CAR_Public/101115.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, November 15, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 225

                             Headlines

ALLIANT ENERGY: Continues to Defend Pension Plan Litigation
BELO CORP: Final Settlement Hearing Set for February 2011
BIG IDEAS: Recalls 8,800 Horse-on-a-Stick Toys
BLANKE CORP: Accused of Selling Defective Underlayment Product
CELL THERAPEUTICS: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit

CEPHALON INC: Remains a Defendant in Consumer Protection Lawsuits
CHARLES SCHWAB: FBR Lowers Stock Rating on Litigation Concerns
CITIGROUP INC: Court Upholds Major Claims in Class Action Suit
CLAYTON COLLEGE: Accused in Alabama Suit of Fraud
CMS ENERGY: Tennessee Supreme Court Dismisses "Leggett" Suit

CMS ENERGY: CMS ERM Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit
CMS ENERGY: No Appeal Yet on Dismissal From "Breckenridge" Suit
CMS ENERGY: Class Certification Motion in "Learjet" Suit Pending
CMS ENERGY: Class Certification Motion in "Heartland" Pending
COCA-COLA ENT: Parties Execute MOU, Georgia Suit Dismissal Looms

COCA-COLA ENT: Parties Agree to Dismiss Delaware Merger Suit
COINSTAR INC: Redbox Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Continues to Defend ERISA-Violations Suit
COMMSCOPE INC: Being Sold to Carlyle for Too Little, Suit Claims
EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Okla. Police Pension Fund to Lead Fraud Suit

ENSIGN GROUP: Accused of Violating Health & Safety Codes
FANNIE MAE: TGN Comments on Recent Developments in Class Action
FLAG TELECOM: $24 Million Class Action Settlement Approved
FUSHI COPPERWELD: Faces Class Action Over Management-Led Buyout
GMAC MORTGAGE: Plaintiffs in Class Suit Seek Foreclosure Freeze

HANOVER: Recalls 495,000 Shades, 28,500 Roller/Roll-Up Blinds
HARRIS CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
ILLINOIS: Sued for Promulgating Invalid "RAF Rule"
IMAX CORP: NY Securities Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
IMAX CORP: Ontario Securities Lawsuit Remains Pending

KINDER MORGAN: Final Hearing on Second Arbitration Set for 2011
LITHIA MOTORS: Awaits Arbitration Decision on Alaska Workers' Suit
MCMILLAN CO: Sued for Misrepresenting Liberty Station Community
OKLAHOMA GAS: Remains a Defendant in "Price I" Lawsuit
OKLAHOMA GAS: Motion to Reconsider Suit Dismissal Pending

OMNICARE INC: Calif. Court to Hear Dismissal Motion on Dec. 3
OMNICARE INC: Indiana Suit Plaintiffs Appeals Case Dismissal
ONTARIO: Compensation Payments Sought for Hepatitis C Class Suit
ONTARIO: Class Action Over Huronia Abuses May Proceed to Trial
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Sued for Misleading Advertising Practices

PSCO: Xcel, et al., to Oppose Writ of Mandamus Requesting Review
REVLON INC: Stays Two Lawsuits to Allow Merits Discovery
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Nominal Trial Date in "Collora" on Jan. 10
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Nominal Trial Date in "Black" Action Set
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Dahl" Action in Minnesota Still Stayed

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Thompson" Likely to Remain Active in 2010
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Cleary" Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Discovery in "VanDyke" Action Underway
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Shaffer" Suit Discovery Underway
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Young" Action in Louisiana Still Stayed

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Parsons" Suit in West Virginia Still Stayed
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Jones" Suit Remains Pending in Missouri
ROCKING HORSE: Recalls 1,200 Rocking Horses
ROVI CORP: Appeal on Dismissal of "Subscription" Suit Pending
SANFORD BROWN: Nov. 15 Hearing Set for Fraud Class Action Suit

SEACOR HOLDINGS: Remains a Defendant in Del. "Antitrust" Lawsuit
SEARS ROEBUCK: 7th Cir. Reverses Class Certification Ruling
SERVICE CORP: Texas Court Dismisses 2003 Securities Lawsuit
SKYSERVICE AIRLINES: Dec. 22 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
STRAYER EDUCATION: Faces Class Action Lawsuit in Florida

SUN HEALTHCARE: Faces Lawsuit in Calif. for Labor Code Violations
TALECRIS BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Defends Four Lawsuits Filed Over Grifols
TARGET CORP: Sued Over Discount Coupons
THERMADYNE HOLDINGS: Faces Lawsuit in Missouri Over IPC Merger
WADDELL & REED: Lawsuit Demanding Proper Wages Still Pending

WELLS FARGO: Accused of Failing to Honor Promises to Modify Loans
WESTERN DIGITAL: Final Hearing on Class Action Pact Expected 2011
WESTERN DIGITAL: Faces Suit for Unpaid Wages, Improper Layoff



                             *********


ALLIANT ENERGY: Continues to Defend Pension Plan Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed against Alliant Energy Corporation's Pension Plan
remains pending, according to the Company's October 29, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In February 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Alliant Energy Cash Balance Pension Plan, alleging that certain
Plan participants who received distributions prior to their normal
retirement age did not receive the full benefit to which they were
entitled in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 because the Plan applied an improper interest
crediting rate to project the cash balance account to their normal
retirement age.  These Plan participants are limited to
individuals who, prior to normal retirement age, received a lump
sum distribution or received any form of distribution calculated
under the Plan's prior formula after that benefit was determined
to be more valuable than their benefit calculated under the Plan's
cash balance formula.

The court has certified two subclasses of plaintiffs that in
aggregate include all persons vested or partially vested in the
Plan who received these distributions from Jan. 1, 1998, through
Aug. 17, 2006, including:

   (1) persons who received distributions from Jan. 1, 1998,
       through Feb. 28, 2002; and

   (2) persons who received distributions from Feb. 29, 2002,
       through Aug. 17, 2006.

On June 3, 2010, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment on liability in the lawsuit.  The court also
ruled with respect to damages that prejudgment interest on damages
will be allowed at the prime rate at the time of the judgment and
a pre-retirement mortality discount will apply to the damages
calculation.  The court later granted the plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration of the application of a pre-retirement mortality
discount.  A bench trial on the issue of damages was held in June
2010, at which the court heard evidence on issues related to the
amount of damages, including application of the pre-retirement
mortality discount.  The court has not yet issued a decision.

The Alliant Energy Cash Balance Pension Plan is contesting the
case and intends to pursue appropriate appeals.


BELO CORP: Final Settlement Hearing Set for February 2011
---------------------------------------------------------
A final hearing is set for February 2011 to consider approval of a
settlement reached by Belo Corp. along with the other parties in a
purported class action lawsuit alleging failure to pay wages,
according to the company's October 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

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

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

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

On May 5, 2010, A. H. Belo and the other parties to the lawsuit
reached a preliminary agreement to settle the lawsuit, subject to
Court approval. The Court granted preliminary approval of the
agreement on September 16, 2010; a hearing seeking final approval
of the Court is set for February 2011. The parties have agreed to
cooperate and take all steps necessary and appropriate to obtain
final approval of the settlement, to effectuate its terms, and to
record the satisfaction of judgment with the Court. As previously
noted, A. H. Belo has agreed to indemnify the Company for any
liability arising out of this lawsuit; no payment is required of
the Company.


BIG IDEAS: Recalls 8,800 Horse-on-a-Stick Toys
----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Big Ideas Marketing, of Owings Mills, Md., announced a voluntary
recall of about 8,800 Horse-on-a-Stick Toys.  Consumers should
stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The reins on horse-on-a-stick toy's bridle are long enough to form
a loop around a child's head and neck, posing a strangulation
hazard to young children.

CPSC has received one report of a near strangulation involving a
2-year-old boy who became entangled in the reins at his neck.  The
boy's mother freed him without injury.

This recall involves horse-on-a-stick toys with a bridle and
reins.  The toys are filled with polyester fiber and have a fluffy
mane.  The horse's ears are embroidered with the words "PRESS
HERE" in red.  The horse makes neighing and galloping sounds when
the ears are pressed.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11034.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold through
Love's Travel Stop and Country stores nationwide from May 2010
through July 2010 for about $6.

Consumers should immediately remove or cut the reins to eliminate
the hazard.  Consumers also can contact Big Ideas Marketing for
instructions on how to remove the reins.  For additional
information, contact Big Ideas Marketing toll-free at (888) 908-
8697 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
htpp://www.bigideasmarketing.com/


BLANKE CORP: Accused of Selling Defective Underlayment Product
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tile Unlimited, Inc., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situaded v. Blanke Corp., et al., Case No. 2010-CH-48246
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. November 9, 2010), seeks damages for a
defective underlayment product manufactured by Blanke, the Uni-Mat
Pro, which emits an edible "crunching sound" when walked upon.

Blanke is in the business of producing various products, including
underlayment systems, which are used to install tile.

Tile Unlimited, which is in the business of installing ceramic and
other tiles in residential and commercial buildings within
Illinos, says that Blanke knew fully well that its underlayment
product was defective, yet continued to manufacture the product
despite the fact that its product could cause substantial damage
to consumers and those who installed the product.

The Plaintiff demands a trial by jury and is represented by:

          John S. Xydakis, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOHN S. XYDAKIS, P.C.
          7518 W. Madison St., Suite 200
          Forest Park, IL 60130
          Telephone: (708) 771-8888

               - and -

          Thomas F. Courtney & Associates PC
          7000 West 127th Street
          Palos Heights, IL 60463
          Telephone: (708) 448-4400


CELL THERAPEUTICS: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cell Therapeutics, Inc., has asked a Washington court to dismiss a
consolidated class action lawsuit filed against the Company for
alleged violations of federal securities laws, according to the
Company's October 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

On March 12, 2010, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington against Cell Therapeutics, Inc., and
certain of the Company's officers and directors, styled Cyril
Sabbagh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cell Therapeutics, Inc., Dr. James A. Bianco, M.D.,
and Dr. Jack W. Singer (Case No. 2:10-sv-00414).

On March 19, 2010, a substantially similar class action complaint
was filed in the same court, styled Michael Laquidari,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Cell Therapeutics, Inc., Dr. James A. Bianco, M.D., and Dr. Jack
W. Singer (Case No. 2:10-cv-00480).

On March 31, 2010, a third substantially similar class action
complaint was filed in the same court, styled William Snyder,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Cell Therapeutics, Inc., James A. Bianco, Phillip M. Nudelman,
Louis A. Bianco, John H. Bauer, Richard L. Love, Mary O.
Mundinger, Jack W. Singer, Frederick W. Telling and Rodman &
Renshaw, LLC (Case No. 2:10-cv-00559).

The securities actions are pending before Judge Marsha Pechman in
the Western District of Washington.

The securities complaints allege that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by making certain alleged false and
misleading statements.

The plaintiffs in the Sabbagh and Laquidari actions seek
unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
our securities from May 5, 2009, through February 8, 2010.

The plaintiffs in the Snyder action seek unspecified damages on
behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's
securities from May 5, 2009, through March 19, 2010, including
purchasers of securities issued pursuant to or traceable to the
Company's July 22, 2009, public offering.

On May 11, 2010, motions were filed to consolidate the securities
actions and to appoint lead plaintiff and lead plaintiffs'
counsel.  On August 2, 2010, the court consolidated the three
securities actions, appointed lead plaintiffs, and approved lead
plaintiffs' counsel.  On September 27, 2010, lead plaintiff filed
an amended consolidated complaint.  On October 27, 2010, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

The lawsuits are at a preliminary stage in the proceedings.  Cell
Therapeutics believes that the securities actions are without
merit and intend to defend them vigorously.


CEPHALON INC: Remains a Defendant in Consumer Protection Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cephalon, Inc., continues to defend itself against lawsuits filed
for violations of consumer protection laws, according to the
company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In late 2007, the Company was served with a series of putative
class action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of entities that claim
to have reimbursed for prescriptions of ACTIQ for uses outside of
the product's approved label in non-cancer patients.  The
complaints allege violations of various state consumer protection
laws, as well as the violation of the common law of unjust
enrichment, and seek an unspecified amount of money in actual,
punitive or treble damages, with interest, and disgorgement of
profits.

In May 2008, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended
complaint that also alleges violations of RICO and conspiracy to
violate RICO.  The RICO allegations were dismissed with prejudice
in May 2009.

In February 2009, the Company was served with an additional
putative class action complaint filed on behalf of two health and
welfare trust funds that claim to have reimbursed for
prescriptions of GABITRIL and PROVIGIL for uses outside the
approved labels for each product.  The complaint alleges
violations of RICO and the common law of unjust enrichment and
seeks an unspecified amount of money in actual, punitive and
treble damages, with interest.

The Company believes the allegations in the complaints are without
merit, and intends to vigorously defend itself in these matters
and in any similar actions that may be filed in the future.  These
efforts will be both expensive and time consuming and, ultimately,
due to the nature of litigation, there can be no assurance that
these efforts will be successful, the Company said in the filing.


CHARLES SCHWAB: FBR Lowers Stock Rating on Litigation Concerns
--------------------------------------------------------------
FBR Capital Markets lowered its rating November 10 on shares of
Charles Schwab Corp. on concerns the stock broker could face more
litigation from investors.

FBR analysts said they were concerned about Charles Schwab's
recent decision to terminate a settlement agreement that would
have ended a class action lawsuit from investors the company
advised.  The move spurred FBR to lower its rating on the broker
to "market perform" from "outperform."  It maintained its $17
price target for the company's shares.

Charles Schwab shares fell 23 cents, or 1.5 percent, to $15.30 in
midday trading.

FBR said Schwab is exposing shareholders to material risks by
backing out of a settlement agreement that would have ended a
class action lawsuit over the company's YieldPlus bond fund.  The
fund lost 30 percent of its value between 2007 and 2008, and
investors claim Schwab improperly hid the bond fund's risks.

Schwab's settlement would have required the company to pay $35
million to settle California state law claims and another $200
million for the plaintiffs' federal claims.  But Schwab decided to
drop the agreement after plaintiffs claimed they would still have
the right to sue the company after the settlement was signed, FBR
said in a note to clients.

Backing out of the settlement means the case will go back into
litigation with an uncertain outcome, FBR said.


CITIGROUP INC: Court Upholds Major Claims in Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney LLP, Court-appointed lead counsel, disclosed that
on November 9, 2010, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York sustained, in substantial part,
securities fraud claims against Citigroup, Inc. and certain of its
senior officers -- including Citigroup's former CEO Charles
Prince, former CFO Gary Crittenden, and former Chairman Robert
Rubin -- centering on Citigroup's collateralized debt obligations.
The CDO-related allegations were at the center of the fraud
alleged.  Pursuant to the Court's ruling, set forth in a detailed
68 page opinion, securities fraud claims alleging violation of
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
may proceed, on behalf of a proposed class of purchasers of
Citigroup common stock during the period between February 2007 and
April 2008, against Citigroup and seven of its former officers.
The Court also dismissed claims (1) on behalf of investors who
purchased Citigroup shares prior to February 2007 and after April
2008, as well as (2) claims that were unrelated to Citigroup's
concealment of its CDO exposure.

In essence, plaintiffs alleged that during early and mid-2007,
Citigroup experienced, recognized, and concealed a CDO crisis.
The complaint details, over the course of hundreds of pages,
Citigroup's awareness of its massive CDO holdings and of the risk
contained in such instruments, as well as how Citigroup's belated
disclosures of its CDO exposures and losses in late 2007 and early
2008 were instrumental in the decline of Citigroup's shares from
nearly $50 per share to below $1 per share -- a decline that
pushed Citigroup to the brink of insolvency.  The complaint
contrasted Citigroup's internal knowledge and actions with respect
to CDOs with its public statements concerning CDO holdings and
exposure.  As the Court summarized: "Simply put, plaintiffs
identify a set of statements that gave the impression that
Citigroup had minimal, if any, exposure to CDOs when, in fact, it
had more than $50 billion in exposure."  The Court noted a
contemporary "incongruity between word and deed": at the same time
that such statements were issued publicly, Citigroup's internal
actions -- as detailed at length in plaintiffs' complaint --
evinced awareness of CDO risk and of CDOs' "impending collapse".

The Court ruled that, with respect to Citigroup's CDO exposures,
plaintiffs' securities fraud claims against Citigroup had been
properly pled pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995.  The Court also ruled that plaintiffs had
sufficiently pled a claim against certain of Citigroup's senior
officers for liability as "control persons" of Citigroup, in
violation of section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Kirby McInerney LLP -- http://www.kmllp.com/-- has specialized in
complex litigation, including securities class action, for several
decades.  The firm has repeatedly demonstrated its expertise in
this field, and has been recognized by various courts that have
appointed the firm to major positions in consolidated and multi-
district litigation.  The firm currently serves as lead counsel in
a number of prominent lawsuits relating to CDOs and the financial
crisis, and has developed substantial insight into complex
financial instruments such as CDOs.  The firm's efforts on behalf
of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in
recoveries totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, and its
achievements and quality of service have been chronicled in
numerous published decisions.

CONTACT:  Ira M. Press, Esq.
          KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
          888-529-4787
          E-mail: ipress@kmllp.com
          825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10022


CLAYTON COLLEGE: Accused in Alabama Suit of Fraud
-------------------------------------------------
Tracey Dalzell Walsh at Courthouse News Service reports that
Clayton College of Natural Health, a Birmingham-based college
offering "distance education programs," closed without warning
after 20 years of business and kept "tens of millions of dollars
in advance tuition," four students say in a federal class action.
And 24 students sued a second Alabama college in a separate
complaint.

The students in the class action -- from Massachusetts, Michigan
and Virginia -- say Clayton College has "disabled [its] phones and
website, vacated their offices, and informed plaintiffs and other
members of the class to direct all communications to a post office
box to which mail is now sent, and largely ignored."

The class claims that Clayton and its co-defendant officers --
Lloyd Clayton, Jeff Goin, William Fishburn and Kay Channell -- and
Magnolia Corporate Services used their prepaid tuition to pay
bonuses and salaries.

They say the defendants breached their fiduciary duty by "failing
to take steps to safeguard the funds, failing to ensure that
tuition received from plaintiffs for educational programs was
utilized for such programs, failing to properly manage and protect
tuition funds, and failing to reveal to plaintiffs that the school
was in financial difficulty."

The students claim that the college has "failed to return the tens
of millions of dollars entrusted by and received from plaintiffs
and members of the class for prepaid distance education programs
that it is now impossible to complete."

They also accuse the defendants of conversion, fraud and
negligence.

In a similar complaint in Marengo County Court, Linden, Ala., 24
students say the National Healthcareer Association, Career 1st and
Thomasina Simmons took their money for phlebotomy technician
courses, but did not qualify them, as promised, to take the
National Certification test for phlebotomists.  The students say
the defendants' courses were inadequate and did not comply with
National Healthcareer Association guidelines.

These students seek damages for fraud, breach of contract and
negligence.  They are represented by Ted Mann of Birmingham.

A copy of the Complaint in Goldberg, et al. v. Clayton College of
Natural Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-cv-02990 (N.D. Ala.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/10/ClaytonCollege.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Glen M. Connor, Esq.
          Richard P. Rouco, Esq.
          WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC
          P.O. Box 10647
          Birmingham, AL 35202-0647
          Telephone: 205-328-9576

               - and -

          Thomas H. Howlett, Esq.
          Dean M. Googasian, Esq.
          THE GOOGASIAN FIRM, P.C.
          6895 Telegraph Road
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301-3138
          Telephone: thowlett@googasian.com
                     dgoogasian@googasian.com


CMS ENERGY: Tennessee Supreme Court Dismisses "Leggett" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Tennessee Supreme Court dismissed all claims against all
defendants in the matter Samuel D. Leggett, et al., v. Duke Energy
Corporation, et al., according to CMS Energy Corp.'s October 28,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In 2005, a class action complaint brought on behalf of retail and
business purchasers of natural gas in Tennessee, was filed in the
Chancery Court of Fayette County, Tennessee. The defendants
included CMS Energy, CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Company
(CMS MST), and CMS Field Services.  In April 2010, the Tennessee
Supreme Court dismissed all claims against all defendants.


CMS ENERGY: CMS ERM Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
CMS Energy Resource Management Company continues to defend a
consolidated case pending in the Circuit Court in Wood County,
Wisconsin, according to CMS Energy Corp.'s October 28, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

CMS Energy, along with CMS Marketing, Services and Trading
Company, CMS Field Services, Cantera Natural Gas, Inc., and
Cantera Gas Company, are named as defendants in various class
action and individual lawsuits arising as a result of alleged
inaccurate natural gas price reporting to publications that report
trade information.  Allegations include manipulation of NYMEX
natural gas futures and options prices, price-fixing conspiracies,
restraint of trade, and artificial inflation of natural gas retail
prices in California, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Tennessee, and
Wisconsin.

A class action complaint, Arandell Corp., et al. v. XCEL Energy
Inc., et al., was filed in 2006 in Wisconsin state court on behalf
of Wisconsin commercial entities that purchased natural gas
between Jan. 1, 2000 and Oct. 31, 2002.  The defendants, including
CMS Energy, CMS Energy Resource Management Company (CMS ERM), and
Cantera Gas Company, are alleged to have violated Wisconsin's
antitrust statute.  The plaintiffs are seeking full consideration
damages, plus exemplary damages, and attorneys' fees.

After dismissal on jurisdictional grounds in 2009, plaintiffs
filed a new Arandell case in Michigan.  The CMS Energy defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the new Michigan case on statute-of-
limitations grounds and that motion remains pending.

Another class action complaint, Newpage Wisconsin System v. CMS
ERM, CMS Energy, and Cantera Gas Company, was filed in 2009 in
circuit court in Wood County, Wisconsin, against CMS Energy
defendants and 19 other non-CMS Energy companies.  The plaintiff
is seeking full consideration damages, treble damages, costs,
interest, and attorneys' fees.

After removal to federal court, both Arandell cases and the
Newpage case were transferred to the MDL case.

In June 2010, CMS Energy and Cantera Gas Company were dismissed
from the Newpage case; the Arandell (Wisconsin) case was
reinstated against CMS ERM; and the Arandell (Wisconsin) case was
consolidated with the Newpage case.  These two consolidated cases
remain pending only against CMS ERM.


CMS ENERGY: No Appeal Yet on Dismissal From "Breckenridge" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CMS Energy Corp. discloses that the plaintiffs in the matter
Breckenridge Brewery of Colorado, LLC and BBD Acquisition Co. v.
Oneok, Inc., et al., have not appealed the dismissal of the
company and its subsidiaries in the suit, according to the
company's October 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securitiesand Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September
30, 2010.

CMS Energy, along with CMS Marketing, Services and Trading
Company, CMS Field Services, Cantera Natural Gas, Inc., and
Cantera Gas Company, are named as defendants in various class
action and individual lawsuits arising as a result of alleged
inaccurate natural gas price reporting to publications that report
trade information.  Allegations include manipulation of NYMEX
natural gas futures and options prices, price-fixing conspiracies,
restraint of trade, and artificial inflation of natural gas retail
prices in California, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Tennessee, and
Wisconsin.

Breckenridge Brewery of Colorado, LLC and BBD Acquisition Co. v.
Oneok, Inc., et al., a class action complaint brought on behalf of
retail direct purchasers of natural gas in Colorado, was filed in
Colorado state court in May 2006.  Defendants, including CMS
Energy, CMS Field Services, and CMS MST, are alleged to have
violated the Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992 in connection with
their natural gas price reporting activities. Plaintiffs are
seeking full refund damages.

After removal to federal court, the Breckenridge case was
transferred to the MDL case.

All CMS Energy defendants were dismissed from the Breckenridge
case in 2009.  The company says it expects the plaintiffs in this
case will appeal this decision after all claims against defendants
have been dismissed.  At this time, there is no pending appeal.

There is a pending plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The motion is not yet decided.


CMS ENERGY: Class Certification Motion in "Learjet" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The motion for class certification filed by plaintiffs in the
matter Learjet, Inc., et al., v. Oneok, Inc., et al., against CMS
Energy Corp.'s subsidiaries remains pending, according to the
company's October 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

CMS Energy, along with CMS Marketing, Services and Trading
Company, CMS Field Services, Cantera Natural Gas, Inc., and
Cantera Gas Company, are named as defendants in various class
action and individual lawsuits arising as a result of alleged
inaccurate natural gas price reporting to publications that report
trade information.  Allegations include manipulation of NYMEX
natural gas futures and options prices, price-fixing conspiracies,
restraint of trade, and artificial inflation of natural gas retail
prices in California, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Tennessee, and
Wisconsin.

In 2005, CMS MST was served with a summons and complaint that
named CMS Energy, CMS MST, and CMS Field Services as defendants in
a putative class action filed in Kansas state court, Learjet,
Inc., et al. v. Oneok, Inc., et al.  The complaint alleges that
during the putative class period, Jan. 1, 2000, through Oct. 31,
2002, the defendants engaged in a scheme to violate the Kansas
Restraint of Trade Act.  The plaintiffs, who allege they purchased
natural gas from the defendants and others for their facilities,
are seeking statutory full consideration damages consisting of the
full consideration paid by plaintiffs for natural gas.

After removal to federal court, the Learjet case was transferred
to the MDL case.  CMS Energy was dismissed from the case but other
CMS Energy defendants remain parties.

There is a pending plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The motion is not yet decided.


CMS ENERGY: Class Certification Motion in "Heartland" Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The motion for class certification filed by plaintiffs in the
matter Heartland Regional Medical Center, et al. v. Oneok, Inc.,
et al., against CMS Energy Corp.'s subsidiaries remains pending,
according to the company's October 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2010.

CMS Energy, along with CMS Marketing, Services and Trading
Company, CMS Field Services, Cantera Natural Gas, Inc., and
Cantera Gas Company, are named as defendants in various class
action and individual lawsuits arising as a result of alleged
inaccurate natural gas price reporting to publications that report
trade information.  Allegations include manipulation of NYMEX
natural gas futures and options prices, price-fixing conspiracies,
restraint of trade, and artificial inflation of natural gas retail
prices in California, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Tennessee, and
Wisconsin.

In 2007, a class action complaint, Heartland Regional Medical
Center, et al. v. Oneok, Inc. et al., was filed in Missouri state
court alleging violations of Missouri antitrust laws.  Defendants,
including CMS Energy, CMS Field Services, and CMS MST, are alleged
to have violated the Missouri antitrust law in connection with
their natural gas price reporting activities.

After removal to federal court, the Heartland case was transferred
to the MDL case.  CMS Energy was dismissed from the case in 2009,
but other CMS Energy defendants remain parties.

There is a pending plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The motion is not yet decided.


COCA-COLA ENT: Parties Execute MOU, Georgia Suit Dismissal Looms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc., disclosed it has entered into an
agreement with class action plaintiffs, which, if approved, could
cause the dismissal of a consolidated suit filed in the Superior
Court of Fulton County, Georgia, in connection with the company's
planned merger with The Coca-Cola Company, according to the
company's October 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 1, 2010.

In connection with the agreements entered into between the company
and TCCC on Feb. 25, 2010, three putative class action lawsuits
were filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia,
between the announcement date, and the present.  The lawsuits are
all similar and assert claims for various breaches of fiduciary
duty in connection with the agreement.  The lawsuits name the
company, its board of directors, and TCCC as defendants.
Plaintiffs in each case seek to enjoin the transaction, to declare
the deal void and rescind the transaction if it is consummated, to
require disgorgement of all profits the defendants receive from
the transaction, and to recover damages, attorneys' fees, and
litigation expenses.

The Georgia cases were consolidated by orders entered March 25,
2010 and April 9, 2010.

On September 3, 2010, the parties to the consolidated Georgia
action executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) containing the
terms for the parties' agreement in principle to resolve the
Georgia Action.  The MOU called for certain amendments to the
transaction agreements as well as certain revisions to the
disclosures relating to the transaction.  The MOU also
contemplates that plaintiffs will seek an award of attorneys' fees
in an amount not to exceed $7.5 million.  Pursuant to the
transaction agreements, the liability for these attorney fees
would be shared equally between the Company and TCCC.  Under the
MOU, the parties will seek approval of the settlement from the
Georgia court, and if approved, the Georgia action will be
dismissed with prejudice.


COCA-COLA ENT: Parties Agree to Dismiss Delaware Merger Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc., has entered into a memorandum of
understanding with plaintiffs in a consolidated suit filed in
the Delaware Chancery Court in connection with its planned merger
with The Coca-Cola Company, according to the company's October 28,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended October 1, 2010.

In connection with the agreements entered into between the company
and TCCC on Feb. 25, 2010, five putative class action lawsuits
were filed in Delaware Chancery Court between the announcement
date, and the present.

The lawsuits are all similar and assert claims for various
breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the agreement.

The lawsuits name the company, its board of directors, and TCCC as
defendants.  Plaintiffs in each case seek to enjoin the
transaction, to declare the deal void and rescind the transaction
if it is consummated, to require disgorgement of all profits the
defendants receive from the transaction, and to recover damages,
attorneys' fees, and litigation expenses.

The Delaware cases were consolidated on March 16, 2010.

On September 3, 2010, the parties executed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) containing the terms for the parties'
agreement in principle to resolve the Delaware action.  The MOU
called for certain amendments to the transaction agreements as
well as certain revisions to the disclosures relating to the
transaction.  The MOU also contemplates that plaintiffs will seek
an award of attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed $7.5
million.  Pursuant to the transaction agreements, the liability
for these attorney fees would be shared equally between us and
TCCC.  Under the MOU, the parties will seek approval of the
settlement from the Georgia court, and if approved, the Georgia
action will be dismissed with prejudice, and plaintiffs will
thereafter dismiss the Delaware consolidated action with
prejudice.


COINSTAR INC: Redbox Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
In October 2009, an Illinois resident, Laurie Piechur,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed
a class action complaint against Coinstar, Inc.'s Redbox
subsidiary in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois.

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that Redbox charges
consumers illegal and excessive late fees in violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and
other state statutes.  In November 2009, Redbox removed the case
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

In February 2010, the Illinois District Court remanded the case to
the Circuit Court.

In May 2010, the state court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's claims, and also denied the plaintiff's motion for
partial summary judgment.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 28,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Continues to Defend ERISA-Violations Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Colgate-Palmolive Company continues to defend a consolidated
action alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, according to the company's October 28, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In October 2007, a putative class action claiming that certain
aspects of the cash balance portion of the Colgate-Palmolive
Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan do not comply with the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act was filed against the
Plan and the company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Specifically, Proesel, et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company
Employees' Retirement Income Plan, et al., alleges improper
calculation of lump sum distributions, age discrimination and
failure to satisfy minimum accrual requirements, thereby
resulting in the underpayment of benefits to Plan participants.

Two other putative class actions filed earlier in 2007, Abelman,
et al., v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income
Plan, et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, and Caufield v. Colgate-Palmolive Company
Employees' Retirement Income Plan, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana, both alleging improper
calculation of lump sum distributions and, in the case of
Abelman, claims for failure to satisfy minimum accrual
requirements, were transferred to the Southern District of New
York and consolidated with Proesel into one action, In re
Colgate-Palmolive ERISA Litigation.

The complaint in the consolidated action alleges improper
calculation of lump sum distributions and failure to satisfy
minimum accrual requirements, but does not include a claim for
age discrimination.  The relief sought includes recalculation of
benefits in unspecified amounts, pre- and post-judgment interest,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

This action has not been certified as a class action as yet.


COMMSCOPE INC: Being Sold to Carlyle for Too Little, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that CommScope shareholders say
the company is selling itself too cheaply to the Carlyle Group,
for $3.9 billion or $31.50 a share, in Chancery Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Schwartz v. Commscope, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 5967 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/10/SCA.pdf

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 -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          Sara E. Collier, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Okla. Police Pension Fund to Lead Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge on Wednesday named the Oklahoma Police Pension &
Retirement System to lead a lawsuit that claims Education
Management Corp. defrauded OPPRS and other investors.

The class action lawsuit accuses Pittsburgh-based Education
Management and certain of its officers and directors of issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements about its
growth and potential profits beginning with filings tied to the
Company's initial public offering in October 2009.  When the true
facts about the Company emerged in August 2010, Education
Management's stock fell nearly 18%.

"Our members are police officers and retired police officers.  As
they have a duty to serve and protect our citizens, we, too, have
a duty to protect their hard-earned retirement money and to take
appropriate action to recover that money when someone breaks the
law and tries to steal it," said Steven K. Snyder, the OPPRS
executive director and chief investment officer.  "We are not
hesitant to use the courts when they provide the best avenue for
recovery."

The alleged fraud cost OPPRS losses of more than $426,000, giving
it the largest financial interest of any investor actively
pursuing the lawsuit, according to court filings.

The case, Gaer v. Education Management Corp. et al., 2:10-cv-
01061, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania.  In his November 10, 2010 opinion and
order appointing OPPRS, U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell
agreed that OPPRS is "a sophisticated institutional investor, the
paradigmatic lead plaintiff envisioned by Congress" when it
created the lead plaintiff mechanism in 1995.

As lead plaintiff, OPPRS will represent purchasers of Education
Management common stock between October 2, 2009 and August 3,
2010, inclusive, who seek to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  It also will represent investors who
purchased shares in connection with EDMC's October 2, 2009 initial
public offering and seek to pursue remedies under the Securities
Act of 1933.

Specifically, the plaintiffs accuse the defendants of making
positive statements throughout the Class Period about the
Company's operational performance and future growth projections
that they knew were false or recklessly disregarded as false.  In
fact, the plaintiffs contend that the defendants all along were
propping up Education Management's results by fraudulently
inducing students to enroll in its scholastic and educational
programs and engaging in manipulative recruiting tactics.
Furthermore, defendants materially overstated the Company's growth
prospects by failing to disclose that they had engaged in illicit
and improper recruiting activities.

Investors only began to learn the truth on August 2, 2010 when the
U.S. General Accounting Office issued a report that concluded that
for-profit educational companies like Education Management had
engaged in an illegal and fraudulent course of action designed to
recruit students and overcharge the federal government for the
cost of education, according to the plaintiffs.

"The facts will show that Education Management and other for-
profit education companies were cheating their students, the
federal government and investors in a brazen matter," said Jeffrey
C. Block, an attorney with Berman DeValerio, the national law firm
retained by OPPRS and appointed by the court as lead counsel on
the case.  "The claims in this case appear strong and we are
optimistic about achieving a meaningful recovery for OPPRS and the
class."

Established in 1981, the Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement
System administers $1.6 billion in retirement assets for more than
8,000 qualified police officers and their beneficiaries from
participating municipalities around the state.

Berman DeValerio prosecutes class actions nationwide on behalf of
institutions and individuals, chiefly the victims of securities
fraud and antitrust law violations.  The firm has 41 attorneys in
Boston, San Francisco and Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.


ENSIGN GROUP: Accused of Violating Health & Safety Codes
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Ensign Group violates
health and safety codes and endangers the health of residents of
its dozens of nursing homes, a class action claims in Superior
Court.


FANNIE MAE: TGN Comments on Recent Developments in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities Law Firm of Tramont Guerra & Nunez, P.A. comments
on the recent ruling for the Fannie Mae Class Action lawsuits
consolidated under docket (1:09-md-02013-GEL) assigned to Judge
Paul A. Crotty in the United States District Court Southern
District of New York.  United States District Judge Paul A. Crotty
issued an Opinion and Order in response to Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss the Plaintiffs' Joint Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint.  The decision granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
allegations concerning misrepresentations concerning financial
reporting of mortgage loss exposure and denied the Motion to
Dismiss allegations concerning internal controls and risk
management business practices.  These developments provide relief
to the Defendants' litigation risk and change significantly the
claims brought by the class action Plaintiff attorneys.  TGN urges
investors in Fannie Mae securities should consider what recourse
is available to recover their investment losses in stock held in
full-service brokerage accounts.  The Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority is a self regulating organization with sales
practice rules and regulations that govern the securities
industry's conduct and safeguard the investing public. For
investors who invested in Fannie Mae securities, the recent
developments represent a significant loss in income and
investment.

According to TGN, many investors in Fannie Mae securities
represented a long term holding acquired through investment,
inheritance or as an employee of the company.  Full-service
brokerage firms are obligated to give, and investors are entitled
to rely upon, brokerage firms for competent, suitable investment
advice concerning risk management strategies for concentrated
stock positions.  Many investors relied upon research analyst
recommendations provided by their financial advisors which
resulted in an over-concentration in the banking and financial
sector.  Brokerage firms are required to supervise the activities
in brokerage accounts, losses may be attributed to the failure to
adequately supervise the stockbroker and the brokerage account.
Recommendations of unsuitable investments and/or maintaining
unprotected concentrated stock positions are both causes of action
that may be available to investors against their full-service
brokerage firm in an individual securities arbitration claim filed
with FINRA.

The Securities Law Firm of Tramont Guerra & Nunez, PA, is a
nationally recognized, Martindale Hubbell "AV" rated securities
law firm.  To request a confidential consultation from a TGN
attorney to determine whether you have a viable individual
securities arbitration claim for investment losses that exceed
$250,000 from a full service brokerage account, contact us on our
Web site.  To speak directly with an attorney, call (800) 578-0137
and ask for Ben Fernandez, Esquire.


FLAG TELECOM: $24 Million Class Action Settlement Approved
----------------------------------------------------------
A $24.4 million cash settlement obtained by Milberg LLP in a case
against Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. and seven former officers
and directors of FLAG Telecom Holdings, Ltd. was approved by Judge
Colleen McMahon of the U.S. Southern District Court of New York.
Judge McMahon called it an "extraordinary recovery for the class."
The Order and Final Judgment was filed on November 8, 2010.

FLAG Telecom was a global telecommunications provider that filed
for bankruptcy in 2002, just two years after netting approximately
$635 million in its initial public offering.  Plaintiffs claimed
that the IPO Prospectus exaggerated company profits and the market
demand for its products, and that the company reported
artificially inflated revenues and earnings after the IPO.  A team
of Milberg litigators, led by Brad N. Friedman, deposed witnesses
throughout the U.S. and in London and reviewed more than 2.6
million pages of documents during what the Court described as
"eight years of intense, complex and unremitting litigation."

The Milberg lawyers conducted complex proceedings in the Southern
District of NY, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the District
of Columbia and the High Court of Justice in England, ultimately
obtaining what Judge McMahon called "a remarkable result for the
Class in a complex case that posed a great many obstacles to
recovery."

                         About Milberg

Milberg LLP -- http://www.milberg.com/-- 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 that
have benefited shareholders in North America and abroad.


FUSHI COPPERWELD: Faces Class Action Over Management-Led Buyout
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven Wednesday disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada on behalf of shareholders of Fushi Copperweld,
Inc.

The complaint alleges claims that arise out Fushi's and its Board
of Directors' efforts to complete a management-led buyout of Fushi
through an unfair process at a grossly inadequate and unfair price
of $11.50 per share.  Those seeking to acquire the Company include
Li Fu, the Company's CEO, who with his affiliates controls over
29% of the Company's common stock, and Abax Global Capital (Hong
Kong) Limited.  The complaint further alleges that by pursuing the
unlawful effort to squeeze out Fushi's public stockholders for
grossly inadequate consideration, without a fair process
(including without full and fair disclosure of all material
information), the Company's Board of Directors and the other
defendants have breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due
care, independence, candor, good faith and fair dealing, and/or
have aided and abetted such breaches.  The complaint alleges that
because defendants dominate and control the business and corporate
affairs of Fushi and are in possession of non-public information
concerning Fushi's business and future prospects, there exists an
imbalance and disparity of knowledge and economic power between
them and the public shareholders of Fushi that makes it unfair for
them to pursue any proposed transaction that allows Fu and Abax
and/or others to reap disproportionate benefits to the exclusion
of maximizing stockholder value.  According to the complaint,
though the Company has formed a so-called "Special Committee" to
evaluate the Buyout, the Special Committee is acting to appease Fu
and Abax, who have no interest in a fair evaluation of the Buyout.

If you are a current owner of shares of Fushi Copperweld, Inc.,
you may obtain additional information about this lawsuit by
contacting Brower Piven at http://www.browerpiven.com/by email at
piven@browerpiven.com  by calling 410/415-6701, or at Brower
Piven, A Professional Corporation, 1925 Old Valley Road,
Stevenson, Maryland 21153.  Attorneys at Brower Piven have
combined experience litigating securities and class action cases
of over 40 years.  If you choose to retain counsel, you may retain
Brower Piven without financial obligation or cost to you, or you
may retain other counsel of your choice.  You need take no action
at this time to be a member of the class.


GMAC MORTGAGE: Plaintiffs in Class Suit Seek Foreclosure Freeze
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trevor Maxwell, Staff Writer for The Portland Press Herald,
reports the plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against GMAC
Mortgage Co. are seeking a court order to freeze foreclosure sales
and evictions of homeowners in Maine whose loans are owned or
serviced by the mortgage giant.

A hearing on the request could be scheduled as early as this week
in U.S. District Court, where the case has been assigned to Judge
D. Brock Hornby.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs say their clients -- and potentially
hundreds of others in similar circumstances -- deserve to stay in
their homes as the courts sort through allegations that GMAC has
used fraudulent paperwork to speed foreclosures through Maine's
court system.

Revelations about GMAC's back-office practices came to light
through depositions taken earlier this year by lawyers for
homeowners in Maine and Florida.  That prompted attorneys general
in all 50 states to announce last month that they would
investigate the practices of GMAC, JPChase Morgan, Bank of America
and other leading mortgage companies.

It's unclear how many homes in Maine are in foreclosure
proceedings begun by GMAC, the nation's fourth-largest mortgage
lender.  According to court documents, the company has initiated
1,156 foreclosure actions in Maine since January 2005, but the
documents don't say how many of those cases remain open, or how
many are on the brink of sales.

"Those situations are the most urgent," said Tom Cox, a lawyer in
South Portland whose work on behalf of homeowners helped prompt
the national probe.  "We don't know how many of these cases are
out there because we don't have access to GMAC's records."

Cox is one of six lawyers who brought the class-action lawsuit
against GMAC last month, on behalf of six plaintiffs who hope
eventually to represent a much larger class.  The plaintiffs are
Michael Holmes, Steven Archibald of Windham, Nicolle Bradbury of
Denmark, Thomas True of Belfast, Shawn Morrissette of Saco and
Joseph Phillips of Mechanic Falls.

Originally filed in Cumberland County Superior Court, the case was
transferred last week to federal court at the request of GMAC.

Jim Olecki, a spokesman for GMAC's parent company, Ally Financial,
said in a prepared statement, "The underlying facts of default in
the named plaintiffs' cases are not in dispute.  The average
property is not foreclosed on until the mortgage is unpaid for 18
months and all other home preservation options have been
exhausted.  We will vigorously defend the allegations in the
class-action lawsuit."

The company issued a statement to the media Oct. 12, announcing
that it had hired several legal and accounting firms to review its
foreclosure procedures in all 50 states.

The plaintiffs in Maine earlier filed their motion for a temporary
restraining order.  Time is of the essence, Mr. Cox said, noting
that Mr. True's home in Belfast was scheduled to go to auction
Thursday.

Like the other plaintiffs, Mr. True claims that the legal
paperwork used by GMAC to support the foreclosure was signed by
Jeffrey Stephan, a GMAC processor in Pennsylvania.

In a deposition for a different Maine foreclosure case,
Mr. Stephan admitted that he signed more than 10,000 foreclosure
documents a month and did not verify the information those
documents asserted, as required by Maine law.

That practice by GMAC and other lenders, dubbed "robo-signing," is
a main target of the nationwide investigation.  Observers have
noted that to process 10,000 documents a month during eight-hour
workdays, a person would have about 90 seconds to review each
file.

"I do see this case being about making sure servicers and lenders
in general, if they are going to bring a foreclosure action, that
they do it correctly and according to the rules of our courts,"
said Andrea Bopp Stark of the Molleur Law Office in Biddeford.

Stark and Charles Delbaum of the National Consumer Law Center in
Boston are the lead lawyers for the plaintiffs.

Stark said the first issue is the request for the temporary
restraining order.  A telephone conference between the parties and
U.S. Magistrate Judge John Rich was set for Thursday morning, and
Ms. Stark hoped a hearing on the request would be set up as soon
as possible in front of Judge Hornby.

"Basically, we're asking the court to stay all sales and evictions
until we can get resolution on the merits of the case," Ms. Stark
said.

That could take months or even years.

The next step would be an extensive discovery period, during which
the sides would take depositions and gather information.  Then the
plaintiffs would need Judge Hornby to certify the case as a class
action, and to define the class -- the pool of people who would be
allowed to seek damages.

In their complaint, the lawyers for the plaintiffs say the class
should be defined as any homeowner in Maine who had a foreclosure
initiated against them by GMAC in the past six years, and whose
case included paperwork that was not processed in compliance with
state law.

"We're essentially asking for the money the former homeowners were
charged by GMAC to bring the foreclosure action against them.
That cost always gets passed on to the homeowner," Ms. Stark said.

"Plus, we're asking for any punitive damages that the court sees
fit."

Mr. Cox said the plaintiffs also seek a permanent court order to
require GMAC to change its practices in foreclosure proceedings in
Maine's courts.

"What we're doing in Maine is part of the national pattern of
trying to make sure that the past improper practices are not
continued," Mr. Cox said.


HANOVER: Recalls 495,000 Shades, 28,500 Roller/Roll-Up Blinds
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Hanover Direct Inc., (also known as Domestications, The Company
Store, and Company Kids) of Weehawken, N.J., announced a voluntary
recall of about 495,000 Roman shades and 28,500 roller/roll-up
blinds.  Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately
unless otherwise instructed.

Roman Shades: Strangulations can occur when a child places his/her
neck between the exposed inner cord and the fabric on the backside
of the blind or when a child pulls the cord out and wraps it
around his/her neck.

Roll-up Blinds: Strangulations can occur if the lifting loops
slide off the side of the blind and a child's neck becomes
entangled on the free-standing loop or if a child places his/her
neck between the lifting loop and the roll-up blind material.

Roller Blinds: Strangulations can occur if the blind's continuous
loop bead chain or continuous loop pull cord is not attached to
the wall or the floor with the tension device provided and a
child's neck becomes entangled in the free-standing loop.

Roman Shades: CPSC received a new report of the death of a 22-
month-old boy in Cedar Falls, Iowa who was found hanging by his
neck from the outer pull cords of a Roman shade in May 2010. The
outer pull cords were knotted at the bottom. He was rescued by his
father but died later in the hospital.  In March 2008, a 2-year-
old boy from Ocean View, Delaware climbed up on a toy chest to
look out of a window and became entangled in the inner cords of a
Roman shade. His parents removed the cord.  No permanent injuries
were sustained. This incident prompted a previous recall.

Roll-up Blinds: No injuries or incidents have been reported.

Roller Blinds: No injuries or incidents have been reported.

This recall involves all styles of Roman shades with inner cords,
all styles of roll-up blinds, and roller blinds that do not have a
tension device.  A tension device is intended to be attached to
the continuous loop bead chain or continuous loop pull cord and
installed into the wall or floor.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11036.html

The recalled products were manufactured in China, United States,
and other countries and sold through Hanover
Direct/Domestications, the Company Store/Company Kids; online at
http://www.domestications.com/and http://www.thecompanystore.com/
and through catalog sales nationwide from January1996 through
October 2009 for between $20 and $579.

Consumers should immediately stop using all Roman shades with
inner cords, all roll-up blinds, and all roller blinds that do not
have a tension device, and contact the Window Covering Safety
Council at (800) 506-4636 anytime for free repair kits or visit
http://www.windowcoverings.org/ Consumers who have roller blinds
with a tension device should make sure the tension device is
attached to the continuous loop bead chain or continuous loop pull
cord and is installed into the wall or floor.  For additional
information, contact Domestications or Hanover at (800) 453-1106
between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time, seven days a week,
or visit the firm's Web sites at http://www.domestications.com/or
http://www.hanoverdirect.com/


HARRIS CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harris Corp. continues to defend a consolidated federal securities
class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware.

Harris Stratex Networks, Inc., a former subsidiary of the company,
and certain of its current and former officers and directors,
including certain current officers of the company, were named as
defendants in a federal securities class action complaint filed on
Sept. 15, 2008, by plaintiff Norfolk County Retirement System on
behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of HSTX securities from
Jan. 29, 2007, to July 30, 2008, including shareholders of Stratex
Networks, Inc., who exchanged shares of Stratex for shares of HSTX
as part of the combination between Stratex and the Company's
former Microwave Communications Division to form HSTX.

Similar complaints were filed in the Court on Oct. 6, 2008 and
Oct. 30, 2008.

The complaints were consolidated in a slightly expanded complaint
filed on July 29, 2009 that added Harris Corp. and Ernst & Young
LLP as defendants.  This action relates to public disclosures made
by HSTX on Jan. 30, 2007 and July 30, 2008, which included the
restatement of HSTX's financial statements for the first three
fiscal quarters of its fiscal 2008 -- the quarters ended March 28,
2008, Dec. 28, 2007 and Sept. 28, 2007 -- and for its fiscal years
ended June 29, 2007, June 30, 2006 and July 1, 2005 due to
accounting errors.

The consolidated complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and of Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, as well as violations of Section 11 and Section 15 of
the Securities Act, and seeks, among other relief, determinations
that the action is a proper class action, unspecified compensatory
damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended October 1, 2010.


ILLINOIS: Sued for Promulgating Invalid "RAF Rule"
--------------------------------------------------
Regina Johnson, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission, et al., Case No.
2010-CH-48339 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. November 9, 2010), asserts
claims against the state agency -- responsible for handling
workers' compensation claims -- Mitch Weisz, in his official
capacity as Chairman of the agency, the commissioners of the state
agency, in their official capacities, and Alexi Giannoulias, in
his official capacity as State Treasurer and ex officio custodian
of the Rate Adjustment Fund, for violations of the Illinois
Administrative Procedures Act, 5 ILCS 100/1 et seq.

Ms. Johnson says that the administrative rule IWCC promulgated
suspending or terminating the RAF benefits of all persons who
obtained a permanent total disability or death award and
subsequently settled their award for a lump sum amount -- The RAF
Rule -- is an invalid rule because it fails to comply with the
APA, which contains a detailed, statutory scheme to be followed by
Illinois Agencies that desire to adopt, amend, or repeal any rule.

Ms. Johnson relates that on April 13, 1984, she sustained
accidental injuries while in the employ of Hanes DSD.

On May 23, 2001, the Complaint states, Ms. Johnson, Hanes DSD, and
the Illinois State Treasurer, as ex officio custodian of the RAF,
entered into a Settlement Contract Lump sum Petition and Order.
The Settlement Agreement, however, provided that she will continue
to receive payments from the RAF on an ongoing basis for the
duration of her life.

Ms. Johnson relates her monthly payments from the RAF continued
until April 15, 2010.  On May 18, 2001, however, she received a
letter from the IWCC, stating that after reviewing cases in which
RAF benefits were being paid, and based on the settlement contract
she entered with the IWCC, the Commission has suspended her RAF
payments effective immediately.  The letter cited that "Settlement
Contracts generally terminate a recipient's eligibility to receive
benefits."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          O. Randolph Bragg, Esq.
          Craig M. Shapiro, Esq.
          HORWITZ, HORWITZ AND ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          25 East Washington, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372-8822


IMAX CORP: NY Securities Class Action Suit Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
IMAX Corporation continues to face class action litigation over
alleged securities fraud, according to the Company's October 28,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

IMAX Corp. and certain of its officers and directors were named as
defendants in eight purported class action lawsuits filed between
August 11, 2006, and September 18, 2006, alleging violations of
U.S. federal securities laws.  These eight actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On January 18, 2007, the Court consolidated all eight class action
lawsuits and appointed Westchester Capital Management, Inc. as the
lead plaintiff and Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP as lead
plaintiff's counsel.

On October 2, 2007, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint.  The amended complaint, brought on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between
February 27, 2003, and July 20, 2007, alleges primarily that the
defendants engaged in securities fraud by disseminating materially
false and misleading statements during the class period regarding
the Company's revenue recognition of theater system installations,
and failing to disclose material information concerning the
Company's revenue recognition practices.  The amended complaint
also added PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the Company's auditors, as
a defendant.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified compensatory damages,
costs, and expenses.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
December 10, 2007.  On September 16, 2008, the Court issued a
memorandum opinion and order, denying the motion.  On October 6,
2008, the defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint.
On October 31, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  Fact discovery on the merits commenced on
November 14, 2008, and is ongoing.

On March 13, 2009, the Court granted a second prospective lead
plaintiff's request to file a motion for reconsideration of the
Court's order naming Westchester Capital Management, Inc. as the
lead plaintiff and issued an order denying without prejudice
plaintiff's class certification motion pending resolution of the
motion for reconsideration.

On June 29, 2009, the Court granted the motion for reconsideration
and appointed Snow Capital Investment Partners, L.P. as the lead
plaintiff and Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP as lead
plaintiff's counsel.

Westchester Capital Management, Inc., appealed this decision, but
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied its
petition on October 1, 2009.

On April 22, 2010, the new lead plaintiff filed its motion for
class certification, defendants filed their oppositions to the
motion on June 10, 2010, and plaintiff filed its reply on July 30,
2010.

The Company says it will vigorously defend the matter, although no
assurances can be given with respect to the outcome of the
proceedings.


IMAX CORP: Ontario Securities Lawsuit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
IMAX Corporation continues to defend itself against a class action
lawsuit pending in Ontario for securities-related disputes,
according to the Company's October 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

The class action lawsuit was filed on September 20, 2006, in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the Company and certain
of its officers and directors, alleging violations of Canadian
securities laws.  This lawsuit was brought on behalf of
shareholders who acquired the Company's securities between
February 17, 2006, and August 9, 2006.

The lawsuit is in an early procedural stage and seeks unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, as well as costs and expenses.
The Company says is unable to estimate a potential loss exposure
at this time.

For reasons released December 14, 2009, the Court granted leave to
the Plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim to plead certain
claims pursuant to the Securities Act (Ontario) against the
Company and certain individuals and granted certification of the
action as a class proceeding.  These are procedural decisions, and
do not contain any binding conclusions on the factual or legal
merits of the claim.  The Company has brought a motion seeking
Court approval to appeal those decisions and it is not known when
the Ontario court will release a decision on that motion.

The Company believes the allegations made against it in the
statement of claim are meritless and will vigorously defend the
matter.


KINDER MORGAN: Final Hearing on Second Arbitration Set for 2011
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing is scheduled for 2011 to consider the claims and
defenses of parties of a second arbitration alleging
miscalculation of royalties and other payments, according to
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.'s Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

Kinder Morgan CO2 and Cortez Pipeline Company were among the named
defendants in CO2 Committee, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., et al., an
arbitration initiated on November 28, 2005.  The arbitration arose
from a dispute over a class action settlement agreement which
became final on July 7, 2003 and disposed of five lawsuits
formerly pending in the U.S. District Court, District of Colorado.
The plaintiffs in such lawsuits primarily included overriding
royalty interest owners, royalty interest owners, and small share
working interest owners who alleged underpayment of royalties and
other payments on carbon dioxide produced from the McElmo Dome
unit.

The settlement imposed certain future obligations on the
defendants in the underlying litigation.  The plaintiffs in the
arbitration alleged that, in calculating royalty and other
payments, defendants used a transportation expense in excess of
what is allowed by the settlement agreement, thereby causing
alleged underpayments of approximately $12 million.  The
plaintiffs also alleged that Cortez Pipeline Company should have
used certain funds to further reduce its debt, which, in turn,
would have allegedly increased the value of royalty and other
payments by approximately $0.5 million.  On August 7, 2006, the
arbitration panel issued its opinion finding that defendants did
not breach the settlement agreement.  On June 21, 2007, the New
Mexico federal district court entered final judgment confirming
the August 7, 2006 arbitration decision.

On October 2, 2007, the plaintiffs initiated a second arbitration
(CO2 Committee, Inc. v. Shell CO2 Company, Ltd., aka Kinder Morgan
CO2 Company, L.P., et al.) against Cortez Pipeline Company, Kinder
Morgan CO2 and an ExxonMobil entity.  The second arbitration
asserts claims similar to those asserted in the first arbitration.
A second arbitration panel has convened and a final hearing on the
parties' claims and defenses is expected to occur in 2011.


LITHIA MOTORS: Awaits Arbitration Decision on Alaska Workers' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lithia Motors, Inc., is awaiting outcome of an arbitration held in
September to determine its liability with regards to claims
asserted by the Company's former employees in Alaska, according to
the Company's October 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

On March 22, 2006, seven former employees in Alaska brought suit
against Lithia, captioned Dunham, et al., v. Lithia Support
Services, et al., 3AN-06-6338 Civil, in the Superior Court for the
State of Alaska, seeking overtime wages, additional liquidated
damages and attorney's fees.

The complaint was later amended to include a total of 11 named
plaintiffs.  The court ordered the dispute to arbitration.

In February 2008, the arbitrator granted the plaintiffs' request
to establish a class of plaintiffs consisting of all present and
former service and parts department employees totaling
approximately 150 individuals who were paid on a commission basis.

The Company has filed a motion requesting reconsideration of this
class certification, but the arbitrator died before issuing his
opinion.  The reconsideration sought a ruling whether these
employees or some of these employees are exempt from the
applicable state law that provides for the payment of overtime
under certain circumstances.

Consequently, a replacement arbitrator has been appointed, and
ruled to remove approximately 30 service and parts managers from
the case.  A class action opt-out notice was mailed to the service
and parts employees in October 2009.

Lithia and the plaintiffs have agreed to conduct the arbitration
in two parts.  The first arbitration will determine if liability
exists for Lithia.  This arbitration was conducted on
September 27, 2010, and the Company is currently awaiting a
decision.  If the outcome of this arbitration determines that
valid claims exist, a second arbitration will be conducted to
determine the amount of damages, if any.

Lithia says it intends to vigorously defend the matter, and to
assert available defenses.


MCMILLAN CO: Sued for Misrepresenting Liberty Station Community
---------------------------------------------------------------
10News.com reports a homeowner is suing the developers of Liberty
Station in Point Loma in a class-action lawsuit after she claims
they misrepresented the community where she bought her home.

Arguments are scheduled for November 19 as lawyers representing
homeowner Bonnie Mann face off against The McMillan Company,
asking for certification of a class-action lawsuit.

"There was no disclosure in their paperwork," said Ms. Mann, who
claims that when she bought her Liberty Station home she was led
to believe it would be a quiet community.

After she moved in, Ms. Mann said she heard that megachurch The
Rock Church was moving in across the street.  The church has about
12,000 people attending services on a typical Sunday.

From the moment the church opened, Ms. Mann said there were
problems.

"It was unbelievable: the people, the traffic, the commotion," she
said.  "We couldn't get in and out of our neighborhood."

Ms. Mann said she would like to move out, but said she couldn't
because her home's property value dropped and homes on her street
sit on the market for months.

"Who would purchase on this street or in close proximity to the
church?" she asked.  "Who would purchase a home knowing that there
was constant congestion, noise, pollution [and] litter? We've even
seen an increase in crime in the nearby community . . . [and] had
we known that there was going to be this mess here we would never
have purchased, never."

Nancy Carrasco said she is closely watching what happens with Ms.
Mann's lawsuit.  She is one of 250 original homeowners in Liberty
Station who could join the suit if a judge agrees to give it
class-action status.

"We have no recourse except to go to a class-action lawsuit
against McMillan," she said.

A spokesperson for The McMillan Company declined an interview with
10News but said the developer plans to let the dispute play out in
court.


OKLAHOMA GAS: Remains a Defendant in "Price I" Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
OGE Energy Corp. continues to defend itself in a complaint filed
by Will Price, et al., alleging mismeasurement of natural gas,
according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

On September 24, 1999, various subsidiaries of OGE Energy Corp.
were served with a class action petition filed in the District
Court of Stevens County, Kansas by Quinque Operating Company and
other named plaintiffs alleging the mismeasurement of natural gas
on non-Federal lands.  On April 10, 2003, the court entered an
order denying class certification.

On May 12, 2003, the plaintiffs -- now Will Price, Stixon
Petroleum, Inc., Thomas F. Boles and the Cooper Clark Foundation,
on behalf of themselves and other royalty interest owners -- filed
a motion seeking to file an amended class action petition, and the
court granted the motion on July 28, 2003.  In its Fourth Amended
Petition, Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company and Enogex Inc. were
omitted from the case but two of OGE Energy's other subsidiary
entities remained as defendants.  The plaintiffs' Fourth Amended
Petition seeks class certification and alleges that 60 defendants,
including two of OGE Energy's subsidiary entities, have improperly
measured the volume of natural gas.  The Fourth Amended Petition
asserts theories of civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting,
accounting and unjust enrichment.

In their briefing on class certification, the plaintiffs seek to
also allege a claim for conversion.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified actual damages, attorneys' fees, costs and pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest.  The plaintiffs also reserved
the right to seek punitive damages.

Discovery was conducted on the class certification issues, and the
parties fully briefed these same issues.  A hearing on class
certification issues was held April 1, 2005.  In May 2006, the
court heard oral argument on a motion to intervene filed by
Colorado Consumers Legal Foundation, which is claiming entitlement
to participate in the putative class action.  The court has not
yet ruled on the motion to intervene.

The class certification issues were briefed and argued by the
parties in 2005 and proposed findings of facts and conclusions of
law on class certification were filed in 2007.  On September 18,
2009, the court entered its order denying class certification.  On
October 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed for a rehearing of the
court's denial of class certification.  On February 10, 2010 the
court heard arguments on the rehearing request and by an order
dated March 31, 2010, the court denied the plaintiffs' request for
rehearing.

OGE Energy intends to vigorously defend this action.  At this
time, OGE Energy said it is unable to provide an evaluation of the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome and an estimate of the amount
or range of potential loss to the Company.


OKLAHOMA GAS: Motion to Reconsider Suit Dismissal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company remains a defendant in a lawsuit
commenced by its customers challenging electric bill charges,
according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

On June 19, 2006, two Company customers brought a putative class
action, on behalf of all similarly situated customers, in the
District Court of Creek County, Oklahoma, challenging certain
charges on the Company's electric bills.  The plaintiffs claim
that the Company improperly charged sales tax based on franchise
fee charges paid by its customers.  The plaintiffs also challenge
certain franchise fee charges, contending that such fees are more
than is allowed under Oklahoma law.  The Company's motion for
summary judgment was denied by the trial judge.

In January 2007, the Oklahoma Supreme Court "arrested" the
District Court action until, and if, the propriety of the
complaint of billing practices is determined by the Oklahoma
Corporation Commission.  In September 2008, the plaintiffs filed
an application with the OCC asking the OCC to modify its order
which authorizes the Company to collect the challenged franchise
fee charges.

On December 9, 2009 the OCC issued an order dismissing the
plaintiffs' request for a modification of the 1994 OCC order which
authorized the Company to collect and remit sales tax on franchise
fee charges.  In its December 9, 2009 order, the OCC advised the
plaintiffs that the ruling does not address the question of
whether the Company's collection and remittance of such sales tax
should be discontinued prospectively.

On April 19, 2010, the OCC issued a final order dismissing with
prejudice the applicants' claims for recovery of previously paid
taxes on franchise fees and approving the closing of this matter.
On June 10, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion in the District
Court of Creek County, Oklahoma, asking the court to proceed with
the original class action.  On July 8, 2010, a hearing in this
matter was held and the court granted the plaintiffs motion to
lift the stay of discovery previously imposed by the Oklahoma
Supreme Court but denied any other specific relief pending further
action by the court.

On August 4, 2010, the Company filed an application to assume
original jurisdiction and a petition for a writ of prohibition
with the Oklahoma Supreme Court.  On September 13, 2010, the
Oklahoma Supreme Court issued a writ prohibiting the District
Court judge from proceeding further in this case except to dismiss
the case.  On September 20, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
reconsider this matter with the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

While the Company cannot predict the precise outcome of this
lawsuit, based on the information known at this time, the Company
believes that this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect
on its financial position or results of operations.


OMNICARE INC: Calif. Court to Hear Dismissal Motion on Dec. 3
-------------------------------------------------------------
Omnicare, Inc. is defending itself from a lawsuit stemming from a
deal the company made to promote products made by Johnson &
Johnson Corp., according to its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 28, 2010.

On April 2, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit, entitled
Spindler, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson Corp., Omnicare, Inc. and
Does 1-10, Case No. CV-10-1414, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, against Johnson & Johnson, the Company and
certain unnamed defendants asserting violations of federal
antitrust law and California unfair competition law arising out of
certain arrangements between J&J and the Company.

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Company violated
these laws by entering into agreements with J&J to promote J&J
products.

On June 28, 2010, J&J and the Company filed motions to dismiss the
complaint claiming that plaintiffs failed to state a claim.

In response, plaintiffs agreed to withdraw their complaint and
filed an amended complaint on July 21, 2010.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
October 6, 2010.

A hearing on the motion is scheduled for December 3, 2010.


OMNICARE INC: Indiana Suit Plaintiffs Appeals Case Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a putative class-action lawsuit that was filed in
the Indiana District Court are still awaiting the Supreme Court's
response over their writ of certiorari regarding the District
Court's dismissal of their lawsuit.

On Feb. 2, 2006, a putative class-action lawsuit entitled,
"Indiana State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers Pension
& Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No. 2:06cv26" was
filed against Omnicare and two of its officers in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

On Feb. 13, 2006, a substantially similar putative class action
lawsuit was filed, entitled, "Chi v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No.
2:06cv31."

The suits purport to assert claims for violation of Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seek, among other things,
compensatory damages and injunctive relief.

The complaints, which purported to be brought on behalf of all
open-market purchasers of Omnicare common stock from Aug. 3,
2005 through Jan. 27, 2006, alleged that Omnicare had
artificially inflated its earnings by engaging in improper
generic drug substitution and that defendants had made false and
misleading statements regarding the company's business and
prospects.

On April 3, 2006, plaintiffs in the HOD Carriers case formally
moved for consolidation and the appointment of lead plaintiff
and lead counsel under the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995.  On May 22, 2006, that motion was granted, the
cases were consolidated, and a lead plaintiff and lead counsel
were appointed.

On July 20, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, adding a third officer as a defendant and new factual
allegations primarily relating to revenue recognition, the
valuation of receivables and the valuation of inventories.

On Oct. 31, 2006, plaintiffs moved for leave to file a second
amended complaint, which was granted on Jan. 26, 2007, on the
condition that no further amendments would be permitted absent
extraordinary circumstances. Plaintiffs then filed their second
amended complaint on Jan. 29, 2007.

The second amended complaint:

   (i) expands the putative class to include all purchasers of
       Omnicare common stock from Aug. 3, 2005 through July 27,
       2006,

  (ii) names two members of the company's board of directors as
       additional defendants,

(iii) adds a new plaintiff and a new claim for violation of
       Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on alleged
       false and misleading statements in the registration
       statement filed in connection with the company's December
       2005 public offering,

  (iv) alleges that the company failed to timely disclose its
       contractual dispute with UnitedHealth, and

   (v) alleges that the company failed to timely record certain
       special litigation reserves.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint on March 12, 2007, claiming that plaintiffs had failed
adequately to plead loss causation, scienter or any actionable
misstatement or omission.  That motion was fully briefed at
May 1, 2007.

In response to certain arguments relating to the individual
claims of the named plaintiffs that were raised in defendants'
pending motion to dismiss, plaintiffs filed a motion to add, or
in the alternative, to intervene an additional named plaintiff,
Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, on July 27, 2007.

On Oct. 12, 2007, the court issued an opinion and order
dismissing the case and denying plaintiffs' motion to add an
additional named plaintiff.

On Nov. 9, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit with respect to
the dismissal of their case.

Oral argument was held on September 18, 2008.  On October 21,
2009, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals generally affirmed the
district court's dismissal, dismissing plaintiff's claims for
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, as well as affirming the denial of
Alaskan Electrical Pension Fund's motion to intervene.  However,
the appellate court reversed the dismissal of the claim brought
for violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933,
remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings,
including application of the rule requiring plaintiffs to allege
fraud with particularity to their Section 11 claim.

On November 3, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion in the Court of
Appeals seeking a rehearing or a rehearing en banc with respect to
a single aspect of the Court's decision, namely, whether the
federal rule requiring pleading with particularity should apply to
their claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act.

On December 16, 2009, that petition was denied, and on January 13,
2010, that Court issued its mandate by which the Section 11 claim
was remanded to the district court for further proceedings
consistent with the decision and order of October 21, 2009.

At a conference on March 4, 2010, the district court stayed
further proceedings pending the resolution of plaintiffs'
anticipated petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of
certiorari.

Plaintiffs filed their petition for a writ of certiorari on
May 14, 2010.  The petition is now fully briefed and awaiting
determination.

On October 4, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court invited the Solicitor
General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States
with respect to the petition.


ONTARIO: Compensation Payments Sought for Hepatitis C Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Burden, writing for QMI Agency, reports for the past
year, Susan Boismier has been trying to claim a paycheque for her
life.  But the 51-year-old born-and-raised Orillian with hepatitis
C is running into a brick wall -- the federal government.

Ms. Boismier is trying to appeal her denied claim for $162,155 in
compensation through a class-action settlement.

To her, the money would make all the difference in the world.

"Yes, to me it's a lot of money," she said on Tuesday.  "But to
me, if that's the price tag the government puts on a life, you
aren't worth too damn much."

Ms Boismier's story started nearly 30 years ago.

She was officially diagnosed with the infectious disease in 1991
after consulting her doctor about persistent headaches while
living in New Brunswick.  After her doctor thoroughly screened
her, he told her she had hepatitis C and asked whether she had
received any blood transfusions in the past, Ms. Boismier
recalled.

Her memory immediately flashed back to her hometown.  In May 1982,
Ms. Boismier received a blood transfusion at Orillia Soldiers'
Memorial after hemorrhaging during the birth or her son by
c-section.

Upon returning to Orillia after her diagnosis, Ms. Boismier
investigated compensation payments advertised in the media.  She
submitted claims to the Ontario Hepatitis C Assistance Plan
(OHCAP,) which provided payment to people who contracted hepatitis
C through the blood system in Ontario.  She received financial
compensation from the province in 1998 and 2000 totaling $25,000.

In 2003, she received another $10,000 in two separate checks after
her application to the Canadian Red Cross Society for its court-
approved settlement of pre-1986/post-1990 hepatitis C claims
against the CRCS.

All three times, the administrators of the funds told her they
confirmed through tracebacks that she contracted hepatitis C from
her blood transfusion, Ms. Boismier said.

"They look back at where the transfusion was received, the batch
of blood it was, and they can tell by the batch of blood if it was
tainted or not."

All $35,000 of that compensation money has since helped her get
by, Ms. Boismier said.  She currently works the night shift four
days a week at a Tim Hortons in Gravenhurst, which she said
doesn't pay much.  For the past three years, she has been living
with her 28-year-old son in Rama because she can't afford to pay
rent for her own place.

"I have two kids and five grand-kids.  I can't leave my kids
anything because I can't even get life insurance (because I have
hepatitis C,)" she said.  "If I wasn't living with my son, I'd be
living in my car.  There is no way I can afford even my own little
place at what I'm making."

Treatment for hepatitis C is out of the question, she said,
because the injections needed are $24,000 alone and take 11 months
to work.

Ms. Boismier was thrilled when she heard about the federal
government's $1-billion compensation package, which came in the
form of a pre-1986/post-1990 hepatitis C class-action settlement
agreement approved by the courts in June 2007.

Crawford Class Action Services was selected as the administrator
for the compensation fund.  The firm established procedures to
receive applications and provide compensation payments to approved
applicants.  In August 2007, the plan was implemented.

It took Ms. Boismier nine months to complete the necessary blood
work, biopsies and paperwork required to submit a claim to the
class action.  She submitted her application in April 2008.

Ms. Boismier kept calling the administrator to check in and said
she was told they were just waiting for her blood traceback to
return.  If all went well, the firm expected to give her $162,115
because she was a Level 3 claimant on an illness scale of 1-6, she
recalled.

But in March 2009, her hopes started to dim.

Ms. Boismier received a letter from Crawford Class Action Services
stating that her claim would be rejected unless she could provide
further evidence that she was infected for the first time with
hepatitis C by blood received in Canada during the class period.

According to traceback results they'd received from Canadian Blood
Services, both units of blood used for the transfusion in May 1982
came back negative for the hepatitis C virus (HCV).

"According to the results, the HCV antibody was not present in any
of the blood or blood products received in the class period,"
stated the letter.

Ms. Boismier was given the opportunity to submit any further
evidence within six months that would prove she was infected for
the first time by tainted blood during the class period.

She didn't send Crawford Class Action Services any additional
evidence within those six months.  Then, Ms. Boismier was sent
another letter in October 2009 stating her claim was denied.  She
was provided with the opportunity to appeal the decision within 30
days.

With the help of Orillia lawyer Tim Anderson, that is what she has
been doing ever since.

Mr. Anderson has extended the appeal period time and time again,
but has yet to be able to track down any of the tracebacks that
qualified her to receive her first three compensation payments
from the province and CRCS.

North-Simcoe MPP Garfield Dunlop said it sounds like a very
complicated situation, but before the provincial government gave
out anything, it would have analyzed the individual cases very
carefully.

"That was a very contentious file to begin with because of the
tainted blood, etc.  With so much attention paid to that file, I
would just assume, and I could be wrong, but overall, I think that
would be something that would be looked at under a microscope."

Nancy Killam, senior project manager for Crawford Class Action
Services, could not comment on specific cases for confidentiality
reasons.

"If anyone is denied from the program, then they get their denial
letter and they are offered the right to appeal," Ms. Killam said.
"People either receive an approval letter or a rejection letter.
In the rejection letter, the appeal process is explained.  If they
decide to appeal within their appeal period told to them on their
letter, the appeal is forwarded on and we wait for a decision on
it."

As of Oct. 22, 2010, Crawford Class Action Services has received
15,844 claims, approved 12,073 claims (76%), rejected 1,356 claims
(8%) and issued a total compensation amount of $803,483,722.


ONTARIO: Class Action Over Huronia Abuses May Proceed to Trial
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the Crown's motion
for leave to appeal on Monday, eliminating the final procedural
hurdle for a class action to proceed to trial against the Province
of Ontario.  The class action arises from alleged abuses suffered
by former residents of the Huronia Regional Centre, a government
institution in Orillia, Ontario, for people living with
developmental disabilities.

Kirk Baert of Koskie Minsky LLP, representing the plaintiffs, is
pleased about the court's decision and looks forward to the class
action giving a voice to these institutional survivors.

"Now that the procedural hurdles for this class action are behind
us," said Mr. Baert, "we are looking forward to moving to trial to
seek justice for the former residents of Huronia and to bring the
alleged abuses and maltreatment they suffered to light."

The class action is based on allegations that residents suffered
inhumane treatment and abuse in that institution from 1945 to 2009
and that Ontario's failure to properly care for and protect class
members resulted in loss or injury suffered by them.  The
allegations include severe mental and physical abuse such as
punishment for "acting out," rooms unnecessarily locked creating a
prison-like environment, unnecessarily medicating the residents
and forcing residents to work without pay.

The class action is based upon the Ontario government's alleged
negligence and breach of fiduciary duties in the operation,
control and management of Huronia from 1945 to 2009, in particular
for allowing the alleged abuses to occur unchecked for decades.

The Crown argued in its motion for leave to appeal that class
members could not sue the Ontario government prior to 1963, the
date when the Proceedings Against the Crown Act (PACA) was
enacted.  Justice Herman ruled that there was no reason to doubt
the correctness of the decision certifying the action as a class
proceeding and holding that PACA does not bar claims for breach of
fiduciary duty prior to 1963.   Accordingly, Huronia residents
from 1945 to 1963 may continue to participate in the class action,
along with those who resided there after 1963 until its closure in
2009.  The decision clears the way for the class action to proceed
to trial representing former residents from 1945 to 2009.

The representative plaintiffs, Marie Slark and Patricia Seth, and
their litigation guardians commenced this action in April 2009
seeking to represent all former residents of Huronia and their
families.  The institution survivors have been gratified by the
pace of this action and the respect accorded to their issues by
the judiciary.  Koskie Minsky LLP represents the plaintiffs in
this action.  Koskie Minsky LLP has successfully represented
plaintiffs in many of the most significant class actions in
Canada.

On the Net: http://www.institutionalsurvivors.com/

Contact:

     KOSKIE MINSKY LLP
     Telephone: (416) 595-2700
     E-mail: huroniaclassaction@kmlaw.ca


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Sued for Misleading Advertising Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Orbitz Worldwide charges
undisclosed fees for airline tickets, a class action claims in
Suffolk County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Shea v. Orbitz Worldwide, Inc.,
Index No. _____ (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/10/Orbitz.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth M. Mollins, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH M. MOLLINS, P.C.
          425 Broadhollow Road, Suite 205
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 608-4100


PSCO: Xcel, et al., to Oppose Writ of Mandamus Requesting Review
----------------------------------------------------------------
Xcel Energy Inc., et al., intend to oppose a writ of mandamus
filed by class action plaintiffs with the Supreme Court, according
to the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

In 2006, Xcel Energy, the parent company of Public Service Company
of Colorado, received notice of a purported class action lawsuit
filed in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of
Mississippi.  The lawsuit names more than 45 oil, chemical and
utility companies, including Xcel Energy, as defendants and
alleges that defendants' CO2 emissions "were a proximate and
direct cause of the increase in the destructive capacity of
Hurricane Katrina."  Plaintiffs allege negligence and public and
private nuisance and seek damages related to the loss resulting
from the hurricane.  Xcel Energy believes this lawsuit is without
merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against these
claims.

In August 2007, the court dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety
against all defendants on constitutional grounds.  Plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit.  In October 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit reversed the district court decision, in part,
concluding that the plaintiffs pleaded sufficient facts to
overcome the constitutional challenges that formed the basis for
dismissal by the district court.  A subsequent petition by
defendants, including Xcel Energy, for en banc review was granted.

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

Plaintiffs subsequently filed with the U.S. Supreme Court a writ
of mandamus, which is a procedure requesting the court to order
the Fifth Circuit to review plaintiffs' earlier appeal.
Defendants intend to oppose this request.


REVLON INC: Stays Two Lawsuits to Allow Merits Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------
Two lawsuits filed against Revlon, Inc., have been stayed until
December to allow for a merits discovery in a consolidated class
action complaint in Delaware Chancery Court, according to the
Company's October 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2010.

On October 8, 2009, the Company consummated its voluntary exchange
offer in which, among other things, Revlon, Inc. issued to
stockholders -- other than MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings Inc. --
9,336,905 shares of its Preferred Stock in exchange for the same
number of shares of Revlon, Inc. Class A Common Stock tendered in
the Exchange Offer.

Revlon, Inc. is a direct and indirect majority-owned subsidiary of
MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings.

On April 24, 2009, May 1, 2009, May 5, 2009 and May 12, 2009,
respectively, four purported class actions were filed by each of
Vern Mercier, Arthur Jurkowitz, Suri Lefkowitz and T. Walter
Heiser in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

On May 4, 2009, a purported class action was filed by Stanley E.
Sullivan in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County.

Each lawsuit was brought against Revlon, Inc., Revlon, Inc.'s then
directors and MacAndrews & Forbes, and challenged a merger
proposal made by MacAndrews & Forbes on April 13, 2009, which
would have resulted in MacAndrews & Forbes and certain of its
affiliates owning 100% of Revlon, Inc.'s outstanding Common Stock.

Each action sought, among other things, to enjoin the proposed
transaction.

On June 24, 2009, the Chancery Court consolidated the four
Delaware actions referred to as the "Initial Consolidated Action,"
and appointed lead counsel for plaintiffs.

As announced on August 10, 2009, an agreement in principle was
reached to settle the Initial Consolidated Action, as set forth in
a Memorandum of Understanding, as amended in September 2009.

On December 24, 2009, an amended complaint was filed in the
Sullivan action alleging, among other things, that defendants
should have disclosed in the Company's Offer to Exchange
information regarding the Company's financial results for the
fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009.

On January 6, 2010, an amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs
in the Initial Consolidated Action making allegations similar to
those in the amended Sullivan complaint.  Revlon initially
believed that by filing the amended complaint, plaintiffs in the
Initial Consolidated Action had formally repudiated the Settlement
Agreement, and on January 8, 2010, defendants filed a motion to
enforce the Settlement Agreement.

In addition to the amended complaints in the Initial Consolidated
Action and the Sullivan action, on December 21, 2009, Revlon,
Inc.'s current directors, a former director and MacAndrews &
Forbes were named as defendants in a purported class action filed
in the Chancery Court by Edward Gutman.

Also on December 21, 2009, a second purported class action was
filed in the Chancery Court against Revlon, Inc.'s current
directors and a former director by Lawrence Corneck.

The Gutman and Corneck actions make allegations similar to those
in the amended complaints in the Sullivan action and the Initial
Consolidated Action.

On January 15, 2010, the Chancery Court consolidated the Gutman
and Corneck actions with the Initial Consolidated Action.  A
briefing schedule was then set to determine the leadership
structure for plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action.

On March 16, 2010, after hearing oral argument on the leadership
issue, the Chancery Court changed the leadership structure for
plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action.  Thereafter, newly
appointed counsel for the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action
and the defendants agreed that the defendants would withdraw their
motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement and that merits
discovery would proceed.  Defendants agreed not to withdraw any of
the concessions that had been provided to the plaintiffs as part
of the Settlement Agreement.

On May 25, 2010, plaintiffs' counsel in the Consolidated Action
filed an amended complaint alleging breaches of fiduciary duties
arising out of the Exchange Offer and that defendants should have
disclosed in the Company's Offer to Exchange information regarding
the Company's financial results for the fiscal quarter ended
September 30, 2009.  Merits discovery is now proceeding in the
Consolidated Action.

On December 31, 2009, a purported class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware by John Garofalo
against Revlon, Inc., Revlon, Inc.'s current directors, a former
director and MacAndrews & Forbes alleging federal and state law
claims stemming from the alleged failure to disclose in the Offer
to Exchange certain information relating to the Company's
financial results for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2009.
Defendants and plaintiffs have agreed to stay proceedings in this
action until December 15, 2010, to permit plaintiffs to
participate in the merits discovery in the Consolidated Action.  A
similar agreement has been reached with plaintiffs in the Sullivan
action, although the stay is in effect until December 17, 2010.

Plaintiffs in each of these actions are seeking, among other
things, an award of damages and the costs and disbursements of
such actions, including a reasonable allowance for the fees and
expenses of each such plaintiff's attorneys and experts.  The
Company believes the allegations contained in the amended Sullivan
complaint, the amended complaint in the Consolidated Action, and
the Garofalo complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend against them.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Nominal Trial Date in "Collora" on Jan. 10
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc., in its Oct. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2010, discloses that while nominal trial date of
Jan. 10, 2011 has been scheduled in the matter Collora v. R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co., it does not expect trial to proceed at that
time.

"Lights" class-action cases are pending against R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company or Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., in Illinois
(2), Missouri (2), Minnesota (2), New Mexico (1) and Arizona (1).
The classes in these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to
$75,000 per class member for compensatory and punitive damages,
injunctive and other forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and
costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W.

In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made
false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were lower in
tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less mutagenic than
other cigarettes. The cases typically are filed pursuant to state
consumer protection and related statutes.

Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that
"lights" class-action case pending against Altria Group, Inc. and
Philip Morris USA, on Dec. 15, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court
decided that these claims are not preempted by the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade
Commission's historic regulation of the industry.  Since this
decision, a number of the stayed cases have become active again.

A "lights" class-action case is pending against each of RJR
Tobacco and B&W in Missouri.

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

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

On April 16, 2008, the court stayed the case pending U.S. Supreme
Court review in Good v. Altria Group, Inc.  A nominal trial date
of Jan. 10, 2011 has been scheduled, but it is not expected to
proceed at that time.

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


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Nominal Trial Date in "Black" Action Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc., in its Oct. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2010, discloses that while nominal trial date of
Jan. 10, 2011 has been scheduled in the matter Black v. Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp., it does not expect trial to proceed at
that time.

"Lights" class-action cases are pending against R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company or Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., in Illinois
(2), Missouri (2), Minnesota (2), New Mexico (1) and Arizona (1).
The classes in these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to
$75,000 per class member for compensatory and punitive damages,
injunctive and other forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and
costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W.

In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made
false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were lower in
tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less mutagenic than
other cigarettes. The cases typically are filed pursuant to state
consumer protection and related statutes.

Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that
"lights" class-action case pending against Altria Group, Inc. and
Philip Morris USA, on Dec. 15, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court
decided that these claims are not preempted by the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade
Commission's historic regulation of the industry.  Since this
decision, a number of the stayed cases have become active again.

In Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., a case filed in
November 2000 in Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, B&W
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri on Sept. 23, 2005.

On Oct. 25, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, which
was granted on March 17, 2006.  On April 16, 2008, the court
stayed the case pending U.S. Supreme Court review in Good v.
Altria Group, Inc.

A nominal trial date of Jan. 10, 2011, has been scheduled, but it
is not expected to proceed at that time.

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


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Dahl" Action in Minnesota Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
The matter Dahl v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota remains stayed,
according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Oct. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

"Lights" class-action cases are pending against R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company or Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., in Illinois
(2), Missouri (2), Minnesota (2), New Mexico (1) and Arizona (1).
The classes in these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to
$75,000 per class member for compensatory and punitive damages,
injunctive and other forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and
costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W.

In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made
false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were lower in
tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less mutagenic than
other cigarettes. The cases typically are filed pursuant to state
consumer protection and related statutes.

Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that
"lights" class-action case pending against Altria Group, Inc. and
Philip Morris USA, on Dec. 15, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court
decided that these claims are not preempted by the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade
Commission's historic regulation of the industry.  Since this
decision, a number of the stayed cases have become active again.

In Dahl v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in April 2003,
and pending in District Court, Hennepin County, Minnesota, a judge
dismissed the case on May 11, 2005, ruling the "lights" claims are
preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act.

On July 11, 2005, the plaintiffs appealed to the Minnesota Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Judicial District.

During the pendency of the appeal, RJR Tobacco removed the case to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

On Feb. 28, 2007, the Eighth Circuit remanded the case to the
Minnesota Court of Appeals, which on Dec. 4, 2007, reversed the
judgment and remanded the case to the District Court.

On Jan. 20, 2009, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued an order
vacating the Feb. 27, 2008, order that granted RJR Tobacco's
petition for review.

On July 22, 2009, the plaintiffs in this case and in Thompson v.
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., filed a motion to consolidate for
discovery and trial.

On Oct. 7, 2009, the court companioned the two cases and reserved
its ruling on the motion to consolidate, which it said will be
reevaluated as discovery progresses.

On Feb. 26, 2010, a stipulation and order was entered to stay
proceedings in this case, and in Thompson.

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


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Thompson" Likely to Remain Active in 2010
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc., in its Oct. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2010, discloses that the matter Thompson v. R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co., is likely to remain active through 2010.

"Lights" class-action cases are pending against R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company or Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., in Illinois
(2), Missouri (2), Minnesota (2), New Mexico (1) and Arizona (1).
The classes in these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to
$75,000 per class member for compensatory and punitive damages,
injunctive and other forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and
costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W.

In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made
false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were lower in
tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less mutagenic than
other cigarettes. The cases typically are filed pursuant to state
consumer protection and related statutes.

Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that
"lights" class-action case pending against Altria Group, Inc. and
Philip Morris USA, on Dec. 15, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court
decided that these claims are not preempted by the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade
Commission's historic regulation of the industry.  Since this
decision, a number of the stayed cases have become active again.

In Thompson v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in
February 2005 in District Court, Hennepin County, Minnesota, RJR
Tobacco removed the case on Sept. 23, 2005, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota.

On Aug. 7, 2006, the parties filed a stipulation to stay the case
pending resolution of the appeal in Dahl v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co.  On Oct. 29, 2007, the U.S. District Court remanded the case
to the District Court for Hennepin County.

In May 2009, the court entered an agreed scheduling order that
bifurcates merits and class certification discovery; and the
parties are engaged in class certification discovery.  This case
is likely to remain active through 2010.

On July 22, 2009, the plaintiffs in this case and in Dahl v. R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co. filed a motion to consolidate for discovery
and trial.  On Oct. 7, 2009, the court companioned the two cases
and reserved its ruling on the motion to consolidate, which it
said will be reevaluated as discovery progresses.

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


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Cleary" Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter Cleary v. Philip Morris, Inc., have
filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit in connection with the dismissal of their case,
according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Oct. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

"Lights" class-action cases are pending against R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company or Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., in Illinois
(2), Missouri (2), Minnesota (2), New Mexico (1) and Arizona (1).
The classes in these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to
$75,000 per class member for compensatory and punitive damages,
injunctive and other forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and
costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W.

In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made
false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were lower in
tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less mutagenic than
other cigarettes. The cases typically are filed pursuant to state
consumer protection and related statutes.

Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that
"lights" class-action case pending against Altria Group, Inc. and
Philip Morris USA, on Dec. 15, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court
decided that these claims are not preempted by the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade
Commission's historic regulation of the industry.  Since this
decision, a number of the stayed cases have become active again.

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

The case was brought on behalf of persons who have allegedly been
injured by (1) the defendants' purported conspiracy pursuant to
which defendants concealed material facts regarding the addictive
nature of nicotine, (2) the defendants' alleged acts of targeting
their advertising and marketing to minors, and (3) the defendants'
claimed breach of the public right to defendants' compliance with
the laws prohibiting the distribution of cigarettes to minors.

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

On March 27, 2006, the court dismissed count V, public nuisance,
and count VI, unjust enrichment.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 3, 2009, to add
a claim of unjust enrichment and to include in the class
individuals who smoked "light" cigarettes.  RJR Tobacco and B&W
answered the amended complaint on March 31, 2009.

On July 5, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an additional motion for
class certification.

On Sept. 8, 2009, the court granted the defendants' motion for
summary judgment on the pleadings concerning the "lights" claims
as to all defendants other than Philip Morris.

On Oct. 30, 2009, certain defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment on plaintiffs' youth-marketing claims.  On Feb. 22, 2010,
the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification of
all three putative classes.

However, the court ruled that the plaintiffs may reinstate the
class dealing with the conspiracy to conceal the addictive nature
of nicotine if they identify a new class representative.  On April
18, 2010, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to file a
fourth amended complaint and withdraw the motion to reinstate
count I by identifying a new plaintiff.

On May 7, 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint, which was granted on
June 22, 2010.

On July 22, 2010, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
reconsider.  On Aug. 20, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

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


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Discovery in "VanDyke" Action Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the matter VanDyke v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., is
underway, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Oct. 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

"Lights" class-action cases are pending against R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company or Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., in Illinois
(2), Missouri (2), Minnesota (2), New Mexico (1) and Arizona (1).
The classes in these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to
$75,000 per class member for compensatory and punitive damages,
injunctive and other forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and
costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W.

In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made
false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were lower in
tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less mutagenic than
other cigarettes. The cases typically are filed pursuant to state
consumer protection and related statutes.

Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that
"lights" class-action case pending against Altria Group, Inc. and
Philip Morris USA, on Dec. 15, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court
decided that these claims are not preempted by the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade
Commission's historic regulation of the industry.  Since this
decision, a number of the stayed cases have become active again.

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

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

Discovery is underway.

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


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Shaffer" Suit Discovery Underway
----------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the matter Shaffer v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., is
underway, according to Reynolds American Inc.'s Oct. 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010.

"Lights" class-action cases are pending against R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company or Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., in Illinois
(2), Missouri (2), Minnesota (2), New Mexico (1) and Arizona (1).
The classes in these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to
$75,000 per class member for compensatory and punitive damages,
injunctive and other forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and
costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W.

In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made
false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were lower in
tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less mutagenic than
other cigarettes.  The cases typically are filed pursuant to state
consumer protection and related statutes.

Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that
"lights" class-action case pending against Altria Group, Inc. and
Philip Morris USA, on Dec. 15, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court
decided that these claims are not preempted by the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade
Commission's historic regulation of the industry.  Since this
decision, a number of the stayed cases have become active again.

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

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

On Nov. 13, 2009, the defendants removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona.

On Nov. 30, 2009, RJR Tobacco and RAI filed their answers to the
complaint.  Discovery is underway.

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


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Young" Action in Louisiana Still Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc., in its Oct. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2010, relates that the matter Young v. American
Tobacco Co., Inc., remains stayed.

In Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in November
1997 in Circuit Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, the plaintiffs
brought an exposure to environmental tobacco smoke class action
against U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including Reynolds Tobacco
Company and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., and parent
companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, on
behalf of all residents of Louisiana who, though not themselves
cigarette smokers, have been exposed to secondhand smoke from
cigarettes which were manufactured by the defendants, and who
allegedly suffered injury as a result of that exposure. The
plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory
and punitive damages.

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

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


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Parsons" Suit in West Virginia Still Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The matter Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., filed in the Circuit Court,
Ohio County, West Virginia, remains stayed.

In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., a case filed in February 1998 in
Circuit Court, Ohio County, West Virginia, the plaintiff sued
asbestos manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including
Reynolds Tobacco Company and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc.,
and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including
RJR, seeking to recover $1 million in compensatory and punitive
damages individually and an unspecified amount for the class in
both compensatory and punitive damages.

The class was brought on behalf of persons who allegedly have
personal injury claims arising from their exposure to respirable
asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke.

The plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Parsons' use of tobacco products
and exposure to asbestos products caused her to develop lung
cancer and to become addicted to tobacco.

The case has been stayed pending a final resolution of the
plaintiffs' motion to refer tobacco litigation to the judicial
panel on multidistrict litigation filed in In Re: Tobacco
Litigation in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

On Dec. 26, 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc.,
Desseaux Corporation of North American and Armstrong World
Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World
Industries, Inc.  Pursuant to section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy
Code, Parsons is automatically stayed with respect to all
defendants.

No updates were reported in Reynolds American Inc.'s Oct. 28,
2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2010

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


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Jones" Suit Remains Pending in Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------
The matter Jones v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., remains pending in
the Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri.

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

The action was brought against the major U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, and parent companies
of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, by tobacco product
users and purchasers on behalf of all similarly situated Missouri
consumers.

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

The case was remanded to the Circuit Court on February 17, 1999.

There has been limited activity in this case, according to
Reynolds American Inc.'s Oct. 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2010

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


ROCKING HORSE: Recalls 1,200 Rocking Horses
-------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Rocking Horse Depot, of Buckeye, Ariz., announced a voluntary
recall of 1,200 Rocking Horses.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The reins on the rocking horse bridle are long enough to form a
loop around a child's head and neck, posing a strangulation hazard
to young children.

CPSC has received one report of a near strangulation incident
involving a 21-month old girl who became entangled in the reins at
her neck.  The girl's parents freed her without injury.

This recall involves Rocking Horse Depot's small, medium and large
rocking horses with bridles.  The rocking horse has a hardwood
frame and is covered with synthetic hide.  Each rocking horse has
fluffy mane and tail, and a leather Rocking Horse Depot emblem on
the right side of the saddle.  Pictures of the recalled products
are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11035.html

The recalled products were manufactured in Poland and sold through
RockingHorseDepot.com from November 2006 through December 2009 for
between $105 and $185.

Consumers should immediately remove or cut the reins to eliminate
the hazard.  Consumers can also contact Rocking Horse Depot for
instructions on how to remove the reins.  For more information,
please contact Rocking Horse Depot collect at (623) 302-6313
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Mountain Times, Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.rockinghorsedepot.com/


ROVI CORP: Appeal on Dismissal of "Subscription" Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
On August 11, 2009, John Burke filed a purported class action
lawsuit claiming that the Rovi Corp.'s former subsidiary, TV Guide
Magazine, breached agreements with its subscribers and violated
consumer protection laws with its practice of counting double
issues toward the number of issues in a subscription.

On September 10, 2009, the Company filed an answer to the
complaint along with a petition to remove the case to federal
court.

On December 18, 2009, the case was dismissed with prejudice, and
plaintiff has filed an appeal of that dismissal.

No further updates were reported in the company's Oct. 28, 2010,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010.


SANFORD BROWN: Nov. 15 Hearing Set for Fraud Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
several former Sanford Brown College students are asking a Madison
County judge to certify a class action against the college and its
corporate parent.

The lead plaintiffs, Jenna and Jessica Lilley as well as several
others, claim that Sanford Brown and parent Career Education Corp.
misled them and other students in the school's medical assistant's
program about the value of their degree and what careers it could
lead to.

The proposed class would include 2,300 students in the medical
assistant's program at the school's Collinsville campus.

The defendants have denied the claims and have previously tried to
have the case dismissed.

A hearing is set for 10:00 a.m. on Nov. 15 before Circuit Judge
Daniel Stack.

Most recently, Sanford Brown successfully argued to have common
law fraud allegations tossed from the suit at an Oct. 27 hearing.

Judge Stack agreed with Sanford Brown that the state's Private
Business and Vocational Schools Act did not extend to allow fraud
counts.

He denied the rest of the defense motion to dismiss the entire
case.

The plaintiffs are represented by Corey Sullivan of St. Louis.

John Richmond and others represent Sanford Brown and Career
Education Corp.

Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder previously helmed the
case.

The case is Madison case number 08-L-113.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Remains a Defendant in Del. "Antitrust" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seacor Holdings Inc. continues to defend itself against a class
action alleging antitrust laws violation, according to the
company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On June 12, 2009, a purported civil class action was filed against
SEACOR, Era Group Inc., Era Aviation, Inc., Era Helicopters LLC
and two other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware, Superior Offshore International, Inc. v.
Bristow Group Inc., et al., No. 09-CV-438 (D.Del.).  SEACOR
acquired Era Group Inc., Era Aviation, Inc., and Era Helicopters
LLC in December 2004.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated federal
antitrust laws by conspiring with each other to raise, fix,
maintain or stabilize prices for offshore helicopter services in
the U.S. Gulf of Mexico during the period January 2001 to December
2005.  The purported class of plaintiffs includes all direct
purchasers of such services and the relief sought includes
compensatory damages and treble damages.

On September 14, 2010, the District Court entered an order
dismissing the complaint.  On September 28, 2010, the plaintiffs
filed a motion for reconsideration and amendment and motion for
re-argument.  On October 12, 2010, Defendants opposed the Motions.
The District Court has yet to rule on the Motions.

The Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any,
resulting from these claims but believes they are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend the action.


SEARS ROEBUCK: 7th Cir. Reverses Class Certification Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports
U.S. Seventh Circuit appeals judges accused lawyers Clinton
Krislov and Mark Boling of tactics close to extortion in a class
action against retailer Sears Roebuck, and they backed up the
accusation with a letter from Boling himself.

They attached it to a Nov. 2 opinion enjoining him and Mr. Krislov
from pursuing a class action that the Seventh Circuit previously
rejected.

"As we progress through the various significant stages of this
litigation, the cost of settlement will necessarily increase,"
Boling wrote after District Judge Claudia Wilken of Oakland,
Calif. authorized discovery in a similar action against Sears.

"There can be no vindication for defendants in this case, only
damage control," Mr. Boling wrote.

"At this point, we may want to consider whether an appropriate
olive branch for resolution can be mutually created on a class
wide basis commensurate with the status of the case," he wrote.

"I trust that good business judgment will prevail by all parties,"
he wrote.

Circuit Judge Richard Posner stopped short of calling the letter
extortion, but he used the word four times in a broad assault on
class action abuse.

Mr. Krislov client Steven Thorogood of Tennessee originally sued
Sears in Illinois state court, claiming it falsely advertised
stainless steel drums on Kenmore clothes dryers.

Mr. Thorogood alleged that part of the front of the drum was made
of steel with a ceramic coat rather than with chromium that would
make it stainless.

He claimed the drum rusted and the rust stained his clothes.

He sought to represent half a million dryer buyers in 28 states.

Sears removed the suit to federal court in Chicago, where District
Judge Harry Leinenweber certified it as a class action.

Seventh Circuit judges reversed Judge Leinenweber and ordered him
to decertify it.

Judge Posner's current opinion summarized the earlier one by
calling the case a notably weak candidate for class treatment.

"It was well nigh inconceivable that the other members of the
class had the same understanding of Sears's advertising as
Thorogood claimed to have," he wrote.

Stainless steel doesn't rust but ceramic doesn't rust either, he
wrote.

Judge Posner branded Mr. Thorogood's concerns as a confabulation.

After the Seventh Circuit decertified the action, Sears offered
Mr. Thorogood $20,000 in damages and attorney fees.

Judge Leinenweber dismissed the suit because the offer exceeded a
$3,000 limit on damages under Tennessee consumer fraud law.

Mr. Thorogood appealed for reimbursement of $246,000 in attorney
fees, but the Seventh Circuit rejected his argument that the
settlement offer vindicated his claim.

"The argument for attorneys' fees was beyond weak," Judge Posner
wrote.

"Sears was paying to rid itself of a nuisance," he wrote.

Judge Posner wrote that Mr. Krislov told Judge Leinenweber he
needed a judgment on the individual claim so he could preclude
Sears from defending itself in other courts.

Mr. Krislov "was already planning to circumvent our order
decertifying the class by bringing class actions elsewhere," Judge
Posner wrote.

"The California suit here sought to be enjoined will be the
precursor to other class actions materially identical to
Thorogood's," he wrote.

"For lawyer Krislov is nothing if not determined, indeed
pugnacious."

Judge Wilken allowed plaintiff Martin Murray to begin discovery,
Posner wrote.

Sears sought an injunction from Judge Leinenweber, who denied it
and held that Sears could pursue other remedies against repetitive
litigation, Posner wrote.

The Seventh Circuit reversed Judge Leinenweber at high speed,
deciding the case three weeks after the parties submitted it.

Judge Posner agreed there is no basis for an injunction if there
is an adequate remedy.

"But this case is unusual both because it involves class action
litigation and because of the specific tactics employed by class
counsel, which include, as we'll see, something close to
settlement extortion," he wrote.

He called class action a worthwhile device but wrote that it lends
itself to abuse.

Class members are interested in relief but lawyers are interested
in fees, he wrote.

Judge Posner also wrote that stakes for class members are
ordinarily too small to motivate them to align the incentives of
lawyers with their own and that defendants are willing to trade
small damages for high attorney fees.

"These convergent incentives forge a community of interest between
class counsel, who control the plaintiffs' side of the case, and
the defendants, but may leave the class members out in the cold,"
he wrote.

A judge's responsibility to prevent lawyers from selling out a
class is "difficult to discharge when the judge confronts a
phalanx of colluding lawyers," he wrote.

Class action enhances the risk of costly error, creating pressure
for settlements out of proportion to the merits of a suit, he
wrote.

A company sued a number of times for selling a defective product
will win some and lose some, so the aggregate outcome reflects the
expected value of the claims, he wrote.

"But when the central issue in a case is given class treatment and
so will be resolved once and for all, a trial becomes a roll of
the dice."

The risk becomes asymmetric when the number of claims is so great
that an adverse verdict would push a defendant into bankruptcy, he
wrote.

That "in such a case the defendant will be under great pressure to
settle even if the merits of the case are slight," he wrote.

"A small probability of a large dollar loss can be a large dollar
figure.

"A variant of this problem arises when class counsel can, as they
are attempting to do in their scorched earth campaign against
Sears, increase the number of throws of the litigation dice."

The cost of pretrial discovery is additionally adverse to
defendants, he wrote.

"One purpose of discovery -- improper and rarely acknowledged but
pervasive -- is: It makes one's opponents spend money," he wrote.

In most class actions, plaintiffs can discover far more in defense
records than vice versa, he wrote.

He included email, "the vast and ever expanding volume of which
has made the cost of discovery soar."

"[P]laintiffs will want to rummage in quest for smoking guns," he
wrote.

The merit of the Murray and Thorogood cases was slight but
pressure on Sears would mount if discovery continued, he wrote.

Judge Posner quoted Mr. Boling's letter telling Sears that
discovery would involve "delving into the full extent" of
wrongdoing to justify equitable relief and punitive damages.

He quoted Mr. Boling on costs increasing and an olive branch.

"In other words, unless Sears settles now (implicitly for modest
relief for the class and an agreement with class counsel to
recommend to the judge generous fees for Krislov and Boling), it
will incur that considerable cost of responding to class counsel's
distended project of 'delving' and assume the risk of a very large
adverse judgment," Judge Posner wrote.

"The threat to turn the screws on Sears is all the more credible
because Murray's suit is a duplicate of Thorogood's, with just
enough differences to confuse the district judge in California.

Without an injunction, nothing stood in the way of Mr. Krislov
filing carbon copy class actions against Sears in other states, he
wrote.

Murray's case was removed to federal court in California last
December and as of early October had accrued 126 docket entries,
he wrote.

"There is no way in which Sears can recoup the expense of
responding to Murray's extravagant discovery requests and of
filing preclusion defenses against duplicative class actions in
other states," he wrote.

"The harm it faces from the denial of the injunction is
irreparable and its remedy at law against settlement extortion
nonexistent."

He expressed respectful attention to Judge Wilken's ruling but
added, "The judge has misunderstood both the ads and our opinion."

"The finding is that common issues did not predominate in
Thorogood's suit," Judge Posner wrote.  "Well, neither do they in
Murray's."

"If Krislov and the other class counsel are not enjoined, they
will continue their state by state quest for certification and
will doubtless be able to find at least one lad plaintiff in every
state," he wrote.

Class members must be enjoined as well as lawyers, "so that
additional Murrays don't start popping up, class action complaint
in hand, all over the country, represented by other members of the
class action bar," he wrote.

He directed Judge Leinenweber to apply the injunction to state as
well as federal courts.

Circuit Judge Michael Kanne and Senior Judge Terence Evans joined
the opinion.

A copy of the court's opinion is available at http://is.gd/gPqxc
from Leagle.com.


SERVICE CORP: Texas Court Dismisses 2003 Securities Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A securities lawsuit filed against Service Corporation
International in 2003 captioned Conley Investment Counsel v.
Service Corporation International, et al., in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division, has been terminated, according to the Company's
October 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

The 2003 Securities Lawsuit resulted from the transfer and
consolidation by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation of
three lawsuits:

   * Edgar Neufeld v. Service Corporation International, et al.,
     Cause No. CV-S-03-1561-HDM-PAL, in the United States District
     Court for the District of Nevada;

   * Rujira Srisythemp v. Service Corporation International, et
     al., Cause No. CV-S-03-1392-LDG-LRL, in the United States
     District Court for the District of Nevada; and

   * Joshua Ackerman v. Service Corporation International, et al.,
     Cause No. 04-CV-20114, in the United States District Court
     for the Southern District of Florida.

The 2003 Securities Lawsuit names as defendants SCI and several of
SCI's current and former executive officers or directors.

The 2003 Securities Lawsuit is a purported class action alleging
that the defendants failed to disclose the unlawful treatment of
human remains and burial sites at two cemeteries in Fort
Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, Florida.

The court dismissed plaintiffs' claims on August 31, 2010, and
this lawsuit has been terminated.


SKYSERVICE AIRLINES: Dec. 22 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Rochon Genova LLP on Wednesday disclosed that the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice has released an Order dated
November 10, 2010 certifying for settlement purposes a class
action in Maggissano v. Skyservice Airlines Inc.

On June 2, 2005, a proposed class action lawsuit was commenced in
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, against Skyservice Airlines
Inc. on behalf of passengers of Skyservice Flight No. 5G560, which
departed from Toronto en route to Punta Cana, Dominican Republic
on May 22, 2005, and their family members.  The class action seeks
to recover damages for injuries and economic losses following the
Flight 560 hard landing accident in Punta Cana, Dominican
Republic.

A formal settlement agreement has been executed by the parties.
The Settlement requires approval by the Court.  The Plaintiff will
bring a motion for approval of the Settlement on Wednesday
December 22, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. at 130 Queen Street West, Toronto,
Ontario.

If approved by the Court, the Settlement will resolve the claims
of all Class Members who do not opt out of the class action, who
are defined as:

A) All persons who were passengers on Skyservice Flight No. 560
which departed from Toronto en route to Punta Cana, Dominican
Republic on May 22, 2005 -- Primary Class Members; and

B)  Persons related to persons listed in subparagraph (a) above
who are entitled to claim pursuant to section 61 of the Family Law
Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F-3 -- Derivative Class Members.

The Proposed Settlement provides that:

    * Skyservice shall pay all Class Member Bodily Injury damages
      and damages of Derivative Class Members arising from the
      landing of Skyservice Flight 560;

    * Skyservice shall pay any associated subrogated claims of
      OHIP for those Class Members with Bodily Injury claims; and

    * Skyservice shall pay pre-judgment interest in accordance
      with the Courts of Justice Act.

The Settlement resulted from lengthy negotiations and represents
is a compromise.  The Settlement is not an admission of liability,
wrongdoing or fault on the part of the Defendant.

A Settlement Approval Motion Will Be Held in Toronto, Ontario

The Settlement must be approved by the Court before it can be
implemented.  Class Members may, but are not required to, attend
at the Approval Motion.

If the Settlement is approved, another notice will be mailed to
Class Members which will provide instructions on how to make a
claim to receive compensation from the Settlement and how to
object to, or opt out of, the class action if the Class Member
does not wish to share in, or be bound by, the Settlement.

Class Members who approve or do not oppose the Settlement do not
need to appear at the Approval Motion or take any other action at
this time.


STRAYER EDUCATION: Faces Class Action Lawsuit in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
A putative securities class action has been filed against Strayer
Education, Inc., in Florida, according to the Company's
October 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

The lawsuit, styled Kinnett v. Strayer Education, Inc., et al.,
was filed on October 15, 2010, in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida.

The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and will contest
the lawsuit vigorously.


SUN HEALTHCARE: Faces Lawsuit in Calif. for Labor Code Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sun Healthcare Group, Inc., has been named a defendant in a
lawsuit filed in California for alleged Labor Code violations,
according to the Company's October 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

On September 2, 2010, Michelle Nesbit v. ProCare One Nurses, LLC
was filed in California Superior Court by a former employee of a
subsidiary of Sun Healthcare's medical staffing company, alleging
violation of various wage and hour provisions of the California
Labor Code.

The lawsuit has been filed as a purported class action on behalf
of the former employee and all those similarly situated.  The
complaint alleges that the aggregate claim is less than $5
million.

Sun Healthcare says it is in the process of investigating the
allegations set forth in the complaint, and intends to vigorously
defend the lawsuit.


TALECRIS BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Defends Four Lawsuits Filed Over Grifols
------------------------------------------------------------------
Talecris Biotherapeutics Holdings Corp. continues to defend itself
from four lawsuits filed by its stockholders over the sale of the
Company to Grifols, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended September 30, 2010 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 28, 2010.

Four purported class action lawsuits have been filed by Talecris
Biotherapeutics Holdings Corp.'S stockholders challenging the
proposed Grifols transaction.

Two of the lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware and have been consolidated under the caption: In
re Talecris Biotherapeutics Holdings Shareholder Litigation,
Consol. C.A. No. 5614-VCL.

The other two lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the
State of North Carolina and are captioned Rubin v. Charpie, et
al., No. 10 CV 004507 (North Carolina Superior Court, Durham
County), and Kovary v. Talecris Biotherapeutics Holdings Corp., et
al., No. 10 CV 011638 (North Carolina Superior Court, Wake
County).

The lawsuits name as defendants Talecris, the members of the
company's board of directors, Grifols, S.A. and its subsidiary,
Grifols, Inc., and, in the Delaware consolidated action, Talecris
Holdings LLC and Stream Merger Sub, Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary
of Talecris. The two North Carolina actions have been stayed.

All of the lawsuits allege that the individual defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders in connection
with the proposed transaction with Grifols, and that Grifols aided
and abetted those breaches.

The Delaware complaint alleges, among other things, that the
consideration offered to the Company's stockholders pursuant to
the proposed transaction is inadequate; that the company's board
of directors failed to take steps to maximize stockholder value;
that the company's IPO and debt refinancing in 2009 were intended
to facilitate a sale of Talecris; that Cerberus and Talecris
Holdings LLC arranged the proposed merger for the benefit of
affiliates of Cerberus Associates, LLC, without regard to the
interests of other stockholders; that the voting agreements
impermissibly lock up the transaction; that the merger agreement
contains terms, including a termination fee, that favor Grifols
and deter alternative bids; and that the preliminary Form F-4
filed on August 10, 2010 contains material misstatements and/or
omissions, including with respect to the availability of appraisal
rights in the merger; the purpose and effects of the Virginia
reincorporation merger; the antitrust risks of the proposed
transaction; the financial advisors' analyses regarding the
Grifols' non-voting stock to be issued in connection with the
transaction; and the fees to be paid to Morgan Stanley by us and
Grifols in connection with the proposed transaction.

The Delaware complaint also alleges that the company's
stockholders are entitled to appraisal rights in connection with
the transaction pursuant to Section 262 of the Delaware General
Corporation Law, and that the transaction violates the Delaware
General Corporation Law by failing to provide such rights.  The
Delaware action seeks equitable and injunctive relief, including a
determination that the stockholders have appraisal rights in
connection with the merger, and damages.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which
was scheduled to be heard on November 8, 2010.


TARGET CORP: Sued Over Discount Coupons
---------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Target does not discount the
full value of discount coupons, a class action claims in Superior
Court.


THERMADYNE HOLDINGS: Faces Lawsuit in Missouri Over IPC Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thermadyne Holdings Corporation is facing a class action complaint
filed by Robert Israeli in Missouri, according to the company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2010.

On October 19, 2010, Robert Israeli filed a class action complaint
in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri against the
Company, the Company's directors, and Irving Place Capital.  The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
stockholders, including their duties of loyalty, good faith and
independence, and the Company and Irving Place Capital aided and
abetted the Company's directors' alleged breaches of their
fiduciary duties.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief preventing the defendants
from consummating the transactions contemplated by the merger
agreement with IPC, or in the event the defendants consummate the
transactions contemplated by the merger agreement, rescission of
such transactions, and attorney's fees and expenses.

The Company and the other defendants have not yet responded to the
complaint.  The Company believes that this lawsuit is without
merit and intends to defend it.


WADDELL & REED: Lawsuit Demanding Proper Wages Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed against Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc., demanding
proper wage payments remains pending in a California court,
according to the Company's October 28, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2010.

The Company, along with various of its affiliates, were sued in
December 28, 2009, in an individual action, class action and Fair
Labor Standards Act nationwide collective action by two former
advisors asserting misclassification of financial advisors as
independent contractors instead of employees.

The case, captioned Michael E. Taylor, Kenneth B. Young,
individuals, on behalf of themselves individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation; Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation; Waddell & Reed Development, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation; Waddell & Reed Financial Advisors, a fictitious
business name; and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, with case no. 09-
CV-2909 DMS WVG, was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California.

Plaintiffs assert claims under the FLSA for minimum wages and
overtime wages, and under California Labor Code Statutes for
timely pay wages, minimum wages, overtime compensation, meal
periods, reimbursement of losses and business expenses and
itemized wage statements and a claim for Unfair Business Practices
under Section 17200 of the California Business & Professions Code.

Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary
damages.

Waddell & Reed says it intends to vigorously contest plaintiffs'
claims.


WELLS FARGO: Accused of Failing to Honor Promises to Modify Loans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip R. Corvello, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated  v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., Case No. 10-cv-05072 (N.D.
Calif. November 9, 2010), accuses Wells Fargo Bank of failing to
honor its promises and obligations under the Treasury Department's
Home Affordable Modification Program by refusing to provide
permanent modifications to residential property owners'
mortgages, in breach of its contractual obligations to said
homeowners who dutifully made trial payments and who complied with
all documentation requirements.

Mr. Corvello relates that in October 2008, Wells Fargo accepted
$25 billion in Troubled Relief Program funds, and its receipt of
those funds obligates it to comply with HAMP for those loans
serviced by it.

HAMP requires banks, among others, to provide permanent
modifications to all residential property owners who are able to
make the modified payments for a three-month trial period and who
comply with all requirements.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Leslie E. Hurst, Esq.
          Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1550
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  lhurst@bholaw.com
                  toreardon@bholaw.com

               - and -

          James R. Patterson, Esq.
          Alisa A. Martin, Esq.
          HARRISON PATTERSON & O'CONNOR LLP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6990
          E-mail: jpatterson@hpolaw.com
                  amartin@hpolaw.com

               - and -

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Tel: (619) 756-6978
          E-mail: tcarpenter@bffb.com

               - and -

          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC
          2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85012-3311
          Telephone: (602) 798-5860
          E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com
                  eryan@bffb.com
                  psyverson@bffb.com


WESTERN DIGITAL: Final Hearing on Class Action Pact Expected 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement resolving a putative class action complaint filed
against Western Digital Corporation is awaiting final court
approval, according to Western Digital's October 29, 2010, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended October 1, 2010.

On March 20, 2009, plaintiff Ghazala H. Durrani, a former employee
of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint in the
Alameda County (California) Superior Court.

The complaint alleges that certain of Western Digital's engineers
have been misclassified as exempt employees under California state
law and are, therefore, due unspecified amounts for unpaid hourly
overtime wages and other amounts, as well as penalties for
allegedly missed meal and rest periods.

By court order dated April 24, 2009, the case was transferred to
the Orange County (California) Superior Court, where it is now
pending.

On June 16, 2009, the Company was dismissed from the case without
prejudice by stipulation, leaving Western Digital Technologies,
Inc. (WDTI), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Western Digital, as the
sole remaining defendant.  On June 4, 2009, WDTI filed its answer
to the complaint, denying the substantive allegations and raising
several affirmative defenses.  Formal discovery has commenced.

The parties participated in a mediation of the case on June 3,
2010, which led to a proposed settlement of the case.  The
proposed settlement would resolve the case on a class-wide basis
for an amount that was accrued by the Company in the fourth
quarter of fiscal 2010.  The proposed class action settlement must
receive preliminary and final approval by the court before the
settlement will become final and binding.  A hearing for
preliminary approval of the settlement was heard on October 18,
2010, and the court preliminarily approved the settlement.

The final approval hearing is expected to be scheduled for early
2011.

Western Digital says absent final approval of the settlement, it
intends to continue to defend itself vigorously in this matter.


WESTERN DIGITAL: Faces Suit for Unpaid Wages, Improper Layoff
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been against filed Western Digital
Corporation by former employees over labor disputes, according to
the Company's October 29, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
October 1, 2010.

On August 23, 2010, plaintiffs Tarriq Sadaat and Rasheed Yusuf,
former employees of the Company, filed an amended putative class
action complaint in the Orange County (California) Superior Court
against the Company; Western Digital Technologies, Inc.; Kelly
Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Intercontinental Hotels
Group Resources, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and certain other
unnamed individuals.

The named plaintiffs seek to represent certain hourly employees
who were assigned to work at certain of the Company's facilities
by Kelly Services, a temporary staffing agency.  In this regard,
the complaint alleges that the hourly employees are due
unspecified sums for unpaid overtime wages and other amounts, as
well as penalties for allegedly missed meal and rest periods.

The named plaintiffs also seek to represent an alleged class of
employees who they claim were improperly laid off on the basis of
age and national origin.

Finally, the complaint alleges that certain employees of the
Company were improperly displaced by foreign workers.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages including lost wages,
penalties under the California Labor Code and other statutes,
compensatory and punitive damages, declaratory relief, injunctive
relief, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Western Digital denies the allegations and intends to defend
itself vigorously.



                             *********

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  * * *