CAR_Public/101108.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, November 8, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 220

                             Headlines

ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Settlement Agreement Gets Preliminary Nod
ALLIANCE DATA: Sued in Calif. for Deceptive Marketing Practices
ANZ GROUP: Melbourne Court to Set Timetable for Class Action
APPLE INC: Calif. Suit Complains About New iOS4 Operating System
APPLE INC: Continues to Defend "Branning" Suit in Santa Clara

APPLE INC: Status Conference in Antitrust Suit on November 15
BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: CEO Testifies in Class Action Trial
BAY STATE GAS: Mass. Customer Fairness Hearing Set for Feb. 22
BLUE CROSS: Accused of Using Market Power to Destroy Competition
CADENCE FINANCIAL: Board Sued Over Sale of Company to CBC

CARDIAC SCIENCE: Being Sold for Too Little, Wash. Suit Claims
CHERRY HILL: Class Action Against Police Department Settled
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Recalls 3,300 White Ruffle Outdoor Vests
COMMSCOPE INC: D&Os Sued Over Sale to Carlyle Group
DR PEPPER: Snapple Defends Consolidated Suit in California

DR PEPPER: Approval of Settlement in "Jones" Suit Pending
DEERE & COMPANY: Recalls 6450 Mowers & 300 Premium Foot Lift Kits
DOLLAR TREE: Recalls 682,000 Halloween Lanterns
DUOYUAN PRINTING: November 19 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
EASTON SPORTS: Recalls 200 Bicycles With 2010 EC90 Zero Seat Posts

GASTAR EXPLORATION: Settles ClassicStar Suits for $21 Million
GOLFSMITH INTERNATIONAL: Defends "O'Flynn" Suit in California
LORILLARD INC: Subsidiary Remains a Defendant in Six Cases
LORILLARD INC: Petition in "Scott" Suit Due in December 2
MEAD JOHNSON: Faces Class Action for Falsely Advertising Enfamil

MEIJER: Recalls Infant Shoes Due to Choking Hazard
OFFICE DEPOT: Hearing on Lead Plaintiff's Appeal in December
NALCO HOLDING: Parker Suit in Louisiana Voluntarily Dismissed
NALCO HOLDING: Defends Five Suits Over Use of COREXIT Dispersant
NORTHERN TRUST: Defends Amended ERISA Violations Suit in Ill.

PRIMAL VANTAGE: Recalls 40,000 Ameristep Tree Step
PRIMAL VANTAGE: Recalls 40,000 Strap-On Tree Step
QUIXTAR INC: Settles Class Action Lawsuit by Former IBOs
TICKETNETWORK: Sued in N.Y. Over Unlicensed Ticket Brokers
TOWN SPORTS: Plea to Dismiss Class Allegations in Suits Pending

TOYOTA MOTOR: Asks Court to Dismiss Acceleration Class Action
VIVUS INC: Milberg Files Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
WELLS FARGO: "McDaniel" Labor Complaint Removed to N.D. Calif.
ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Class Action Over Durom Cup Filed in Canada

* Tobacco Industry Hopes to Win 8,000 More Class Action Lawsuits


                             *********

ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Settlement Agreement Gets Preliminary Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, preliminarily
approved the proposed settlement in the matter In re Allegheny
Energy Shareholder and Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 24-C-10-
1301, according to the company's Oct. 27, 2010, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On Oct. 21, 2010, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland
preliminarily approved the proposed settlement, as set forth in a
Stipulation of Settlement dated as of Oct. 15, 2010 of the
consolidated litigation pending before the court under the caption
In re Allegheny Energy Shareholder and Derivative Litigation, C.A.
No. 24-C-10-1301 -- previously under the caption Oakmont Capital
Management, LLC v. Evanson, et al. prior to the granting of a
motion to change the caption -- regarding the proposed merger
involving Allegheny Energy, Inc. and a wholly owned subsidiary of
FirstEnergy Corp.

On Oct. 27, 2010, Allegheny Energy commenced mailing of a notice
of the Settlement to registered holders who held or owned shares
of Allegheny Energy common stock at any time during the period
from and including Feb. 11, 2010, through Oct. 21, 2010.

If such registered holders held shares of Allegheny Energy common
stock for the benefit of others, then the registered holders have
been asked to transmit promptly the Notice to such beneficial
owners.

A summary of the terms of the Settlement, describing, among other
things, the litigation, the Settlement and the rights of the
affected registered holders, may be viewed for free at
http://is.gd/gLwVJ

Recipients of the Notice are encouraged to read the Notice
carefully and in its entirety.  The Settlement is subject to the
approval of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, Maryland.  The
Settlement also would have implications for similar litigation
pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County,
Pennsylvania and in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania.

Headquartered in Greensburg, Pa., Allegheny Energy Inc. --
http://www.alleghenyenergy.com./-- is an investor-owned electric
utility with total annual revenues of over $3 billion and more
than 4,000 employees.  The company owns and operates generating
facilities and delivers low-cost, reliable electric service to 1.5
million customers in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Maryland.


ALLIANCE DATA: Sued in Calif. for Deceptive Marketing Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Alliance Data Systems and
World Financial Network National Bank sell "Account Assure," and
similar credit-card "payment protection" services that are
insurance, but are not represented as insurance and are not
regulated by insurance law, though they should be, a class action
claims in Federal Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Zarandi v. Alliance Data Systems
Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-08309 (C.D. Calif.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/03/CCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
          Michael I. Miller, Esq.
          MILSTEIN, ADELMAN & KREGER, LLP
          2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (310) 396-9600
          E-mail: gwade@maklawyers.com
                  imiller@maklawyers.com

               - and -

          Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
          Ruben Honik, Esq.
          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177
          E-mail: rgolomb@golombhonik.com
                  rhonik@golombhonik.com
                  kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com


ANZ GROUP: Melbourne Court to Set Timetable for Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Finance News Network reports the class action against ANZ Banking
Group (ASX:ANZ) has progressed on Thursday with the Federal Court
in Melbourne moving to establish a timetable for the case.

According to a Fairfax media report, law firm Maurice Blackburn
will seek to retrieve $50 million in fees paid by 27,000 ANZ Bank
customers over the past six years.  The fees referred to include
such costs as charges for accounts that are overdrawn or late
payments.

The law firm has told the paper that it will be seeking an
expedited timetable of the important consumer litigation and
expect ANZ to oppose its arguments.

While ANZ has not commented on the proceedings, it did make
reference to the case in its full year results.  Elaborating to
say that it has not disclosed the estimated financial impact of
the case but is defending it.

ANZ posted a $4.5 billion profit for the year to 30 September
2010.


APPLE INC: Calif. Suit Complains About New iOS4 Operating System
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that to goose sales of
its new iPhone 4, Apple told owners of its third-generation iPhone
to download an operating system that the company knew would turn
the 3G phones into a "device with little more use than that of a
paper weight," irate customers say in a Superior Court class
action.  The lead plaintiff claims Apple's "upgrade" turned her
phone into an "iBrick."

Lead plaintiff Bianca Wofford says Apple told owners of its 3G and
3GS iPhones that the new iOS4 operating system was an upgrade.
But she says the "upgrade" made her phone slow and susceptible to
crashes, turning an iPhone into an "iBrick."

"In essence, Apple knowingly and intentionally released what it
called a system software 'upgrade' that, in fact, made hundreds of
thousands of third generation iPhones that were exclusively
tethered to AT&T data plans 'useless' for their intended purpose,"
according to the complaint.

"Since the release of iOS4 in conjunction with the sale and
release of the fourth generation iPhone, or the iPhone 4 in June
2010, Apple has falsely, intentionally and repeatedly represented
to owners and consumers of the iPhone 3G that its new operating
system for the device, iOS4, was of a nature, quality, and a
significant upgrade for the functionality of all iPhone devices,
when in fact, the installation and use of iOS4 on the iPhone 3G
resulted in the opposite -- a device with little more use than
that of a paper weight."

Ms. Wofford says there is no way to restore the third-generation
phones' operating system without using "hacker tactics."  She
claims that Apple intentionally created a "consumer Catch 22" to
get 3G users to switch to the new iPhone 4.

"Even though Apple has actual knowledge of thousands of complaints
from iPhone 3G/3GS consumers, Apple does not allow for those same
users/consumers of third generation devices to download and re-
install earlier and optimized iOS3.x operating system without
resorting to 'hacker' tactics that will void Apple warranties and
violate iPhone user agreements," according to the complaint.

"This whole situation was created to be a consumer Catch 22 by
Apple in order for the company to promote sales of its just
released iPhone 4 and cause consumers to simply abandon the
earlier 3G and 3GS platforms."

The complaint adds: "Apple knew that the iPhone 3G and 3GS were
not fully compatible with the iOS4 and that iOS4, once installed,
would substantially compromise the earlier device functionality,
speed and application use. . . .

"The true fact of the matter, as verifiable by information
technology experts, is that the iOS4 is a substantial 'downgrade'
from earlier iPhone devices and renders many of them virtually
useless 'iBricks.'"

Ms. Wofford seeks restitution, disgorgement of Apple's ill-gotten
gains, and damages for false and deceptive advertising, unfair
competition, and violations of state consumer protection laws.

A copy of the Complaint in Wofford v. Apple Inc., Case No.
37-2010-00103365 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty.) (Pressman,
J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/03/Apple3.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq.
          Isam C. Khoury, Esq.
          Michael D. Singer, Esq.
          J. Jason Hill, Esq.
          COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
          605 C Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92101-5305
          E-mail: tcohelan@ckslaw.com
                  ikhoury@ckslaw.com
                  msinger@ckslaw.com
                  jhill@ckslaw.com


APPLE INC: Continues to Defend "Branning" Suit in Santa Clara
-------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Inc., continues to defend the matter Branning et al. v.
Apple Computer, Inc., pending in the Santa Clara Superior Court,
according to the company's Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Sept. 25, 2010.

Plaintiffs originally filed the purported class action against the
company on February 17, 2005, on behalf of putative classes of
consumers and resellers.

In general, the consumer plaintiffs allege that the company
"shorted" the coverage provided under its warranties and AppleCare
Protection Plan extended service contracts and sold plaintiffs
used products that were represented to be new.  In general, the
reseller plaintiffs allege that the company damaged their
businesses by opening the Apple retail stores and making
misrepresentations in connection with doing so.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

Currently no plaintiff classes are certified, although reseller
plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of Apple specialist
resellers, was set for hearing on Nov. 2, 2010.

Apple Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- designs, manufactures, and
markets personal computers, mobile communication devices, and
portable digital music and video players, and sells a variety of
related software, services, peripherals, and networking solutions.
The company sells its products worldwide through its online
stores, its retail stores, its direct sales force, and third-party
wholesalers, resellers, and value-added resellers.  In addition,
the company sells a variety of third-party Macintosh (Mac), iPhone
and iPod compatible products, including application software,
printers, storage devices, speakers, headphones, and various other
accessories and peripherals through its online and retail stores,
and digital content and applications through the iTunes Store.
The company sells to consumer, small and mid-sized business (SMB),
education, enterprise, government and creative customers.  In
December 2009, the company acquired digital music service Lala.


APPLE INC: Status Conference in Antitrust Suit on November 15
-------------------------------------------------------------
A status conference in the matter In re Apple & ATTM Antitrust
Litigation, is set for Nov. 15, 2010, according to Apple Inc.'s
Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 25, 2010.

This is a purported class action filed against the company and
AT&T Mobility in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.

The Consolidated Complaint alleges that the company and AT&T
Mobility violated the federal antitrust laws by monopolizing
and/or attempting to monopolize the "aftermarket for voice and
data services" for the iPhone and that the company monopolized
and/or attempted to monopolize the "aftermarket for software
applications for iPhones."

The Consolidated Complaint also alleges that Apple violated
numerous laws by intentionally "bricking" (rendering inoperable)
iPhones through the release of iPhone software update 1.1.1.

On July 8, 2010, the Court granted Apple's motion for summary
judgment on all of plaintiffs' claims related to the alleged
bricking of iPhones.  In the same July 8, 2010 order the Court
granted in part plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
certifying a class related to plaintiffs' antitrust claims.

The case is currently stayed until a status conference with the
Judge is held on Nov. 15, 2010.

Apple Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- designs, manufactures, and
markets personal computers, mobile communication devices, and
portable digital music and video players, and sells a variety of
related software, services, peripherals, and networking solutions.
The company sells its products worldwide through its online
stores, its retail stores, its direct sales force, and third-party
wholesalers, resellers, and value-added resellers.  In addition,
the company sells a variety of third-party Macintosh (Mac), iPhone
and iPod compatible products, including application software,
printers, storage devices, speakers, headphones, and various other
accessories and peripherals through its online and retail stores,
and digital content and applications through the iTunes Store.
The company sells to consumer, small and mid-sized business (SMB),
education, enterprise, government and creative customers.  In
December 2009, the company acquired digital music service Lala.


BANKATLANTIC BANCORP: CEO Testifies in Class Action Trial
---------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bandell, writing for South Florida Business Journal, reports
in the third week of a shareholder class action trial,
BankAtlantic Bancorp Chairman and CEO Alan Levan finally took the
witness stand and confronted his accusers in court.

As chief plaintiffs' attorney Mark Arisohn settled behind the
podium to begin the cross-examination Tuesday, Mr. Levan smiled
and announced: "I'm ready."

The New York lawyer fired away.  He asked Mr. Levan what
methodology he used to form his opinion -- voiced minutes earlier
in the executive's deposition before bank defense attorney Eugene
Stearns -- that the Fort Lauderdale-based company's stock value
decline in 2007 was completely caused by the economy.  Mr. Arisohn
is trying to prove that the bank (NYSE: BBX) had weak underwriting
and did not disclose information about its loan problems.

"That's my opinion," Mr. Levan said.  "It's because of the economy
that created this debacle."

Mr. Arisohn contrasted Mr. Levan's testimony with that of the
plaintiffs' expert witness on damages, Candace Preston, of
Princeton, N.J.-based Financial Markets Analysis.  She concluded
that the deterioration of BankAtlantic's loan portfolio caused its
stock to decline, but its share price would be considered inflated
during the class period if the plaintiffs' allegations of
reporting misstatements are correct.

"Have you ever done a study on how events impact a stock price?"
Mr. Arisohn asked Mr. Levan.

"What I do for a living is talk about what impacts stock price,"
Mr. Levan responded.  "I've run public companies for 25 years.
All the time I offer my opinion, but not in the courtroom."

Mr. Levan is also chairman and CEO of Fort Lauderdale-based BFC
Financial Corp. (Pink Sheets: BFCF) and a director of Boca Raton-
based Bluegreen Corp. (NYSE: BXG) and Miami-based Benihana
(NASDAQ: BNHN).  BFC is a holding company that buys and sells
stocks and other investments.

Mr. Levan and his legal team argued that the drop in
BankAtlantic's stock price during the class period, from October
2006 through October 2007, was similar to the ailing performance
of other Florida banks and thrifts.  The plaintiffs want the jury
to compare BankAtlantic's stock to the NASDAQ Bank Index, for
which nearly 99% of the banks are based outside of Florida.

Mr. Arisohn pointed out to Mr. Levan that his company chose to
compare its stock performance to the NASDAQ Bank Index in its
annual reports.

"This [index] is relevant, just not to what Candice Preston was
talking about," Mr. Levan said, referring to the damages expert's
usage of that index for the plaintiffs' case.

Earlier in the day, Stearns played several earnings conference
calls and reviewed the associated public filings for the nine-
person jury.  Although the plaintiffs insisted that Mr. Levan and
the bank did not tell investors about their concerns with its land
development loan portfolio, Mr. Levan testified repeatedly that
the bank accurately reported what it knew about its condition.

For instance, the plaintiffs have criticized the bank for not
disclosing that a $20 million builder land bank loan -- in which
developers sold the lots to national homebuilders -- in Destin
called Nature Walk was risk-rated "substandard" by the bank in the
first quarter of 2007, but not disclosed to the public because it
was performing.  Mr. Levan pointed out that the bank told
investors it had about $140 million in builder land bank loans and
was deeply concerned about all of them.

"We felt it would be a better disclosure to show we had a higher
number," Mr. Levan said.

Before the trial, U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro found some
statements Mr. Levan made during a July 2007 investor conference
call to be false because they contradicted his more pessimistic e-
mails to other executives.  During that call, Mr. Levan said the
bank was only concerned with the builder land bank portfolio, and
the rest of its land development loan portfolio carried much lower
risk: "The portfolio has always performed extremely well,
continues to perform extremely well."

After listening to that call again Tuesday, Mr. Levan said he was
absolutely correct.

"I would say it exactly the same way again," he said.

Although the bank did see a spike in delinquencies in all of its
land loans in the third quarter of 2007, builder land bank loans
suffered the most, he added.

What happened from the second quarter to the third quarter that
caused all of those loans to deteriorate was what Mr. Levan called
a "catastrophe" in the Florida real estate market.  It started, he
said, when national homebuilders decided to exit communities
quickly by selling homes at deep discounts, often at less than the
cost of construction.  Smaller developers, including those with
BankAtlantic loans, could not compete and their land values
plummeted, Mr. Levan said.

Stearns pointed out that BankAtlantic warned in its public filings
that a decline in the Florida real estate market would hurt the
bank.

"Unfortunately, [the warnings] came true, but at a level of
devastation not only worse than I imagined, but worse than
everyone imagined," Mr. Levan said.


BAY STATE GAS: Mass. Customer Fairness Hearing Set for Feb. 22
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Charles J. Hely on October 4, 2010, conditionally
approved a class settlement in an action styled McAuliffe, et al.
v. Bay State Gas Co., Civil Action No. 07-01031-A (Mass. Super.
Ct., Plymouth Cty.).  The lawsuit claims that Bay State Gas
Company, d/b/a Columbia Gas of Massachusetts did not perform
testing and inspecting services on a water heater component known
as a temperature and pressure valve (T&P Valve).  These claims are
limited to two programs that Bay State offers to Massachusetts
customers: a water heater rental program (Rental Program) and a
repair service program known as Guardian Care.  Bay State denies
any liability.

What Does the Proposed Settlement Provide?

Any Massachusetts Bay State customers who participated in the
Rental Program or the Guardian Care program between January 1,
2000 and October 4, 2010, may be entitled to reimbursement for
out-of-pocket expenses incurred during that period related to T&P
Valve testing services.  All other current and former Bay State
Rental Program and Guardian Care customers may also be entitled to
compensation.  A $400,000 settlement fund has been created to make
settlement payments and to pay counsel fees and the costs of
administration.

When is the Court Hearing for Approval of the Settlement?

On February 22, 2011, at 2:00 p.m., a hearing will be held in the
Massachusetts Superior Court, located at the Plymouth County
Superior Court, 72 Belmont Street, Brockton, Massachusetts, to
determine (1) whether the Settlement should be approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate, (2) whether judgment should be entered
thereon, and (3) the reasonableness of the request of class
counsel for an award of attorneys fees and reimbursement of
expenses for the services they rendered in this litigation.

Additional Information

To obtain the detailed Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement,
or for additional information about the proposed settlement, your
rights to object, and how to file a claim, you may call 800-743-
1131 or visit http://www.TPValveSettlement.com/

Claims and objections must be received by January 17, 2011.  You
may also obtain additional information by writing to:

         T & P Valve Settlement Administrator
         c/o The Notice Company
         P.O. Box 778
         Hingham, MA 02043

The Plaintiff Class is represented by:

         Michael S. Riley, Esq.
         Susanne Riley O'Neil, Esq.
         1245 Hancock St., Suite 37
         Quincy, MA 02169

Bay State Gas is represented by:

         Timothy W. Mungovan, Esq.
         J. Christopher Allen, Jr., Esq.
         Nixon Peabody, LLP
         100 Summer Street
         Boston, MA 02110
         E-mail: tmungovan@nixonpeabody.com
                 callen@nixonpeabody.com


BLUE CROSS: Accused of Using Market Power to Destroy Competition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bridget Freeland at Courthouse News Service reports that Blue
Cross Blue Shield of Michigan abused its overwhelming market power
to monopolize the market and fix prices, driving up the cost of
health care while driving other insurers out of business,
according to an antitrust class action in Federal Court.  The
complaint, filed by a consumer and a company that buys health
insurance, parallels a complaint the United States filed in
October.  Uncle Sam claimed that Blue Cross agreed to pay more for
services -- inflating healthcare costs for consumers while
leveraging its market power to destroy competition.

Because of its market control, Blue Cross has been able to demand
that hospitals and doctors charge other insurers as much as or up
to 40% more than what Blue Cross pays for medical services,
according to the complaint.

Blue Cross is the largest health insurer in Michigan, insuring
"over 60 percent of Michigan's commercially insured residents
. . . more than nine times its closest competitor," the class
claims. It sucked up more than $10 billion in revenue in 2009
alone, the complaint states.

The class claims that Blue Cross used its standing to insist on
adding "most favored nation" (MFN) clauses to its agreements with
healthcare providers, which require them to charge other insurers
as much as or more than they charge Blue Cross.  In exchange, Blue
Cross agreed to pay higher rates.

"This results in rising health care costs for all patients,
regardless of whether they are insured by BCBSM, one of its
competitors, or are self-insured," even with plans administered by
Blue Cross, the class claims.

"Instead of using its market position as Michigan's largest
commercial health insurer to negotiate against a hospital's
proposed price increases, BCBSM enables these price increases
while further cementing its position as the dominant commercial
health insurer through MFNs," according to the complaint.
Blue Cross has contracts with 22 Michigan hospitals that require
them to charge competitors up to 40% more than they charge Blue
Cross, under an "MFN-plus" clause, the class claims.

Blue Cross also has "entered into agreements containing MFNs with
more than 40 small community hospitals, which typically are the
only hospitals in their communities, requiring the hospitals to
charge other commercial health insurers at least as much as they
charge BCBSM," the class claims.  "A community hospital that
declines to enter into these agreements would be paid
approximately 16% less by BCBSM than if it accepts the MFN."

Blue Cross has not used negotiations to cut its costs, but has
sought to increase minimum prices to crush competition, the class
claims.

"By denying BCBSM's competitors access to competitive hospital
contracts, the MFNs have deterred or prevented competitive entry
and expansion in health insurance markets in Michigan, and
increased prices for hospital services paid by plaintiffs and
members of the class," the complaint states.

Blue Cross goes so far as to audit the hospitals, causing certain
providers to "contract with BCBSM's competitors at prices even
higher than the MFN requires, to avoid any question of compliance"
or risk being penalized, the class claims.

Named plaintiffs the Shane Bradley Group and Bradley Veneberg say
they were forced to purchase healthcare services at artificially
inflated prices.

Helen Stojic, director of corporate affairs for Blue Cross, told
Crain's Detroit Business that Blue Cross "must negotiate deep
hospital discounts to keep premiums as low as possible," and that
"the lawsuit has no merit."

The class seeks an injunction, reformation of contracts and
damages for violations of the Sherman Act.

A copy of the Complaint in The Shane Group, Inc., et al. v.
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Case No. 10-cv-14360 (E.D.
Mich.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/03/BlueCross.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David H. Fink, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, PC
          950 West University Drive, Suite 350
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          E-mail: dhf@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Mary Jane Fait, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 1111
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 984-0000

               - and -

          Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000

               - and -

          Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
          William E. Hoese, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700

               - and -

          Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
          Matthew E. Van Tine, Esq.
          MILLER LAW LLC
          115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 332-3400


CADENCE FINANCIAL: Board Sued Over Sale of Company to CBC
---------------------------------------------------------
RSD Capital, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated v.
Mark A. Abernathy, et al., Case No. 651883/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
New York Cty. October 28, 2010), accuses Cadence Financial Corp.,
the members of its board of directors and Community Bancorp LLC,
of causing the Company to enter into an agreement to sell the
Company to CBC to promote their own selfish interests.  Under the
agreement, Cadence shareholders will receive $2.50 in cash per
Cadence common share.  In addition, CBC has offered to purchase
the $44.0 million of Cadence preferred stock and the associated
warrants under the U.S. government's Troubled Asset Relief Program
for $38.0 million in cash.

RSD Capital says that defendants breached their fiduciary duties
to the Company's public shareholders by failing to disclose
material information regarding, inter alia, (i) the conflicts of
interest of the Company's financial advisors, Keefe, Bruyette &
Woods, Inc., (ii) the criteria used by the financial advisors to
render their fairness opinions and (iii) the process they engaged
in which led to the signing of the Sale Agreement.

According to the suit, CBC aided and abetted the individual
defendants in the breaches of their fiduciary duties to Cadence's
shareholders by, among other things, (a) obligating the Company to
pay a termination fee of $4.5 million under certain conditions,
(b) requiring the Company to agree to a No Solicitation clause,
(c) incentivizing Cadence's management to favor a sale to CBC by
agreeing to pay the Change in Control Payments (or hire them in
the event that the Change in Control Payments are not payable
pursuant to federal restrictions) and (d) agreeing to indemnify
the individual defendants for liability arising as a result of
their wrongful conduct as alleged herein.

Cadence, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Cadence Bank, N.A.,
provides traditional commercial and retail banking services to
communities in the States of Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee,
Florida and Georgia.  CBC is a limited liability bank holding
company, organized under the laws of Delaware, and is
headquartered in Houston, Texas.

The Plaintiff demands a jury trial and is represented by:

          Richard B. Brualdi, Esq.
          Gaitri Boodhoo, Esq.
          Lauren C. Watson, Esq.
          THE BRUALDI LAW FIRM, P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 952-0602


CARDIAC SCIENCE: Being Sold for Too Little, Wash. Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Cardiac Science is selling
itself too cheaply to Opto Circuits and Jolt Acquisition Co., for
$2.30 a share or $54 million, shareholders say in Snohomish County
Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Rapport v. Marver, et al., Case No.
10-2-09005-1 (Wash. Super. Ct., Snohomish Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/03/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Jeniphr Breckenridge, Esq.
          Karl P. Barth, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eight Avenue, Suite 3300
          Telephone: (206) 363-7500

               - and -

          Joseph Levi, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINKSY, LLP
          30 Broad Street, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500


CHERRY HILL: Class Action Against Police Department Settled
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Linnehan, writing for The Cherry Hill Sun, reports a class
action lawsuit filed by a woman simply known as "Gretchen W."
against the Cherry Hill Police Department was settled before the
case went to trial, according to her lawyer, Joseph Osefchen, Esq.

The woman filed the suit after she alleged that the police
department videotaped her without her knowledge while she was
using the bathroom at the department.  The 42-year-old woman had
been arrested for refusing a breathalyzer test after a motor
vehicle stop more than a year ago.

Represented by Mr. Osefchen of Haddonfield, the suit was settled
after the department agreed to post a sign by their bathroom
warning people in custody that they would be videotaped while
using the facilities.  The woman was also awarded several thousand
dollars in attorney fees to be paid by the township.

The suit was filed in March and at the time Lt. William Kushina of
the Cherry Hill Police Department said the department's video
monitoring system conformed with state guidelines.

John Gillespie, the representative for the township, could not be
reached for comment.


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Recalls 3,300 White Ruffle Outdoor Vests
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
The Children's Place Services Company, LLC of Secaucus, N.J.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 3,300 White Ruffle Outdoor
Vests.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.

Metal snaps may detach from garment causing a choking hazard.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves the girls' ruffle vests are quilted and
"chalk" colored with a hood trimmed in fake fur.  The vests have a
label sewn to the inside side seam of the lining with number
#587754 printed on it.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

       http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11707.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
online at The Children's Place Services LLC Web site,
http://www.childrensplace.com/,in September 2010 for about $20.

Customers who purchased the recalled product online will be mailed
a postage-paid envelope with instructions for returning the
vest(s) for a full refund.  For questions, contact The Children's
Place Services Company, LLC at 877-752-2387 between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit their Web
site at http://www.childrensplace.com/


COMMSCOPE INC: D&Os Sued Over Sale to Carlyle Group
---------------------------------------------------
Dennis Rice, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
CommScope, Inc., et al., Case No. 5936- (Del. Ch. Ct. October 28,
2010), is a shareholder class action complaint against certain
officers and directors of CommScope in connection with the
proposed transaction through which the Company will be taken
private by The Carlyle Group, through Carlyle's wholly owned
subsidiaries, for inadequate consideration.  Under the terms of
the proposed buyout, Common shareholders will receive $31.50 in
cash for each share of CommScope they own.  The suit alleges that
the proposed buyout, which includes debt assumption and is valued
at $3.9 billion, comes as the Company has streamlined its
operations in recent years and is poised for significant growth.

The suit alleges that the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company's public shareholders by agreeing
to the proposed transaction for inadequate consideration and in a
process that is fundamentally unfair to the Plaintiff and the
other shareholders of the Company.

CommScope's board of directors has unanimously approved the
agreement with Carlyle.  Mr. Rice says that to assure that Carlyle
alone will buy the Company, the Merger Agreement provides that,
upon termination under specified circumstances, the Company would
be required to pay Carlyle a termination fee of up to
$43.5 million, which fee, Mr. Rice adds, effectively deters any
other competing offer.

Hickory, N.C.-based CommScope is a global leader in infrastructure
solutions for wireless, business enterprise, residential broadband
and carrier wireline networks.  Defendant Carlyle is a privately
owned global alternative asset manager with $90.9 billion of
assets under management committed to 66 funds as of June 30, 2010.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
          COOCH AND TAYLOR P.A.
          The Brandywine Building
          1000 West Street, 10th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 984-3800

               - and -

          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330


DR PEPPER: Snapple Defends Consolidated Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Snapple Beverage Corp. continues to defend a consolidated action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California, according to Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc.'s
Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Snapple Beverage has been sued in various jurisdictions generally
alleging that Snapple's labeling of certain of its drinks is
misleading and/or deceptive.  These cases have been filed as class
actions and, generally, seek unspecified damages on behalf of the
class, including enjoining Snapple from various labeling
practices, disgorging profits, reimbursing of monies paid for
product and treble damages.

In 2009, Snapple Beverage was sued by Frances Von Koenig in the
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California.

A similar suit filed by Guy Caldwell in 2009 against the company
in the same Court was consolidated with the Van Koenig case.

In May 2010, Snapple's motion to dismiss was denied in part and
granted in part with leave to amend.  Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint.

Snapple has filed a further motion to dismiss.

In August 2010, the District Court stayed the case for six months
pending a referral to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by the
District Court in a similar, but unrelated, case pending in New
Jersey federal court.

In September 2010, the FDA declined the referral in the unrelated
New Jersey case.  Either party can now move to re-open the case
for the court to decide the motion to dismiss.

Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. -- http://www.drpeppersnapple.com/
-- manufactures flavored beverages in North America and the
Caribbean.  The company has more than 50 brands.  The company has
6 of the top 10 non-cola soft drinks, and 9 of its 12 leading
brands are No. 1 in their flavor categories.  In addition to its
flagship Dr Pepper and Snapple brands, the company's portfolio
includes Sunkist soda, 7UP, A&W, Canada Dry, Crush, Mott's,
Squirt, Hawaiian Punch, Penafiel, Clamato, Schweppes, Venom
Energy, Rose's and Mr & Mrs T mixers.  The company is based in
Plano, Texas.


DR PEPPER: Approval of Settlement in "Jones" Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. continues to await approval of a
settlement agreement resolving a suit against its subsidiary,
Seven Up/RC Bottling Company Inc., according to the company's
Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

In 2007, Seven Up/RC was sued by Robert Jones in the Superior
Court in the State of California (Orange County), alleging that
Seven Up/RC failed to provide meal and rest periods and itemized
wage statements in accordance with applicable California wage and
hour law.  The case was filed as a class action.

The parties have reached a tentative settlement in the case,
pursuant to which the company would pay $4.25 million, which
amount was accrued as of June 30, 2010.  The settlement is subject
to the satisfaction of these conditions: (i) court approval and
(ii) execution of an acceptable settlement agreement.

The company has been requested to conduct an audit of its meal and
rest periods for all non-exempt employees in California at the
direction of the California Department of Labor.  At this time,
the company has declined to conduct such an audit until there is
judicial clarification of the intent of the statute.  The company
says it cannot predict the outcome of such an audit.

Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. -- http://www.drpeppersnapple.com/
-- manufactures flavored beverages in North America and the
Caribbean.  The company has more than 50 brands.  The company has
6 of the top 10 non-cola soft drinks, and 9 of its 12 leading
brands are No. 1 in their flavor categories.  In addition to its
flagship Dr Pepper and Snapple brands, the company's portfolio
includes Sunkist soda, 7UP, A&W, Canada Dry, Crush, Mott's,
Squirt, Hawaiian Punch, Penafiel, Clamato, Schweppes, Venom
Energy, Rose's and Mr & Mrs T mixers.  The company is based in
Plano, Texas.


DEERE & COMPANY: Recalls 6450 Mowers & 300 Premium Foot Lift Kits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
John Deere EZtrak Zero Turn Lawn Mowers with Foot Lift and Zero
Turn Mowers with Premium Foot Lift Kit, announced a voluntary
recall of about 6450 mowers with foot lift; 300 Premium Foot Lift
Kits.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.

A bolt in the right-hand steering lever can catch on the tab of
the foot lift stop and lock in place, causing the steering lever
to remain in the forward travel position, posing an injury hazard
to the driver.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

Z445 mowers with 54 inch high capacity deck and Z445 or Z465 Zero-
Turn Mower with Premium Foot Lift features.  The recalled mowers
have the model number at the front of the foot platform and on the
serial number tag under the seat.  The recall includes the
following models and serial numbers of units:

                Z445 Zero-Turn Mower with 54 High Capacity Deck

                    M0Z445R060001 through M0Z445R062255
                    M0Z445R084127 through M0Z445R084153
                    M0Z445R080001 through M0Z445R083720
                    M0Z445R084155 through M0Z445R084168
                    M0Z445R083722 through M0Z445R084029
                    M0Z445R084170 through M0Z445R084192
                    M0Z445R084031 through M0Z445R084125
                    M0Z445R084241 through M0Z445R084244


       BM22809 Premium Foot Lift Kit - This kit may have been
       installed on the units within the following serial number
       ranges:

Z445 with 54C deck: M0Z445C060001 through M0Z445C067537
Z465 with 62C deck: M0Z465E080162 through M0Z465E080437
                    M0Z465T060001 through M0Z465T061470
                    M0Z465T080001 through M0Z465T080161
                    M0Z465T080438 through M0Z465T082486

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11706.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States and
sold through All John Deere dealers in the U.S. with the exception
of California.  The Z445 Zero-Turn Mower with 54 High Capacity
Deck sold from January 2009 to September 2010 for approximately of
$5,300; and the BM22809 Premium Foot Lift Kit sold from February
2009 to September 2010 for approximately $80.

Customers should stop using the mowers immediately and contact a
John Deere dealer to make arrangements to have the lift stop
bracket removed from their machine.  All John Deere tractor
dealers were notified of this recall and registered owners of the
recalled mowers will be directly contacted by the firm.  For
additional information, contact Deere & Company at (800) 537-8233
Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and on Saturdays
from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Eastern Time, or visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.johndeere.com/


DOLLAR TREE: Recalls 682,000 Halloween Lanterns
-----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Dollar Tree Stores Inc., of Chesapeake, Va., announced a voluntary
recall of about 682,000 Pumpkin, Ghost and Skull Halloween
Lanterns.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The bulb in the battery-operated lanterns can overheat, posing
fire and burn hazards to consumers.

The firm has received one report of the bulb in a lantern
overheating.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves plastic Halloween-themed lanterns designed to
resemble a pumpkin, ghost and skull.  The lanterns are about 6-1/2
inches tall and were sold in orange, white and black.  Model
number 954437-13096-003-1005 is printed on the bottom of the
lanterns.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11025.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Dollar Tree, Dollar Bill$, Occasions, Deal$ and Dollar Tree Deal$
stores nationwide from August 2010 to October 2010 for about $1.

Consumers should take the recalled lanterns away from children
immediately, remove and properly discard the batteries and return
the lanterns to the store where purchased for a full refund.  For
additional information, contact Dollar Tree Stores Inc. at (800)
876-8077 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.dollartree.com/


DUOYUAN PRINTING: November 19 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP Wednesday disclosed that all persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
Duoyuan Printing, Inc., pursuant and/or traceable to the
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
the Company's November 6, 2009 initial public offering, and
purchasers of the Company's securities during the period from
November 6, 2009 through and including September 13, 2010, have 16
days until the November 19, 2010, deadline to move the Court to
serve as Lead Plaintiff in the securities fraud class action
lawsuit.  The case filed by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Perry,
et al. v. Duoyuan Printing, Inc., et al., No. 10-cv-07235-CM, has
been assigned to the Honorable Colleen McMahon, United States
District Judge for the Southern District of New York.

A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP. Please contact us by phone to discuss this
action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at (310) 201-9150 or
Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by e-mail to
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our Web site at
http://www.glancylaw.com/

The Complaint charges Duoyuan Printing and certain of the
Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities
laws.  Duoyuan Printing is a Beijing, China-based manufacturer of
commercial offset printing presses.  The Complaint alleges that
throughout the Class Period defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements concerning Duoyuan Printing's business,
operations and financial prospects.  Specifically, defendants
issued false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the authenticity of certain of the Company's
expenses related to advertising and tradeshow costs could not be
verified; (2) the Company had improper relationships with certain
vendors and distributors; (3) as a result, the Company's financial
results were misstated during the Class Period; (4) the Company
lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5), as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On September 13, 2010, Duoyuan Printing disclosed that the Company
dismissed its independent registered public accounting firm,
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd., and was reorganizing its top
management in connection with the Company's "desire to resolve
open issues and file our 10-K on a timely basis."  In addition,
the Company's chief executive officer, chief financial officer,
and four members of the Company's board of directors resigned
after the dismissal of Deloitte.  As a result of this news,
Duoyuan Printing securities declined $3.60 per share, or more than
54%, to close on September 13, 2010, at $2.99 per share.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 requires the
Court to appoint a "Lead Plaintiff" in this case.  Any person or
group who suffered a loss as a result of purchasing Duoyuan
Printing securities during the Class Period may ask the Court to
be appointed as Lead Plaintiff, but must file a motion no later
than the November 19, 2010 deadline.

Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP is a law firm with significant
experience in prosecuting class actions, substantial expertise in
actions involving corporate fraud, and is representing Duoyuan
Printing shareholders in this litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los
Angeles, California 90067, by telephone at (310) 201-9150, Toll
Free at (888) 773-9224, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com
or visit our Web site at http://www.glancylaw.com/


EASTON SPORTS: Recalls 200 Bicycles With 2010 EC90 Zero Seat Posts
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Easton Sports, of Scotts Valley, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 200 bicycles with 2010 EC90 Zero seat posts.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The carbon top clamp of the seat post can crack, posing a fall
hazard to the user.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves bicycles with 2010 EC90 Zero seat posts. The
EC90 Zero seat posts are black with red and gray graphics.  "EC90"
is printed on the post.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11027.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Turner Suspension Bicycles, Ibis Cycles and Security Bicycle
Accessories retailers nationwide from April 2010 through August
2010 for between $150 and $200.

Consumers should immediately stop riding the bicycles and contact
any authorized Easton Sports for a free replacement top seat
clamp.  For more information, contact Easton Sports toll-free at
(866) 892-6059 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Central Time,
Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.eastonbike.com/


GASTAR EXPLORATION: Settles ClassicStar Suits for $21 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gastar Exploration Ltd. said Monday it has entered into a
Settlement Agreement effective November 1, 2010, providing for the
settlement of the seven In re ClassicStar Mare Lease Litigation
matters.  The plaintiffs allege that they were induced to
participate in a mare leasing program operated by the defendants,
including Gastar, and had been promised options to convert
interests in the mare leasing program for working interests in
wells or shares of Gastar stock owned by defendants other than the
Company.  The plaintiffs assert several causes of action against
all defendants, including violations of the RICO Act, common law
fraud, negligent misrepresentation, constructive trust, unjust
enrichment, and negligence.

The Settlement Agreement reflects the definitive terms of the
settlement, contingent only upon approval of the bankruptcy court
overseeing the Chapter 7 liquidation of ClassicStar, LLC, the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky.  It is anticipated that the Settlement Agreement will be
presented to the bankruptcy court for approval on or after
November 19, 2010.

If the Settlement Agreement is approved by the bankruptcy court
as proposed, Gastar will pay to the plaintiffs an aggregate of
$21.15 million in cash, including an initial $18.0 million payment
to be paid within 10 business days of the approval date and the
remaining $3.15 million in 16 monthly payments, the first of which
will be $150,000 and the next 15 of which will be $200,000 each,
in exchange for dismissal of all existing and potential future
claims of the plaintiffs in all seven cases filed against Gastar.
Gastar admits no liability in connection with the seven lawsuits.
While it denies the allegations made by the plaintiffs in the
cases, Gastar entered into the settlement to avoid the risk and
expense of continued litigation.

Commenting on the settlement of the litigation, J. Russell Porter,
Gastar's President and Chief Executive Officer, stated," The
resolution of this litigation was important to remove the risk of
an adverse trial outcome, remove the on-going cost of defending
our position and remove an impediment to Gastar moving forward
with potential corporate actions.  Gastar is well positioned with
attractive assets and a strong balance sheet that will allow us to
take advantage of opportunities created by the current
environment."

Based in Houston, Texas, Gastar Exploration Ltd. (NYSE Amex:  GST)
-- http://www.gastar.com/-- is an exploration and production
company focused on finding and developing natural gas assets in
North America.  The Company owns and operates exploration and
development acreage in the deep Bossier gas play of East Texas and
Marcellus Shale play in West Virginia and Pennsylvania.  Gastar's
CBM activities are conducted within the Powder River Basin of
Wyoming.


GOLFSMITH INTERNATIONAL: Defends "O'Flynn" Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Golfsmith International Holdings, Inc., continues to defend a
putative class action lawsuit pending in the California Superior
Court in Orange County.

On Oct. 23, 2009, David O'Flynn, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, filed a putative class action lawsuit
against the company asserting denial of meal and rest breaks,
failure to timely pay final wages or commissions and failure to
provide itemized employee wage statements in violation of the
California Labor Code.

The relief sought includes an award of monetary damages and
injunctive relief.

No updates were reported in the company's Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Oct. 2, 2010.

Golfsmith International Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.golfsmith.com/-- is a 40-year-old specialty retailer
of golf and tennis equipment, apparel and accessories.  The
company operates as an integrated multi-channel retailer, offering
its guests the convenience of shopping in more than 70 stores
across the United States, through its Internet site and from its
assortment of catalogs.  Golfsmith offers an extensive product
selection that features premier branded merchandise, as well as
its proprietary products, clubmaking components and pre-owned
clubs.


LORILLARD INC: Subsidiary Remains a Defendant in Six Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc.'s principal subsidiary, Lorillard Tobacco Company,
remains a defendant in six pending class action cases.  The
company is a co-defendant in two of these cases.

In most of the pending cases, plaintiffs seek class certification
on behalf of groups of cigarette smokers, or the estates of
deceased cigarette smokers, who reside in the state in which the
case was filed.

Cigarette manufacturers, including Lorillard Tobacco, have
defeated motions for class certification in a total of 36 cases,
13 of which were in state court and 23 of which were in federal
court. Motions for class certification have also been ruled upon
in some of the "lights" cases or in other class actions to which
neither Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. was a party.  In
some of these cases, courts have denied class certification to the
plaintiffs, while classes have been certified in other matters.


No additional information on the six pending class action cases
was disclosed in the company's Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2010.

Lorillard, Inc. -- http://www.lorillard.com/-- is the third
largest manufacturer of cigarettes in the United States.  Founded
in 1760, Lorillard is the oldest continuously operating tobacco
company in the U.S.  Newport, Lorillard's flagship menthol-
flavored premium cigarette brand, is the top selling menthol and
second largest selling cigarette in the U.S.  In addition to
Newport, the Lorillard product line has five additional brand
families marketed under the Kent, True, Maverick, Old Gold and Max
brand names.  These six brands include 43 different product
offerings which vary in price, taste, flavor, length and
packaging. Lorillard maintains its headquarters and manufactures
all of its products in Greensboro, North Carolina.


LORILLARD INC: Petition in "Scott" Suit Due in December 2
---------------------------------------------------------
The defendants' petition for writ of certiorari in the matter
Scott v. The American Tobacco Company, et al., is due to be filed
with the U.S. Supreme Court by Dec. 2, 2010.  Lorillard, Inc.'s
principal subsidiary, Lorillard Tobacco Company, is a defendant in
the Scott case, according to the company's Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

In the class action pending against Lorillard Tobacco captioned
Scott v. The American Tobacco Company, et al. (District Court,
Orleans Parish, Louisiana, filed May 24, 1996), the Louisiana
Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, issued a decision in April 2010
that modified the trial court's 2008 amended final judgment.

The April 2010 Decision reduced the judgment amount from
approximately $264 million to approximately $242 million to fund a
ten year, court-supervised smoking cessation program.  The April
2010 Decision also changed the date on which the award of post-
judgment interest will accrue from June 2004 to July 2008.
Interest awarded by the amended final judgment will continue to
accrue from July 2008 until the judgment either is paid or is
reversed on appeal.

As of Oct. 20, 2010, judicial interest totaled approximately $29.7
million.

The company, which was a party to the case in the past, is no
longer a defendant.

In its April 2010 Decision, the Court of Appeal expressly
preserved defendants' right to assert claims on unspent or surplus
funds, should any such funds be present, at the conclusion of the
ten-year smoking cessation program.

The Louisiana Supreme Court denied review of the petitions that
were filed by the defendants and the plaintiffs.  The U.S. Supreme
Court has granted defendants' application to stay execution of the
amended final judgment until defendants' petition for writ of
certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court is timely filed and is
resolved.  Defendants' petition for writ of certiorari is due to
be filed by Dec. 2, 2010.

In 1997, Scott was certified a class action on behalf of certain
cigarette smokers resident in the State of Louisiana who desire to
participate in medical monitoring or smoking cessation programs
and who began smoking prior to September 1, 1988, or who began
smoking prior to May 24, 1996 and allege that defendants
undermined compliance with the warnings on cigarette packages.

Trial in Scott was heard in two phases.  At the conclusion of the
first phase in July 2003, the jury rejected medical monitoring,
the primary relief requested by plaintiffs, and returned
sufficient findings in favor of the class to proceed to a Phase II
trial on plaintiffs' request for a statewide smoking cessation
program.  Phase II of the trial, which concluded in May 2004,
resulted in an award of $591 million to fund cessation programs
for Louisiana smokers.

In February 2007, the Louisiana Court of Appeal reduced the amount
of the award by approximately $328 million; struck an award of
prejudgment interest, which totaled approximately $440 million as
of December 31, 2006; and limited class membership to individuals
who began smoking by September 1, 1988, and whose claims accrued
by September 1, 1988. In January 2008, the Louisiana Supreme Court
denied plaintiffs' and defendants' separate petitions for review.

In May 2008, U.S. Supreme Court denied defendants' request that it
review the case.  The case was returned to the trial court, which
subsequently entered an amended final judgment that ordered the
defendants to pay approximately $264 million to fund the court-
supervised smoking cessation program for the members of the
certified class.  The Court of Appeal's April 2010 Decision was an
appeal from this judgment.

Should the amended final judgment be sustained on appeal,
Lorillard Tobacco's share of that judgment, including the award of
post-judgment interest, has not been determined.  In the fourth
quarter of 2007, the company recorded a pretax provision of
approximately $66 million for this matter which was included in
selling, general and administrative expenses on the consolidated
statements of income and was reclassified from other liabilities
to accrued liabilities in the second quarter of 2010 on the
consolidated balance sheets.

The parties filed a stipulation in the trial court agreeing that
an article of Louisiana law required that the amount of the bond
for the appeal be set at $50 million for all defendants
collectively.  The parties further agreed that the plaintiffs have
full reservations of rights to contest in the trial court the
sufficiency of the bond on any grounds.

Defendants collectively posted a surety bond in the amount of $50
million, of which Lorillard Tobacco secured 25%, or $12.5 million,
which is classified as restricted cash within other assets on the
consolidated balance sheet.  While Lorillard Tobacco believes the
limitation on the appeal bond amount is valid as required by
Louisiana law, in the event of a successful challenge the amount
of the appeal bond could be set as high as 150% of the judgment
and judicial interest combined.  If such an event occurred,
Lorillard Tobacco's share of the appeal bond has not been
determined.

Lorillard, Inc. -- http://www.lorillard.com/-- is the third
largest manufacturer of cigarettes in the United States.  Founded
in 1760, Lorillard is the oldest continuously operating tobacco
company in the U.S.  Newport, Lorillard's flagship menthol-
flavored premium cigarette brand, is the top selling menthol and
second largest selling cigarette in the U.S.  In addition to
Newport, the Lorillard product line has five additional brand
families marketed under the Kent, True, Maverick, Old Gold and Max
brand names.  These six brands include 43 different product
offerings which vary in price, taste, flavor, length and
packaging. Lorillard maintains its headquarters and manufactures
all of its products in Greensboro, North Carolina.


MEAD JOHNSON: Faces Class Action for Falsely Advertising Enfamil
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Edwards, writing for BNET, Mead Johnson will face a class-
action lawsuit over the lies it has told in its marketing of
Enfamil, a baby-milk formula, but whether the company's notorious
management will actually learn something from the case is an open
question.  Mead has been nailed on five previous occasions for
targeting parents with misleading ads that, among other things,
suggest your baby will grow up blind or retarded if you use any
other formula than Enfamil.

Mead's Q3 2010 earnings statement has a split personality on the
effect of litigation against its business.  It begins:

"The Company is not aware of any environmental, health or safety-
related litigation or significant environmental, health and
safety-related financial obligations or liabilities arising from
current or former operations or properties that are likely to have
a material adverse impact on the Company's business."

But then it goes on to list six class action cases pending against
it, all on the same issue: Mead's untrustworthy promotion of
Enfamil.  Three of those were dismissed, but a case in Florida
federal court may proceed, a judge ruled.  The company has lost
three previous federal lawsuits over false advertising, and two
rulings from the National Advertising Division of the Council of
Better Business Bureaus, an ad watchdog.

The case argues that Mead falsely claimed that Enfamil was:

"The only brand clinically proven to improve visual and mental
development."

At its worst, Mead used a blurry image of a yellow duckling
(above) to suggest that if you didn't feed your baby with Enfamil
the tyke would grow up short-sighted.  The duck is Exhibit F in
the case.  More specifically, the Florida case alleges Mead
claimed Enfamil was the only brand that contained two fatty acids,
DHA and ARA.

In fact Enfamil is identical to store-brand formula because the
companies all get their ingredients from the same suppliers.  The
plaintiff is demanding that anyone who bought Enfamil instead of a
cheaper store brand get their money back.  Enfamil has since
abandoned using the duckling-of-doom on its Web site, although it
was still there as late as March of this year.

Mead denies the claims.  And it has yet to experience an economic
incentive to change course.  It appealed one of the awards against
it and its Q3 2010 sales were up 12% in the U.S.


MEIJER: Recalls Infant Shoes Due to Choking Hazard
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Meijer, of Grand Rapids, Mich., announced a voluntary recall of
about 2,300 Falls Creek infant boy shoes.  Consumers should stop
using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The shoe lace toggles can detach, posing a choking hazard to young
children.

No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves Meijer Falls Creek infant boy casual shoes
with bungee laces and toggles. The brown leather shoes were sold
in infant sizes 5 to 10 and have "Falls Creek" imprinted on the
bottom of the shoe.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11023.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Meijer stores nationwide from July 2010 through September 2010 for
about $15.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled shoes from
children.  Consumers can remove and discard the toggles to
eliminate the hazard or return the product to any Meijer store for
a full refund.  For additional information, contact Meijer at
(800) 927-8699 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.meijer.com/


OFFICE DEPOT: Hearing on Lead Plaintiff's Appeal in December
------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on The New Mexico Educational Retirement Board's
appeal on the dismissal of a second consolidated amended complaint
against Office Depot, Inc., is scheduled for December 2010,
according to the company's Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 25, 2010.

Initially, two putative class-action complaints were filed against
the company and certain of its executive officers, alleging
violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The allegations in the lawsuits, which were both filed in November
2007, primarily relate to the accounting for vendor program funds.

Each of the lawsuits was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, and is captioned as:

       * Nichols v. Office Depot, Steve Odland and Patricia
         McKay, Case Number, 07-14348), filed on Nov. 6, 2007;
         and

       * Sheet Metal Worker Local 28 v. Office Depot, Steve
         Odland and Patricia McKay, Case Number, 07-81038),
         filed on Nov. 5, 2007.

On Jan. 4, 2008, certain parties in the Nichols case moved to
consolidate the two class action lawsuits.  On March 21, 2008,
the court entered an order consolidating the cases.  The lead
plaintiff in the consolidated case, the New Mexico Educational
Retirement Board, filed a consolidated amended complaint on
July 2, 2008.

On Sept. 2, 2008, Office Depot filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint on the basis that it fails to state
a claim.

On March 31, 2009, the court dismissed the Consolidated Amended
Complaint, but allowed the lead plaintiff leave to amend.

On April 20, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint.

On May 21, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Consolidated Amended Complaint.

On Jan. 14, 2010, the Court dismissed the Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint.

On Feb. 9, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed a notice to appeal this
decision, and that appeal remains pending.

An appellate hearing is currently scheduled for December 2010.

The suit is Nichols v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., Case No.
07-cv-14348, (S.D. Fla.) (Hurley, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          David J. George, Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: 561-750-3000
          Facsimile: 561-750-3364
          E-mail: dgeorge@csgrr.com

               - and -

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
          ALLEGHNEY BUILDING
          429 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1618
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: 412-338-2266

Representing the defendants is:

          Alvin F. Lindsay, III, Esq.
          HOGAN & HARTSON
          1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: 305-459-6500
          Facsimile: 305-459-6550
          E-mail: aflindsay@hhlaw.com


NALCO HOLDING: Parker Suit in Louisiana Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action complaint filed against Nalco Holding
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana has been voluntarily dismissed, according to the
company's Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

On April 22, 2010, the deepwater drilling platform, the Deepwater
Horizon, operated by a subsidiary of BP, plc, sank in the Gulf
of Mexico after a catastrophic explosion and fire that began on
April 20, 2010.  A massive oil spill resulted. Approximately one
week following the incident, subsidiaries of BP, plc, under the
authorization of the responding federal agencies, formally
requested Nalco Company, an indirect subsidiary of Nalco Holding
Company, to supply large quantities of COREXIT 9500, a Nalco oil
dispersant product listed on the U.S. EPA National Contingency
Plan Product Schedule.  Nalco Company responded immediately by
providing available COREXIT and increasing production to supply
the product to BP's subsidiaries for use, as authorized and
directed by agencies of the federal government.  Prior to the
incident, Nalco Holding Company and its subsidiaries had not
provided products or services or otherwise had any involvement
with the Deepwater Horizon platform.  On July 15, 2010, BP
announced that it had capped the leaking well, and the application
of dispersants by the responding parties ceased shortly
thereafter.

On May 1, 2010, the President appointed retired U.S. Coast Guard
Commandant Admiral Thad Allen to serve as the National Incident
Commander in charge of the coordination of the response to the
incident at the national level.  EPA directed numerous tests of
all the dispersants on the National Contingency Plan Product
Schedule, including those provided by Nalco Company, "to ensure
decisions about ongoing dispersant use in the Gulf of Mexico are
grounded in the best available science."  The Company cooperated
with this testing process and continued to supply COREXIT 9500 as
requested by BP and government authorities.

The use of dispersants by the responding parties has been one tool
used by the government and BP to avoid and reduce damage to the
Gulf area from the spill.  Since the spill occurred, EPA and other
federal agencies have closely monitored conditions in areas where
dispersant has been applied.  The company has encouraged ongoing
monitoring and review of COREXIT and other dispersants and have
cooperated fully with the governmental review and approval
process.

In June, July and August 2010, Nalco Company was named, along with
other unaffiliated defendants, in putative class action complaints
on behalf of various potential classes of persons who live and
work in or derive income from the Coastal Zone.

One action is captioned Parker et al. v. Nalco Company et al.,
Civil Action No. 2:10-cv-01749-CJB-SS.  The Parker action
generally alleges, among other things, negligence relating to the
use of the company's COREXIT dispersant in connection with the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  The plaintiffs are generally seeking
awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Parker case has since been voluntarily dismissed.

Each of these remaining actions contains substantially similar
allegations, generally alleging, among other things, negligence
relating to the use of the Company's COREXIT dispersant in
connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  The plaintiffs
in each of these putative class action lawsuits are generally
seeking awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs.

Nalco Holding Company -- http://www.nalco.com/-- is the world's
leading water treatment and process improvement company,
delivering significant environmental, social and economic
performance benefits to the Company's customers.  The company
helps its customers reduce energy, water and other natural
resource consumption, enhance air quality, minimize environmental
releases and improve productivity and end products while boosting
the bottom line.  Together the company's comprehensive solutions
contribute to the sustainable development of customer operations.
Nalco is a member of the Dow Jones Sustainability World Index.
More than 11,500 Nalco employees operate in 150 countries
supported by a comprehensive network of manufacturing facilities,
sales offices and research centers to serve a broad range of end
markets.  In 2009, Nalco achieved sales of more than $3.7 billion.


NALCO HOLDING: Defends Five Suits Over Use of COREXIT Dispersant
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nalco Holding Company defends five putative class action
complaints relating to the use of its COREXIT dispersant in
connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, according to the
company's Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

On April 22, 2010, the deepwater drilling platform, the Deepwater
Horizon, operated by a subsidiary of BP, plc, sank in the Gulf
of Mexico after a catastrophic explosion and fire that began on
April 20, 2010.  A massive oil spill resulted. Approximately one
week following the incident, subsidiaries of BP, plc, under the
authorization of the responding federal agencies, formally
requested Nalco Company, an indirect subsidiary of Nalco Holding
Company, to supply large quantities of COREXIT 9500, a Nalco oil
dispersant product listed on the U.S. EPA National Contingency
Plan Product Schedule.  Nalco Company responded immediately by
providing available COREXIT and increasing production to supply
the product to BP's subsidiaries for use, as authorized and
directed by agencies of the federal government.  Prior to the
incident, Nalco Holding Company and its subsidiaries had not
provided products or services or otherwise had any involvement
with the Deepwater Horizon platform.  On July 15, 2010, BP
announced that it had capped the leaking well, and the application
of dispersants by the responding parties ceased shortly
thereafter.

On May 1, 2010, the President appointed retired U.S. Coast Guard
Commandant Admiral Thad Allen to serve as the National Incident
Commander in charge of the coordination of the response to the
incident at the national level.  EPA directed numerous tests of
all the dispersants on the National Contingency Plan Product
Schedule, including those provided by Nalco Company, "to ensure
decisions about ongoing dispersant use in the Gulf of Mexico are
grounded in the best available science."  The Company cooperated
with this testing process and continued to supply COREXIT 9500 as
requested by BP and government authorities.

The use of dispersants by the responding parties has been one tool
used by the government and BP to avoid and reduce damage to the
Gulf area from the spill.  Since the spill occurred, EPA and other
federal agencies have closely monitored conditions in areas where
dispersant has been applied.  The company has encouraged ongoing
monitoring and review of COREXIT and other dispersants and have
cooperated fully with the governmental review and approval
process.

In June, July and August 2010, Nalco Company was named, along with
other unaffiliated defendants, in putative class action complaints
on behalf of various potential classes of persons who live and
work in or derive income from the Coastal Zone.

The suits are:

     1. Harris, et al. v. BP, plc, et al., Civil Action
        No. 2:10-cv-02078-CJB-SS, filed in the U.S. District
        Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana;

     2. Lavigne, et al. v. BP, plc, et al., Civil Action
        No. 1:10-cv-00222-KD-C, filed in the U.S. District Court
        for the Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division;

     3. Wright, et al. v. BP, plc, et al., Civil Action
        No. 1:10-cv-00397-B, filed in the U.S. District Court
        for the Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division;

     4. Walsh, et al. v. BP, plc, et al., Civil Action
        No. 3:10-cv-00143-RV-MD, filed in the U.S. District
        Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola
        Division; and

     5. Petitjean, et al. v. BP, plc, et al., Civil Action
        No. 3:10-cv-00316-RS-EMT, filed in the U.S. District
        Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola
        Division.

Each of the actions contain substantially similar allegations,
generally alleging, among other things, negligence relating to the
use of the company's COREXIT dispersant in connection with the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  The plaintiffs in each of these
putative class action lawsuits are generally seeking awards of
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees
and costs.

Nalco Holding Company -- http://www.nalco.com/-- is the world's
leading water treatment and process improvement company,
delivering significant environmental, social and economic
performance benefits to the Company's customers.  The company
helps its customers reduce energy, water and other natural
resource consumption, enhance air quality, minimize environmental
releases and improve productivity and end products while boosting
the bottom line.  Together the company's comprehensive solutions
contribute to the sustainable development of customer operations.
Nalco is a member of the Dow Jones Sustainability World Index.
More than 11,500 Nalco employees operate in 150 countries
supported by a comprehensive network of manufacturing facilities,
sales offices and research centers to serve a broad range of end
markets.  In 2009, Nalco achieved sales of more than $3.7 billion.


NORTHERN TRUST: Defends Amended ERISA Violations Suit in Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Trust Corp. continues to face an amended complaint in the
purported class-action lawsuit in Illinois, alleging violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

On Oct. 15, 2008, a putative class-action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against
the Corporation, the Northern Trust Employee Benefit
administrative Committee, the Compensation and Benefits Committee
of the Board of Directors and certain officers and directors,
purportedly on behalf of participants in and beneficiaries of The
Northern Trust Company Thrift-Incentive Plan whose individual
accounts held shares of Corporation common stock at any time from
Oct. 19, 2007 to the present.

On Jan. 16, 2009, an amended complaint was filed in the putative
class action lawsuit.  The defendants named in the amended
complaint are the Corporation, the Bank, the Northern Trust
Employee Benefits Administrative Committee and its members, the
Northern Trust Employee Benefits Investment Committee and its
members, and certain other officers, including the present Chief
Executive Officer of the Corporation and the former Chief
Executive Officer of the Corporation, purportedly on behalf of
participants in and beneficiaries of the Plan whose individual
accounts held shares of Corporation common stock at any time from
Oct. 19, 2007 to Jan. 14, 2009.

The complaint purports to allege breaches of fiduciary duty in
violation of ERISA related to the Corporation's stock being
offered as an investment alternative for participants in the Plan
and seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount.

No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 27, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

The suit is Patten v. Northern Trust Corp. et al., Case
No. 08-cv-05912 (N.D. Ill.) (Lefkow, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs is:

          Edwin J. Mills, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 687-7230

Representing the defendants is:

          James Vincent Hart, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          71 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 782-0600


PRIMAL VANTAGE: Recalls 40,000 Ameristep Tree Step
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Primal Vantage Co., Inc., of Randolph, N.J., announced a voluntary
recall of about 40,000 Ameristep Plastic Strap-On Tree Step.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The plastic portion of the step can break, posing a fall hazard to
the user.

Primal Vantage has received six complaints of step breakage,
including two reports of consumers being bruised and cut.

Product is a plastic tree step that attaches to a tree via a nylon
strap and a large metal buckle.  It is used to climb a tree in
order to hunt from an elevated position.  Model numbers 105 and
155 both have a "08", which is stamped on the plastic portion of
the step denoting the year of manufacture.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11024.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold sold
from April 2008 through November 2009 at various outdoor and
sporting goods retailers nationwide as a 3-step package in model
105 or as a single step in model 155.

Consumers should stop using the tree steps immediately. They
should contact Primal Vantage for details on how to obtain a full
refund.  Consumers are asked not to return the product to retail
stores as refunds can only be provided by Primal Vantage.  For
additional information, contact Primal Vantage toll free at (866)
972-6168 between 9:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday or visit their Web site at
http://www.treestandcustomerservice.com/to print a return form or
for further information on how to locate the date code on your
tree step.


PRIMAL VANTAGE: Recalls 40,000 Strap-On Tree Step
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Primal Vantage Co., Inc., of Randolph, N.J., announced a voluntary
recall of about 40,000 Ameristep Plastic Strap-On Tree Step.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The plastic portion of the step can break, posing a fall hazard to
the user.

Primal Vantage has received six complaints of step breakage,
including two reports of consumers being bruised and cut.

This recall involves a plastic tree step that attaches to a tree
via a nylon strap and a large metal buckle.  It is used to climb a
tree in order to hunt from an elevated position.  Model numbers
105 and 155 both have a "08", which is stamped on the plastic
portion of the step denoting the year of manufacture.  Pictures of
the recalled products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11024.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
the product was sold from April 2008 through November 2009 at
various outdoor and sporting goods retailers nationwide as a 3-
step package in model 105 or as a single step in model 155.

Consumers should stop using the tree steps immediately. They
should contact Primal Vantage for details on how to obtain a full
refund.  Consumers are asked not to return the product to retail
stores as refunds can only be provided by Primal Vantage.  For
additional information, contact Primal Vantage toll free at (866)
972-6168 between 9:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday
through Friday or visit their Web site at
http://www.treestandcustomerservice.com/to print a return form or
for further information on how to locate the date code on your
tree step.


QUIXTAR INC: Settles Class Action Lawsuit by Former IBOs
--------------------------------------------------------
SunHerald.com reports Quixtar Inc., a former subsidiary of Amway
Corp., and the law firms of Boies, Schiller & Flexner and Gary
Williams, Finney, Lewis, Watson & Sperando, P.L. Wednesday
disclosed they have settled, subject to court approval, all claims
related to a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of three
former Independent Business Owners.  The parties released the
following statement:

"We are pleased that we have been able to settle this case at this
juncture, which follows four years of litigation and extensive
mediation sessions before a former judge, with the active
participation of former IBOs who are named plaintiffs, Quixtar and
counsel.  This settlement also recognizes Quixtar's ongoing
commitment to transform the manner in which it conducts its U.S.
business, that together with the injunctive and monetary relief
provided for in the settlement, will provide substantial benefits
to the Plaintiff Class of current and former Quixtar IBOs."


TICKETNETWORK: Sued in N.Y. Over Unlicensed Ticket Brokers
----------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class
action claims that TicketNetwork violates New York law by letting
unlicensed ticket brokers sell and resell tickets anonymously
through its Web site "without disclosing the face value of the
tickets or the identity of the ticket seller at the time of sale."
The class claims that violates New York's Arts and Cultural
Affairs Law.

TicketNetwork "maintains a 'network' that allows unlicensed ticket
resellers to anonymously sell tickets . . . without disclosing the
face value of the tickets or the identity of the ticket seller at
the time of sale," the class claims.

It adds that TicketNetwork's software lets unlicensed ticket
resellers "maintain private-label Web sites to connect to
TicketNetwork's inventory of tickets," in violation of the Arts
and Cultural Affairs Law, which requires brokers to be licensed.

The class claims they are forced to pay higher ticket prices and
they "are not provided with the information required pursuant to
ACAL Article 25 such as the face value of the ticket or the
identity of the seller."

TicketNetwork and its network members post "terms and policies" on
their Web sites stating that the sites act "'as an intermediately
between buyers and ticket sellers . . . to facilitate' resale and
'is not directly involved in the actual ticket sale transaction,'"
according to the complaint.

Lead plaintiff Andrea Weinstein says she bought two tickets to a
showing of "A Little Night Music" from newyorkcitytheatre.com, for
which she paid $102 apiece.  When she got the tickets, she saw
their face value was $79 apiece.

The identity of the seller was not disclosed when she bought the
tickets, and when she got them she realized "that the tickets were
not purchased from the Walter Kerr Theatre as she had thought but
were actually purchased from a ticket broker, Up Front Premium
Ticket Source."

She claims that TicketNetwork owns and runs newyorkcitytheatre.com
"in a manner that misleads consumers to believe that they are
purchasing tickets to 'A Little Night Music' from the Walter Kerr
Theatre."

Donald Vaccaro, the founder of TicketNetwork, "has boasted to the
media that he has been scalping tickets to places of entertainment
located in New York since 1979," the complaint states.
Mr. Vaccaro founded TicketNetwork, one of the 10 largest ticket
resellers, in 2002.

The class seeks declaration that TicketNetwork is "engaged in the
resale of tickets to places of entertainment located in New York
and are required to be licensed pursuant to ACAL," and an
injunction to stop it from reselling tickets without licensing.

It also wants TicketNetwork ordered to reveal the identity of each
ticket-seller "prior to the consummation of the sale."

The class is represented by:

          Randall S. Newman, Esq.
          40 Wall Street # 61
          New York, NY 10005-1304
          Telephone: (212) 797-3737


TOWN SPORTS: Plea to Dismiss Class Allegations in Suits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Town Sports International Holdings, Inc.'s motion to dismiss class
allegations in two suits remain pending, according to the
company's Oct. 27, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

On or about March 1, 2005, in an action styled Sarah Cruz, et al
v. Town Sports International, d/b/a New York Sports Club,
plaintiffs commenced a purported class action against the company
in the Supreme Court, New York County, seeking unpaid wages and
alleging that TSI, LLC violated various overtime provisions of the
New York State Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages to
certain trainers and assistant fitness managers.

On or about June 18, 2007, the same plaintiffs commenced a second
purported class action against the company in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, New York County, seeking unpaid wages and
alleging that TSI, LLC violated various wage payment and overtime
provisions of the New York State Labor Law with respect to the
payment of wages to all New York purported hourly employees.

On Sept. 17, 2010, the company made motions to dismiss the class
action allegations of both lawsuits for plaintiffs' failure to
timely file motions to certify the class actions.  The motions are
scheduled for oral argument on Nov. 10, 2010.

Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.mysportsclubs.com/-- owns and operates fitness clubs
in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic regions of the United States
and, through its subsidiaries, operated 161 fitness clubs as of
March 31, 2010, comprising 109 New York Sports Clubs, 25 Boston
Sports Clubs, 18 Washington Sports Clubs (two of which are partly-
owned), six Philadelphia Sports Clubs, and three clubs located in
Switzerland.  These clubs collectively served approximately
495,000 members.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Asks Court to Dismiss Acceleration Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Detroit News and Bloomberg News report that Toyota Motor Corp.
has asked a federal court to dismiss a class action lawsuit
against the company alleging electronic defects in its vehicles,
arguing that plaintiffs haven't identified the defects, and some
haven't experienced unintended acceleration caused by such
defects.

"Toyota is confident that its cars provide safe, reliable
transportation and that the plaintiffs have no credible claims of
loss or defect," Toyota attorney Cari Dawson said in a company
statement.  "More than a year after filing their first complaint,
plaintiffs have not identified a defect."

Over the past year, Toyota has recalled more than 10 million
vehicles worldwide, most of them in the United States, in many
cases to fix or shorten pedals to prevent a risk of unintended
acceleration.  But the automaker rejects allegations that a defect
in its electronic throttle control is to blame for about 3,000
reports in the United States of unintended acceleration since
2000.

The U.S. Transportation Department's National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration has fined Toyota for moving too slowly to
fix sticking pedals, which the company says were caused by a
defective component in the gas pedal.

NHTSA also has enlisted the National Academy of Sciences and other
federal agencies to investigate automotive electronics.  They have
not yet announced their findings, as the legal proceedings are
getting under way.

Toyota faces about 400 suits alleging lost vehicle value or injury
or death resulting from sudden acceleration.  The economic loss
lawsuits, brought as a class, claim that a flaw in the electronic
throttle control system can trigger unintended acceleration.

Those lawsuits, which have been combined for pretrial filings and
rulings in federal court in Santa Ana, Calif., claim Toyota is
responsible for a decline in the value of its vehicles because the
Japanese automaker failed to disclose or fix the defects.

Federal lawsuits against Toyota alleging death or injury also have
been combined in the Santa Ana court.

In a brief filed Monday with the court supporting its motion to
dismiss the lawsuit, Toyota said the plaintiffs' reasoning would
have the court allow cases to go forward on behalf of virtually
all Toyota owners, "while their own portrayal of unverified data
alleges that, at most, only a tiny fraction of the vehicles in
question have ever experienced any sign of unintended
acceleration."

It said plaintiffs have not identified any defect in its
electronic throttle control system, which electronically relays
pressure on the pedal to the throttle.

Also known as drive-by-wire, this system is now used by most
automakers.  Toyota began to introduce it in its vehicles in the
late 1990s.

The company said its own "exhaustive" investigations, as well as
those of third parties, have found no evidence of a defect in the
system.


VIVUS INC: Milberg Files Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of all persons who purchased Vivus, Inc.
securities during the period from September 9, 2009, to July 15,
2010, inclusive.  The action is captioned Kovtun v. Vivus, Inc. et
al., and is numbered 10-CV-4957.  The complaint is available from
the Court or can be viewed at Milberg LLP's Web site at
http://www.milberg.com/

The Company's lead product in clinical development is Qnexa(R), an
experimental drug that has completed Phase III clinical trials for
the treatment of obesity.  In December 2009, Vivus submitted a New
Drug Application to the Food and Drug Administration to have Qnexa
approved as an obesity drug.

The complaint charges Vivus and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements about the Company's weight
loss drug Qnexa.  More specifically, the Company failed to
disclose that: (a) the studies conducted by Vivus and submitted to
the Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee of the
FDA could not support FDA Panel approval for Qnexa's use to treat
obesity as a chronic condition, and, at the very least, longer-
term clinical studies would be needed to determine whether Qnexa
was safe for its intended use to treat chronic obesity; (b) the
trial results showed worrisome adverse effects of the type that
scuttled approval for other obesity drugs, including: increased
risk of suicide, cardiovascular events, and birth defects; (c)
four to seven times as many patients taking the highest dose of
Qnexa, compared to patients taking lower doses or placebos,
dropped out of the study because of adverse side effects such as
anxiety, sleep disorders, or depression; and (d) Qnexa would
likely receive a "Pregnancy Category X" label from the FDA due to
risks of birth defects (teratogenicity), instead of the proposed
"Pregnancy Category C" label, thereby potentially eliminating a
huge swath of potential Qnexa customers.

On July 15, 2010, the FDA Panel held a hearing to review Qnexa.
Following the lengthy review and discussion, the FDA Panel voted
against recommending Qnexa based on concerns regarding adverse
effects and the unknown impact of long-term use beyond the 56-week
clinical study period.  The FDA Panel voted 10-to-6 in the
negative on the question of whether the "overall risk-benefit
assessment of Qnexa is favorable to support approval."  When news
of the vote was publicly announced on July 15, 2010, the market
price of Vivus common stock plummeted, falling $6.70 per share, or
55%, in one day on unusually high trading volume of over 42.3
million shares.  On October 28, 2010, the FDA followed the
recommendation of the FDA Panel and rejected Vivus's NDA for
Qnexa.

If you purchased any class of shares of Vivus from September 9,
2009, to July 15, 2010, you may move the court no later than 60
days from November 3, 2010, and request that the Court appoint you
as lead plaintiff.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  To be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must decide
that you have the largest financial interest of any competing
movant and that your claims are typical of the claims of other
class members, and that you will adequately represent the class.
Your share in any recovery will not be enhanced or diminished by
the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  If
there is a recovery in this action and you are part of the class,
you can recover as an absent class member without moving for lead
plaintiff or otherwise taking an active role in the litigation.
You may retain Milberg LLP, or other attorneys, to serve as your
counsel in this action, but do not need to retain counsel to
participate in any recovery as an absent class member.

About Milberg Milberg LLP is widely recognized as the premier
class action and complex litigation firm, representing individual
and institutional investors, pension funds, hedge funds, unions,
and consumers.  Founded in 1965, Milberg has offices in New York,
Los Angeles, Tampa, and Detroit.  The Firm has taken the lead in
landmark cases that have set groundbreaking legal precedents and
prompted changes in corporate governance benefiting shareholders
in North America and abroad.  Please visit the Milberg Web site --
http://www.milberg.com/-- for more information about the Firm.

If you wish to discuss this matter with us, please contact the
following attorneys:

          Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Fl.
          New York, NY 10119-0165
          Telephone: (800) 320-5081
          E-mail: contactus@milberg.com

               - and -

          Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (800) 320-5081
          E-mail: contactus@milberg.com


WELLS FARGO: "McDaniel" Labor Complaint Removed to N.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas K. McDaniel, et al., on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Investments, LLC, Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., and Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, Case No. CGC-10-501467
(Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.), was filed on July 12,
2010.  The Plaintiffs accuse the defendants, among other things,
of denying their California employees compensation required by
law, deducting charges for "pre-tax business expenses" and "after
tax business expenses" from plaintiffs' pay, failing to provide
accurate written, itemized statement of wages, and failing to
indemnify its California employees for business expenses, in
violation of the California's Labor Code and Unfair Competition
Law.  In addition, plaintiffs, on behalf of a class of California
financial advisors who signed so-called "promissory notes" or
similar agreements in connection with receiving "bonuses" for
moving from a competitor or delivering their "books" of business
to defendants, seek a determination from the Court that "bonuses"
paid by defendants were earned upon delivery of their "books" of
business to defendants, and that any so-called "promissory notes"
executed in connection with the "bonuses" are void and
unenforceable.

On the basis that the appropriate district court has original
subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Class
Action Fairness Act, codified in part at 28 U.S.C. Sections
1332(d) and 1453, Wells Fargo Bank, on October 29, 2010, removed
the lawsuit to the Northern District of California, and the Clerk
assigned Case No. 10-cv-10-cv-04916 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William P. Torngren, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM P. TORNGREN
          117 J. Street, Suite 300
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 554-6447
          E-mail: Torngren@TorngrenLaw.com

               - and -

          Scot D. Bernstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN
          A Professional Corporation
          101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 447-0100
          E-mail: swampadero@sbernsteinlaw.com

               - and -

          Gail A. Glick, Esq.
          ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP
          401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 394-0888
          E-mail: gglick@akgllp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Malcolm A. Heinicke, Esq.
          YOUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          560 Mission Street, Twenty-Seventh Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2907
          Telephone: (415) 512-4000
          E-mail: Malcolm.Heinicke@mto.com

               - and -

          Terry E. Sanchez, Esq.
          Shoshana Bannett, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, Thirty-Fifth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Telephone: (213) 683-9100


ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Class Action Over Durom Cup Filed in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
AboutLawsuits.com reports a class action lawsuit has been filed in
Canada over the Zimmer Durom Cup hip replacement recall, alleging
that the manufacturer ignored signs of problems with the hip
implant and allowed sales to continue in Canada without adequate
warnings.

The Zimmer hip replacement class action lawsuit was filed on
October 27, and seeks to represent everyone in Canada who has
received the Zimmer Durom Cup implant, which was first introduced
in Canada in 2005.

The complaint alleges that Zimmer initially began receiving
complaints about problems with the Zimmer Durom Cup as early as
2007, and while they halted sales in the United States in July
2008, sales were allowed to continue in Canada.  Zimmer did not
issue a safety notice in Canada until November 15, 2009, more than
a year later.

The primary plaintiff in the Canadian class action suit, Eric Mets
of Toronto, received the implant in October 2008, following the
temporary suspension of sales in the U.S.  The lawsuit alleges
that Mets suffered severe pain following the procedure due to
defects with the artificial hip implant and had to have further
hip surgery to correct the problems.

The Zimmer Durom Cup artificial hip is a metal-on-metal implant,
which was designed as a more advanced form of a hip resurfacing
system.  The device is designed out of a single piece of material
and is supposed to avoid problems associated with traditional hip
replacement components, such as instability, limited range of
motion and wear of the bearing.

Shortly after Zimmer introduced the Durom Cup in the United
States, concerns emerged about a high number of hip replacement
failures involving the hip implant, where the component loosened
and required revision surgery.  A temporary Zimmer Durom Cup
recall was issued in July 2008, so that modifications could be
made to the product's warnings and instructions in the United
States to ensure that doctors were properly trained on the
surgical techniques needed to implant the artificial hip
correctly.

While Zimmer's own estimates in 2008 suggested that some doctors
in the United States experienced failure rates as high as 5.7%,
more recent claims made in Zimmer Durom Cup lawsuits suggest that
the artificial hip failure rate is between 20% and 30%.

In June, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
decided to consolidate and centralize all lawsuits over the Zimmer
hip replacement in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey as part of a multidistrict litigation (MDL) for pretrial
litigation.  At that time, 45 cases had been filed in federal
courts throughout the United States.  However, as additional cases
are filed by Zimmer Durom Cup lawyers in federal court, they will
be transferred to New Jersey for coordinated handling.

It has been reported that the manufacturer has reached Zimmer
Durom Cup settlements in many cases in the United States.

In recent months, a number of similar problems have surfaced in
the United States with reports that other metal-on-metal hip
replacements are failing earlier than expected.  The use of a
metal-on-metal design has been linked to an increased risk that
the artificial hip may release small particles of metal into the
body, increasing the risk of problems after a hip replacement or
other health concerns.

In August, a DePuy ASR recall was issued for about 93,000 metal-
on-metal hip replacements after it was discovered that about 12%
to 13% of the individuals who received the implant had their
device fail within five years.  Like the Zimmer Durom Cup, a
number of individuals are pursuing DePuy ASR hip replacement
lawsuits in the United States, alleging that doctors expressed
concerns to DePuy about a high failure rate before the recall.


* Tobacco Industry Hopes to Win 8,000 More Class Action Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Full Disclosure, reports the tobacco
industry has won six trials in a row now in Florida, a small
streak in a grinding war of attrition between cigarette
manufacturers and lawyers representing some 8,000 plaintiffs who
were turned loose on the court system after a Florida appeals
broke up the nationwide Engle class action in 2003.

Mr. Fisher said he recently spoke with Stephanie Parker, the Jones
Day attorney who won a case last Thursday on behalf of Reynolds
American.  Ms. Parker has been representing tobacco companies
since 1998 and will likely be for a long time ahead.  The industry
has refused to settle the Florida cases for more than token
amounts, while trial lawyers are holding out for verdicts like the
$20 million win Miami attorney Chuck Baumberger scored in April on
behalf of a smoker's family.

"The tobacco companies are not doing this like every other
defendant, whether it's insurance companies, pharmaceuticals or
whatever, in which they evaluate the strength or weakness of the
claims and try to settle," said Mr. Baumberger, who has 340 more
cases pending against the cigarette makers.  "They are running a
scorched-earth policy that will insure the majority of these cases
will not reach trial in our lifetimes."

Ms. Parker doesn't disagree.  She has trials scheduled into next
year and "we're not settling any of them," she told me.  "What we
hope this means is, that the few large verdicts earlier this year
were one-offs."

The Engle case, filed in 1994, was ostensibly on behalf of every
smoker in America.  It went to trial in 1999 and a Florida jury
ordered Reynolds, Philip Morris and other tobacco companies to pay
$145 billion in punitive damages.  A state appeals court later
ordered the class dismantled and the Florida Supreme Court threw
out the punitives as excessive.  The state's high court left
intact, however, several findings of fact by the jury that future
juries must abide by.  Those include that cigarettes cause a
variety of diseases including lung and bladder cancer and heart
disease, are defective products, and that nicotine is addictive.
The 8,000 or so plaintiffs who decided to sue after the class was
dismantled still have to convince jurors that they were addicted
to cigarettes, that tobacco caused their disease, and that they
relied on deceptive marketing practices when they decided to
smoke.

The tobacco industry won a critical decision at the 11th Circuit
Court of Appeals in Atlanta in July when the court ruled that the
Florida jury findings were too broad to apply automatically to all
plaintiffs.  But so far that only applies to the 4,000 or so cases
that are in federal court in Florida; defense lawyers are still
plotting strategy to put the ruling to work in state courts where
the other 4,000 cases reside.  At two weeks per trial,
Mr. Baumberger says, the single judge handling tobacco cases in
Broward County will take 30 years to clear his docket.

In the meantime, Ms. Parker says, jurors may be getting more
receptive to the argument that smokers choose to smoke, and not
that the tobacco industry snookered them into it.  In the case
decided Thursday, a Fort Lauderdale jury, after two-and-a-half
weeks of trial, found that Arthur Rohr was addicted to cigarettes
and that smoking caused his death, but that Rohr was 100% to
blame.

Ms. Parker said she mounted a "traditional defense," arguing "the
smoker is well-informed and made a lifestyle risk to take the risk
of smoking."  She said she hasn't identified any clear differences
between winning plaintiffs and losers so far.

Neither has Mr. Baumberger.

"Jurors change, and that is one of the great things about our jury
system.  They can sit and take a look at who is right and who is
wrong and in different cases different conclusions are reached."

That's one of the nerve-racking things about the U.S. jury system,
as well.  Some plaintiffs win big, others win nothing at all.
Companies have no way to either modify their behavior to avoid
random jury verdicts or calculate what they might owe when they do
lose.  Smokers who got sick after Nov. 21, 1996, under the
peculiar logic of the Florida Supreme Court, aren't entitled to
the same findings of fact as those who got sick one day before.

In its 2006 ruling, the Florida Supreme Court noted the
questionable tactics attorney Stanley Rosenblatt used to get those
findings, such as repeatedly telling the inner-city Miami jury to
think about how the cigarette industry divided society into groups
and tried to exploit them, and making references to slavery and
the unfair treatment of blacks under the law.

"In this building, in this building, a temple to the law, they
were -- there were drinking fountains which said Whites Only."

The Florida Supreme Court said Mr. Rosenblatt's "attempt to incite
racial passions was conduct unbecoming an attorney practicing in
our state courts."  But those jury findings still stand, like
oracular utterances, giving plaintiff lawyers a leg up when they
try to convince six jurors that smokers chose to believe
advertisements more than the U.S. Surgeon General's warning that
cigarettes, when used as intended, could kill them.

                             *********

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  * * *