CAR_Public/100810.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, August 10, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 156

                             Headlines

AFEXA LIFE: Court Approves Class Action Settlements
AMERICAN OIL: Accused in Colo. Suit of Breaching Fiduciary Duty
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Murray Frank Files Securities Class Action
CAMBRIDGE CREDIT: 1st Circuit Upholds $256MM Class Action Judgment
EMMIS COMMUNICATIONS: Faces 8 Class Suits on Going-Private Deal

FISHER-PRICE: Recalls 110,000 Play 'n Go Campsite
GENERAL DYNAMICS: 401(k) Class Suit Settled For $15 Million
GRANT & EISENHOFER: Sued for Concealing Existence of Fee Agreement
KAWASAKI MOTORS: Recalls 4,000 Off-Road Motorcycles
LAMONT LIMITED: Recalls 1,900 Belle Vanity Benches

METLIFE INC: Judge Allows Stuyvesant Town Class Suit to Proceed
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Continues to Defend "Scott" Action
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial in "Brown" Scheduled for May 6
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Court Okays Dismissal of "Sateriale" Suit
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Defends "Turner" Suit in Illinois

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Howard" Suit in Illinois Remains Stayed
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Missouri Suit Remains Stayed
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Fourth Amended Suit Against RJR Dismissed
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial in "VanDyke" Suit Scheduled on March 11
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Continues to Defend "Shaffer" in Arizona

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Young" Suit Against RJR Remains Stayed
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Continues to Defend "Parsons" Suit
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Defends "Jones" Suit in Missouri
STI PREPAID: Settles Calling Card Class Action for $7.4 Million
SUPER VALU: Judge Hears Arguments for Final Settlement

UNITED STATES: Census Bureau Faces Suit Over Hiring Practices
UNITED STATES: Legislation to Finalize $4.6-Bil Accord Stalled
UNIVERSAL PLACEMENT: Faces Suit Over Filipino Teachers Recruitment
XCEL ENERGY: Unit Remains a Defendant in Gas-Trading Suit
XCEL ENERGY: District Court Dismissal Ruling Reinstated

                            *********

AFEXA LIFE: Court Approves Class Action Settlements
---------------------------------------------------
Afexa Life Sciences Inc. disclosed Thursday that the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice has dismissed a proposed Ontario class
action lawsuit in conjunction with its approval of the settlement
of all related claims.  As part of the settlement and in
conjunction with the Ontario Court Order, the Alberta Court of
Queen's Bench has dismissed a parallel proposed Alberta class
action lawsuit. As announced on September 16, 2009, the Company
reached an agreement in principle to settle the proposed lawsuits,
which were commenced in Ontario and Alberta in August of 2007
against the Company, certain of its officers, former directors and
its former auditors.

The settlement agreement provides for the settlement, release and
dismissal of all claims asserted against the Company, its former
auditors and the individual proposed defendants and does not in
any way contain or constitute any admission of liability by Afexa
or its officers, directors or employees. The Company's portion of
the settlement amounts to $6.6 million which will be funded
through insurance coverage.


AMERICAN OIL: Accused in Colo. Suit of Breaching Fiduciary Duty
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that American Oil & Gas and Hess
Corp. wrongly orchestrated a merger and failed to consider
shareholders' interest, a class action claims in Denver Federal
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Cobb v. American Oil & Gas Inc.,
et al., Case No. 10-cv-01833 (D. Colo.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/08/04/American%20Oil.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J. Dyer III, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq.
          DYER & BERENS LLP
          303 East 17th Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: 303-861-1764
          E-mail: bob@dyerberens.com
                  jeff@dyerberens.com

                - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq.
          David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
          David A. Knotts Esq.
          Eun Jin Lee, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3301
          Telephone: 619-231-1058

               - and -

          Hamilton Lindley, Esq.
          GOLDFARB BRANHAM, LLP
          2501 North Harwood St., Suite 1801
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: 214-583-2233


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Murray Frank Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has filed a class action complaint in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (case no. 10-cv-5894) on behalf of all individuals and
institutions who purchased Anadarko Petroleum Corporation publicly
traded securities during the period between June 12, 2009, and
June 9, 2010. The complaint seeks damages for violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint names Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, and certain
officers and directors of the Company, as defendants. The
complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
results, risk profile, and potential liabilities. Specifically,
defendants claimed they had properly reserved for, and insured
against, foreseeable drilling related contingencies through the
Class Period. Defendants public statements were materially false
and misleading when made because they failed to disclose, among
other things: (a) that there was no effective Oil Spill Response
Plan for the Macondo/Deepwater Horizon, in which Anadarko is a 25%
owner; (b) that BP plc, Anadarko's partner in the Macondo/
Deepwater Horizon, was implementing drilling procedures that would
cut costs at the expense of safety, thereby increasing the
economic risk of a disaster; (c) that the Company lacked adequate
systems of internal, operational or financial controls to maintain
adequate insurance reserves or to meet the known or foreseeable
risks associated with its deepwater drilling liabilities; and (d)
that defendants lacked any reasonable basis to claim that Anadarko
was operating according to plan, or that Anadarko could achieve
guidance sponsored and/or endorsed by defendants. As a result of
defendants' false statements, Anadarko's securities traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

On April 20, 2010, the Macondo/Deepwater Horizon rig exploded,
killing 11 platform workers and injuring 17 others. In spite of
this disaster, defendants continued to issue materially false and
misleading statements claiming that the Company would likely incur
only approximately $177.5 million in liability for its part in the
Macondo/Deepwater Horizon venture.

On June 1, 2010, the truth concerning Anadarko's business and
liabilities was revealed as the public learned that the
Macondo/Deepwater Horizon well could not be capped and investors
came to realize there was effectively no plan in place to stop the
spill. That day, shares of Anadarko fell more than $10.00 per
share, or approximately 20%, to close at $42.10 per share, on high
trading volume. Later, on June 9, 2010, investors learned of the
material deficiencies in the Macondo/Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
Response Plan as well as the Company's liability for over $1
billion in clean up costs. This information resulted in another
drop in value of Andarko's stock of about 19%.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may move the
Court, not later than August 23, 2010, to serve as Lead Plaintiff
for the Class. A Lead Plaintiff is a representative chosen by the
Court who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. You do not need to be a Lead Plaintiff to be included
in the class. If you purchased Anadarko securities and wish to
discuss this litigation, or have any questions concerning this
Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters,
please contact Gregory Frank at (800) 497-8076, (212) 682-1818, or
via e-mail at newcase@murrayfrank.com


CAMBRIDGE CREDIT: 1st Circuit Upholds $256MM Class Action Judgment
------------------------------------------------------------------
Morris Polich & Purdy LLP disclosed that, on July 27, 2010, the
First Circuit Court of Appeal, including now-retired Supreme Court
Justice Souter, upheld a $256 million class action judgment in an
appeal argued by MPP partner David Vendler, Esq. The case involved
claims brought under the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA)(15
U.S.C. Section 1679 et seq.) against John and Richard Puccio,
former owners of what was one of the country's leading credit
counseling entities.  The plaintiff's main theory of liability was
that, while the entity advertised itself as a non-profit
organization with a charitable mission of helping consumers
resolve their debt, it was actually run as a for-profit business,
allowing its owners to collect over $50 million from their
struggling clients.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 30, 2009, the
case "Zimmermann v. Cambridge Credit Counseling, Inc.," was
originally filed in 2003, and was initially dismissed on the
defendants' Rule 12 motion on the ground that the credit
counseling entity could not be held liable under the CROA due to
its non-profit 501(c)(3) status.  In a case of first impression
nationwide, however, the First Circuit reversed, holding that
credit repair companies are not automatically excluded from the
definition of a "credit repair organization" simply because they
are organized as non profit tax exempt entities.  The court held
that, in order to be immune from suit under the CROA, the
defendant must prove that it actually operates in a manner
consistent with both of those statuses.

According to Mr. Vendler, "financially desperate consumers are
easy marks for this sales pitch, which has been hammering away on
the Internet, TV, and late-night radio for the past ten years:
'Are you in debt? We are a non-profit organization that can
negotiate with your creditors to lower your interest rates and
improve your credit.'"

In its opinion, the First Circuit wrote: "When Cambridge held
itself out as an organization that could help consumers "rebuild,"
"reestablish" and "restore" their credit, it operated as a "credit
repair organization." Having earlier established this same
threshold, the district court had pierced the corporate veil to
find the Puccios personally liable under Section 1679b(a)(3) of
CROA for their misrepresentation in offering credit repair
services as a non-profit entity. The First Circuit also noted with
some emphasis that "personal charges from a 'gentleman's club' and
for a yacht appeared on the Puccio companies' corporate credit
card bills."

As noted by the First Circuit, it is rare for plaintiffs to win
summary judgment, as their evidence on all points must be
"conclusive."  In this case, Mr. Vendler explains, the industry
practices were so questionable that plaintiffs were able to meet
this burden, making summary judgment totally appropriate.  Mr.
Vendler hopes that consumers will now be alerted to such sharp
practices.

Morris Polich & Purdy LLP is a law firm that works with its
clients on a national basis.  It represents clients in every
state, as well as many U.S. possessions.  It also has a wealth of
international affiliations.

Mr. Vendler can be reached at:

     David J. Vendler, Esq.
     MORRIS POLICH & PURDY LLP
     1055 West Seventh Street, Suite 2400
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Telephone: 213-417-5100
     E-mail: dvendler@mpplaw.com


EMMIS COMMUNICATIONS: Faces 8 Class Suits on Going-Private Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emmis Communications Corporation disclosed in a regulatory filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission last week that as of
August 4, 2010, a total of eight putative class action complaints
were filed, six of which were filed in the Marion County Superior
Court of Indiana, one of which was filed in the United States
District Court of the Southern District of Indiana and one of
which was filed in the United States District Court of the
Southern District of New York, and each of which seeks, among
other things, injunctive relief against the bid by Jeffrey H.
Smulyan, the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President of
Emmis Communications, to take the Company private.  The suits
allege breach of fiduciary duty.

JS Acquisition, Inc. -- whose equity securities are owned entirely
by Mr. Jeffrey H. Smulyan, the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
and President of Emmis Communications, and JS Acquisition, LLC, an
Indiana limited liability company that is wholly owned by Mr.
Smulyan -- is offering to purchase all of the outstanding shares
of Class A Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share, of Emmis.  The
Offer was announced April 26, 2010.

Emmis is aware of these eight class action lawsuits:

     -- Fritzi Ross, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated vs. Jeffrey H. Smulyan, Susan B. Bayh, Gary L. Kaseff,
Richard A. Leventhal, Peter A. Lund, Greg A. Nathanson, Lawrence
B. Sorrel, Patrick M. Walsh, Emmis Communications Corporation, JS
Acquisition, Inc., and Alden Global Capital; Cause No. 49D13 1004
MF 019005, filed April 27, 2010;

     -- Charles Hinkle, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated vs. Susan Bayh, Gary Kaseff, Richard Leventhal,
Peter Lund, Greg Nathanson, Jeffrey H. Smulyan, Lawrence Sorrel,
Patrick Walsh, and Emmis Communications Corporation; Cause No.
49D10 1004 PL 019747, filed April 30, 2010;

     -- William McQueen, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated vs. Jeffrey H. Smulyan, Susan B. Bayh, Gary L.
Kaseff, Richard A. Leventhal, Peter A. Lund, Greg A. Nathanson,
Lawrence B. Sorrel, Patrick M. Walsh, JS Acquisition, Inc., and
Alden Global Capital; Cause No. 49D02 1005 MF 020013, filed May 3,
2010;

     -- David Jarosclawicz, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated vs. Jeffrey H. Smulyan, Susan B. Bayh,Gary L.
Kaseff, Richard A. Leventhal, Peter A. Lund, Greg A. Nathanson,
Lawrence B. Sorrel, Patrick M. Walsh, JS Acquisition,
Incorporated, and Emmis Communications Corporation; Cause No.
49D03 1005 PL 020506, filed May 6, 2010;

     -- Timothy Stabosz, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated vs. Susan Bayh, Gary Kaseff, Richard Leventhal,
Peter Lund, Greg Nathanson, Jeffrey H. Smulyan, Lawrence Sorrel,
Patrick Walsh, and Emmis Communications Corporation; Cause No.
49D11 1005 PL 021432, filed May 12, 2010;

     -- Richard Frank, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Jeffrey H. Smulyan, Susan Bayh, Gary Kaseff,
Richard Leventhal, Peter Lund, Greg Nathanson, Lawrence Sorrel,
Patrick Walsh, Emmis Communications Corporation, JS Acquisition,
Inc., JS Acquisition, LLC, and Alden Global Capital; Cause No.
49D10 1006 PL 025149, filed June 4, 2010;

     -- Ted Primich, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Jeffrey Smulyan, Patrick Walsh, Susan Bayh, Gary
Kaseff, Richard Leventhal, Lawrence Sorrel, Greg Nathanson, Peter
Lund, Emmis Communications Corporation, JS Acquisition, Inc., and
JS Acquisition, LLC; Action No. 1:10-cv-0782SEB-TAB, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, filed
June 18, 2010; and

     -- Richard Frank, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Susan Bayh, Gary Kaseff, Richard Leventhal, Peter
Lund, Greg Nathanson, Jeffrey H. Smulyan, Lawrence Sorrel, Patrick
Walsh, and Emmis Communications Corporation; Cause No. 10 CIV
5409, in the United States District Court of the Southern District
of New York, filed July 15, 2010.

The Defendants in the Primich action have until August 9, 2010 to
respond to the complaint.

On May 6, 2010, Plaintiffs in the Jarosclawicz action served
initial discovery requests on Defendants.

On May 10, 2010, Plaintiffs in the Ross and McQueen actions moved
to consolidate those two actions into one and also moved for the
appointment of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation and Kroger
Gardis & Regas, LLP as Interim Co-Lead Counsel.  By order dated
May 11, 2010, the Court conditionally approved the consolidation
and set a hearing for June 1, 2010 on the issue of lead counsel.

On May 14, 2010, Plaintiffs in the Stabosz action served initial
discovery requests on Defendants.

On May 20, 2010, Plaintiffs in the Stabosz action filed a Motion
for Expedited Response to certain document requests.

On May 20, 2010, Plaintiffs in the Hinkle, Jarosclawicz, and
Stabosz actions moved to consolidate those actions into the
Ross/McQueen action.

On May 21, 2010, certain of the Defendants in the Ross action
filed a Motion for Change of Venue from the Judge. By Order dated
May 24, 2010, the Court granted the motion, and a new judge has
qualified.

On May 26, 2010, the law firms representing the Stabosz and Hinkle
Plaintiffs filed in the Ross, Stabosz, and Hinkle actions motions
to appoint Cohen & Malad LLP and Wolf Popper LLP as co-lead
counsel and in opposition to the appointment of Brower Piven and
Kroger Gardis & Regas, LLP as co-lead counsel.

On May 28, 2010, the law firms representing the plaintiffs in the
Ross and McQueen cases filed a memorandum in opposition to the
consolidation of the Stabosz, Hinkle and Jarosclawicz cases and
further moved to stay those two actions. In addition, those firms
moved for expedited discovery from the defendants.

Also on May 28, 2010, the plaintiff in Hinkle filed an emergency
motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendants from
taking any steps to complete the transaction. That plaintiff also
requested expedited discovery from the defendants and the setting
of an expedited briefing schedule.

On June 4, 2010, a sixth purported class action complaint was
filed, styled Richard Frank v. Jeffrey H. Smulyan, Susan Bayh,
Gary Kaseff, Richard Leventhal, Peter Lund, Greg Nathanson,
Lawrence Sorrel, Patrick Walsh, Emmis Communications Corporation,
JS Acquisition, Inc., JS Acquisition, LLC, and Alden Global
Capital, Cause No. 49D10 1006 PL 025149. Like the five previously
filed actions, the Frank action was filed in the Marion Superior
Court in Indiana.

On June 8, 2010, Defendants filed an Objection to Plaintiffs'
Motion for Expedited Discovery. Also on June 8, Plaintiffs in the
Hinkle and Stabosz actions filed Amended Complaints.

On June 9, 2010, the Court in the Ross action granted Plaintiffs'
Motion to Consolidate Related Actions, consolidating the Hinkle,
McQueen, Jarosclawicz, and Stabosz actions into the Ross action
before Judge Moberly. The consolidated action was re- captioned In
re: Emmis Shareholder Litigation by order of the Court dated June
15, 2010. Also, on June 9, 2010, Plaintiffs Stabosz and Hinkle
filed a Reply in Further Support of Their Motions for Expedited
Discovery and Preliminary Injunction.

On June 10, 2010, Defendants moved to dismiss the five
consolidated purported class actions.

On June 11, 2010, Defendants filed a Sur-Reply in Opposition to
Motions for Expedited Discovery by Plaintiffs Stabosz and Hinkle.

On June 14, 2010, Plaintiffs Stabosz and Hinkle filed their
Response to Defendants' Sur-Reply in Opposition to Motions for
Expedited Discovery.

On June 15, 2010, the Court issued an Order Appointing Cohen &
Malad, LLP and Wolf Popper LLP as Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs,
and also issued an Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Expedite
Response to Document Requests and For Four Depositions of
Defendants and their Representatives Relating to Emergency Motion
for Preliminary Injunction. The parties currently are exchanging
discovery in accordance with the latter order pursuant to an
agreed-upon schedule.

On June 18, 2010, a seventh purported class action complaint was
filed, styled Ted Primich v. Jeffrey Smulyan, Patrick Walsh, Susan
Bayh, Gary Kaseff, Richard Leventhal, Lawrence Sorrel, Greg
Nathanson, Peter Lund, Emmis Communications Corporation, JS
Acquisition, Inc., and JS Acquisition, LLC, action number 1:10-cv-
0782SEB-TAB, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana.

On June 25, 2010, Alden filed a joinder in the Motion to Dismiss
filed on June 10, 2010. The joinder was filed in the four actions
in which Alden was named as a defendant -- the Ross, Hinkle,
McQueen, and Stabosz actions.

The parties agreed to a Stipulation and Proposed Order Relating to
the Scheduling of Depositions, Briefing, and Hearing on
Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction and
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in In re: Emmis Shareholder
Litigation, which was entered by the Court on July 2, 2010.
Pursuant to the Scheduling Stipulation, depositions were taken and
concluded by June 30, 2010.

On July 3, 2010, also pursuant to the Scheduling Stipulation,
Plaintiffs served on Defendants their Memorandum of Law in Support
of Their Motion for Preliminary Injunction and in Opposition to
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. In accordance with the Scheduling
Stipulation, Defendants served their Brief Opposing Plaintiffs'
Motion for Preliminary Injunction and their Reply Brief in Support
of their Motion to Dismiss Shareholder Cases on July 10, 2010.
Plaintiffs filed their Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of their
Motion for Perliminary Injunction on July 14, 2010.

Also on July 14, 2010, Robert Frank voluntarily dismissed his
lawsuit pending in the Marion County Superior Court. On July 19,
2010, Robert Frank filed his second lawsuit in the Southern
District of New York.

A hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction in In
re: Emmis Shareholder Litigation was held on July 19, 2010. On
July 27, 2010, Judge Moberly denied the motion for preliminary
injunction.

That same day, the Defendants in the Frank case, pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, filed a motion requesting a) dismissal of that action for
improper venue, b) transfer of the action to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana or c) a stay
of the action pending resolution of the Primich case. No date for
a hearing on that motion has been set. There is, however, a pre-
trial conference set in the federal Frank case for August 19,
2010, before the Honorable Judge Harold Baer, Jr.

In addition, several law firms and investor advocacy groups that
have not appeared in the above-listed lawsuits, including but not
limited to Finkelstein Thompson LLP, the Law Offices of Howard G.
Smith, Levi & Korinsky, LLP, Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., Tripp Levy
PLLC and the Shareholders Foundation, Inc., have commenced
investigations into potential claims with respect to the
Transactions."

                            About Emmis

Headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, Emmis Communications
Corporation -- http://www.emmis.com/-- owns and operates radio
stations and magazine publications in the U.S. and in Europe.

At February 28, 2010, the Company had $498,168,000 in total
assets; $487,246,000 in total liabilities and $140,459,000 in
Series A Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock; and shareholders'
deficit of $178,959,000.  At February 28, 2010, the Company had
non-controlling interests of $49,422,000 and total deficit of
$129,537,000.

As of April 15, 2010, the Company had not paid the Preferred Stock
dividend for six consecutive quarterly periods.

                           *     *     *

In April 2009, Moody's cut its corporate family rating on the
Company to 'Caa2'.

In May 2009, S&P raised its corporate credit rating on the Company
to 'CCC+'.  In June, S&P withdrew the 'CCC+' Corp. Credit Rating
at the Company's request.


FISHER-PRICE: Recalls 110,000 Play 'n Go Campsite
-------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Fisher-Price, of East Aurora, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall
of about 96,000 Little People Play 'n Go Campsite (TM) in the
United States and 14,000 in Canada.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The plastic Sonya Lee figure in the play set can break at the
waist, exposing small parts that pose a choking hazard to young
children.

The firm has received eight reports of the Sonya Lee figure
breaking.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the Little People Play 'n Go Campsite.  The
seven-piece plastic play set includes Sonya Lee, a tent and other
accessories.  Product number R6935 is printed on the toy's
packaging.  The name Sonya Lee is printed on the underside of the
figure.  Only Sonya Lee figures that bend at the waist, have a
green sweater and purple camera around the neck are included in
this recall.  No other Sonya Lee figure is affected. The remaining
pieces of the Little People Play 'n Go Campsite are not affected.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10313.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
major retailers including mass merchandisers, discount stores,
department stores and toy stores nationwide and in Puerto Rico,
and by online retailers from October 2009 through August 2010 for
about $15.

Consumers should immediately take the Campsite's Sonya Lee figure
away from children and contact Fisher-Price to arrange for the
figure's return in exchange for a free replacement figure.  For
additional information, contact Fisher-Price at (800) 432-5437
anytime or visit the firm's Web site at
http://service.mattel.com/us/


GENERAL DYNAMICS: 401(k) Class Suit Settled For $15 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Patrick, writing for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports
that a class-action lawsuit that alleged that tens of thousands of
participants in two General Dynamics 401K plans were charged
excessive fees has been tentatively settled for $15.15 million,
the parties announced late Wednesday.

The lawsuit, representing current and retired employees in the
plans, was originally filed in federal court 2006 against General
Dynamics Corp. and Fiduciary Asset Management LLC of Clayton, as
well as executives of both companies.

The suit alleges, among other things, that billions of dollars
worth of 401K business was handed to FAMCO without a competitive
bidding process and that costs and fees for plan participants were
inflated.

"In addition to the money, the settlement documents describe
significant benefits and disclosure participants will have in
their 401k plan going forward," said Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq., a
lawyer representing the plan participants, on Thursday.

Representatives of General Dynamics and FAMCO could not be reached
for comment Thursday afternoon.

General Dynamics and FAMCO said in a joint statement with Mr.
Schlicter that they have complied with all requirements of the
federal law governing the plan, the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, but said settlement was in the best
interests of all parties.

The payout will come from insurance, and will be deposited into
the 401k accounts after costs and attorney's fees and subtracted,
the statement says.

As part of the settlement, General Dynamics agreed to use an
outside consultant to review parts of the 401k plans and "enhanced
disclosure" of fees and expenses for the accounts, among other
agreements.

The settlement bars FAMCO from recommending itself as investment
manager for the accounts or recommending investment into accounts
it manages.

The settlement still requires approval of a number of parties,
including a federal judge and a representative of the account
holders. A hearing was scheduled for Monday in federal court in
East St. Louis to begin that process.

FAMCO was founded in 1994 by pension fund managers at General
Dynamics.

In 2007, the company was purchased by a Minneapolis investment
banking firm, Piper Jaffray Cos.

General Dynamics moved from Clayton to Falls Church, Va. in late
1991.

Representing the plan participants is:

     Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
     SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON LLP
     100 South Fourth Street, Suite 900
     St. Louis, MO 63102
     Telephone: (314) 621-6115
     Facsimile: (314) 621-7151


GRANT & EISENHOFER: Sued for Concealing Existence of Fee Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard P. Gielata, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Jaw W. Eisenhofer, and Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., Case
No. 10-648 (D. Del. August 3, 2010), accuses lawyer Jay W.
Eisenhofer and his law firm Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A. of stealing
"hundreds of millions of dollars from their clients in 2007, when
they and others were awarded nearly $500 million dollars in fees
and expenses out of a $3.2 billion class action settlement fund."

Mr. Gielata explains that defendants served as class counsel In re
Tyco, Int'l, Ltd., Sec. Litig., a securities class action.  In
2007, class action settlements totaling $3.2 billion were
announced in the Tyco Litigation.  On October 22, 2007, defendants
and the other class counsel requested attorney's fees of 14.5% of
the $3.2 billion class action settlements of the Tyco Litigation,
amounting to at least $464 million in attorneys' fees, when a fee
agreement, dated January 8, 2004, expressly limited defendants'
fee request to no more than 7.8% of the total class recovery in
the Tyco Litigation.  Mr. Gielata says that defendants had
concealed the existence of the Fee Agreement with lead plaintiff
Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana in the Tyco Litigation
from the Court.  Under the tiered arrangement set forth in the Fee
Agreement, the requested fee in the Tyco Litigation should not
have exceeded $248,625,000 ($215,375,000 less than what the
defendants requested).

Mr. Gielata, a member of the certified class in the Tyco
Litigation, says defendants breached their fiduciary duty to
members of the class by concealing the existence of the Fee
Agreement and by requesting a fee in excess of the maximum fee
agreed upon, and in so doing, unjustly enriched themselves at the
expense of the class members.  Plaintiff and the class members
seek damages of not less than $215 million.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph N. Gielata, Esq.
          JOSEPH N. GIELATA LLC
          2115 Concord Pike, Suite 205
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 507-4400
          E-mail: joe@gielatalaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas C. Cronin, Esq.
          CRONIN & CO. LTD.
          33 North Dearborn Street, Suite 2350
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 201-7100


KAWASAKI MOTORS: Recalls 4,000 Off-Road Motorcycles
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Kawasaki Motors Corp. U.S.A., of Irvine, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 4,000 Kawasaki 2010 KLX110 Off-Road
Motorcycles.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves recall involves Kawasaki 2010 model year
KLX110CAF and KLX110DAF off-road motorcycles.  They were sold in
green and have Kawasaki written on the sides of the fuel tank.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10750.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Thailand and sold
through Kawasaki dealers nationwide from August 2009 through
February 2010 for about $2,100.

Consumers should stop using these vehicles immediately and contact
a local Kawasaki Motorcycle dealer to schedule an appointment for
a free repair.  The company has attempted to contact all known
users.  For more information, consumers can contact Kawasaki toll-
free at (866) 802-9381 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m., Pacific Time,
Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.kawasaki.com/


LAMONT LIMITED: Recalls 1,900 Belle Vanity Benches
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
LaMont Limited, of Burlington, Iowa, announced a voluntary recall
of about 1,900 Belle Vanity Benches.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

Legs on the Belle vanity bench can detach at the weld and allow
the bench to collapse, posing a fall hazard to consumers.

LaMont has received two reports of a leg on the vanity bench
detaching at the weld, causing the consumer to fall and sustain
minor bruising.

This recall involves Belle vanity benches with a scroll design and
padded seat.  The wrought iron vanity bench is about 21 3/4 inches
from floor to top of rail.  The padded seat has an 18 3/4 inch
wide off-white damask cover.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10314.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Tuesday Morning stores nationwide from May 2010
through June 2010 for about $70.

Consumers should immediately stop using the Belle vanity benches
and return the product to any Tuesday Morning store for a refund.
Consumers can also mail the product directly to LaMont for a
refund.  Consumers returning the product to LaMont should include
in the package, the bench, name, mailing address and phone number.
The package should be sent to LaMont Limited, Customer Service,
1530 North Bluff Road, Burlington, Iowa 52601.  For additional
information, contact Tuesday Morning at (800) 457-0099 or LaMont
at (800) 553-5261 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Central Time,
Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.shop.tuesdaymorning.com or
http://www.lamontlimited.com/


METLIFE INC: Judge Allows Stuyvesant Town Class Suit to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Freifeld, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that a
class-action lawsuit by tenants of Stuyvesant Town and Peter
Cooper Village, Manhattan's largest apartment complex, against
MetLife Inc. seeking $215 million for improper rent overcharges
may proceed, a judge ruled.

In a decision made public Thursday, Manhattan state Supreme Court
Justice Richard Lowe III ruled against a motion to dismiss the
case against MetLife, the complex's former owner.

MetLife argued that a 2009 New York Court of Appeals decision in
the case that apartments could not be luxury decontrolled while
they received certain tax benefits should not be applied
retroactively, according to court papers.

MetLife sold the property in 2006 to PCV ST Owner LP, another
defendant.  Tishman Speyer Properties LP, which bought the
development in 2006, also is a defendant.

"We're very pleased with the ruling.  It does a tremendous justice
for the tenants," said Alex Schmidt, Esq., attorney for the
tenants. "Now they'll have the right to try to recover the $200
million in overcharges."

Mitchell Posilkin, Esq., general counsel for the Rent
Stabilization Association, which represents New York property
owners, called the decision potentially "devastating" for many
owners.

"In its narrowest form, this decision keeps MetLife as the prior
owner of Stuyvesant Town-Peter Cooper in the case," said Ms.
Posilkin. "What it means for other owners in J-51 buildings where
units were de-regulated is that there are now potentially
significant claims against their properties."

                           Tax Benefits

The suit is based on the complex's owners taking advantage of the
luxury decontrol provisions of New York's Rent Stabilization law
by charging tenants rents above stabilized levels while also
receiving tax benefits known as J-51, according to Judge Lowe's
decision.

The retroactive application of the court of appeals decision "is
neither unexpected and indefensible" Judge Lowe wrote in denying
the motion to dismiss. Nor was there "an arbitrary change in the
law," as MetLife argued, he said.

"It is a win for tenants because, if there was any reason to doubt
that tenants were entitled to damages going backward, that point
is now settled," said Daniel Garodnick, a New York City Council
member who lives at Peter Cooper.

Christopher Breslin, a MetLife spokesman, said in an e-mail that
"we are studying the opinion in order to determine our next
steps."

                         Missed Payment

The 80-acre Stuyvesant Town-Peter Cooper Village, home to more
than 11,000 housing units, can be foreclosed on and sold at
auction, according to documents filed in U.S. District Court in
Manhattan in June.

Tishman Speyer and BlackRock Inc. bought the developments for $5.4
billion in 2006 near the top of the U.S. real estate boom. The
owners missed a payment on the $3 billion senior mortgage in
January after failing to raise rents as fast as anticipated.

The case is Amy L. Roberts v. Tishman Speyer Properties, Case No.
100956/2007, New York state Supreme Court (Manhattan).


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Continues to Defend "Scott" Action
---------------------------------------------------------
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company continues to defend the matter Scott
v. American Tobacco Co., according to Reynolds American Inc.'s
July 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

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

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

On May 21, 2004, the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $591
million on the class's claim for a smoking cessation program.  On
Sept. 29, 2004, the defendants posted a $50 million bond, pursuant
to legislation that limits the amount of the bond to $50 million
collectively for MSA signatories, and noticed their appeal.  RJR
Tobacco posted $25 million (the portions for RJR Tobacco and B&W)
towards the bond.

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

In particular, the appellate court ruled that no class member,
who began smoking after Sept. 1, 1988, could receive any relief,
and that only those smokers, whose claims accrued on or before
Sept. 1, 1988, would be eligible for the smoking cessation
program.

The plaintiffs have expressly represented to the trial court that
none of their claims accrued before 1988 and that the class claims
did not accrue until around 1996, when the case was filed.  The
defendants' application for writ of certiorari with the Louisiana
Supreme Court was denied on Jan. 7, 2008.

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

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

On Dec. 15, 2008, the trial court judge signed an order granting
the defendants an appeal from the amended judgment.

On April 23, 2010, the court of appeals amended but largely
affirmed the trial court's July 21, 2008 judgment.  The
defendants' motion for rehearing was denied on May 12, 2010.

On June 11, 2010, the defendants filed an application for writ of
certiorari or review with the Louisiana Supreme Court.  Briefing
is underway.

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


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial in "Brown" Scheduled for May 6
-------------------------------------------------------
The trial in the matter Brown v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., is
scheduled to begin in May 6, 2011, according to Reynolds American
Inc.'s July 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

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

The action was brought against the major U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, seeking to recover
restitution, disgorgement of profits and other equitable relief
under California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et
seq. and Section 17500 et seq.  Certification was granted as to
the plaintiffs' claims that the defendants violated Section 17200
of the California Business and Professions Code pertaining to
unfair competition.

The court, however, refused to certify the class under the
California Legal Remedies Act and on the plaintiffs' common law
claims.

On March 7, 2005, the court granted the defendants' motion to
decertify the class.

On Sept. 5, 2006, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the
judge's order decertifying the class.

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

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

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

Trial is scheduled to begin May 6, 2011.

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


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Court Okays Dismissal of "Sateriale" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company's motion to dismiss the
corrected second amended complaint in the matter Sateriale v. R.
J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., according to Reynolds American Inc.'s
July 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

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

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

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

On Jan. 21, 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss.  On
Feb. 22, 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

The class definition changed to a class consisting of all persons
who reside in the U.S. and tried unsuccessfully to redeem Camel
Cash certificate from Oct. 1, 2006 (six months before the
defendant ended the Camel Cash program) or who held Camel Cash
certificates as of March 31, 2007.

The plaintiffs also brought the class on behalf of a proposed
California subclass, consisting of all California residents
meeting the same criteria.

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

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

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

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


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Defends "Turner" Suit in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company continues to defend that matter
Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., according to Reynolds
American Inc.'s July 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.
In Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in February
2000 in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge certified
a class on Nov. 14, 2001.

On June 6, 2003, RJR Tobacco filed a motion to stay the case
pending Philip Morris's appeal of the Price v. Philip Morris Inc.,
which the judge denied on July 11, 2003.

On October 17, 2003, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals
denied RJR Tobacco's emergency stay/supremacy order request.  On
Nov. 5, 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court granted RJR Tobacco's
motion for a stay pending the court's final appeal decision in
Price.

On Oct. 11, 2007, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals
dismissed RJR Tobacco's appeal of the denial of its emergency
stay/supremacy order request and remanded the case to the circuit
court.  There is currently no activity in the case.

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


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Howard" Suit in Illinois Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The matter Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. remains
stayed pending resolution of the Price v. Philip Morris, Inc.,
suit, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s July 30, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., a case filed in
February 2000 in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge
certified a class on Dec. 18, 2001.  On June 6, 2003, the trial
judge issued an order staying all proceedings pending resolution
of 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.

There is currently no activity in the case.

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


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Missouri Suit Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------
A suit filed against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company filed in the
Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Missouri, remains stayed pending
U.S. Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria Group, Inc., according
to Reynolds American Inc.'s July 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

A "lights" class-action case is pending against each of RJR
Tobacco and B&W in Missouri.  In Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co., a case filed in May 2000 in Circuit Court, St. Louis County,
Missouri, a judge in St. Louis certified a class on Dec. 31, 2003.

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

On April 16, 2008, the court stayed the case pending U.S. Supreme
Court review in Good v. Altria Group, Inc., a "lights" class-
action pending against Altria and Philip Morris USA.  A nominal
trial date of January 10, 2011 has been scheduled.

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


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Fourth Amended Suit Against RJR Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
A fourth amended complaint where R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is
defendant has been dismissed, according to Reynolds American
Inc.'s July 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In Cleary v. Philip Morris, Inc., a case filed in June 1998, and
pending in Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois, the plaintiffs
filed their motion for class certification on Dec. 21, 2001, in an
action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers,
including RJR Tobacco and B&W.

The case was brought on behalf of persons who have allegedly been
injured by:

     (1) the defendants' purported conspiracy pursuant to which
         defendants concealed material facts regarding the
         addictive nature of nicotine,

     (2) the defendants' alleged acts of targeting their
         advertising and marketing to minors, and

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

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

On March 27, 2006, the court dismissed count V, public nuisance,
and count VI, unjust enrichment.  The plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on March 3, 2009, to add a claim of unjust enrichment
and to include in the class individuals who smoked "light"
cigarettes.

RJR Tobacco and B&W answered the amended complaint on March 31,
2009.  On July 5, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an additional motion
for class certification.
On Sept. 8, 2009, the court granted the defendants' motion for
summary judgment on the pleadings concerning the "lights" claims
as to all defendants other than Philip Morris.

On October 30, 2009, certain defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment on plaintiffs' youth-marketing claims.

On Feb. 22, 2010, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification of all three putative classes.  However, the
court ruled that the plaintiffs may reinstate the class dealing
with the conspiracy to conceal the addictive nature of nicotine if
they identify a new class representative.

On April 18, 2010, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
file a fourth amended complaint and withdraw the motion to
reinstate count I by identifying a new plaintiff.  On May 7, 2010,
the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' fourth
amended complaint, which was granted on June 22, 2010.

The plaintiffs have indicated that they intend to appeal.

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


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial in "VanDyke" Suit Scheduled on March 11
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the matter VanDyke v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., has
been scheduled for March 11, 2011, according to Reynolds American
Inc.'s July 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In VanDyke v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in August
2009 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico
against RJR Tobacco and RAI, the plaintiffs brought the case on
behalf of all New Mexico residents who from July 1, 2004, to the
date of judgment, purchased, not for resale, the defendants'
cigarettes labeled as "lights" or "ultra lights."

The plaintiffs allege fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of
express warranty, breach of implied warranties of merchantability
and of fitness for a particular purpose, violations of the New
Mexico Unfair Practices Act, unjust enrichment, negligence and
gross negligence.  The plaintiffs seek a variety of damages,
including actual, compensatory and consequential damages to the
plaintiff and the class but not damages for personal injury or
health-care claims.

Trial has been scheduled for March 11, 2011.

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


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Continues to Defend "Shaffer" in Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company defend
the matter Shaffer v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., pending in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, according to the
company's July 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In Shaffer v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in October
2009 in the Superior Court of Pima County, Arizona against RJR
Tobacco, RAI and other defendants, the plaintiffs brought the case
on behalf of all persons residing in Arizona who purchased, not
for resale, defendants' cigarettes labeled as "light" or "ultra-
light" from the date of the defendants' first sales of such
cigarettes in Arizona to the date of judgment.

The plaintiffs allege consumer fraud, concealment, nondisclosure,
negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.  The plaintiffs
seek a variety of damages, including compensatory, restitutionary
and punitive damages.

On Nov. 13, 2009, the defendants removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona.  On Nov. 30, 2009, RJR
Tobacco and RAI filed their answers to the complaint.

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


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Young" Suit Against RJR Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
The matter Young v. American Tobacco Co., where R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company is a defendant, remains stayed pending outcome of
the appeal in Scott v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., according to
Reynolds American Inc.'s July 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2010.

In Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in November
1997 in Circuit Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, the plaintiffs
brought an ETS class action against U.S. cigarette manufacturers,
including RJR Tobacco and B&W, and parent companies of U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, 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 allegedly suffered 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 Scott v. American Tobacco Co., Inc.

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


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Continues to Defend "Parsons" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company continues to defend the matter
Parsons v. A C & S, Inc.

In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., a case filed in February 1998 in
Circuit Court, Ohio County, West Virginia, the plaintiff sued
asbestos manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including
RJR Tobacco and B&W, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR, seeking to recover $1 million in
compensatory and punitive damages individually and an unspecified
amount for the class in both compensatory and punitive damages.
The class was brought on behalf of persons who allegedly have
personal injury claims arising from their exposure to respirable
asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke.

The plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Parsons' 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 in the Supreme Court
of Appeals of West Virginia.

On Dec. 26, 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc.,
Desseaux Corporation of North American and Armstrong World
Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in 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.

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

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


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Defends "Jones" Suit in Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company continues to defend the matter Jones
v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., pending in the Circuit Court,
Jackson County, Missouri.

The case was filed in December 1998 in 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 action was brought against the major U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, and parent companies
of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, by 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.

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

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


STI PREPAID: Settles Calling Card Class Action for $7.4 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello,
Nagel Rice, and Freed & Weiss, along with STI Phonecard, Inc.,
Telco Group, Inc., VOIP Enterprises, Inc., and STi Prepaid, LLC,
jointly disclosed Thursday that on July 13, 2010, the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey preliminarily
approved a settlement involving claims related to their prepaid
calling cards.  In addition to providing refunds to class members
and prospective promotions in the form of free and/or discounted
minutes to be given away to Defendants' calling card consumers,
Defendants have agreed to certain injunctive relief ensuring
proper disclosures of rates, fees, taxes, surcharges or other
amounts charged, as well as other business practice commitments to
the benefit of its calling card customers.  Final approval of the
settlement is to be determined after a final fairness hearing to
be held on November 16, 2010.

The summary notice of the settlement is as follows:

Legal Notice

If You Purchased a Prepaid or Rechargeable Calling Card Before
July 13, 2010 You May Get Benefits from a Class Action Settlement

A class action Settlement ("Settlement") could affect you if you
purchased telephone calling cards sold or distributed by STI
Phonecard, Inc., Telco Group, Inc., VOIP Enterprises, Inc., and
STi Prepaid, LLC (together, collectively, "Defendants").  The
lawsuit claims Defendants failed to properly disclose charges and
fees associated with using the cards.

What is the Case About?

The lawsuit claims that Defendants failed to fully inform
consumers about applicable rates and charges on prepaid and
rechargeable calling cards, which allegedly violated state laws.
Defendants deny they did anything wrong.

Am I Included?

You are included in the Settlement if you purchased an eligible
STI calling card in the U.S. that was sold or distributed by STI
before July 13, 2010.  The Settlement includes certain cards that
do not have the STI name on them.  A complete list of eligible
calling cards is available on the websites listed below.

What Does The Settlement Provide?

Defendants will provide refunds up to $7,400,000.  The refunds
will be given through the use of calling card Refund Personal
Identification Numbers ("Refund PINs").  These Refund PINs can be
used to make domestic calls and international calls to certain
locations.  A complete list of locations is available on the
website.  The amount you are entitled to receive depends on the
total number of valid claims submitted.  In addition, Defendants
will provide up to $1,000,000 in future free or reduced-rate
minutes.

How Do I Get A Refund?

You need to file a Claim Form to get a refund from the Settlement.
You have 6 months to file a claim.  The exact date depends on the
Court, but could begin as early as November 1, 2010.  To find out
when the claims process will start, visit the websites, which are
listed below.

What Are My Other Legal Rights?

    * Remain in the Settlement:  You will be bound by the terms of
      the Settlement and give up your right to sue Defendants.  To
      receive any refund you must submit a claim.

    * Get out of the Settlement:  If you wish to keep your right
      to sue Defendants, you must exclude yourself by October 15,
      2010.

    * Remain in the Settlement and Object:  If you stay in the
      Settlement, you can object to it by October 15, 2010.  You
      give up your right to sue and are bound by all Court orders
      even if your objection is rejected.

The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey will hold a
hearing in the case, Torres-Hernandez and Ramirez v. STI Prepaid
LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 08-1089, on November 16, 2010 to
consider whether to approve the Settlement and a request for
attorneys' fees and expenses of up to $2,050,0000.  You may ask to
appear and speak at the hearing, or you may hire a lawyer to
request to appear and speak at the hearing, at your own expense.


SUPER VALU: Judge Hears Arguments for Final Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison/St. Clair Record, reports
that a class action case brought against the owner of the Shop 'n
Save and Jewel/Osco grocery chains was set for final settlement
approval on Friday before Madison County Circuit Judge Andreas
Matoesian.

The class action was brought by lead plaintiff Mary Voyles on
behalf of customers who cashed checks at Super Valu Inc.'s stores
between January 2007 and January 2009.

Ms. Voyles' suit claims that the chain overcharged customers
cashing checks -- 50 cents or 1% of the check value -- in
violation of the law.

The suit was filed last year alleging claims of consumer fraud,
unjust enrichment, violation of the Illinois Check Cashing Act,
and other claims.

The settlement was given the initial go-ahead by Judge Matoesian
in May.

Class members in the suit will receive $20 each up to $75,000.

Ms. Voyles will get a $500 incentive award as class
representative.

Attorneys Thomas Maag, Esq., Peter Maag, Esq., Jeffrey Millar,
Esq., Brian Wendler, Esq., and the rest of the plaintiffs' team
will take away $18,000.

The plaintiffs filed a motion seeking the attorney's fees and
incentive award Aug. 2.

The Maags were recently part of the plaintiffs' team that settled
a class action in St. Clair County against Kmart.  That suit
netted the plaintiffs' attorneys $55,000 in fees.

The case is Madison case number 09-L-542.

The plaintiffs are represented, among others, by:

     Peter J. Maag, Esq.
     Thomas G. Maag, Esq.
     MAAG LAW FIRM, LLC
     P.O. Box 617
     Edwardsville, IL  62025
     Telephone: 888-572-3060 toll free
     Facsimile: 618-551-0421
     E-mail: maag@maaglawfirm.com
             tmaag@maaglaw.com

          - and -

     Brian M. Wendler, Esq.
     900 Hillsboro, Suite 10
     Edwardsville, IL 62025
     Telephone: 618-692-0011

The defendant is represented by:

     Troy A. Bozarth, Esq.
     HELPERBROOM LLC
     103 West Vandalia Street, Suite 300
     Edwardsville, IL 62025
     Telephone: 618-307-1124
     E-mail: tab@heplerbroom.com


UNITED STATES: Census Bureau Faces Suit Over Hiring Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Neumeister, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
civil rights groups on Thursday accused the U.S. Census Bureau of
discrimination in its hiring of more than a million temporary
workers to conduct the 2010 census, saying it ignored a warning
from a federal agency that its hiring practices might violate the
Civil Rights Act.

The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Center for
Constitutional Rights and the Public Citizen Litigation Group were
among groups that sued the secretary of the U.S. Department of
Commerce in April to end the hiring practices and obtain back pay
for plaintiffs. They beefed up the lawsuit Thursday with new
claims and plaintiffs.

The lawsuit, which seeks class action status in U.S. District
Court in Manhattan, alleges the Census Bureau in hiring temporary
workers over the past two years illegally screened out applicants
with often decades-old arrest records for minor offenses or those
who were arrested but never convicted. It accuses the bureau, a
division of the Department of Commerce, of discriminating against
more than 100,000 blacks, Latinos and Native Americans, who are
more likely to have arrest records than whites.

"Census' screening practice effectively imports acute racial and
ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system into the
employment process," the lawsuit says.

Government lawyers defending the Census Bureau had no immediate
comment Thursday, spokeswoman Yusill Scribner said.

In court papers, the government challenged the lawsuit on
procedural grounds, saying two named plaintiffs did not file their
discrimination complaints in the allowable time period. On
Thursday, the civil rights groups added three new named plaintiffs
to their lawsuit.

Among new evidence in the lawsuit was a July 10, 2009, letter from
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to the Commerce
secretary and Census Bureau acting director citing complaints that
the bureau had notified census worker applicants that arrest
records or convictions would disqualify them from employment
unless they could prove the records were incorrect.

"This information suggests that the Census Bureau's approach is
overbroad and may run afoul of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964," wrote Stuart J. Ishimaru, then acting chairman of the
EEOC, which enforces federal anti-discrimination laws among
private employers.

In his letter, Mr. Ishimaru, currently one of five EEOC
commissioners, warned that the Census Bureau should not disqualify
a person based on an arrest record unless there is a conviction.

Even then, Mr. Ishimaru added, employers should weigh the nature
and gravity of the offense or conduct, the amount of time that had
passed since the arrest or conviction and completion of sentence
and the nature of the job being sought.

The letter attacked the Census Bureau's practice of requiring
people who apply to be census workers and are found to have
arrests on their records to provide official court records or
fingerprints to challenge the bureau information within 30 days.
Mr. Ishimaru said the practice was inconsistent with the bureau's
obligation under Title VII to objectively assess applicants'
criminal histories.

"The Census Bureau should not rely on arrest records for which
there was no conviction, and the Census Bureau itself should
inquire as to whether the alleged conduct took place," Mr.
Ishimaru said in the letter. "If the individual did engage in the
conduct alleged, moreover, the Census Bureau should not exclude
people from employment for offenses that do not predict an
unacceptable risk."

Attorney Samuel Miller, who represents plaintiffs in the lawsuit,
said it was surprising to see that the Census Bureau had been
warned nearly a year ago that its practices might violate civil
rights laws.

"They just continued business as usual," he said. "When we first
started hearing from people that this was happening to them, I
thought maybe this was just bureaucracy in action. The more we've
learned, I can't believe that anymore. I think at this point the
system was designed to discriminate."

He said it was shocking to learn that 750,000 applicants for
census worker jobs were sent letters notifying them of criminal
records and 93 percent of them did not respond to the letters. He
said the Census Bureau got its information from the FBI database,
which has well over 20 percent of the population -- more than 70
million people -- listed.

"The Census Bureau designed this system in 2000 so they just
wouldn't have to deal with people who have ever been arrested,"
Mr. Miller said.

The lawsuit said the FBI database included people who were quickly
released by police after it was discovered they were wrongly
picked up and those found not guilty or whose cases were dropped
for lack of evidence.

The EEOC had no immediate comment Thursday, spokeswoman Christine
Saah Nazer said.


UNITED STATES: Legislation to Finalize $4.6-Bil Accord Stalled
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Evans, writing for The Associated Press, reports that despite
broad support, legislation to finalize $4.6 billion in settlements
with black farmers and American Indians stalled in the Senate
again Thursday amid partisan bickering.

Lawmakers from both parties say they support resolving the long-
standing claims of discrimination and mistreatment by federal
agencies.  But the funding has been caught up for months in a
fight over spending and deficits, with Republicans and Democrats
arguing over how to pay for them.

Republicans have repeatedly blocked Democratic proposals and did
so again Thursday.  This time, Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., argued
that the settlement in the Indian case needs work and made a
counter offer that would change parts of it.

An exasperated Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., responded that it's not
Congress' role to renegotiate the case, which has been in court
for 14 years and which the Obama administration is under a court-
ordered deadline to resolve.

"My colleague from Wyoming, I think, wishes he were one of the
negotiators," Sen. Dorgan said. "Nobody in Congress was a
negotiator . . . the question is whether we will meet our
responsibility."

In the Indian case, at least 300,000 Native Americans claim they
were swindled out of royalties overseen by the Interior Department
since 1887 for things like oil, gas, grazing and timber.  They
would share a $3.4 billion settlement in a class-action lawsuit
originally filed in 1996 by Elouise Cobell, a member of the
Blackfeet Tribe from Browning, Mont.

For the black farmers, it is the second round of funding from a
class-action lawsuit originally settled in 1999 over allegations
of widespread discrimination by local Agriculture Department
offices in awarding loans and other aid. It is known as the
Pigford case, named after Timothy Pigford, a black farmer from
North Carolina who was an original plaintiff.

The government already has paid out more than $1 billion to about
16,000 farmers, with most getting payments of about $50,000. The
new money is intended for people -- some estimates say 70,000 or
80,000 -- who were denied earlier payments because they missed
deadlines for filing. The amount of money each would get depends
on how many claims are successfully filed.

Passing the funding for the two cases would fulfill a campaign
promise by President Barack Obama to resolve long-festering
complaints.

John Boyd, head of the National Black Farmers Association, said
both parties share the blame of leaving the work undone before the
Senate adjourned for it's month-long August recess.  "It's just
partisan division, one party against another," he said. "It's an
embarrassment for the American people that they can't get a bill
passed that everybody supports."


UNIVERSAL PLACEMENT: Faces Suit Over Filipino Teachers Recruitment
------------------------------------------------------------------
Melinda Deslatte and Kevin McGill, writing for The Associated
Press, report that a class-action lawsuit filed Thursday accuses a
Los Angeles-based company of a human trafficking scheme to bring
hundreds of Filipino teachers to Louisiana public schools using
exploitative contracts that charged them excessive, illegal fees.

Universal Placement International Inc. and its owner Lourdes
Navarro are accused of racketeering and fraud in a lawsuit that
the American Federation of Teachers and the Southern Poverty Law
Center said they filed in a California federal court on behalf of
350 teachers.

"We were herded onto a path, a slowly constricting path, where the
moment you realize that something is not right, you were already
past the point of no return," said Ingrid Cruz, one of the
teachers named as a plaintiff in the case, reading from a prepared
statement. Ms. Cruz teaches science and robotics classes at a
Baton Rouge-area middle school.

The lawsuit says the company illegally required the teachers to
pay thousands of dollars in fees to be hired to jobs mainly in
East Baton Rouge Parish, but also in Caddo, Jefferson and other
parishes and in state-run schools in New Orleans.

Teachers were saddled with crippling debts, placed into shoddy
housing and threatened with deportation if they complained, said
Daniel McNeil, Esq., a lawyer for the AFT, equating the conditions
to forced labor and indentured servitude.

"This is far closer to slavery than we should be willing to
tolerate," said Mary Bauer, legal director of the Southern Poverty
Law Center.

Questions to Universal Placement International about the lawsuit
were directed to a Los Angeles-based attorney who didn't
immediately return a phone call Thursday from The Associated
Press.

Each teacher had to pay about $16,000 before ever leaving the
Philippines -- five times the average annual household income in
the country, the lawsuit alleges. If they couldn't afford the
fees, teachers borrowed money, in many instances from lenders
recommended by the recruiting firm who charged hefty interest
rates, attorneys for the teachers union and law center said.

More fees and expensive legal entanglements followed once the
teachers arrived in the United States, the lawsuit claims, like
contracts in which the teachers agreed to pay a percentage of
their monthly income to Universal and fees for arranging housing.
Passports and visas were confiscated to ensure the fees would be
paid, the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit -- also filed against Universal's sister operation in
the Philippines, PARS International Placement Agency -- seeks a
refund of all fees paid by teachers and damages totaling millions.

Also named in the lawsuit is the East Baton Rouge Parish School
Board and several current and former school system administrators,
including former Superintendent Charlotte Placide. They are
accused of ignoring the alleged abuses and in some cases assisting
the recruiting company with illegal behavior.

"It was more than turning a blind eye. They actively participated
in what was going on," Ms. Bauer said.

A spokesman for the EBR Parish School System issued a statement
saying the system hasn't officially been served with the lawsuit
and couldn't yet respond to the allegations.

"The school system values all of its employees and takes every
precaution to ensure their tenure in our school district is a
positive and mutually beneficial experience for the employee and
the students they serve," said Chris Trahan, system communications
director.

Complaints about Universal Placement International and Navarro
date back to last October, when the Louisiana Federation of
Teachers filed complaints with state authorities alleging the
company was operating illegally in the state and charging the
teachers exorbitant fees.

In April, a state labor department judge ordered the company to
refund fees that the LFT estimates will total $1.8 million. The
company's attorney said that ruling would be appealed.


XCEL ENERGY: Unit Remains a Defendant in Gas-Trading Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Xcel Energy, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, e Prime, Inc.,
remains a defendant in the matter Texas-Ohio Energy vs.
CenterPoint Energy et al.

e prime was in the business of natural gas trading and marketing
although e prime has not engaged in natural gas trading or
marketing activities since 2003.  Thirteen lawsuits have been
commenced against e prime and Xcel Energy (and NSP-Wisconsin, in
one instance); alleging fraud and anticompetitive activities in
conspiring to restrain the trade of natural gas and manipulate
natural gas prices.

The initial gas-trading lawsuit, a purported class action brought
by wholesale natural gas purchasers, was filed in November 2003 in
the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of California.  e
prime is one of several defendants named in the complaint.

This case is captioned Texas-Ohio Energy vs. CenterPoint Energy et
al.

The other twelve cases arising out of the same or similar set of
facts were filed.  Many of these cases involve multiple defendants
and have been transferred to Judge Phillip Pro of the U. S.
District Court in Nevada, who is the judge assigned to the Western
Area Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation.

No further details regarding the Texas-Ohio Energy Action were
disclosed in Xcel Energy's July 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2010.

Minnesota-based Xcel Energy, Inc. -- http://www.xcelenergy.com/--
is a holding company engaged in the utility business in the U.S.


XCEL ENERGY: District Court Dismissal Ruling Reinstated
-------------------------------------------------------
The decision of the U.S. District Court in the Southern District
of Mississippi dismissing a suit against Xcel Energy, Inc., has
been reinstated after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit ruled that it lacked a quorom to hear the case, according
to the company's July 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2010.

In 2006, Xcel Energy received notice of a purported class action
lawsuit filed in U. S. District Court in the Southern District of
Mississippi.  The lawsuit names more than 45 oil, chemical and
utility companies, including Xcel Energy, as defendants and
alleges that defendants' CO2 emissions "were a proximate and
direct cause of the increase in the destructive capacity of
Hurricane Katrina."

Plaintiffs allege in support of their claim, several legal
theories, including negligence and public and private nuisance and
seek damages related to the loss resulting from the hurricane.

In August 2007, the court dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety
against all defendants on constitutional grounds.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U. S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit.

On Oct. 16, 2009, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
reversed the district court decision, in part, concluding that the
plaintiffs pleaded sufficient facts to overcome the constitutional
challenges that formed the basis for dismissal by the district
court.

A subsequent petition by defendants, including Xcel Energy, for en
banc review was granted.

On May 28, 2010, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
ruled that it lacked an en banc quorum of nine active members to
hear the case.  It dismissed the appeal, which resulted in the
reinstatement of the district court's opinion dismissing the case.

The suit is Comer vs. Xcel Energy Inc. et al.

Minnesota-based Xcel Energy, Inc. -- http://www.xcelenergy.com/--
is a holding company engaged in the utility business in the U.S.

                           *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                * * *  End of Transmission  * * *