between the first date the Defendants
placed their Camel Lights, Camel Special Lights, Salem Lights
and Winston Lights cigarettes into the stream of commerce
through the date of this Order."

The plaintiffs seek mandatory injunctive relief sufficient to
inform consumers of, among other things, the fact that "light"
smoke is actually more mutagenic than regular tobacco smoke.

The plaintiffs claim that while promoting "low" tar and nicotine
deliveries, the defendants designed light cigarettes to deliver
higher levels of tar and nicotine than could be measured by the
standard testing apparatus, therefore achieving support for the
claim that the cigarettes were "light" and that they contained
"low tar and nicotine."

On Dec. 22, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reassign
"Collora" to a single general division.  On April 9, 2007, the
Missouri Circuit Court granted the plaintiffs' motion.

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

                        Black Litigation

In "Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.," a case filed in
November 2000 in Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, B&W
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.

The plaintiffs motion for class certification is scheduled to be
heard on April 16, 2008.

This case and certain other cases have been reassigned to a
single general division.

On April 16, 2008, the court stayed the "Collora" and "Black"
cases pending U.S. Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria Group,
Inc.  As a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Good
v. Altria Group, Inc., this case is likely to become active in
2009, according to the company's Feb. 23, 2009 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 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: "Schwab" Suit Ongoing in N.Y. District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The federal lights class-action suit tagged, "Schwab
[McLaughlin] v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.," against R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., and other
tobacco manufacturers proceeds in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York.

RJR Tobacco is a subsidiary of Reynolds American, Inc.

The nation-wide "lights" class-action, was filed on May 11,
2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.

The plaintiffs brought the case pursuant to RICO, 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."

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 Feb. 23, 2009 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 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.


VISION AIRLINES: Denies Claims in Nevada Lawsuit Over Hazard Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vision Airlines, Inc. has denied the claims made in a purported
class-action lawsuit by charter aircraft crew members who made
flights for the U.S. government into war zones in Afghanistan
and Iraq, Steve Green of The Las Vegas Sun reports.

On March 2, 2009, the company filed court papers responding to
the lawsuit, which is generally claiming that the company failed
to pay all of the federal hazard pay that charter aircraft crew
members are due for their work, according to The Las Vegas Sun
report.

Steve Green of The Las Vegas Sun previously reported the lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
on Jan. 16, 2009 by former pilot Gerald Hester of Colleyville,
Texas.  It states that at least 300 current and former employees
are affected (Class Action Reporter, Jan 27, 2009).

According to plaintiff's attorney Ross Goodman, Esq. of Las
Vegas, the company, known locally for flying Grand Canyon tour
flights, has been running the charters carrying personnel and
cargo since May 2005.

The lawsuit states "flying aircraft to and from the airports in
Baghdad and Kabul is extremely dangerous."  It explains,
"Aircraft typically arrive or depart these airports under the
cover of darkness to avoid light arms fire, rocket propelled
grenades, and missile attacks.  In fact, all flights arriving
and departing from the airports in Baghdad and Kabul must be
authorized by either the United States or British military
operational command centers located in those cities."

Aircraft must observe blackout procedures in which exterior and
interior lights are turned off and then must execute difficult
corkscrew landing procedures in which aircraft fly within a
spiral above the airport while landing in order to minimize
their exposure to enemy fire, according to the suit.

The suit states that the hazard pay due to charter crews flying
to and from Iraq is $2,500 for each captain, first officer and
international relief officer for each take-off and landing.  It
adds that other crew members such as flight attendants and
mechanics are to receive $1,500 each for each take-off and
landing.

The suit says hazard pay was initially provided to some
employees, but those payments were later halted by management,
reports The Las Vegas Sun.

"Despite receiving more than $21 million in hazard pay intended
for its employees, Vision has failed to pay its employees the
hazard pay to which they are entitled," according to the suit.

The suit is "Hester v. Vision Airlines, Inc., Case No. 2:09-cv-
00117-RLH-RJJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada, Judge Roger L. Hunt, presiding.

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Ross C. Goodman, Esq. (ross@goodmanlawgroup.com)
          Goodman Law Group
          520 S. Fourth Street
          2nd Floor
          Las Vegas, NV 89101
          Phone: 702-384-5563


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

NUTRACEA INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
     March 03, 2009: 05:40 PM ET -- Marketwire -- Federman &
Sherwood announces that on February 27, 2009, a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona against NutraCea (OTCBB: NTRZ).

     The complaint alleges violations of federal securities
laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price. The class
period is from August 14, 2007 through February 23, 2009.

     Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

For more details, contact:

          William B. Federman (wfederman@aol.com)
          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Phone: 405.235.1560
          Fax: 405.239.2112
          Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com/


                            *********

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, Stephanie T. Umacob, Gracele D.
Canilao, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2009.  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  * * *