CAR_Public/100811.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, August 11, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 157

                             Headlines

ALEXANDER & BALDWIN: Faces Amended Consolidated Civil Complaint
BELO CORP: Settlement in Wage Payment Violations Suit Reached
CANADA: $45 Million Class Action Launched Over G20 Summit Arrests
CVS PHARMACY: Judge Allows Overtime Payments Class Suit to Proceed
DELTA AIR: Certification of Section 1 Class Status Pending

DINEEQUITY INC: Continues to Defend "Fast" Lawsuit
EXPEDIA INC: Paid $12MM in 2Q 2010 in Consumer Suit Settlement
EXPEDIA INC: Goodlettsville's Class Certification Motion Granted
EXPEDIA INC: Lyndhurst's Appeal of Dismissal Remains Pending
EXPEDIA INC: Bid to Dismiss Pine Bluff Suit Pending in Arkansas

EXPEDIA INC: Gallup City's Motion for Reconsideration Pending
EXPEDIA INC: Consolidated Columbus-Findley Suit Pending in Ohio
EXPEDIA INC: Settlement Reached in Monroe County Statewide Suit
GOOGLE INC: Settlement with Authors Guild Awaits Approval
HARTE HANKS: Awaits Approval of Shoppers' $7MM Settlement

IOWA: 8th Circuit Affirms Denial of Rattray Class Certification
LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Hearing on $14.5MM Settlement Set for Oct. 6
OPENTV CORP: Final Settlement Hearing Scheduled for November 15
ORIENT PAPER: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Remains a Defendant in "Adams" Action

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Defends "Dorion" Action in Alberta
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Kunka" Suit Against RJR Pending in Manitoba
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Semple" Suit v. RJR Pending in Nova Scotia
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Claims Against RJR in "Stewart" Dismissed
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Discovery in "Smith" Action Ongoing

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Summary Judgment Affirmed by NM High Court
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: JTI Continues to Defend Statement of Claim
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Defends ERISA-Violations Suit in NC
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Court Approves Settlement Pact in "Marshall"
SANTEE ELECTRIC: Members File Class Suit & Call for CEO to Resign

SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Defense Attorneys File Motion for Retrial
SOUTH KENDALL: Ex-Employee Barred From Joining Drywall Suit
TEREX CORP: 4 ERISA-Related Complaints Pending in Conn.
TEREX CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Suits in Conn.
TOYOTA MOTOR: Responds to MDL Defective Car Class Action

UNIV. OF CALIF.: Settles Medical Records Copying Suit for $120,000
WASHINGTON: Female Prisoners & Corrections Officials Settle Suit

                            *********

ALEXANDER & BALDWIN: Faces Amended Consolidated Civil Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. and Matson Navigation Company, Inc., a
wholly owned subsidiary of the company, continue to defend an
amended complaint in the consolidated civil lawsuit pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

The company and Matson Navigation Company, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of the company, were named as defendants in a
consolidated civil lawsuit purporting to be a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
in Seattle.

The lawsuit alleged violations of the antitrust laws and also
named as a defendant Horizon Lines, Inc., another domestic
carrier operating in the Hawaii and Guam trades.

On Aug. 18, 2009, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint.

The court granted plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint within
thirty days to allege claims consistent with the court's order.

The court subsequently extended plaintiffs' time to file an
amended complaint to May 10, 2010.

On May 28, 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
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.

Founded in 1870, Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. --
http://www.alexanderbaldwin.com/-- is incorporated under the
laws of the State of Hawaii.  A&B operates in five segments in
three industries:  Transportation, Real Estate and Agribusiness.




BELO CORP: Settlement in Wage Payment Violations Suit Reached
-------------------------------------------------------------
Belo Corp. along with the other parties in a purported class
action lawsuit alleging failure to pay wages reached a preliminary
settlement, 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.

On April 13, 2009, four former independent contractor newspaper
carriers of The Press-Enterprise, on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated individuals, filed a purported class-
action lawsuit against A. H. Belo, the company, Press Enterprise
Company, and as yet unidentified defendants in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Riverside.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated California laws
by allegedly improperly categorizing the plaintiffs and the
purported class members as independent contractors rather than
employees, and in doing so, allegedly failed to pay minimum,
hourly and overtime wages to the purported class members and
allegedly failed to comply with other laws and regulations
applicable to an employer-employee relationship.

Plaintiffs and purported class members are seeking minimum wages,
unpaid regular and overtime wages, unpaid rest break and meal
period compensation, reimbursement of expenses and losses incurred
by them in discharging their duties, payment of minimum wage to
all employees who failed to receive minimum wage for all hours
worked in each payroll period, penalties, injunctive and other
equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

On May 5, 2010, A. H. Belo and the other parties to the lawsuit
reached a preliminary agreement to settle the lawsuit, subject to
Court approval.  The parties have agreed to cooperate and take all
steps necessary and appropriate to obtain preliminary and final
approval of the settlement, to effectuate its terms, and to record
the satisfaction of judgment with the Court.

A. H. Belo has agreed to indemnify the company for any liability
arising out of this lawsuit; no payment is required of the
company.

Belo Corp. -- http://www.belo.com/-- one of the nation's largest
pure-play, publicly-traded television companies, owns and operates
20 television stations (nine in the top 25 markets) and their
associated Web sites.  Belo stations, which include affiliations
with ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW and MyNetwork TV, reach more than 14
percent of U.S. television households in 15 highly-attractive
markets.  Belo stations rank first or second in nearly all of
their local markets.


CANADA: $45 Million Class Action Launched Over G20 Summit Arrests
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Babbage, writing for The Canadian Press, a protester who was
among the hundreds of people detained during the G20 summit is
spearheading a $45-million class-action lawsuit that claims police
acted unlawfully and violated constitutional rights.

Sherry Good, a 51-year-old office administrator, said Friday she
was corralled by cops for four hours on June 27 -- a day after a
group of violent, black-clad protesters rampaged through the
downtown core.

Police in riot gear, using a tactic called kettling, encircled a
peaceful crowd of protesters on trendy Queen Street West and
refused to allow those caught inside to leave.

The group, which included journalists, had no water, no food, no
toilets and no idea what was happening, said Ms. Good.  She used
one word to describe the experience: "Terrified. That's about the
only word I can use . . . terrified."

Ms. Good wasn't arrested, but said she couldn't sleep that night
and suffered a panic attack the next day.  "But the biggest
consequence of that weekend is that I have lost my trust in the
police," she said from the front lawn of the Ontario legislature.
"Now I am nervous when I see a police car. I consistently look
over my shoulder. Sadly, it will take a long time to regain that
trust."

Ms. Good, who was approached by a group of lawyers after she told
her story on a Web site, said she's launching the class action on
behalf of more than 800 others who were held without charge.

More than 1,000 people were detained by police that weekend after
protesters using so-called Black Bloc tactics broke away from a
peaceful rally and ran through the city's downtown core, smashing
windows and burning police cruisers.

The vast majority of those detained were released without charge
within 24 hours. Some spent the night in a film studio that was
converted into a temporary detention centre.

A judicial inquiry is what's really needed, but the lawsuit is a
start, said Murray Klippenstein, one of the lawyers behind the
class action.

Canadians are proud of the freedoms they have, but that sense of
privilege suffers when they see the arrest and imprisonment of
hundreds of people who didn't appear to be breaking any laws, he
said.

"In fact, they were just exercising their basic rights that
millions of us thought we had -- the right to speak up," Mr.
Klippenstein said.

The class action, filed Thursday in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, names the Toronto Police Services Board and the Attorney
General of Canada.  It argues that the vast majority of arrests
and detentions over the course of the G20 weekend were unlawful,
unjustified and unconstitutional.  None of the allegations have
been proven in court.  If approved by the court, the lawsuit would
cover anyone who was arrested or detained by police June 26-27 and
later released without charge. It also seeks findings and remedies
for the conditions at the detention centre.

Lawyers involved in the suit said similar lawsuits in Washington
and Seattle have been approved as class actions by the courts.

"As a result, we believe there is clear legal precedent that will
assist our courts in reaching a determination that we hope will
ensure this claim is able to be advanced as a class action," said
lawyer Eric Gillespie.

The Ontario government wasn't named in the suit, but critics say
there are still plenty of unanswered questions about its conduct
before and after the G20.

Premier Dalton McGuinty came under heavy fire for the widespread
confusion about the extent of police powers during the G20.

The governing Liberals secretly passed a law in early June giving
police the power to stop, search and detain anyone trying to enter
the G20 security zone.

But many believed the regulation allowed police to arrest people
who came within five meters of the summit security fence if they
didn't produce identification -- a mistake that wasn't cleared up
until the G20 was over.

Premier McGuinty not only misled his own parliament about the
effect of that regulation, but also the public and the police,
said NDP justice critic Peter Kormos.  "That's outrageous
behaviour for a premier," he said. "And the fact that that remains
unexplained cries out for a full public inquiry so that there can
be an investigation into that regulation, the process, who asked
for it, why they got it."

Ontario's ombudsman is investigating the so-called fence law after
receiving dozens of complaints, and is expected to deliver a
report in October.

Premier McGuinty has refused to apologize for passing the law and
has dismissed calls for a public inquiry.

Mr. Klippenstein said the fence law had little to do with the
events described in the class action, although other parties may
be named later, such as the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Toronto Police Services Board is planning to conduct a review
of the G20 summit, but some are skeptical about how far it will be
able to go in getting answers from bodies that don't fall under
its jurisdiction.  Board chairman Alok Mukherjee declined to
comment on the lawsuit Friday.

Ontario's independent police watchdog is also investigating public
complaints about police actions during the G20.

Criminal cases against a core group alleged to have been behind
the violence on June 26 continues to wind their way through the
courts.

On Friday, police released another batch of photographs of
suspects wanted for alleged crimes committed during the G20.


CVS PHARMACY: Judge Allows Overtime Payments Class Suit to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Golding, writing for the New York Post, reports that a judge
has given the green light to a class-action suit by CVS workers
that charges the drug-store chain with illegally denying its
assistant managers overtime payments.

Manhattan federal Judge Paul Crotty cited court filings from
employees who claim they're misclassified as "executives" because
they have no authority to hire or fire and routinely have to run
cash registers, load and unload trucks, unpack merchandise and
stock shelves at the chain's 6,900 outlets.

"This ruling gives workers nationwide a chance to tell CVS: 'Save
the discounts for your customers, our wages are not on sale,'"
plaintiffs' lawyer Justin Swartz said.

A spokesman for CVS declined to comment on the ruling.

Plaintiffs' lawyer can be reached at:

     Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
     New York, New York 10016
     Telephone: (212) 245-1000
     Facsimile: (212) 977-4005
     Email: jms@outtengolden.com


DELTA AIR: Certification of Section 1 Class Status Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' motion to certify the Section 1 class in the case
entitled In Re Delta/AirTran Baggage Fee Antitrust Litigation is
pending, according to Delta Air Lines, 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 May, June and July 2009, a number of purported class action
antitrust lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Courts for the
Northern District of Georgia, the Middle District of Florida, and
the District of Nevada, against Delta and AirTran Airways.

In these cases, the plaintiffs originally alleged that Delta and
AirTran engaged in collusive behavior in violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act in November 2008 based upon certain public
statements made in October 2008 by AirTran's CEO at an analyst
conference concerning fees for the first checked bag, Delta's
imposition of a fee for the first checked bag on Nov. 4, 2008 and
AirTran's imposition of a similar fee on Nov. 12, 2008.

The plaintiffs sought to assert claims on behalf of an alleged
class consisting of passengers who paid the fist bag fee after
Dec. 5, 2008 and seek injunctive relief and unspecified treble
damages.

All of these cases have been consolidated for pre-trial
proceedings in the Northern District of Georgia by the Multi-
District Litigation Panel.

In February 2010, the plaintiffs in the MDL proceeding filed a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint which substantially
expanded the scope of the original complaint.

In the consolidated amended complaint, the plaintiffs add new
allegations concerning alleged signaling by both Delta and AirTran
based upon statements made to the investment community by both
carriers relating to industry capacity levels during 2008-2009.
The plaintiffs also add a new cause of action against Delta
alleging attempted monopolization in violation of Sherman Act
Sec. 2, paralleling a claim previously asserted against AirTran
but not Delta.  Plaintiffs have advised that they do not intend to
seek certification of a class with respect to the Section 2
claims.

Delta has filed a motion to dismiss, which the court has granted
on August 2, 2010. The Class Action Reported run a story of the
approval on August 6, 2010.

The plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify the Section 1 class.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. -- http://www.delta.com/-- serves more than
160 million customers each year.  With its unsurpassed global
network, Delta and the Delta Connection carriers offer service to
355 destinations in 65 countries on six continents.
Delta employs more than 70,000 employees worldwide and operates a
mainline fleet of nearly 800 aircraft.  A founding member of the
SkyTeam global alliance, Delta participates in the industry's
leading trans-Atlantic joint venture with Air France KLM.
Including its worldwide alliance partners, Delta offers customers
more than 16,000 daily flights, with hubs in Amsterdam, Atlanta,
Cincinnati, Detroit, Memphis, Minneapolis-St. Paul, New York-JFK,
Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Salt Lake City and Tokyo-Narita.  The
airline's service includes the SkyMiles frequent flier program,
the world's largest airline loyalty program; the award-winning
BusinessElite service; and more than 50 Delta Sky Clubs in
airports worldwide.


DINEEQUITY INC: Continues to Defend "Fast" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
DineEquity, Inc., continues to defend the matter Gerald Fast v.
Applebee's International, Inc., 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.

The company is currently defending a collective action filed under
the Fair Labor Standards Act in which named plaintiffs claim that
tipped workers in company restaurants perform excessive amounts of
non-tipped work for which they should be compensated at the
minimum wage.  The court has conditionally certified a nationwide
class of servers and bartenders who have worked in company-
operated Applebee's restaurants since June 19,
2004.

Unlike a class action, a collective action requires potential
class members to "opt in" rather than "opt out."  On Feb. 12,
2008, 5,540 opt-in forms were filed with the court.

In cases of this type, conditional certification of the plaintiff
class is granted under a lenient standard.  On Jan. 15, 2009, the
company filed a motion seeking to have the class de-certified and
the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, both of which
were denied by the court.  The parties stipulated to a bench trial
which was set to begin on Sept. 8, 2009 in Jefferson City,
Missouri.

Just prior to trial, however, the court vacated the trial setting
in order to submit key legal issues to the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals for review on interlocutory appeal.  The Court of Appeals
has agreed to hear the interlocutory appeal.

According to the current schedule, briefing will be complete by
the end of September 2010.  No date has been set for oral
argument.

Based in Glendale, California, DineEquity, Inc. --
http://www.dineequity.com/-- through its subsidiaries, franchises
and operates restaurants under the Applebee's Neighborhood Grill &
Bar and IHOP brands.  With more than 3,450 restaurants combined,
DineEquity is the largest full-service restaurant company in the
world.


EXPEDIA INC: Paid $12MM in 2Q 2010 in Consumer Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc., during the second quarter of 2010, paid $12 million
of the settlement amount in a class action lawsuit involving
customers who booked a hotel room using Expedia.com from 2001
through the middle of 2008, 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.

The Settlement was made on behalf of a nationwide class of
consumers who booked hotel stays through Expedia from January 10,
2001 through June 11, 2008, and paid a "Tax Recovery Charge" and a
"Service Fee."  The Settlement provided for the distribution to
Class Members of $123.4 million in cash payments and Expedia
Settlement Credit that can be used for hotel reservations and
"package" reservations that include hotel reservations.

Consumers of hotel stays through Expedia filed a lawsuit against
Expedia primarily concerning the bundled "Tax Recovery Charges"
and "Service Fees" charged by Expedia when consumers book a hotel
stay through Expedia's Web site or telephone operators. The
Plaintiffs alleged that, in its assessment of "Tax Recovery
Charges" and "Service Fees," Expedia (i) committed deceptive or
unfair practices in violation of the Washington Consumer
Protection Act from January 10, 2001 to June 11, 2008, and (ii)
breached its contractual obligations from February 18, 2003
through December 11, 2006.

Expedia denied Plaintiffs' allegations.

The Court granted final approval of the Settlement on December 1,
2009. However, appeals were filed challenging aspects of the Final
Approval Order.  Those appeals have now been resolved.  Expedia
has placed Settlement Credits in the accounts of those
automatically eligible to receive them.  The Settlement Credits
became available for use on June 1, 2010. Expedia Settlement
Credit Notice e-mails were distributed beginning on June 2, 2010.
Checks for Class Members who elected to receive and were eligible
to receive a Cash Payment were distributed beginning in June 2010.

More information on the Settlement is available at:

               http://www.servicefeessettlement.com/

The third-party appeals of the court's order approving the
settlement agreement related to the Expedia.com Consumer Class
Action lawsuit were dismissed on April 14, 2010.  The company paid
$12 million during the second quarter of 2010.  The remaining
settlement liability includes an estimated coupon redemption rate.

Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online travel
company.  The company makes travel products and services available
from a variety of large and small commercial and charter airlines,
lodging properties, car rental companies, cruise lines and
destination service providers.  The company's portfolio of brands
include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com, the TripAdvisor
Media Network, the Company's private label programs (Worldwide
Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate Network), Classic
Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm (formerly Expedia
Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and Veneretm Net SpA
(Venere).  The company is also engaged in offering travel and non-
travel advertisers access to the source of traffic and
transactions, through various media and advertising offerings.


EXPEDIA INC: Goodlettsville's Class Certification Motion Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Goodlettsville, Tennessee's motion for class
certification in a suit against Expedia, Inc., has been granted,
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.

On June 2, 2008, the cities of Goodlettsville and Brentwood,
Tennessee filed a putative class action in federal court against a
number of internet travel companies, including Expedia,
hotels.com, and Hotwire.  The suit is styled City of
Goodlettsville and City of Brentwood v. Priceline.com, Inc., et
al., 3-08-0561 (M.D. Tenn.).

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
the cities hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal
ordinance.  The complaint purports to assert claims for violation
of the local ordinance, as well as claims for unjust enrichment
and conversion.

The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

Plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed the city of Brentwood.

On March 31, 2009, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss.
Defendants' answers were filed on April 24, 2009.

Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online travel
company.  The company makes travel products and services available
from a variety of large and small commercial and charter airlines,
lodging properties, car rental companies, cruise lines and
destination service providers.  The company's portfolio of brands
include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com, the TripAdvisor
Media Network, the Company's private label programs (Worldwide
Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate Network), Classic
Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm (formerly Expedia
Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and Veneretm Net SpA
(Venere).  The company is also engaged in offering travel and non-
travel advertisers access to the source of traffic and
transactions, through various media and advertising offerings.


EXPEDIA INC: Lyndhurst's Appeal of Dismissal Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the Township of Lyndhurst, New Jersey, on the
dismissal of a putative class action against Expedia, Inc.,
remains pending, 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.

On June 18, 2008, the township of Lyndhurst filed a putative class
action in federal court against a number of internet travel
companies, including Expedia, hotels.com, and Hotwire.  The suit
is Township of Lyndhurst v. Priceline.com, Inc., et al., 2:08-CV-
03033-JLL-CCC (D. N.J.).

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
the township hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal
ordinance.  The complaint purports to assert claims for violation
of the local ordinance, as well as claims for unjust enrichment
and conversion.

The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on Aug. 19, 2008.

On March 18, 2009, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
for lack of standing.

Lyndhurst has requested certification to the New Jersey Supreme
Court in connection with its pending appeal of the trial court's
dismissal of its claims.

Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online travel
company.  The company makes travel products and services available
from a variety of large and small commercial and charter airlines,
lodging properties, car rental companies, cruise lines and
destination service providers.  The company's portfolio of brands
include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com, the TripAdvisor
Media Network, the Company's private label programs (Worldwide
Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate Network), Classic
Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm (formerly Expedia
Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and Veneretm Net SpA
(Venere).  The company is also engaged in offering travel and non-
travel advertisers access to the source of traffic and
transactions, through various media and advertising offerings.


EXPEDIA INC: Bid to Dismiss Pine Bluff Suit Pending in Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The defendant online travel companies' motion to dismiss a class
action filed by Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion Commission,
Jefferson County, remains pending, according to Expedia, 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 Sept. 25, 2009, Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion
Commission, Jefferson County filed a class action against a number
of online travel companies, including Expedia, Inc., hotels.com,
L.P. and Hotwire, Inc.  The suit is captioned Pine
Bluff Advertising and Promotion Commission, Jefferson County,
Arkansas, and others similarly situated v. Hotels.com LP, et. al.
2009-cv-946-5 (Ark. Cir. Ct., Jefferson Cty.).

The complaint alleges that defendants have failed to collect
and/or pay taxes under hotel tax occupancy ordinances.

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss.

Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online travel
company.  The company makes travel products and services available
from a variety of large and small commercial and charter airlines,
lodging properties, car rental companies, cruise lines and
destination service providers.  The company's portfolio of brands
include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com, the TripAdvisor
Media Network, the Company's private label programs (Worldwide
Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate Network), Classic
Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm (formerly Expedia
Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and Veneretm Net SpA
(Venere).  The company is also engaged in offering travel and non-
travel advertisers access to the source of traffic and
transactions, through various media and advertising offerings.


EXPEDIA INC: Gallup City's Motion for Reconsideration Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
City of Gallup, New Mexico's motion for reconsideration of the
court's denial of their motion for summary judgment in a putative
statewide class action against Expedia, Inc., remains pending.

On May 17, 2006, the city of Gallup, New Mexico filed a putative
statewide class action in state court against a number of internet
travel companies, including hotels.com, Hotwire and Expedia
Washington.  The suit is City of Gallup, New Mexico, et al. v.
Hotels.com, L.P., et al., 06-cv-0549 JC/RLP (D. New Mexico).

The case was removed to federal court on June 23, 2006.

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
the city hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal
ordinances. The complaint purports to assert claims for violation
of those ordinances, conversion, and declaratory judgment.

The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount, restitution
and disgorgement.

On April 18, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to dismiss
its own lawsuit.

On July 6, 2007, the city of Gallup refiled its lawsuit.  The
defendants answered the complaint on Aug. 27, 2007.

Plaintiff filed its first amended complaint on Jan. 16, 2009.
The court certified the class on July 7, 2009.

Plaintiffs filed a partial motion for summary judgment, which is
pending.  The court's order approving class notice was issued on
Oct. 22, 2009.

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, plaintiff municipalities have filed a motion for
reconsideration of the court's denial of their motion for summary
judgment.

Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online travel
company.  The company makes travel products and services available
from a variety of large and small commercial and charter airlines,
lodging properties, car rental companies, cruise lines and
destination service providers.  The company's portfolio of brands
include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com, the TripAdvisor
Media Network, the Company's private label programs (Worldwide
Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate Network), Classic
Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm (formerly Expedia
Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and Veneretm Net SpA
(Venere).  The company is also engaged in offering travel and non-
travel advertisers access to the source of traffic and
transactions, through various media and advertising offerings.


EXPEDIA INC: Consolidated Columbus-Findley Suit Pending in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Expedia, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, 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.

On Oct. 25, 2005, the city of Findley, Ohio filed a purported
state wide class action in state court against a number of
internet travel companies, including hotels.com, Hotwire and
Expedia Washington.  The suit is City of Findley v. Hotels.com,
L.P., et al., No. 2005-cv-673 (Ohio C.P. Ct. Hancock Cty.).

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
the city hotel occupancy taxes as required by municipal ordinance.
The complaint includes claims for violation of that ordinance,
violation of the consumer protection act, conversion imposition of
a constructive trust and declaratory relief.

On Nov. 22, 2005, defendants removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

On Jan. 30, 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss the case.

On July 26, 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss.  The court has consolidated this
lawsuit with the lawsuit filed by the cities of Columbus and
Dayton, Ohio.

On Feb. 22, 2008, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Consolidated
Complaint adding the city of Toledo, city of Northwood, city of
Rossford, city of Maumee, city of Perrysburg, Perrysburg Township
and Springfield Township as plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

On July 7, 2009, plaintiffs amended their complaint to add the
Franklin County Convention Facilities Authority as a plaintiff.

The court's prior ruling on defendants' motion to dismiss has been
applied to the joined jurisdictions.

The court has held that the defendants are not directly obligated
to pay the hotel occupancy taxes at issue, but may be liable for
taxes collected but not remitted.

The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
Plaintiffs have requested certification of legal issues to the
Ohio Supreme Court.

Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online travel
company.  The company makes travel products and services available
from a variety of large and small commercial and charter airlines,
lodging properties, car rental companies, cruise lines and
destination service providers.  The company's portfolio of brands
include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com, the TripAdvisor
Media Network, the Company's private label programs (Worldwide
Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate Network), Classic
Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm (formerly Expedia
Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and Veneretm Net SpA
(Venere).  The company is also engaged in offering travel and non-
travel advertisers access to the source of traffic and
transactions, through various media and advertising offerings.


EXPEDIA INC: Settlement Reached in Monroe County Statewide Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties have reached a settlement in principle in the
Statewide Class Action filed by the County of Monroe, Florida
against Expedia, Inc., 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.

On June 3, 2008, the county of Monroe, Florida filed an individual
action in federal court against a number of internet travel
companies, including Expedia, hotels.com, and Hotwire. County of
Monroe, Florida v. Priceline.com, Inc., et al., 08-cv-10044 (S.D.
Fla.).

The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
the county hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal
ordinance.  The complaint purports to assert claims for violation
of the local ordinance, as well as claims for unjust enrichment
and conversion.  The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified
amount.

On June 25, 2008, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal. On June 26, 2008, the court entered an order dismissing
the lawsuit.

On Jan. 12, 2009, the county of Monroe refiled its lawsuit.  The
court then dismissed the complaint for failure to file a joint
scheduling report.  Plaintiff refiled its complaint on April 15,
2009.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on April 23, 2009.
The court dismissed the April 15, 2009 complaint and ordered the
parties to file a joint scheduling report and move to reopen the
case based on the Jan. 12, 2009 complaint.  On May 27, 2009, the
court reopened the case.  Plaintiff filed its first amended
complaint on May 28, 2009.  Defendants' motion to dismiss the
first amended complaint was denied and granted in part by the
court.

Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. Trial was
scheduled for July 19, 2010.

Expedia, Inc. -- http://www.expediainc.com/-- is an online travel
company.  The company makes travel products and services available
from a variety of large and small commercial and charter airlines,
lodging properties, car rental companies, cruise lines and
destination service providers.  The company's portfolio of brands
include Expedia.com, hotels.com, Hotwire.com, the TripAdvisor
Media Network, the Company's private label programs (Worldwide
Travel Exchange and Interactive Affiliate Network), Classic
Vacations, Expedia Local Experttm, Egenciatm (formerly Expedia
Corporate Travel), eLongtm, Inc. (eLong) and Veneretm Net SpA
(Venere).  The company is also engaged in offering travel and non-
travel advertisers access to the source of traffic and
transactions, through various media and advertising offerings.


GOOGLE INC: Settlement with Authors Guild Awaits Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has
yet to approve Google Inc.'s class action settlement with the
Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers,
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.

Copyright claims filed against Google by companies alleging that
features of certain of the company's products and services,
including Google Web Search, Google News, Google Video, Google
Image Search, Google Book Search, and YouTube, infringe the rights
of others.

In the U.S., the company announced a settlement with the Authors
Guild and the Association of American Publishers.  However, this
class action settlement is subject to approval by the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The company is, and may in the future be, subject to additional
claims with respect to Google Book Search both in the U.S. and in
other parts of the world.

Based in Mountain View, Calif., Google Inc. --
http://www.google.com/-- maintains an index of Websites and other
content, and makes this information freely available to anyone
with an Internet connection. Its automated search technology
enables people to obtain nearly instant access to relevant
information from its online index.


HARTE HANKS: Awaits Approval of Shoppers' $7MM Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
An agreement in principle to settle a class action lawsuit against
Harte-Hanks, Inc.'s subsidiary, Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc., is
pending approval, 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.

On March 23, 2001, Shoppers employee Frank Gattuso and former
employee Ernest Sigala filed a putative class action against
Shoppers, claiming that Shoppers failed to comply with a
California statutory provision requiring an employer to indemnify
employees for expenses incurred on behalf of the employer.  The
plaintiffs allege that Shoppers failed to reimburse them for
expenses of using their automobiles as outside sales
representatives and failed to accurately itemize these expenses on
plaintiffs' wage statements.  The suit was filed in Los Angeles
County Superior Court.

The class that plaintiffs seek to represent has been limited to
all California Harte-Hanks outside sales representatives who were
not separately reimbursed apart from their base salary and
commissions for the expenses they incurred in using their own
automobiles after early 1998.  The plaintiffs seek indemnification
and compensatory damages, statutory damages, exemplary damages,
penalties, interest, costs of suit, and attorneys' fees.

Shoppers filed a cross-complaint seeking a declaratory judgment
that the plaintiffs have been indemnified for their automobile
expenses by the higher salaries and commissions paid to them as
outside sales representatives.  The cross-complaint also alleges
conversion, unjust enrichment, constructive trust and rescission
and restitution based on mutual mistake.

On Jan. 30, 2002, the trial court ruled that California Labor
Code Section 2802 requires employers to reimburse employees for
mileage and other expenses incurred in the course of employment,
but that an employer is permitted to pay increased wages or
commissions instead of indemnifying actual expenses.

On May 28, 2003, the trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

On Oct. 27, 2005, the California Court of Appeal issued a
unanimous opinion affirming the trial court's rulings, including
the interpretation of Labor Code Section 2802 and denial of class
certification.

On Nov. 23, 2005, the Court of Appeal denied the plaintiffs'
petition for rehearing.

On Nov. 5, 2007, the California Supreme Court affirmed the trial
court's ruling that Labor Code Section 2802 permits lump sum
reimbursement and that an employer may satisfy its obligations to
indemnify employees for reasonable and necessary business expenses
under Labor Code Section 2802 by paying enhanced taxable
compensation.

The Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the trial court for
further proceedings related to the class certification issue and
directed the trial court to consider whether the following issues
could properly be resolved on a class-wide basis:

     (1) did Shoppers adopt a practice or policy of reimbursing
         outside sales representatives for automobile expenses
         by paying them higher commission rates and base
         salaries than it paid to inside sales representatives,

     (2) did Shoppers establish a method to apportion the
         enhanced compensation payments between compensation for
         labor performed and expense reimbursement and

     (3) was the amount paid for expense reimbursement
         sufficient to fully reimburse the employees for the
         automobile expenses they reasonably and necessarily
         incurred.

On July 29, 2008, the trial court stated its intention to issue a
split class action certification ruling, certifying a class action
with respect to the first two questions listed immediately above
(adoption of a policy or practice, and establishment of an
apportionment method) and denying class certification on the third
question listed immediately above (sufficiency of reimbursement).

On May 19, 2009, the trial court issued its written partial class
certification order.

This matter was set for a class trial in April 2010 on the first
two questions (adoption of a policy or practice, and establishment
of an apportionment method).

On Jan. 25, 2010, Shoppers, reached an agreement in principle with
Shoppers employee Mr. Gattuso and former employee Mr. Sigala,
individually and on behalf of a certified class, to settle and
resolve the class action lawsuit.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Shoppers, without any
admission of liability, agreed, subject to certain conditions,
that it will pay to the class settlement fund a total of $6.95
million.  The proposed settlement is subject to the entry of an
order of the trial court granting preliminary approval and,
following notice to class members, final approval of the
settlement and providing for the dismissal of the lawsuit with
prejudice against all class members.

The parties have agreed in principle to promptly negotiate, sign
and submit a formal, binding stipulation of settlement to the
trial court to resolve this matter.  Pursuant to the agreement in
principle, in return for the above consideration, each member of
the class, including Gattuso and Sigala, will release all claims
against Shoppers and its affiliates that in any way arose from or
related to the matters which were the subject of, or could have
been the subject of, the claims alleged in the class action
lawsuit.

During the fourth quarter of 2009, the company accrued the full
$7.0 million associated with this agreement in principle.

Harte-Hanks, Inc. -- http://www.harte-hanks.com/-- is a worldwide
direct and targeted marketing company that provides direct
marketing services and shopper advertising opportunities to a
range of local, regional, national and international consumer and
business-to-business marketers.  The company manages its
operations through two operating segments: Direct Marketing, which
operates both nationally and internationally, and Shoppers, which
operates in local and regional markets in California and Florida.


IOWA: 8th Circuit Affirms Denial of Rattray Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed
a district court's denial of a motion to certify a class action
over illegal strip search at the Woodbury County Jail in the case
In re Rattray v. Woodbury County, IA, Case No. 09-2314 (August 5,
2010).

Maureen Rattray filed a lawsuit against Woodbury County, Iowa,
alleging that she was strip searched illegally as part of the
booking process at the Woodbury County Jail.  Ms. Rattray
subsequently moved to certify a class action. The district court
denied Ms. Rattray's motion, ruling that Ms. Rattray failed to
convince the court that she would adequately represent the
interests of the class, as required by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a)(4), and that she did not satisfy any of the
prerequisites of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b) for
maintenance of a class action.  Ms. Rattray brought an
interlocutory appeal, and 8th Circuit affirmed.

A copy of the decision is available for free at:

     http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100805146


LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS: Hearing on $14.5MM Settlement Set for Oct. 6
------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________

LOUISIANA MUNICIPAL POLICE     |
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM,  |
on behalf of itself and all    |
other similarly situated       |
shareholders of Landry's       |
Restaurants, Inc., and         |
derivatively on behalf of      |
nominal defendant Landry's     |
Restaurants, Inc.,             |
                                |
        Plaintiff,              |
               v.               |
                                |
TILMAN J. FERTITTA, STEVEN     |
L. SCHEINTHAL, KENNETH         |
BRIMMER, MICHAEL S. CHADWICK,  |
MICHAEL RICHMOND, JOE MAX      |
TAYLOR, FERTITTA HOLDINGS,     |
INC., FERTITTA ACQUISITION     | C.A. No. 4339-VCL
CO., RICHARD LIEM, FERTITTA    |
GROUP, INC. and FERTITTA       |
MERGER CO.                     |
                                |
        Defendants, and         |
                                |
LANDRY'S RESTAURANTS, INC.,    |
                                |
        Nominal Defendant.      |
                                |
                                |

     SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENTS OF SHAREHOLDER
   LITIGATION, SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING, AND APPLICATIONS
  FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO:  ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO HELD SHARES OF LANDRY'S
     RESTAURANTS, INC. ("LANDRY'S" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK
     AT ANY POINT BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 AND JANUARY 11, 2009,
     INCLUSIVE (THE "2008 TRANSACTION SUBCLASS"); AND ALL PERSONS
     AND ENTITIES WHO HELD SHARES OF LANDRY'S COMMON STOCK AT ANY
     POINT BETWEEN NOVEMBER 3, 2009 AND THE CLOSING OF A
     SALE/MERGER TRANSACTION OF LANDRY'S (THE "2009 TRANSACTION
     SUBCLASS", TOGETHER WITH 2008 TRANSACTION SUBCLASS,
     THE "CLASSES")

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Delaware Court of Chancery
Rules 23 and 23.1 and an Order of the Court, that (i) the above-
captioned action (the "Action") is pending as a class and
derivative action in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (the "Court"), and that the Court has preliminarily
certified for settlement purposes the Classes defined above, each
of which exclude Defendants; members of the immediate families of
each of the Individual Defendants; all directors, officers,
parents, subsidiaries and affiliates of Landry's and the Fertitta
Entities; any person, firm, trust, corporation or entity in which
any Defendant has or had a controlling interest or which is
related to or affiliated with any of the Defendants; and the legal
representatives, heirs, successors-in-interest or assigns of any
such excluded party; and (ii) settlements (the "Settlements") have
been reached on behalf of the respective Classes dismissing the
claims asserted or that could have been asserted against
Defendants in the Second Amended Verified Class Action and
Derivative Complaint filed in the Action on May 21, 2010, and
every prior version of the Complaint (collectively, the
"Complaint").

Pursuant to the Settlement reached on behalf 2008 Transaction
Subclass, the Defendants or their successor(s)-in-interest have
agreed to pay or caused to be paid a total of $14,500,000 in cash
into escrow (the "Settlement Fund") for the benefit of the members
of the 2008 Transaction Subclass only.  In consideration of the
Settlement reached on behalf of the 2009 Transaction Subclass, the
Defendants and the Special Committee of the Company's Board of
Directors have agreed to implement certain deal terms with respect
to the 2009 agreement of Tilman J. Fertitta ("Fertitta") and
certain Fertitta entities to acquire Landry's for $14.75 per
share, including paying $24.50 per share.

A hearing will be held before the Court, in the New Castle County,
500 North King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, on October 6, 2010 at
10:00 a.m., to, among other things, determine whether the proposed
Settlements should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable
and adequate, to determine whether Plaintiff and Class Counsel
have adequately represented the Classes, to determine whether the
proposed Plan of Allocation for the Settlement Fund is fair and
reasonable, and to consider the application of Class Counsel for
awards of attorneys' fees and expenses.

IF YOU WERE A LANDRY'S SHAREHOLDER AT ANY POINT BETWEEN SEPTEMBER
17, 2008 AND JANUARY 11, 2009, INCLUSIVE AND/OR AT ANY POINT
BETWEEN NOVEMBER 3, 2009 AND THE CLOSING OF A SALE/MERGER
TRANSACTION OF LANDRY'S, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE
SETTLEMENTS OF THE ACTION.  This is a summary notice only.
Additional information about the claims asserted in the Action and
the terms and benefits of the proposed Settlements are available
in the full printed Notice of Proposed Settlements of Shareholder
Litigation, Settlement Fairness Hearing, and Applications for
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (the "Notice").  If you have not yet
received the full printed Notice or the Proof of Claim form
("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by
contacting the Claims Administrator at:

                Landry's Shareholder Litigation
                C/O The Garden City Group, Inc.
                P.O. Box 9349, Dublin, OH 43017-4249

Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from
the website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
http://www.landrysshareholderlitigation.com/

If you are a member of the 2008 Transaction Subclass and/or a
member of the 2009 Transaction Subclass, you will be bound by the
Orders of the Court granting final approval to the respective
Settlements.  If you are a member of the 2008 Transaction
Subclass, in order to be eligible to share in the distribution of
the Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form no later than
December 6, 2010.  Any objections to the Settlements, the Plan of
Allocation and/or Class Counsel's applications for awards of
attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed by September 22, 2010
in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice.

By Order of The Court


OPENTV CORP: Final Settlement Hearing Scheduled for November 15
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Berman DeValerio and Wolf Popper LLP, interim
co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in In re OpenTV Shareholder
Litigation, Master Case No. C-09-04896, which is pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, issue the following statement:

To all persons who held Class A Common Stock of OpenTV Corp.
during the period from and including October 5, 2009, through and
including November 25, 2009: you are hereby notified that the
OpenTV Shareholder Litigation has preliminarily been certified as
a class action and that a settlement has been reached. Pursuant to
an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, a Final Settlement Hearing will be held on
November 15, 2010, at 2:00 p.m., at the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, located at 450
Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco CA 94102, in Courtroom 15 before
the Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel. During the Final Settlement
Hearing, the Court will (a) determine whether to approve the
settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best
interests of the Class, (b) consider whether provisional
certification of the Class should be made permanent, for purposes
of settlement, and whether Plaintiff Charles Michael Foley in the
Consolidated Action should be designated as class representative
and Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Counsel as class counsel; (c)
determine whether final judgment should be entered dismissing the
Consolidated Action as to all Defendants with prejudice as against
Plaintiffs and the Class, releasing the Settled Claims as to all
Released Persons, and barring and enjoining prosecution of any and
all Settled Claims (as provided in the Stipulation of Settlement)
and (d) consider other matters, including a request by Plaintiffs'
Counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and an
incentive award to Plaintiff Foley.

If you are a member of the Class, your rights may be affected by
this Settlement. A copy of a detailed Notice of Proposed
Settlement of Class Action and Settlement Hearing (the "Notice" )
and a copy of the Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise,
Settlement and Release are both available on OpenTV's website:
www.opentv.com. The Notice more fully describes the case and the
Settlement and your rights thereunder.

Any objection to the matters to be determined at the Final
Settlement Hearing must be filed with the Court and delivered to
counsel for the parties, postmarked no later than November 1, 2010
in the manner set forth in the Notice.

Inquiries may be made to plaintiffs' co-lead counsel:

     Carl L. Stine, Esq.
     WOLF POPPER LLP
     845 Third Avenue
     New York, New York 10022
     Telephone: 212-759-4600

          - or -

     Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Esq.
     BERMAN DEVALERIO
     One California St., Suite 900
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Telephone: 415-433-3200

Please do not write or telephone the Court or the Judge for
information or advice about this Notice or the Settlement.


ORIENT PAPER: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., said Friday it filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased common stock of
Orient Paper, Inc., during the period between March 27, 2009 and
July 22, 2010.

This class action includes all purchasers of Orient Paper stock
during the Class Period, including purchasers in the March 31,
2010 public offering from Roth Capital Partners LLC.

To join the Orient Paper class action, visit the firm's Web site
at: http://www.rosenlegal.com/or call Laurence Rosen, Esq., or
Phillip Kim, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email
lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

The Complaint alleges that Orient Paper and certain of its
officers and directors misrepresented the Company's financial
performance, business prospects, and financial condition. The
Complaint also names Roth Capital Partners as a defendant because
it underwrote a public offering for the Company on March 31, 2010.

The Complaint asserts that the Company's revenues were
substantially overstated and that the Company exaggerated the
extent of its business operations. On June 28, 2010, an entity
calling itself Muddy Waters released a report containing facts
indicating that ONP has issued false financial statements and
press releases. The report was followed by a series of back-and-
forth accusations between Muddy Waters and the Company. Finally,
on July 16, 2010, Orient Paper announced that it would retain a
law firm and a "Big Four" accounting firm to conduct an
investigation into the troubling issues raised by Muddy Waters. As
a result of these adverse disclosures, Orient Paper's share price
dropped substantially, damaging shareholders.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 5, 2010. If you wish to join the litigation, or
to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq. of The
Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at
lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com. The class action is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Remains a Defendant in "Adams" Action
------------------------------------------------------------
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company remains a defendant in the matter
Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council.

In Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case filed
in July 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan
against certain cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco,
the plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all individuals who
were alive on July 10, 2009, and who have suffered, or who
currently suffer, from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,
emphysema, heart disease or cancer, after having smoked a minimum
of 25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed or
distributed by the defendants.

Plaintiffs allege fraud, fraudulent concealment, breach of
warranty, breach of warranty of merchantability and of fitness for
a particular purpose, failure to warn, design defects, negligence,
breach of a "special duty" to children and adolescents,
conspiracy, concert of action, and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory and aggravated damages; punitive
or exemplary damages; reimbursement of tobacco-related health-care
costs paid by the government; the right to waive the torts and
claim disgorgement of the amount of revenues or profits the
defendants received from the sale of tobacco products to putative
class members; interest pursuant to the Pre-judgment Interest Act
and other similar legislation; and other relief the court deems
just.

Pursuant to the terms of the 1999 sale of RJR Tobacco's
international tobacco business, RJR Tobacco has tendered the
defense of the action to JTI.  JTI, has, subject to a reservation
of rights, assumed RJR Tobacco's and its current or former
affiliates' liability, if any, and is defending those actions.

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 "Dorion" Action in Alberta
---------------------------------------------------------
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company remains a defendant in the matter
Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council.

In Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case filed
in June 2009, in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta against
certain cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco, the
plaintiffs brought the case on behalf of all individuals,
including their estates, dependants and family members, who
purchased or smoked cigarettes designed, manufactured, marketed or
distributed by the defendants.

Plaintiffs allege fraud, fraudulent concealment, breach of
warranty, breach of warranty of merchantability and of fitness for
a particular purpose, failure to warn, design defects, negligence,
breach of a "special duty" to children and adolescents,
conspiracy, concert of action, and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory and aggravated damages; punitive
or exemplary damages; reimbursement of tobacco-related health-care
costs paid by the government; the right to waive the torts and
claim disgorgement of the amount of revenues or profits the
defendants received from the sale of tobacco products to putative
class members; interest pursuant to the Pre-judgment Interest Act
and other similar legislation; and other relief the court deems
just.

Pursuant to the terms of the 1999 sale of RJR Tobacco's
international tobacco business, RJR Tobacco has tendered the
defense of the action to JTI.  JTI, has, subject to a reservation
of rights, assumed RJR Tobacco's and its current or former
affiliates' liability, if any, and is defending those actions.

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: "Kunka" Suit Against RJR Pending in Manitoba
---------------------------------------------------------------
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company remains a defendant in the matter
Kunka v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council.

In Kunka v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case filed
in 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba against certain
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco, the plaintiffs
brought the case on behalf of all individuals, including their
estates, and their dependants and family members, who purchased or
smoked cigarettes manufactured by the defendants.

Plaintiffs allege fraud, fraudulent concealment, breach of
warranty, breach of warranty of merchantability and of fitness for
a particular purpose, failure to warn, design defects, negligence,
breach of a "special duty" to children and adolescents,
conspiracy, concert of action, and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory and aggravated damages; punitive
or exemplary damages; reimbursement of tobacco-related health-care
costs paid by the government; the right to waive the torts and
claim disgorgement of the amount of revenues or profits the
defendants received from the sale of tobacco products to putative
class members; interest pursuant to the Pre-judgment Interest Act
and other similar legislation; and other relief the court deems
just.

Pursuant to the terms of the 1999 sale of RJR Tobacco's
international tobacco business, RJR Tobacco has tendered the
defense of the action to JTI.  JTI, has, subject to a reservation
of rights, assumed RJR Tobacco's and its current or former
affiliates' liability, if any, and is defending those actions.

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: "Semple" Suit v. RJR Pending in Nova Scotia
--------------------------------------------------------------
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company remains a defendant in the matter
Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council.

In Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case filed
in June 2009 in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia against certain
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco, the plaintiffs
brought the case on behalf of all individuals, including their
estates, dependants and family members, who purchased or smoked
cigarettes designed, manufactured, marketed or distributed by the
defendants for the period of January 1, 1954, to the expiry of the
opt out period as set by the court.

Plaintiffs allege fraud, fraudulent concealment, breach of
warranty, breach of warranty of merchantability and of fitness for
a particular purpose, failure to warn, design defects, negligence,
breach of a "special duty" to children and adolescents,
conspiracy, concert of action, and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory and aggravated damages; punitive
or exemplary damages; reimbursement of tobacco-related health-care
costs paid by the government; the right to waive the torts and
claim disgorgement of the amount of revenues or profits the
defendants received from the sale of tobacco products to putative
class members; interest pursuant to the Pre-judgment Interest Act
and other similar legislation; and other relief the court deems
just.

Pursuant to the terms of the 1999 sale of RJR Tobacco's
international tobacco business, RJR Tobacco has tendered the
defense of the action to JTI.  JTI, has, subject to a reservation
of rights, assumed RJR Tobacco's and its current or former
affiliates' liability, if any, and is defending those actions.

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: Claims Against RJR in "Stewart" Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the matter Stewart v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
has agreed to dismiss its claims against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company, 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 Stewart v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a class-action suit was
filed in Superior Court, Alameda County, California, in December
2007, against the Rolling Stone's publisher, Wenner Media, and RJR
Tobacco, claiming the mention of bands in the magazine-created
content violated their right of publicity.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages.

The California Appellate Court recently issued an order favoring
Wenner Media and remanded the case for further proceedings
consistent with the order.  More specifically, it ruled that the
trial court erred in concluding that a triable issue exists as to
whether the editorial feature constitutes commercial speech and
also erred in finding that the plaintiffs presented evidence
sufficient to establish that they have probability of prevailing
on the merits.

The plaintiff subsequently entered an agreement dismissing its
claims against RJR Tobacco, and it will be submitted to the court
for approval shortly.

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: Discovery in "Smith" Action Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the matter Smith v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., where
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is defendant, is ongoing, 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 Smith v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., a case filed in February
2000, and pending in District Court, Seward County, Kansas, the
court granted class certification on Nov. 15, 2001, in an action
brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including
RJR Tobacco and B&W, and the parent companies of the major U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, seeking to recover an
unspecified amount in actual and punitive damages.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants participated in a
conspiracy to fix or maintain the price of cigarettes sold in the
United States.

The parties are currently engaged in discovery.

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: Summary Judgment Affirmed by NM High Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico affirmed the grant of
summary judgment in favor of all defendants, including R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company, in the matter Romero v. Philip Morris
Cos., 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 Romero v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., a case filed in April 2000
in District Court, Rio Arriba County, New Mexico, the court
granted class certification on May 14, 2003, in an action brought
against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR
Tobacco and B&W, and the parent companies of the major U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, seeking to recover an
amount not to exceed $74,000 per class member in actual and
punitive damages, exclusive of interest and costs.  The plaintiffs
allege that the defendants conspired to fix, raise, advance and/or
stabilize prices for cigarettes in the State of New Mexico from at
least as early as Jan. 1, 1998, through the present.

On June 30, 2006, the court granted the defendants' motion for
summary judgment.

On Nov. 18, 2008, the New Mexico Court of Appeals reversed the
grant of summary judgment in favor of RJR Tobacco, B&W and Philip
Morris.

On Jan. 7, 2009, RJR Tobacco filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari, and on Feb. 27, 2009, the Supreme Court of the State
of New Mexico granted that petition.  On June 25, 2010, the New
Mexico Supreme Court reversed the decision of the New Mexico Court
of Appeals and affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of
all defendants.

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: JTI Continues to Defend Statement of Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
Japan Tobacco Inc. continues to defend a statement of claim by the
Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board.

By purchase agreement dated May 12, 1999, referred to as the 1999
Purchase Agreement, RJR and RJR Tobacco sold the international
tobacco business to Japan Tobacco Inc.

RJR and RJR Tobacco retained certain liabilities relating to the
activities of Northern Brands, including those relating to a 1998
guilty plea entered in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York, as well as an investigation conducted by the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police, referred to as RCMP, for possible
violations of Canadian law related to the activities that led to
the Northern Brands guilty plea and certain conduct by Stanley
Smith, a former executive of RJR-Macdonald, Inc., referred to as
RJR-MI, which led to the termination of his severance agreement.

Under its reading of the indemnification provisions of the 1999
Purchase Agreement, JTI requested indemnification for any damages
arising out of the matters described below:

On April 23, 2010, a Statement of Claim was filed against JTI-MC
by the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board, Andy
J. Jacko, Brian Baswick, Ron Kichler, and Aprad Dobrenty,
proceeding on their own behalf and on behalf of a putative class
of Ontario tobacco producers that sold tobacco to JTI-MC during
the period between Jan. 1, 1986 and Dec. 31, 1996, referred to as
the Class Period, through the Board pursuant to certain
agreements.

The Statement of Claim seeks recovery for damages allegedly
incurred by the class representatives and the putative class for
tobacco sales during the Class Period made at the contract price
for duty free or export cigarettes with respect to cigarettes
that, rather than being sold duty free or for export, purportedly
were sold in Canada, which allegedly breached one or more of a
series of contracts dated between June 4, 1986, and July 3, 1996.

No further updates were reported 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 ERISA-Violations Suit in NC
----------------------------------------------------------
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company continues to defend a suit alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,
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 May 13, 2002, in Tatum v. The R.J.R. Pension Investment
Committee of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Capital Investment
Plan, an employee of RJR Tobacco filed a class-action suit in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina,
alleging that the defendants, RJR, RJR Tobacco, the RJR Employee
Benefits Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee,
violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,
referred to as ERISA. The actions about which the plaintiff
complains stem from a decision made in 1999 by RJR Nabisco
Holdings Corp., subsequently renamed Nabisco Group Holdings Corp.,
to spin off RJR, thereby separating NGH's tobacco business and
food business.

As part of the spin-off, the 401(k) plan for the previously
related entities had to be divided into two separate plans for the
now separate tobacco and food businesses.  The plaintiff contends
that the defendants violated ERISA by not overriding an amendment
to RJR's 401(k) plan requiring that, prior to Feb. 1, 2000, the
stock funds of the companies involved in the food business, NGH
and Nabisco Holdings Corp., referred to as Nabisco, be eliminated
as investment options from RJR's 401(k) plan. In his complaint,
the plaintiff requests, among other things, that the court require
the defendants to pay as damages to the RJR 401(k) plan an amount
equal to the subsequent appreciation that was purportedly lost as
a result of the liquidation of the NGH and Nabisco funds.

On July 29, 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which
the court granted on Dec. 10, 2003.

On Dec. 14, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
reversed the dismissal of the complaint and remanded the case for
further proceedings.

On Jan. 20, 2005, the defendants filed a second motion to dismiss
on other grounds.  On March 7, 2007, the court granted the
plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint and denied all
pending motions as moot.

On April 6, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.  On May 31, 2007, the court granted the motion in part
and denied it in part, dismissing all claims against the RJR
Employee Benefits Committee and the RJR Pension Investment
Committee.

The remaining defendants, RJR and RJR Tobacco, filed their answer
and affirmative defenses on June 14, 2007.  On Nov. 19, 2007, the
plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which the court
granted on Sept. 29, 2008.

The district court ordered mediation, which occurred on July 10,
2008, but no resolution of the case was reached at that time.  On
Sept. 18, 2008, each of the plaintiffs and the defendants filed
motions for summary judgment, and on Jan. 9, 2009, the defendants
filed a motion to decertify the class.

A second mediation occurred on June 23, 2009, but again no
resolution of the case was reached.  On Jan. 11, 2010, the
district court overruled the motions for summary judgment and the
motion to decertify the class.  The non-jury trial began on Jan.
12, 2010, and closing arguments ended on Fe. 9, 2010.  A decision
is pending.

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 Approves Settlement Pact in "Marshall"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri has
approved the settlement agreement resolving the matter Marshall 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.

On March 19, 2007, in Marshall v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the
plaintiff filed a collective action complaint against RJR Tobacco
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
The plaintiff alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
She asserted that the company had failed to keep accurate records
of all hours worked by RJR Tobacco's employees and failed to pay
wages and overtime compensation to non-exempt retail
representatives.

Subsequently, two other cases alleging violations of the FLSA and
certain state law wage-and-hour laws were filed against RJR
Tobacco: Radcliffe v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., filed in federal
court in California, and Dinino v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
filed in federal court in New York. The Dinino and Radcliffe
matters were transferred to the Missouri court and consolidated
with the Marshall case.  The plaintiffs in the Dinino and
Radcliffe matters failed to move for class certification on the
state law claims.

On March 2, 2010, the parties engaged in mediation and reached a
settlement agreement in principle of this matter for a non-
material amount.  Since that date, the parties executed a
formalized settlement agreement, and on June 8, 2010, the court
executed an order approving the terms of the settlement.

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.


SANTEE ELECTRIC: Members File Class Suit & Call for CEO to Resign
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Sweeney, writing for South Carolina Now, reports that members
the Santee Electric Cooperative filed a class action lawsuit in
the 3rd Circuit Court in Kingstree Friday alleging that current
and former board members of the co-op abused their positions for
their own personal gain.

The suit calls for the removal of Santee Electric's current board
and CEO, a review of the co-op's by-laws and governance, the
hiring of new management and the election of new board members.

Attorney Jack Barnes, of Allen Jackson Barnes Attorney at Law in
Columbia, filed the 26-page suit late Friday afternoon, which
names 16 defendants who, according to Mr. Barnes, acquired roughly
$2 million between 2004 and 2008 by manipulating the co-op's
bylaws.

Mr. Barnes alleged that actions taken by the board over time
prevented Santee Electric profits from being paid back into the
co-op, artificially inflating rates and driving up electric costs
for its members.

"[Board members] simply have given themselves and continue to give
themselves compensation and benefits to which they are not entitle
under the law," Mr. Barnes said during a phone interview after the
suit's filing.

Mr. Barnes said the suit calls for sitting board members to be
removed from their positions, along with Floyd Keels, the co-op's
CEO, and other "key management" officials. The suit also calls for
the $2 million collected by board members to be paid back to the
co-op, an amount Mr. Barnes said could increase as allegations are
explored further.

During a phone interview earlier Friday, Mr. Keels said he had
been away from his office for the past several days due to a
family commitment and had not been officially notified of the
suit.

Mr. Barnes said the co-op's by-laws had been amended over the
years to make it nearly impossible to unseat a sitting board
member, allowing them to pass their positions on to their spouses
or children upon retirement. Board members were also able to
collect health insurance and retirement benefits as a result of
serving, Mr. Barnes said.

"That's not what the co-op is supposed to do," he said. "[Board
members] are essentially public servants for a none profit
organization. They've lost sight of what they were hired to do."

The suit names three plaintiffs, Charles Burgess, Tim Daniels and
Tommy Stuckey, who will serve as "class representatives" should
the suit's class action status be approved, Mr. Barnes said.

If the class action suit is allowed to continue as such, Mr.
Barnes said he would essentially be representing the 40,000
members of the co-op. Members are free to remove their names from
the suit and either file their own legal action against Santee
Electric or choose to not participate in any legal action at all,
he said.

Mr. Barnes said if the court does not approve the class action
request, the suit would continue with Messrs. Burgess, Daniels and
Stuckey as plaintiffs. The three members have not asked for any
personal compensation from the lawsuit, he said.

Questions regarding the board's actions began in February of this
year when Mr. Stuckey submitted a Freedom of Information Act
request to the co-op. The request included inquiries on board
member's per diem rates, reimbursement policies and the number
meetings attended in 2009.

Mr. Stuckey's request was prompted by tax reports made public by
the Internal Revenue Service that listed large payments to board
members, some in excess of $180,000.

Mr. Keels said the large payments were one-time occurrences made
from a financial plan terminated by the IRS.

Ronnie A. Sabb, the co-op's attorney, responded to Mr. Stuckey's
request in April, saying trustees receive a per diem rate of $450
for official co-op business conducted, as well as board determined
daily compensation for regular or special meetings, training
sessions, travel and other expenses.

Messrs. Burgess, Daniels and Stuckey are all members of the Santee
Electric Co-Op Members for Change, a watch dog group formed in May
by roughly 250 co-op members concerned with the direction of the
co-op.

Mr. Barnes said he made attempts to head off the filing a lawsuit,
but that Santee Electric did not provide "sufficient response" to
various inquiries. Co-op members were either not allowed to view
certain financial records or only permitted to do so in a
controlled environment, prohibiting them from making copies of
certain materials, he said.

Mr. Barnes also said Mr. Sabb did not communicate with him during
the time leading up to the lawsuit's filing.

"I don't know why Ronnie has not communicated with me," Mr. Barnes
said. "I felt like I made it perfectly clear that we wanted to
work together to avoid litigation at all cost, and the board was
none responsive. They initially appeared to be receptive and then,
nothing."

Mr. Barnes said once the defendants are served, they would have 30
days to respond; not counting various procedures that could come
up during the legal process.

Santee Electric Cooperative provides electricity to portions of
Clarendon, Florence, Georgetown, and Williamsburg counties.

The plaintiffs' attorney can be reached at:

     Jack Barnes, Esq.
     PO Box 5035
     2442 Devine St.
     Columbia, SC 29250
     Telephone: 589-4684
     Facsimile: 565-7367

The co-op's attorney can be reached at:

     Ronnie A. Sabb, Esq.
     RONNIE A. SABB, L.L.C.
     108 West Main Street
     Post Office Box 88
     Kingstree, South Carolina 29556
     Telephone: (843) 355-5349
     Facsimile: (843) 355-3434

     215 West Thomas Street
     Post Office Box 658
     Lake City, South Carolina 29560
     Telephone: (843) 374-1628
     Facsimile: (843) 374-1707


SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Defense Attorneys File Motion for Retrial
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Drange, writing for The Times-Standard, reports that defense
attorneys for Skilled Healthcare filed a motion for a retrial in
the class-action lawsuit lodged against the nursing home chain
Friday, alleging juror misconduct.

The motion comes exactly one month after a Humboldt County jury
rendered a verdict of some $677 million -- believed to be the
largest jury verdict in the country this year. Defense Attorney
Kippy Wroten called the amount of damages "annihilating," and said
that her team of lawyers began to investigate the issue after the
jury was released and parties agreed to conduct the punitive
damages phase in the form of a bench trial.

"We believe the integrity of the verdict has been challenged,"
said Ms. Wroten, who feels that the issue at the heart of the case
-- whether or not the nursing home chain violated state-mandated
staffing requirements -- should not have been presented to a jury
in the first place. "The opportunity for a fair trial was
destroyed by virtue of a predisposition and bias by a member of
the jury."

Ms. Wroten said that if the court grants the motion for a retrial,
the outcome of the case would be drastically different.

"I'm certain of it," she said.

Plaintiffs attorneys now have 10 days to file a formal response to
the motion. Michael Crowley, an attorney representing the class of
32,000 people in case, said the recent motion lacks merit.

"I don't believe there is any basis to it at all," said Mr.
Crowley, adding that all of the motions filed by defense attorneys
to date have been rejected by the court. "I'm confident that this
(motion) will be denied, as it should."

The recent filing is not the first from defense attorneys.

A motion filed last month to disqualify judge Bruce Watson from
the case was rejected by Alameda County Superior Court Judge
Gordon Baranco, who was appointed by the California Supreme Court
to review the file.  Judge Baranco threw out the motion before
parties in the case began holding mediation talks on July 25.

In addition, defense attorneys filed a handful of writs and
appeals in an attempt to prevent the case from reaching a trial,
all of which were denied.

Skilled Healthcare CEO Boyd Hendrickson issued a statement in a
press release Friday, reiterating what the company has said
throughout the lawsuit.

"Although we maintain that this matter should have been rejected
by the court at the outset, the loss of our right to a fair and
impartial jury cannot be ignored," said Mr. Hendrickson. "We take
patient care very seriously and firmly believe that these skilled
nursing companies are adequately and appropriately staffed."

Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos is the third party
in the case, and is seeking to have an injunction filed against
Skilled Healthcare that would require the company to maintain 3.2
nursing hours per patient per day -- the level mandated by
California statute. Gallegos said he has not had a chance to
review the motion, but that his office would be filing a response
next week.

The investing world, meanwhile, is keeping close tabs on the
Humboldt County Courthouse, as the exact manner of the ruling
could play a pivotal role in the future of the company.

If parties agree to a settlement, Skilled Healthcare would likely
not be forced to file for bankruptcy. But if a judgment is issued
by Judge Watson, it would trigger an automatic default, and in all
likelihood lead to the company filing for bankruptcy under Title
11 of the United States Bankruptcy code.

Parties have been holding mediation talks behind closed doors, and
are due back in court on Monday, at which time all issues in the
case are to be resolved. It remains to be seen if a settlement has
in fact been reached, or what kind of effect, if any, the motion
will have on future proceedings.

Sheryl Skolnick is an analyst for CRT Capital Group in
Connecticut, and is following the case closely. Skolnick said that
the motion for a retrial appears to be an effort to obtain more
time for settlement talks.

"This is clearly a delay tactic," said Ms. Skolnick, who added
that the majority of retrial motions are rejected. "Unless there
is egregious misconduct, these mistrials are rarely granted."

Skilled Healthcare is represented, among others, by:

     Kippy L. Wroten, Esq.
     WROTEN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
     20 Pacifica, Suite 1100
     Irvine, California  92618
     Telephone: 949-788-1790
     Facsimile: 949-788-1799

The plaintiffs' lawyer can be reached at:

     Michael L. Crowley, Esq.
     550 West C Street, Suite 1960
     San Diego, California  92101
     Telephone: 619-238-5700
     Facsimile: 6619-795-0990


SOUTH KENDALL: Ex-Employee Barred From Joining Drywall Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Miami Herald reports that a former employee of a construction
company that built homes made with defective Chinese drywall can't
claim money awarded to homeowners affected by the product -- even
though his own house is affected.

Judge Joseph Farina ruled that although Todd Walker lost his job
with South Kendall Construction in February, after the company
went bankrupt, he couldn't join the class-action suit because it
excluded South Kendall employees.

South Kendall and an affiliated company, Palm Isles Holdings,
agreed in June to pay $4 million to residents of three Homestead
neighborhoods, Palm Isle Estates, Arbor Park and Augusta Greens.
Keys Gate Realty, which handled sales, will pay $2.6 million.
Homes in those neighborhoods, like hundreds of others all over
Florida, were built with drywall made in China that has been found
to corrode appliances, ruin wiring and make houses smell.

Although South Kendall filed for bankruptcy, some of the company's
insurers will foot their share of the bill.

Mr. Walker, who was South Kendall's director of construction, owns
a home in Palm Isle Estates.

"He was one of the top people specifically in charge of
construction," said attorney Victor Diaz, who represents
homeowners in the class-action suit. Mr. Diaz said homeowners
specifically remember Walker telling them that the odors they
noticed as they walked through their homes before closing were
just a "new home smell."

"He was kind of saying 'I'm an innocent victim.' That wasn't our
view of it," Mr. Diaz said, adding that nothing prevents Walker
from filing his own lawsuit.

But Mr. Walker's attorney argued he was unaware of any problems
related to the drywall when the homes were built.

"Mr. Walker has 'clean hands,'" attorney Ervin Gonzalez wrote in
court documents. "Had Mr. Walker known the drywall was defective
he would not have authorized the defective drywall's installation
in his or any other home built by South Kendall Construction."

Attorneys for South Kendall and Keys Gate agreed and supported Mr.
Walker's attempt to join the class, which includes 149 homeowners.
Each of those homes must now be tested to confirm they have
Chinese drywall.

Mr. Gonzalez also argued that Mr. Walker is a former employee, and
past employees weren't explicitly excluded from joining the class.

In his ruling, Judge Farina wrote that the court "rejects the
notion that South Kendall Construction's bankruptcy can create a
fortuitous series of events ending in Mr. Walker's membership in a
class to which he was previously barred."

Mr. Diaz is still pursuing the class-action case against other
defendants, including Miami-based Banner Supply, which provided
the drywall used in the homes.

In June, a jury found Banner and other parties, including drywall
manufacturer Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin, liable for $2.5 million
in damages and expenses for a Coconut Grove, Fla., couple whose
home was ruined by drywall emissions.

Todd Walker is represented by:

     Ervin A. Gonzalez, Esq.
     COLSON, HICKS, EIDSON, COLSON, COOPER, MATTHEWS,
       MARTINEZ, GONZALEZ, KALBAC & KANE
     255 Aragon Avenue
     Coral Gables, Florida 33134
     Telephone: (305) 476-7400

The homeowners are represented by:

     Victor M. Diaz
     PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
     City National Bank Building
     25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
     Miami, Florida 33130
     Telephone: 305.358.2800
     Facsimile: 305.358.2382
     Email: VDIAZ@PODHURST.com


TEREX CORP: 4 ERISA-Related Complaints Pending in Conn.
-------------------------------------------------------
Terex Corporation continues to face four class action complaints
alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
all filed in the United States District Court, District of
Connecticut, 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.

The company has recently been named in a number of class action
lawsuits, which generally cover the period from February 2008 to
February 2009.  These lawsuits include three securities class
action lawsuits, four ERISA class action lawsuits and one
stockholder derivative lawsuit.  The lawsuits allege, among other
things, that certain of the company's SEC filings and other public
statements contained false and misleading statements which
resulted in damages to the company, the plaintiffs and the members
of the purported class when they purchased the company's
securities and that there were breaches of fiduciary duties and of
ERISA disclosure requirements.  These actions are at the very
early stages and the company has no information other than as set
forth in the complaints.  The complaints all seek, among other
things, unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses.

The four ERISA class action complaints are:

     (1) Kenneth M. Lipman, on behalf of himself and a class of
         persons similarly situated v. Terex Corporation, the
         Administrative Committee of the Terex Corporation and
         Affiliates' 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan, Ronald M.
         DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman, the Board of Directors of
         Terex Corporation and Does 1-10, filed Jan. 5, 2010;

     (2) Eddie Webb and Binyam Ghebreghiorgis, individually and
         on behalf of all others similarly situated  v. Terex
         Corporation, Ronald M. DeFeo, G. Chris Andersen,
         Paula H. J. Cholmondeley, Donald DeFosset, William H.
         Fike, Thomas J. Hansen, Donald P. Jacobs, David A.
         Sachs, Oren G. Shaffer, David C. Wang, Helge H.
         Wehmeier, Phillip C. Widman, Administrative Committee
         of the Terex Corporation and Affiliates' 401(k)
         Retirement Savings Plan and Does 1-10, filed Feb. 3,
         2010;

     (3) Scott Hollander, on behalf of himself and all others
         similarly situated v. Terex Corporation, Ronald DeFeo,
         G. Chris Andersen, Paula Cholmondeley, Donald DeFosset,
         William Fike, Thomas Hansen, Donald Jacobs, David
         Sachs, Oren Shaffer, David Wang, Helge Wehmeier, the
         Administrative Committee of The Terex Corporation and
         Affiliates' 401 (k) Retirement Savings Plan, Phillip
         Widman and Does 1-20, filed Feb. 8, 2010; and

     (4) Mark Caswell, on behalf of himself and all others
         similarly situated v. Terex Corporation, Ronald DeFeo,
         G. Chris Anderson, Paula H. J. Cholmondeley, Donald
         DeFosset, William H. Fike, Thomas J. Hansen, Donald P.
         Jacobs, David A. Sachs, Oren G. Shaffer, David C. Wang,
         Helge H. Wehmeier, The Administrative Committee of the
         Terex Corporation and Affiliates' 401(k) Retirement
         Savings Plan, Phillip C. Widman, and Does 1-20, filed
         Feb. 23, 2010.

Terex Corporation -- http://www.terex.com/-- is a diversified
global manufacturer operating in four business segments: Aerial
Work Platforms, Construction, Cranes, and Materials Processing.
Terex manufactures a broad range of equipment for use in various
industries, including the construction, infrastructure, quarrying,
mining, shipping, transportation, refining, energy and utility
industries.  Terex offers a complete line of financial products
and services to assist in the acquisition of Terex equipment
through Terex Financial Services.


TEREX CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Suits in Conn.
---------------------------------------------------------
Three securities class action complaints filed against Terex
Corporation in the U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut
remain pending, 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.

The company has recently been named in a number of class action
lawsuits, which generally cover the period from February 2008 to
February 2009.  These lawsuits include three securities class
action lawsuits, four ERISA class action lawsuits and one
stockholder derivative lawsuit.  The lawsuits allege, among other
things, that certain of the company's SEC filings and other public
statements contained false and misleading statements which
resulted in damages to the company, the plaintiffs and the members
of the purported class when they purchased the company's
securities and that there were breaches of fiduciary duties and of
ERISA disclosure requirements.  These actions are at the very
early stages and the company has no information other than as set
forth in the complaints.  The complaints all seek, among other
things, unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses.

The three securities class action complaints are:

     (1) Sheet Metal Workers Local 32 Pension Fund, individually
         and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Terex
         Corporation, Ronald M. DeFeo, Thomas J. Riordan and
         Phillip C. Widman, filed Dec. 21, 2009;

     (2) Michael Glassman, Trustee on behalf of the Kathleen &
         Michael Glassman Family Trust, individually and on
         behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v.
         Terex Corporation, Ronald M. DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman
         and Thomas J. Riordan, filed Jan. 15, 2010; and

     (3) James C. Hays, individually and on behalf of himself
         and all others similarly situated v. Terex Corporation,
         Ronald M. DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman and Thomas J.
         Riordan, filed Feb. 5, 2010.

Terex Corporation -- http://www.terex.com/-- is a diversified
global manufacturer operating in four business segments: Aerial
Work Platforms, Construction, Cranes, and Materials Processing.
Terex manufactures a broad range of equipment for use in various
industries, including the construction, infrastructure, quarrying,
mining, shipping, transportation, refining, energy and utility
industries.  Terex offers a complete line of financial products
and services to assist in the acquisition of Terex equipment
through Terex Financial Services.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Responds to MDL Defective Car Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Corp. said it looks forward to defending against the
allegations made in the plaintiffs' consolidated complaint,
alleging that the Japanese carmaker knowingly hid defects
associated with unintended acceleration since 2002 while falsely
assuring consumers about the safety of its vehicles.

The complaint, filed Aug. 2, seeks economic damages for a
nationwide class of consumers and businesses, including rental car
companies and automobile dealerships. The complaint excludes
claims arising from deaths and injuries.  The multidistrict
litigation involves more than 200 lawsuits filed after Toyota
recalled more than 8 million vehicles for defects associated with
unintended acceleration -- specifically, problems with accelerator
pedals and floor mats.  The filing alleges that the defects
include problems with the electronic throttle control system.

In a news statement, Toyota said it has identified two specific
mechanical causes of potential unintended acceleration in some of
its vehicles and has moved decisively to address these issues with
effective and durable solutions.  Toyota rejects claims that
plaintiffs suffered economic damages because of the recent
recalls.

Importantly, to date, plaintiffs have not cited a specific cause
that would support their claim of a defect in Toyota's Electronic
Throttle Control System, and no credible scientific theory or
proof has been advanced to support this allegation. Toyota firmly
believes that the system is completely safe and that reliable
scientific evidence will demonstrate the safety of its vehicles in
the investigations currently underway and, ultimately, to the
court.


UNIV. OF CALIF.: Settles Medical Records Copying Suit for $120,000
------------------------------------------------------------------

          SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO are California residents and who directly
    or indirectly paid the Regents of the University of
    California or any of its owned and operated affiliates
    ("The Regents") for copies of their medical records
    provided by The Regents in response to a request for
    copies of such records as set forth in California
    Evidence Code section 1158 during the period from
    December 1, 2004, through June 18, 2010.

THIS NOTICE AFFECTS YOUR RIGHTS; PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY

Notice is hereby given that a class action settlement is now
pending in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles entitled Van v. The Regents of The
University of California, et al., Case No. BC349916 (related to
Case No. BC 349912).  In that case, the Representative Plaintiff
is alleging that the amount charged for copies of patient records
by the Regents violated California Evidence Code section 1158. The
Representative Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, damages, and
other relief. The Regents has denied and continues to deny each
and all of the claims and allegations made by the Representative
Plaintiff in this case.  A settlement has been preliminarily
approved by the Court. Under the Settlement, The Regents has
agreed to pay a total amount of $70,000 to the Settlement Class
from which the Regents will reimburse each Settlement Class Member
who submits a timely claim in the amount of $30.00 per occurrence.
However, if the amount of total claims exceeds 2,333, then the
amount of reimbursement to each Settlement Class Member will be
reduced in a proportional manner.  In exchange for those payments.
the Settlement Class Members will release all claims they have
against The Regents stemming from the conduct referenced above
only. In addition, the Regents will pay Class Counsel's costs and
attorney's fees in an amount not to exceed $50.000.  If you do not
want remain a Settlement Class Member, you may elect to exclude
yourself. To exclude yourself from the Settlement, you must send a
letter so stating to Plaintiff's counsel:

         Joseph J. M. Lange, Esq.
         LANGE & KONCIUS, LLP
         222 North Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 2000
         El Segundo, CA 90245

The letter must be postmarked no later than September 16,2010, and
must be signed by the Settlement Class Member.  The Honorable
Emilie Elias will hold a fairness hearing on October 18, 2010, at
10:00 a.m. in Department 324 of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you may appear at the
fairness hearing and file a written comment or objection to the
proposed Settlement.  If you wish to appear at the hearing and
comment or object to the Settlement, you must file a written
statement of your intention to do so.  All comments or objections
or statements of intention to appear must be filed with the Clerk
of the Court, Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Department
324, 600 South Commonwealth Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90005, and
mailed to Plaintiffs counsel and Defendant's counsel:

         Alan R. Zuckerman, Esq.
         LEWIS, BRISBOS, BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
         221 North Figueroa St., Suite 1200
         Los Angeles, CA 90012

on or before September 16, 2010.

To learn more about the Settlement and your rights as a Class
Member, you may review the file in the Action including the
Stipulation of Settlement at the courthouse where the case is
pending which is located at 600 South Commonwealth Avenue, Los
Angeles, CA 90005, or go to
http://www.vanclassactionsettlement.com/

PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT ABOUT THIS NOTICE

    Dated: June 16, 2010              BY ORDER OF THE COURT
                                      HONORABLE EMILIE ELIAS
                                      JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT


WASHINGTON: Female Prisoners & Corrections Officials Settle Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Archbold, writing for The News Tribune in Washington, reports
that female offenders in state prisons and the state Department of
Corrections have proposed a settlement in a three-year-old class
action lawsuit filed by the women claiming they were not
adequately protected from staff sexual misconduct.

A Thurston County Superior Court judge Friday tentatively approved
the settlement which now allows members of the class-action
lawsuit to file objections.

The 2007 lawsuit did not ask for payments for damages but sought
changes to DOC policies and procedures, according to a press
release from the department.  The Department said it has been
working with the plaintiff's attorneys to better protections for
offenders.

According to the press release, the Department now has an
investigative unit based in its headquarters in Olympic that
reviews allegations of sexual misconduct and forwards all verified
cases of misconduct to local law enforcement for criminal
investigation.  The agency also installed additional security
cameras, mirrors and windows at both women's prisons and adjusted
its staff and offender training to help prevent sexual misconduct
from occurring.

"I'm proud that both sides in the case focused more on enhancing
the protection of offenders than they did on litigation," DOC
Assistant Secretary Scott Blonien said in the press release. "No
prison will ever be able to completely stop all sexual misconduct,
but we have taken steps to reduce the likelihood that it will
occur."

Since the federal Prison Rape Elimination Act was passed in 2003,
he said the state has been taking more preventive actions.

The agreement is expected to be finalized at a court hearing in
late September or October.

                           *********

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  * * *